Former president of Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (NPCC) K.Therie has said it was wrong to assume that Framework Agreement(FA) has nullified Article 371(A) as claimed by NSCN(I-M) and also the contention by Adviser I&PR and Soil Conservation Imkong L.Imchen that Article 371(A) Clause IV has become redundant since there was no specific legislative power accorded to the state assembly to legislate with respect to Clause IV under Article 371(A).
Therie reiterated that Article 371(A) has gone through scrutiny of Parliament and is part of the constitution of India and a summary of the 16 Point Agreement which led to creation of Nagaland as a state which has also brought immense benefits to people of the state.
On Imkong L.Imchen’s contention, Therie pointed out that it was short of reading the foregoing note that clearly defined that “(1)Notwithstanding anything in this constitution,(a) no Act of Parliament in respect of Clause i.ii.iii.&iv, shall apply to the state of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides.”
Therie reminded that elected members are expected to understand and uphold the constitutional provisions and therefore, Imchen’s comment was “misleading and is in violation of the Oath” and failing to uphold the constitution.
Therie also reminded that Dr.S.C.Jamir former chief minister and governor is the person to correctly interpret the special provisions since he is the living signatory of Article 371(A) and who during his tenure, had sought opinions of constitutional experts such as former chief justice of India Mohammand Hidyatullah, senior counsellor and constitutional consultant, F.S.Nariman etc. Therie said all of them had interpreted Article 371(A) clause IV land and its resources belong to the people of Nagaland.
On the other hand, if the Centre today was misinterpreting the Act, it is the responsibility of the state government to protest, said Therie.
He also said even Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs of the state can raise the issue in parliament for correct interpretation. If need be, Therie said a private member’s bill can be tabled in parliament to clarify the provisions.
He said Imchen’s comment that the July 26, 2010 resolution of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly was “unconstitutional and invalid” was “an insult to the state assembly.”
Therie said Imchen’s condemnation of the assembly resolution implied that he has accepted the misinterpretation of the Centre as “final law” adding that Nagaland cannot lose such provisions without contest.
He maintained that the state assembly “should move a privilege motion against him (Imchen) if the assembly stands by its resolution”. Therie opined that freedom of expression cannot be used to mislead or distort facts as freedom comes with responsibility and accountability.
If it was asked why Congress could not deliver, Therie said that there was a lot of opposition to Article 371(A) at that time, alleging that the Act had compromised sovereignty.
Even with regard to temporary exploration of oil, Therie the license had to be cancelled so as to promote understanding for the peace talks. He said Congress had restrained from extensive implementation of Article 371(A) so as not to provoke as its priority was to secure solution to the political problem through peaceful means.
Therie said it was unfortunate that Nagaland lacks an opposition and for which, whether “right of wrong, or good or bad” members would remain dumb, deaf and blind. Therefore, it is for this that the governor of the state has extra responsibilities.