By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Jan 11: While the Meghalaya government claims it is lost in the ‘punctuation’ of a 200-kilogram report, the state is rapidly losing its patience, as the six-month delay in reviewing the State Reservation Policy threatens to reignite street agitations and fracture the ruling alliance.
The demand for disclosure of the report of the Expert Committee constituted to review the Meghalaya State Reservation Policy, 1972, has gained momentum with Opposition parties, coalition partners, pressure groups and individuals questioning why the report, submitted over six months ago, has not yet been placed in the public domain.
VPP supremo Ardent M Basaiawmoit had accused the government of deliberately delaying the report’s release despite repeated reminders.
In an open statement addressed to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma and shared through a video message, Basaiawmoit had said that six months had elapsed since the expert committee submitted its findings, yet the government had failed to share it with the public. He warned that the VPP would resume agitation if the report continued to be withheld, recalling that the expert committee itself was formed in May 2023 following intense pressure and a 10-day hunger strike led by him demanding a review of the 1972 reservation policy.
Heat from close quarters
The demand for transparency has not been limited to the opposition benches.
The State BJP, a key ally in the ruling coalition, said there should be no hesitation in releasing the report if it is ready. BJP spokesperson Mariahom Kharkrang said making the report public would strengthen transparency, allow informed public debate and help the government identify areas that may require corrective measures.
However, another coalition partner, the United Democratic Party (UDP), has urged caution. UDP general secretary Titosstarwell Chyne had said the government must be given adequate space and time to scrutinise and fine-tune the voluminous report before releasing it.
He maintained that careful scrutiny and finalisation were essential to ensure that the report is accurate, complete and free from ambiguities.
Congress’s nudge to govt
The Congress has also advised restraint. Meghalaya Pradesh Congress Committee president Vincent H. Pala said the government must follow due process while dealing with such reports. He argued that ordinarily, recommendations of expert panels are first discussed within the government and then placed before the House, after which they are made public.
“They cannot just make it public like that,” Pala said, stressing that procedural propriety must be respected.
Most vocal critics — student bodies
Meanwhile, student organisations have emerged as some of the most vocal critics of the delay.
The KSU had questioned Chief Minister Sangma’s statement that the expert committee report weighs nearly 200 kilograms and runs into 4,000–5,000 pages. KSU president Lambokstarwell Marngar said the claim was difficult to comprehend for a policy document and demanded an immediate explanation.
“If it were the Constitution of India, one could perhaps understand such a claim. But saying a policy report weighs 200 kg is hard to understand,” Marngar said, while questioning why the report was still under examination months after submission. He said the delay had only added to public suspicion and uncertainty.
CM’s defence
Responding to the criticism, Chief Minister Conrad Sangma had assured that the report would be made public shortly.
Explaining the delay, the CM had said the document was extremely large and sensitive, with far-reaching implications for the state’s social fabric.
Sangma had claimed that even punctuation could change the interpretation of the committee’s findings, necessitating line-by-line scrutiny by senior officials, including the Chief Secretary.
He emphasised that there was no question of withholding the report from the public and reiterated the government’s commitment to transparency while exercising caution given the sensitivity of the issue. However, there is sharp divisions emerge among political parties, student bodies and civil society groups over the future of the decades-old policy.
The road so far
The Meghalaya State Reservation Policy of 1972 reserves 40 per cent of government jobs for Khasi-Jaintia tribes, 40 per cent for Garos and 5 per cent for other tribes, leaving 15 per cent for the unreserved category. According to the 2011 Census, Khasi-Jaintia tribes constitute 46.59 per cent of the population, while Garos account for 31.56 per cent.
Data from the Census of Meghalaya Government Employees, 2022, shows that Khasi-Jaintia communities hold 60.86 per cent of government jobs, significantly higher than their population share, while Garos hold 30.61 per cent. The disparity widens at higher levels, with Khasis occupying over 64 per cent of gazetted posts compared to about 30 per cent held by Garos.
It may be recalled that political parties, student bodies and civil society organisations had placed sharply divergent suggestions before the expert committee.
Several Khasi-Jaintia organisations, including the KSU and the HYC, proposed revising the policy on the basis of population, suggesting 50 per cent reservation for Khasi-Jaintia, 40 per cent for Garos, with the remainder for other STs, SCs and unreserved categories. Alternative proposals included a combined 90-93 per cent reservation for Scheduled Tribes of Meghalaya.
The KSU had also demanded that any new policy should not be retrospective, should not create backlog vacancies, and should apply afresh. It further stressed that district-level posts should continue to prioritise local candidates permanently residing in the concerned districts.
In sharp contrast, the Garo Students’ Union (GSU) strongly opposed any change to the 1972 policy, calling for maintenance of the status quo. The GSU warned that revising the policy, particularly the 40 per cent quota for Garos, could threaten ethnic harmony and lead to law and order problems, citing past tensions such as the MBOSE issue. It argued that Garos continue to face deprivation, especially in higher-level posts, and pointed to over 15,000 backlog vacancies affecting the community.
Political parties echoed similar divisions. The VPP had called for a population-based policy grounded in official census data, separate quotas for SCs and other STs, mandatory proficiency in Khasi or Garo for government employment, and domicile-based eligibility. The party argued that the original 40:40 allocation lacked scientific basis and was based on assumptions rather than facts.
The Hill State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP) had suggested combining the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo quotas to promote merit-based competition while retaining district-specific reservations. It also recommended doing away with the “carry forward” provision of vacancies.
The UDP had submitted eight “rational” observations and suggestions to the Expert Committee on the Meghalaya Reservation Policy, but the specific key points of these recommendations have not been publicly revealed.
North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum had proposed rectifying anomalies in the original policy using quantifiable population data, while civil society groups like Thma U Rangli Juki (TUR) had suggested introducing a “Deprivation Point System” based on socio-economic indicators. Bethany Society secretary, Carmo Noronha had emphasised strict implementation of the mandated 4 per cent reservation for persons with disabilities.
As demands intensify, the expert committee’s report has become central to a broader debate on equity, representation and social balance in Meghalaya.
While the government maintains that it is exercising caution due to the report’s sensitivity, critics argue that continued delay undermines public trust.
With protests being threatened and political divisions sharpening, the release of the report is now widely seen as a crucial step in informing public discourse and determining the future course of Meghalaya’s reservation policy.
