Jonas Yanthan
Nagaland is a land of great possibilities: be it development, resources, vibrancy of its populace and above all in the exercise of the benefits guaranteed in the constitution of India. Nagaland, as we all know, is not born out of population but purely on political reasons and therefore the pioneers of the statehood gave due importance to factors like tribes, topography, backwardness and other such considerations while creating the districts and effecting equitable share of seats to its constituent blocks right from the Interim Body arrangement with the sole aim for equal opportunities of development and benefits of funds in the state.
The three broad blocks created for administrative efficiency and for proper representation of the tribes are: A) Kohima block; B) Mokokchung block; and C) Tuensang block. Accordingly, these blocks were given 20 seats each in the total house of 60 Assembly constituencies. However, Tuensang Block reached their share of 20 only in 1974 when 8 seat more was allotted to its twelve seats of 1969. However, due to insincere distribution approach within the blocks, it led to sharp disparity among the districts, as we see it today. With the Delimitation exercise knocking at our door, this is an opportunity to correct the anomaly. We need to act fast and with an imperative sense of justice so that equitable distribution of seats may be effected among all the tribes in letter and spirit.
Below is a graph of the block formula, which is very much within the constitutional purview as enjoyed by the state of Nagaland for serious deliberation by all the tribes to arrive at a majority decision for common good and commonly suggest to the Delimitation Commission of India for implementation in right earnest instead of clinging on to lame reasons like citing Jammu & Kashmir, 2001 Census, peace process or the Article 371(A) of the constitution which we find does not impress much on the centre for agreeable response as we have seen in the just recently effected downsizing of ministry in the state-to name one instance. Further more, requesting for exemption from a parliamentary Act is nothing but poverty of ideas rather, we should be devising the fairest exercise for the highest common good and forwarding it to the centre for positive implementation as this is also in the interest of the centre.
The Block method is based on the true spirit of creation of the state for equilibrium representation of all the tribes.
Analyzing the districts block wise, Dimapur, under Kohima block is a ‘city district’ with hardly 927 sq. kms with an even topography largely occupied by rich Nagas while its huge population is mainly floating migrants that we all unanimously agree and also spelt out by Congress and DAN associate members to the Commission of India. Hence, allotment of seats to it can be rationalized accordingly. Phek, the single largest district in size and host to Pochury tribe, has suffered loss of a seat thirty years ago for nothing and that too by losing it to Dimapur in 1972 delimitation when its population stood at 44,594 while Dimapur was only a mere 28,884 (1971 census). Therefore, it cannot afford to lose further but addition. Kohima, being the capital district must be represented well for speedy development for the reasons that it is not only our mirror but also host to all tribes besides the fairly large Rengma tribe. Peren is getting its due share any how.
Under Mokokchung block, though Mokokchung district has numerous bureaucrats and leaders from there, many of its villagers are not better off from other tribes and hence cannot afford to lose three all on a sudden. With application of the block wise formula, the loss can be curtailed to two. Zunheboto district had the second highest seats next to Mokokchung under this block with seven including Pughoboto however recoup of one from the impending loss of two seats will be enlivening. Of the three districts the least privileged and underdeveloped is Wokha with 5 seats for two elections and only 4 seats for the last thirty years which was lost to Dimapur along with Phek despite having 38,297 a difference of 9413 population more than Dimapur. Besides, Wokha has the potential of oil, agricultural and horticultural production for revenue to the state including the most successful hydro project in the state and therefore requires sympathetic attention of the state for better treatment to the district.
Likewise, the Tuensang block may, free from outside interference, schematize the distribution of its seats of 20 among the four sister districts taking into consideration factors like area, backwardness, population etc to affect an equitable share of seats that is in the best interest of the block.
As we see, the block wise exercise has less damage to the existing seat allocation than the delimitation as per Census 2001. Moreover, this is an opportunity for emergence of champions for social cause, be they politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, church leaders or public. Naga Hoho, the highest civil authority, has a moral duty to initiate threadbare deliberation on the issue instead of leaving it to politicians whose main focus, as we know, is primarily power equations for partisan or own tribe’s interests and least for larger common interest. At the end of it all, politicians will come and go but the public will stay on either to suffer or progress as per the kind of decision is made.
The appeal to all leaders is not to view the delimitation issue from narrow political or partisan approach but from a wider social perspective for the sake of a just social order. The earnest appeal to the DAN government, as custodian of public welfare, is to exercise its highest impartial ruling on the majority suggestion in the best interest of all the tribes for equitable and fair delimitation of constituencies among the tribal districts, free from selfish politics.
Delimitation 2002 exercise, thus, remains as the most crucial litmus test of Naga sincerity, truthfulness and honesty including the credibility of the religion we profess because one can’t say one believes in Jesus and keep on being dishonest and treacherous against fellow tribes. It is a call for making a choice that is to determine the kind of future that the state will emerge in the years to come. Julius Nyrere, the former President of Tanzania aptly said, “to plan is to choose”. In other words, planning is a road map to the future but the kind of future that we want shall be determined by the kind of choice we make today and therefore, choice is both responsibility and also demands sacrifice from personal interest for the sake of common good.
