Theja Therieh
Kohima
33% job reservation for the 9 backward tribes in the State of Nagaland is aimed at helping those tribes that are educationally and economically very backward and are insignificantly represented in the services, so that they too can come at par with the advance tribes. The existing policy of 33% job reservation for the 9 backward tribes in the State of Nagaland vides Notifications No. APPT-18/6/67 dated 6-7-1973 and No. AR-8/976 (pt-II) dated, Kohima, the 16th August 1979 has been in operation for over 3 decades without any major review which other wise require review at the interval of 10 years to update in consonance with changes to fully realize the target. The popular view of the people is to have general review of the entire Reservation policy to do away with the ambiguity and to update with the changes. It is important to have periodic review of the policy on reservation to see if it is working towards its objective and modify as per the prevailing situation and up date accordingly.
I personally feel that classification of the entire community or tribe as backward or advance is unfair for the reason, areas under the same community may not necessarily fall in the same situation both educationally and economically. Some BT may be equal or even better than some advance tribes who other-wise should be placed in the advance category. There is no guarantee to say that the advance will remain advance or backward will remain backward and the ideals of helping those educationally and economically very backward to come at par with those advance tribes may depend on the situation at that particular period of time. Without prejudice, let me say that some areas of Chakhesangs, Zeliangs, Pochurys, Chang, Sangtam… may even be in a better situation than some particular areas of Sumis, Rengmas, Angamis, Lothas and so on. We cannot say that Longkhim/Chare range of Kiphire District is backward nor can we say Tizu Area of Phek District advance. There are many similar cases in other districts also.
The infamous Roster Policy for the BT vides Office Memo No. RCBT-5/87 (PT) dated 18th August, 2001 had created serious imbalance to the BT tribes, whereby the Major tribes were victimized. The population ratio between the major and minor tribes at that point of time was 10:1. It was proven beyond doubt that greater equity in employment opportunities among backward tribes could not be achieved by mere distribution of share to group or tribe. It has miserably failed to provide equal rights to all citizens of the State as per the provisions of the constitution of India and completely devoid of merit or competition.
Putting several classifications of tribes will certainly affect those sections that are classified in smaller groups since, the number of vacancy may not tally with the number of classified groups hence, bound to be deprived. Classifications may have immediate and temporary attainment to some tribes and give political mileage to some vested interested group but will certainly affect the Naga Society at large and we are definitely heading towards a divided house. What is most unfortunate here is the visible involvement of political interests diluting the policy to cause serious injury.
Total review of any policy that involve the affairs of entire population of the state in one way or the other need serious investigation and research to actually ascertain and appreciate the ground realities rather than acting under pressure and compromise the sovereign power of the State. The State bureaucracy has miserably failed to guide the policy makers to realize and appreciate the ideals and practices due to its lack of courage and sincerity in projecting the actual ground realities. No matter how hard the State Committee on reservation or the policy makers tries to justify their action, it fails to convince me as to why they are in such a hurry to change the policy without even allowing the basic procedures and formalities to be observed.
My understanding on the absolute objectivity of the policy is to reduce the backward population by phase wise elevation to advancement, which means the 33% BT reservation should also decrease accordingly and move on to eradicate backwardness completely. What is unbelievable and unacceptable is the raise of reservation percentage for some tribes and unceremoniously throwing a particular tribe to the advancement. The questions here are; can we review the policy honorably?; can we take little pain to give the future a vision?; can we give basis to our action?; Are we heading towards achieving 100% backwardness? Give the future a reason to believe that we are guided by sagacious wisdom of people who govern and run the affairs of the people.
