The Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN), operating within the Naga National Council (NNC), has formally challenged Oxford University’s July 13 approval to repatriate 39 Naga ancestral human remains held at the Pitt Rivers Museum and demanded an immediate halt to their physical transfer. In a Formal Representation submitted November 4 to Vice-Chancellor Prof Irene Tracey, the NNC-FGN raised procedural, historical, constitutional and institutional objections to Oxford’s decision-making and questioned who has authority to represent the Naga people.
The NNC-FGN said it was not rejecting repatriation in principle. “This is not opposition to repatriation, but a demand for an evidence-based assessment of the long-term interests of the Naga people,” it said in a Thursday statement. It said the dispute concerns the authority behind Oxford’s decision, the legitimacy and scope of the mandates presented to the university, and whether NNC and FGN positions were properly considered.
It made four demands: suspend all physical transfer arrangements, including packing, dispatch, transportation and handover; disclose the full documentary and communications record; provide a reasoned written response to its objections; and order an independent review by people unconnected with the original recommendation. The review, it said, should examine the claimant’s authority, competing representations, Oxford’s Human Remains Policy 2006, and the historical, constitutional and political premises of the decision.
The NNC-FGN challenged Oxford’s statement that “the care of the dead is protected by Article 371A of the Constitution of India, and the tribe hohos hold authority over it.” It rejected the premise and implications, saying Naga authority over ancestral dead is inherent, rooted in village-republic traditions and affirmed by the Naga Yezhabo, not derived from Article 371A or recognition by India, Nagaland or cultural and non-governmental organisations.
It also sought the documentary basis for an Oxford Gazette notice of March 12, 2026, which said the claimant was “fully authorised by the relevant Naga tribal councils.” It asked for resolutions, written mandates and authorisations, including issuing hohos or councils, their dates and scope, and the authority granted to the facilitator. It further asked how and when the museum first engaged the claimant and how that role evolved into a formal claim.
The NNC-FGN linked its position to the NNC’s formation on February 2, 1946, the declaration of Naga independence on August 14, 1947, the 1951 Naga National Plebiscite, and the establishment of the FGN and adoption of the Naga Yezhabo on March 22, 1956. It said the Indo-Naga political question remains unresolved and colonial intrusion, militarisation, human rights violations and AFSPA cannot be separated from Naga memory and identity.
It argued the remains were taken during colonial intrusion and political conflict, making the issue inseparable from Naga national rights, sovereignty, political authority and historical responsibility. It asked Oxford to explain how it weighed cultural and religious importance against research benefits and disclose provenance and expert advice. The NNC-FGN said the challenge extends beyond the 39 to other ancestral remains in museums outside Naga territories, urging Oxford to suspend transfers and address the representation through disclosure, engagement and independent review.
Original Source: https://www.morungexpress.com/not-against-repatriation-but-authority-must-be-recognised-nnc-fgn-to-oxford
Category: Nagaland
Tags:
Publish Date: 2026-11-06 22:46:00
