By Bhogtoram Mawroh
On April 17, 2023, the Voice of the People Party (VPP) began their public rallies on the issue of the Roster System and the Reservation Policy. In the meeting held in Mawlai Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, the president of VPP reiterated that he was not against any community but wanted to correct the imbalance that he saw in the current system. Therefore, he suggested that an ‘Expert Committee’ be constituted to come up with suggestions to make it fairer. This is because, according to him, the present system is lopsided towards a certain community. So basically, Ardent has already decided the outcome of the ‘Expert Committee’ even before it has been formed. But maybe that is being unfair to him. If the government does agree to the formation of the ‘Expert Committee’ the outcome could very well be different. Let us discuss this in greater detail.
If an ‘Expert Committee’ is constituted, the terms of reference will be to review the Reservation Policy of the state and come up with a system that will be acceptable to all. To be acceptable, it has to base its decisions on facts and figures. This again depends on the indicators that they choose for the data that is going to be collected. But what are going to be those indicators? In this, VPP has already identified the indicator of their choice, i.e., the demographic profile of the state, in which the Khasi-Jaintia constitutes 46% and the Garo around 31% of the total population. The question is whether the indicator is in consonance with the tenets of reservation as found in the Indian Constitution.
Reservation in India is derived from Clauses (4) and (4A) of Article 16 of the Constitution, which mention that the state can make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens that, in the opinion of the state, are not adequately represented in the services under the state. The focus here is on backwardness and lack of representation in jobs (services), not demography. However, we will not ignore the point of demography, but the primary stress has to be on backwardness. So if an ‘Expert Committee’ is constituted, they have to select indicators that can measure the backwardness of a community and decide accordingly who deserves reservation more: the Khasi-Jaintia or the Garo? Let us be clear: this hypothetical ‘Expert Committee’ will not design indicators, prepare questionnaires, calculate the appropriate sample sizes, or collect primary data to measure backwardness. That is impossible because it requires a great deal of resources, which a cash-strapped state like Meghalaya cannot spare. What they are going to do is use existing government statistics to come to a conclusion. The good thing is that the dataset that they are going to access is already available in the public domain, and we don’t have to wait for the ‘Expert Committee’ to find out what the outcome will be. In this way, we can save money on the fees and honoraria that will have to be paid to consultants. A document, useful to our purpose that has synthesised a lot of the data on the socio-economic profile of the state is the ‘North Eastern Region: District SDG Index, Report, and Dashboard Baseline Report 2021-2022’.
The report was released by NITI Aayog to track the progress of the different states in the country in their progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals—17 in all. These goals are an attempt to provide a blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. Poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice are some of the challenges that these goals are trying to address. Although being aspirational, the goals can also reveal structural problems being faced by certain regions. In other words, if a region is lagging behind the goals, it means that the population in the region is marginalised, i.e., lacking access to the means that can help them achieve a prosperous and sustainable future. While it is a matter of great shame that Meghalaya is second from the bottom when it comes to SDGs, the district-wise comparison will give a good idea of which regions are marginalised and therefore need extra support.
In the case of Meghalaya, the report has decided to rank the districts on 15 goals instead of 17 because SDG 14: Life below Water and SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals are not applicable to the state. Taking into account the ethnic divisions in the state, the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo districts are being separated for analysis. The comparison of rankings shows that the Khasi-Jaintia districts have performed better than the Garo districts in ten SDGs, i.e., 66% of the total SDGs. This reveals the clear gap in terms of development between the two regions. A look at the specific goals reveals a very interesting pattern.
The five SDGs on which the Garo districts outperformed the Khasi-Jaintia districts are: GOAL 2: Zero Hunger; GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being; GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy; GOAL 13: Climate Action; and GOAL 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. GOAL 2 and GOAL 3 are very closely related to each other. So it stands to reason that if a district does well in one, it is highly likely that they will do well in the other as well.
What is surprising, however, is that the performance of the Garo districts under GOAL 1, which is very strongly related to GOAL 2 and GOAL 3 is very dismal. The difference in rank between the Khasi-Jaintia districts and Garo districts under GOAL 1 is the third highest among all; the latter is placed 23 ranks (difference between the average rank of the Khasi-Jaintia districts and Garo districts) lower than the former. This means that despite the comparatively higher level of poverty, the Garo districts have somehow been able to tackle hunger and ensure better health compared to the Khasi-Jaintia districts. This is seen in the higher level of child malnutrition and pregnant women who are anaemic in the Khasi-Jaintia districts.
A possible answer for this discrepancy could be a difference in dietary patterns between the two regions, which could again be connected to GOAL 13. Under this particular SDG, an important variable used for measuring progress is the change in forest area. It is important to observe that it is the districts from the Khasi-Jaintia region that have recorded a loss in area under forest. Traditionally, the forest has been an important source of food for the indigenous communities in the state, both plant and animal, many of which are highly nutritious. The nutritional content in some is even higher than those bought from the market. Could it be that the consumption of a higher amount of wild food (higher forest cover in Garo districts means higher availability of wild food) reduces the chance of hunger and leads to a better health outcome? This connection could be further explored. As for the remaining two SDGs in which the Garo districts have done better, GOAL 7 has only two variables: the percentage of villages electrified and the percentage of households using clean fuel for cooking. It is possible that if more variables are chosen, the rank achieved by the Garo districts could decline. Lastly, GOAL 16 is aimed at promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The fact that the Garo districts have done better compared to the Khasi-Jaintia districts despite being beset by law and order problems until recently is something to be applauded.
Finally, when all the SDGs are considered, the average rank achieved by the Khasi-Jaintia districts is 75, while the Garo districts get 85, i.e., a difference of 10 ranks. Taking from this, since the Garo are comparatively more backward than the Khasi-Jaintia, their share of the reservation cannot be reduced as it would go against the tenets of the Constitution. But taking VPP’s logic, let’s give them a share based on their demographic size, i.e., 31%. However, in order to correct for the historical injustice (backwardness as brought out by the SDGs), a figure of 10% (difference in rank) should be added, which will take the figure to 41%. As for the Khasi-Jaintia, their share will get reduced to 36% because the combined size of the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo populations is 77%, not 80%. This can be reviewed every few years upon the release of fresh data. From this perspective, the outcome of the ‘Expert Committee’ will go against what the VPP wants. Will VPP accept such an outcome?
Personally, I think this is all just posturing for political gains, and the people, especially the Khasi-Jaintia, are being taken for a ride. In the process, I fear the Khasi-Jaintia might lose whatever gains they are currently getting from the current Reservation Policy. But then, politicians are way smarter than any of us. So, time will tell.
(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)