A rejoinder to K Puroh’s article, “Demanding an Early Solution Without Unity: Are We Putting the Cart Before the Horse?”
Atoke Naga
The Naga political issue deserves serious, informed and constructive public discussion. The recent article by K. Puroh, published in local newspapers across Nagaland, “Demanding an Early Solution Without Unity: Are We Putting the Cart Before the Horse?”, raises important concerns about divisions among Naga political groups and the need for a common political understanding. Unity is undeniably essential. However, the central demand of the Naga Youth Movement (NYM) must be understood clearly: calling for accountability and progress on agreements already signed is not the same as demanding a settlement regardless of political realities.
What exactly is being demanded?
The demand is for the commitments reflected in the 2015 Framework Agreement and the 2017 Agreed Position to be honoured and for the process to move forward with clarity, accountability and sincerity. These agreements followed years of political engagement and created expectations among the Naga people. Asking about their present status, the obstacles to implementation and the steps being taken is not an attempt to undermine negotiations. It is a legitimate public concern about a political process that affects present and future generations.
The distinction matters. Demanding an immediate settlement without regard for unresolved differences would be one thing; asking all concerned parties to explain the status of signed agreements and make meaningful progress is another. The youth are not claiming to possess all the answers, nor are they seeking to dictate negotiating terms. They are insisting that the future of the Naga people cannot remain indefinitely uncertain without questions being asked.
Unity must be built through action
The article rightly points to fragmentation, mistrust and competing positions among Naga political groups. These are serious challenges. But if division is the obstacle, the answer must be to intensify efforts to bridge it. Who will initiate meaningful dialogue? What practical steps are being taken to build trust? How can differences be addressed without allowing them to become permanent barriers? Simply repeating that unity must come first does not, by itself, bring unity closer.
Unity is not achieved by asking the public to wait silently until every disagreement has disappeared. It requires dialogue, mutual respect, accommodation and a willingness to place the larger Naga interest above narrow considerations. The existence of many factions should strengthen the urgency to find common ground, not become a standing explanation for why progress cannot be discussed.
To use the same analogy, the greater danger is not simply putting the cart before the horse; it is tying the horse to a tree and waiting for the cart to somehow appear while an entire generation is left waiting. Unity must be pursued through practical efforts, not treated as something that will magically emerge if the public is asked to wait long enough.
Unity and accountability are not competing demands. They must advance together.
Responsibility belongs to every stakeholder
The responsibility for resolving the Naga political issue cannot rest solely with New Delhi, and the role of Naga political groups cannot be overlooked. At the same time, shared responsibility must not become a way for any party to avoid its own obligations. The Government of India is a party to the agreements and has a responsibility to clarify the status of its commitments and demonstrate meaningful engagement. Naga negotiating groups, in turn, have a responsibility to continue addressing differences and working towards an acceptable outcome.
The public should be able to question every stakeholder according to that stakeholder’s role. This is not about assigning all blame to one side. It is about ensuring that responsibility is acknowledged and acted upon. Accountability, exercised fairly and peacefully, can strengthen public confidence in a political process; it need not weaken it.
The role of the Naga Youth Movement
NYM should not be reduced to a platform that simply demands an early solution. Its broader purpose is to encourage youth participation, public awareness and collective responsibility for the Naga political future. Politics is not the exclusive concern of political leaders or negotiating groups. Decisions and delays in this process shape the future that young Nagas will inherit.
The movement’s stated position is non-partisan and inclusive. It is not about promoting a political party, faction, tribe or individual. It is about raising a common concern: that signed agreements should be honoured, that the public deserves clarity, and that all Naga stakeholders should work towards a credible and lasting outcome. The Naga aspiration also extends beyond present administrative boundaries; an inclusive future requires respect for Nagas across different states and regions, while recognising the diversity of their experiences and views.
A movement that seeks public trust must also be willing to accept scrutiny. Peaceful conduct, respect for differing opinions, transparency and consistency are essential. Strong criticism of a position should not automatically be labelled intimidation, but any movement must examine its own words and actions honestly.
At the same time, allegations against a movement or its members should be assessed in their full context. Statements should not be judged by cherry-picking isolated sentences while ignoring the wider discussion, circumstances and intent. A partial quotation can create a misleading impression; fairness requires considering the complete statement and the facts surrounding it. This does not mean allegations should be dismissed automatically, but they should be evaluated fairly on the full context rather than on fragments.
The same standard of accountability should apply to every organisation and public stakeholder.
From blame to a practical way forward
The debate should move beyond whether unity or an early solution must come first. A lasting outcome requires broad political understanding, but unity itself requires practical action. The way forward should include serious dialogue among Naga political groups, greater clarity about the status of the existing agreements, honest communication with the public, and sustained efforts by all parties to overcome the differences that continue to obstruct progress.
This is not a call for shortcuts, nor is it a rejection of the complexity of negotiations. It is a call to ensure that complexity does not become an excuse for permanent uncertainty. The youth can support unity while asking difficult questions. They can respect the work of negotiators while expecting transparency. They can demand progress without claiming that a lasting solution will be simple.
The future cannot be postponed forever
The sacrifices of earlier generations deserve respect, and the work of those involved in negotiations deserves fair consideration. But the concerns of the present generation also deserve to be heard. Young Nagas should not be expected to inherit an unresolved political question without the right to ask what is being done to resolve it.
The real task is to build the unity we seek, demand the accountability the public deserves, and work collectively towards a political solution that can command the confidence of the Naga people. Unity must be a foundation for progress—not a permanent condition that postpones every demand for progress. Equally, urgency must encourage constructive engagement, not disregard for the need to build common ground.
The question, therefore, is not whether the cart is being placed before the horse. It is whether all concerned are prepared to move forward together, confront divisions honestly and take concrete steps towards a common and lasting destination. The Naga people need both unity and meaningful progress. One must not be used to deny the other.
