Robert A Silverstein
An article dated March 29, 2017, appears in The Morung Express and Nagaland Post, and the same article appears in the Eastern Mirror, dated March 30, 2017. It is written by N. Haisoyi Ndang and is titled, “Naga Common Customary Laws Vis-A-Vis Uniform Civil Code.”
That it appears in three of the Nagaland state newspapers made me feel that it was worth concentrating on, as three editorial councils found that it was significant enough to be published. At first, what it had to say struck me as not controversial. The author rightly points out that the urge of some Nagas to reform, and make uniform, the customary law of the different tribes of the Nagas was similar to the Indian goal, now set aside, of having a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout India. It was set aside because, as the author put it, it “was ardently opposed by Muslims, Christians,” and others. He quotes The Times of India, dated October 13, 2016, as saying that “'A uniform Civil Code is not good for the nation.'”
The author agrees with The Times of India, and feels that an attempt at trying to make the customary law of the Nagas uniform would be just as bad for the Nagas. The author points out that “the Naga tribal culture, custom and tradition where each Naga tribe has its own set of unique custom that may not be relevant to other Naga tribes. No wonder,” he emphasizes, “the ancient Nagas lived in a sovereign status of nation, undiluted from any external influence or force.”
In response to an article published on March 28th in the Nagaland Post (and also, I may add, in The Morung Express a day earlier), titled “Customary law – review needed?,” the author states, “I have certain inherent rights in my own custom and practice which cannot be dispensed by the Ao or Lotha or Angamis....”
He goes on to argue that, if the customary law were ever made uniform among the Naga tribes, if drawn “haphazardly,” would “push me to the wall surely there would be counter reaction for the worse.” He ends his article by saying, “...that no sensible tribe would ever surrender their rights for others' pleasure for the asking.”
Thus, the author agrees with The Times of India, but in this case not about a UCC for India but about a uniform set of customary laws for the separate Naga tribes, that it would not be good for the state of Nagaland.
I disagree with both The Times of India and with the author of the article I am responding to here. The fact that the government of India had to shelve the idea of a UCC is NOT “good for the nation.” And the view of the author, if his attitude is typical of most Nagas, is NOT good for Nagaland, and is the reason that they not only should not be a sovereign nation, but they shouldn't even be a state. What they should be is what they were long ago: a group of separate tribes, each, as the author put it, as “a sovereign … nation.”
The reason that no UCC is not good for India is similar to the reason that no uniform customary law is not good for the state of Nagaland. So I will first address India and the UCC.
India was founded as a secular state, and as I said in a recent article in The Morung Express (in response to the same article the author of this article cites above), and there are certain “Fundamenal Rights” laid out in the Indian Constitution (hereinafter the IC).
They are laid out in articles 14 through article 35. They include, among other things, the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (art. 14) and the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (art. 15).
The reason that the shelving of the UCC by the government of India (GoI) is not good for the nation is because certain groups, such as Muslim men, in fact do discriminate against Muslim women and do not treat them equally, and the fact that the GoI shelved the UCC was a sign of weakness, not strength, of the GoI.
Similarly, the shelving of a possible plan for a uniform set of customary laws for the tribes of Nagaland would be a weakness in the government of Nagaland.
One need no further proof than the recent bandh and accompanying violence, death, and destruction of property over the women's reservation issue in Nagaland.
Despite all the tribal denials of intent to discriminate against women, the purpose of the bandh was clear, and was successful: it stopped the election of women to ULBs.
Were there a uniform customary code, Naga men would have to face directly the discrimination to women.
By framing the argument as a tribal-control issue, it buries the issue among all the other issues that would have to be addressed.
It should be clear that the issue of Fundamental Rights is affecting the Naga fight for a sovereign Naga nation. After all, the weakness of the GoI in relation to the Muslim community and other communities (including the Nagas, with allowing discrimination within the general terms of 371A of the IC) makes it all the more difficult for the GoI, in its weakened position, to consider allowing any part of India its independence.
With religious groups, ethnic groups, geographic groups, and more, threatening violence if the GoI acts on the fundamental rights of its own constitution, it is not surprising that the nation is insecure and afraid to enforce the rule of law, that is, the “Fundamental Rights,” of its own Constitution, and reluctant to consider independence to any part of India.
So, you see, readers, that the declaration of independence declared by the author of this article in favor of “certain inherent rights” of the individual tribes only weakens the state government, as similar problems weaken the GoI.
By insisting on no uniform customary laws, by attempting to preserve the status quo of every tribe, even when the status quo includes discrimination against women and possible other violations of the IC's “Fundamental Rights,” just makes clear not only that the Indian union is weak, but that the state of Nagaland is weak.
Perhaps it would be better if the separate Naga tribes went back to what they were before discovering their Naga “nationalism,” as the view of the author illustrates that there really is no Naga nation if no Naga is willing to give up his or her specific rights to maintain the status quo of their individual tribes in order to, as the Preamble of the United States Constitution states, “form a more perfect union.”
The Nagas don't deserve a sovereign nation or a state, as long as they fight for the preservation of their specific tribal rights, no matter what the consequences to other tribes or other individual Nagas.
