ABSTRACT
This chapter traces the eventualities surrounding the urban local bodies’ (ULBs) election unfolding the display of marginalisation and the contours of marginality of Naga women vis-à-vis Naga customary laws and the power dynamics of the men’s exclusive tribal organisations. Legal pluralism as commonly acknowledged emanate from certain colonial influence in the past. Indian union too undoubtedly bears similarities in its descends. However, legal pluralism in the Indian union [like the states of Mizoram (Article 371G) and Nagaland (Article 371A)] emanates out of agreements signed between the Government of India and rebel leaders who are fighting for secession from the Indian union. The agreement resulted in the amendment of the Indian Constitution in order to protect their religious practices, customary laws, and economic interests. Fifty-six years after statehood, the situation in Nagaland has reached a point where the Naga people (Nagas) leave no opportunity to bring up the special provision (Article 371A) to assert their rights based on the plurality of the Indians. Of late, there have been questions among the people on the provisions given in Article 371A in the context of turmoil and the aftermath of the announcement of the polls to the ULBs by the Government of Nagaland in January 2017. In a state where not a single woman legislature has been elected to the legislative assembly to date, a perspective such as this throws light on the conditioning of the status quo and the larger power dynamics therein.
