For years, Nagaland has witnessed, with an unsettling regularity, with numerous organizations, unions, student groups, and tribal bodies exercising the democratic space to engage in agitations, impose bandhs, and sometimes resort to locking government offices in their quest for justice. While there is nothing inherently wrong with protests, bandhs, or forced closures if some consider them legitimate democratic tools to pressurize the government; however, the frequency and ease with which such measures are employed raise serious concerns. The government’s repeated submission to these tactics has dulled public sensitivity, making the constant “arm twisting” almost a norm rather than an exception. This trend has fueled doubts about the very existence of a functioning government that is mandated to assert authority and provide direction in governance matters. A pressing issue is that the system appears unable to function effectively, causing citizens to lose confidence in the idea that someone is truly in charge. This syndrome has permeated every aspect of the government’s operation. It is difficult to comprehend how a government, constitutionally and legally established, finds itself regularly consulting non-governmental organizations and various sections of society in matters of governance, relying not on administrative wisdom for the collective interest of the greater society, but on the so-called consensus produced by such consultative meetings. In doing so, the government has continuously ceded ground to NGOs, parallel authorities, and extra-constitutional elements that operate outside formal governmental frameworks. However, ‘consensus’ can be helpful if it can resolve feuds between contesting parties or individuals outside the realm of the government. Resorting to consensus on every administrative issue has inspired unions, associations, committees, and organizations across Nagaland to feel empowered to exert intense pressure, arm twist, or even blackmail the government to achieve their objectives. This proliferation of power centers undermines formal governance and erodes the authority that rightful administration should hold. While the much-discussed Naga solution remains a topic for public forums, politicians use it to make themselves appealing to people while camouflaging their failures to govern. To fulfill the responsibility for governance, it is imperative to draw a clear line between political interest and administrative wisdom. Any disruption that affects the public-whether through suspended normal life or deprivation of essential services-demands swift government responsive action. Addressing grievances promptly and putting issues in their rightful place at the earliest opportunity is crucial. Once a decision is made, the government must assert its authority and demonstrate who is responsible for leadership and accountable to governance in the state. Governance fundamentally requires the establishment and exercise of control to maintain order and ensure the welfare of the populace. Thus, the ongoing pattern of frequent agitations and forced closures signals a systemic weakness in governance. Restoring public confidence necessitates decisive administrative action, clear separation of political influence from day-to-day administration, and a firm commitment to uphold the government’s role as the ultimate decision-maker and authority in Nagaland. This, fundamentally, is what effective governance entails- the ability to make decisions and ensure they are carried out for the benefit of the populace. Without this, the cycle of disruption and loss of governmental control will persist, further weakening the democratic framework the state relies upon.
