Editor,
The letter to the editor, “Back to square one!” by Jerome K. Diengdoh (ST. dt. 14.3.26) is not only a wake up call for the Hynniewtrep people but it is also high time to stand united to get rid of this most controversial, chronic and vexed problem of the present Reservation Policy.
Right from the time the report of the Expert Committee was published on the front page of this newspaper on February 19, 2026, it really hurt our sentiments and caused deep frustration. It belied our expectations. It is like asking for bread and a fish but instead the Committee and the Government of the day has given us stones and snakes respectively which is indeed disdainfully insulting. Coming back to the write up of JK Diengdoh, I fully endorse and support his views that the only option to end this problem of a skewed Job Reservation Policy is to bifurcate Meghalaya into Achik and Hynniewtrep States respectively. This is imperative. This separation will prove to be a blessing for both the tribes in the long run. Otherwise, the impact of the Reservation Policy in its present form will greatly affect the future of the Hynniewtrep people especially the promising educated youth and job seekers. Therefore, it may be reiterated that peaceful separation is the best solution.
Both our Garo brethren and Hynniewtrep people (Khasi, Pnar, Bhoi and War) will be happy and satisfied and hold no grudge or regret whatsoever as both tribes will reap the benefits and advantages in all respects.
It may be pointed out that the State Reservation Policy vide its Notification No. PER.222/71/138 dt. 12th January 1972 specifically stipulated that, “In terms of population the Reservation earmarked 40% for the Khasi and Jaintia and 40% for the Garo.” This equal percentage is wrong considering the fact that since the year 1972, the population of Khasi and Jaintia was much higher in number than the Garos. But sadly the Committee report recommended that the Reservation Policy should not be determined on the basis of population. This is the first assault to the Khasi and Jaintia people and the Government Notification quoted above has been inequitable right from the start.
Secondly, Clause 2 clearly stipulated that, “If sufficient number of suitable candidates for filling up the reserved vacancies are not available from the respective classes in any particular year, then such vacancies will be available to others,” It implies that if there are no suitable or qualified Garo candidates, the quota should be filled up by the Hynniewtrep qualified candidate and vice versa. However, in the same clause it is also stipulated that deficiency in S.T. and S.C. will be carried forward to next recruitment year but not more than a year. After expiry of one year, the shortage of either Garo or Khasi and Jaintia shall be treated as “lapsed.” Despite the above clauses of the notification, the Committee of the present regime of Meghalaya recommended that the Reservation Policy should be retained in the present form which means a status quo. The carry forward should be extended to three years instead of only one year. The Roster System should be strongly emphasized. It implies that the backlog or shortage should be strictly followed. As pointed out by Prof Lakhon Kma in his article in this newspaper (S.T. dated. April 5, 2023) captioned “Short-sightedness of predecessors impacts Khasi-Jaintia youth today”, the Hon’ble High Court never asked for the cut-off date or how far back the Roster System would be made applicable. Apparently, the State Government had in 2022 mischievously attempted to apply the Roster System retrospectively ignoring the provisions of Clause 2 of the State Reservation Policy which clearly stated otherwise. Prof. Kma further stated that unless Clause 2 of the Reservation Policy is amended by the State Assembly, how can the roster be prepared because both contradict each other. The article of Prof. Kma indeed exposed the serious flaws in the State Reservation Policy and subsequent Office Memorandum particularly the one dated May 10, 2022 where it states that the Roster System to be implemented retrospectively.
The above observations coupled with the recommendations of the Committee and affirmed by the present government (MDA), have dealth a fatal blow to the Hynniewtrep people particularly the students and qualified job seekers. Their futures are one of doom and gloom and all are at the brink of a precipice. The Hynniewtrep people are at the point of total collapse. Therefore, I appeal to wake up before it is too late.
Yours etc.
Svetlana Wankhar,
Via email
A Humane Step towards Recognising Adoptive Motherhood
Editor,
It was March 17, 2026 — a day that may quietly mark a meaningful change in how we understand parenthood in our country — when the Supreme Court of India delivered a decision that feels both timely and much needed. The Court has said that an adoptive mother should get 12 weeks of maternity leave, no matter how old the child is. Earlier, this benefit was only for those who adopted babies below three months. That never really added up. A child doesn’t stop needing care, love and attention just because he or she is older. The judgment clearly brings out a simple reality — when a child enters a new family; both sides need time to adjust. In fact, older children may need even more emotional support as they are stepping into a completely new environment.
If we look around the world, countries like the UK, Canada and Sweden already follow a more inclusive approach. Even in the United States, adoptive parents are given leave without such age limits. So, in a way, this decision puts India on the right track.
In my view, this is definitely a welcome move. It puts the focus where it should be — on the child and the family. It may also encourage more people to consider adoption, which is a positive sign for society. That said, we also need to look at the ground reality. For many workplaces, especially smaller ones, managing longer leave periods can be challenging. There could also be confusion if clear rules are not put in place. So while the intent is absolutely right, the execution will matter a lot. The government should come up with proper guidelines and maybe even support systems so that both employees and employers are not put under pressure. Also, it’s high time we seriously think about paternity leave, because parenting is a shared responsibility.
All in all, this decision feels like a step in the right direction — fairer, more practical and more humane. If implemented well, it can truly make a difference.
Yours etc,
Jairaj,
Via email
Menstrual Leave Policy
Editor,
The Supreme Court declined to mandate a national menstrual leave policy and it has triggered a debate on it. In fact, it is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to lay down such a policy. It should be discussed in Parliament and state assemblies and at workplaces. Menstruation is a biological process which affects millions of women across the world. However, its impact varies from person to person. In some women that time passes without complications whereas in others it becomes a tough time. It is not practical to mandate a national menstrual leave policy. As it is a personal problem, only the person concerned knows her physical condition. Women already face several challenges at the workplace. The work force participation rate for women in India is the lowest in the world. Making menstrual leave compulsory could put women at a disadvantage. It could harm their employment prospects. Similarly, reliable data about how many women need leave and how many times a month, is required. Women may avail leave on the pretext of menstruation. Admittedly, women need care and rest during their period. Menstruating women must not be ignored. Equality at the workplace cannot be achieved by disregarding women’s well-being. Some states in India have offered menstrual leave for government employees. Given that making menstrual leave compulsory is not feasible, the onus is on workplaces to put the policy in place.
Yours etc.,
Venu GS,
Via email
