The Nagaland government, in an acute ‘Johnny-come-lately’ syndrome, has called for a consultative meeting on July 17 to discuss RIIN, after concerns were raised from various quarters regarding the exercise.
This is second such overtures since the first announcement by the Nagaland Government to set up the Register of Indigenous Inhabitants Certificates of Nagaland (RIIN), with an “objective to prevent issuance of fake indigenous inhabitant certificates.”
This is paradoxical, as RIIN, immediately christened the state’s own version of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) by national media, as per June 29 notification, is suppose to be at implementation stage.
“The list will be prepared in a period of 60 days with effect from July 10, 2019 by designating teams for each village and ward,” it notified.
However, impetuosity is not the only hurdle for the government would face in compiling the master list of ‘all indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland.’
Without dwelling into the merit or otherwise of the exercise, two underlying issues can be discussed here.
At the outset, an exercise of such magnitude requires, not just an arbitrary notification with a rushed timeframe, but preliminary and wide-ranging consultations with all stakeholders.
However, it neglected and rediscovered, albeit belatedly in hindsight, the first principle of procedure before undertaking any policy changes – public consultation, one of the most important tools of the policy-making process.
To garner views and preferences; understand possible unintended consequences; or to get views on implementation, are some of the functional benefits listed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s ‘reasons to consult.’
A cabinet consultation policy guidance of the United Kingdom also stated that, “Public consultation is not simply about more open government. It is about making policies more strategic and effective by listening and taking onboard the views of the public and interested groups.”
Most importantly, it includes another crucial advice: “Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view.”
If one goes by the June 29 notification, the above guidance or consultation was never in consideration. The Deputy Commissioner has “been directed to ensure that all teams are constituted by name within 7 days of publication of this notification,” it ‘decisively’ informed.
Nonetheless, the subsequent notification on July 11 was more accommodative or rather apologetic, observing that “views, opinions and concerns expressed by various sections” are ‘welcome development’ and ‘such type of approach is the basis of any democratic society.’
“The guidelines for implementation of the policies are still at an early stage of formulation and will be finalised after extensive consultations are carried out.”
The irony of the Government’s sudden discovery of the route of consultation was lost to none, as the policy was supposed to be “in full swing.”
The second concerns the cost and timeframe of the exercise. Take the case of National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam for instance. The updating of NRC commenced in “December 2013 to be completed over a period of three years” in pursuance of the Supreme Court's direction. The SC also is “continuously monitoring the progress of NRC update and has given various directions from time to time” according to a Ministry of Home statement. The process is yet to be completed.
Likewise, the NRC was revised at a cost of Rs. 1220.93 crore upto December 31, 2018 in April last year. For the RIIN exercise, it is unclear how much it would cost, but the burden to State’s exchequer would be huge.
What compulsion necessitated such hurried decision in a state known for prolonged ‘consultative’ process in every other issue? Is it a case of a bull in China shop? An emotive hasty policy measure only to be regretted at leisure? If it is of ascertaining indigeneity, what prevents the government from streamlining or augmenting existing rules or polices instead of adding complication? Several queries remain.
Given the enormity and other implications of the current exercise, it requires not just a consultation but a thorough re-examination.
