By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Finally, after a long wait, the Government of Meghalaya has announced that it will release the Reservation Policy Report in the month of February. The report has been highly anticipated by many in the state, including pressure groups, political parties, and ordinary citizens who would like to see an end to this controversy. The delay had been creating a great deal of resentment and doubt among many people. Among the many complaints against the delay, a joke that made the rounds concerned the weight of the report—apparently over 200 kg, with around 4,000-5000 pages. I believe this massive volume is largely on account of the annexures, which themselves would run into hundreds of pages, if not more.
The committee set up to review the demand for a revision of the policy had arranged for submissions in both Shillong and Tura, spanning multiple days at both venues. Submissions were made by groups as well as individuals, and from what I heard, the same people even changed names to submit twice. Clearly, it is a very contentious issue. The sheer number of submissions has meant that every suggestion had to be acknowledged and included in the report. Failing to do so could have led to complaints of partiality and of ignoring suggestions that were not to the liking of the committee. I therefore suspect that the exceedingly high number of pages is largely due to the annexures. But we will see once the report is released.
The huge number of pages might seem daunting, and it might appear to some as a ploy to deter and confuse people. My suggestion to such people is to simply read the executive summary, which will briefly highlight the main points. That should be sufficient to reveal the report’s recommendations. So, do not get intimidated by the length and weight (!) of the report. What, then, can we expect from it? Since I, along with my friends, also submitted suggestions and appeared before the committee, I can hazard a few guesses.
The first thing that was said to us when we stood before the committee was the futility of our supposed suggestion that reservation should be based on population. We were told in clear terms that the Constitution does not allow such an arrangement. The members were surprised when we told them that we had not come with any such suggestion. Instead, our proposal was to institute deprivation points within the reservation policy to ensure that the benefits go to those who truly deserve them. Let me explain how this would work.
Suppose there is a Khasi girl born into a family where both parents are daily-wage labourers. She is a resident of Moosakhia in West Jaintia Hills. Her competitor for a government job is a Khasi boy from Nongstoin in West Khasi Hills. This boy’s family is relatively well-to-do: his mother is a schoolteacher while his father is a government employee. Both apply for a government position and perform well in the written examination and personal interview. In the final list, the girl is ranked higher than the boy, even though she may have scored fewer marks. This would be because additional points have been added to her tally based on her socio-economic background and place of residence. Both candidates are eligible to compete for the 40% reservation meant for the Khasi, but one receives higher preference than the other. This is not the same as the “creamy layer” concept that some have argued for.
Under the “creamy layer” concept, the boy from Nongstoin would not be able to avail of the benefits of reservation because his parents had already done so. Instead, only those whose parents have never benefitted from reservation would be eligible to apply for reserved posts. This rationale is based on a flawed logic that assumes reservation is grounded in economic criteria, which was never the original intention of the Constitution. This changed when the BJP-led NDA government introduced the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, which added clauses 15(6) and 16(6) to allow up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general population in government jobs and educational institutions, in addition to existing reservations for SC, ST, and OBC communities.
The existing ratio and logic for SC, ST, and OBC reservations were kept intact—namely, that reservation is based on backwardness, which is not purely a function of economic criteria. The “creamy layer” concept was therefore rejected for defining reservation for these groups. Instead, a new category—EWS—was created based purely on economic criteria. Meghalaya does not yet have this category. However, under the Constitution, the state can reserve up to 10% of seats for economically weaker sections from the general population. If this were added to the existing scheme, it would result in a total reservation of 95% of government jobs in the state: 40% each for Khasi and Garo, 5% for other ST/SC groups, and 10% for EWS (general population). It remains to be seen whether, after the release of the report, the non-indigenous population approaches the courts if EWS is not included. Now that the cat is out of the bag, anything can happen.
The reason the “creamy layer” concept was not applied to SC, ST, and OBC communities is that their marginalisation is not simply the result of economic deprivation, but of identity-based discrimination. Angel Chakma was killed in Uttarakhand not because he was a poor daily-wage labourer, but because he looked different from the locals. Upper castes will not automatically begin treating Dalits with dignity if they improve their socio-economic status. In fact, multiple reports suggest that attacks on Dalits often intensify when there is a perception that they are economically advancing. To make this example more personal, a Khasi boy or girl whose parents may have served as IAS officers holding important portfolios in the Union Government will still face discrimination in the same way as someone from a working-class Khasi family. Discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC communities is a product of history and cultural chauvinism, particularly in a caste-based society, with elements of racism as well. Therefore, a purely economic criterion such as the “creamy layer” cannot be applied to these groups. Given that there are already judicial precedents on this issue, any attempt to do so will almost certainly face legal scrutiny and challenges. This is where those advocating a change in the original scheme of the reservation policy will face their biggest hurdle.
Any substantive change in the reservation policy in Meghalaya will also have implications for how reservation is framed across the country. If the Government of Meghalaya were to rework the ratio based on population—approximately 30% for Garos and 50% for Khasis—it would embolden other states to attempt the same. There have been several such attempts in the past, the most recent being by the Government of Bihar, whose decision to design reservation based on population was struck down by the High Court. Introducing population proportion as a criterion for reservation would require a constitutional amendment, similar to the 103rd Amendment that introduced the EWS category. This is why Rahul Gandhi had announced that if they won the 2024 general election, they would amend the Constitution to make reservation population-based. Any BJP-led government is unlikely to do so. Since the Congress-led INDIA alliance fell short of a majority, there has been no change to the original design of the reservation policy.
For these reasons, I would be very surprised if the expert committee’s report recommends changing the present policy of equal representation for Khasi and Garo communities in favour of greater representation for the Khasi. This is the moment of reckoning. What will those who seek change do if the report does not support their demands? Will they approach the judiciary to redress what they consider, in their opinion, to be a violation of constitutional provisions? Or will they admit that they were, deliberately or otherwise, misleading the people? These are questions to which the answers will soon be revealed. The public can then decide how to respond to the revelations. Personally, I am eagerly waiting for the report to be tabled during the State Budget Session—and I am sure many others are as well. The truth may be painful for some, but in the long run it will bring clarity and peace to the state.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)
