Seeing that Nagaland has oil is not news. Nagaland has chased this oil dream for decades. And every few years, someone announces a breakthrough. And every few years, the same old questions come back. Who owns the land? Who controls the oil beneath it? Who gets the money? And can exploration even begin before long-running boundary disputes are resolved? The latest trigger is the June 11, 2026 Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Centre, Assam and Nagaland. The agreement aims to open up oil and gas exploration across more than 1,000 square kilometres in the Assam-Nagaland disputed belt. It was called a historic breakthrough that could unlock huge oil reserves and end years of uncertainty. But barely weeks after the signing ceremony, pushback started from inside Nagaland itself. Local community groups warned that oil exploration cannot move ahead unless customary land rights are protected and unresolved boundary disputes are first settled. Their objections made it clear that the biggest challenge won't be finding oil, but finding a way to extract it without triggering legal, political and social conflict. I'll explain the whole entire story in details but before I continue, a small request. If you value independent and unbiased journalism, please support East Mojo by becoming a member. The process is simple, visit our website and choose the plan that suits you best. You'll find the link here and in the description below. You can also scan the QR code on the screen to visit the membership page directly. Remember, your support helps us continue reporting on stories that matter. Now back to the story. Geologists have long known that Nagaland possesses significant hydrocarbon reserves. Large parts of eastern Nagaland share same geological basin as Assam, where commercial oil production has continued for more than a century. Because of this, governments have long seen petroleum as one of Nagaland's biggest untapped economic opportunities. The latest MOU is an attempt to revive that ambition. It sets up a framework for the Centre, Assam and Nagaland to work together in areas where drilling has been stuck because of overlapping territorial claims Importantly the agreement states that it is without prejudice to the long Assam boundary dispute which has remained before the Supreme Court since 1988. On paper, this means neither state gives up its legal claims in practice. However, the situation is far more complicated. Experts argue that once companies receive exploration licenses, roads are built, and drilling infrastructure comes up, economic realities begin to take shape. Even if courts later deliver a different verdict on the boundary dispute, reversing these investments could become politically and financially difficult. That concern has become sharper because local organizations believe several disputed boundaries are still unresolved. The Konyak Union has asked the Nagaland government not to proceed with exploration until the status of the Thizit-Nagini-Mo belt along the Assam border is made clear. It has also sought clarity regarding ancestral boundaries involving Longva in Mon district and Ponchav in Arunachal Pradesh. The Lothar Lower Range Public Organisation has raised similar concerns. Both groups say unclear borders could create fresh tensions instead of settling old ones. The Konyak Union has also pointed out what it calls errors in digital maps that misrepresent traditional Konya clan. It first raised this with the Nagaland government in 2024 and says it is still waiting for a response. The union has also repeated the call for stronger security along both the Assam and Myanmar borders, arguing that long-standing security gaps should be fixed before big resource projects move forward. All this shows that oil exploration here isn't just an economic issue anymore. For many communities, it's tied up with questions of territory, identity, and security. This isn't the first time these worries have come up. In early 2025, Vedanta's plan to drill near Holunga Pargibbon Wildlife Sanctuary caused a similar storm. Even though the National Board for Wildlife cleared exploratory work, Naga groups objected because the drilling site fell inside the disputed Desoi Valley River forest. That episode showed how every oil project in this region quickly gets tangled up in the old Assam border fight The latest MOU is trying to fix a problem that has derailed earlier attempts before Whether it will actually work is still unclear. Even if the border issue is eventually resolved, one more constitutional question remains. Who actually owns Naglan's natural resources? This comes down to Article 371A of the Constitution. The special provision protects Naga customary practices and gives the Nagaland Legislative Assembly authority over laws relating to ownership and transfer of land and its resources. Unlike many other states, land in Nagaland is largely owned by individuals, clans and village communities rather than the government. That distinction changes everything. The latest MOU focuses primarily on coordination between governments. It reportedly provides the revenue sharing between Assam and Nagaland. But it says little about how customary landowners would directly benefit. For many observers, that is the biggest gap in the agreement. This worry isn't just theoretical. The collapse of ONGC's operations at Changpeng in the 1990s remains an important lesson. One big reason for the local resistance back then was the lack of clear community consent and transparent compensation. Many fear that history could repeat itself. Critics argue that constitutional protections alone are insufficient unless they are backed by operational safeguards. They say village councils, clans and customary institutions must have a formal role before exploration begins. Many are now demanding legally binding mechanisms instead of just government promises. Among the suggestions being discussed are statutory benefit sharing arrangements, guaranteed revenue flows to customary landowners and legally recognized consent procedures before drilling starts. Some also argue that Nageland's Legislative Assembly should formally debate the MOU instead of leaving it entirely to the executive to implement. Another idea gaining ground is a sovereign wealth of future fund, with Norway often cited as the model. Instead of spending oil money right away supporters say Nageland should put it into a professionally managed public fund with the returns being for education healthcare infrastructure and future generations Whether this is politically doable is still an open question, but the bigger point is clear. The real debate isn't whether Nagaland has oil. It is about building the right institutions to make sure the wealth actually reaches ordinary people, not just governments or contractors. Supporters of the MOU say that none of these concerns make the agreement itself a bad idea. Instead, they see it as creating a narrow window for policy decisions. The critical decisions, they argue, will come before exploration licenses are issued. Once companies enter production sharing contracts and start putting in money, renegotiation, benefit sharing, arrangements or consent mechanisms become much harder. That's why timing matters so much. Many therefore believe three questions must be answered before drilling starts. First, how will the Supreme Court's pending boundary dispute interact with exploration on disputed land? Second, how will Article 371A actually be applied in practice so customary ownership is respected, not just protected on paper? Third, what legal mechanism will make sure local landowners and affected communities get real meaningful benefits alongside the state? Until these questions are answered, Nagaland's oil dream will remain unfinished. The state clearly has valuable oil and gas reserves. It also has political backing from the centre to restart exploration. but natural resources alone don't guarantee prosperity. Around the world, oil has created both massive wealth and long conflict. The difference usually comes down to institutions, transparency and public trust. Nagaland now stands at that crossroads. The new MOU may have reopened the door to exploration but whether this becomes a story of shared prosperity or renewed conflict will depend less on the oil in the ground and more on the laws, institutions and community consent built above it. What is your take on the issue? Do let us know in the comments below. And if you like our work, please support us by becoming a member of East Mojo. Remember, your support will help keep independent journalism alive. Thank you for watching.
