By Aristotle Lyngdoh
The new rooster system enforced in the State by the last dispensation of the MDA coalition has created severe discontentment among the educated and qualified youth of the Khasi-Jaintia region. Besides, there is also a growing furore in some sections of the political squadrons of this region. The VPP has demanded a special session of the House on this issue or else they will take the matter to the streets. Many feel there is a bias and discriminatory tactics being used in order to seize the extravagant advantage from the current roster system that benefits a particular community. So far things are not right and justified in the current system.
The reason that led to this development originated from the lapses that various governments in the past had failed to recruit vacancies in various departments citing fund constraints. But the truth is that over the years there has been a systematic manipulation to the recruitment process and regularisation of temporary appointments were the common options to retain the favourites. This unethical practice has prompted the High Court of Meghalaya to issue certain directives on the recruitment process of the state.
Invoking public support on the other hand on this issue by a political party may lead to law and order breakdown in the state. The situation is unwarranted for such calamity. It is a legislative matter and the government should stick to that. If there is any attempt to forcefully suppress the call from the Voice of the People Party, things might escalate to an infavourable situation that may affect the stability of the MDA 2.0. It is of course a challenging task for the government where its wisdom will undergo a strategic test on how to handle the manifold outcomes from this.
Secondly, if indeed, the session of the state legislature is convened, what will be the nature and direction of the debate inside the House? Can the MDA 2.0 led government rely on its allies when it comes to this particular issue related with the 40-40 percent share of job quota to Khasi-Jaiñtia and the Garo ST community? There is a possibility of mixed reactions from within the ruling and the opposition parties too. Thirdly, what will happen if the government and the NPP in particular fail to uphold the Office Memorandum of 10th May, 2022? It is absolutely certain that the NPP leadership will not compromise to risk and disappoint the sentiments of the voters from Garo Hills who have given them absolute mandate.
But what is important for both the communities is the history and logic behind the creation of the reservation policy 1972 that emerged out of the Hill State Movement. Had there been no hill state movement, or if statehood had arrived late, probably after 1972, the idea about 40:40 percent would not have arisen. Even then, there was a time when Meghalaya was carved out of Assam because these two tribal communities, the Khasi-Jaintia and the Garo wanted to avoid the imposition of Assamese language by the then Assam government and decided to create a new state for themselves.
On achieving full statehood, the immediate need at that moment was the administration and decision making process for the people of the state. Subsequently, the management and utilization of manpower and the state’s resources were then left to the Khasi-Jaintia and the Garo people. The thought on how to equally share the responsibilities and distribute the same to its own citizens was an indispensable and intended task at that time. Therefore, based on this simple logic, the 80% reservation for recruitment in government service was a deliberate and appropriate formula for the communities of the two Autonomous District Councils leaving the remaining 20% to others. In this regard, the founding leaders of the state have done no wrong to any community. Para 2 of the resolution dated 12th January 1972 clearly specifies that if there is any deficiency of suitable candidates in the reserved category, the carry-over of vacancies cannot exceed one year post the recruitment year. Furthermore, after the expiry of the second year these reservations shall be treated as lapsed. This is the central balancing mechanism or the fulcrum of the original policy. Excessive extension of reservation beyond numbers of recruitment years shows undue bias and favouritism towards a particular community.
However, considering the population growth and the bifurcation of Khasi-Jaiñtia ADC, the 40-40 reservation seems to be irrelevant today. But to question the vision and wisdom of the makers of the state reservation policy 1972 is inappropriate. And the perception about their short-sightedness is overstated. The question is short-sightedness in whose eyes? Is it for a particular tribe or community or to some intellectual thinkers?
The Office Memorandum Dated 10th May 2022 has outlined the status quo of the policy according to the resolution No.PER.222/71/138 Dated 12th January, 1972. As long as this resolution is in place, there should not be any reason for disgruntlement by any member of the community. Contrary to this, the Office Memo of 10th May 2022 has cleverly replaced the wording ‘recruitment year’ with the nomenclature ‘recruitment cycle’ without specifying the end of the cycle because the cycle has no end. And all the backlogs of every cycle will be carried over to the next recruitment cycle without indicating the lapses due to deficiency. This shows that the OM Dated 10th May 2022 is one-sided and favours excessive consideration to one category.
The only solution to this impasse is to honour and respect the clauses and content of the original policy as it is without making any modifications to it. The term ‘recruitment cycle’ should be rectified. And specifying the validity of the reservation is a pre-requisite condition to adjust with the shortage and deficiency of suitable candidates for the reserved vacancies. This will bring a balance in the recruitment system of the state especially for the two prominent communities of the state (Hynñiewtrep and the Achik).