By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Feb 25: The Assembly witnessed some tense moments on Wednesday after the VPP pressed for a review of the Meghalaya State Reservation Policy, rejecting the Expert Committee’s recommendation to retain the 1972 framework unchanged.
VPP supremo and Nongkrem MLA Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, moving a short-duration discussion, clarified: “There was no demand to reduce the existing 40 per cent quota for the Garo community.” Instead, he proposed raising the Khasi share to 47 per cent while keeping the Garo quota at 40 per cent and staying within the 50 per cent constitutional ceiling.
Describing the issue as “very sensitive in nature,” Basaiawmoit said the discussion was undertaken “with a strong sense of responsibility.” He stressed that many in the Khasi-Jaintia region were “deeply shocked” by the committee’s decision to maintain the status quo, partly due to fears that changes “might not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
He countered: “This is the Legislature where laws and policies are made, and in many instances the judiciary does not interfere with policy decisions of the government.” Pointing to the original 1972 policy under Article 16(4), he highlighted its basis in inadequate representation and the need to maintain administrative efficiency.
He noted provisions allowing vacancies to be carried forward only to the next recruitment year, suggesting better implementation could have avoided controversy.
Basaiawmoit criticised the later roster system, saying the original policy likely avoided it “to maintain flexibility and communal harmony.”
“Given the pressure of employment among educated youths,” he expected at least a modest increase for the Khasi community.
He warned against waiting for courts: “Should we wait for the court to decide the future of our youths?”
While population should not be the sole criterion, he argued it “cannot be ignored,” as the 1972 policy itself considered it, and the Khasi population is nearly double the Garo. He called for a “bold and balanced decision” and urged against retrospective roster application, expressing disappointment that it took “nearly eight months” to conclude the policy should remain unchanged.
“This is not an issue of one community against another,” he added, voicing only “the employment concerns of the youth.”
Outside the House, Basaiawmoit reiterated VPP’s dissatisfaction, noting the delayed report release “made everyone suspicious.” He pointed out that most Northeast tribal states offer over 80 per cent tribal reservation and hoped the government would “take a bold step to review the existing Reservation Policy.”
In a separate Zero Hour discussion, North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum alleged inconsistencies in the committee’s findings and the government’s interpretation. He questioned a press release claiming majority stakeholder support for no change, asking if it truly reflected the report.
Citing specific sections, he challenged the reliance on submission volume—84 per cent favouring continuity—over merit, as required by the terms of reference. “Why did the Expert Committee not base its recommendation on merit… Why was it based on numbers?” he asked, noting many of the 547 representations were duplicates (152 identical emails, 108 others) and 442 “faceless.”
Nongrum highlighted a contradiction: Recommendation No. 1 states reservation should not be solely population-based, yet Recommendation No. 13 upholds the 1972 policy, which drew from population data due to inadequate ST/SC representation. “Does not one recommendation contradict the other?” he queried.
He clarified his concerns were not communal but aimed at “fairness and clarity so that the state progresses responsibly,” urging detailed government replies.
