The situation in 1972 cannot be presumed to remain the same in 2026: KHNAM
By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, May 8: The Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement on Friday expressed dissatisfaction over the decision of other political parties to accept the expert committee’s report, which recommended against changing the State Reservation Policy (SRP), 1972.
KHNAM working president Thomas Passah told reporters that while almost all political parties agreed to accept the expert committee’s findings and maintain the status quo, his party was not convinced by the recommendation.
He said the KHNAM’s reservations were based on two key concerns.
Passah pointed out that his party sought clarification from the government during a meeting on whether the expert committee had been asked only to examine the 40:40 reservation ratio or to review the entire reservation policy. According to him, the government clarified that the committee’s terms of reference covered all aspects of the SRP.
“From the first line to the last word, the committee was expected to examine the entire policy,” he said.
Passah noted that the KHNAM made a specific submission to the committee, seeking the deletion of the term “autonomous state” from the original policy, arguing that the description was outdated as Meghalaya is now a full-fledged state.
“However, the report retained the term unchanged. If such a basic correction could be overlooked, it raises doubts whether the committee adequately examined the representations placed before it,” he said.
Passah also questioned the statistical basis of the committee’s conclusions.
The expert committee received 1,024 representations, of which 547 were treated as valid. Out of these, 440 representations—about 80.3%—favoured retaining the existing policy without changes.
He said only a small number of submissions sought amendments, including proposals for a combined reservation of 80 or 90%, a reservation based on population, and an enhanced reservation for the Khasi and Jaintia communities.
“In the past few years, there were visible public agitations demanding a review of the reservation policy. But the figures presented by the committee appear completely contrary to what has been witnessed on the ground,” Passah said.
He added that the identities of the 440 individuals, organisations, and groups that supported maintaining the status quo were not disclosed, making it difficult to assess the data independently.
Passah further argued that the government cannot continue to rely on assumptions of “backwardness” without updated empirical evidence.
Referring to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, he said the reservation policy cannot be debated meaningfully without reliable contemporary data showing the present socio-economic position of different communities.
“The situation that existed in 1972 cannot automatically be presumed to remain the same in 2026. The policy must be reviewed in the light of current realities and available data,” he said.
He said that KHNAM believes the government is approaching the issue with caution out of fear that any change may trigger unrest. However, he maintained that all communities would accept a data-driven and transparent review.
“Changes can be made if they are properly justified. To leave the policy untouched without examining present realities would not be justified,” Passah said.
