A project in process

The proposed foothill road spanning 395 to 396 kilometers and deigned to connect Tizit(Mon district) to Khelma (Peren district) across eight districts and over 200 villages is an ambitious project for improvement of connectivity and economic development. The road was envisioned as a long-term answer to the state’s chronic connectivity challenges. It was meant to link remote areas, stimulate economic activity, and reduce the sense of isolation that many communities continue to experience. Yet today, instead of steady progress and public confidence, the project is surrounded by uncertainty.Funding has reportedly been partial, though construction continues in phases. This alone raises questions about planning and prioritisation. Large infrastructure projects demand financial clarity and administrative discipline. When funding is staggered without transparent timelines, delays become inevitable and accountability weakens. More troubling are reports that certain contractors have failed to meet prescribed quality standards. Allegations of slow progress, substandard workmanship, and questionable issuance of work orders for specific stretches add to public doubt. Infrastructure is not merely about laying asphalt; it is about durability, safety, and long-term value. If quality is compromised at the outset, the cost of repairs and reconstruction will burden the state in the future. The foothill road committee, representing various tribal communities through whose lands the road passes, has insisted on having a consultative role in construction and monitoring. The government, however, maintains that project execution and management fall strictly within official authority, and that non-governmental bodies cannot be formally integrated into operational control. While this position may be legally sound, governance is not only about legality; it is also about trust and transparency. The deeper issue is perception. The state government has yet to convincingly demonstrate both urgency and seriousness in ensuring the road’s timely completion. In the absence of clear communication, speculation fills the vacuum. When citizens begin to doubt intent or competence, even legitimate administrative decisions come under suspicion.There is, however, a constructive path forward. Instead of institutional confrontation, community vigilance can serve as a supplementary safeguard. Each tribe and village along the route can independently monitor progress, document concerns, and demand clarity regarding timelines and quality standards. Such grassroots scrutiny does not usurp governmental authority; rather, it reinforces accountability. Contractors, aware that local communities are observant and informed, are less likely to cut corners. This project is too significant to falter. Roads remain the primary arteries of development. They determine access to markets, education, healthcare, and administrative services. Without reliable road connectivity, discussions about industrial growth, tourism expansion, or rural empowerment remain abstract. Development begins with physical access. Public demand for progress must therefore be directed first toward ensuring that the foothill road is completed to specification and without compromise. The emphasis must remain on quality workmanship, transparent allocation of contracts, and realistic timelines. Only when this foundation is laid can the state meaningfully pursue the next essential pillar of development. This tension isn’t just about roads—it’s symbolic of governance itself. When infrastructure bends away from efficiency toward appeasement, it mirrors how collective priorities can get diluted. A road that should unify ends up embodying division, because it’s built not for the optimal path but for the loudest voices.