Share
Any reaction is better than no reaction. But distortion of fact/truth is dangerous like the Joint Action Committee (JAC), twisting of facts of what were written by T.N Mannen former Add Chief Secretary who was the then X-officio Delimitation Commissioner for Nagaland. As published in the local papers on 23rd June 2020, the JAC of some tribal Hohos in their meeting on 22/6/20, had alleged that I, as the Ex-officio Member of the Delimitation Commission during the last Delimitation Exercise, had ‘confused the Commission by providing fabricated reasons’ etc. This blatant baseless accusation is unfortunate and uncalled for. Thus, I would like to clarify by emphasising that there is no such incriminating or discriminatory materials to qualify such blatant accusation in my recent write up/article under the caption ‘Delimitation Exercise and its likely impact on the Nagas” published in local esteemed dailies, on 18-19/6/20 in Eastern Mirror, Nagaland Post and Morung Express. It was not targeted against any tribe or group but given a brief narration of what and how it had happen at that time. There is no such tribalistic content as implicated. The JAC members may kindly go through the article minutely to appreciate the content in its right perspective.
In fact, the various points that I had mentioned relating to the demand for deferment or exemption of the delimitation in the state of Nagaland, such as, protection under the special constitutional provision under Art. 371A, sensitivity of tribal equation, formation of districts on tribal traditional line, law and order situation, priority of political settlement, the unrealistic exaggeration of census 2001, and so on, were not my personal opinion but only the summarised narrative of the points and demands made by various Civil Societies, Tribal Hohos. The collective views of the Delimitation Associate members from Nagaland consist of the two MPs and 4(four) MLAs, Shri Wangyuh, Late Khekiho, and Shri Thenocho. Tiameren, H Chuba Chang, and Late Neiwang Konyak.) The considered view of the state government fully endorsed through a unanimous Resolution passed in the State Assembly. Since I was aware of the actual development at that time relating to the Delimitation exercise, those points were highlighted for the benefit of the people to recapitulate their earlier stand and to consider rationally whether they are still relevant now or not, after a lapse of 13 years.
Among all the points, the unreliability of the 2001 Census Figure as a whole was the main issue of concern and protest. Against the adoption of this Census as the basis, among other reasons, the Chakesang Public Organisation (CPO) had filed a PIL in Guahati HC. Consequently, an Interlocutory Stay Order was obtained from the Court which was later confirmed by another judgement. The Court final Judgement Order dated 16/08/2007, (Case No PIL6712007), has clearly recorded,(Quote); “So far as the state of Nagaland is concerned, the legislative assembly of Nagaland has passed an unanimous resolution objecting to the data published by the census commission where irrational patterns of demographic shift were recorded in the census of 2001. It is, therefore, contended that proceeding on the basis of such data would have constitutionally undesirable fall out on the electoral process…” with such reasons, the process of delimitation was opposed through the resolution and put a request to the central government not to conduct the exercise in the present form.
In another Para, it was also recorded concerning Nagaland that; ’’ the commission (Delimitation) has already brought on record taking stand that district-wise allocation of seats will not be disturbed due to the delimitation exercise”.
Subsequently, An Order was issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, GOI, dated 8th February 2008. Since population is the main key factor in determining the seat allocation and distribution thereof, in the order, it was S remarked on the issue of Census of 2001 (Quote)
"And whereas the delimitation work in respect of Nagaland was suspended in pursuance of the stay order of the Guahati High Court in Chakesang Public Organisation Vs Union of India & others(W.P. No 67 of 2006) alleging that there was abnormal growth of population registered at the Census in some areas to get more Assembly seats”
The order has clearly explained the consequential repercussion as a result of affecting redistribution of Assembly seats on the basis of such abnormal data. It is mentioned that, it may upset the tribal delicate equilibrium, may involve transfer of seats from one tribal/linguistic zone to another, thereby alienate from each other. To obviate such problems the President has defer the delimitation exercise in the state of Nagaland.
Only in concluding paragraphs of the article, I had expressed my personal considered observation and views as to what could be the best possible action at this moment in common interest of all the Nagas without targeting any particular subjective interest of any particular person or group. My honest suggestions or observation may not be to the liking of many for whatever reason. But I am entitled to my fundamental right to express what I strongly feel pertinent on the basis of the relevant facts available relating to the matter. If someone does not subscribe to it or does not like it, I have nothing to say. But do not misunderstand or distort the content and mislead the public in general. I have no hesitation to clarify and discuss at any forum or with any person on this matter with relevant documents if so required.
T. N. Mannen (IAS Rtd)