It goes without saying that farming remains the mainstay of a large section of the Naga people. The Government of Nagaland has, accordingly, established multiple agriculture and allied departments, along with specialized missions and boards intended to strengthen the sector. The intent is clear and necessary. The question, however, is about outcomes.
Are these departments and agencies able to demonstrate measurable results on the ground, not merely in reports? From full-fledged departments to various missions and boards, the public deserves clarity on what tangible impact has been achieved. This is not to suggest there have been no efforts, but to ask whether those efforts have translated into visible economic transformation.
The paradox is stark. Agriculture is often described as the primary livelihood of over 70 percent of the population, with rice as the dominant staple crop. Yet markets across Nagaland are filled with rice, vegetables, fruits and even green chillies imported from outside the state. Export figures, by contrast, remain negligible. If a majority depends on farming, why does the state struggle to meet its own consumption needs?
The issue may not lie in production alone. Questions arise about storage, processing and market linkages. How many functional cold storage units exist? How many farmer producer organizations are commercially viable? Are value addition units operating at scale, or only on paper?
Yes, challenges certainly exist. But these are precisely why agri and allied departments are instituted in the first place. Competence must be judged by their ability to overcome constraints and deliver measurable progress. Performance should be assessed through crop yield data, farmer income trends and reduction in imports over time.
Whether this perception is fair or not, one is tempted to ask whether repeated statistics about agricultural dependence are being inflated to attract funds from the central government and other agencies. There is a growing concern that the system may function more as an administrative structure benefiting those with access and influence, rather than delivering proportional gains to actual farmers. When visible results do not match the claims and the amount of money spent, such doubts naturally arise.
It is time for a scientific, evidence based study of agriculture, governance mechanisms, farmer realities and economic outcomes. Only through transparent data and accountability can Nagaland transform agriculture from a paradox into a productive engine of growth.
