The current tussle between the two factions of the NPF has come to such period where it seems there will be no meeting point between the two opposing groups. It is now accepted that undercurrent of power struggle was already there but it became public only when the former Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio decided to contest in the Lok Sabha polls in 2014. The rest is history and a big shock for the people that voted a party to power with 38 MLAs in a 60-member assembly.
At present it has become like a full-fledged war with many fronts and battles their fight to claim legitimacy. The much awaited order from the Election Commission of India finally arrived on Oct. 17 but it again referred it back the contesting groups to try and solve the matter internally. This was on expected lines because the ECI in 2015 gave similar directions and to find ways for reconciling. That time the party was divided between Shurhozeloie Liezietsu and Noke Wangnao as the two opposing presidents. However the ECI also noted in its order that there is a split in the party and listed which group has the majority of CEC members along with the MLAs and MPs elected on NPF tickets.
Within the Assembly, since the speaker has already accepted TR Zelaing as the chief whip it is presumed that he will dispose the petitions seeking disqualification of Zeliang and his supporters after the first hearing. Whatever the judgment it will again be further appealed in the courts since the speaker has acted as an arbitrator. Similarly if the 9 MLAs with Liezietsu are disqualified then it will also be appealed in any court of law. Moreover as there was no merger to any other party the question of disqualification based merger as given in the Tenth Schedule does not arise, except the case of voting against the whip. Therefore the matter will finally arrive at the question of legality of the chief whip and the procedure of its appointment.
The appointment of the chief whip varies from state to state but constitutional experts say it is appointed by the legislature party. The legislature party represents the political party in the house. Technically the party president or the head of a political party is not recognised within the house of elected members although it has been the practice in Nagaland that the appointment letter of the chief whip was issued by the party president, as in Dec. 2014. On the contrary, the speaker this time accepted the appointment of the chief whip by the legislature party. The speaker may have corrected an earlier lapse in the workings of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat if the courts deem it fit not to interfere considering it to be a case of procedural lapse taking into account Article 122 of the constitution. If the courts take it as an illegality then it will surely intervene but it is quite doubtful looking at the facts.
Even then, the whip issue will not decide the legality of which group has the right to the party name and symbol. For that, the contesting groups need to take the ECI route. What the ECI has directed to both the groups is actually to conduct a general convention just as on the days before the dispute when both groups can gather and democratically decide the next leadership. But with the constant suspensions and expulsions at times laced with mockery in the media it seems an impossibility. The typical Naga character will also never allow one to seek and exercise one’s right when it is already announced that he/she is unwelcome. Therefore, any other general convention without a democratic process being followed in the presence of both the groups will be an exercise in vain and it will only prolong the case at the ECI. Although the group with the majority of MLAs may have the upper hand since they are in the government, if elections arrive before the ECI judgment then the fate of the NPF party and symbol, a party that many Nagas have an emotional attachment to, is very uncertain.
