Sharing Sovereignty between India and Naga: shared sovereignty (Sub-nation state)

Research question: How the share-sovereignty can work between India and Nagalim. And what will be the legal and administration relation between the two nations state?

Key word: sovereignty/Share-sovereignty, democracy, National Movement, Nagas, Nagalim (Naga nation), sub-nation state, Peace Accord and kuknalim (Thanks & long live). Concept and meaning:

Conceptual difficulties;

  1. Sovereignty,
  2. Share-sovereignty,
  3. Autonomies
  4. Sub-nation
  5. Federal state,
  6. Co-sovereignty, swizzes federal state, American federal state,
  8. Communitarian,
  9. state-building

Introduction part of statement of purpose:  I am interested in Law and Governance course before I joint to Azim Premji University, I am interested because, in learning this kind of course will give an ideas of Law and Governance system of India and other organization, which will be very important for my future carrier as well as for my Naga community in return. We the Naga society needs many youngsters those who has heart and mind for social change and who can contribute to the society by possessing some good knowledge of legal and the administrative knowledge  to co-exist with India. Naga people have been fighting for complete sovereignty from government of India and government of Burma since British left us. The peace-talk between two parties has been continuing last 68 years. However, recently on 3 August 2015 Mr. Modi led NDA government and National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) signed a “Peace Accord” and both the parties come to an agreement at the point of “Share-Sovereignty” in sub-nation model. Which is very interesting and writing desertion on these areas will strengthen my higher studies research proposal topic on “Naga Freedom Movement in Relation to other countries.” And I am interested to study sovereignty in legal and governance angles.

Main content: In my understanding, there is a high chance that all the Nagas, from Manipur, Assam, Arunachal and Burma will integrate as Nagalim shortly and will be living under India as sub-nation state by sharing the sovereignty of power between the two nations. On the other side, China is very much welcome to Nagas to be a part of her nation in sub-nation model like Hongkong.  Thereby, I want to study and explore further on “share-sovereignty” and its  characteristics, contents, ideas, power sharing, legal issue, functioning of court, administration system  and governance process in share-sovereignty,  and relationship between two or more nations under Share-Sovereign in legal perspective.

The reasons for preferring sovereignty studies: sovereignty itself is very broad term and share-sovereignty is confusing in legal term. To study the share-sovereignty in legal perspective one should know how the both the nations will have their own constitutions, own supreme-court, own legal passport right, own flags, different UN membership, share currency, and share foreign affair, combine military, share-outer sovereignty, and also share Inner-sovereignty in some extent.

Democracy: I am interested to studies democracy theories and want to contribute to our Naga national building. How the democracy can work in share-sovereignty? And the Naga society has very unique set of governance system through democracy meant, and the systems are very different from other world when compared. Naga democracy functions in single elected representative under village sovereignty. Each village were enjoying complete sovereignty like ancient Greek state, each clan sent their representative to village council who represent the clan in the village. All villages sent their representative to Tangkhul Naga Hoho (Tangkhul-Naga tribe) who is the representative of the village, and he/she was elected through democracy process. And again from each Naga tribe Nagas elected one representative to Nagas Hoho, Naga Hoho is the Apex body of Naga Nation, whose members were elected from the grass root level by passing many stages. Thereby, I want to study in more different angle and I am interested to explore more.

National Movement for different nations: most of the nations have the story of national movement, and Nagas have their own story. Nagas were live as a free people under village sovereignty before the first British colonization took place in Naga home land, followed by India and Burma illegally occupation. Thereby, nagas started their freedom movement by forming Naga Club On 1918 and start fighting with the Great British politically and continue till today by NSCN to India and Burma which was supported bNaga civil society. And I want to know the history of different national move of across the globe. So that I can compared and contrast to Naga national movement.

Experiences and interest: I have personal experiences on how the Nagas suffer under India law like under the 1956 Act of Arm Force Special Power Act (AFSPA), Blue bird opereation, and CrPC 144 which ignore the Human Right and Fundamental Right of the citizen in Naga Homeland. And force labor to Nagas people by India forces, many cases registered to army but the court could not take action but state government compensate rupees 2 (two) lakh for one persons, Indian government offices were full of corruption and not functioning properly, and many other  problem in the Naga society. I did my internship at Delhi High Court and work with legal expert who give me some ideas about law and sovereignty. And I wrote my research proposer on relating to this topic.   And I am interest to study the problems in order to find the solution.

Challenges of governance in India and the current Indo-Naga peace talk (“Peace-Accord”): what are the challenges faces in India in relating to sovereignty, national security, development and how the northeast nationalism movement treat to inner sovereignty of Indian ? The present peace accord is the burning topic for Naga society and northeast across the globes. So far we don’t know the content of the accord.

In conclusion part if the introduction of sovereignty and share-sovereignty is a complex term in my understanding and I want to study and explore more about the share-sovereignty in legal and administrative perspective which will enrich my knowledge and will help to my future carrier. It is essential to find out what kind of legal and administration will introduce in share sovereignty, and what type of democracy will fits to it, what will be challenges of the share sovereignty between the two nations, so on and so forth? Thereby, I am interest to carry out on this topic.

Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurusFinancialAcronymsEncyclopediaWikipedia.


The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers arederived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreigninterference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing andcollecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirablepersons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of propertywithin its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

See also: authoritybureaucracycapacitydominancedominionhierarchyhome ruleinfluencejurisdictionpolity,predominanceprimacyregimesupremacy

Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

SOVEREIGNTY: The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to doeverything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy,contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. Sec.207.
2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised bydelegation.
3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; thefirst is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad;and the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.
4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q.v.) andthe residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide,generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Explains on ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’, shared sovereignty under Peace Accord
NSCN (I-M) general secretary Th. Muivah reaffirmed that the framework of the Naga Peace Accord should lead to an acceptable and honourable settlement of the “Indo-Naga issue”.
He said this while speaking at the 8th Naga Consultative Meeting held at Niathu Resort, Chumukedima Monday to a gathering that included various Naga tribal organisations both from within and outside India.
It was also learnt that Muivah had spoken about the proposed ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ that would look after the welfare of Naga areas which could not be included in the Naga integration due to geographical location.
It was also learnt, that Muivah had revealed, that the government of India had accepted it as part of the competencies. He said the ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ will be a statutory body with certain powers having separate budget, and “very unique for the Nagas”.
According to Th. Muivah, both negotiating sides however agreed to share the competencies by respecting people’s wishes on “sharing sovereign power” as defined in the competencies where both sides agreed on a peaceful co-existence.
A resolution adopted after the consultative meeting expressed appreciation and acknowledgement to the government of India and NSCN(I-M) for signing of the framework agreement on August 3,2015 which should lead to an acceptable and honourable settlement of the “Indo-Naga issue”. It was also resolved to reiterate and uphold resolutions adopted at previous Naga people’s consultative meetings and to ceaselessly work towards unity in a spirit of forgiveness and oneness.
Meanwhile, a press statement issued by the MIP/NSCN(I-M) acknowledged the “spirited response” of the Naga people and expressed its sincere gratitude and satisfaction to all participants as well as well wishers “far and wide across Nagalim”.
MIP said it also looked forward to more such significant consultations in future and that at the end of it, due to the concerted efforts “ we have taken a historic decision today for the Nagas”.
With this confidence and affirmation established, the NSCN will continue to work out with the government of India, what was best for the Naga people.
It was also learnt that the issue between the Sumi Hoho and other Sumi frontal organisations and the NSCN(I-M) was at a stage of being solved. Both sides reportedly agreed to bury the differences although the final outcome would be known after certain points were resolved.
Meanwhile, NSCN (I-M) leadership is scheduled to hold a meeting on Wednesday (August 26) with all the 60 legislators of Nagaland at Dimapur. The meeting is proposed to be held at Chumukedima, police complex. It was not known whether NSCN (I-M) general secretary Th. Muivah would be attending the meeting.


Maybe it will not be wrong to say that almost all Nagas today are eager to learn about the model of Pan-Naga Hoho which was announced recently by Th. Muivah. Pan-Naga Hoho is the shared sovereignty model based on the framework agreement signed between India and NSCN (IM) on August 3 2015, in New Delhi.

But what exactly is PAN-NAGA HOHO? According to latest inputs by R.N. Ravi and Th. Muivah, it is a shared sovereignty model, an almost sovereign government for Nagas with and without borders. Meaning the present Nagaland state border will be as it is, but governing, rights and privileges to cover all Naga inhibited areas. It is a statutory governing council to make laws with special and separate budgets. And land and resources; above and below belong to the Nagas without Indian government interference.

If anyone like to know more about this model. Or would like to know whether our identity, rights, land and resources are protected in this model, you can do an independent study, and probably the present PAN-NAGA HOHO is inspired from these two models:

    The Sammi Model (Scandinavia) was submitted to Th. Muivah by Prof. B.K. Roy Burman on the request of G. Gaingam for a possible model for Naga political solution. Though Roy Burman, an Indian think tank and member of Forum for Initiative on North East India, further said that there are several other model, and, moreover, Mr. Henrikson, a Saami intellectual and incharge of Indigenous Cell of United Nation’s Human Rights Commission, commended this model for the Nagas, Mr. Raising expressed his reservation, and his brief discussion with Th. Muivah at Bangkok Court indicated that his concept paper was slammed (Email from Roy Burman to Mr. Vero, former president, Naga Hoho). All efforts are not lost. The present PAN-NAGA HOHO Model clearly indicated its similarity. Today the Saami people (Scandinavian) have their own parliament and is a member of the European Union, which made or recognized them as a nation.
    G. Gaingam, former vice president Naga Hoho, met and discussed with Th. Muivah, general secretary, NSCN (IM) at Hebron Camp, the headquarter of NSCN (IM), on 20th November, 2007, and presented the following paper as suggestion and proposal.


Protectorates and Protected States

  1. Meaning of the expression

1.1 Protectorates and Protected States, like mandated/trust territories (see “MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES”), were foreign territories to which British protection was extended in one form or another. However, while mandated/trust territories were established under the auspices of the League of Nations/United Nations, protectorates and Protected States were proclaimed at the will of the Crown.

1.2 Protected States were places in which:

‪#‎there was a properly organised internal government; and
‪#‎Britain controlled only the state’s external affairs

1.3 Protectorates were protected territories in which

#there was no properly organised internal government; and
#Britain not only controlled external matters, such as the protectorate’s defence and foreign relations, but also
‪#‎established an internal administration

1.4 In this sense, the extent of the Crown’s involvement in a protectorate was similar to the extent of its involvement in a colony. The distinction was that the territories concerned were not brought formally within the Crown’s dominions.

  1. Significance in British nationality law

2.1 As protectorates and Protected States were foreign soil, birth in such places could not, in itself, confer British subject status or, after 1 January 1949, CUKC. However, certain persons were, nevertheless, able to acquire different forms of British nationality by virtue of their connection with a protectorate or Protected State.

2.2 During the second half of the 1800s, persons who were indigenous to a protectorate and, in a Protected State, the subjects of the local ruler, became known as British protected persons (BPPs). Although, initially, this may have been a term of convenience, it soon became a form of British nationality. The status was conferred not by statute but under the Royal Prerogative. The “indigenous person” test, being unsatisfactorily vague, was replaced by a more sophisticated “belonging” test set out in the British Protected Persons Order 1934/499.

2.3 Although birth in such places could not confer British subject status at common law (as they were outside the Crown’s dominions and allegiance), the practice was that where the children of British subjects were born in protectorates or Protected States, they would be treated as British subjects. This was not, strictly, acquisition by descent, because the children would acquire British subject status even where the parents’ status was not transmissible. Nor was it simply acquisition by birth. Rather, it was something of a hybrid: the parent’s status compensated for the inadequacies of the territory and vice versa.

2.4 Under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts 1914-1943, persons continued to be or become prerogative BPPs and, regarding British subject status, the earlier practice was put on a statutory basis. Section 2 of the 1943 Act, which was retrospective to all dates, provided that:

“Any person born, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in a place where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty was at the time of that person’s birth exercising jurisdiction over British subjects, shall, if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject, be deemed to be and, in the case of a person born before the commencement of this Act, always to have been, a natural-born British subject” (s.2(1)). The section went on to provide that “any such person as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been born within His Majesty’s allegiance” (s.2(2)).

2.5 It should be noted that there were certain Protected States in which the Crown did not exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction over British subjects, and in respect of which this special provision did not therefore apply. These were:

British North Borneo
the Malay States (except during the period 1 April 1946 to 31 January 1948 inclusive,
when extra-territorial jurisdiction was exercised)
the Maldive Islands

2.6 Under the BNA 1948, British subjects born in a place which, on 1 January 1949, was a protectorate or Protected State were automatically re-classified as CUKCs (s.12(3)). Further, s.5 (1)(a) of the 1948 Act made much the same provision as s.2 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1943. So children born after 1 January 1949 became CUKCs if their father was born in a place which, at the time of the birth (their or their father’s, as the case may be), was a protectorate, Protected State, mandated/trust territory or foreign country in which the Crown exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over British subjects. Additionally, the father had to be a CUKC by descent.

2.7 Furthermore, a person was able to register or naturalise as a CUKC on the basis of a connection with a protectorate or Protected State under s.8, s.10 and Schedule 2 of the BNA 1948.

2.8 BPP status was statutorily defined (s.32(1), and the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order 1949) and, therefore, in addition to becoming a CUKC, a person connected with a protectorate or Protected State was able to become a statutory BPP.

2.9 One further point concerning protectorates should be noted. The British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Orders not only identified, as BPPs, persons with a particular connection with an existing protectorate, but also persons connected with former protectorates. So when, for example, the Bechuanaland Protectorate attained independence as Botswana, statutory BPPs who failed to acquire citizenship of Botswana remained BPPs, and where such a person was a man, BPP status was also acquired by his children born prior to 16 August 1978 (when the 1978 Order, which restricted acquisition, commenced). BPPs by virtue of a connection with a former protectorate retained BPP status so long as they did not acquire citizenship of the country comprising, or including, the territory of the former protectorate.

2.10 The same approach was taken towards former trust territories, but not Protected States or mandated territories. So when, for example, Bahrain ceased to be a Protected State, all those who had been statutory BPPs by virtue of their connection with Bahrain automatically ceased to possess that status. No person could be a statutory BPP by virtue of a connection with a former Protected State or mandated territory.

  1. Chronology

3.1 When states and territories have attained independence, the general rule has been that, subject to certain exceptions, those who became citizens of the newly independent country ceased to possess British nationality. The excepted persons have often been those who retained a particular connection with a place which remained, for example, a protectorate on the date of independence.

3.2 The British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order 1949/140 identified the following places as protectorates or Protected States:


Aden Protectorate
Bechuanaland Protectorate
British Solomon Islands Protectorate
Gambia Protectorate
Kenya Protectorate
Nigeria Protectorate
Northern Rhodesia
Northern Territories of the Gold Coast
Nyasaland Protectorate
Sierra Leone Protectorate
Somaliland Protectorate
Uganda Protectorate
Zanzibar Protectorate

Protected States:

Canton Island
The Malay States (i.e. Johore, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Perak, Kedah,
Perlis, Kelantan, and Trengganu)
The Maldive Islands
The New Hebrides
The Persian Gulf States (i.e. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial Sheikdoms of Oman (i.e. Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dibai, Kalba, Ras al Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaiwain))

3.3 Since the passing of the 1949 Order the following changes have occurred:

30.7.1952: KALBA ceased to be a Protected (Trucial) State having merged with SHARJAH; FUJAIRAH became a new Protected (Trucial) State

1.1.1954: KAMARAN became a new protectorate

6.3.1957: The NORTHERN TERRITORIES OF THE GOLD COAST ceased to be a protectorate

31.8.1957: The MALAY STATES ceased to be Protected States

1.3.1958: NORTHERN RHODESIA and the NYASALAND PROTECTORATE ceased to be included in the term “protectorate” wherever it appeared in the BNA 1948, but they remained protectorates for the purposes of the definition of a “BPP” and the 1949 Order

26.6.1960: SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

1.10.1960: NIGERIA PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

27.4.1961: SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

1.7.1961: KUWAIT ceased to be a Protected (Persian Gulf) State

9.10.1962: UGANDA PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

10.12.1963: ZANZIBAR PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

12.12.1963: KENYA PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

1.1.1964: NORTHERN RHODESIA and the NYASALAND PROTECTORATE once again became protectorates for all purposes

6.7.1964: The NYASALAND PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

24.10.1964: NORTHERN RHODESIA ceased to be a protectorate

18.2.1965: GAMBIA PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

27.7.1965: MALDIVE ISLANDS ceased to be a Protected State

30.9.1966: BECHUANALAND PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

24.4.1967: SWAZILAND ceased to be a protectorate and became a Protected State

30.11.1967: KAMARAN and the SOUTH ARABIAN PROTECTORATE ceased to be protectorates

6.9.1968: SWAZILAND ceased to be a Protected State

4.6.1970: TONGA ceased to be a Protected State

16.8.1971: BAHRAIN ceased to be a Protected (Persian Gulf) State

4.9.1971: QATAR ceased to be a Protected (Persian Gulf) State

2.12.1971: The TRUCIAL SHEIKDOMS OF OMAN (or TRUCIAL STATES) ceased to be Protected (Persian Gulf) States

1.1.1975: CANTON ISLAND and, for certain purposes only, BRUNEI ceased to be Protected States

7.7.1978: BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE ceased to be a protectorate

16.8.1978: The NEW HEBRIDES ceased to be a Protected State
1.1.1984: BRUNEI ceased (for all purposes) to be a Protected State

Source: Government of United Kingdom,

Welcome to GOV.UK

GOV.UK – The place to find government services and information – Simpler, clearer, faster


EVERYONE look at the Nagalim map. All Nagas areas are in compact contiguous areas. It is physically
integrated. According to latest inputs from R.N. Ravi, PAN­NAGA HOHO is a shared sovereignty model, an
almost sovereign government for Nagas “with border and without border” covering all Naga inhibited areas.
a. Nagaland Legislative Assembly will be dissolved and will be superseded by more powerful statutory
state/body covering all Naga inhibited areas.
b. A Special budget and separate budget.
c. Land and resources; above and below belong to the Nagas without any interference from Indian
According to Muivah, a separate budget for all Naga areas that cannot be integrated physically, and most
probably, equal representative too. PAN­NAGA HOHO will evolve into a more better one in the future. It
fully lies in our hand now. May be, in the near future, who know our neighbours will want to disassociate or
disintegrate the Naga people and our land from them. We only need unity. Looking to the offers made by
India, it seems it is good enough, but all we need now is unity.
If Nagas want redrawing of state boundary, we must be united and be ready to give the ultimate sacrifice
and start a mass movement. Otherwise, mere grumbling and shouting sitting at home will not do. But
instead it will bring further disunity and bloodshed within us. It seems understanding between NSCN (IM)
and Naga Hoho has been made. Now Naga Hoho is voicing loud and clear for Naga integration. How will
Naga public response to this call? All we need is unity.
If Nagas wants to get complete Independence, we must be worthy of it. Complete independence requires
complete sacrifice. We must be ready for a united mass noncooperation movement. The following five
points are to be considered:
a. Stop demanding Independence from India but tell them to leave Nagalim.
b. Dissolve the Nagaland State Assembly and form interim government with unified central command.
c. Leave all Indian government jobs and other government benefits.
d. All Nagas living in India must come back to Nagalim.
e. Activate a non­violence resistance and noncooperation movement for complete Independence.
If Nagas can sacrifice this much, freedom is ours. But if we can’t sacrifice, we should not expect anyone or
any group will bring you complete independence through negotiation with India. Nor should anyone blame
any group. Complete independence lies with the people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s