It is a matter of regret to find certain distorted and complicated statements made by one P.Longang Leo Konyak in your dailies dated 27th July 2016, on matter related to NH-702. His thoughts as published merely reflect his mental immaturity and a show of “1 know all” attitude. Where, a person’s desire for amicable solution to any issue is appreciated, but, public broadcast of propaganda by him is irrational.
His claim that part of the proposed NI 1-702 (Changtortgya-Tizit) and NH-703(Tuensang-Aboi) are “on the same track” between Longthang and Aboi -mating a duplicating road” is a flawed judgment. It is indescribably comical for this to happen as NH-703 is neither existent in our state nor under proposal of the ‘Union Government to name the road between Tuensang and Aboi as NH-703. In contrast, it is he who is “duplicating” the said road because NH-703 connects Jalandar and Barnala in the state of Punjab, running at a distance of I44KMs. It starts at the junction of NH-703A at Jalandar and traverses down to Barnala to meet NH-9. It may be clarified that the road connecting Tuensang and Aboi falls within the purview of Bonder Roads Organisation. So, his claimed in the press statement that N11-703 will connect Tuensang and Aboi via Tobu, Angiangyang and Longehang, forming a tri-junction at Aboi is his imaginary conception and thus bear no truth in it.
His expression of surprise and allegations levelled against the Engineer in charge of DPR (PWD National Highways Department) of “twisting” the original alignment and making it -messy” is artificial. Therefore, it is appealed that the concern department take note and if need be, may educate him on the matter. There had been no demand for diverting the proposed highway to Longchang neither by the Engineer nor Longchang Village Council at any point of time as alleged.
The original DPR clearly mentioned that the proposed NH-702 starts from its junction with NH-2 near Changtongya connecting Longleng, Longching, Mon, Lapa Tizit, in the state of Nagaland, Sonari and terminating at its junction with new NH-215 near Sapekhati in the state of Assam. The same has been mentioned in the speech by Honorable Chief Minister of Nagaland in the recently concluded ENSF Conference at Mon Head Quarter too. So, is in the interest of the Union Government to identify the unconnected rural masses and facilitate them with road connections, significantly considering the need to foster better connectivity of administrative headquarters.
It is also questionable as to how will the people from Longleng and Mokokchung districts and seven Assembly Constituencies of Mon district be “victimized” if the highway pass through Longching as per the original DPR from the Union Ministry of Roads and Highways? In fact, if the highway is being diverted to Aopao junction, by-passing Longching, people of Moka (Longang Leo Konyak’s own A/C) and Tobu A/C, are the ones who will fall victims, which Longang is ignorant of.
Highways are not aimed at shortening distance between places. At the same time, they do not in any way intent to shut or to terminate the existing roads. But one must understand that, approach roads and link roads are basically constructed to reach highways. So, the insistence of some people and organisations to re-align the highway to Aopao junction or Aopao Changle intending to shorten the distance and cost of the highway is disguisedly directed to limit and deprive developments to targeted villages and towns that falls along the highway.
The campaign of Longang Leo Konyak to alter and to falsify the contents of the original survey report of the highway alignment prepared by Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and his tryst to halt State Government’s move to implement the project, by undue instigations are mere agenda to destabilize traditional cordiality and integrity amongst people and organizations. Such claims will only contribute to stagnation of the process in implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, it may be recalled that, the earlier press release issued by him carry no substantiality but rather can be seen as self defamation and exhibition of his lack of conceptual understanding of the issue at hand.
