The urgent crisis of HIV|AIDS in Nagaland state is at the center of our concerns, especially considering the appalling reality that we are under one of the high prevalent States and that the situation is fast deteriorating This urgency has perhaps caused sufficient worry within the government decision-making bodies for it to take some prolonged preventive measures, and yet it has not been adequately moved to evolve a more comprehensive policy in engaging with the various issues that HIV|AIDS presents to our situation.
This callousness is best understood in the context of how the Nagaland government has reacted, not responded, to the issue of good governance in the area of HIV|AIDS. Ever since the global community united its endeavor in the fight against HIV|AIDS, the need for good governance has always been a critical necessity for the effective and efficient movement against the virus. Tragically, the area of governance has for most of the campaigns been the weakest-link, even to the point of being counter-productive. Acting upon the lessons acquired from its first two phases of National AIDS Control Program (NACP), the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) has tried to address and bridge this gap in the NACP Phase III by recommending within its guidelines the need for an administrative officer, with a IAS background, to head the State program, so that the HIV|AIDS programs can be mainstreamed within the folds of the government in an organized and coordinated manner. Besides a few states in the Northeast and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, all other states have an IAS officer heading their state HIV/AIDS programs.
Nagaland government is one of those few exceptions, which has appointed an officer from the health sector to head the State program. The question here is not so much as to whether it should or ought to be an IAS officer. The more fundamental principle is whether the government while deciding not to appoint an IAS officer to head the State program was convinced that by so doing, the existing gaps in the area of governance could be bridged. This is essential because the rationale behind the demand for an administrator to head the State program stemmed out of the need for a leadership that has knowledge and experience in governance, management of resources with the ability to take ownership in decision-making processes.
The contention of whether the State program should be headed by an IAS officer or an officer from the health sector has fractured opinions in the Naga context. The Network of Naga People living with HIV|AIDS (NNP+) themselves articulated and demanded the need for a ‘high ranking official from outside the health sector.’ This need has been expressed by other Positive people organizations as well. However most of the NGOs working on HIV|AIDS have kept silent on this matter. This fractured position is not surprising, and a deeper analysis would provide vital information on the reasons that have led to this underlying opposing position.
In the end, it was easy for the Nagaland government to ignore the demands of the NNP+ for a ‘high ranking official from outside the health sector.’ The voices of NNP+ and the positive people could not find understanding and support in the corridors of power. Consequently state pragmatism prevailed. Only the future can stipulate the consequences of this decision. Considering the urgency of the HIV|AIDS crisis in Nagaland, and taking into account the fact that the government with full knowledge decided not to consider the guidelines of NACO, and to completely ignore the demand of NNP+, it would only be democratic and moral for the Nagaland government to provide and make public the right to information on how the government arrived at such a decision.
