The Naga Plebiscite was an alleged poll organised on 16 May 1951 by the Naga National Council (NNC) under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo in parts of the Naga Hills of north-east India. The NNC, which was itself the party campaigning for independence, ran the exercise without an external administering authority, a voter roll, a secret ballot or independent observation. It later announced that 99.9% of those approached by its volunteers had endorsed Naga sovereignty by signing or placing a thumb impression on a printed declaration form.
No state or international body has ever recognised the result. The government of India dismissed it as the in-house claim of a campaign organisation, the United Nations did not act on it, and the United Kingdom likewise declined to treat it as a constitutionally meaningful expression of the popular will. Subsequent scholarship has consistently questioned both the headline figure and the procedural integrity of the exercise. The principal concerns include limited geographic coverage, the absence of a neutral administering authority, the use of public thumb impressions in a largely non-literate context, the lack of any external audit, and the fact that even sympathetic Naga commentators have since conceded that "in strict sense, the Naga plebiscite was not a referendum".
Contents
Background
Origins of the movement
Naga political mobilisation developed late in the British colonial period and was, in its early form, the work of a relatively small section of educated and Christianised tribal elites rather than of the population as a whole. In 1929 the Naga Club, an association of about twenty signatories, submitted a memorandum to the Simon Commission asking that the Nagas be excluded from any future Indian constitutional arrangement. The Naga Hills District was later classified as an "Excluded Area" under the Government of India Act 1935, a designation that reflected administrative convenience as much as any settled political claim.
The Naga National Council was formed on 2 February 1946, growing out of the Naga Hills District Tribal Council set up the previous year by the deputy commissioner C. R. Pawsey. The council was divided from the start. Moderates argued for autonomy within the Indian Union under the Sixth Schedule arrangements then being drafted, while a separatist tendency soon led by Phizo pushed for full sovereignty.
The Hydari Agreement and the 1947 declaration
In June 1947 the Governor of Assam Sir Akbar Hydari signed a Nine-Point Agreement with the NNC in Kohima. It set out a ten-year interim arrangement for the Naga Hills, after which the future status of the area would be reviewed. The wording of the final clause was ambiguous and the two sides read it very differently. The NNC came to claim that it implied a right of secession after ten years; the Government of India treated it as a standard review clause that contemplated revision of the arrangement, not detachment from the Union. On 14 August 1947, one day before Indian independence, the NNC issued its own declaration of Naga independence and reportedly sent a telegram to the United Nations. No acknowledgement was ever produced, and the loss of the supposed UN receipt later became a symbol of the movement's marginal position in international politics rather than evidence of any external recognition.
Phizo's rise within the NNC
Phizo had been an obscure figure in the early NNC. After a power struggle inside the council, he was elected its president in December 1950, reportedly by a margin of a single vote in a body whose internal procedures were neither formally codified nor independently audited. The moderate faction under T. Sakhrie continued to favour passive resistance and negotiation with Delhi. Phizo judged that only a public, mass demonstration of Naga political will could pressure India and attract international attention. The plebiscite was approved by the NNC in February 1951 in this internal context. It was, in effect, a tactical instrument of the new presidency rather than an independently mandated constitutional exercise.
The poll of 16 May 1951
The inaugural function was held at Khuochiezie, the Kohima Local Ground. Sympathetic Naga sources estimate the inaugural crowd at around 6,000, drawn from villages in the Naga Hills District together with some observers from Manipur and the Tuensang Frontier Division. No independent contemporary count exists; the figure rests on later NNC and commemorative reporting. Phizo addressed the gathering in his capacity as NNC president and described the day's work in advance as a "voluntary plebiscite" to record Naga "national policy".
The procedure departed significantly from the standards normally associated with a referendum. There was no voter register, no secret ballot, no neutral polling staff and no count by anyone other than the campaign organising the vote. Two-column declaration sheets marked "for" and "against" joining the Indian Union were printed in Imphal at the campaign's expense, trucked to Khonoma, rolled into bamboo cylinders and dispatched to villages by NNC volunteers, mostly youth activists. In each village the sheets were filled in publicly. Voters were asked to sign or, if they could not sign, to press a thumb impression onto the form. In a population with low literacy rates and tight village social structures, where the activists collecting the impressions were locally known and politically aligned, the absence of a secret ballot made any later test of free, individual consent impossible.
Voters
According to the NNC, the franchise extended to all Nagas of both sexes aged 15 or 16 and above. Other sources, including the standard reference work by Prakash Singh, dispute this and report that women were not in fact included in the voting in significant parts of the area covered. No voter list against which the headline figure could be checked has ever been made public.
Poll Location
The poll was effectively confined to the Kohima and Mokokchung subdivisions of the then Naga Hills District. The Tuensang Frontier Division, administered at the time as part of the North-East Frontier Agency, had a Naga population estimated at around 150,000 and was largely unaware of the exercise. The NIAS study by the historian B. B. Kumar notes flatly that "the people of Tuensang Division did not vote at that time" and treats this as the central reason most observers questioned the 99.9 per cent figure from the outset. Naga communities in Manipur, Assam, the present-day Arunachal Pradesh and what was then Burma were similarly outside the canvass.
Result
The NNC subsequently announced that 99.9 per cent of those approached had voted in favour of an independent and sovereign Naga nation. The figure was generated and tabulated entirely by NNC volunteers. Copies of the signed forms were reportedly posted to the President of India and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Neither office returned any acknowledgement that became part of the public record, and no independent custody chain for the forms themselves has ever been documented.
The plebiscite has been the subject of sustained critical examination in the academic and policy literature, with concerns running across method, procedure, coverage and political framing. The most basic objection is structural. The exercise was run by the organisation campaigning for the result, with no separation between organiser, returning officer and beneficiary. The MP-IDSA Journal of Defence Studies notes that the headline figure depended entirely on NNC bookkeeping and that "it is uncertain as to how many of the signatories" actually understood, or freely chose, the question put to them. Cambridge University Press's States-in-Waiting makes the same point, observing that without an external recording mechanism the result is effectively a self-report by an interested party.
The exclusion of Tuensang, which contained a significant fraction of the Naga population the NNC purported to speak for, is treated by most independent observers as fatal to any universal reading of the result. Phizo's own letters at the time were addressed in the name of the "Naga people" as a whole, but the actual canvass stopped well short of that universe.
A 2024 essay in The Morung Express, a paper sympathetic to the Naga political tradition, conceded that "in strict sense, the Naga plebiscite was not a referendum" because no sanction had been obtained from any constitutional authority, and that it should be understood instead as a "voluntary" exercise. The historian John Thomas, in Evangelising the Nation (Routledge, 2016), records that Indian officials at the time dismissed the result as "the articulations of 'illiterate' and 'misguided' masses". That phrasing reflected the paternalist administrative culture of the period, but the underlying procedural points, the lack of voter rolls, secret ballot and external scrutiny, were and remain substantively valid.
The NIAS study by B. B. Kumar summarises the mainstream view: "most observers questioned the claim of 99.99 per cent voting in favour of independence." The MP-IDSA monograph on Nagalim notes that the standard reference works by Prakash Singh and by B. G. Verghese both treat the figure as a campaign assertion rather than as a verified count.
Reception
Government of India
The Government of India refused to recognise the result. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru received an NNC delegation led by Phizo in May 1952 but rejected the demand for sovereignty. Nehru's position was that the Naga Hills fell squarely within the constitutional framework of the Indian Union, including the Sixth Schedule arrangements for tribal areas, and that the NNC's poll did not change that. Bishnuram Medhi, the Chief Minister of Assam, described the demand for an independent Naga state as the project of "a few handful of leaders, mostly Christians", a characterisation that reflected both the religious composition of the early Naga political elite and the limited social base of the sovereignty demand at that point.
The NNC and its supporters
For the NNC and its successor organisations, the 1951 result became the foundational political reference of the movement. Phizo argued that the exercise rebutted the Indian claim that demands for independence came only from a small educated elite. Later Naga nationalist writing, including the work of the activist and author Kaka D. Iralu, has treated 16 May 1951 as a defining moment in modern Naga history. Mainstream Indian and international scholarship, while acknowledging the symbolic weight of the day for Naga politics, does not treat the figure of 99.9 per cent as a measured statistic.
Aftermath
From poll to insurgency
The refusal of the Government of India to act on the result was followed by an NNC campaign of civil disobedience, including a boycott of the first general election of 1951-52 and a wave of resignations from government service. By 1955 and 1956 the dispute had moved into armed conflict. In March 1956 the NNC set up an underground Federal Government of Nagaland with its own constitution and the Naga Federal Army. The Government of Assam responded with police and military deployments, and Parliament enacted the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous Districts) Act 1953, the Assam Disturbed Areas Act 1955 and the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act of 1958. The ensuing insurgency caused substantial loss of life on both sides, internal displacement within Naga villages and a long pattern of human rights complaints that have shaped politics in the region ever since.
Constitutional settlement
A separate, moderate strand of Naga politics, organised as the Naga People's Convention, negotiated directly with New Delhi rather than treating the 1951 result as a closed mandate. The Tuensang Frontier Division was merged with the Naga Hills District in 1957 to form the Naga Hills Tuensang Area, and the Sixteen-Point Agreement of 1960 led to the creation of the state of Nagaland within the Indian Union on 1 December 1963. Most of the Naga political elite reconciled with this arrangement. The NNC and, from 1980, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) rejected the settlement and continued to invoke the 1951 figure.
Peace process
The plebiscite has been a recurring reference in later negotiations between New Delhi and Naga underground organisations, including the 1997 ceasefire with the NSCN (Isak-Muivah) and the 2015 Framework Agreement. The Amsterdam Joint Communique of July 2002, which acknowledged the "unique history" of the Nagas, has been read by Naga organisations as implicit recognition of the political tradition the plebiscite was held to embody. The Government of India has consistently treated the language as a statement about historical specificity, not as an endorsement of the 1951 claim.
Legacy and commemoration
Within Naga nationalist organisations, the plebiscite is treated as a foundational political reference. It is commemorated each year on 16 May as Naga Plebiscite Day, with prayer services, public meetings and re-readings of Phizo's 1951 speech at Khuochiezie.
In mainstream Indian historiography and in the international policy literature, the event is treated as a significant moment in the development of Naga political identity, but not as a constitutionally meaningful expression of self-determination. A 2026 essay in The Morung Express by the academic A. Wati Aier, writing from within the Naga community, conceded the broader point. The plebiscite, he argued, "expressed conviction with clarity" but did so "within a world that had already shifted from formation to consolidation", and never had any realistic prospect of producing the international recognition the NNC had hoped for. Seventy-five years on, the academic consensus is that the result has functioned principally as a political and emotional reference point for one strand of the Naga movement, rather than as a verifiable statistic about Naga opinion in 1951.