Drawing attention to the state government’s proposal to change the nomenclature of GB and its role urban area, the Mokokchung District GB Association (MDGBA) has cautioned that separation between urban and rural GB institution would have negative result.
In a press release, MDGBA president Along Jamir and secretary Imlitemsu Jamir said that GB institution was introduced in the early part of British regime in villages and towns. MDGBA said that the intention of the British government was to send its delegates/agents to the established village.
As the established village republic and its administrative system was “a complete/real democratic”, the association said that the British government, therefore, did not disturb Naga structural government and only sent its agents/delegates to established Naga administrative institution.
Further, MDGBA said those government agents were called GBs/Mauzadar, who were delegated the power of legislation, executive and judiciary.
Even after more than one hundred years, the association said the system was being practiced conveniently without any disturbance from any corner.
It said that the established system of administration was “so stable and practicable in Naga society till date.”
The association also said that both the village and urban GBs were performing the same functions since establishment of GB institution.
MDGBA, therefore, asserted that the proposed move seemed to be “divide and rule policy” and against the existing stable system of administration and against the interest of the people.
RGBA: Rengma GBs’ Association (RGBA) has expressed strong opposition to the state government’s proposal to the change of GB nomenclature in urban areas.
In a press release, RGBA president Kehoga Kent and general secretary Anchon Kath also expressed apprehension that the change would “create factions and adversely affect the customary law practices in urban areas.”
The association said that since GBs were the “custodian of Naga law”, no other nomenclature(s) or organisation(s) could assume authority over Naga customary laws and practices.
Further, stating that “Naga customary laws is a supreme court equivalence for the Nagas”, RGBA said that it was, therefore, equally important irrespective of urban/rural areas.”
After the implementation of RIIN in Nagaland, RGBA said it was likely to be included or attached to Naga customary laws.
Therefore, the association said that the change of nomenclature would invalidate GBs’ authority over Naga customary laws, which would “create unwanted chaos and disorderliness.”