The recent statement by the Deputy Chief Minister of Nagaland, T R Zeliang, to amend the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1956, specially for National Highway projects to streamline land acquisition processes and address compensation concerns need collective and comprehensive deliberations. This announcement, as reported, came during a project review meeting convened by Union Road Transport and Highways Minister, Nitin Gadkari, in New Delhi on October 21, 2024 (‘Nagaland to amend land acquisition laws for national highway projects’, Eastern Mirror, October 22, 2024). It added, “the deputy CM, who also holds the National Highway and Planning & Transformation portfolios, highlighted the unique challenges faced by Nagaland due to its landholding system and the provisions of Article 371A of the Indian Constitution” (as quoted, Ibid).
Earlier on October 31, 2023, the Union Minister of Road Transport & Highways Nitin Gadkari told the Nagaland Government to come up with a State Law within a couple of months to help resolve the land issues or the Ministry would be compelled to de-scope the portion where there are land issues and the National Highway would be compelled to hand over and converted to State Government (‘Gadkari tells Nagaland to solve land issues else National Highway projects will be handed to NPWD’, Nagaland Tribune, October 31, 2023). Such undue pressure exerted by the Union government on the State government can have deleterious consequences, undermining democratic principles of federalism and compromising the voices of the people. This is because the dispute over land acquisition and compensation persists as a contentious issue among stakeholders, necessitating a comprehensive examination of its socio-economic and political implications. The land acquisition and compensation conundrum in Nagaland also represents a research gap, necessitating a systematic exploration of its historical, cultural and economic, and political dimensions to inform effective policy interventions and conflict resolution strategies. However, the argument that the ‘unique’ landholding system in Nagaland and the provisions of Art-371A hinders development in the state is flawed.
In the context of Nagaland, the ‘unique’ system of landholdings – collective ownership or common property – instantiates forms of relationship among members of a community. That is, control over land is considered critical to identity by the tribals. Hence, losing land is equated to losing identity vis-à-vis a threat to their culture. It is predicated on an alternative relationship with land which is different from other societies of India. In this regard, land as identity has forms which are stumbling blocks to capital formation. In fact, land was a pivotal component, amongst other key factors, driving the Naga movement for sovereignty beginning in 1946 which led to the creation of a separate state on 1st December 1963. In effect, along with the formation of a separate state, Article 371A was granted to Nagaland through the Constitution (13th Amendment) Act 1962 which aims to protect cultural, social, and economic practices of the Nagas and to ensure a significant degree of autonomy in matters related to land and its resources.
However, research studies have pointed out the ambiguity of the governing system maintained by the Government of India, whereby on the one hand Article 371A clearly recognises customary laws in regard to land and resources, whereas on the other hand, complete power is vested in the state administration and judicial system which undermine and marginalised traditional practices (Longkumar & Jamir, 2012, p. 15). Besides, these protective mechanisms are not always effective for multiple reasons such as pressure on people for defence projects like the Assam Rifle Headquarter, Jakhama where the promised alternative livelihoods and other benefits remained unfulfilled (Fernandes at. el., 2017, p. 180). In fact, militarisation and security operations in Nagaland have contributed to the process of land alienation in the name of ‘security’ and ‘development’ by setting up military camps in strategic locations, taking away valuable community land (Longkumer & Jamir, 2012, p. 16). Similarly, the Doyang Hydro Electric-Project resulted in the weakening of community alternatives and increased the commercial value of land (Fernandes at. el., 2017, p. 180).
Evidently, one of the primary reasons for the delay of several projects in Nagaland can be attributed to the lack of adequate compensation and the perceived indifference of the government. For instance, the Landowners Coordination Committee (LOCC) of tri-Junction (Khuovarii bridge) to Puchaspura of National Highway two-lane (NH)-129 A package 1A from Dimapur to Peren through Jalukie have demanded the authorities concerned to compensate all the landowners affected by the construction work (‘NH-129: Landowners coordination committee seeks land compensation’, Nagaland Post, March 18, 2021). Other projects that were halted/delayed due to compensation issues include the 17km Peren-Dimapur Package-V, 2.8 km Peren Town Build-up Area in Package-I (which was separated from the main contract and delayed despite submitting the Damage Assessment Estimate to NHIDCL five years ago), Kohima-Jessami Package-I for the construction of nine culverts without any provision for protection or compensation for potential damage to agricultural land and activities, a 1.4 km stretch in the Chakhabama military area in Package-II, Kohima bypass project (Packages-III and IV) (‘Nagaland to amend land acquisition laws for national highway projects’, Eastern Mirror, October 22, 2024). In this regard, the flaw lies not in the absence of a State Law for land acquisition rather in the failure of the concerned authorities to ensure fair and just compensation of land.
The demand for land compensation, however, is not exclusive to Nagaland. In fact, the Central government itself advocates fairness for the landowners through adequate compensation. The same concern is prevalent in other parts of India. For instance, the Supreme Court on 23rd November 2024 said that the State cannot be permitted to acquire citizens’ land without paying appropriate compensation. A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan observed that though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right. The supreme court dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Himachal Pradesh government and others challenging an order of the state high court which had held that the State cannot take possession of citizens’ land without paying compensation (‘States Must Compensate Fairly for Land Acquisition: Supreme Court’, NDTV, November 23, 2024). In this case, both the Central and the State governments, should ensure the effective and fair implementation of its advocacy in practice.
While there is no denying that acquisition of land for developmental projects in Nagaland can be particularly challenging, given the need for individual consultations with landowners, leading to a more time-consuming and prolonged process. This is where the role of local authorities such as Gaonburas, Village Councils, Village Development Board, Dobashis and other concerned civil societies along with state officials play significant influence on landowners. During my fieldwork at Chumoukedima and Mon districts as part of the ongoing study on tribal land issues in the Northeast, engagement with different stakeholders revealed the complex and multifaceted nature of dynamic land relations, highlighting the intricate web of social, economic, political, and cultural factors that shape the experiences of various stakeholders. However, one finding that stood out, particularly in the case of Nagaland under Article 371A, is the need for early and greater engagement with all stakeholders, transparency, fair compensation, environment mitigation, and community benefits. Evidently, many successful development projects hinged on effective and collaborative engagement with stakeholders. Likewise, many failed projects hinged on the gap or the failure of proper engagement with stakeholders.
The solution, then, lies in effective and collaborative implementation. These steps will also help minimise the conflict between various stakeholders like the authorities, landowners and implementing agencies. Hence, seen from such a lens, the argument that the unique landholding system of Nagaland or Article 371A hinders development is flawed. In fact, customary practices of the Nagas are inherently collective in nature, albeit variations among communities. No doubt, the negotiation process with multiple stakeholders may extend project implementation, yet it fosters and ensures inclusive participation and equitable distribution of opportunities, which is the ultimate goal of any welfare nation.
As for the communities, land serves as a profound source of identity, weaving together cultural heritage, ancestral roots, and communal belonging. It is a tangible connection to history, tradition, and collective memory. The land’s contours, rhythms, and seasons shape languages, customs, and worldviews, and foster a deep sense of place and belonging. At the same time, land has become a prized commodity, coveted for its economic value, strategic resources, and potential for development. The forces of globalisation, urbanisation, and market-driven logic have transformed land into a fungible asset, often prioritising profit over people and place. This commodification of land threatens to erode cultural identities, displace indigenous communities, and disrupt ecological balances. This paradox raises critical questions: How do we reconcile the intrinsic value of land as identity with its intrinsic value as commodity? Can we redefine our relationship with land to prioritise cultural heritage, environmental sustainability, and social justice? Or will the pursuit of economic growth and resource extraction continue to dominate, imperilling the very foundation of collective identity and sense of place?
References
Longkumer, Lanusashi & Jamir, Toshimenla. (2012). Land Alienation: Dynamics of Colonialism, Security and Development (Status of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples Land Series-6 NAGALAND). Delhi: Aakar Books.
Fernandes, W., Mughavi, B. C., Pienyu, M., Achumi, K. A., Yanthan, M. & Fidelia, T. (2017). The Challenge of Development: Displacement in Nagaland 1947-2010. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre.
Vizokhole Ltu
Senior Research Associate (NESRC)
RELATED POSTS
View all
