Recently, the Union Government signed a tripartite agreement with the Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation (ENPO) and the Government of Nagaland to establish the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA).
What is FNTA?
FNTA – This arrangement seeks to grant enhanced administrative and financial autonomy to six eastern districts of Nagaland—Kiphire, Longleng, Mon, Noklak, Shamator, and Tuensang—addressing long-standing political and developmental grievances.
The FNTA represents a “middle path” between full statehood and conventional district administration, reflecting a calibrated approach to regional aspirations within the constitutional framework.
Colonial Legacy and Developmental Differential – The origins of eastern Nagaland’s autonomy demand lie in colonial administrative policies.
The British treated the Naga Hills as a frontier tract, largely leaving it unadministered.
This policy created a governance vacuum and deep developmental disparities that persisted after Independence.
When Nagaland was carved out of Assam and granted statehood in 1963, the eastern Naga tribes felt politically and economically marginalized.
The eight tribes inhabiting the eastern districts perceived dominance by western Naga tribes centered around Kohima, leading to growing resentment.
ENPO’s Core Demand of Separate Statehood – In 2010, the ENPO formally submitted a memorandum to the Centre demanding the creation of a separate state—“Frontier Nagaland.”
The demand was rooted in:
Perceived neglect in development funding and infrastructure
Limited political representation
Administrative centralization in Kohima
Over time, the movement gained momentum, evolving from demands for equitable development to calls for full statehood.
Why did the centre intervene?
The Union Government’s decision to engage meaningfully with the ENPO was driven by both political and strategic considerations.
Political Compulsion – Earlier attempts to placate the region—including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a ₹500-crore development package—failed to satisfy deeper political aspirations.
In 2024, the ENPO called for a total boycott of the Lok Sabha elections, demonstrating significant collective leverage and signaling escalating discontent.
Strategic Imperative – Eastern Nagaland shares a sensitive international border with Myanmar.
The region functions as a strategic buffer zone where armed insurgent groups operate across porous borders.
Sustained alienation in such a geopolitically sensitive area posed serious national security risks.
Thus, the FNTA emerged as a pacifying mechanism to stabilize a critical frontier region while aligning local aspirations with national interests.
What are the key features of the frontier nagaland territorial authority (FNTA)?
Administrative Autonomy – Establishment of a mini-Secretariat within eastern Nagaland.
Headed by a high-ranking officer to decentralize governance.
Reduced administrative dependence on Kohima.
Financial Devolution – Development funds to be allocated proportionally based on population and area.
Initial establishment expenditure to be borne by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Greater control over planning and implementation of development projects.
Legislative and Executive Powers – The FNTA will exercise authority over 46 specified subjects, including:
Land use
Agriculture
Rural development
Infrastructure
Local governance
This ensures policy decisions are tailored to tribal and regional needs.
Constitutional Safeguards – Importantly, the arrangement does not alter Article 371(A) of the Constitution, which protects Naga customary laws, religious practices, and land ownership rights.
Thus, the FNTA strengthens autonomy without undermining constitutional protections central to Naga identity.
FNTA as a Model of Devolutionary Autonomy – The FNTA reflects a broader constitutional innovation—territorial authorities as an intermediate solution between:
Full statehood
Union Territory status
Ordinary district administration
It signals the Centre’s willingness to accommodate regional aspirations without redrawing state boundaries.
Applicability to the Kuki-Zo Demand in Manipur – The FNTA model has sparked debate about whether similar mechanisms could address the Kuki-Zo community’s demand for a separate administration in Manipur.
Structural Similarities – The arrangement resembles the Hill Areas Committee under Article 371(C), designed to protect tribal interests in Manipur.
The FNTA demonstrates constitutional flexibility in designing sub-state autonomy frameworks.
What are the key differences?
Political Consensus – In Nagaland, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio was a willing partner in negotiations.
In Manipur, the Imphal Valley-based government strongly opposes administrative separation.
Conflict Context – Nagaland did not witness active inter-group violent conflict during negotiations.
Manipur, however, has experienced severe ethnic violence, eroding trust.
Competing Territorial Claims – The presence of groups such as the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), which lays claim to parts of hill districts, complicates any clean administrative reorganization.
Thus, while the FNTA provides a conceptual template, replication would require substantial political reconciliation and consensus-building.
What lies ahead?
The Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority represents a pragmatic experiment in asymmetric federalism and devolutionary autonomy.
It addresses regional grievances while preserving state integrity and constitutional safeguards.
The FNTA illustrates:
The evolving nature of Indian federalism
Strategic dimensions of regional autonomy
Constitutional innovation under Articles 371(A) and 371(C)
The intersection of development, identity, and national security
Its success will depend on effective implementation, genuine fiscal devolution, and sustained political engagement.
If successful, it may redefine how India manages sub-state regional aspirations in sensitive border regions.
