While the need to ensure fair representation to all sections of the people demands for periodic review of population census and subsequent exercise at delimitation of political constituencies, the latest move of the Centre to implement Delimitation in most States across India while deferring the new exercise in four North-Eastern states and Jharkhand has to be accepted as a fair call given the sensitivity over the issue as also the peculiar nature of problems being faced in these States. However, the Government of India has yet to state in clear terms the reasons for deferment of Delimitation—the only official statement coming from the Union I&B Minister PR Dasmunsi who is reported to have said that delimitation could not be carried out in the N-E states due to “prevailing situation”. Although the Centre’s stand is unclear, the amendment to exempt the aforementioned States would mean that elections in five states would be held as per the existing constituencies carved out on the basis of 1971 census. Although there have been reports that Delimitation in the four N-E States—Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Manipur—has been delayed due to a case in the Gauhati High Court challenging the legality of the 2001 census, for a State like Nagaland, the issue goes much beyond this legal argument.
From the point of view of Nagaland, it has to be understood that the position of the Nagas under the constitution is that of a special administrative arrangement being conferred through Article 371 (A) and therefore there is as much justification to accept or oppose whatever social, economic or political ‘measures’ in the offing from New Delhi so as to ensure that this special safeguard is preserved. Significantly, in recent years, the Government of India has acknowledged the unique history of the Nagas and there is every reason to suggest that the political process currently underway whether it is the peace talks or unification drive is more important than Delimitation and prior attention therefore must be attached to resolving the political issue between India and the Nagas. On the current issue of delimitation, politicians or tribe hohos cannot be seen to be divided when the peace talks and unity process is on. If tribes start quarrelling among themselves, this will sideline the more important concern and therefore maintaining the status quo makes sense because the main objective now should be restoration of complete peace through an honourable political settlement and this is more important than delimitation.
But if at all the Centre takes up any future exercise at Delimitation, justice must be done to the districts deserving of additional seats. But whether this will be possible without affecting existing seats which stood to lose their allotted seats? A formulation may have to be worked out that center on increasing political representation to the Nagaland Legislature Assembly. It may be added in this regard former Chief Minister, Neiphiu Rio in his statement on Delimitation on the floor of the 10th Nagaland Legislative Assembly had suggested a similar arrangement, wherein considering the special position of Nagaland under the Constitution, Delimitation should not be implemented in the state until the number of seats in the Assembly was increased from 60 to 80. Any future political exercise at delimitation especially for N-E States and Nagaland may well require greater ingenuity that goes beyond the conventional—an out of the box thinking.
