Rebel groups vary in their organization of civilian governance. How insurgents understand the nature of their rebellion and their relation to the population living in territory in which they act guides their development of governance functions. Rebel doctrine varies according to whether rebels presume they share a pre-existing identity with particular civilians and whether they want to transform civilians or realize values civilians already hold. Comparison of two Indian rebel groups shows how divergent initial premises affect governance practice. The NSCN (National Socialist Council of Nagaland) (IM) started with the idea of a natural polity, a state that would realize Naga ethnic identification. The Naxalite CPI (Maoist) began with the principle of a revolutionary polity, the establishment of a state that would eventually achieve universal social justice ideals. These divergent principles led both Naga and Naxalite administrations to different administrative choices about whom they extended protection, justice, and social services and whom they taxed. Both rebel groups applied their basic doctrines in administering local residents, but the problems of governing during civil war modified some of their choices. In particular, their belief that revolution would occur in stages allowed the Naxalites a surprising degree of pragmatism that included some accommodation with Indian state officials.