North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (NESIDS) was created to fast-track Northeast India’s infrastructure. Yet parliamentary data shows ₹3,206 crore in outstanding liabilities and 30 high-risk stalled projects. This report explains where execution is failing—and what must change.
Aizawl (ABC Live): The North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (NESIDS) was launched in 2017–18 as a Central Sector Scheme to bridge persistent infrastructure gaps in India’s Northeastern states. In 2022–23, it was restructured into two components:
-
NESIDS (Roads)
-
NESIDS (Other Than Roads Infrastructure – OTRI)
On paper, NESIDS represents a high-intent development instrument. In practice, however, official parliamentary data shows a widening gap between sanctions and execution. This execution deficit becomes especially relevant when viewed alongside the Centre’s political and peace-building push in Manipur and other Northeastern states, including development initiatives highlighted in ABC Live’s internal analysis of Prime Minister Modi’s Manipur visit (https://abclive.in/2025/09/14/modis-manipur-visit/) and the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region’s parliamentary reply (https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2223651®=3&lang=1).
What emerges is a paradox: big announcements coexist with unfinished projects.
1. NESIDS: Objectives vs Ground Reality
NESIDS was designed to:
- Provide gap funding for roads and bridges not covered under other central schemes.
- Finance healthcare, education, water supply, solid waste management, power, tourism, sports, digital connectivity, civil aviation, and industrial infrastructure under OTRI.
- Allow states to select projects based on their priorities.
- Allocate normative outlays using parameters such as area, population, HDI, road density, electrification, hospital beds, and drinking-water coverage.
Yet, as on 31 December 2025:
- 167 projects remain ongoing.
- ₹3,206.18 crore of admissible central share is outstanding.
- 30 projects (3 Roads + 27 OTRI) were sanctioned more than two years ago, but have utilised less than 50% of their sanctioned cost.
Critical takeaway: NESIDS is not constrained by a lack of funds. A weak execution architecture constrains it.
2. NESIDS at a Glance
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Total ongoing projects | 167 |
| Total outstanding central liability | ₹3,206.18 crore |
| Projects >2 years old with <50% utilisation | 30 |
| Share of Roads & Bridges in liabilities | 43.7% |
| Share of Education + Health in liabilities | 34.0% |
Interpretation:
NESIDS exhibits a high-stock, low-flow pattern—large financial commitments but slow conversion into completed assets.
3. Where the Money Is Stuck
3.1 State-wise Outstanding Liability Profile
| State | Projects | Outstanding Liability (₹ Cr) | Share of Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assam | 35 | 1,012.87 | 31.6 |
| Manipur | 25 | 441.38 | 13.8 |
| Nagaland | 20 | 406.09 | 12.7 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 25 | 395.37 | 12.3 |
| Tripura | 18 | 308.71 | 9.6 |
| Mizoram | 24 | 275.81 | 8.6 |
| Meghalaya | 13 | 258.05 | 8.0 |
| Sikkim | 7 | 107.90 | 3.4 |
| Total | 167 | 3,206.18 | 100 |
Insight:
Four states—Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh—together hold over 70% of NESIDS liabilities.
3.2 State-wise Execution Burden (Average Liability per Project)
| State | Avg. Liability per Project (₹ Cr) |
|---|---|
| Assam | 28.94 |
| Nagaland | 20.30 |
| Meghalaya | 19.85 |
| Manipur | 17.66 |
| Tripura | 17.15 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 15.81 |
| Sikkim | 15.41 |
| Mizoram | 11.49 |
| All States Average | 19.20 |
Insight:
Assam’s average project exposure is around 50% higher than the regional average, signalling higher fiscal and execution risk.
4. Sector-wise Concentration of Liabilities
| Sector | Projects | Outstanding (₹ Cr) | Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roads & Bridges | 53 | 1,402.11 | 43.7 |
| Education | 35 | 774.55 | 24.1 |
| Health | 36 | 317.87 | 9.9 |
| Power | 10 | 211.88 | 6.6 |
| Water Supply | 21 | 173.90 | 5.4 |
| Sports | 4 | 118.98 | 3.7 |
| Tourism & Culture | 4 | 95.91 | 3.0 |
| Digital Connectivity | 2 | 49.79 | 1.6 |
| Solid Waste Management | 1 | 49.19 | 1.5 |
| Civil Aviation | 1 | 12.00 | 0.4 |
| Total | 167 | 3,206.18 | 100 |
Insight:
NESIDS has effectively become a connectivity-heavy entity, even though it was conceived as a multi-sector development scheme.
5. Sector-wise Liability Intensity (Average per Project)
| Sector | Avg. Liability per Project (₹ Cr) |
|---|---|
| Solid Waste Management | 49.19 |
| Sports | 29.75 |
| Roads & Bridges | 26.45 |
| Digital Connectivity | 24.90 |
| Tourism & Culture | 23.98 |
| Education | 22.13 |
| Power | 21.19 |
| Civil Aviation | 12.00 |
| Health | 8.83 |
| Water Supply | 8.28 |
Insight:
High-ticket sectors (SWM, Sports, Roads) carry greater downside risk if delays persist.
6. Ageing Projects = Embedded Fiscal Risk
| Category | Projects | Share of Portfolio |
|---|---|---|
| <2 years old | 137 | 82% |
| >2 years & <50% utilised – Roads | 3 | 1.8% |
| >2 years & <50% utilised – OTRI | 27 | 16.2% |
| High-risk projects | 30 | 18% |
Nearly one in five NESIDS projects is already in structural distress.
7. Fiscal Exposure Stress Test (Illustrative)
| Assumed Cost Escalation | Extra Burden |
|---|---|
| 10% | ₹321 crore |
| 15% | ₹481 crore |
| 20% | ₹641 crore |
Meaning:
Delays alone can wipe out the equivalent of a full year’s medium-sized Northeast infrastructure programme.
8. Manipur as a Test Case: Development + Peace Narrative
ABC Live’s analysis of Prime Minister Modi’s Manipur visit frames infrastructure not merely as economic investment, but as a peace-building instrument in a state scarred by ethnic violence since 2023.
Key signals:
- Projects announced across the hills and valley districts.
- Emphasis on urban infrastructure, roads, drainage, IT parks, hostels, healthcare, and civic buildings.
- Outreach to internally displaced persons (IDPs).
This mirrors NESIDS objectives. Yet, the contradiction remains: new projects are showcased even as older NESIDS projects remain unfinished.
9. Structural Design Flaw
NESIDS combines:
- Central funding
- State project selection
- State execution
- Central monitoring
This hybrid model diffuses accountability. No single institution owns outcomes end-to-end.
10. What NESIDS Gets Right
- Recognises Northeast’s need for bespoke, gap-funded projects
- Multi-sector flexibility
- Focus on both economic and social infrastructure
These strengths are undermined by weak delivery systems.
11. What Must Change
- Milestone-linked release of funds
- State performance-weighted allocations
- Hard sunset clauses for stalled projects
- Independent DPR vetting
- Public dashboards with district-wise progress
Conclusion
NESIDS today represents a high-commitment, medium-delivery system.
The Northeast does not need more schemes.
It needs faster completion, stricter accountability, and execution-first governance.
Only then can development initiatives—such as those highlighted during the Prime Minister’s Manipur visit—translate from symbolism into sustained, ground-level transformation.
ABC Live Editorial Verification Note
This report is based on official parliamentary data released by the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region and ABC Live’s internal reporting on Prime Minister Modi’s Manipur visit.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.