Farming in Nagaland has historically been rooted in subsistence. For generations, agriculture has been less about market surplus and more about food security, social stability, and survival. Against this backdrop, the recent push for cash crops such as tea, coffee, and rubber deserves closer scrutiny, not only for its economic promise but also for its social and structural implications.
While these crops are often projected as high value and commercially viable, they have struggled to capture the imagination of marginal and rural farmers. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Cash crop cultivation is capital intensive, demanding long gestation periods, technical expertise, and access to markets. For small and poor farmers, the risks often outweigh the promised returns. As a result, ownership of tea, coffee, and rubber plantations in Nagaland remains largely concentrated among the relatively well to do.
Government subsidies and incentives are frequently cited as tools to bridge this gap. Yet there is little clarity on how far these interventions have genuinely empowered marginal farmers. In practice, many government schemes appear to benefit those who already possess land, capital, and the ability to manage bureaucratic processes. Poor villagers, for whom such support is ostensibly designed, often remain on the margins of these initiatives.
This raises a fundamental question about the direction of agricultural policy in the state. Promoting cash crops without addressing structural inequalities risks widening economic disparities within rural society. Development cannot be measured merely by the acreage under tea or rubber, but by who benefits from such expansion.
There is an urgent need to reassess the approach to agricultural diversification in Nagaland. Policies must be grounded in local realities, farmer capacity, and risk tolerance. Greater emphasis should be placed on low cost, locally adaptable crops, cooperative farming models, and assured market linkages. Without such recalibration, the promise of cash crops will remain limited to a few, leaving the majority of rural farmers unconvinced and excluded.
