Niketu Iralu: From Naga Nationalism to Global Peace Advocacy

Kohima, India Aug 22, 2026 ALN: Niketu Iralu (1935–2026): A Nationalist Who Became an Internationalist for Peace
The passing of Niketu Iralu (1935–2026) marks the end of a remarkable life devoted not merely to the Naga cause, but to the larger human cause of reconciliation, justice, and peace. He was a nationalist without being imprisoned by nationalism, an internationalist without losing his roots, and a man of peace who understood that lasting political solutions are possible only when human relationships are healed. His life therefore deserves to be remembered not simply as the life of a prominent Naga, but as that of a bridge-builder between peoples, communities, and conflicting worldviews.

Niketu Iralu came from Khonoma, a village deeply associated with Naga resistance and political history. He was also related to A. Z. Phizo, one of the most important figures of the Naga national movement. Yet his own life’s journey took a distinctive direction. Rather than choosing the path of armed confrontation, he chose the difficult path of dialogue, reconciliation, and moral transformation. He worked internationally with the Moral Re-Armament movement, later known as Initiatives of Change, travelling across continents and encountering societies struggling with division and conflict. That international experience profoundly shaped his understanding of the Naga problem.

From Naga Nationalism to a Larger Vision of Humanity

Niketu’s nationalism was rooted in an intense love for his people, their history, dignity, and aspirations. But he understood something that is often forgotten in nationalist movements: love of one’s own people cannot require hatred of another people.

This distinction was central to his life’s work. He recognized the legitimacy of Naga aspirations while simultaneously recognizing the necessity of living with neighbors and finding a peaceful relationship with India. He repeatedly argued that even when political aspirations remained unresolved, Nagas could not afford to return to killing one another. His approach therefore placed human life and reconciliation alongside political objectives rather than beneath them.

This is what made him both a nationalist and an internationalist. His nationalism gave him roots; internationalism gave him perspective. He did not abandon the Naga question when he embraced peace. Instead, he sought to rescue the Naga cause from the destructive logic of violence.

Healing Conflicts in Naga-Inhabited Regions

Perhaps Niketu’s most enduring contribution was his work on internal Naga reconciliation. He understood that the Naga conflict was not simply a confrontation between Nagas and the Government of India. Over time, divisions among Naga groups, factions, tribes, and communities had themselves become a devastating source of suffering.

After the 1997 ceasefire, he became deeply involved in efforts to encourage dialogue among Naga groups. In 2001, following the controversy and violence surrounding the extension of the ceasefire to Naga-inhabited areas outside, the Naga Hoho entrusted him with convening a reconciliation committee. The committee sought both to promote reconciliation among Nagas and to reach out to neighboring communities whose fears had intensified.

One of the most significant moments came on 20 December 2001, when representatives of more than 35 Naga tribes and sub-tribes, churches, civil-society organizations, and Naga political factions participated in a major reconciliation gathering in Kohima. 132 Naga leaders signed a pledge committing themselves to practical steps towards restitution and healing.

The process did not achieve all that it had hoped to. Political mistrust, factional rivalry, and renewed violence repeatedly interrupted it. Yet this should not be interpreted as failure. Niketu understood that reconciliation is rarely a single event. It is a long moral process requiring patience, humility, and the courage to listen even when agreement seems impossible.

His work in Khonoma offers another powerful example. He helped initiate reconciliation among villagers divided by old conflicts, and several cases involving intra-village killings and injuries were brought to reconciliation. The lesson was profound: before a society can resolve its external political conflict, it must also confront the wounds within itself.

Beyond: Reaching Across the Northeast

Niketu never confined peace-making to . He understood that the Naga question affected — and was affected by — the wider Northeast. Territorial aspirations, ethnic anxieties, and competing political claims meant that any durable solution had to take neighboring peoples seriously.

His approach was therefore not simply “What do the Nagas want?”, but also “How can the aspirations of different peoples coexist without one community feeling threatened by another?” That was a particularly important contribution. A peace process cannot be sustainable if it produces a winner and a permanently frightened loser. Peace requires not only an agreement between political negotiators but confidence among ordinary communities.

His emphasis on listening became central to this philosophy. His home, known as Kerünyü Ki — the “Listening House,” became a place where people from different sides of conflicts could meet, speak, and listen. A recent academic study described his work as an important example of reconciliation through listening.

His Contribution to the National Conflict

At the national level, Niketu represented a rare form of citizenship: he could speak honestly about Naga grievances without turning that honesty into hostility towards India.

He understood that the Indo-Naga conflict could not be solved by military means alone. Nor could it be resolved by political declarations without addressing the fears, memories, and aspirations of the people involved. He consistently advocated dialogue, non-violence, and an “honourable and workable” settlement. He emphasized that conflicts must be recognized and addressed before they multiply.

His participation in public discussions of the Naga conflict — including at Harvard University’s Asia Centre — demonstrated that his voice was crucial in fostering understanding and dialogue. Niketu Iralu's legacy is a testament to the power of peace and reconciliation in a world often torn apart by conflict.