The 12th Nagaland Legislative Assembly that recently witnessed its fourth chief minister being sworn in is one of the best case scenarios of the reasons behind the 91st amendment of the Constitution of India. The 91st amendment along with a more stringent anti defection law or the Tenth Schedule and its related Articles on disqualification also put a ceiling on the number of ministers in a government. It restricted the total number of ministers not to exceed 15% of the total number of members both in the Lok Sabha and also in the legislative assemblies . Ministers are usually appointed by the leader of the house but when there are unlimited ministers destabilising a government is easier as exchanges of plumb portfolios in favour of support cannot be ruled out. After the demise of the era of single party governments in the late eighties it became easier to topple governments in the country both at the Centre and the states. The period from 1989 to 1999 was a time of unstable governments even at the Centre when in just 10 years 8 prime ministers were sworn in with only PV Narashimha Rao completing his tenure from 1991 to 1996. The cycle was finally stopped when Atal Bihari Vajpayee completed his tenure starting 1999 after two earlier short term tenures of which one was only 16 days as prime minister. Subsequently the 91st amendment was enacted when he was the Prime Minister in the NDA led government in order to bring about more stable governments. It however affected the smaller states more than the bigger states. In Nagaland, with just 60 MLAs it thereafter could have only 12 ministers including the chief minister. However the hangover from the day of jumbo ministries in the state when at one time one tribe even had 9 ministers still exists. The state is finding it hard to do away with the tribal equations that came with power and influence in the form of ministers in the government. It still continues to this day in the form of the parliamentary secretaries and the latter additions of advisors with a very clever arrangement of cabinet berths vis-à-vis plump portfolios. Then comes the latest innovation of advisors with cabinet status. It in some way mirrors the segmentation of the state on tribal lines that today is becoming problematic for good governance. The ripple effect of the recent Supreme Court order against the creation of the office of Parliamentary Secretaries in Assam will be felt strongly even in Nagaland. The recently inducted parliamentary secretaries and advisors might be the last that the state will witness. The question of tribal representation required to fill posts of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and advisors may be valid to some extent but since the districts are already on tribal lines its contention may not hold water for long. However the need for tribal representation may be more in Nagaland because between the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and the Village Councils there are neither statutory bodies nor mandated representatives which should actually form the middle tier bodies for a tribal state like Nagaland. The need for district or tribe level bodies becomes more prominent with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court. The recent emergence of tribal organisations and their rise to prominence is also a proof that such bodies are required in the state especially in the district levels. It will ensure that the people will feel better represented in the affairs of the state and their districts. It's almost a cliché but Nagaland will again need an out of the box solution even in this case.
