Arbitrate or agitate

When government offices are picketed, locked, or prevented from functioning, the disruption is not an inconvenience but a warning that the delivery system is failing to reach people. Of late there has been a spate of ultimatums issued by unions and organisations across the state which point to a weakness in the delivery system. Their actions-picketing offices, stopping work and locking up government establishments-cannot be justified as a responsible way of addressing grievances. Yet the government cannot dismiss the grievances simply because the protests are disruptive. Both demand attention. The first responsibility lies with the government. It must take serious note of these incidents, identify the causes behind them and communicate clearly with those who are agitating. Not every demand may be logical or feasible, but every concern deserves an answer. The government must explain its limitations and make clear what can be done, what cannot be done and why. Silence, delay and piecemeal responses only deepen mistrust. Unions and organisations believe that injustice has been done to them. Their demand for justice cannot be brushed aside. Agitation is the only way they feel their concerns will be noticed. But the right to raise grievances does not justify shutting offices or preventing public work. Such methods inconvenience citizens and weaken the system through which demands are meant to be addressed. The government cannot fulfil every demand or satisfy the aspirations of every section of society. Facilities and benefits have limits, and government decisions are shaped by policies determined at the highest level. Governance is not an exercise in responding to demand and supply. Both sides must acknowledge this. The government should not be cornered into appeasement, while organisations should not assume that pressure alone can produce lasting solutions. In this contest between a government being cornered and organisations doing the cornering, the elected representatives have become the silent voice. That silence is unacceptable. Representatives are not elected merely to secure privileges or bring development projects to their constituencies. They are responsible for noticing when administration is failing, carrying public concerns to the government and explaining decisions to the people. When issues fester, resentment grows and public agitation comes to dominate the narrative. Elected representatives must intervene before that happens. They should make the government hear the people, and make the people understand the government’s limitations. Their role is not to intensify confrontation but to create a channel for accountability and resolution. The size of the government workforce requires attention. Nagaland has approximately 1.4 to 1.5 lakh government employees, or about 6.5 per cent of a population of around 20 lakh-described as among the highest proportions in India. This makes it essential to streamline the system and place the right people in the right positions. Such reform requires political will. The government must move beyond appeasement and piecemeal deals, establish a stronger foundation for service delivery and hold accountable those within the system who fail in their responsibilities. Transparency and accountability cannot remain abstract promises. The present unrest is therefore not only a dispute between unions and the government. It is evidence of a wider failure of communication, responsibility and delivery. The way forward is neither indiscriminate confrontation nor political appeasement, but honest dialogue, clear limits, responsible representation and firm accountability. Only then can public trust be restored and governance made to work.