This is the burning question being asked these days in Meghalaya. Some have gone beyond just a revision of a policy and asked “can a policy be scrapped altogether?” The answer to both the questions is a simple “yes,” because Policies are enacted to tide over a situation and when that situation is “tided over” the policy must be scrapped. Let us face ourselves, we are dreamers who know very well how far we have strayed with the continued implementation of the Reservation Policy, we have given excessive benefit to the mediocre – we have become immoral. We have caused the stagnation of forward thinking, the stagnation of those that seek after eudemonistic considerations in life. We have become what the Reservation Policy wanted us to become, now there is another becoming, and the Policy must not be a stumbling block. The whole problem with us exists only in the Reservation Policy.
Let us look around for the highest authority as to what constitutes the health of the people in Meghalaya. “The most commonly accepted character of a truly healthy nation is one whose people know their duties” (Emerson), and that indeed is above any other function that can be expected from the citizens. Our duties are the rights others have against us. How did the others acquire these rights? They acquired these rights because they considered us capable of fulfilling contracts and of repayment when we become equal and similar to them after reaping the benefit of reservations in education and employment opportunities.
The beneficiaries have a duty, they must justify the power and the benefits they have acquired from the special treatment they got and give back in the same measure in which they received, when they “become.” The entire essence is of them becoming like their benefactors and that naturally envisages a certain period of time, or to be more specific, the arrival of the next generation/s from among them. The above clarifications are plain and simple justice in any society, therefore in a span of fifty years of reservation they should have developed and become conscious of their duties – vis the rights others hold them to, which essentially demands that they perform at par with everyone else. But we are still not sufficiently aware of the unscrupulousness of our politicians, and we are trapped by the very men we voted for.
If the beneficiaries of a Reservation Policy do not make any effort to contribute to the growth of the State, the State has the duty to take away the benefits conferred and look for options to promote the interests of others, essentially those that have sacrificed for others if good is to have any moral worth. This is not a going back but an ascent, this is the only practical way. Those that have tolerated all these years not from weakness but from strength now deserve to be promoted. No one should deny them that – that would be a great shame if they did.
If a society does not stop a failed Policy within a reasonable span of time and comports itself as a heated votary of duties to one group only, the society entangles itself and posterity in an uninstructed and an impetuous net of artfully woven ropes of political exploitation which is exactly what many are facing at present and this causes dissent. In hindsight, what we are experiencing is that we knew the right time to begin with a Reservation Policy but it certainly appears we do not know the right time to stop it, and if we fail to stop it in time there may be all sorts of catastrophes that the future societies will face.
The British were the first to introduce a Reservation Policy in India – (1919) reservation for the non-Brahmins, the Anglo Indians, the Muslims, and the Sudras; because they felt that these classes were deprived of the benefits from the State. There was another class – the deprived classes. Thereafter the Government of India has extended and expanded and constitutionally stamped its approval on reservations.
And in the case of Meghalaya we are informed that the 80 per cent reservation for the indigenous people has received the sanction of the Supreme Court. If that is so let it remain at that – period. If the people object to a reservation within a reservation, others should not presume, in their moroseness, that the removal of the reservation will bring trouble because society has become enlightened and want that merit should be the only criteria now. These feeble minded individuals should accept it in good taste – out of the midst of the fervent serenity of a mature citizen’s estate.
The fact that in Meghalaya we adopted a Reservation Policy at a particular point in time throws light on the maturity of the leaders at that time, leaders who understood that there were those who deserved special attention. Had they at that time been such a precocious society as our pundits of today, or had they only focused on the present without a thought of the future then the spring of political maturity would not have come down as a light among us even to this day. At best there would have been a trickling stream evaporating even before it could collect into a pool of knowledge.
The rudest word is better than silence on the matter of the Reservation Policy. Those who remain silent are almost always lacking in honesty and statesmanship. Silence is an objection on such a vital matter; swallowing the truth of one’s opinion on such a vital issue leads necessarily to a bad temper: it can even upset the stomach. Those who remain silent usually are dyspeptic. We have had enough of tenderness towards the mediocre now we need equality. Jobs should be open to every citizen in the State on equal terms, on terms of merit alone; because that is the only way we can progress and develop.
Are we not ashamed of being assessed as the worst performing State in the Country? Are we not ashamed at being declared the most corrupt State in the country? Do we not want to rid ourselves of these stigmas? If we could rightly interpret the attitude of those who still support the Reservation Policy, we would find in them a picture that accepts mediocrity over merit…a group that is inherently mediocre itself. Why are we not admitting this fact that mediocrity can never deliver us from these shameful opinions others have of us?
We may have prayerful saints but we do not have sages; that is our problem. It has been rightly said that a nation is characterised not by the great men and women it has but rather by the manner in which she recognises, honours and uses them. Ask yourself why we are not using our best men and women to serve the people? What honour and recognition are we giving our men and women of caliber and why are we paying greater attention to those who do not want to let go of the questionable parasitism on those that strive to succeed; on those that are capable of carrying the State forward which is in the interest of everyone? Technology has made it such that everyone is at par now. We must not encourage this lackadaisical attitude of those that do not want to strive.
We are now living in a New Meghalaya: in politics for example it is easy to see the progress of dissent – dissent against that which once was because it no longer serves a meaningful purpose and has instead started setting in concrete the lack of effort of those who hope to benefit from its implementation. The time and age that we now have has brought a rebellion against anything the Government does which does not contribute to common sense and the common good of the people.
The people believe, and are now aware of the fact that they have voted wrongly. They openly admit it because the government continues to implement faulty policies, continues to make political appointments and has failed to provide anything worthy, sensible and logical to the people. The people elected the leaders and maybe they regret their actions, but from among the elected there are those who are showing them that freedom essentially means the freedom to oppose Government, and the Press is not far behind with headlines that are so perfectly worded that the people seldom find any appetite to read what is below in the columns.
A restless, prying, conscientious criticism has broken out among the people and their long suffering has become so preponderant that it has turned into mass envy and hatred. Efforts they put in are degraded and reduced to a mere exercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion for a mathematician. They ask, “Who has given me what I have if not that I worked for it myself.” Other worthy citizens, who are still struggling to establish themselves, believe they are being treated as scapegoats to be slaughtered and that their striving for a successful living is being taken away from them by what they consider is a disgusting Policy. “Why is there this irrational reservation at the cost of the effort I put in, at the cost of merit?” they ask, “Does hard work and labour and effort have no meaning in Meghalaya?”
Meghalaya is being governed by businessmen not by wise men; there is nothing the people can do without the interference of Government. Such excessive interference by the Government naturally results in solitary and collective examples of resistance. Those that hold power in Government use corrupt means to escape the system of checks and controls that they introduce, while the man who lives by the sweat of his brow cannot. Let 80 per cent reservation be open to all tribals. Keep it simple…scrap the old.
