Populist driven

Creation of more districts was a proposal made during the tenure of the Congress government in 1998-2003 but which were fulfilled only from 2004 when Longleng, Kiphire and Peren were created by the newly elected NPF-led coalition government. Thus the three newly created districts were in addition to eight in existence –Kohima, Mokokchung, Tuensang, Mon, Wokha, Zunheboto, Dimapur and Phek districts. The new districts proposed during 1998-2003 were essentially to bring development closer to people but in another sense, it was also about populism. The NPF-led DAN government did not stop there as it continued on its populist journey in fulfilling its claim of being a ‘people’s government’ when it created five more new districts in 2017(Noklak); 2021 (Chümoukedima, Niuland, Tseminyu) and 2022 (Shamator). Creating districts followed the policy of consideration based on existence of a language spoken by a majority community or communities. Such policies make eople who are the beneficiaries, extremely happy and by doing so, the government also believes it has done an excellent job in fulfilling the promises made either before or during elections. Recently veteran Naga politician and former chief minister (and governor) Dr.S.C.Jamir had called into question the wisdom of creating so many districts, two of which have a population of a maximum of 12,000. The rest of the remaining districts have population of around 60,000 and above and upto around 2 lakh. In his statement, Dr.Jamir had said that before Nagaland became a state prior to 1963, it was a small district under Assam known as Naga Hills Tuensang Area( amalgamation of Naga Hills district and Tuensang Frontier Division) and with a population of around 3,69,000. Perhaps, like Nagaland being created out of political necessity; many more districts of the erstwhile district under Assam, were also created due to political interests of the political parties. Creation of more districts means that a huge chunk of budget would have to be spent for administrative purposes and leave less for development. Taking the example of Nagaland, civil societies have yet to come to grips with how they should devote adequate attention to this pressing need besides raising various socio-political issues. All told, it is pertinent to understand that a civil society is the domain of social organization within which voluntary associative relations are dominant. These societies need to enlighten and educate the common people about individual responsibility towards effecting good governance. If civil societies focus only on raising issues to get the attention of the government or those in authority, they miss out on the need to nurture people’s participation in all spheres. Providing basic administrative infrastructure and not necessarily expanding them, should be a common agenda that should not necessarily become a political gambit; after all, the government of India foots the bills and expects any right thinking government to do just that. Reforms in the administration, police and judiciary are also growing needs of a state that has been imbalanced by too much politics. Democracy means the rule of the people, but at most times, it is also about what belongs to the people.