Naga Framework Agreement

Topic: Regional Aspirations: J&K, Punjab, the North-East and Accommodation · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Naga Framework Agreement is the agreement signed on 3 August 2015 between the Government of India and the NSCN (Isak-Muivah), in the presence of the Prime Minister. It sets out the basis (framework) for a final settlement of the Naga political issue [1].

• It matters because the Government said it "will end the oldest insurgency in the country".
• However, its full text is still secret, and a final settlement has not yet come [1].

Explanation

How the agreement came about

• Ceasefire first:
• A ceasefire is an agreed halt to fighting while talks go on.

• The ceasefire with NSCN (I-M) has been in force since 1 August 1997 [2].

• Talks under the ceasefire:

• For about 18 years, the Government and NSCN (I-M) held talks while the ceasefire was in force.

• On 3 August 2015 these talks produced the Framework Agreement [1].

• The Government's claim:

• It said the agreement concluded dialogue on a Naga political issue that had existed "for six decades" [1].

What the agreement is and is not

• It is a framework.
• It lays down the basis on which a final deal will be built.

• The details and the execution plan (how the deal will be put into action) were left for later [1].

• It is not the final settlement.

• A final accord is still awaited. Check the latest status before the exam.

• It is not public.

• The full text has not been released. So nobody outside the talks knows exactly what was agreed.

• It does not cover every Naga group.

• It was signed with NSCN (I-M) only.
• From 2017, the Government also held talks with the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), a group of seven Naga outfits. They signed a separate "Agreed Position" in 2017.

Sticking points (why the final deal is stuck)

• Separate flag and separate constitution:
• NSCN (I-M) wants a separate Naga flag and a separate Naga constitution.

• The Union says the Indian Constitution must apply.

• Greater Nagalim:

• This is the demand to bring all Naga-inhabited areas into one political unit.
• It would take in areas of Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar.

• Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh strongly oppose it, because they would lose territory.

• Split Naga groups:

• The Naga movement is divided. In the early 2020s, NSCN (Isak-Muivah), NSCN (Khole-Kitovi) and NSCN (Khaplang) were all under ceasefire with the Government [7].
• No single group can bring all Nagas into one deal.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits in law:
• The Framework Agreement is a political agreement, not a constitutional amendment or an Act.
• Any final deal would have to work inside the Constitution. The existing legal base for Naga autonomy is Article 371A, inserted by the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 [3][4].
• Under Art. 371A(1)(a), an Act of Parliament on Naga religious or social practices, customary law, justice under customary law, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources applies to Nagaland only if the Nagaland Legislative Assembly passes a resolution [3].

• Any change of state boundaries, such as Greater Nagalim, would need Article 3. Under it, Parliament can change state boundaries by law.

• The long chain of Naga agreements behind it:

• Hydari Agreement (1947): ten years of autonomy under Assam.
• Sixteen Point Agreement (1960): signed with the moderate Naga People's Convention. It led to the State of Nagaland, created by the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 [5] and inaugurated in 1963.

• Shillong Accord (1975): one section of the underground accepted the Constitution. Those who rejected it formed the NSCN in 1980. The NSCN split in 1988 into NSCN (I-M) and NSCN (K).

• A warning from 2001:

• On 14 June 2001, the ceasefire was extended to 31 July 2002. It was described as a ceasefire between the Government and NSCN "as two entities without territorial limits" [2].
• The Government added that this "will not, in any way, affect the territorial integrity of any of the North-Eastern States" [2].

• Even so, violent protests broke out in Manipur in June 2001. The words "without territorial limits" were later dropped.

• Outcome so far:

• The ceasefire has held. But the final settlement has been delayed for years, and the secret text adds to mistrust.

Don't confuse with

• Shillong Accord (1975): It was signed with a section of the NNC, which accepted the Indian Constitution. The Framework Agreement (2015) was signed with NSCN (I-M), the group that came out of those who rejected the Shillong Accord.
• Sixteen Point Agreement (1960): It led to statehood for Nagaland and Article 371A. The Framework Agreement only sets a basis for a future settlement. It has created no new state or article.
• Mizo Accord (30 June 1986): It was a complete, final settlement. The MNF gave up secession, and Article 371G followed through the 53rd Amendment Act, 1986 [6][4]. The Naga Framework Agreement is only a framework, and the final deal is still pending.
• NNPGs' "Agreed Position" (2017): It was signed with the seven-group NNPGs, not with NSCN (I-M). It is a separate, parallel track.

Prelims Hooks

• The Framework Agreement was signed on 3 August 2015 between the Government of India and NSCN (I-M), in the presence of the Prime Minister [1].
• The NSCN (I-M) ceasefire has been in force since 1 August 1997 [2]. Do not confuse 1997 (ceasefire) with 2015 (Framework Agreement).
• The Government said the agreement "will end the oldest insurgency in the country", on an issue existing "for six decades" [1].
• Trap: The Framework Agreement is not a final settlement, and its full text has not been made public.
• The June 2001 extension of the ceasefire "without territorial limits" led to violent protests in Manipur [2].
• Trap: Greater Nagalim claims areas in Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar. It does not claim areas in Mizoram or Meghalaya.

Mains Points

• Transparency and closure:
• The text is still secret, and the final deal has been delayed for years since 2015. This breeds mistrust among Nagas and in neighbouring states.

• Possible fixes: a time-bound, inclusive final accord that brings in both NSCN (I-M) and the NNPGs, and the gradual withdrawal of AFSPA as violence falls.

• Greater Nagalim as a federal dilemma:

• Meeting the territorial demand would threaten the territorial integrity of Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which is why the June 2001 Manipur protests happened.

• Non-territorial solutions can answer the identity concern without redrawing borders through Article 3. One example is cultural bodies for Nagas living across state lines.

• Accommodation within the Constitution:

• India has settled identity claims through asymmetric federalism, which means giving some states more autonomy than others (Arts. 371A and 371G).
• The demand for a separate flag and constitution tests how far this can go. Any final deal must fit inside India's sovereignty.

Related concepts

• Hydari Agreement
• Naga insurgency
• Sixteen Point Agreement
• Shillong Accord
• Greater Nagalim
• Mizo National Front
• Mizo Accord

Read more

• Secessionist movements: Nagaland and Mizoram