Background on Nagaland's Job Reservation Policy
In December 1963, Nagaland attained statehood and subsequently, a job reservation policy was introduced to reserve 80% of State government jobs for all indigenous Scheduled Tribes. In 1977, the government identified 11 Backward Tribes (BTs) for a reservation within a reservation.
Current Job Reservation Structure
- 37% of non-technical and non-gazetted jobs are currently reserved for BTs.
- 25% quota is allocated to seven BTs in eastern Nagaland, comprising six districts - Kiphire, Longleng, Mon, Noklak, Shamator, and Tuensang.
- 12% is divided among the remaining four BTs.
- The Chakhesang and Pochury tribes are clubbed together for 6% of the 12% quota.
- The Zeliang tribe has 4% reserved, and the Sumi tribe in Kiphire district has 2% reserved.
Demands for Policy Review
The Five Tribes Committee on Review of Reservation Policy (CoRRP) has argued that the current reservation policy, established in 1977, is outdated and no longer reflects the socio-economic and educational landscape of the State.
CoRRP's Core Demands
- Scrap the reservation policy altogether or allocate the remaining unreserved 20% quota to the five tribes.
- The first demand for review was set with a 30-day deadline on April 26, 2024.
Government's Response and Actions
In response to the CoRRP's demands, the Nagaland government formed a panel on September 22 to examine the job quota policy. However, the CoRRP criticized the panel's composition and nomenclature.
Job Reservation Commission
- Constituted on August 6, to be headed by a retired IAS officer.
- Intended to review the reservation policy, but faced criticism for perceived lack of neutrality.
Official Statistics
- According to Minister K.G. Kenye, five non-BT tribes hold 64% of the government jobs, while BT tribes hold 34%.
Controversies and Criticisms
The CoRRP has criticized the government's commissions, indicating they lack neutrality and do not seriously address the reservation review demands. They have particularly objected to the panel's nomenclature, arguing it signals a lack of commitment to revising the existing quota system.