State chief minister Neiphiu Rio, in his Republic Day speech at Kohima on January 26,2022, has reiterated that no more new districts will be created, especially bifurcating an existing district inhabited by a single tribe to create a new district. This policy will send a strong message across that the government will apply this yardstick against various demands. The decision against creation of any new district comes against the backdrop of demands for upgradation of existing administrative units such as –Aboi, Tobu, Mangkolemba, Bhandari and Meluri- into districts. While demands for upgradation of above administrative units into headquarters has been a long pending demand, the government had created four new districts- Tseminyu, Chümoukedima and Niuland ( on December 20,2021) and latest being Shamator(January 20,2022). It is not known whether the statement with regard to criteria for bifurcation of existing district in creating another new district is in existence or that it is an ad hoc decision shaped or compelled by the current environment. If there was any such criteria on determining creation of new district(s) then it would seem that the government has not followed it. On the other hand, if such a criteria does not exist, then the decision to end the seemingly endless demands for districts, is an ad hoc decision. While the government may attempt to discourage demand for more districts under whatever reasons, it remains to be seen if a recent demand for creation of Meluri district currently under Phek district could fail to dissuade those demanding it, mainly the Pochury tribe. Even with regard to the recent creation of four districts, it is a matter of debate whether the government had considered the ground reality based on the parameters of administration and population. While deciding on creation of new districts, the government should have made known the criteria and guidelines to be followed, if there is any such policy. However, if the decisions were based on extraneous considerations other than accepted expediencies and purely on ad hoc basis, then it only explains how ad hocism has become the hallmark of administrative governance. There are more than the few over which the government has pursued policies in the past, that were shaped by the dictates or compulsions of the period. This makes the entire decisions on crucial issues not based on established guidelines but purely relative to political exigency. It is time that there be some in the government-whether elected or employed – to realise the fact that it is over time for the state to chart a clearly delineated socio-economic and political discourse. Many crucial issues have come up but have either been relegated to the background or decisive and belated action(s) is being delayed. Even with regard to the Naga political issue that gave rise to another formation of an opposition-less government and the constitution of the Core Committee on Naga Political Issue; the same ritual of consultations continue in a never ending ritual. Except for the label being changed to titillate, from “facilitators” to now “pressure lobby” the decades long protracted issue is back on the bench as the focus is on removal/repeal of AFSPA. It is hoped that the government exercises the same conviction, urgency and will to tackle various issues instead of benching them in futility.
