 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have the Sandita Haqsar, well-known author, studied the North East issues, been involved earlier in it and also a legal expert. Sandita, there's been a lot of controversy about the local government elections recently in Nagaland. Is it a question of, simply a question of patriarchy men versus women or is it more complicated than that? What is the real issue? Well, I think it's a much, much more complex issue and it has been shown by both sides as if it is to do with tribal customary law versus women's rights. And it is much more complicated. In what way is it more complicated? Well, let's begin at the beginning because some people, including women and men, mostly men, but a large number of women as well, Nagas, have said that there is no patriarchy. There's no understanding of patriarchy. And sometimes there is a confusion in these debates between gender rights and patriarchy. So there is, I mean my position is and I, of course, I don't think there's any society on earth which is not patriarchal. So just as that, Nagas are a patriarchal society. And it is based on, you know, none of their traditional institutions are headed by women. And in the decision making sphere, wherever it is, it is dominated. I think some Nagas feel that it is not patriarchal when they compare it to the caste societies. And for instance, they did not have dowry debts and they didn't have the kind of violence against women that caste or Hindu society has. But all the same, it is a patriarchal society. Having said that, now why did this whole thing erupt in this way? Because it is very strange. Now women, individual women were standing for elections. I don't think they looked at it necessarily as a fight against patriarchy. It may be like a fight on equal rights for women in a very different kind of framework. But in the course of that fight, the tribal bodies, and also I would like to say they say traditional tribal bodies. Most of them are not traditional in the sense that they didn't come from times immemorial. These were formed at range level by the British. So they are actually colonial bodies. So they are not really actually tradition as in historically they were pre-colonial. They were all after colonial because Naga society was based on village, not on tribe. So anyway, so these tribal bodies who are male dominated, in fact 90%, 99% some of them, some of them may have women representatives. But I'm sure almost none of them have any head or decision making done by women. And these tribal bodies said that we have a protection of our tribal law under the constitution of India, which is Article 371A, which was put in. And that's the basis of the creation of the Nagaland state. Now they took that view. And some or large number of them are the ones who were supporting the Naga national movement. And Naga national movement was against Article 371A. In fact, the man who actually did this 371A, who fought for 371A was assassinated. So it is a rather peculiar situation. But having said this, if 371A goes, which is a very minor protection, it protects customary laws and traditional way of life. It also protects land and natural resources. So if 371A goes, then land and natural resources will be open to open market exploitation and it will be big companies. But the question is, does 371A really protect the institutions that are there in a way that, for instance, we cannot have 33% reservations for women in the local bodies elections? That would be really true. There are three arguments that have been put forward. One is that you can't have it because it's against our customary law. The second argument is that you have these urban bodies. I've forgotten the exact number, but urban municipal corporation, which is not covered by customary law because it's modern. It didn't exist early. Yeah. So therefore it is exempt from 371A. But by that same logic, nor are corporations covered and therefore corporations can take over land. So I think it's a very dangerous argument. And the third is that we do away with 371A and then have the elections. Now my stand is, and I think a lot of people may not have understood it, but as a lawyer, I would say that why is customary law looked upon as if it's static? Customary law is like any other law. And why some of us have supported customary law is that I think it had a potential for being reinterpreted, evolved. Statutory law becomes fossilized. But customary law also becomes fossilized if there is no one to creatively reinterpret it. That's a very important point that you're making. Doesn't it mean that if today we want to change, what could have been in customary law certain, shall we say older practices which today are not really inconformative with what we want? Then how do you do it by changing the customary law, believing that these customs have to change? Absolutely. But I would then say that the real problem, a political problem is that the movement where any of the two or three or four Naga national movements, armed groups, some of them in ceasefire talks, whoever they are, whoever's concerned with Naga nationalism should have got the vision to set up a body and say, well, we will change it and we will decide and we will give 50% or 60% to women or we'll give whatever to women. But they have to have the vision. If they don't have the vision, then individual women will fight for their rights and those vested interests, whether it's corporate interest or it is center which is wanting to move in and solve the problem, so many vested interests can actually use women's issue to sidetrack the whole issue of land and natural resources. Which is the much bigger issue. I won't say it's bigger issues. I think women's issues are as big but the question is, do the women's movements see it as that? Are they trying to reconcile or is this like a civil war because we don't have a vision? And if it is, women's rights are always hijacked. If it is a patriarchal society, then we should know that women's rights are hijacked either by men in power, wherever, in different contexts. Is it also true that the only right to ownership of land is with the men? Yes, so therefore it is not only 33% and if women want the right, then and if they want it within a tribal society and they are as well Naga nationalists. Those women who are fighting on this battle who are most articulate as moment, they are asking for outside support. Now I find that very interesting because they didn't name me but some of them said we don't want advice from outsiders. Yet the same women are asking the Indian feminists who have no idea about Naga situation to help them. Now it is and therefore they say that it's a feminist right. Now feminism also is ideologically it may be a liberal feminist or Marxist feminist or socialist feminist. So it's so complex in to take all the strands and it has happened before. I mean if we see in Canada, Indigenous women have asked for property rights and in the name of giving property rights to all women, although an individual has asked, Indigenous people's rights have been undermined. This could open the way for cooperation takeover of land and resources. Absolutely. It could. In fact that is the agenda which seems to be because the one party who actually passed this law never implemented it. So this is a battle between two parties, two organizations, maybe underground is involved in it. And all this nobody is concerned about women's rights except a few Naga women who do not have the political vision to be able to see through all this. They are fighting for their rights and rightly so I have no objection or how can I to say that you have a right to 33% or right to land or right to property. But can our battle be have better strategy and that is my issue that your strategy may be that all of us lose. Both sides. I mean all sides, India, Naga and all those who are fighting that land and natural resources should not go to corporates and these land and natural resources stay with the people. Whether it's Nagas or Tribals or all of us, I mean we don't want this being taken over by corporates. Thank you very much Nandita for being with us. We'll come back to you on these issues as well as other issues.