Constituent(s) Versus Composite: On Delimitation

The way delimitation discourse (strictly speaking, not a discourse but an utter majoritarian rescript) is taking shape suggests as though we are ‘respective tribe first’ and ‘Nagas second’. It is an irony that ‘Naga solution’ would be cited as a rationale for deferring and hence depriving ‘commensurate representation’, at the cost of engendering ‘us and them’ and misgivings amongst the constituents of the Naga composite. It’s not a question of precedence (as suggested to be), as in solution preceding delimitation, but of precedent, as in a window to the bound reality. The going unfolding of the issue indicates a foreboding of sort; also bringing to mind instances of injustice in the past. It spells of a future where disparity and inequity would be perpetuated by the presently more than commensurate-ly represented.

The overdue Naga solution is supposedly, as appeared in media and social media (if it is otherwise, assuming here for arguments’ sake), within the frame of the Indian Constitution. Be that it may, the current exercise will only facilitate what is bound in time; a precedent for just and equitable delimitation post-solution. If the solution is outside the Indian Constitution (assuming here again for arguments’ sake), the current exercise will exhibit our commitment to proportionate, equal and just representation, and that no constituent(s) would be discriminated against or marginalised unjustly.

It is regretful that a faultline is drawn between supposedly losing and supposedly gaining constituents. Delimitation is about rationalising, about rectification, about justice, and about equality. It is never about losing or gaining, when understood from the standpoint of the composite whole. Making it an issue warranting postponing for post-solution delimitation is an out-rightly shallow sham-position to hold. Calling for justice without while perpetuating injustice within. Post-solution or pre-solution, such rationalisation should be effected as many number of times as warranted by law. Naga’s Cause is ever Naga’s Cause. Never a Cause solely of any constituent(s)’, currently more than or less than proportionately represented. When there’s no justified ground to hold a claim for an unjust status quo, to cite the Cause prising faultlines is abhorrence. Using the purported interest of the composite to advance the parochial interest of certain constituents only exhibits obnoxious interest.

Any nation devoid of equality can never be a united nation. Justice is required to engender equality, which will nurture fraternity. Any injustice, or perpetuation of injustice, hurts the composite whole. Are we to maximise our own constituents’ interest at the expense of the whole? Exercise in question is about justice, equality, and fraternity. Any movement in such direction, however small, wherever possible, ought to be occasioned. It will require reasoning from the interest of the whole, to reason in the interest of justice, equality and fraternity; as opposed to perceiving within the frame of parochial ‘constituent-interest’.