The debate on job reservation in Nagaland must be viewed through the lens of historical realities rather than abstract notions of merit and equality.
Share
The debate on job reservation in Nagaland must be viewed through the lens of historical realities rather than abstract notions of merit and equality.
For nearly five decades, reservation intended for the Eastern Naga Tribes has remained largely ineffective in achieving meaningful representation in government services. During the same period, widespread backdoor appointments persisted across government departments and public institutions. If these realities are objectively examined, one may conclude that irregular appointment practices benefited certain dominant Western Naga tribes far more than reservation ever benefited the Eastern Naga Tribes.
It would be inaccurate to suggest that members of the Eastern Naga Tribes never benefited from such appointments. Undoubtedly, some did. The issue, however, is one of scale. The fact of the matter is that the magnitude of irregular appointments favouring dominant general tribes in western Nagaland far exceeded those benefiting the Eastern Naga Tribes.
Historical context is crucial. The western region of present-day Nagaland, particularly the erstwhile Naga Hills District, came under British administration long before the formation of the Naga Hills–Tuensang Area in 1957 and the attainment of Statehood in 1963. During this period, roads, schools, hospitals and administrative institutions were established, providing greater access to education and government employment.
As a result, the western Naga tribes entered Statehood with significant educational and administrative advantages and assumed leadership positions in government, politics and public administration. The expectation was that such leadership would exercise governance with integrity, transparency and probity while facilitating balanced and inclusive development across all regions of the State.
Yet, despite decades of political and administrative dominance, Nagaland continues to grapple with serious developmental challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, regional disparities, governance deficits, corruption, financial mismanagement and policy stagnation. These realities inevitably raise questions regarding the effectiveness of governance and the equitable distribution of opportunities among different regions and communities.
In recent years, there have been attempts to redefine reservation on the basis of economic status or pocket-area criteria. While poverty and underdevelopment undoubtedly exist across all communities, such proposals risk diluting the original purpose of reservation.
For decades, many influential positions in government departments and the Secretariat were occupied by members of relatively privileged Naga tribes. During this period, allegations of patronage-based recruitment and preferential appointments were rampant. With the establishment of merit-based recruitment mechanisms such as the Nagaland Staff Selection Board (NSSB) and the stricter conduct of examinations by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), opportunities for arbitrary appointments have significantly diminished. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether current demands to abolish or weaken reservation stem from a genuine concern for fairness or from the loss of privileges previously enjoyed through preferential recruitment and irregular appointment networks.
Reservation was never conceived as an individual poverty-alleviation programme. Rather, it was designed to ensure adequate representation of historically disadvantaged communities in public institutions. Its purpose is to address structural inequalities that have prevented certain communities from participating on equal terms in governance and administration.
Moreover, determining economic status in Nagaland presents considerable practical challenges. In the absence of comprehensive land records and reliable indicators of wealth, accurately identifying economic disadvantage remains difficult. There are individuals possessing substantial landholdings and assets whose actual economic position may not be reflected through conventional measures. Any attempt to extend reservation solely on economic or locality-based criteria must therefore be approached with caution.
The principle underlying reservation is equity. Equity recognises that individuals and communities do not begin from the same starting point. If two runners begin a race at different times, fairness requires acknowledging the advantage enjoyed by the one who started earlier. Similarly, educational attainment, professional success and competitive performance are profoundly influenced by historical access to schools, infrastructure, healthcare, economic opportunities and administrative exposure.
If reservation is extended primarily on the basis of economic condition or pocket-area criteria, there is a real risk that historically dominant and already well-represented communities may also become beneficiaries. Such an outcome would dilute the very purpose for which reservation was originally introduced. Any reform of reservation policy must, therefore, remain faithful to its foundational objective: ensuring adequate representation for communities that continue to experience historical disadvantage and underrepresentation in public institutions.
Merit does not emerge in isolation. It is shaped by the social, educational and historical environment in which individuals and communities evolve. Reservation does not undermine merit; rather, it recognises that unequal historical circumstances affect the ability of communities to compete on equal terms.
The fundamental question before Nagaland is whether public policy should continue to reflect historical advantages enjoyed by already privileged general communities or seek to promote equitable representation across all sections of society. Any meaningful discussion on reservation must therefore be grounded in historical realities, constitutional principles and the broader objective of ensuring balanced participation of all communities in the institutions of governance. Only then can Nagaland move towards a more inclusive and equitable future.
N Kampong Konyak
Aboiyang Ward, Aboi town