Nagaland is poised to experience a significant transformation in its political landscape following the creation of Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA).
Share
Nagaland is poised to experience a significant transformation in its political landscape following the signing of the “historic” tripartite Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the government of India, the government of Nagaland, and the Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation (ENPO) for the creation of Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA) last week. While we await further details of the agreement, ENPO president A. Chingmak Chang has confirmed that the FNTA will operate within the state of Nagaland and under Article 371(A) of the Constitution and that the new arrangement will be in force for a period of 10 years, even as he clarified that the demand for a separate state remains unchanged. The agreement may have fallen short of its initial goal—statehood—but the people of the region have much to cheer about, as they have been granted a separate administrative arrangement, which essentially addresses the core of their demand. The region covering six eastern districts—Mon, Tuensang, Longleng, Kiphire, Noklak and Shamator—will now enjoy administrative and financial autonomy over 46 subjects. For the people whose demand is rooted in prolonged neglect and underdevelopment, it is a defining moment that could significantly accelerate developmental activities and reduce the visible infrastructural gap. The spirit of accommodation displayed by the incumbent government led by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio and various tribal organisations in the state, which was instrumental in the early resolution of the issue, also deserves appreciation. As rightly pointed out by the CM, it reflects mutual trust, collective resolve and a shared commitment to inclusive development.
The establishment of FNTA has also raised concerns, with some expressing apprehensions about the potential weakening of the Nagas as a people and the possibility of causing psychological alienation among the people of Nagaland. While the reaction may not be unexpected and the fears not unfounded, it is important to look at the broader picture of the matter, considering the fact that the demand for a separate administration stems from a collective desire to address significant developmental disparities. Eastern Nagaland lags behind the rest of the state in several areas, particularly infrastructure, healthcare, education, and connectivity. This is something we can’t deny. So, any move that will strengthen the fundamental elements necessary for social and economic growth of the region should be welcomed, rather than seen as a threat. However, FNTA or any alternative arrangement for any section of the Naga society, while awaiting the settlement of the Naga political issue, should not serve as a divisive tool. The main objective of decentralisation is administrative convenience and enhancement of governance. Now that the eastern region will receive financial and developmental support directly from the MHA, bypassing state-level bureaucratic delays, the onus of bringing about change in the area will rest on the effectiveness of its leaders in implementing development plans and policies. It will not live up to the expectations if leaders choose to run FNTA from their homes in major towns like Kohima and Dimapur. The next few years will be a litmus test for its success. The focus should be on uplifting eastern Nagaland to ensure it is on par with the rest of the state, and everyone, regardless of whether they are from the eastern region or not, must play their part in shaping this development narrative.