The agreement that in principle accepted the creation of the state of Nagaland was signed in 1960. Except for some few notable clauses out of the total of 16 points, the Government of India with continued negotiations could artistically manoeuvre and accommodate most of the demands under various statutes of the constitution. Some of which are still not realised till today and some retracted after initial implementation. The top most clause was realised in the form of State of Nagaland Act, 1962. The other important clause was the one that dealt with the Act of Parliament on religious and social practices, customary laws, civil and criminal justice and the land and its resources. This clause became part of Article 371A of the constitution and slowly the soul of the Act itself since the rest of the Act most dealt with administrative arrangement with special references to Tuensang & Mon district in the newly created state.
Even after 50 years the clear and correct interpretation of Article 371A still eludes the Naga society. To implement Article 371A up to the grassroots level it did not include the formation of various local self governance bodies in tune with the Naga context. After statehood, the Nagaland Legislative Assembly has passed various bills like the Nagaland Tribal Area, Range and Village Council Act, 1966 and The Nagaland Village and Area councils Act 1978. However for many years the Village Councils were the only statutory bodies and the tribal bodies were given room only by convention and not by rule. It was only in 2009 that The Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act (Fourth Amendment) 2009 gave some statutory powers to the Tribal Councils/Hohos. The Act changed the name of “Area” to “Tribal” in the title and the insertion that “There may be a Tribal Council for every recognized Naga tribe, and also one or more apex tribal council(s) comprising of the federation or union of two or more tribal councils”. The true implementation and the practicalities are yet to be fully tested since it in no way touches the area of accountability and integrity except for thrusting it on the practices followed by the tribes themselves. The authority of the tribal councils is also another area where questions arise since more organisations come up and some even questioning the authority of the apex tribal bodies.
The other debate on Article 371A is the current issue on the conduct of elections to the urban local bodies that has rocked the state to a point of no return. The response from the tribal organisation was not expected to be such but slowly as it gained momentum the issue of 33% women reservation in the municipalities became secondary. The fear of the unknown and the loss of its domain by the tribal organisation slowly took prominence that has led to the complete breakdown of the state machinery in almost 4 districts.
The PIL filed by the Lotha Hoho is also one such instance where the Naga society is debating about Article 371A. This present case relates to the ownership of the land and its resources and specifically the issue at present is with the State government striking a deal with MOGPL for oil exploration in the Tsorri-Changpang oil fields. Another issue will be to decide who has the actual ownership to the land and its resources, the village or the tribal council. This is another aspect that will have to be interpreted.
Though fifty years have elapsed since statehood the government as well as the people are yet to find a clear interpretation and empowering local self governance bodies in tune with Article 371A . On the matter of criminal cases too, it cannot be ignored that the IPC is enforced in letter and in spirit in Nagaland these days ignoring Article 371A. It is for the people to decide which path is to be taken but there has to be a clear distinction and it is a time for a in-depth study, discussion and a final decision.
