By Moa Jamir
Even as Nagaland battles another season of devastating rains, an important question deserves attention: is the State acting on what it already knows?
Earlier this year, southasiadisasters.net dedicated a special issue to Towards a Safer and Resilient Nagaland: What we do, why we do, and how we learn. Featuring contributions from the Nagaland State Disaster Management Authority (NSDMA) and its partner institutions, it went beyond documenting initiatives to present a roadmap for building a disaster-ready, climate-resilient Nagaland.
The central message was unequivocal: disasters are no longer a matter of if, but when. The challenge, therefore, is to move beyond reacting to disasters and instead reduce risk before the next crisis strikes.
The recommendations were both practical and ambitious. Disaster risk reduction must be mainstreamed into development planning rather than treated as a separate activity. Climate adaptation should become integral to governance. Roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and public infrastructure should be planned with risk in mind. Government departments must work together instead of in silos. Local bodies and communities should be equipped to act on early warnings. Investments should prioritise prevention over repeated reconstruction. Proper drainage, enforcement of building codes, resilient infrastructure and risk-informed budgeting were all identified as essential components of a safer Nagaland.
These ideas are particularly relevant today.
This year's monsoon has already claimed at least 11 lives, while landslides, flash floods and incessant rainfall have damaged highways and other infrastructure, washed away agricultural land, inundated settlements and repeatedly disrupted connectivity across the State.
While extreme rainfall cannot be preventedand climate change is undoubtedly intensifying weather extremes, the destruction also exposes vulnerabilities that have accumulated over years.
To be fair, no one expects such a comprehensive roadmap to be implemented overnight. Building resilience is a long-term undertaking requiring sustained investment, institutional coordination and political commitment. Much of what the publication advocates lies beyond the mandate of any single department. Roads, urban planning, drainage, land use, housing, agriculture, forests, finance and local governance all have a role to play.
Yet that makes the publication no less relevant. If anything, the present crisis underscores its urgency.
The special issue argues that uncertainty should never become an excuse for inaction, that every investment should reduce tomorrow's vulnerability, and that disaster management must evolve from relief-centred responses to risk-informed governance. Its concluding essay calls for embedding disaster and climate risks into every development decision, ensuring that early warning leads to early action, strengthening community participation and improving coordination across government. These are not merely aspirations for the future. They are standards against which present-day planning should be measured.
As the monsoon continues to test Nagaland's resilience, the pertinent question is not whether a blueprint exists. It clearly does. The question is whether that blueprint is informing the way roads are built, towns are planned, budgets are allocated and departments work together.
The value of any roadmap lies not in how well it is written or argued, buthow it is actually implemented. Resilience is ultimately measured not in policy documents, but on the ground. Perhaps the question before Nagaland is no longer simply ‘what we do, why we do, and how we learn’ but ‘whether we are doing enough, why we are still falling short, and whether we are truly learning.’
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
