Zeliang seeks govt’s position on Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

Dimapur, July 16 (EMN): Leader of Opposition in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly TR Zeliang has asked Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio to explain why the Nagaland Cabinet had on June 5 “decided not to oppose” the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016.

In a letter to the chief minister, Zeliang stated that the Cabinet had decided to oppose the proposed amendment if it were to go against the interest of the Nagas ‘otherwise the government of Nagaland will not interfere in national politics.’

“It is in my understanding that Article 371 (A) which deals with matters relating to religious or social practices of the Nagas, their customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law and ownership and transfer of land and its resources; is in no way connected to the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 in the first place.

“Also, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 15 July 2016, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 to provide citizenship to illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian extraction unlike the Inner Line Permit which only provides access to outsiders for inward travel into Nagaland. When infiltration of illegal immigrants into the state has been taking place unabated, relying on unconfirmed hypothesis such as protection under Article 371 (A) of the Constitution of India and the ILP Regulations is a grievous fallacy,” Zeliang’s statement read.

According to him, the Cabinet’s decision “contains objectives which are contradictory and inconsistent in itself,” which reveal that it was either intentional or ‘taken without understanding the content of the Bill, or of its significance and possible ramifications.’ He suggested further that the decision was taken ‘out of compulsion to gratify the central government at the cost of the Naga people.’

Zeliang has demanded explanation, claiming that the Cabinet had concluded ‘without understanding the implications’ of the Bill.