Sir,
I am writing in response to your recent article, “Nagaland Agriculture Policy 2025: Visionary, but will farmers feel the change?” First of all, thank you for the attention to such matters. While the piece raises valid concerns regarding the historical challenges of infrastructure and funding in our state, I believe the critique of the policy’s “vagueness” stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of public policy architecture.
A State Policy is designed to be a “Vision Document.” Its primary role is to set the long-term direction, philosophy, and legal framework for a sector, the “What” and the “Why.” By its very nature, a policy should not be a granular operational manual. The specific “How”, including measurable targets, budgetary allocations, and local timelines, is the function of Strategic Plans and Action Plans that are framed under the umbrella of the main policy.
Criticizing a visionary policy for lacking a detailed irrigation schedule or specific crop-yield targets is like criticizing a building’s blueprint for not listing the names of the plumbers. The blueprint (Policy) provides the structure; the work orders (Implementation Plans) provide the specifics.
By keeping the Agriculture Policy 2025 high-level, the government allows for the flexibility needed to adapt to Nagaland’s unique topographical and communal land-holding challenges. If a policy is too rigid, it becomes obsolete the moment market conditions shift.
The real test for our farmers will not be found in the text of this policy, but in the Strategic Roadmaps and Departmental Budgets that follow it. I encourage the Mokokchung Times to continue its role as a watchdog by scrutinizing those upcoming implementation documents, rather than dismissing the foundational vision for lacking operational minutiae.
Sincerely,
Amba Jamir
Senior Policy Analyst &
Development Strategist
