Yes:
• Yes, since government is not accountable in Nagaland, third parties will safe guard the public interest.
• Yes if transparency is maintained and if the latter really works for the interest of the people… not sure about the fact but I heard Dimapur town-hall was renovated for 19 crore which even though I have no opinion about costs but even building 5 new town hall won’t cost that much… things like this happens openly in Nagaland and no one speaks out.
• Yes. If contractors have been building quality roads and projects all these years, public would not have demanded for such agreements. But we all know that most projects and roads in Nagaland are sub standard. No wonder public are saying 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH'. Ideally, contractors should not be signing agreements with third parties. But we all know how things are being built in Nagaland. Roads get washed away within months. So, when public organizations like the one for Nagaland Foothill road want to ensure quality of the Foothill road, can we not take it in a positive light that public are waking up and want to ensure that providing quality amenities and infrastructure is a basic right for everyone?
• Required for more transparency and to ensure that foothill road is completed on time. Public should be made aware of the progress
• For quality check and completion of projects in time
• In unique circumstances, they are necessary especially in the context of Nagaland where majority of projects remain incomplete or don't meet the quality specifications. Moreover, payments to contractors are usually made without proper quality checks. In remote areas, even a layman can observe that technical engineering structures are mostly ignored which presents a sad picture of our state of affairs.
• Yes in Nagaland it is sometimes seen as necessary when such projects are public driven because the levels of corruption is too much, only hierarchical checks and balance can somehow reduce the inefficiency.
• Quality workmanship is essential. So to my view every developmental project in Nagaland requires third party pressure so that quality workmanship is not compromise.
• The State is mandated by the people to safeguard their welfare. However, given Nagaland's track record of corruption, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) move to keep a tight rein on contractors seems somewhat justified, even though it effectively creates another authority alongside the State. This reflects a deeper issue—people's lack of trust in the government.
• Yes, I strongly agree with the NFRCC's stand. They are working for the benefit of the people to assure quality work and timely completion.
• Contractors and government work hand in hand to misuse public funds
• Absolutely yes. Any government project ends up unfinished or unsatisfactory. Both contractor and government wash their hand helping one another. I suggest that a third party should consists legislative members of various parties as well as civil society enacted through legislation assembly
• It will make them more accountable and responsible in carrying out their duties.
• Land owners did not take land compensation because of NFHRCC's initiative, therefore not only contractors but even the government should sign, otherwise government should be ready to pay land compensation.
• Yes for genuine civil societies. For too long politicians, contractors and engineers have been gaming the system in the state. The result is that even a vital highway such as the Foothill road, which would have benefitted the public immensely, has been neglected for decades. If it was not for the pressure of civil society orgs like NFHRCC, the govt wouldn't have bothered to take up the project. Now that the highway is coming up because of the hardwork, pressure and sacrifice of the public over the years, politicians and their connected engineers and contractors are trying to get the works. Just look at all the pathetic condition of the roads built by the PWD. The people's highway cannot be allowed to suffer the fate of other roads in the state. At least in the case of Foothill highway, NFHRCC should be allowed to monitor. Otherwise, if the highway is left in the hands of the same elements that have been constructing the pathetic roads in our state, then all the efforts of our public would go in vain. Quality matters, Foothill highway should have that. Monitoring by NFHRCC is essential for ensuring the quality of the vital Foothill Highway.
• Yes. If it's for a good cause and beneficial for the public. And more over for this project, the NFHRCC has also done a good part in talking with the land owners and our Naga Factions. why not co-operate with each other for the betterment of the public and start the work by signing the agreement.
• Since government projects in Nagaland are not reliable and crippled with systematic corruption, I feel like third party organisations could help tackle this issue. Hopefully, such measures results in transparency and accountability within the public sector, who are funded by the public and work for public welfare and not the other way around.
• Yes. When you lost trust in the government, third party involvement is definitely supported.
No:
• No. It will open the door for corruption. Third parties will start demanding their shares.
• A big No! Whatever the reason, signing extra agreement with third party (any pressure groups) will be a bad precedent. In case of additional conditions required, any pressure groups can request the government (department) to add to the contact agreement or to some extreme steps public can pressure the concern department not to release payment if the work done is unsatisfactory. I personally feel that third party insistence to enter into another agreement with contractors is unnecessary interference. High time we respect the government rules and regulations. Today the Exigencies of all the government works is to cease corruptions hence there's an urgent need to annihilate our government and NGOs Depravities!
• On what ground do they expect the contractors to sign? It may be extraordinary and they have also played a vital role but they are not above the Government.
• Corruption within the government has undeniably led to a significant erosion of trust and faith in our leaders. This is one of the major driving forces behind the push for a tripartite agreement. While I'm not entirely in favor of contractors signing agreements with third parties, particularly in the case of the Nagaland Foothills Road construction, I do see the potential for this agreement to enhance transparency, accountability, and cooperation in completing the project. However, I can't shake off the concern that the NFHRCC's sole motivation for advocating this tripartite agreement might be to secure financial gains. Given the societal context we live in, where even within our families and friends, there are tendencies to seek exploitative means to secure money, this suspicion cannot be ignored.
• As of now, as it says Nagas not civilized though well educated, the chance of misusing it is too high. So better is less involvement of groups, less expenditure/commission.
• Signing Agreement bond is between the government and contractor only.
• They are only CSO
• No third parties have the right to do such.
Others:
• Distrust among the people and their government is the key reason.
• This question should be in "Think and answer"
• As if first party don’t demand their own share already
