By Moa Jamir
Two recent government announcements have drawn attention not only for their substance, or lack of it, but also for the manner in which they were communicated. One concerns the proposed ban on tobacco products, while the other relates to the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on oil exploration in the Assam-Nagaland boundary areas. While the two issues differ greatly in subject and scale, both raise a common concern: a lack of clarity and inadequate public consultation.
The June 4 notification issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare and conveyed to the public through the State Directorate of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) on the prohibition of gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco or nicotine was, on the face of it, a public health measure. While few would dispute the harmful effects of tobacco consumption or the need for stronger regulation, the manner in which the notification was communicated created more questions than answers.
Most notably, the notification did not clearly specify when the ban would come into effect. Nor did it adequately explain the scope of products covered. Such questions quickly surfaced among traders, consumers and the public. As expected, several business chambers sought clarification and requested a reasonable transition period. Even a high-level review meeting chaired by the Health & Family Welfare Minister on June 9, while seeking collective support for the proposed ban, did not publicly clarify the implementation timeline. In the resulting information vacuum, misinformation predictably filled the gap. An AI-generated image claiming there was no ban circulated widely on social media, adding to the confusion.
Whether the ambiguity resulted from haste, oversight or an attempt to avoid immediate opposition is difficult to determine. Another possibility is that the notification was issued primarily to comply with broader directives on tobacco regulation, with operational details left for later clarification. Whatever the reason, timely communication from the department could have prevented much of the uncertainty.
A similar issue arises in the case of the tripartite MoU signed on June 11 by the Governments of India, Assam and Nagaland for mineral oil operations in the Assam-Nagaland boundary areas. The agreement may potentially unlock significant economic opportunities for Nagaland. Yet, beyond brief social media updates from the Chief Ministers of Nagaland and Assam, very little information has been officially communicated by the State Government. Even the Union Home Minister's address at the signing ceremony was characterised more by political rhetoric than by substantive details about the MoU.
The absence of publicly available details is striking given the sensitivity of the issue. The State's financial considerations may well have provided an added impetus for the agreement, but expediency cannot substitute for transparency, particularly on a matter intertwined with land rights, natural resources and the larger Naga political question.
This is particularly noteworthy because the State Government had previously emphasised consultation and consensus-building. Following a consultative meeting in May 2023, it was stated that efforts were underway to reach unanimity and consensus on the issue of oil exploration. Subsequent discussions in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and Cabinet meetings reflected a continued push towards exploration and extraction. However, beyond legislative debates and political discussions, there is little in the public domain to indicate the extent of consultations undertaken with stakeholders prior to the signing of the MoU.
It is indisputable that governments are entrusted with making decisions, even when those decisions are difficult or unpopular. Consultation does not necessarily mean unanimity, nor can every policy await universal approval. However, public policy, especially one affecting livelihoods, commerce and consumer behaviour, natural resources and community interests cannot rely on assumptions and unofficial interpretations. It entails clear communication, transparency and meaningful engagement with stakeholders. Both the tobacco notification and the oil exploration MoU point to the same lesson. Good governance requires more than announcing decisions and public confidence is built not merely on what governments decide, but on how those decisions are made and conveyed.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
