Nillo Rengma
Former Minister
On the issue of Delimitation in Nagaland, I fully support and endorse the statement of the Lotha Hoho which was published in the local papers. The Delimitation Act of 2002 which was amended in 2003 should be implemented in Nagaland in letter and spirit for fair and proportionate distribution of Parliamentary and Assembly seats. Delimitation in Nagaland is long overdue since no exercise has been carried out in the state since 1973.
I am also highlighting the role played by our past leaders so that history is not repeated.
In 2002, the Delimitation Act was passed by the Parliament to carry out delimitation on the basis of the 1991 Census and accordingly the Delimitation Commission had circulated their draft working paper, but subsequently the Act was amended and the commission accepted 2001 Census as the base. In pursuance of the Act, the Government of Nagaland nominated the State Election Commissioner and the Commissioner of Nagaland as members of the Delimitation Commission. Besides the Lok Sabha MP from Nagaland, five MLAs were also nominated by the Speaker of the NLA as Associate Members of the Commission in 2003. Unfortunately, our esteemed members started working to postpone or defer or to keep Nagaland out of the delimitation purview without any valid reasons or justification.
On 4th Sept 2003, the Associate Members submitted a memorandum to the Union Minister, Law & Justice, praying that “The Delimitation Act of 2002 be suitability amended to exclude Nagaland State from its provision.”
The Associate Members cited numerous fallacious arguments to exclude the state of Nagaland from the purview of the 2002 act.
The Associate Members stated that “The special status of Nagaland was recognized and duly protected by inserting Article 371A in the constitution of India, which gave Nagaland greater degree of autonomy…” Thus, the learned Associate Members sought to exclude Nagaland knowing fully-well that this ‘autonomy’ does not cover election laws. The learned Associate Members also failed to respect the fact that (whatever the issue may be) the application of this special provision cannot be selective. Article 371 A is an entitlement for all the tribes and peoples of Nagaland – and not a privilege reserved for only a section of the society, and to misuse this provision to deny or deprive fellow Naga tribes of their entitlements was deceitful and it brought much bad blood in the Naga family.
The 4th Sept 2003 memorandum also stated that “Although equality of constituencies in terms of population is conceptually desirable, yet it has been found to be not feasible in a country like India where regional and linguistic diversity have to be given special consideration and accommodation in the larger interest of national unity and integrity.” This argument also does not hold water because if equality of Assembly Constituencies in terms of population is not feasible, then, why in 1962 were the Assembly seats in the state delimitated on the basis of the 1961 census population? Later on, in 1973, why did the Delimitation Commission made re-adjustments of Assembly seats on the basis of the 1971 Census population?
The Associate Members also stated that “In view of the delicate law and order situation and the ongoing peace talks, we feel that such sensitive issue as the delimitation of the constituencies may not be undertaken in the present atmosphere.” Even now, 17 years later, the same non-argument is being sounded again in public domain.
The Government of Nagaland and the Associate Members tried various means to exclude Nagaland from the delimitation process. They used numerous parameters such as cease-fire, peace process, law and order, Article 371(A), population, 2001 census, feared tribal conflagration, regional and linguistic diversity, customary practices and usages of different tribes, J&K, shift of seats to urban areas, etc., and other excuses or delay tactics to scuttle the delimitation process in the state.
One Nation One Law
There is no separate election law for Nagaland and therefore, whether we like it or not, this time round the central government has determined that delimitation will be implemented in the state – like elsewhere in India. Therefore, it is important that all the tribes and stakeholders keep their differences aside and work together for the sake of unity and harmony.
The Naga tribes have to insist that the Delimitation Commission should workout the seat-distribution based solely on TRIBAL population, Nagaland being a tribal state formed out of political exigency as per our unique historical circumstance.
In the 2001 census, Nagaland population was 19, 90, 036 out which the ST population was 17, 74, 026, SC nil, and the non-tribal population being 2, 16, 010. The average population per Assembly Constituency based on general census is 33,167. However, based on ST population, the average population per Assembly constituency is 29,567.
The Joint Action Committee of Tribal Hohos on Delimitation in its memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission, New Delhi, dated 29th March 2007, stated that since the appeal of Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya to implement delimitation in their states based on 2001 tribal population has been accepted by the Delimitation Commission of India, there is no reason why the same should not be implemented in the state of Nagaland.
Therefore, what holds true then holds true even now and we have to insist that the Commission carry out this constitutional process based on tribal population.
Whereas the Government of Nagaland and the Associate Members of the Commission successfully served their own interests during the last delimitation process, this should not be repeated in 2020. In 2003, none of the MLAs from the deserving districts/areas like Wokha, Peren, Tseminyu, etc., were nominated as Associate Members of the Commission. This was not surprising since the Joint Action Committee of Tribal Hoho on Delimitation was supporting the implementation of delimitation and perhaps given the manner in which the then Associate Members were not true to themselves, MLAs from these areas were conveniently not made Associate Members. Hopefully, this time there is a/will be fair representation of Associate Members in the Commission.
I, on behalf of the Rengma people, sincerely appeal to all the commission members from the state including the Associate Members to carry out their tasks justly so that the rights of the aggrieved districts/sub-divisions are not denied once again. May the Good Lord give wisdom to all the members of the Delimitation Commission.
