Jonas Yanthan
“Those who forsake the law praise the wicket
But those who keep the law struggle against them.” Proverbs 28:4
No Nation or society can progress without strict adherence to law of the land. Deviation or distortion of the law brings lawlessness and chaos in the society. This is so because the law and justice system of a country is the oil to smoothen the path of progress. Laissez-faire is a disease in Naga society though for others it may mean an opportunity to progress. For Nagas, laissez-faire is misconstrued as a way to do things as one pleases and better conveyed in Nagamese as “Khushi-khushi” and the result is disrespect for law and what follows is manipulation of standing rules by persons at the expense of the common good and the ultimate consequences are injustices all along.
The ongoing Delimitation issue is the most glaring example where we see the true mentality and attitude of the government and particularly the State member and the Associate Members, who instead of standing for the law and educating the masses to live in accordance to democratic norms have been taking an offensive stand against the parliamentary Act which has invariably done serious damage as it has prompted and encouraged the public to be more indiscipline and disrespect for law. Delimitation Commission Members of Nagaland instead of expediting the process of law as per laid down methodology and guidelines had all along been twisting and distorting facts and figures about the state and its people and the same falsified ‘stories’ had been fed to the Delimitation Commission of India. One such story that had been told to the Commission is that if the delimitation exercise is held there would be bloodshed and social disorder in the state. Further they had been telling the Commission that the tribal compositeness of the state would be disturbed and thus create tribal imbalance. Aren’t these reports and claims contrary to facts? Is Delimitation Act 2002(amended 2003) the first ever in Nagaland?
The truth up till now is we have had already two delimitation exercises in the state ever since statehood in 1963 based on 1961 census but much to the dismay of many tribes this exercise was made at the expense of other tribes creating severe imbalance because it did not take into consideration the formula of the Interim Body representation which though temporary was based on equality of the tribes and then the 1972 exercise based on 1971 census where Districts of Wokha and Phek failed to retain a seat each by the population criteria which Dimapur area qualified but needlessly, as every one now is lamenting the plunder and rightly so, because it is a self sustaining commercial city District with hardly 967 sq.km plain area dominated by non-tribal. These events did not go without protests but were there any report of bloodshed, social disorder or distortion of any tribal uniqueness? In short, there is no iota of truth and honesty in the attitude of the Members on the ongoing delimitation exercise and annoyingly these are some of the leaders who are vocal with words like Justice, Equality and concern for all Nagas.
The most ridiculous reasons proffered by the state government and the Members to substantiate their claim for status quo in the state are (a) Peace Process (b) Article 371(A) of the constitution and (c) Tribal Compositeness. These reasons are ridiculous for the fact of their incompatibility with the issue of Delimitation. Peace Process issue encompasses all Naga inhabited areas that is beyond the state of Nagaland and it is a long drawn matter whereas, the delimitation issue is limited to all states (excepting Jammu & Kashmir) and time bound. If the government is very honest and sincere with the peace settlement, they should continue to take up numerous other more pertinent steps than what had been taken up but at least not by dragging in a standing democratic exercise such as the delimitation which is far way out from the peace process leave alone the relevance. This is not wisdom but illogicality.
Article 371(A) of the constitution concerning Nagaland state contains merely provisions that protect our religious and customary practices and system of land holding. It has nothing to do with the delimitation and, if it had, there would never have been delimitation in Nagaland so far and therefore stop abusing the Article 371(A) for goodness sake.
Naga tribal compositeness, of all the reasons, is the most silly since no tribe nor has the constitution of the country ever questioned the compositeness of any tribe in Nagaland. Using this as one of the reasons for demand of status quo in the delimitation exercise with only internal adjustment is devoid of any logic. Tribal compositeness, if sincerely understood, can only mean equality of all the tribes at all fronts particularly sharing opportunities with the less privileged ones and least call for status quo which means continuance of existing tribal and district disparities due to imbalanced representation of the people in the law making body.
On the question of repeated demand of the state government for status quo the Centre rejected it because there weren’t any valid reasons except vested interest. It is very unfortunate for the state government as it has only demeaned itself. The demand for status quo despite glaring prevalence of disproportionate representation of people among the districts is very unfair. It is not fair because there is unequal opportunity of development in the state and that is seen in the economic disparity of the districts themselves. It is long over due that our politicians come out of their narrow tribe politick, individualism and start working for the state as a whole. And to do this requires selflessness, determination and courage to enforce the rule of law in order to get the best out of the state for common good.
In conclusion, what is clear is the failure on the part of the constitutionally elected leaders to uphold their constitutional obligation; a failure to discern democratic discipline from vested interest; in short a lack of quality leadership in a diverse society like ours. Nevertheless, there had been pros and cons deliberations, representations and patient hearing on the issue by the Commission and now it is up to the Chairman, Delimitation Commission of India to see that justice is done at its highest level. The Chairman, Justice Kuldip Singh (retired judge of the Supreme Court) is a man of wisdom who will not deny justice to the weak and the down trodden.
“Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity.” Proverbs 22:8
