S. S. Khaplang was a central figure in the Naga insurgency, a conflict that has shaped the socio-political landscape of Northeast India and northwestern Myanmar for decades. As the founder and leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K), he played a defining role in both military operations and political strategies in the Naga struggle for self-determination. His leadership, however, was marked by a mix of steadfast resistance, internal factionalism, and shifting alliances, making him one of the most enigmatic figures in Northeast India’s insurgent history.

Origins and Early Involvement

Born in 1940 in Myanmar (Burma), ShangwangShangyungKhaplang belonged to the Hemi Naga tribe, a lesser-known subgroup of the Naga ethnic community. Unlike many Naga leaders who were based in India, Khaplang operated primarily from Myanmar, which gave his faction a unique position in the larger Naga political landscape.

The Naga movement had its roots in the demand for sovereignty dating back to India's independence. Initially, the Naga National Council (NNC), led by A. Z. Phizo, spearheaded this demand. However, the failure of the Shillong Accord of 1975, which sought peace between Naga insurgents and the Indian government, led to internal divisions. In 1980, S. S. Khaplang, along with IsakChishiSwu and ThuingalengMuivah, broke away to form the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), rejecting any settlement that fell short of full independence.

The 1988 Split and the Rise of NSCN-K

In 1988, ideological and leadership differences caused a major rift within NSCN. The movement split into two factions:

●       NSCN-IM (Isak-Muivah) – Led by IsakChishiSwu and ThuingalengMuivah, advocating a political settlement through peace talks.

●       NSCN-K (Khaplang) – Led by S. S. Khaplang, maintaining a more militant stance.

This division led to intense clashes between the two factions, often resulting in violent infighting and civilian casualties. While NSCN-IM pursued negotiations with the Indian government, culminating in the 1997 ceasefire and the 2015 Framework Agreement, Khaplang remained skeptical of political settlements and continued military operations.

NSCN-K’s Role in Insurgency and Regional Politics

NSCN-K's influence was significant, particularly in the India-Myanmar border regions. The group engaged in armed resistance against Indian security forces, extortion, and strategic alliances with other militant groups. Unlike NSCN-IM, which focused on Naga-inhabited areas of Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Assam, Khaplang maintained a broader vision that included Naga communities in Myanmar.

One of Khaplang’s most controversial decisions was the 2015 unilateral withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement with India, which his faction had upheld since 2001. This move reignited hostilities, culminating in the deadly Manipur ambush of June 2015, where NSCN-K operatives killed 18 Indian Army personnel. The Indian government responded with a cross-border military operation targeting insurgent camps in Myanmar.

Another key development under Khaplang’s leadership was the formation of the United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (UNLFW) in 2015, a militant coalition including NSCN-K, ULFA-I (Assam), NDFB-S (Bodoland), and KLO (Kamtapur Liberation Organization). This marked an attempt to unify Northeast insurgent groups against Indian forces, though its long-term effectiveness remained limited.

Challenges and Decline

Despite his influence, Khaplang’s strategy had its limitations. His reliance on Myanmar as a base of operations made his faction less relevant in India’s evolving Naga peace process. Furthermore, internal dissent within NSCN-K, combined with increased military pressure from India and Myanmar, weakened the group.

Khaplang’s death on 9 June 2017 from prolonged illness in Myanmar created a leadership vacuum, leading to further divisions within NSCN-K. The group splintered into multiple factions, some of which later entered into ceasefire agreements with the Indian government.

Legacy: Freedom Fighter or Warlord?

S. S. Khaplang’s legacy remains deeply polarizing. To his followers, he was a guardian of Naga sovereignty, refusing to compromise on their struggle for an independent homeland. His insistence on armed resistance resonated with those who saw peace talks as diluting the Naga cause.

However, critics argue that his militant approach prolonged the conflict, leading to civilian suffering, factional violence, and missed opportunities for a political resolution. Unlike NSCN-IM, which engaged with India in peace negotiations, NSCN-K remained largely isolated, reducing its impact in shaping the region’s future.