Azo Nienu, MLA, acted fully within his constitutional rights when he raised the matter. The Speaker had admitted the motion under the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, and it was for the House alone to decide its fate
Share
The recent controversy over “satanic worship” in the Nagaland Assembly raises questions far beyond the issue itself. At its core is the independence of the Legislature and the proper functioning of democracy in a secular state.
Azo Nienu, MLA, acted fully within his constitutional rights when he raised the matter. The Speaker had admitted the motion under the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, and it was for the House alone to decide its fate. Dropping it later under outside pressure was not only questionable—it undermined legislative sovereignty. When external influences dictate what can or cannot be debated in the people’s House, democracy suffers.
India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion while ensuring state neutrality. Government must not interfere with faith, nor should religion dictate governance. Yet, practices that masquerade as religion but threaten social order cannot be ignored. Satanic worship, according to scholars, is not a religion but a cult-like activity. The state has every responsibility to act decisively against anti-social practices, not to police belief, but to protect society.
The larger lesson is clear: the Assembly must remain free to deliberate on matters of public concern. Whether social evil, economic policy, or religious practice, legislators must exercise their constitutional privileges without fear of outside interference.
By dropping the motion under pressure, the House missed an opportunity to address a sensitive concern and set a dangerous precedent. Once external influence dictates legislative debate, trust in democratic institutions erodes.
Mathew Rongmei
Dimapur