Reservation dilemma

The reservation policy in Nagaland, a subject of ongoing debate and intense scrutiny, has reached a critical juncture. Originally enacted in 1967, the policy mandated an 80% reservation for all indigenous Scheduled Tribes, reflecting the state’s commitment to affirmative action for its tribal populations. Over the years, it has evolved through various review committees, resulting in a complex and often controversial framework. Currently, approximately 41% of government jobs are reserved for these tribes-25% for Eastern Nagas and 12% for other backward tribes (BTs)-with similar provisions applying to educational admissions and state-run institutions. Recently, however, five tribes-Ao, Angami, Lotha, Sema, and Rengma-have called for a review of this reservation system. They argue that being nearly half of all government positions, the policy has disproportionately benefited certain groups, effectively marginalizing others and limiting opportunities for meritorious candidates. The demand points to a deeper crisis: reservation policies that were once designed to uplift the marginalized now threaten to stifle meritocracy in a competitive job environment increasingly strained by limited opportunities and aspirant overload. The evolution of Nagaland’s reservation system is emblematic of broader national trends, where demands for affirmative action by Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) frequently spur similar debates. Increasing reservation from 25% to 41% for backward tribes has accentuated tensions among non-backward tribes, stirring demands for fairer, more nuanced criteria. Critics argue that blanket reservation, without differentiating among layers of backwardness, leads to the ‘creamy layer’ phenomenon-where relatively better-off members of backward groups benefit disproportionately, leaving the truly disadvantaged behind. To address this, many experts propose a more refined approach: classifying backwardness along multiple dimensions-educational, economic, developmental-and implementing a pocket-wise or block-wise assessment rather than a tribal or district-wide categorization. Such measures aim to identify genuine beneficiaries based on their socio-economic realities rather than broad, often arbitrary, tribal classifications. Additionally, a suggestion has gained traction that applicants should specify their category explicitly during admissions or recruitment processes, ensuring transparency and fairness, and preventing capable candidates from being excluded due to reservation policies. The Nagaland Tribal Council has voiced strong support for the review, emphasizing the need to either overhaul or restrict the reservation system to preserve fairness. They call for a balanced approach that maintains a reserved quota but ensures that unreserved opportunities remain available for merit-based candidates. This stance is rooted in a perception of neglect and damage inflicted by successive governments, which have, in their view, mismanaged the policy. Nonetheless, implementing these reforms will require unwavering political resolve-an element often lacking in the political realm, given the unpopularity of such measures. Reservation policies are deeply intertwined with identity, politics, and societal perceptions, making any course correction challenging. Yet, in the long run, the pursuit of true equality and fairness mandates that these policies be revisited with a pragmatic, inclusive, and transparent approach. Decades have passed, and Nagaland finds itself at a crossroads; whether to continue with a rigid reservation system that breeds discord or undertake the difficult task of reform for a future where opportunities are genuinely accessible to all deserving individuals, regardless of their background. It is a complex challenge, but one that is essential for fostering equitable development and social harmony in Nagaland’s diverse fabric.