1. This is in response to the public statement on job reservation issue made by the Chakesang Public Organisation (CPO) and the Chakesang Students Union (CSU) that had appeared in various local newspapers recently. As desired by them, I am issuing this clarification.
2. In the first place, let it be understood that the reports that appeared in Nagaland Post dated 28th January, 2011 were not my written statements, but a news report based on my verbal response to a telephonic query made by a newspaper agent, consequent upon the NSF’s memorandum to the Government, demanding early declaration of result of LDA-cum-Computer Assistant recruitment examination. Not only I was misquoted by the reporter on some points of facts, but the language and tenor of the newspaper reporting was slightly different from the actual telephonic conversation. For example, though I had stated that the CPO had filed a case in the Gauhati High Court, the report had reported it as Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High court.
3. Secondly, let me reiterate that the reason for non declaration of the result of LDA-cum-Computer Assistants examination till date is due to High Court’s order dated 4.10.10, directing the State Government “not to finalise the selection, and act upon the same, without leave of this court”. This court’s order was arising from the miscellaneous petition filed by the CPO, seeking the court’s intervention to suspend the advertisement issued by the State Government for filing up vacancies of LDA-cum-Computer Assistants. If it is the stand of the CPO that no open recruitment to Government jobs be allowed to be done by the State Government till their PIL in the High Court on job reservation is decided, or till the State Government revises/modifies its existing reservation policy, it may not be fair on the job seekers, many of whom are on the verge of being over-aged for direct recruitment. Neither the court, nor the Government can be expected to take quick decisions on complicated and sensitive issue like job reservation policy. That was why we had asked the Government Advocate way back in November, 2010 to file misc application in the Gauhati High Court, seeking their permission for declaration of the result of the said recruitment examination, pending their final judgement on the PIL. Therefore, it may not be correct to say that the State government is solely responsible for the delay in declaration of the result, although I don’t dispute their right to have their own opinion.
4. Now, coming to the accusation of my having given a “communal twist” to the job reservation issue. I denied having given the “communal twist” or even having said that the CPO had filed a litigation in the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court, “asserting that the Eastern Nagas were given more advantage in job reservation compared with other BTs of Nagaland”. What I stated was that the CPO had filed a PIL in Gauhati High Court (not Kohima bench) challenging the new reservation policy of the State government, whereby, out of the 33% job reservation for the BTs, 25% had been exclusively earmarked for the six tribes of eastern Nagaland, and that the remaining 8% for the other 3 BTS, namely, Chakesang, Pochury and Zeliang. However, let me repeat that I had not made any statement to the effect that “the CPO had filed a PIL asserting that more advantages are being given to the eastern Nagas in job reservation”. This is the language of the news reporter, and not mine.
5. On the issue of the Chakesangs being no longer backward amongst the Naga tribes, let me clarify that it was my personal opinion, which I had given in reply to a question put to me. Further, as demanded by the CPO, let me clarify that this view/opinion is based on my personal observations of the last more than 30 years of service in Nagaland. It is my frank and honest opinion, given in good faith, without any malice or ill motive. If I had hurt the feelings of the CPO/CSU by airing my considered opinion that the Chakesangs are no longer backward amongst the Naga tribes, I hereby tender my public apology, and also withdraw my statement.
6. However, by way of clarification, as the CPO had wanted me to refer to “the successive expert Committee reports on BT reservation that are lying on his (CS) table for consideration”, I had taken time to check on the reports of the two Committees recently appointed by the Government to study the BT job reservation issue. Both the Committees, viz, Mrs Banuo Jamir Committee Report 2008, and R. Kevichusa Committee Report 2010 had stated that the Chakesangs are now socio-economically and educationally more advanced than the average Nagas. Mrs Banuo Jamir Committee had further recommended that the over-all BT reservation quota be reduced to 27%, and out this, 25% may be earmarked for the 6 tribes of Eastern Nagaland. They had also supported the recommendation of the earlier Cabinet sub-Committee headed by R.C.Chitten Jamir (1991 report) which recommended that in Phek district, only those Chakesangs from the 7 villages of Tizu valley and the Pochurys may be included in the BT reservation quota. R.Kevichusa Committee, which had conducted extensive ground surveys through specially recruited investigators, had also reported that in the socio-economic development indicators, the Chakesangs scored 155 against the State average of 147, and in the educational advancement indicators, the Chakesangs scored 49 against the State average of 35. And if both these indicators are combined, the score of the Chakesangs is 204 against the State average of 182. Incidentally, the Temjen Toy Committee, mentioned by the CPO in their press statement, is only a Committee to further study the Kevichusa Committee Report, and to submit its recommendation to the Cabinet on whether/how the report can be implemented.
7. As regards my views on whether the earmarking of 25% ( out of 33% BT reservation) for the six tribes of Eastern Nagaland has resulted in any unfair treatment to the other BTs of Nagaland, I had stated that it is a Cabinet decision, and therefore, I consider it to be a fair policy decision. In any case, as a Cabinet Secretary, I am not expected to say that the Cabinet decision had resulted in unfair treatment to any tribe or community. I am merely defending a Government policy decision on being questioned about its fairness to the other three BT tribes.
8. However, in a democratic country like ours, any individual or society is at liberty, not only criticize, but also challenge in a court of law any action or decision of the Government which they consider to be unfair, arbitrary, or against the cannons of justice. The CPO had also availed their right by questioning and challenging in the High court the above reservation policy of the Government. Either as the Chief Secretary of the State, or in my personal capacity, I have no complaint or ill-feelings against the CPO/CSU for challenging the Government policy on reservation, or for obtaining a conditional stay order on the on going recruitment process for the posts of LDA, or for whatever they have written in the press against me. My only appeal is that since we live in a free democratic country, we should allow each other more space and freedom in airing our views and opinions in good faith. In my view, job reservation is a difficult and complicated policy issue, which needs well informed and wide ranging debate and discussions, but of course, without any element of malice or ill-will. And in fact, this kind of debate is already happening in national newspapers, and in other parts of the country, concerning the reservation policy of the Centre and other States also.
Lalthara
Chief Secretary, Nagaland
2. In the first place, let it be understood that the reports that appeared in Nagaland Post dated 28th January, 2011 were not my written statements, but a news report based on my verbal response to a telephonic query made by a newspaper agent, consequent upon the NSF’s memorandum to the Government, demanding early declaration of result of LDA-cum-Computer Assistant recruitment examination. Not only I was misquoted by the reporter on some points of facts, but the language and tenor of the newspaper reporting was slightly different from the actual telephonic conversation. For example, though I had stated that the CPO had filed a case in the Gauhati High Court, the report had reported it as Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High court.
3. Secondly, let me reiterate that the reason for non declaration of the result of LDA-cum-Computer Assistants examination till date is due to High Court’s order dated 4.10.10, directing the State Government “not to finalise the selection, and act upon the same, without leave of this court”. This court’s order was arising from the miscellaneous petition filed by the CPO, seeking the court’s intervention to suspend the advertisement issued by the State Government for filing up vacancies of LDA-cum-Computer Assistants. If it is the stand of the CPO that no open recruitment to Government jobs be allowed to be done by the State Government till their PIL in the High Court on job reservation is decided, or till the State Government revises/modifies its existing reservation policy, it may not be fair on the job seekers, many of whom are on the verge of being over-aged for direct recruitment. Neither the court, nor the Government can be expected to take quick decisions on complicated and sensitive issue like job reservation policy. That was why we had asked the Government Advocate way back in November, 2010 to file misc application in the Gauhati High Court, seeking their permission for declaration of the result of the said recruitment examination, pending their final judgement on the PIL. Therefore, it may not be correct to say that the State government is solely responsible for the delay in declaration of the result, although I don’t dispute their right to have their own opinion.
4. Now, coming to the accusation of my having given a “communal twist” to the job reservation issue. I denied having given the “communal twist” or even having said that the CPO had filed a litigation in the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court, “asserting that the Eastern Nagas were given more advantage in job reservation compared with other BTs of Nagaland”. What I stated was that the CPO had filed a PIL in Gauhati High Court (not Kohima bench) challenging the new reservation policy of the State government, whereby, out of the 33% job reservation for the BTs, 25% had been exclusively earmarked for the six tribes of eastern Nagaland, and that the remaining 8% for the other 3 BTS, namely, Chakesang, Pochury and Zeliang. However, let me repeat that I had not made any statement to the effect that “the CPO had filed a PIL asserting that more advantages are being given to the eastern Nagas in job reservation”. This is the language of the news reporter, and not mine.
5. On the issue of the Chakesangs being no longer backward amongst the Naga tribes, let me clarify that it was my personal opinion, which I had given in reply to a question put to me. Further, as demanded by the CPO, let me clarify that this view/opinion is based on my personal observations of the last more than 30 years of service in Nagaland. It is my frank and honest opinion, given in good faith, without any malice or ill motive. If I had hurt the feelings of the CPO/CSU by airing my considered opinion that the Chakesangs are no longer backward amongst the Naga tribes, I hereby tender my public apology, and also withdraw my statement.
6. However, by way of clarification, as the CPO had wanted me to refer to “the successive expert Committee reports on BT reservation that are lying on his (CS) table for consideration”, I had taken time to check on the reports of the two Committees recently appointed by the Government to study the BT job reservation issue. Both the Committees, viz, Mrs Banuo Jamir Committee Report 2008, and R. Kevichusa Committee Report 2010 had stated that the Chakesangs are now socio-economically and educationally more advanced than the average Nagas. Mrs Banuo Jamir Committee had further recommended that the over-all BT reservation quota be reduced to 27%, and out this, 25% may be earmarked for the 6 tribes of Eastern Nagaland. They had also supported the recommendation of the earlier Cabinet sub-Committee headed by R.C.Chitten Jamir (1991 report) which recommended that in Phek district, only those Chakesangs from the 7 villages of Tizu valley and the Pochurys may be included in the BT reservation quota. R.Kevichusa Committee, which had conducted extensive ground surveys through specially recruited investigators, had also reported that in the socio-economic development indicators, the Chakesangs scored 155 against the State average of 147, and in the educational advancement indicators, the Chakesangs scored 49 against the State average of 35. And if both these indicators are combined, the score of the Chakesangs is 204 against the State average of 182. Incidentally, the Temjen Toy Committee, mentioned by the CPO in their press statement, is only a Committee to further study the Kevichusa Committee Report, and to submit its recommendation to the Cabinet on whether/how the report can be implemented.
7. As regards my views on whether the earmarking of 25% ( out of 33% BT reservation) for the six tribes of Eastern Nagaland has resulted in any unfair treatment to the other BTs of Nagaland, I had stated that it is a Cabinet decision, and therefore, I consider it to be a fair policy decision. In any case, as a Cabinet Secretary, I am not expected to say that the Cabinet decision had resulted in unfair treatment to any tribe or community. I am merely defending a Government policy decision on being questioned about its fairness to the other three BT tribes.
8. However, in a democratic country like ours, any individual or society is at liberty, not only criticize, but also challenge in a court of law any action or decision of the Government which they consider to be unfair, arbitrary, or against the cannons of justice. The CPO had also availed their right by questioning and challenging in the High court the above reservation policy of the Government. Either as the Chief Secretary of the State, or in my personal capacity, I have no complaint or ill-feelings against the CPO/CSU for challenging the Government policy on reservation, or for obtaining a conditional stay order on the on going recruitment process for the posts of LDA, or for whatever they have written in the press against me. My only appeal is that since we live in a free democratic country, we should allow each other more space and freedom in airing our views and opinions in good faith. In my view, job reservation is a difficult and complicated policy issue, which needs well informed and wide ranging debate and discussions, but of course, without any element of malice or ill-will. And in fact, this kind of debate is already happening in national newspapers, and in other parts of the country, concerning the reservation policy of the Centre and other States also.
Lalthara
Chief Secretary, Nagaland
