TURA, June 11: The opposition to the possible review of the State Reservation Policy continues to pour in with the Association for Democracy and Empowerment (ADE) also submitting its views to L K Diengdoh, the Secretary of the Expert Committee.
“Different communities of Meghalaya have been living in harmony since the initiation of the statehood of Meghalaya. The Constitution of India has provided reservations to certain backward communities based on castes, tribes and also on the basis of economic backwardness. We believe that the Reservation Policy has helped a lot to overcome the disadvantages that are inherently prevalent in these backward communities and the Garo Community also being a backward community enjoys the privileges of the Job Reservation Policy, which at present is well balanced,” the association said.
“Another aspect that is worth mentioning is that the socio-economic circumstances of the Garo community are still far backward compared to the Khasi-Jaintia community. Therefore, we urge that the agreed reservation quota created on January 12, 1972 should be continued as usual and any kind of modification should be avoided,” it added.
Another local body opposed to any kind of review of the quota policy is the Chada Rechil Napak Mahari Union, which also submitted its views and suggestions to Diengdoh.
“The State Reservation Policy 1972 was a historical agreement made between united Khasi-Jaintia and Garo, for the benefit of other tribes in state. Even after 50 years of statehood, the Garos are still far behind the Khasi-Jaintia brothers. The Reservation of 40% (percent) for the Garos and 40% (percent) for the United Khasi-Jaintia has been in operation for over 50 (fifty) years and experience over this period has revealed that many of the Garos have not received the full desired quota and are still being deprived. The Khasi-Jaintia brother on the other hand, continues to be very significantly represented in various services under the State Government,” it said.
Given the facts, the union, while keeping in view the interests of all communities in the state, felt that there was no reason to review the State Reservation Policy, 1972 at this juncture. Rather we find it necessary to strengthen the policy by taking all the correction measures for its effective implementation in the letter and spirit, it added.
