5 Tribes CoRRP renews demand for reservation policy review, cites government inaction and calls for independent commission.
Share
DIMAPUR — The 5 Tribes Committee on Review of Reservation Policy (CoRRP) has renewed its demand for Nagaland government to take decisive action on its core demands related to the state’s reservation policy, following what it described as “continued inaction” after a previously agreed two-week deliberation period.
In a press release issued on Monday, the CoRRP expressed concern that despite the state Cabinet’s announcement to set up a commission to examine the current reservation system, there has been no official response or progress on the committee’s two principal demands: either to scrap the existing Reservation Policy, or to allocate the unreserved quota to the five tribes represented by the committee.
The latest statement follows an earlier meeting held on June 3, at the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, where state ministers and senior officials met with representatives of the Ao, Sumi, Angami, Lotha, and Rengma tribes, who make up the CoRRP. The meeting, chaired by Deputy Chief Minister Y Patton, concluded with the committee agreeing to suspend its agitation and granting the government a two-week period—until June 17—to deliberate on the formation of an independent commission, rather than a committee, to examine the existing quota system.
Also read: Nagaland's 47-year-old job reservation policy under fire
At the time, CoRRP Convenor Tesinlo Semy described the meeting as “fruitful” and noted the government’s agreement to constitute a commission to study the demands. In turn, the committee had put all protest activities on hold pending the outcome of the Cabinet’s deliberation.
However, in its statement on Monday, the committee said no “substantive progress or official communication” had taken place since the meeting, and reiterated its dissatisfaction with the delay. It also laid down a condition regarding the composition of the proposed commission, stating that civil society organisations (CSOs) should not be included. This, it said, is to “uphold the neutrality, fairness and integrity of the commission’s work and to prevent any conflict of interest or undue influence.”
“The committee remains committed to constructive engagement but reserves the right to initiate appropriate democratic measures if the issues remain unaddressed within a reasonable timeframe,” the statement added.