Ekyimo Shitirie
Kohima
Temperature soars as feelings run high in this summer of discontent over implementation of delimitation in the state. The battle lines are drawn and there are no fence sitters to take the heat out of the conflict. Those who are for its implementation, the aggrieved party, are driven by an overwhelming sense of loss for close to fifty years and are determined to reclaim lost ground (or Assembly seats). Those that are against it, the advantaged, on the other hand, go into overdrive in fighting back the process with fire and brimstone. Both the parties are uncompromising and tenacious in holding on to their positions. At stake are peace, unity and justice, fragile and vulnerable in this epic clash.
The aggrieved parties hold that they have been short-changed in the last delimitation of 1972, implemented in 1975, when Assembly seats were distributed disproportionately to their disadvantage. They have in their possession historical data and information about the events leading to the distribution of Assembly seats. Over the years, naturally, demographic changes, too, have taken place. As delimitation 2002 was not implemented, the spread of the Assembly seats in the state is now all the more uneven. The aggrieved think that the advantaged are piling on the agony by overlooking the injustice of the actions and events that transpired during the delimitation of 1972.
The advantaged, on the other hand, stick to their guns that delimitation cannot be implemented because the census of 2001 on which it is to be based is flawed. Still another stand is that there should be no talk about delimitation when the Indo-Naga talks are now in their final stages of arriving at a solution. Even though the two arguments don’t seem to hang very happily together, nevertheless, each argument on its own merit deserves attention.
It is also understandable how hard it will be for the advantaged to give up the extra Assembly seats, which they have been enjoying as added bonuses. The extra seats have been theirs for a long time and conceding them will be like giving away a part of themselves. The feeling is mutual and requires tact and diplomacy to come to some understanding.
Against this backdrop, the Cabinet, it has been learnt, has decided to ask the Centre to withhold implementation of the delimitation. The state BJP unit has also conveyed its opinion on withholding it to their National General Secretary. The ball is now in the court of the Centre, the final arbiter.
Pending action by the Delimitation Commission or the Centre, two possible solutions may be brought forward. First, the stand that delimitation cannot be implemented in the state because the 2001 census is faulty should be given a fair hearing. This argument implies that delimitation can be implemented if it is based on some error-free census other than that of 2001. Making allowance for the question on veracity of the claim that 2001 census is inaccurate, Census 2011 comes to mind immediately. If the conflicting parties explore the possibilities of implementing the delimitation basing on the 2011 census, there just might be a way out. Political imperatives, we assume, should override the constitutionality and legalities that come in the way.
Second, the call for Indo-Naga solution before delimitation must receive its due appreciation. The issue, indeed, is a part of the Naga DNA. It is the desire of every Naga that a solution should arrive soon and a new chapter of history, governance and development emerge. If the much-awaited solution comes sooner than delimitation is needed, the question of delimitation will be rendered irrelevant. Against the background of present law and order (or political) situation such as unabated extortions (or taxes), solution to the Naga issue is all the more pressing. It will also resolve the present conflict.
The question unasked until now is will the next Assembly elections be held if solution is delayed and the months tick away and creep up on the year 2023? Will it be the anti-delimitation parties who will be having the last laugh? If elections are held before solution or without having implemented the delimitation, the call for solution will amount to betrayal.
History begs the question as to why delimitation was forced back in 2008 in the name of the peace process and in the same breath Assembly election was held without so much as a puny protest. This represents a volte-face in viewing one constitutional process from another. Shouldn’t both the constitutional process have the same bearing on the solution? Two more Assembly elections have been held since then without any clamour or reservation for the peace process. It will now take some raw effort to trust unreservedly that history will not come full circle.
The show of concern that delimitation would fracture the delicate fabric of Naga society and divide the Naga people on tribal lines is unpersuasive to the aggrieved parties. They think the intention is suspect. It is more like sophistry and artful manoeuvring to halt the delimitation exercise for their continued benefit. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, when the state was at its teething stage, being cunning was perhaps the smartest thing to be. There are unmistakable traces of that legacy that have survived the test of time and have become a permanent part of Naga culture and governance, so they think. Nagas are already divided by the earlier unjust divisions of the Assembly constituencies; that present peace is superficial. Beneath the calm surface, there is an undercurrent of discontent, suspicion and lack of trust among the people. A call for unity in the absence of truth and justice is appalling. So we take this axiom and run it into the ground for the nth time: there can be no peace or unity without justice.
There must be some meeting point if the contending parties come together, exhibit unquestionable sincerity and maturity and relax their hold on their respective stands, and be willing to concede some of their treasured points. The epic question will be “Should there be elections before delimitation or solution?” The answer to this question will resolve the conflict, or prove to be the deal breaker.
