Rongmei EncyclopediaThe Crisis of Kinship: A Critique of the CNTC and the Erosion of Naga Unity
Responding to “CNTC opposes move to revive Rongmei ST issue in Nagaland” (https://nagalandpost.com/cntc-opposes-move-to-revive-rongmei-st-issue-in-nagaland/)
The persistent and vehement opposition by the Central Nagaland Tribes Council (CNTC) regarding the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status of the Rongmei community in Nagaland represents a profound fracture in the foundational vision of Naga unity. By aggressively revisiting a decision that was ostensibly settled through the 2012 recognition and subsequent 2017 withdrawal, the CNTC’s stance highlights a “Naga factor” characterized more by exclusion, protectionism, and internal dispute than by the brotherhood often preached in the highest echelons of Naga political discourse.¹ This debate is not merely an administrative squabble over certificates; it is a fundamental struggle over the soul of what it means to be “Naga” in the twenty-first century.
The Myth of the “Migrant” Naga
The CNTC’s primary argument rests on the preservation of resources for “indigenous” tribes, claiming that granting ST status to 1,313 Rongmei individuals—who have been integrated into the social and physical fabric of Nagaland for over a century—would deprive the youth of livelihood opportunities.² This zero-sum logic is both statistically questionable and philosophically damaging. It ignores the historical reality that the Naga identity is a multi-layered construct built upon a shared struggle for self-determination that deliberately transcends modern state boundaries.³ To categorize fellow Nagas as “migrants” or “immigrants” simply because their ancestral lands fall across the arbitrary administrative lines created by colonial powers is a historical irony of the highest order.
When the British partitioned the Naga hills, they did so for administrative convenience, not out of respect for ethnic homogeneity. By adopting the same logic today, tribal councils like the CNTC are effectively validating colonial borders that the Naga national movement has spent decades trying to dismantle. If the Rongmei, who were present in Nagaland prior to the state’s formation in 1963, are viewed as “outsiders,” it sets a dangerous precedent for every other Naga sub-tribe that might find itself on the “wrong” side of a political boundary.⁴
The Rhetoric of Dehumanization
Furthermore, the rhetoric used to describe the Rongmei community is deeply regressive and historically insensitive. In its media communications, the CNTC has referred to these individuals as descendants of those brought by the British as “scavengers.”⁵ Such labeling is not only an affront to the dignity of a people who have contributed to the social, cultural, and political life of the state for generations, but it also reeks of a caste-like hierarchy that has no place in a supposedly egalitarian Naga society.
To use a community’s historical socio-economic vulnerability as a weapon to deny them modern political rights is a betrayal of the Christian and democratic values many Naga organizations claim to uphold. Instead of recognizing the resilience of a people who have survived the upheavals of the 20th century, the CNTC chooses to define them by a colonial occupational tag. This rhetoric serves only to further polarize a society that is already grappling with systemic tribalism and political fatigue.⁶
The Failure of Dialogue and the “Naga Factor”
At a time when the Naga people should be consolidating their strength through inclusive dialogue and collective bargaining with the Centre, the current atmosphere is instead defined by “war and dispute.” The “Naga factor,” once a term that inspired hope for a pan-Naga identity, has increasingly become synonymous with internal gatekeeping and “crabs-in-a-bucket” syndrome.⁷ Shame is cast upon a system where dialogue is replaced by warnings, ultimatums, and administrative withdrawals.
The CNTC questions the state government’s long-term plan for “indigenous Nagas,” yet it offers no vision of its own that accounts for the reality of Naga integration. If the tribal bodies cannot find the grace or the political imagination to accommodate a small, historically settled population of their own kin—numbering barely over a thousand individuals—the dream of a “Naga Unity” becomes an empty vessel.⁸ One must ask: if we cannot coexist with 1,313 of our own brothers and sisters in Dimapur and Peren, how do we expect to manage a unified administrative setup for millions of Nagas across the region?
Resource Scarcity vs. Identity Integrity
The CNTC’s concern regarding a “resource-starved” state is a valid socioeconomic observation, but it is a poor excuse for ethnic exclusion. Nagaland’s economic woes—unemployment, lack of industry, and infrastructure deficits—are the result of governance failures and political instability, not the presence of a few hundred Rongmei families.⁹ By scapegoating the Rongmei community, the CNTC diverts attention from the real issues affecting Naga youth. It is easier to attack a vulnerable minority than to demand accountability for the systemic corruption that actually drains the state’s resources.
The council’s warning that this move is a “direct challenge” to the youth of Nagaland is a populistic tactic designed to incite fear. In reality, the true challenge to the youth is a fragmented society where merit is secondary to tribal affiliation and where the definition of “belonging” is constantly shrinking.¹⁰
Conclusion: A Call for Higher Ground
The vision of earlier Naga leaders was one of a broad-based brotherhood. They envisioned a people united by common ancestry and a shared future. By narrowing this vision to “jurisdictional” interests and “ancestral land” exclusion, current tribal hohos are dishonoring that legacy. The “Naga factor” must be reclaimed as a force of elevation and mutual support.
It is time to move beyond the politics of “removing opportunities” and start creating them through unity. The state government’s attempt to rectify the ST status of the Rongmei is not a threat; it is an act of administrative justice that aligns with the historical truth of Naga kinship.¹¹ Failure to recognize this is not just a policy error—it is a moral failure that keeps the Naga people locked in an endless cycle of internal strife. We must ask ourselves: if we continue to devour our own, what will be left of the Naga identity to protect?¹²
Footnotes
Bibliography
Ao, A. Lanunungsang. From Phizo to Muivah: The Naga National Question in North East India. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2002.
Chasie, Charles. The Naga Imbroglio: A Personal Perspective. Kohima: Standard Printers and Publishers, 1999.
“CNTC opposes move to revive Rongmei ST issue in Nagaland.” Nagaland Post, May 14, 2026. https://nagalandpost.com/cntc-opposes-move-to-revive-rongmei-st-issue-in-nagaland/.
Iralu, Kaka D. Nagaland and India: The Blood and the Tears. Kohima: N.V. Press, 2000.
Nag, Sajal. Contesting Marginality: Ethnicity, Determinsim and Pathological Politics in North-East India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2002.
“The Rongmei Settlement Issue.” The Morung Express, June 5, 2017. https://morungexpress.com/the-rongmei-settlement-issue.
Shikhu, Inato Yekheto. A Re-discovery of the Naga Heritage. Guwahati: Spectrum Publications, 2007.
Shimray, U. A. Naga Population and Integration Issues. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2007.
Venuh, N. Continuity and Change in the Naga Society. New Delhi: Shipra Publications, 2004.
#Education #History #India #Naga #Nagaland #News #politics #RongmeiNaga #travel
TravelerMike
Anna Post
🐗 Fran Kane 🐗
Art of Noctem-Tenebris
SuperTechno324
Space draws scalies 🐲