NEW DELHI, AUGUST 6: In the current debate over the Kashmir peace process, quot;within the Constitutional frameworkquot; is a refrain that instantly polarises sentiments on either side. Step back and look at the Constitution and you will find that its quot;frameworkquot; has been fine-tuned six times total amendments: 78 to settle disputes involving the country8217;s territorial integrity and even demands by those violently assertive of their identities.
Certainly, each of these cases listed below is unique and it would be naive to conclude that a similar tinkering can resolve the Kashmir conflict. But what these examples show is that the Constitution and its framework aren8217;t rigid entities 8211; they have kept evolving to meet the changing aspirations of the times.
Ninth Amendment 1960: The Nehru Government transferred some land from Assam, Punjab, West Bengal and Tripura to Pakistan to settle some niggling border disputes between the two countries. The transfer was effected by amending the First Schedule to the Constitution where the territories comprising India are enlisted. It followed three agreements India arrived at with Pakistan in quot;a spirit of accommodationquot;.
Thirteenth Amendment 1962: This amendment has its genesis in a secessionist movement launched even before Independence by A Z Phizo, who took to violence in a bid to take Nagaland out of India. On his instigation, the Nagas boycotted the first general election in 1952, causing embarrassment to the nascent Republic as Assam8217;s Naga Hills District forerunner of Nagaland went unrepresented in the state legislature as well as the Lok Sabha. The Government cracked down on the insurgents with Army and draconian laws. After Phizo fled the country in 1956, the moderate Nagas formed the Naga People8217;s Convention, which proposed the establishment of the Nagaland state within the Indian Union.
And in 1960, the Government entered into a 16-point agreement with the Naga People8217;s Convention under which the moderate Nagas set up an interim body to administer Nagaland. Phizo8217;s followers hit back by assassinating the chairman of the interim body, Imkongliba Ao. But that did not derail the interim arrangement and, as per the 16-point charter, the Government enacted a Constitutional amendment to create the state of Nagaland in 1962 and introduce Article 371A providing special provisions for it.
The Naga demand for Article 371A was obviously inspired by the special provisions of Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir. The amplitude of Article 370 is much greater as it even provides a separate constitution for Jammu and Kashmir. What the two Articles share in common is the accent to protect the identity of the local people. Thus, Article 371A says no Central law affecting 1 religious or social practices of the Nagas, 2 Naga customary law and procedure, 3 administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, and 4 ownership and transfer of land and its resources, can apply to Nagaland without the approval of its legislative assembly.
Sixteenth Amendment 1963: It was meant to counter the quot;extraordinary threatquot; posed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK, now an ally of the Government, which advocated secession of the then Madras state even as it functioned as a legitimate political party. The DMK could get away with it because of a loophole in the law. The Government plugged the loophole by amending the Third Schedule which contains the proforma of the oaths to be taken by the legislators, ministers, judges and other Constitutional functionaries. The amendment introduced this expression in the oath: quot;8230;that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of Indiaquot;.
Twenty Seventh Amendment 1971: It carved out one more part of Assam to form the Union Territory of Mizoram with a legislative assembly and council of ministers. This legislation also had its roots in a separatist movement, launched by Laldenga in 1961 under the banner of the Mizo National Front MNF, with the object of attaining independence for Mizoram through insurgency. Laldenga declared quot;independencequot; in 1966 and ran a parallel administration. The Government stepped up counter-insurgency operations and tried to win the masses over through developmental and welfare activities. This amendment creating the union territory of Mizoram was enacted against this backdrop.
Fifty Third Amendment 1986: It was a sequel to an accord with Laldenga as insurgency persisted even after Mizoram became a union territory. The accord was despite the fact that the Government had banned the MNF twice in 1979 and 1982 as an quot;unlawful organisationquot;. The amendment introduced Article 371G conferring statehood on Mizoram with special provisions to protect the identity of the Mizos, much like what was given earlier to the Nagas. Following the amendment, the MNF shared power with the Congress party in an interim coalition headed by Laldenga. Six months later, the MNF won the first elections of the new state and Laldenga became its democratically elected chief minister.
Seventy Second Amendment 1992: It was based on an agreement with the Tripura National Volunteers TNV in 1988 providing a greater share for tribals in the governance of the state. The TNV was set up in 1978 with the avowed object of securing independence for Tripura through armed struggle. The Government nevertheless signed a memorandum of settlement with the TNV quot;for restoring peace and harmony in the areas of state of Tripura where disturbed conditions prevailedquot;.
5 min read
