Can a policy remain necessary for some, yet unfair to others? Nagaland wrestles with this paradox through its reservation policy. India, in its entirety, is not just diverse but profoundly uneven, let alone Nagaland. Across its vast social and cultural landscape lies deep-rooted disparities that equal opportunity alone cannot resolve. The founding vision of the Indian republic recognized this, placing social justice at the heart of nation-building. Reservation, in this light, was conceived not as a concession but as an instrument of structural correction, even if that marked a necessary departure from conventional meritocratic ideals that often overlook deeply embedded social and economic inequities.
In Nagaland, this vision took root with the introduction of the reservation policy in 1977, aimed at uplifting underrepresented tribal communities. Today, the policy guarantees 37% reservation in government jobs, with 25% allotted for the tribes of Eastern Nagaland and 12% for other backward tribes. Additionally, a 4% quota is reserved for Persons with Disabilities, aligning the state with national mandates. While its intentions remain rooted in equity, decades of unreviewed implementation have led to growing dissatisfaction among other communities. While its foundational purpose remains essential, Nagaland’s reservation policy cannot be seen as beyond review. Support for its continuation does not rule out the need for reform. What is required is not a rejection of the policy, but a careful reassessment, one that ensures its benefits reach those who continue to be left behind, while also keeping pace with changing ground realities.
Despite decades under the protective umbrella of reservation, not all marginalized tribes have gained substantial ground, with many still trailing behind other communities. Tribes from Eastern Nagaland, in particular, continue to face significant barriers in accessing quality education, public employment, and meaningful representation in governance. Their presence remains relatively low in public life, not merely due to historical neglect, but also because of persistent gaps in infrastructure, limited institutional outreach, and their geographical isolation.
While reservation provides a framework for inclusion, it does not always translate into tangible outcomes on the ground, let alone narrow the gap between progressed and marginalized tribes. Without addressing these uneven starting points, through attentive reviews and genuine compassion, the promise of reservation may remain more aspirational than effective. The argument for abolishing reservation in its entirety often rests on the claim that the time for such corrective measures has passed. But such a conclusion assumes a level playing field that does not yet exist. While certain indicators of inclusion have improved over time, the pace of progress has been uneven and for many, frustratingly slow.
Premature repeal of these safeguards risks halting, or even reversing, the modest and meaningful progress achieved through years of policy-driven support. Without alternative mechanisms in place to ensure equity, total abolition may deepen existing divides rather than resolve them. The conversation must move beyond whether reservation should exist, to how it can evolve with care, foresight, and a grounded view of the challenges that persist.
Discontentment among non-reserved tribes in Nagaland has been mounting, especially as concerns about systemic neglect take root. While the reservation policy has sought to uplift the historically disadvantaged, it has also led some communities to feel sidelined from opportunity and state support. Their grievances are valid and deserve recognition in meaningful discourse on reservation framework.
Even so, demands for broader inclusion must be approached with good judgment. Extending the scope of reservation without rigorous socio-economic evaluation would not only undermine its intent but also dilute its very purpose. The basis of inclusion must be guided by data on deprivation, access, and marginalisation rather than by political persuasion.
A society striving for meaningful inclusion requires not only the upliftment of the marginalised but also a shared commitment to equity from all sections. Making space for disadvantaged communities should not be viewed as a compromise, but as a step toward shared development. Without such balance, the spirit of social justice may slowly erode, diminishing the very purpose reservation was meant to serve.
Nagaland’s reservation policy was meant to undergo a review every ten years, an exercise neglected for decades. Only in June 2025 did the state government finally commit to a reassessment by forming an independent commission. Though delayed, this marks a step in the right direction.
For such a review to hold weight, it must be grounded in transparent and verifiable data such as access to higher education, regional literacy levels, economic conditions , and other critical indicators of structural disadvantage. Without this empirical foundation, policies risk being influenced by sentiment or political convenience rather than actual deprivation.
Above all, the reservation framework must not outpace the broader developmental landscape. Any expansion or adjustment should align with measurable progress on the ground. Redrawing entitlements in haste, without addressing structural disparities, could diminish both the effectiveness of the policy and public confidence in its fairness.
Way forward
Nagaland’s reservation policy will continue to serve as a vital mechanism for addressing entrenched inequalities. Yet, its effectiveness depends on timely, evidence-based reform. A policy born of necessity must not evolve abruptly or arbitrarily, but through cautious, data-driven reviews that align with measurable development. Grievances from non-reserved groups merit thoughtful consideration, but any inclusion must be grounded in demonstrable need rather than political expediency or public sentiment. Expanding the scope of reservation without rigorous assessment risks eroding its foundational purpose and challenging the pursuit of social equity.
Ultimately, the path forward to a just reservation policy lies in our collective endeavour to foster equity, sustain support where it remains vital and embrace change where it is due. In doing so, Nagaland has the opportunity to set an enduring precedent for equitable and responsive policymaking.
Pekungdibo Nbung
Concerned Citizen
Jalukie, Peren
Saturday, July 26, 2025