By Divesh Ranjan
For nearly three years, Meghalaya’s Reservation Policy has remained at the centre of the political rise of the Voice of the People Party (VPP). Through hunger strikes, public rallies and strong political campaigns, the party and its leader, Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, transformed the reservation debate into a major political movement across the Khasi Jaintia region.
The issue played an important role in helping the VPP grow from a regional opposition force into one of Meghalaya’s most influential political parties. The party expanded its influence in the Assembly, strengthened its position in the KHADC and eventually captured the Shillong Lok Sabha seat by projecting itself as a strong voice of Khasi Jaintia aspirations.
However, politics is not judged only through protests and slogans. Political credibility is also tested through participation in institutions, policy discussions, decision making processes and by a genuine intention to contribute towards resolving public issues responsibly.
That is why the VPP’s decision to skip the all party meeting convened by the Meghalaya government on May 6 triggered considerable political discussion across the state.
The meeting was organised specifically to discuss the findings of the Expert Committee on the Reservation Policy, a committee that came into existence largely after sustained public pressure and agitation in which the VPP played a leading role. Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma had earlier assured the Assembly that all political parties would be consulted before any final decision was taken. The report had already been tabled in the Assembly and the government called the meeting to discuss its legal, constitutional and administrative implications.
Whether one agrees with the government’s position or not, many observers acknowledge that the government followed the institutional process by forming an expert committee, placing the report before the Assembly and inviting political parties for consultation.
Yet, the party that had been most vocal on the issue remained absent.
The VPP stated that it was occupied with “other pressing public issues.” However, the explanation led to questions from political observers and sections of the public regarding what circumstances prevented even one representative of the party from attending such an important consultation.
Some critics also argued that the incident highlighted concerns about excessive dependence on one central leader. According to these observers, much of the party’s political messaging and direction appears closely associated with Basaiawmoit himself. While strong central leadership can help rapidly build political momentum, analysts often point out that long term political sustainability also depends on organisational depth and collective leadership.
In this context, some political commentators suggested that the absence from the meeting created an impression of either weak internal coordination or insufficient delegation of responsibility within the party structure.There is also a broader political dimension that cannot be ignored.
The reservation issue undoubtedly strengthened the VPP’s support base in the Khasi Jaintia belt. However, as the party attempts to expand politically into Garo Hills, some observers believe it faces increasing perception challenges. The strong rhetoric surrounding revision of the quota structure has created concern among sections of the Garo community, where some people perceive the debate through the lens of ethnic and regional imbalance.
The expert committee’s recommendation to maintain the status quo may also have placed the VPP in a politically sensitive position. Political analysts suggest that direct engagement with the committee’s constitutional and legal observations could have complicated the emotional public narrative surrounding the movement.
However, critics argue that responsible opposition politics requires participation not only in public mobilisation but also in institutional dialogue and consultation processes.
Among politically aware citizens, intellectuals and educated youth, discussions have emerged regarding whether the VPP is effectively transitioning from an agitation driven movement into a mature political institution capable of sustained policy engagement and governance oriented politics.
Some supporters who once strongly identified with the movement are now expressing disappointment over the party’s absence from the consultation process. According to political observers, this has contributed to a perception among certain sections of voters that emotionally sensitive issues may sometimes continue to dominate political mobilisation even when opportunities for formal engagement are available.
At the same time, many citizens still view the VPP as an important political force and a significant alternative in Meghalaya politics. The party’s rise reflected a broader public desire for cleaner governance, stronger opposition and new political leadership.
Meghalaya has witnessed the emergence of several new political parties over the last three Assembly elections because a section of voters continues searching for credible alternatives. Political history in the state also shows that parties which rise rapidly through public emotion and mass support often face difficulties sustaining momentum if organisational discipline, strategic planning and institutional engagement do not evolve simultaneously.
For this reason, every opposition party carries not only electoral ambition but also the responsibility of representing the aspirations and trust of citizens seeking meaningful change.
Several observers further note that the decline of once influential opposition parties at the national level offers an important political lesson. Public emotion can generate rapid support, but maintaining long term credibility often requires consistency, accountability, policy understanding and responsible leadership.
Many commentators believe the VPP has reached a critical stage in its political journey. While the party remains highly relevant and influential, debates surrounding recent decisions, including the all party meeting controversy, indicate that expectations from the party are now significantly higher than during its initial rise.
The coming years may therefore determine whether the VPP successfully evolves from a movement driven primarily by public agitation into a mature political institution capable of balancing public emotion with responsible governance oriented politics.
If the party undertakes careful introspection and strategic correction, it may continue to strengthen its position in Meghalaya politics. However, if organisational and perception related concerns continue to grow, the same issue that contributed to the party’s rise could also become a major challenge for its long term political credibility.
(The writer is an independent columnist)
