An opportunity for Nagas to re-think on Special Status
Dr. K. Hoshi
Judging by the magnitude of daily news reports one may conclude that the issue of delimitation (internal re-adjustment of seats) in Nagaland is like a ticking time bomb set to blast any second from now. While there are people both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the delimitation exercise what emerged clear is that, there are more people in favour of status-quo.
In the ensuing uproar an official clarification on the issue surrounding the Delimitation Act 2002, the guidelines and the detailed methodologies in respect to its working were given by none other than the State Election Commissioner and member of the State Delimitation Commission in the local dailies on 19th March 2007. The air of confusion on Working Paper I (to transfer seats from one district to another on the basis of Census 2001) ended with the official clarification.
One thing that has invited an out cry from almost every angle is the Working Paper III & IV (on limited re-adjustment among the constituencies within the districts). While apparently nothing seems wrong with the official clarification, when one reads thoroughly between the lines in the text of the official clarification it revealed that as per the guidelines the State Delimitation Commission actually consulted the Associate Members for suggestions after which only, the draft proposals were prepared for publication in the official Gazettee and local dailies. But, as per the media reports, that too was not done.
In the first place it is amply clear that, had the people been taken into confidence before hand the re-adjustment could have gone smoothly. The crux of the problem is that vested self-interest took the better of the people who matters in high places that has finally boomeranged. To try to shy away from the responsibility of the mess now is nothing but to show utter irresponsibility in handling the delicate issue. If responsible people in responsible place admit that one doesn’t know the in-things of the matter, feign ignorance or try to shift the blame to higher ups it only exposes how naïve is for such people to hold public office of importance.
As far as the delimitation issue is concerned the public are made to understand that population Census is the lone criterion to determine the seat adjustment/re-adjustment of the constituencies. Quite interestingly, it is placed on record that the State Assembly had requested the Union Government to exempt the State from the purview of the Constitution Amendment vis-à-vis delimitation issue till such time the Assembly seats are increased as demanded and, till such time the ongoing political dialogue is concluded. Another point placed before the Union Government for exemption is that, Nagaland is a special category State under Article 371 (A) of the Constitution.
Out of these points placed before the Union Government the third point (Special Category State) merits serious thinking by Nagas in general and the State Assembly in particular. Till the eighties the State was known to enjoy special status in the form of special fund. The question that every Naga need to ask now is; “What special status do the State enjoy as envisaged in Article 371 (A)”? The only special status the State enjoys today is that Nagaland State was the only State in India that was created by a political agreement.
Rightly, the State Assembly in the recent past had resolved to thoroughly delve into the contents of the 16-point agreement to know the status of the State in present dispensation for which a Committee was set up. The public are yet to know the progress on the report of this committee.
Nagaland State was created out of a political agreement between the Government of India and Naga People’s Council (N.P.C) in the year 1960. It was carved out as a special category State with provision for special fiscal budget. The agreement on this special category was agreed upon, without a time-frame. Ironically, for reasons best known to GOI, this special budget provision in the form of annual lump sum grant was withdrawn by the Centre in the early nineties despite the fact that the State still limps economically. It was a unilateral decision without the consent of the Naga people and the State Assembly.
The 16-point agreement was a political agreement signed between the two contending parties to end political turmoil. The two parties have responsibility to honour the agreement in letter and spirit. Therefore, by unilaterally withdrawing the special budget provision and by imposing Delimitation Act on Nagas has not the GOI violated the principle of the political agreement? It goes to imply that Nagaland State henceforth, has been stripped off special category status and absorbed as any other State in the Union of States.
The special category status granted out of the 16-point agreement, an interim political settlement to the Naga political struggle for freedom is uniquely applicable in the delimitation process in the sense that the agreement encompasses beyond the special economic status. Point fifteen of 16-point agreement is very clear that the agreement was more political than economic in nature.
The initial adjustment/re-adjustment of Assembly constituency seats in Nagaland State was done taking into consideration the tribal composition, geographical and topographical range and socio-cultural affinity. It was suggested, prepared and proposed by the Nagas themselves as per the social practice and customary procedure of the Nagas. Point seven, Clauses (a) & (b) of 16-point agreement strongly supports this contention.
Justifiably, in trying to use Article 371 (A) as a strong case in point it may not be out of place to suggest that Assembly resolution on the floor of the house to restore the special status in letter and spirit would be worth an exercise. In the event of unfarvourable outcome the Nagas are clearly left with a choice of whether to continue in the Indian Union of States or abrogate the 16-point agreement in toto and go back to pre-State status. However, that doesn’t go beyond theoretical proposition as we know that, for reasons best known to them such resolution would have few takers among the legislators.
The delimitation issue also gives Nagas a time to ponder seriously on the issue of tribalism. It is more than clear that no tribe is ready to be an appendage in the constituency of another tribe in this seat re-adjustment exercise. The smaller tribes wish to be re-adjusted with distinct tribal composition. While looking for the causes of tribalism one finds that unequal representation whether in assembly constituencies, employment or development funds largely contribute to the feelings of ‘ism’. Strengthening the tribal federalism on the basis of equality in status and share by scraping backward quota system rather than trying to do away with tribalism in itself may be something worth giving serious thinking.
In the power politics where many powerful people are pre-occupied in the politics of corruption delimitation uproar seems to have taken some people off-guard. The spate of public uproar is the proof that the people were not taken into confidence. It reveals that what was claimed to be minor seat re-adjustment within the districts is by no means minor but major exercise aimed at giving electoral safe-passage to vested interest. Far from political ramification that may cost many leaders dearly in electoral debacle what is more damning is that, the issue in all likelihood is going to have far-reaching socio-cultural effect on Nagas that is going to cost the general public more dearly. The seed of mistrust and suspicion has been already sown in the minds of the people. Needless to say, it should give enough caution to people responsible for the uproar to admit that the only option at their disposal is to abandon selfish politics and go by the aspiration of the people.
