Controversy erupts over East-West Corridor Road Project in Zunheboto District

Zunheboto, 25 November (MTNews): The East-West Corridor two-lane road project passing through Zunheboto district, linking Showuba to Pangsha and extending to the Indo-Myanmar border, is embroiled in controversy.

On Saturday, Sixteen Village Public Forum representing sixteen villages falling within Section-(3) of the Showuba-Pangsha corridor in Zunheboto district undertook a peaceful protest rally at Saptiqa town EAC headquarters, casting allegations of route manipulation against the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL).

The Forum contends that NHIDCL deviated from the original plan, submitting allegedly false survey reports asserting that the proposed route encroaches upon the Ghosu Bird Sanctuary. In response, the Forum filed a complaint and assembled a four-member team to resurvey NHIDCL’s claims. The team’s findings contradicted NHIDCL’s reports, the Forum claimed.

A memorandum, delineating essential information on two alignment options, Option-(1) and Option-(2), was submitted to Deputy Chief Minister TR Zeliang, who is also responsible for National Highways and Planning & Transformation departments. Option-(1) proposes a route from Mukalimi to Zunheboto, while Option-(2) charts a course through Mukalimi to Chishilimi to Aghunato.
The memorandum, responding to the Technical Report on Option-(1), spotlighted significant disparities between the survey report and on-ground observations, urging a resolution for accurate representation.

Regarding Option-(1), the technical report indicated a 56-kilometer road length and highlighted the Ghosu Bird Sanctuary’s proximity to the Langki River Bridge, necessitating clearance. The Forum contested these claims, citing the Zunheboto Divisional Forest Officer’s confirmation that Option-(1) did not encroach upon protected lands, and the Ghosu Bird Sanctuary was situated 5 kilometers away.

The Forum asserted, “The Ghosu Bird Sanctuary rather entails an unrivaled potential for augmenting the socioeconomic stratum and elevating the ennobled sphere of tourism.”

Regarding the Zunheboto-Aghunato section via BRO road, the public forum representing 16 villages, with over 19,000 residents, expressed concerns about the inaccuracies in NHIDCL’s survey report. The forum claimed that the report erroneously indicates a densely populated and urbanized area for approximately 4 kilometers. To counter this, they presented a visual map demonstrating Option-(1)’s divergence from the populated Zunheboto town to Sheyipu village.

The public forum accused the Consultant of fabricating reasons and neglecting the legitimate needs of the 16 villages. It highlighted the absence of reliable, all-weather roads, causing immense hardships for residents eagerly anticipating road development.

Why the public forum rejects Option-2 alignment

The joint survey report favors Option-(2), considering its “Crow-flight” alignment for potential reductions in travel time and fuel costs. However, the Forum of the sixteen villages critiques this choice, arguing that despite the appealing theory of “Crow-flight,” its practical implementation is flawed.

“This proposed route meanders through rugged, mountainous terrain with steep gradients exceeding 15% and numerous twists and turns, necessitating cautious and slow navigation, inevitably resulting in increased travel time and extra fuel expenses,” it stated.

The Forum accentuated significant alterations in the original plan for Option-(2), avoiding Khukiye-Lukhai and Satakha Town due to a densely populated, urban stretch between Khukiye and Satakha Town. Consequently, the Forum observed that the modified Option-(2) primarily benefits Chishilimi village, with a population of approximately 1,000+, raising questions about the prioritization of this village over others. Expressing suspicion, the Forum scrutinized the continued advocacy for Option-(2) by the consultant, Executive Director (P), and PMU Pfutsero.

They asserted that by prioritizing a single village , the NHIDCL is seemingly turning a blind eye to the distress of the majority and emphasized the hardships faced by the 16 impoverished villages with a total population of more than 19,000+ in Option-(1), which lacks an all-weather road.

The Forum’s skepticism extends to claims made during the 15 February meeting 2023, wherein Option-(1) was alleged to have more landslide-prone areas, a lower California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value, and service to a smaller population. Contrary to these claims, the Forum contended that the experiences on the ground do not align with these assertions, deeming them false and misleading.

Highlighting further inconsistencies in the decision-making process, the Forum emphasized the contrast evident in Option-(1) receiving preference for one stretch (Section-6 at Shamatore-Noklak) due to its service to a greater number of villages and habitations.

Expressing criticism, they questioned the use of different criteria to evaluate alignment options for the same route by NHIDCL, asserting that such inconsistency raises doubts about the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process. This, in turn, has led to a loss of trust and confidence among the impacted communities, it said.

Despite numerous appeals for the reconsideration of Option (1), the forum noted that key decision-makers, including the Executive Director, Project Management Unit, and the Consultant, remained resolute in their decision to pursue Option (2). This stance has caused distress and disillusionment among the affected communities, it added.

The forum has therefore appealed to higher authorities to thoroughly examine their condition and issue directives to NHIDCL Regional Office in Kohima to pursue Option (1), that is, Mukalimi-Shesulimi-Awohum-Kichilimi-Tukunasami-Nunumi-Saptiqa (EAC,Hq)–Ghukiye-Zungti-Zunheboto route.

They believe that this route will lead to comprehensive development, benefiting all members of the community and aligning with the true essence of progress.