Mathew Rongmei
Zeliangrongram Colony Dimapur
The Confederation of Nagaland Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CNCCI)’s recent decision to initiate a voluntary business shutdown in several districts is both a symbolic and strategic appeal to address what it deems an inequity in the current framework of municipal representation. At the heart of the protest lies a straightforward, yet consequential demand: the inclusion of business community representatives as nominated members in all Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) of Nagaland, not merely in selected towns such as Kohima and Mokokchung.
It is crucial to distinguish this agitation from typical political dissent. CNCCI’s appeal does not seek to undermine the electoral process or circumvent democratic norms. Rather, it calls for parity in the application of an existing statutory provision under the Nagaland Municipal Act. The Act permits the nomination of members—up to one-third of the elected strength of a ULB—by the government, ideally to incorporate professionals, domain experts, or key stakeholders who can augment municipal administration with their specialized insights.
The commercial sector, particularly in urban centers like Dimapur and Chümoukedima, constitutes a vital pillar of the state's economy. Traders, entrepreneurs, and market leaders contribute substantially to municipal revenue and urban development. Their absence from civic decision-making forums, therefore, raises legitimate concerns about representational fairness. If the rationale for nomination is to enrich governance with experiential knowledge, then a blanket exclusion of the business community in some districts—while embracing it in others—appears arbitrary and inconsistent.
From the government’s standpoint, the explanation offered is one of legal limitation: the number of nominations must not exceed a specified threshold. While procedurally valid, this argument falls short of justifying the geographic selectivity in representation. The provision should be invoked equitably across all jurisdictions, or not at all.
CNCCI’s approach has so far remained measured and non-disruptive. Essential services have been exempted from the bandh, and the Confederation has reiterated its non-political stance. This civility must be met with reciprocal sincerity from the government. A constructive dialogue—one that seeks to harmonize legal constraints with principles of fairness—is urgently needed.
At a broader level, this episode underscores the need to revisit and refine our understanding of participatory governance. In a state as diverse and dynamic as Nagaland, inclusivity in civic institutions cannot be partial or selective. Representation should reflect not only demographic balance but also economic contribution and social relevance.
As Nagaland’s urban centers evolve, the institutions that govern them must evolve too—guided by fairness, inclusivity, and reason. The CNCCI’s demand, in essence, is not a deviation from this vision but a timely reminder of it.
