Over the past few days, the citizens of Nagaland have been treated to an unfolding spectacle, seldom seen in the state. A rare ‘collision course’ between the Governor and the State Government headed by the Chief Minister – a repartee between the ‘nominal’ and ‘real’ executive of the state.
Politics and contextualisation took care of the rest, to make it one of the most topical issues in recent times, amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
To recall, the offshoot was the missive from the Governor to the Chief Minister date June 16, wherein the former expressed apprehension that the law and order scenario of the State has ‘collapsed’ creating a “crisis of confidence in the system.” The supposedly confidential letter, which appeared in public on June 25, highlighted various instances, to augment the assessment. It was further informed communication with the concerned authorities at the political and bureaucratic levels “have gone unheeded” and the scenario in the State was “grim.”
Invoking Constitutional obligation for law and order [under Art 371 (A) (1) (b)], consequently, the Governor proposed that “important law and order decisions like transfer and posting of officials entrusted with the maintenance of law and order responsibilities of and above the District level will be after the approval of the Governor.”
“We are not surprised,” was a cryptic reply from the Chief Minister, when queried about the letter, four days after on June 29 indicating that a rejoinder was in the offing.
On July 2, the State Government responded with a press statement via the Department of Information and Public Relation, countering Governor’s assessment and stated that it “does not appear to be factual.” The State’s law and order “machinery is fully aware of its responsibilities to maintain law and order,” it asserted.
While narrating, the circumstances leading on the formation of the State and the Indo-Naga political imbroglio and the ‘reported conclusion’ of the Naga Peace Talks, Nagaland’s adjudgement as the ‘best performing small State in Law and Order’ by a national magazine for two years in a row was cited as a point to drive home the point that the State “continues to be peaceful.” Among others, reduction in deaths involving inter-group clashes, attacks on security forces and civilians and NCRB’s data depicting the decrease in incidents of crimes were also quoted as a reflection of the “improved law and order situation.”
On the question of taking the Governor’s approval for transfers and postings, the State Government said that this was “done away with after a Resolution adopted by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly on 17th December 2013” and any “contravention” the Resolution “would be against the principles of democracy and would be viewed as anti-people…”
As expected, the opposition parties – particularly the Naga People’s Front Legislature Party (NPF-LP) and Nagaland Congress Committee (NPCC) –concurred with the Governor’s assessment while disagreeing with the State’s Government’s reply. The NPF-LP said that State Government’s response to Governor “holds no water,” while NPCC considered the reply “an insult to the public.” Perhaps, both were banking ‘possible, but improbable,’ execution of Governor’s ‘discretionary powers.’
Ironically as the executive head of the State, the Governor is considered part of the State Legislature and the administration of the State executed under the office and both are equally responsible for the state of affairs. The Governor and the State Government, from vantage their points, have stated their case ‘convincingly,’ and both should move ahead to correct any discrepancies in a coordinated manner. In the intervening hullabaloo, it is pertinent to state that the Naga political issue should not be put in the backburner or designated as a ‘law and order’ problem. With the crucial role of the Governor as the Interlocutor to the Naga Peace Talks, a discordant standoff between those at the helms of affairs would not augur well for the future.
