Aheli Moitra
The thick line between giving rights and denying them cannot be Article 371 (a).
“If any development has to happen in this state, the article will have to be revoked,” retorted a state government employee. That is funny, mostly because it is suicidal. If the Article is revoked, then the 16 point agreement does not make sense. If the Agreement is now in disagreement, there is no reason the government of Nagaland or its bureaucrats must continue to exist. In a way strange enough, though not entirely unexpected, the raison d’être of the Nagaland government has become its stumbling block.
Top actors from the ruling government for the past few years have insisted on this. Water pipes and electric lines cannot be stretched because people cannot be negotiated with. Minerals and oil cannot be explored because people have too many rights over them. Roads can be made only when land can be had from communities or individual owners—roadblock. Towns cannot be planned because, to quote Shürhozelie Liezietsu, “Availability of sufficient land in our urban areas is crucial to achieving properly planned towns and cities. But this has become a major bottleneck in the planning process.” So, even sewage lines cannot be planned and rights cannot be channeled.
Communitisation, on the other hand, has brought so much confusion that people don’t know who to blame in the bargain, themselves or the government. Since nothing about the contextualization of governance to fit the Nagas has ever been taught, people of Nagaland obviously feel like the government will deliver on goods and services. When that does not happen, it adds to the sense of abandonment and insecurity that crops from the tentative nature of the state government itself. After all, it was a result of an agreement that many will disagree with.
People with commendable political skills in Nagaland stilt walk the provisions of Article 371 (a). Last few years have been spent on facile arguments invoking Article 371 (a) to prevent rights from being shared equitably. All this, while the government has not a clue of how to talk to “their own” people to ensure rights parallel to development. While the world around launches movements to bring the direct right to land and resources to their people and break shackles of exploitative governments, the government here, faced with the provision of it, flounders.
The fault is not entirely theirs. Democracy and central funds come pouring in and drown who they can. Senior bureaucrats now agree that ‘perhaps’ this sort of democracy and governance is not suited to the Naga context. After all these years, politicians clever enough to open up new blocks for oil exploration by claiming a right through 371 (a), should also be in a position to question the source of their comfort. Instead, they do this when faced with discomfort when people disallow the passing of a pipe through their land. This elitist position is a creation of everything since the 16 point agreement. If 371 (a) is used as a premise to deny or claim rights as desired by the elite, it is indeed time to disagree and revoke.
