Tsüngrochetla Walling
Dimapur
The Foothills Road in Nagaland, envisioned as a crucial lifeline for the state, has once again been thrust into controversy. This time, the contention lies not in a lack of funding but in a standoff between the state government and the Nagaland Foothills Road Coordination Committee (NFHRCC), a body backed by several tribal hohos that has long been involved in overseeing the project and is deserving of the credit for all it has done to make this project a reality. While the government asserts that the road is fully funded and does not require third-party agreements, NFHRCC insists that contractors must abide by agreement ensuring quality and accountability.
But beyond this immediate standoff, a deeper issue lingers—how do we reconcile differing claims, shifting narratives, and the inconsistencies that have plagued this project for over a decade? The state government maintains that since the Foothills Road is 100% government-funded, all necessary terms and conditions are already embedded in the official contract between PWD (R&B) and the contractors. On the other hand, NFHRCC argues that it has played a crucial role in advocating for this project since its inception. Its leaders say that this road project wasn’t started by the government but by the people over 13 years ago.
Another key issue is why some contractors have refused to sign the implementation agreement. NFHRCC sees it as a way to ensure quality, accountability by outlining terms related to quality control, project timelines, and financial transparency—such as limiting taxes to statutory charges only and requiring clearance before bill payments, etc. However, some firms have reportedly refused to comply. While their specific reasons remain unclear, it raises questions about what they see the agreement as? Perhaps a bureaucratic hurdle, a potential constraint on their operational autonomy, a departure from standard government contract procedures or do they feel it could affect the benefits they expect from the projects? Whatever the reasons, what do these tell us about how such projects are usually handled in Nagaland?
In 2013-14, ₹40 crore was sanctioned under the Special Plan Assistance (SPA) scheme, in 2014-15 an additional ₹27 crore was allocated and in 2021-22 ₹30 crore was earmarked for the project while in 2023-24, the state government confirmed that ₹148.50 crore was sanctioned under the Special Assistance to State for Capital Investment (SACI) scheme. Despite these allocations, progress has been slow, with the project stalling multiple times. The role of the Assam-Nagaland border issue had also come up previously, and delays were attributed to concerns raised by Assam. However, the government now claims that diplomatic efforts have improved conditions, allowing work to proceed. If these issues could be resolved now, why were they not addressed earlier? Similarly, NFHRCC has been both acknowledged and sidelined at different points in the project’s history. In some instances, the government has recognised its role, while at other times, it has dismissed the need for its involvement. The changing narratives have contributed to confusion among the public.
In a state as diverse as Nagaland, where multiple tribes coexist with distinct customs, languages, and governance structures, tribal bodies have historically played a crucial role in maintaining social order, resolving disputes, and advocating for community interests. Unlike in many other states where centralised governance is the norm, Nagaland operates with a unique socio-political structure where tribal bodies often function as de facto guardians of their people. These bodies not only preserve customary laws but also serve as intermediaries between the government and the public, especially in matters concerning land, development, and community welfare.
The involvement of tribal bodies in infrastructure projects like the Foothills Road is therefore not surprising. In a region where land ownership is largely communal and deeply tied to tribal identity, any major developmental project requires the support and consensus of these traditional institutions. The NFHRCC’s engagement in this project stems from this reality—it sees itself as a watchdog ensuring that the interests of the people, particularly those in the foothill regions, are not sidelined in bureaucratic processes.
At the same time, when traditional bodies operate alongside the government, it can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or differing expectations with state authorities. Should their role be institutionally recognised to streamline coordination, or does the government think that this would risk politicising their influence? If Nagaland’s governance system continues to depend on both state authorities and tribal organisations, a more defined framework for collaboration is necessary to prevent conflicts like the one unfolding today.
The Bigger Picture: What’s at Stake?
This dispute highlights a larger issue—how public infrastructure projects are managed in Nagaland. The Foothills Road is more than just a transportation route; it is a symbol of regional connectivity, economic opportunity, and inter-tribal cooperation. A project of this scale should not be reduced to a battle but should be approached with transparency and collaboration.
NFHRCC insists that its involvement is about protecting the interests of the people, not personal gain. The government, on the other hand, wants to move forward without additional bureaucratic hurdles. But if both parties are doing what they're doing in the best interest of the Naga people, should there not be room for open negotiation and compromise? This dispute is not just about the Foothills Road—it exposes deeper systemic flaws in Nagaland’s project management.
For a project that has spanned over a decade, clarity is long overdue. The people of Nagaland deserve more than conflicting statements, battle of words and shifting responsibilities.Who holds the steering wheel for ensuring that the Foothills Road is completed efficiently and with integrity? And more importantly, when will the people of Nagaland see a road that lives up to its long-promised potential? At the end of the day, the question isn’t about who controls the road—it’s about who values the people it was meant to serve.
Author’s Note: This article is not aimed at any individual or organisation but is an attempt to raise critical questions and encourage discussion.
