Limakumba Walling (akumwalling@gmail.com)
Renbeni Kikon, PhD candidate, UoH (renbenikikon@gmail.com)
Any undergraduate student knows the textbook definition of ‘economic development’ as not only quantitative growth of income, employment and output but also change in the set of institutions for sustained growth. Indeed,it is pertinent that institutions (political, social or economic) must change in the development process. The change in the existing and dominant social, political and economic norms and institutions is never smooth rather the process of development itself creates ‘conflicts of interest’ in the relevant spheres of the economy. There is unanimity among the denizens of the state irrespective of tribe, age or class, that we need investment in basic infrastructure development. Nagaland is no exception, in trying to come out of the shackles of a conflict prone tribal society, the state in its effort to lay down basic infrastructure has encountered conflicts of interest with certain social class especially the landowners. The issue of conflict of interests in the development process is worth examining not only as an academic exercise but also as a public discourse in order to legislate and resolve these issues.
Availability of Land (and its natural resources) and labour, are the two primary sources that determine economic development. Moreover, Land and its resources are scarce. Their supply is inelastic i.e. unlike labour which depends on population growth; we cannot increase or decrease the land that we are endowed with. Therefore, in many cases any discussion about development projects eventually turns into a discussion about land allocation and acquisition. This explains how almost all corruption cases in Indian are related to land.
In Nagaland, through article 371A of the Indian constitution, the ownership of land has been transferred to the indigenous inhabitants, unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides. So practically, all land is owned by the village community, clan or individuals. Therefore, for any development activities, the state government has to acquire land by compensating the landowners in cash or kind. It is another matter of study how this provision has been misinterpret, used and abused by the political class.
The state machinery has been facing various obstacles in projects like –widening of Dimapur airport, four lane highways, Kohima railway line and mostly importantly with regard to the oil and mineral exploration. In all these projects, the state has been in confrontation with the landowners with regard to the size of compensation and other regularity ordinances. In recent times, there has been much debate about what rights and authority the government has with regard to land ownership. There is nothing odd about the conflict of interests in the economy; rather it is a natural by-product of the economic development process itself.
Presently, the government does not seem to have any institutional mechanism to deal with conflicts arising out of the development process, it must address these issues of conflict of interests with all the stake holders. One way to resolve such conflicts is to set up a board or a committee of experts consisting of eminent personalities, civil society members, government functionaries to act as intermediaries. Alternatively, as we have a well-built traditional and customary institutions and social norms, the government can revitalize and strengthen them. They can act as an interface between the state and the affected people to resolve issues in implementing projects. In this regard, the government has been successful to some extent – most notably in the communization of education, health and power. However, glaring mismanagements and regularity loopholes need to be corrected before broadening the scope.The two alternatives presented here are just pointers to the direction of having appropriate social norms and institutional design.
Ushering in basic infrastructure development in a state with a long and continuing history of political unrest, diverse culture and traditions and hilly terrain is a tough ask. The state has resorted to piecemeal development activities and bulldozes ahead without the need for an inclusive development regime. Hence, even within our impoverished state, we find backward districts (Eastern Nagaland) and backward tribes. Nagaland suffers from two socio-economic maladies. First, the state is completely dependent on funds from the Union government under the ‘Special States’ category. This has allowed Crony capitalism to creep in, as regard to how contracts for projects are allotted to people with high political connections. Secondly, most of the time serious issues relating to development are translated into political rhetoric and issues about tribalism. The result has been large distributional inequality, emergence of elitism and social unrest.
To rescue ourselves from the quagmire of an exclusionist, class-ridden, unequal society, there is a strong need for a comprehensive long term development programme, not ‘patch-up’ development projects, leading to inclusive growth. Both civil society and the government must take concrete steps in this direction. What has been largely ignored as a first step is the need to have a comprehensive discourse, academic as well as public on the nature and kind of development that we aspire for. We cannot adopt any development model.The type of development that has worked in Gujarat may not be suited to Nagaland. Development process must always be specific to our social, political and cultural environment, recognising explicitly conflict of interests as inherent and designing institutional mechanism to resolve them.
