Moa Jamir
Expectedly, the Nagaland Government’s notification for the nomination of members to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and constitution of an Advisory Council as a “stop-gap” arrangement has been opposed from various quarters. The nomination, as envisaged would be in the ratio of 70:30 for males and females respectively, effectively affirming the mandate of 33% reservation for women in ULBs to some extent.
Going by cropping up of opposition against the move each alternate day after the notification on November 18, it appears that the issue might run into a collision course once again. Broadly, the opposition explicitly is not against reservation per se; some demanded “rectification/amendments with regard to Lands and Building Tax of the Nagaland Municipal Act” and possible infringement Article 371 (A) of the Indian Constitution, while others called for both the review of the act and notification of reports of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and the Cabinet Sub-Committee in the public domain. On what basis the Act needs to be rectified, the concerned organisations unequivocally have not articulated so far.
Meanwhile, among the political parties, the Rising Peoples’ Party (RPP) was first to flag the move, terming the decision on the advisory system as not only “unconstitutional and undemocratic but it also reeks of cowardice and surrendering” in October. The Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (NPCC) later called it “complete violation of the Municipal Act and inconsistent with the basic structures that have been laid down” and questioned, “in what manner the State Government is overriding the court when the matter is subjudice.” The National People’s Party (NPP) said that the State Government’s ‘arbitrary decision,’ the NPP “without consultation with the stakeholders will create more discrepancies and dissatisfaction from all corners in the coming future.”
It was further informed that the State Government, once again, has formed a committee to review the Municipality Act and the reservation policy and the current advisory council was an interim measure. Without going into details of the contentious issue, including the unfortunate incident in early 2017, which resulted in the State Government declaring the decision on election programme for the ULBs, notified on December 21, 2016 as ‘null and void,” it would be pertinent to analyse the motive of the State Governments behind the latest announcement as well as the clear stance of those in opposition.
Looking from the point of the women reservation, crucial distinctions need to be made regarding the current move by the State Government and the subsequent reaction. Firstly, it is pertinent to ask whether the Government’s primary motive behind the move to constitute the interim council was financial, rather than a genuine concern for women’s empowerment. Going by how the issue was put in a backburner between now and then (2017) but rushed in recent times, and how those at the helms of affairs are arguing on the issue, the motive is indicative of ‘want of fund,’ rather than ‘want of empowerment.’
Likewise, the concerned organisations or entities should be able to answer whether their opposition to Act, is concerning “Levy of taxes and fees by Municipalities” or opposition to women’s reservation in toto. Most importantly, they should explain how an Act passed by the State Assembly infringes upon the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Article 371 (A) of the Indian Constitution, if they are opposed to women reservation as a matter of principle. Concurrently, it would be pertinent know whether they other alternatives to offer or has had undertaken any measure to engender confidence that women can take part in the decision making ‘organically’ without any legislative intervention.
As such, both sides should clearly articulate their distinctive positions; instead of resorting to ambiguous measures or adopting generalised rhetoric. The much-needed participation of women in the formal decision-making process, hijacked time and again, for various reasons, cannot be the victim of proxy concerns.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
