By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Recently a lot of noise is being created in the public by the Voice of People’s Party (VPP) for reviewing the State Reservation Policy. The issue was, in fact, part of the list of demands put forward by the party as a pre-condition for entering any alliance for Government formation. While it was clear that there was always going to be an NPP-led government, the demands had the effect of consolidating their image as pro-jaidbynriew party. The recent performance in the Assembly, raising opposition to the speech given by the Governor in Hindi among others, has further solidified that credential. The reiteration of the demand for review of the reservation policy is, therefore, a continuation of that ideology. The question however is whether pan-Meghalaya parties, i.e., those who are spread throughout Meghalaya (TMC, Congress) or want to grow beyond the Khasi-Jaintia region (UDP), will support such a demand. I feel it is highly unlikely as doing so is nothing sort of committing political suicide.
The recent Meghalaya Assembly election results reveal that out of the 36 seats available in the Khasi-Jaintia region, total seats won by HSPDP, PDF, UDP, and VPP is only 19, not enough to form the government in a 60 seat assembly. This also means that almost 70% of the seats were won by parties that have support cutting across the ethnic lines, i.e., Congress, TMC and NPP. Since these parties have MLAs from both the regions, i.e., Khasi-Jaintia as well as Garo, it is highly unlikely they will support a demand which will infuriate the Garo, an important vote bank. But what about UDP and the other Khasi-Jaintia centric parties – will they support the demand? Again that is highly unlikely.
Despite the initial hullabaloo created over the demand for a Khasi-Jaintia Chief Minister, UDP, HSPDP and PDF decided to become part of the ruling coalition. Among them, the only party that can grow beyond the Khasi-Jaintia region is the UDP. But despite being the oldest surviving regional party in the State it has not been able to do so till date. It doesn’t seem that it will do so in the near future as well. If it decides to support the demand to review the State Reservation Policy it will alienate the Garo population from the party permanently. This will have political implications well beyond not winning any seats in the Garo region.
It is certain that even in the 2028 elections, in terms of the larger political scenario the picture is not going to change much. The Khasi-Jaintia centric party like the VPP, HSPDP and PDF will remain limited to the eastern part of the State while TMC, NPP and Congress will continue to win seats from both the Khasi-Jaintia as well as the Garo regions. UDP will most probably be the largest regional party which will again look to be part of (most probably) any coalition that aspires to form the Government. If they choose to support the review of the State Reservation Policy there will be a strong demand from the Garo community who will have MLAs in any pan-Meghalaya party to not allow UDP to be part of any proposed coalition. And if the memory of being anti-Garo is retained for long, UDP will never be part of any Government in the future as well. This is not an issue of corruption, of which no party can claim innocence, but about injustice done to a particular community. Such wounds are not easily forgotten. The only way for UDP and maybe for HSPDP and PDF to support the review of the State Reservation Policy is if they believe that the Khasi-Jaintia votes will be enough for any future government formation. Theoretically that is possible. VPP in fact might be hoping that by raising this demand they might win all the 36 seats or at least 31 seats in the Khasi-Jaintia region in the next Assembly elections. This will give them the chance to form the Government. However given the history of how elections have panned out in the State this is not going to happen. So this means that VPP will have to wait a lot longer before they will ever be part of any Government in the future, not until they choose to represent all the communities in the State and not just the Khasi-Jaintia. But political machinations aside, does the demand have merit on its own? I think yes and no but leaning more towards the no.
The demographic pattern of the State indeed shows that the Khasi-Jaintia population is numerically larger than that of the Garos. Based on the 2011 Census on language and mother tongue, speakers of Khasi-Jaintia are around 13 lakh and those of the Garos are around 9 lakh. Based on demography there is a case for giving a larger share of the reservation to the Khasi-Jaintia. The present system does represent a loss to them. However, the gain to the Garos is not the same as the loss to the Khasi-Jaintia.
Based on the number of speakers, the combined proportion of Khasi-Jaintia and Garo speakers is 77%, which is lower than the existing 80% reservation model. If there is a rearrangement the Khasi-Jaintia share will increase by 6% points while that of the Garo will decrease by 9%. The Garo will therefore stand to lose a lot more compared to the gains to be made by the Khasi-Jaintia. Since politically it is going to be very difficult to do that, recourse to the Courts for review of the policy is the other option. But that has constitutional ramifications. If the review of the State Reservation Policy is accepted by the court, which in the end means the Supreme Court since the aggrieved party will take the matter to that level, the application of a similar logic, i.e., application of reservation based on demography, will mean smaller indigenous peoples’ groups like the Khasi-Jaintia are going to lose out. According to the 2011 Census, the total Scheduled Tribe (official term for indigenous peoples in India) population is 10, 42, 81,034 people with the Khasi-Jaintia constituting 1.3% of that. When I was still applying for a position in the University there would be only 3-4 posts announced at a time, with the ST (reserved seats) seats being not more than a couple. How does one calculate 1.3% out of those seats? This will end up favouring the larger groups like the Mundas, Bhils and Gonds.
There is the other argument of making the 80% reservation open to all indigenous peoples in the State without any specific share for any group. This will favour the Khasi-Jaintia who were fortunate to have the seat of administration in Shillong; the presence of better schools and colleges in their area and subsequently longer history of literacy. Of course with the deplorable condition of the education sector in the State, I am not sure how much that counts for anymore. Anyway, historical factors will make Khasi-Jaintia more ‘meritorious’ and if the reservation is made open it will lead to them capturing most of the seats. All of these, however, will go against the tenets of reservation which is to empower groups that have historically been politically, socially and economically marginalized and not the other way around. Arguments on merit, in fact, means that reservation should be altogether abolished. Constitutionally, therefore, the argument for reservation based on population size and merit is not tenable.
Without knowing the minds of the early leaders whose struggles gave birth to Meghalaya, the decision to have equal share for the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo would most probably have been to honour the contribution of both the communities without counting who sacrificed more or who has got a more superior right than the other. It is that respect for each other which has held us together for the last 50 years. Any attempt to disturb this delicate balance has the potential to create an irreversible animosity between the indigenous peoples of the State at a time when the need for solidarity is ever more. Make no mistake, the challenges that are going to be faced by indigenous peoples in the coming days are immense. Fighting for increasing the share of the Khasi-Jaintia by just 6% points might sound rational but it is not just and pragmatic. Also it may not be constitutionally valid. VPP, instead, should be working for increasing the number of good quality jobs rather than fighting for getting more from a limited number of jobs. That of course is a lot more difficult because it is exactly what the State and its indigenous peoples, Khasi-Jaintia and Garo, need: a larger pie rather than cutting the increasingly smaller pie to favour one group over the other.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organization or institution)