By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 1: The Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) has demanded an increase in the reservation quota for Khasi and Jaintia communities from 40% to 50%, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the Expert Committee on Meghalaya’s Reservation Policy.
KSU president Lambokstarwell Marngar said the Union had expected substantive reform from the committee’s exercise but found that the existing framework, originally formulated in 1972, remains effectively unchanged. He maintained that the present structure does not adequately reflect current demographic realities, particularly in the Hynniewtrep region.
The Union argued that the proposed enhancement to 50% is justified by population growth over the decades. Marngar clarified that the increase should be implemented without disturbing the quota allocated to the Garo community, stating that the intention is to correct perceived imbalances rather than reduce any community’s existing share.
According to Marngar, various organisations submitted detailed suggestions during consultations, but these inputs were not meaningfully incorporated. He added that the overall structure continues to mirror the arrangement from more than five decades ago.
In response, the KSU will convene a Central Executive Council meeting, where legal members will examine the current framework, assess the committee’s conclusions, and decide the next course of action.
Marngar stated that public policy must evolve with changing realities and urged the government to ensure recruitment quotas align with contemporary conditions to maintain fairness and stability in state employment.
BJP backs status quo
The state BJP unit supports maintaining the existing reservation structure, asserting that the Expert Committee’s outcome reflects consultations with stakeholders across regions.
State BJP general secretary Wankitbok Pohshna said the party had submitted its views beforehand, with inputs from Shillong and Garo Hills considered. He indicated that, from the party’s perspective, there was nothing further to deliberate.
Pohshna reiterated that the BJP’s stand was to maintain status quo, mindful of repercussions from changes. He referred to a standing court order stipulating that total reservation should not exceed 50%.
He further stated that the party does not support linking reservation directly to population figures.
According to Pohshna, reservation cannot be determined solely on the basis of population strength, as such an approach would disproportionately benefit the majority community. He said the concept had been misinterpreted at one point and maintained that any policy must take into account broader implications.
The BJP leader added that reservation should be guided by need rather than population size, stressing practical considerations and the larger picture.
Adelbert rejects Expert
Committee’s report
North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum rejected the Expert Committee report, particularly the claim that 84% of respondents favoured retaining the 1972 policy unchanged.
Expressing distrust, disagreement, and dissatisfaction, Nongrum said the conclusions did not reflect public expectations or the committee’s purpose.
“After I studied the report, I felt a lack of confidence and dissatisfaction. After the government constituted the Committee for two years, it was expected that a good resolution would come out, but it did not proceed in the direction people had expected,” the North Shillong MLA told reporters.
Nongrum highlighted inconsistencies in recorded submissions. Volume 13 (Part-3) listed around 547 submissions, with only 105 in-person and 442 via letters/emails allegedly lacking names, addresses, or phone numbers. Volumes 14–16 (Part-3) contained about 260 duplicate, identical submissions without proper identification.
Questioning credibility, he could not trust the report—especially the claim he opposed changes.
“I express my lack of confidence in the report because I am one of those who submitted suggestions to the Expert Committee, yet they claimed that I suggested that ‘there is no need for change, only the roster system should be implemented forward or backward,’” he said.
Nongrum alleged misrepresentation of his views, which consistently advocated reforms. He clarified recommending changes based on population proportion, prospective (not retrospective) roster implementation, and separate handling of academic and job reservations.
Nongrum reiterated that greater transparency and accuracy are required to ensure fairness and public confidence in Meghalaya’s reservation framework.
