In the Shadows of the Himalayas: The Rebels of India’s North-East Frontier Agency

Nestled in the northeastern frontier of India, the region now known as Arunachal Pradesh has long been a mosaic of cultures, languages, and traditions. Historically referred to as the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), this area has been home to myriad indigenous tribes, each with its distinct identity and way of life. Among these, the Tani people have etched their legacy into the land, enduring the harsh terrains and the tumultuous tides of history. It is from this resilient stock that Tako Mra, a name now synonymous with courage and foresight, emerged as a warrior, leader, and symbol of cultural preservation. His life and vision, shaped by personal experiences and key alliances, offer profound insights into the challenges of nation-building and cultural integration.

By Tadak Esso and Pupy Rigia.

The North-East Frontier Agency in 1954.

The Integration of Northeast India

The history of NEFA, and by extension Arunachal Pradesh, is deeply intertwined with the broader narrative of India's struggle for independence and its subsequent nation-building efforts. The northeastern territories, with their strategic significance and rich cultural diversity, presented a unique challenge to the nascent Indian state. As the British Empire began its retreat from the Indian subcontinent, the future of these remote regions became a focal point of India's territorial consolidation efforts.

Following the Partition of India in 1947, the integration of the northeastern territories was pursued with vigor. The region, characterized by its complex ethnic tapestry and relative isolation, had largely remained unadministered during British rule. This lack of formal governance left a vacuum that the Indian government sought to fill, albeit with significant resistance from the indigenous tribes.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, recognizing the strategic importance of NEFA, emphasized the need for its integration, stating, "We must win the hearts of the frontier people and make them feel a part of India." However, this approach often clashed with the aspirations of the local tribes, who viewed these efforts as a continuation of colonial domination.

Early Life and Leadership of Tako Mra

Tako Mra was born in 1925 in the rugged hills of NEFA, an area teeming with the vibrant cultures of its various tribes. Growing up in the Sadiya region, Mra was exposed to the rich traditions of the Tani people from an early age. His education, marked by brilliance and an innate sense of leadership, set him apart. From his youth, it was evident that Mra was destined for a path that transcended the ordinary.

The tumultuous backdrop of World War II brought Mra into the fold of the British Indian Army. In 1943, he enlisted and soon found himself leading an infantry in the dense jungles of Yangon (present-day Myanmar). His strategic prowess and courage in the face of adversity earned him high honors from the British. However, the war left a lasting impact on Mra—both physically, as he suffered paralysis in his left arm, and mentally, as it sharpened his resolve for the autonomy of his people.

Reflecting on his wartime experiences, Mra later wrote, “The forests taught me resilience, and the war showed me the cost of freedom. We, too, must fight for our own freedom, not against a foreign empire but against the loss of our identity.”

The post-war period was a transformative time for Tako Mra, marked by his political awakening and growing involvement in the struggle for indigenous autonomy. A pivotal moment in this journey was his encounter with Zapu Phizo, the charismatic Naga leader who championed the cause of a free and autonomous Northeast. The relationship between Phizo and Mra was not merely one of ideological alignment; it was a deep and strategic partnership forged in the crucible of shared struggle and vision.

Phizo, known for his sharp intellect and persuasive oratory, saw in Mra a kindred spirit—a leader with the military acumen and grassroots connection necessary to galvanize resistance. For Mra, Phizo represented a broader framework for the aspirations of the Northeast. Their discussions, often held in secret amidst dense jungles and remote villages, touched on the preservation of tribal cultures, resistance to forced integration, and the dream of a unified hill tribe nation.

Mra’s later writings reveal the profound influence of these exchanges: “Phizo opened my eyes to the possibility of unity among the hills. He believed in a nation not defined by borders but by the spirit of its people.” This partnership was instrumental in shaping Mra’s political strategy, as he began to envision a Northeast where cultural preservation was not just a goal but a right.

Buoyed by his alliance with Phizo, Mra’s growing concern for the cultural and political future of his people led him to engage in correspondence with key Indian leaders and colonial authorities. In 1947, Mra wrote to the Viceroy of India, advocating for the exclusion of the hill tribes from the Indian Union and their establishment as a Crown Colony. He argued that the unique cultural and geographic realities of the region necessitated a different approach, warning that forced integration would only lead to unrest.

In 1948, Mra followed this with a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, cautioning against the incorporation of NEFA into the Indian Union. He warned Nehru that if India persisted in its efforts to incorporate the Abor Hills, his people would resist. Mra’s words were unambiguous: “If India pushes to incorporate the Abor Hills, my men will fight back. We cannot go from being ruled by an elite in Britain to one in New Delhi.”

These letters underscore Mra’s foresight and his deep-seated belief in cultural preservation and political autonomy. His assertion that NEFA was never Indian to begin with highlighted the distinct identity of the region. Scholars today recognize this as an early articulation of what has become a persistent tension in Indian nation-building—the challenge of integrating diverse cultural identities without erasing them.

The 1953 Achingmori Incident

The tensions between the indigenous tribes and the Indian government culminated in the Achingmori incident of 1953, a defining moment in the history of NEFA. The incident occurred when a group of Daphla tribals from the Tagin community, under Mra’s leadership, attacked an Indian government party. The assault resulted in the death of 47 individuals, including Assam Rifles personnel and tribal porters, during an administrative tour in Achingmori, present-day Arunachal Pradesh.

Mra’s leadership in this incident was shaped by his military experience and his unwavering commitment to the autonomy of his people. His war-time tactics were evident in the precision and coordination of the attack, reflecting his deep understanding of guerrilla warfare.

To many in NEFA, the Achingmori incident was not merely an act of rebellion; it was a statement of defiance against the imposition of external authority. It was, in Mra’s words, “a fight to ensure that our children inherit a culture, not a colony.”

Prime Minister Nehru, addressing the Parliament in 1953, acknowledged the complexities of administering such remote regions. He stated, "The fact that that place is not an administered area does not mean that it is outside the territory of the Indian Union. These are virgin forests in between, and the question does not arise of their considering in a constitutional sense what their position is."

The aftermath of Achingmori saw further internal strife among the tribal communities. The Galong (now Galo) tribe, who were also affected by the massacre, sought retribution. In a tragic turn of events, Mra was betrayed by a Galo girl who poisoned his drink. This act of betrayal, possibly stemming from the complex inter-tribal dynamics and the perceived short-lived victory of Achingmori, led to Mra’s untimely death in 1954 at the age of 29.

His death marked the end of an era, but it also cemented his place in the annals of history as a symbol of resistance and the quest for autonomy.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Despite his premature demise, Tako Mra’s legacy endures as a symbol of resistance and the quest for autonomy. His warnings about cultural assimilation and the loss of identity resonate with contemporary struggles faced by indigenous communities across the globe. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the ongoing push for greater autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution are contemporary manifestations of the tensions Mra foresaw.

Mra’s vision of a unified, autonomous hill tribe nation remains a poignant aspiration. His life serves as a reminder of the importance of cultural preservation and the right to self-determination in the face of modern state-building efforts. His story, though often relegated to the margins of history, offers valuable insights into the broader narrative of nationhood and the enduring quest for identity.

As historian A.K. Baruah aptly puts it, “Tako Mra was not just a leader of the Tani people but a visionary who understood the fragility of cultural identity in the face of political assimilation.” His life and vision underscore the importance of self-determination and the preservation of cultural identity in the ever-evolving narrative of nationhood.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Suggested Reading

1. “Escaping the Land” : Mamang Dai

2. The Assam Rifles Securing the Frontier, 1954–55.

3. The Battle of NEFA--the undeclared war : Bhargava

Was this 1975 Indian Agreement a Betrayal of Naga Sovereignty?

By late 1975, in the quiet hill station of Shillong, many high ranking officials from the Indian government gathered to sign a document that was meant to end one of the longest-running insurgencies in Asia. This Accord, however, simply meant as a ceasefire agreement between the Government of India and the Naga National Council (NNC), and is indeed celebrated by some as the first step toward lasting peace in the turbulent Naga Hills on the border of India and Myanmar. But for many others, particularly the more radical factions within the Naga leadership, it was a treacherous deal that betrayed the very core of Naga aspirations—sovereignty.

Asena Imchen and Luke Rimmo Lego explain.

Naga tribesmen, circa 1905.

The agreement reached in 1975 became a flashpoint for division and militarization within the Naga National Movement. Key leaders rejected the Accord outright, arguing that accepting the Indian Constitution and laying down arms amounted to surrendering Naga independence- anyone who did sign this meant he or she was a traitor. This fallout from the Accord was almost immediate, culminating in the rise of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), a faction that would go on to spearhead a renewed armed struggle for Naga self-determination. So how did this Accord deepen the fractures within Naga society, leading to decades of conflict and reshaping Naga demands in ways that continue to influence the region’s political landscape today?

I. The Road to Shillong: Pre-Accord Context and Negotiations

The origins of the Naga National Movement can be traced back to the formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in the early 1940s, which then emerged as a significant political body advocating for the distinct identity and rights of the Naga people. By 1947, under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC had already declared Naga independence from British India, just a day before India’s own independence. This bold proclamation thus inadvertently set the stage for decades of insurgency that eventually led to a fallout in the entire Wesean (Western South-East Asian region). This conflict escalated through the 1950s and 1960s, with the Indian government deploying military forces to suppress the Naga rebellion, leading to widespread violence and human rights abuses in the Naga Hills. Initial attempts at ceasefires and negotiations, such as the 1964 ceasefire, offered brief respites but eventually failed to produce a lasting solution. Additionally, the Indian military's targeting and abuse of “Naga children” fueled deep resentment and mistrust towards India among ordinary Nagas, leaving the conflict unresolved.

By the mid-1970s, the Indian government, facing growing unrest in the Wesean region and mounting international pressure to stabilize the conflict, saw an opportunity to push for peace with the Nagas. After several decades of conflict, the Indian state was motivated by the desire to restore stability and integrate Nagaland more firmly within the Indian Union. The NNC, weakened by internal divisions and exhausted from years of war, also saw the potential for peace, particularly among its moderate factions. Key Naga leaders such as Phizo's deputy, Kevi Yalie, were involved in the push for dialogue, believing that a negotiated settlement was the best path forward to avoid further bloodshed. Shillong, the capital of the erstwhile Northeastern Presidency under British India, was chosen as the site for these negotiations due to its strategic and symbolic importance—it was a neutral location yet close enough to the Naga heartland to facilitate talks. The Indian government had to frame the upcoming accord as a significant concession, a step toward bringing Nagaland into the constitutional fold while preserving some degree of Naga autonomy.

The Accord, signed in November 1975, outlined a series of conditions aimed at ending hostilities. The most critical clause was the requirement for the Naga rebel groups to accept the Indian Constitution, effectively renouncing their claim to sovereignty. Additionally, the Accord mandated the surrender of arms by insurgent groups, symbolizing the cessation of the armed struggle. In return the Indian state was to give the Nagas the state of Nagaland- which however further fractured Naga identity, as the Nagas were now separated into 4 administrative divisions within India and into 2 countries (Myanmar and India). From the Indian government’s perspective, this was a major victory—a diplomatic success that would finally integrate Nagas and end years of insurgency. There was no doubt that for India, it was a decisive step toward peace, for it would bring the region into the national mainstream and resolve the long-standing demand for sovereignty. However, as subsequent developments would show, this optimism was short-lived as many factions within the Naga leadership, especially the radical elements, perceived the Accord as a betrayal, setting the stage for further conflict- beyond just the Nagas.

II. Reception of the Shillong Accord: Compromise or Betrayal? Initial Reception Among Naga Leaders

The Accord was met with mixed reactions among Naga leaders, sharply dividing opinions. For some, particularly the moderates within the NNC, the Accord represented a necessary compromise after decades of armed struggle, loss of life, and unrelenting hardship. These leaders, many in their 50s, exhausted by the unending conflict and the toll it had taken on their people, saw the acceptance of the Indian Constitution as a step toward achieving a measure of peace and regional autonomy. While full sovereignty remained their ultimate goal, they believed that concessions at this juncture could lead to greater opportunities for dialogue with India and possibly more autonomy in the future. They thus viewed the Accord as a strategic pause, a chance to regroup and rebuild the Naga political movement under less hostile circumstances.

However, for the radical factions, particularly the younger leaders of the NNC, this was nothing short of a betrayal. Personalities like Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu, who would go on to play crucial roles in the insurgency, saw the Accord as a complete sellout to the Indian state. To them, the agreement represented the Naga leadership’s capitulation to Indian hegemony, undermining the very foundation of their struggle for independence. The acceptance of the Indian Constitution was thus viewed as a fatal compromise that negated the Naga people’s right to self-determination. Most of these youngsters refused to recognize any agreement that did not affirm full sovereignty, and they quickly rejected the Accord, marking a decisive break with the NNC’s leadership.

This rejection culminated in the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980. With Muivah and Swu at the helm, the NSCN became the torchbearer of a more radicalized insurgency, driven by a pan-Naga agenda that sought to unite all Nagas under one sovereign entity, including those residing outside the boundaries of Nagaland. The NSCN’s establishment signaled the beginning of a new chapter in the Naga insurgency—one characterized by a more militant and uncompromising stance. The faction's formation also laid bare the deep divisions within the Naga nationalist movement, with the NSCN openly condemning the moderate leaders of the NNC for having surrendered the cause of independence.

The Shillong Accord’s fallout eventually did lead to significant political and military consequences for both the Naga movement and the Indian government. The NSCN's emergence reinvigorated the insurgency, with the group launching a series of militant operations to resist what they viewed as the ongoing Indian occupation. The intensity of their actions, combined with their more expansive vision of Naga sovereignty, escalated the conflict beyond the boundaries of Nagaland, drawing in other Naga-dominated areas in the Northeast and Myanmar.

III. Long-Term Impact of the Shillong Accord on Naga Nationalism Reshaping of Naga Political Demands

This accord had fundamentally reshaped Naga political aspirations, polarizing the movement between moderates who sought greater autonomy within India and radicals, like the NSCN, who pursued full sovereignty and the unification of all Naga-inhabited areas across India and Myanmar. While the NNC, having signed the Accord, leaned toward negotiating for regional autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework, it lost credibility among the younger generation of Nagas who saw the agreement as a betrayal. The NSCN, in contrast, gained prominence by championing a vision of Nagalim, a sovereign Naga homeland, appealing to the more radicalized segments of Naga society.

The Accord also later came to intensify internal divisions within Naga society, not just between the NNC and the NSCN but also within the NSCN itself, which eventually splintered into factions such as NSCN-IM and NSCN-K. This factionalism fractured the Naga movement, complicating the struggle for sovereignty as different groups pursued varying objectives and approaches. The splintering weakened the movement's unity but did not diminish its underlying goal of independence.

The failure of the Shillong Accord also marked a significant setback for the Indian government’s attempts at pacifying the Naga movement through political compromise. Instead, the government’s militarized response, aimed at suppressing the NSCN, exacerbated the situation, deepening the alienation of the Naga people and escalating the cycle of violence. This hardline approach failed to address the fundamental political demand for sovereignty, which had been at the heart of the Naga struggle, reigniting the conflict and emboldening other ethnic groups in the Northeast to also pursue autonomy. Thereby, it inadvertently broadened the insurgency into a wider struggle. Inspired by the Naga resistance, other ethnic groups across the Wesean region began to assert their own demands for autonomy and sovereignty, coalescing around the broader concept of an independent "Wesea."

Thus despite divisions, the NSCN—particularly the NSCN-IM—sustained the armed struggle well into the 1990s and beyond, keeping the demand for Naga and later “Wesean” sovereignty at the center of its agenda. Although the Indian government attempted to broker new peace deals, the sovereignty question remained unresolved.

IV. Contemporary Perspectives on the Shillong Accord Revisiting the Accord in Light of Modern Peace Talks

In contemporary times, the accord continues to cast a long shadow over modern peace talks between the Indian government and the NSCN-IM. The 2015 Framework Agreement, viewed by the Government of India as an evolved effort to integrate Nagaland while respecting Naga autonomy, drew heavily from the lessons of Shillong. However, for the NSCN-IM, the Accord remains a symbol of betrayal, a moment when Naga sovereignty was compromised, shaping their ongoing insistence on full rights and territorial integration. This historical distrust has made the current talks more delicate, with the NSCN-IM remaining wary of repeating the mistakes of 1975.

Within Naga society too, opinions on the Shillong Accord remain divided. Some moderates now see the Accord as a missed opportunity for peace, arguing that rejecting it led to further conflict. However, for many Nagas, particularly the younger generation and those aligned with more radical factions, the sense of betrayal still lingers. The Accord in many parts, especially in Naga regions outside Nagaland, is still remembered as a moment when Naga aspirations were undermined.

Naga civil society, including churches and youth groups, has played a key role in shaping views on the Accord’s legacy. The Church calls for reconciliation, while youth organizations often reflect a deep skepticism of any agreement that resembles Shillong. The Accord’s legacy has shaped ongoing peace efforts, with both sides trying to navigate the challenge of securing a just peace without repeating the perceived capitulations of 1975.

V. Concluding Remarks

The rise of a regional movement encompassing multiple ethnicities was a direct result of the state’s inability to acknowledge the region’s unique identity and political aspirations. It also highlighted the complexity of the Northeast’s insurgencies: they were not merely about independence but about identity, autonomy, and the recognition of the region’s distinctiveness within the Indian political fabric. The Shillong Accord, was thus far from resolving the conflict, underscored the limits of imposing peace without genuine political reconciliation.

Has the Naga struggle for sovereignty been irreparably fractured by this agreement, or can a more inclusive peace be forged in its aftermath? As ongoing peace talks attempt to navigate these historical wounds, the lessons of the Shillong Accord remain critical. Avoiding the mistakes of the past—acknowledging the unique identity and aspirations of the Naga people—will be essential if the future is to hold the lasting peace that the Shillong Accord ultimately failed to achieve.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Suggested Reading

●      Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press, 2005.

●      Hazarika, Sanjoy. Strangers of the Mist: Tales of War and Peace from India's Northeast. Penguin Books, 1994.

●      Kikon, Dolly. Living with Oil and Coal: Resource Politics and Militarization in Northeast India. University of Washington Press, 2019.

●      Horam, M. Naga Insurgency: The Last Thirty Years. Cosmo Publications, 1988.

●      Baruah, Sanjib. India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

●      Haksar, Nandita. Nagaland File: A Question of Human Rights. Lancer International, 1984.

●      Iralu, Kaka D. The Naga Saga. Published by the author, 2000.

●      Mizoram University, Department of Political Science. Naga Peace Process and the Shillong Accord. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014.