A Finance Department order dated January 15, 2026, accessed by Mokokchung Times, shows that Nagaland was allocated Rs 373 crore under the Centre’s Scheme for Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment (SASCI) for flood and landslide mitigation, road restoration and other disaster-related infrastructure works. The amount is substantial. But the bigger issue is not simply where the money is being spent. It is what borrowing on this scale means for the state’s future.
SASCI provides 50-year interest-free loans to states for capital expenditure. The absence of interest makes the scheme attractive, particularly for a state with limited fiscal space and enormous infrastructure requirements. But interest-free does not mean free. A loan remains a loan. It has to be repaid.
And Rs 373 crore is not the only SASCI borrowing undertaken by Nagaland. Since the scheme began in 2020-21, the state has accessed such assistance for various purposes. The government of the day has every right to take decisions on borrowing for legitimate public needs. Roads must be repaired, landslides mitigated and infrastructure protected. There is nothing inherently wrong with borrowing for productive public investment.
The concern is the absence of adequate public scrutiny over how these loans are being used.
How are projects selected? What criteria determine which road, drainage system or protection wall receives funding? What was the actual expenditure? How many projects were completed? What happens when deadlines are missed? These are reasonable questions when public borrowing is involved.
The Rs 373-crore allocation itself came with a March 31, 2026 deadline for utilisation and completion of works and payments. Yet, months after the deadline, the public has not been given a clear account of how much of the money was actually utilised and what happened to the projects funded under it.
This is where transparency becomes more than an administrative requirement. It becomes a moral responsibility.
A 50-year loan can outlive the political careers, administrations and perhaps even the lives of those who approve it today. The people who will eventually repay these obligations may not have had any say in the decisions that created them. They will be our children and grandchildren.
That does not mean Nagaland should refuse long-term borrowing. It means every rupee borrowed must produce an enduring public asset or measurable public benefit.
The question, therefore, is not whether the government should borrow. It is whether today’s governments have the moral right to borrow tomorrow’s money without clearly accounting for every rupee and every project.
Nagaland’s development cannot be built by transferring an opaque financial burden to the next generation.
