SC Stays Order Cancelling Nagaland Local Polls With Women’s Quota

“You (Nagaland government), as well as the State Election Commission, are in breach of the order of this court. Our March 14 order is quite clear that any endeavour to tinker with the election process would be in breach of the order of this court,” the top court said.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 5, pulled up the Nagaland government and the Election Commission for violating its previous direction to hold local body elections with 33% reservation for women and stayed the order to cancel the polls, which were scheduled to be held on May 16.

Hearing a contempt petition moved by PUCL, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, according to Hindustan Times, “You (Nagaland government), as well as the State Election Commission, are in breach of the order of this court. Our March 14 order is quite clear that any endeavour to tinker with the election process would be in breach of the order of this court.”

Justice Kaul orally observed that cancelling the elections amounts to contempt of court. The case will next be heard on April 17.

Naga tribal groups have opposed the quota for women. According to Scroll, tribal groups contend that reservation for women is “against Naga customary laws”. Political participation of women has been nearly absent and the state sent its first two women legislators to the assembly in elections held earlier this year.

In a letter to Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio opposing the women’s quota, some groups wrote, “Women’s political culture was never there in traditional Naga society.”

In a March 14 order, the top court noted local elections with reservations of women cannot be postponed under threats of violence and ordered the State Election Commission and Nagaland government to make all arrangements for the conduct of free and fair elections. “Any violation by any authority or citizen in breach thereof would be an act in breach of the orders of this court,” it said, according to HT.

The State Election Commission told the court that the polls will be held on May 16. While the state government also agreed before the top court to hold the polls with the quota for women, it later ceded to demands from tribal groups to cancel the elections.

The Nagaland assembly on March 29 repealed the Nagaland Municipal Act, 2001 under which the election process was announced. “With the Act gone, the Nagaland Election Commission issued a subsequent order on March 30 cancelling the election schedule,” according to HT.

While women’s reservation in local elections is constitutionally mandated, Naga groups have opposed it citing Article 371A of the constitution, which makes certain special provisions to the state. The article says that when parliament passes an Act on matters pertaining to “Naga religious and social practices; Naga customary law and procedure; administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law; ownership and transfer of land and its resources”, it will not apply shall apply to the state unless the legislative assembly by a resolution so decides.

According to Scroll, urban local body elections have long been a “controversial subject” in Nagaland politics. The previous attempt in 2017 to hold local elections ended in violence and forced chief minister T.R. Zeliang to resign, the website reported. The first urban body polls in the state, in 2004, did not comply with the mandate to provide 33% reservation to women.

Watch | The Naga Question: Insurgency, Ceasefire and the Peace Process

In conversation with India’s former home secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai about a range of issues surrounding the Naga quest for greater autonomy.

Happymon Jacob speaks to India’s former home secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai on a range of issues concerning the Naga quest for greater autonomy. Pillai provides a historical overview of the Naga issue, the unilateral declaration of independence, the Indian state’s response, the insurgency and the many efforts that have been made for peace.

Pillai also highlights the many factions within the Naga movement, delineating their respective positions and demands, his views on the 2015 framework agreement and the progress that has since been made.

In Centre’s Haste to Seal a Naga Accord, Peace Shouldn’t Be the First Casualty

Nagaland governor R.N. Ravi has categorically stated that, if required, the Centre would drop the NSCN (I-M) – the principal signatory of the agreement – and proceed to deliver the accord with other stakeholders.

New Delhi: Going by the recent statements made by the central government regarding the ongoing Naga peace talks, come this October 31, it appears that there will be a ‘Naga Accord’ in hand.

Duly signed by ‘stakeholders’.

The ‘Accord’ will be the culmination of a peace course that has been underway since August 2015 after the Narendra Modi government entered into a framework agreement with the Isak-Muivah flank of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN).

At this point, what is to be not discounted, however, is the tone and substance of the statements – made by the peace talks interlocutor-turned Nagaland governor R.N. Ravi – encapsulating the progress in the talks, or the lack of it, surrounding the October 31 deadline.

Of late, the former deputy National Security Advisor (NSA) to the Modi government has not only accused the NSCN (I-M) of “mischievously” delaying the peace pact “under the shadow of guns” but has also categorically stated that, if required, the Centre would drop the outfit – the principal signatory of the agreement – and proceed to deliver the accord with other stakeholders. Essentially, Ravi meant that at this point in time, the Centre was ready to set aside the framework agreement – once termed “historic” by Modi himself.

Much to Ravi’s credit, over the last four years, he did engage with non-armed but crucial stakeholders from Naga society – the Naga Mothers’ Association, Nagaland Gaonburrah (village head) Federation, the Naga Hoho, United Naga Council (from Manipur), Church leaders among several others – in the peace process. At this juncture, however, those whom Ravi has indicated as the stakeholders that the Centre would rather take on board the peace bandwagon are the six (now seven) Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs).

These NNPGs are also armed rebel groups, currently under ceasefire, just like the NSCN–IM. They are the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN), GPRN/NSCN, Naga National Council (parent body), National People’s Government of Nagaland of the NNC (Non Accordist), NSCN (reformation), Naga National Council/Government Democratic Republic of Nagaland and the K. Konyak faction of NSCN. Together, they constitute a working committee, formed in November 2017.

The joining of the last rebel group, NSCN (Konyak), early this year, also highlighted the fact that a formal de-linking has happened between the Nagas of the Myanmar-based NSCN (Khaplang) group on the basis of their nationalities. The Indian Nagas in the K-faction are now represented by Konyak and have crossed over to Nagaland to join the peace process.

Also read: Naga Peace Accord Remains Hazy and Full of Pitfalls

This can certainly be termed an achievement, delivered through a joint effort of the Indian and Myanmarese governments, as it has now brought the vexed Naga issue well within the present-day geographical confines. The mother group of the NSCN-K will now look at resolving its political issues by being a part of the Myanmarese peace process.

Earlier this year in February, the Myanmarese army had also taken control of the NSCN (K) headquarters.

The presence of the Myanmarese army in the contiguous Naga areas close to the Indian border also indicates that it would not be easy for the NSCN-IM to carry out its business as usual in Myanmar in the event that the ceasefire with the government of India ceases due to a breakdown in talks, and military action ensues.

Going by the tone and substance of Ravi’s statements, the government seems to be hinting at such an option. In what was clearly an attempt to check the pulse of the people’s representative bodies in this regard, Ravi held a meeting with delegates of the 14 Naga tribes and non-Naga communities among others at Kohima’s Hotel Japhu on October 18.

He reportedly made it clear to them that the meeting was held only to pass “information” (to them about the Centre willingness to proceed with the peace deal without the NSCN-IM if required) and not to hold a “consultation” with them for suggestions to break the stalemate. The attempt was also to underline that NSCN (IM) was ‘one of the stakeholders’ in the Naga peace talks and not the sole one.

The Centre may be hoping to take the risk of keeping the NSCN-IM out from the peace deal, if necessary, and possibly launching further action against it by banking on simmering resentment amongst most Nagas of Nagaland over the imposition of steep taxes on them, at times at the point of a gun.

That the IM group is dominated by just one Naga tribe (Tangkhuls of Manipur, including Thuingaleng Muivah) is another point of growing resentment among other Naga tribes. This discontent is also a reason behind the gradual weakening of the Naga Hoho, the apex social body of the Nagas, considered by many as being close to the IM faction. In turn, the Hohos of each tribe have been gaining strength. In effect, it means the Naga voice is no longer as united as it once used to be.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with NSCN (IM) General Secretary Thuingaleng Muivah at the signing ceremony of historic peace accord between Government of India and NSCN, in 2015. NSA Ajit Doval is also seen. Photo: PTI

However, in the hurry to ink an agreement, the government must not allow a key thought to fall through the cracks. While the NSCN-IM may very well have divided devotion among the Nagas today for various reasons, the issue of Naga identity is still a raw sentiment amongst common people and has the ability to bind various Naga tribes together.

Due to continuous unrest for over half a century, the people are tired at this point and may want to engage with whatever is being offered to them to usher in peace. But that in no way means that many amongst them will not engage, sooner or later, with the framework agreement that the government is now looking at setting aside.

Also read: Timeline: Nagaland Waiting for Light at the End of a Long and Dark Tunnel

Kept a secret all this while, the terms and words mentioned in the agreement – the basis of the present peace talks – is spilling into the public domain in bits and pieces through local newspapers. It is only now that the public is engaging with the framework agreement. Hurrying the peace process shouldn’t lead to another chapter in the already existing notion among people of the region about the Centre’s continuous ‘step-motherly’ treatment of them.

It is well known by now that the root of this purported threat by the Centre to leave the NSCN (IM) out of a peace deal even though it was principally initiated with it – as also by previous governments in the last 22 years – lies in the outfit’s demand for a separate flag and a constitution for the Nagas.

To add weight to their demand, top leaders of the NSCN (IM) have been pointing at phrases mentioned in the framework agreement, such as ‘shared sovereignty’ with India and ‘unique history’ of the Nagas. NSCN (IM) military head Anthony Shimray recently told The Wire that the government of India, through the agreement, had conceded that the history of the Nagas was ‘unique’ and that there would be ‘shared sovereignty’ with the rest of India.

Clearly, the Centre is not on the same page as the armed group when it comes to interpreting these words. Ravi has stated clearly that there would be no separate flag and constitution for the Nagas under the peace deal. In a press statement issued by his office this on October 18, Ravi said that the NSCN-IM has “adopted a procrastinating attitude to delay the settlement raising the contentious symbolic issues of separate Naga national flag and constitution on which they are fully aware of the Government of India’s position.”

Significantly, the Centre’s stalemate with the NSCN-IM reached its zenith only after the reading down of Article 370 of Jammu and Kashmir. In one stroke, the Modi government abolished the provision under which the state had a separate flag and a constitution.

Though several armed groups in the Northeast, including the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) in Assam, had been referring to Article 370 to demand a similar provision from the Centre (the All Assam Students Union too had sought a similar provision for Assam at one point of time), it was primarily the NSCN (IM), the largest and the deadliest insurgent group in the region, which had caught on to the idea more firmly than the others.

Also read: With J&K’s Special Status Revoked, Alarm Bells Ring in Nagaland

Examining the developments unfolding in the Naga talks, a question arises: Did the Centre take into account the outcome of the Naga peace talks before taking the decision to scrap Article 370? Was it merely a coincidence that, less than two weeks after Article 370 was scrapped, Ravi announced in Nagaland that Prime Minister Modi had asked him to conclude the peace talks within three months’ time ending on October 31?

Anthony Shimray recently told The Wire that he was himself present in a meeting where the issue of a flag and constitution were discussed and the Centre had said that it would see how well it could deal with it.

Nevertheless, hectic parleys have been on for the last few days, both with the NSCN(IM) and the NNPGs, in New Delhi and in Kohima, to break the stalemate over the unresolved issues even as the October 31 deadline approaches.

Meanwhile, with news reports of Manipur and state government resorting to a security overdrive, with the Nagaland police directing the reserve battalions to stock ration and fuel for two months and with the army recently being removed from Assam with the caveat that they could be deployed to the other northeastern states, fear and uncertainty among the people is palpable.

Early this month, people in Dimapur, the commercial hub of Nagaland, were alarmed to have spotted Sukhoi and Hawk fighter jets hovering low over their houses. As the memory of the Indian Army’s bombing in Mizoram in the 1960s to curb insurgency has not been fully forgotten in the Northeast, the social media was throbbing with rumours over a possible link to the uneasy developments over the Naga talks. Later though, the Indian Air Force announced it was ‘a major wartime preparedness’ exercise using six civilian airports in the north-eastern states and West Bengal.

Delhi-based students from Nagaland stage a protest march demanding solution to the issue of Naga peace talks, and a decision on the framework agreement, in New Delhi. Photo: PTI/Files

In an effort to ally growing public fear and an environment of confusion fuelled by the lack of clear information to the public surrounding the peace talks, the state police chief, the state chief secretary and the Assam Rifles gave statements to the media. However, the Assam Rifles, empowered by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, has said that it would continue its routine searches of houses etc. while on the lookout for insurgents.

With Ravi as the governor – bestowed with powers to control the law and order situation in the state as per Article 371A (meant for Nagaland) more and more firming up the battle lines by taking on board the NNPGs – panic is rising among the public over possible fratricidal killings post the accord.

Recent news about the Ministry of Home Affairs bidding to bring Assam Rifles under its wings has further added to the suspicion of possible military action against those not willing to toe the government’s line. It could well be a tactic of the Centre on the NSCN-IM to bow down to the pressure but having been in the midst of crossfire between militants and the security forces for too long, the fear of the common man in Nagaland is substantial and the worst is being imagined.

Also read: Separate Flag, Constitution Key for ‘Honourable’ Peace Solution: Naga Group

Speaking to East Mojo, a Guwahati-based news website, well-known anti-corruption activist K.K. Sema pointed out:

“When the governor gives a very serious ultimatum (at the October 18 meeting) that come what may, the government of India would conclude the negotiations, it means that if there is any one group among them which refuses to sign, it will have to be taken out in whatever manner the government of India feels best. It obviously implies that the government will be using force in order to tackle them. Now the problem is, the people of Nagaland, the stakeholders, the common man, he is going to be right in the middle of the crossfire when the government goes against them. For those of us who have seen violence in the 1950s, it is not a pleasant sight to behold.”

He cautioned against the haste being shown by the Centre to cut the deal.

The NNPGs may well be on board now but it’s essential to also underline that, in mid-2018, they had walked out of the peace talks too, citing a raid by the Assam Rifles at the residence of V. Nagi, the co-convener of the working group.

Can we then read the development as some sort of pressure tactic already put using the might of the Assam Rifles on these groups to toe the line?  Some news reports in Nagaland have said that their willingness to sign the accord is hinged on an ‘economic package’ to be tailored for their cadres. Reports from Nagaland have said several cadres from the IM group are already shifting their allegiance to these groups in the hopes of getting a share of the pie.

As per latest news reports, top NSCN-IM leader Hukavi Yeputhomi, a member of the negotiating team of NSCN-IM, has also moved over to the working committee of the NNPGs along with 16 others. This may well lead to a split in the NSCN (IM).

As the government tries to find a solution by possibly making use of the clear division brewing amongst the Naga stakeholders, it brings us to another question: Will it end up committing the same mistakes made by the previous central governments while entering into peace accords in the Northeast by going with one set or sets of stakeholders and leaving the hard nuts for the security forces to tackle?

Perhaps, at this point, a reminder is necessary to the readers that several synthetic peace accords had previously come with an expiry date in the region. Various accords had failed to deliver permanent peace in the region even with an economic package as the primary component. So far, the only accord that can be called a success in the region is the Mizo Accord of 1986, not because of any effort by the Centre but due to the concerted work by the Mizo society to ensure lasting peace.

Watch: With J&K’s 370 Gone, Nagas Skeptical That Centre Will Impose Its Will on Them Too

Importantly, the government must not overlook the key takeaway from the failure of the previous endeavour at peace with the Nagas. The Shillong Agreement, signed in 1975 between the central government and the underground leadership, including the NNC founder A. Z. Phizo’s brother Kevie Yalie, fell though, mainly on the grounds of not finding wider acceptability of the Indian constitution and that the representatives of the underground organisations were not given ‘reasonable time’ to formulate other issues for discussion for the final solution. The agreement was also led by the then Nagaland governor L.P. Singh.

The failure of the Shillong Agreement to usher in peace only led Muivah and the others to break out of the NNC to form NSCN. Muivah, now leading the talks with the Centre on behalf of NSCN-IM, would then naturally be cautious on the issue of the constitution.

Some in Nagaland even go to the extent of saying that Muivah, the last of the tall Naga revolutionary leaders, would rather go down in history as a ‘martyr’ who didn’t relent to pressure from the government of India without an ‘honourable solution’ for the Nagas than concede to a watered-down version of a peace accord.

In the next few days, it would be clear what entails the fate of not just the NSCN-IM but also that of octogenarian Muivah, residing in a ‘safe house’ in New Delhi under the watch of the Centre.

Senior NSCN-IM Leader, 16 Others Join Rival Naga Group

The governor of Nagaland also accused the NSCN-IM of adopting a procrastinating attitude in reaching a settlement with the Centre.

Kohima: Days before another round of Naga peace talks on October 31, a top leader of NSCN-IM, along with 16 other members, quit the rebel group accusing it of being “insensitive” to the people’s plea for an honourable solution to the vexed issue and joined the rival Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs).

In a statement issued Friday night, Hukavi Yeputhomi said the working committee of the NNPGs has been “practical and realistic” in its negotiation with the Centre.

“Without compromising on our history and identity, I, Hukavi Yeputhomi, former kilo kilonser (home minister) of NSCN-IM and currently a member in the ongoing negotiating team of NSCN-IM, along with 16 co-workers, on our own volition and with clear conscience, has joined the WC NNPG,” he said.

A team of the Nationalist Social Council of Nagaland, Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) held talks with the Centre’s interlocutor R N Ravi on October 24 but the discussions remained inconclusive. The next round of talks is expected on October 31.

Sources said the demand for a separate flag and constitution for the Nagas has become the main contention between the two sides with the NSCN-IM, which had signed a framework agreement with the Centre in August 2015, strongly pressing for it.

Also read: Naga Peace Talks Remain Inconclusive; Govt’s October Deadline May Be Extended

Ravi, who is also the governor of Nagaland, had said last week that the NSCN-IM has adopted a “procrastinating attitude to delay the settlement raising the contentious symbolic issues of separate Naga national flag and constitution on which it was fully aware of the government of India’s position”.

Yeputhomi asserted that the geopolitical situation demands that the Nagas be more pragmatic at this juncture.

He accused NSCN-IM ‘chairman’ Q Tuccu and the outfit’s ‘ato kilonser’ (prime minister) T Muivah of being “insensitive to the Naga people’s plea for an honourable solution”.

“We are convinced that the interest, pursuit and potential of future Naga generations must not be jeopardised by unresolved symbolic issues when negotiating parties have long come to terms that sovereignty and integration were not possible at a present time,” he said.

“My decision is based on our people’s desire for a peaceful co-existence… We bear no malice against anyone and hope that our decision would be respected,” Yeputhomi added.

The framework agreement, signed on August 3, 2015, by NSCN-IM and interlocutor Ravi in presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had come after over 80 rounds of negotiations spanning 18 years.

The NSCN-IM apart, NNPGs have also been holding separate talks with the Centre since 2017 and are willing to settle the vexed issue without insisting on a separate flag and constitution.

Not Just J&K, India’s Constitution Provides Special Powers to 10 States

Over the years, the parliament, under powers granted by Article 368, added a number of constitutional provisions under Article 371 to grant special powers and privileges to several states.

New Delhi: The announcement of the Narendra Modi government’s decision in parliament to scrap the exclusive position enjoyed by the state of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the constitution has brought about mixed responses from both political parties and the public at large.

A question arises at this point: Is Jammu and Kashmir the only state to enjoy special powers under the constitution?

No.

While Article 35A granted under Article 370 gave J&K special status, Article 371 was brought in to create special provisions for Maharashtra and Gujarat. Both these Articles have existed from the time the constitution was adopted in 1950.

However, the parliament, under powers granted by Article 368, added a number of constitutional provisions under Article 371 to grant special powers and privileges to as many as nine other states.

Also read: Jammu and Kashmir: Decoding Article 35A and Article 370

Take Article 371A which bestows special powers on Nagaland. The state can have its own administrative and legal mechanisms based on the Naga customary laws, and the right to carry on religious and local social practices. People can have land ownership and the right to transfer land and other resources as per local practices. The provision also grants special powers to the governor to overrule the decision of the chief minister on a law and order situation.

This past January, chief minister Neiphiu Rio, banking on that special status of the state, wrote to the Union home ministry after a cabinet resolution that the Modi government’s decision to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 would not be applicable in Nagaland.  

There is also Article 371B, meant for Assam. As per that provision, the president can bestow his powers on the state’s governor to set up a committee of the legislative assembly consisting members of the house elected from the tribal areas of the state. Besides, there is Article 244A, which was inserted into the constitution in 1969, as per which Assam was granted special powers to set up autonomous councils. This is aside from the provisions granted to the tribal states of the Northeast under the sixth schedule of the constitution.

Also read: Union Territories, the Outcasts of Democracy in India

Article 371C was brought in to generate certain special provisions for Manipur. According to that provision, the president has the same right as in the case of Assam to form a committee of tribal MLAs through the governor, aside from granting her the responsibility to submit an annual report to the president in regard to the administration of the hill districts. It is based on this provision that the hill districts have a Hill Area Committee (HAC) comprising elected tribal lawmakers. 

Article 371D and E are meant for Andhra Pradesh which grants the president certain special powers over the state government, including ensuring reservation in employment and education. 

Article 371F is for Sikkim as per which it became an Indian state in 1975. Though elections to its assembly were to be conducted every four years under this provision, it has already been flouted, leading to filing of a petition in the Sikkim high court early this year. 

Article 371G concerns formation of Mizoram as a state in 1986. Like in Nagaland, this constitutional provision provides the people of the border state similar rights over their customary laws, religious freedom, land rights, etc. Effecting any change to this provision would require a resolution of the assembly. 

Again, Article 371H is applicable for Arunachal Pradesh, which also grants the governor special powers on the state’s law and order situation. He can overrule the chief minister’s decision on the basis of this provision, like the Nagaland governor can do under Article 371A. 

Under Article 371I, the Goa state assembly has special powers to make laws on sale of land, ownership of property.

Also read: Historically, UTs Become States. Now the Centre Is Reversing That Trend in J&K

Article 371J grants special powers to six backward districts of Hyderabad-Karnataka region under which they can establish special development boards, reservation in jobs and education institutions, etc.

It must be underlined that that though constitutional provisions like Article 371 A and 371G clearly state that it would require the nod of the respective state assemblies to effect any alteration to them, Article 370 that grants special powers to J&K also states the same.

However, though a presidential order, the Narendra Modi government has sought to take away that right from the legislators elected by the people of the state. By using its brute majority in the Lok Sabha and engineering a few strategic absence of MPs from the Rajya Sabha besides calculative walkouts and resignations of lawmakers from the opposition camp, the ruling BJP is attempting to pass the abrogation of the special provision provided to J&K in parliament.

This development also makes other states which enjoy special constitutional provisions vulnerable, that were hoping to continue with them on the ground that the state assemblies would have to agree with the Centre’s decision.