Why Infrastructure Alone Won’t Change Game for Nagaland and Northeast

Since the 2000s, there have been very few government- and corporate-sponsored summits and numerous other events where the potentials of the Northeast haven’t been touted ad nauseam—and this still persists, such is the desperation to sell this region. Potentials of tourism, minerals, waterways, immense human resources and talent, cultural richness—well, almost everything you can think of that the Northeast possesses. But perhaps the most exasperating selling point is “English-speaking youth”.

English is Nagaland’s official language, as it is of several other neighbouring States, and is also our national language; therefore, it is no great shakes. Besides, potential investors, tourists or whoever comes to the Northeast for whatever reason would be looking for something more than “English-speaking youth”, wouldn’t they?

Anyway, the point is that after more than two decades, the Northeast remains a “huge potential”, including the “English-speaking youth”. So, why only a potential till now—and for so long?

Over almost one and a half decades, we hear the Prime Minister and numerous visiting Central Ministers and other dignitaries referring to this region as the hub or gateway for this or that—perhaps even the epicentre of India’s economic thrust, etc. In brief, the message is that the double-engine governments will “develop” the Northeast so much that it would be a game-changer—but we don’t hear of the “double-engine” very often these days. Anyway, these developments are supposed to be game-changers, and we still wait patiently for the game to change.

Undeniably, there is huge infrastructure development, and developments in the fields of education, research, healthcare, etc., but they are accessible mostly to the advantaged sections of our Northeastern society. The NITI Aayog reports, as well as surveys and research by numerous government and non-government agencies, indicate inequity in the Northeast’s economic, social and infrastructural indices, and generally an imbalance in development and growth.

This means that the haves are having more, the rich are getting richer, and some areas in the Northeast, and in individual States, are getting more development attention than others. This game-changing “development” accentuates a disparity that is totally paradoxical to the Northeast’s age-old equitable society. If our traditional equity can be restored in today’s post-modern and tech-driven environment, the likelihood of a changed game is very real.

In these worthies’ speeches, public utterances and press conferences, certain sectors are made out to be the sole economic saviour of individual or all Northeastern States, but we know that no one sector is, or can be, the only driver of economic growth and prosperity.

Take, for instance, tourism. True, the Northeast has the potential to be a world-class eco-tourism destination, but it alone cannot be the sole or major revenue earner simply because tourism per se cannot happen in a vacuum; nor can any other sector, whether agriculture, horticulture, IT, mineral development, tea, coffee, etc. All economic sectors and activities require feasible and informed policies, adequate funding and its proper utilisation under stringent supervision, smooth communication and transport systems, safe, secure, well-furnished and well-connected accommodation, smooth information flow, and a quality service sector.

Besides, with drastic climate change, tourism—as it is widely understood—must adapt to unforeseen eventualities, an increasing number of which we are seeing in Sikkim, Thailand and so many other established tourist destinations. Political upheavals also impact tourism—Manipur is a good example.

To be economically viable, this sector is dependent on overall infrastructure, services and numerous other developments, which are sorely inadequate in the Northeast. Moreover, while the Northeast is known for its incomparable warmth and hospitality, we still lack a tourism culture, starting with viewing tourists as guests in our homes and not revenue-earning sources. Tourism, as with other sectors, is also dependent on political perceptions, perspectives, prejudices, pets and peeves.
In Nagaland, tourism is overly Kohima-centric. If a few tourism spots have been developed to a certain extent, it is despite the government, not because of it. In districts like Mokokchung and Phek and some others, the few tourism activities that exist can be mainly attributed to private efforts.
A couple of years ago, the State Government started including traditional tribal festivals round the year as part of the State’s annual tourism calendar, with funds and publicity. They are yet to attract the kind of foreign and domestic tourist footfalls and media attention the Government expected—and certainly remain incomparable to the Hornbill Festival.

If the Central and Northeast State Governments are serious about transforming tourism—while also conserving our environment—from a potential into a serious revenue- and employment-generating sector, they need to make organic policies, plans, projects and programmes—not import bits and pieces of policies and practices from the four corners of the world.

Recently, the Nagaland Tourism Minister announced a Rs. 250-crore proposal to develop Dzukou Valley into a world-class ecotourism destination with an eco-friendly luxury hotel and tourist facilities. This is certainly not organic thinking and planning but an imported and imitative project that would devastate this pristine valley and cause environmental catastrophe across the entire area. This is exactly the type of mentality that Nagaland and the Northeast do not need, since ours is an ecologically sensitive zone. Tourism in the hands of corporate-friendly policymaking, buttressed by myopic visions of short-term and tenured monetary gains, augurs badly because after us will come the future generations, who have the right to Nature’s beauty and bounty.

Perhaps a reason why tourism in Nagaland—even in Kohima itself—remains a potential can be explained by a recent research report. The Urbaltour Project, a joint initiative of The Highland Institute, Kohima, and the French Institute of Pondicherry, examines the intersection of urban and tourism development in mountainous regions across South and Southeast Asia. It has called for a sustainable tourism strategy for Kohima, highlighting the city’s heavy dependence on the Hornbill Festival and underscoring the need to develop year-round tourism. While mapping tourism growth, it identified several challenges and inequalities.

The findings revealed a tourism sector that is currently highly seasonal, fragmented and burdened by infrastructure and service-quality issues during the peak period. The report emphasises that while Kohima possesses strong cultural and natural assets, its reliance on the annual Hornbill Festival is hindering year-long economic benefits and placing undue strain on the city. Its recommendations are several, some relating to infrastructure development in water, waste and traffic management, and to building local capacity.

It appears that we will have to live with the State Government’s obsessive attention on the Hornbill Festival—even if this 10-day festival robs the whole of Nagaland of its potential to be a world-class ecotourism destination. Such obsessions with a few events, programmes and projects could be the reason why Nagaland, and probably a few other Northeastern States, remain potentials—which in turn further centre-stages this region’s imbalanced development and growth. The game will change only when this imbalance is addressed and redressed.

Monalisa Changkija is a Dimapur-based journalist, poet, and former Editor of Nagaland Page.