The Union government’s recent announcements regarding the Northeast, particularly Nagaland, signal a new phase in the region’s history. On June 11, 2026, Union Home Minister Amit Shah facilitated a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Centre and the governments of Assam and Nagaland to facilitate mineral oil operations. This move is expected to increase oil output, generate employment, and promote economic growth in the region.
However, the agreement has also raised concerns about sovereignty, representation, and ownership of resources. The Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs) has argued that any form of resource extraction before a comprehensive Indo-Naga political settlement would be a violation of indigenous rights and political understandings. Many Nagas have expressed hesitation about the venture, citing concerns about the lack of awareness and potential exploitation.
The debate surrounding the MoU has exposed long-standing anxieties regarding resource politics in the region. Research has shown that the mere presence of natural resources does not guarantee prosperity; rather, it is how those resources are managed and who controls them that matters. In places with political tensions, resource projects can become tied to deeper issues such as land ownership, political representation, and local self-determination.
The convergence of demilitarisation initiatives with major extraction projects has prompted concerns among sections of civil society regarding the sequencing of these developments. To avoid tensions, development cannot be pursued solely through top-down arrangements. Meaningful consultations must become an integral component of resource governance, and mechanisms ensuring transparent and equitable distribution of revenues are equally essential.
The institutional dimensions of these debates are particularly important in Nagaland, where questions of sovereignty and constitutional protection continue to shape public life. The politics of extraction in the Northeast has never been solely about the resources beneath the ground; it is also about struggles over authority, legitimacy, and representation. Resource politics possess the capacity to generate tensions between communities and the state, as well as within communities themselves.
These divisions often outlast the lifespan of any single project, leaving behind legacies of mistrust that are far more difficult to repair than environmental damage alone. For many Naga communities, the forests and hills are closely tied to identity and everyday livelihood, and decisions regarding their future demand more than administrative efficiency.
