The people of Nagaland deserve better. Yet, time and again, they are made to feel like second-class citizens in their own land. Essential projects remain incomplete for years, basic services are poorly delivered, and the state is often in the news for protests, agitations, and public outcry rather than positive achievements. It almost feels as though citizens are being punished for expecting accountability and progress from those who govern them.
The government may deny any failure, but denial cannot hide what is visible to the naked eye. Roads, healthcare, infrastructure, and education continue to lag behind. Many villages remain cut off during the monsoon months, and hospitals are under-equipped. Projects worth crores of rupees drag on endlessly, leading to frustration and distrust. Salaries are often delayed, and corruption runs rampant. The signs of institutional decay are too glaring to ignore.
Contrast this with neighbouring states that are steadily moving forward. While others showcase investments in technology, industries, and social welfare, Nagaland often finds itself entangled in controversies of mismanagement and inefficiency. Protests have become the language of the people because the conventional channels of grievance redressal seem broken. Citizens are left with no choice but to march on the streets or lock government offices to make their voices heard. If this is not the mark of poor governance, what is?
Worsening the problem is the ‘oppositionless’ Nagaland Legislative Assembly. Without dissenting voices or checks on government policy, the Assembly has become a chamber of formality rather than a forum of debate and accountability. Democracy thrives on constructive criticism, and when there is none, governance suffers. The people, already disenfranchised by policy paralysis, are further silenced by political unanimity that does not reflect the ground reality.
It is time for Nagaland to confront these truths. Yet, the current crop of leaders is squandering their opportunity to shape Nagaland’s transformative history. Instead, they may be remembered only for an era marked by poor governance. History will not absolve those who chose complacency over courage and left behind a legacy of poor governance.
