Nagaland was created as the 16th State of India in 1963 through the 16-point agreement signed between the Govt. of India (GoI) and the Naga Peoples’ Convention (NPC). There’s no denying the fact that the creation of Nagaland State was political in nature. The Nagas had refused to join the Union of India and had declared its independence on 14th August 1947. Therefore, the demand for statehood could not have come at better opportune time. The GoI seized the opportunity. The draft 16-point agreement of NPC was accepted without much resistance.
Taking into account its economic handicaps, Nagaland was created as a Special Category State with 100% central funding. The creation of Nagaland was with a political vision but it appears that the GoI and Nagas have divergent views on the vision. While the Nagas had the false dream of enjoying the fruits of special funding forever, the allegation that GoI’s vision was to secure its far northeast border by promising anything under the sky is proving to be right.
The systematic undoing of provisions promised in Article 371A can be seen from the following instances. The decisions; more executive than political seems a systematic ploy to absorb and submerged the State into the general stream.
1. At the time of its creation Nagaland State was placed under the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) but in 1972 it was arbitrarily moved to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
2. The cent percent funding pattern was withdrawn in 1988-89 financial year.
3. In as recent as June 2013, the MHA had spurned the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules 2012 which was framed and passed by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) within the provision of Article 371(A).
In the first instance, Nagaland State under the MEA was an embarrassment to the GoI. It was a vindication of Nagas claim for separate sovereignty. The State Govt. as the agent of the Central Govt. was helpless to resist. The Naga national government thought it had nothing to do with Indian State. So, it went off without protest.
In the second instance, notwithstanding our protest, the Govt. of India took it as its prerogative either to continue or withdraw it in which the later prevailed.
In regard to the third instance, the MHA had stated that power to make law in respect of subjects covered under List 1 (Union list) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution including Energy 53 rests with the Parliament and not with the State legislatures.
In regard to Special provisions with respect to the State of Nagaland, Article 371A (1) (a) (iv) stated that, “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides;” This law was more or less a veto power given to the NLA.
The contents in the Constitution as reproduced above implied that the interpretation of the clauses can be in two ways; “before” or “after” the 13th Constitution Amendment that created the State of Nagaland and incorporated as Article 371A.
The contention of MHA implied that List 1 of 7th Schedule was supreme because it became law before the creation of Nagaland State. It also implied that NLA has no power to reject any law that was already in force before the 13th Constitution Amendment. If that is so, the special provision as promised under Article 371A has no locus standi. It also meant that Nagas are not the real owners of their lands.
Conversely, in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources per se, it is logical for Article 371A to have an over-riding power on List 1 of 7th Schedule. Therefore, the right step for NLA should have been to ‘first’ reject the Central Petroleum and Natural Gas Laws by an assembly resolution which would have justified that the question of seeking opinion or approval from the MHA for exploration did not arise. Article 371A merely recognized the inherent Naga customary law on ownership and transfer of land and its resources. Even after becoming part of India, ownership and the right for transfer of land and its resources remained with the Nagas and not with the GoI.
It appears that the contents of Article 371A as reproduced above were arbitrarily interpreted by the MHA as “hereinafter or henceforth” effect. It was interpreted to mean that henceforth, only those laws passed by Parliament (after the inclusion of Article 371A) were subject to scrutiny by NLA. If that is so, Nagaland will continue to face the same problem when it comes to any law preceding the inclusion of Article 371A in the Constitution of India.
The MHA’s spurn of NLA resolution on Petroleum and Natural Gas rules 2012 is a threat to Article 371A that can have long-term ramifications. The supremacy and sanctity of Article 371A was challenged. Any dilution or diversion of the principle of agreement is a violation of gentlemen agreement. MHA’s move can be termed an infringement on Article 371A.
Nagaland State was created by a political visionary Late Shri. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. The State was created in a situation when even the meager subsistence economy was destroyed by Indo-Naga war. By creating the State, the GoI had directly or indirectly pledged to take the responsibility of rebuilding it. Granting special status to the State was one in that direction. The political vision of creating the sixteenth State under extraordinary circumstances has been slowly but systematically sabotaged by executive decisions.
Article 371A without its special category status will lose its sheen. Such lackluster status has the potential to trigger Nagas to unite, look back to pre-statehood status and re-activate sovereignty issue knowing that sovereignty is but defending the land and its people.
Dr. K. Hoshi
dr.k.hoshi@gmail.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Readers may please note that the contents of the articles, letters and opinions published do not reflect the outlook of this paper nor of the Editor in any form.
