By - Moa Jamir
The ongoing debate over job reservation in Nagaland has brought to the fore the complex interplay between affirmative action, tribal identity, and the principle of equality. At the heart of the matter is the demand by five ‘advanced’ tribes (ATs) viz. Angami, Ao, Lotha, Rengma, and Sumi for a review, if not a complete scrapping, of the Backward Tribes (BTs) reservation policy that has been in place for nearly five decades.
According to the five tribes, recommendations of various committees set up by the State Government to review the policy have remained unimplemented, except in piecemeal form. As a result, core issues such as the duration of reservation, internal sub-classification, multiple and flexible benefits to BTs, creamy layer exclusion, discrepancies in entry age, and backlog of reserved posts have not been adequately addressed despite several representations.
Hence, one primary demand is to either abolish or scrap the BTs reservation policy for Backward Tribes or reserve the remaining unreserved quota exclusively for the five tribes, which reportedly constitute nearly 55% of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population in Nagaland. This, they argue, would uphold fair opportunity, meritocracy, and equality.
Nagaland’s reservation policy dates back to 1967, with 80% job reservation earmarked for all indigenous Scheduled Tribes. In 1977, further classifications identified seven Eastern Naga tribes and four others as 'backward'. Currently, BTs enjoy 37% reservation — 25% for Eastern Nagas and 12% for other BTs. A similar policy applies to State quotas in entrance-based examinations and institutions run by the State Government.
In August 2024, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio informed the State Assembly that the reservation was initially imposed for ten years but has ‘no end date.’ He cited low representation, educational backwardness, and economic disadvantages as the primary rationale. Critics, however, argue that BTs have made significant progress in recent decades, while others tribes now face relative disadvantages under the same policy framework.
While the concerns raised are understandable, any reform to the reservation system must be approached holistically. Abrupt policy changes risk opening a Pandora’s box rather than offering a viable solution. The foundational criteria of inadequate representation in services, as well as educational and economic backwardness, must continue to guide its review.
In this connection, it is essential to evaluate employment data in relation to population, access to education, and opportunities, taking into account not just the present status but also historical data. However, the lack such data as well as the latest Census complicate the issue. Even the resourceful Directorate of Economics and Statistics has Government Employees Census data only up to 2015 and does not have tribe-wise data. Anecdotal evidence and inferences from State Civil and other related lists still suggest skewed patterns of employment, but the absence of credible metrics fuels speculation. Moreover, any effort to restructure reservations without empirical grounding is bound to face both legal and social hurdles.
Criticism around qualifying marks thresholds, meanwhile, echoes similar debates at the national level, where general category candidates have opposed caste-based reservations. Ironically, these arguments are now being invoked by those who themselves avail of ST status nationally, giving rhetorical fuel to anti-reservation voices.
The Supreme Court’s August 2024 judgment in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh upholding sub-classification within SC/ST groups, provided there is quantifiable data showing internal disparities must also be taken into consideration. In Nagaland’s context, any structural changes must be backed by similar data and withstand judicial scrutiny.
To move forward, the State must consider mechanisms that ensure intra-tribal equity. Deprivation-based models, like those used by JNU or proposed by scholars such as Anand Teltumbde, can be examined for replicability.
Policy measures can still be restructured by introducing new criteria to ensure fairer distribution. A complete rollback, however, is neither advisable nor tenable. It is also important to remember that other forms of reservation, such as for Persons with Disabilities, women, and sportspersons, must be part of the wider discourse. A balanced reform process grounded in data, sensitive to diversity within tribes, and guided by principles of both merit and justice would serve the State far better, not political exigency or other concerns.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
