The response of the NPF Phek Division to the PDCCs statement on Job Reservation Policy, which appeared in local dailies on 1st and 2nd April 2011(Nagaland Post & Morung Express), has clearly exposed the ignorance and ignominy of the NPF on a subject matter of great public importance. Although the NPF appears to have nurtured a vicious mindset on the otherwise much critical issue, the unconcealed attempt to protect their shilly-shally political mentors is nothing short of betrayal. To let the people judge who is right, the following comment is given with the hope that it will clarify the confusion and misconstruction of the reservation policy made by the NPF Phek Division.
1. The NPF has accused the PDCC protest as attacking the government without reasons and on frivolous grounds. The reservation policy has been viewed gravely by the Chakhesang people for which, the CPO took up the matter with the CM 7 times but nothing was done. Having no option the matter was taken by the CPO to the court for justice and similarly the government having no option before the court passed a decision to reserve 4% of job recruitment to the aggrieved community. Is the NPF then mocking that the protest of the community, the PIL in the court and now the protest against the arbitrary decision (after court judgment) clubbing the two aggrieved tribes, is without reasons and on frivolous grounds?
2. Can the NPF deny the fact that the aggrieved community was fervently appealed by the helpless elected members not to take the protest to the street but instead seek justice in the court? Should we also specify where and when they made this appeal? It is learnt that the recent decision to club together the two aggrieved tribes is not of the cabinets initiative but the brainchild of two self-styled policy makers. A day may come when this people will face the mass of the aggrieved community.
3. When no legitimate basis for the distribution of percentage was found perhaps the PDCC hypothetically questioned if Assembly Constituency was made the basis because Pochury (having 1 constituency) got 2% and Zeliang (having 2 constituencies) got 4%, in which case the Chakhesangs (having 4 constituencies) ought to get more than what was initially given. Population, as criteria is not even near. If the NPF finds amusing with the so-called simple mathematical calculation of the PDCC, why not then realistically explain to the aggrieved section what actually form the basis of reservation?
4. The beautiful description that Chakhesang and Pochury tribes coexisted since time immemorial and would continue to do so even in the days to come may have semblance with that of Sangtam-Yimchungru-Sumi in Kiphire District and other similar tribes within same district. But reservation percentage of these backward tribes is definitely not given on the basis of such brotherhood. Nor can this bond be broken because of asking their due share. Ironically, the NPF has revealed its lack of vision that an undefined 6% between two tribes in a competitive society will inevitably become a mess in the coming days.
5. The decision to club together the two tribes with 6% should not be attributed to the government as a wise decision taken, because it was evidently at the insistence of one member and the silence of the other member from the concerned community that prompted the reluctant cabinet to concede to the unrealistic, basis-less arrangement.
Instead of blaming the PDCC for the sake of argument, the NPF rather should categorically explain why the CPOs acceptance of 4% after long fight in the court is made a mockery now, why Zeliang tribe refused the proposal to club together with the other two of the same classified group and why, instead of securing the interest of the aggrieved Pochury tribe for a larger share in percentage, club the two tribes and blindly justify that the interest of both is satisfactorily served? If the NPF cannot answer these pertinent questions, the PDCC should take the issue to the public for an open debate. Having raised these few points the matter is left to the sensible public to judge whether the present Chakhesang leaders have miserably failed to protect the interest of the Chakhesang people as stated by the PDCC, or whether actually the people were benefiting from it, as claimed by the NPF Phek Division.
1. The NPF has accused the PDCC protest as attacking the government without reasons and on frivolous grounds. The reservation policy has been viewed gravely by the Chakhesang people for which, the CPO took up the matter with the CM 7 times but nothing was done. Having no option the matter was taken by the CPO to the court for justice and similarly the government having no option before the court passed a decision to reserve 4% of job recruitment to the aggrieved community. Is the NPF then mocking that the protest of the community, the PIL in the court and now the protest against the arbitrary decision (after court judgment) clubbing the two aggrieved tribes, is without reasons and on frivolous grounds?
2. Can the NPF deny the fact that the aggrieved community was fervently appealed by the helpless elected members not to take the protest to the street but instead seek justice in the court? Should we also specify where and when they made this appeal? It is learnt that the recent decision to club together the two aggrieved tribes is not of the cabinets initiative but the brainchild of two self-styled policy makers. A day may come when this people will face the mass of the aggrieved community.
3. When no legitimate basis for the distribution of percentage was found perhaps the PDCC hypothetically questioned if Assembly Constituency was made the basis because Pochury (having 1 constituency) got 2% and Zeliang (having 2 constituencies) got 4%, in which case the Chakhesangs (having 4 constituencies) ought to get more than what was initially given. Population, as criteria is not even near. If the NPF finds amusing with the so-called simple mathematical calculation of the PDCC, why not then realistically explain to the aggrieved section what actually form the basis of reservation?
4. The beautiful description that Chakhesang and Pochury tribes coexisted since time immemorial and would continue to do so even in the days to come may have semblance with that of Sangtam-Yimchungru-Sumi in Kiphire District and other similar tribes within same district. But reservation percentage of these backward tribes is definitely not given on the basis of such brotherhood. Nor can this bond be broken because of asking their due share. Ironically, the NPF has revealed its lack of vision that an undefined 6% between two tribes in a competitive society will inevitably become a mess in the coming days.
5. The decision to club together the two tribes with 6% should not be attributed to the government as a wise decision taken, because it was evidently at the insistence of one member and the silence of the other member from the concerned community that prompted the reluctant cabinet to concede to the unrealistic, basis-less arrangement.
Instead of blaming the PDCC for the sake of argument, the NPF rather should categorically explain why the CPOs acceptance of 4% after long fight in the court is made a mockery now, why Zeliang tribe refused the proposal to club together with the other two of the same classified group and why, instead of securing the interest of the aggrieved Pochury tribe for a larger share in percentage, club the two tribes and blindly justify that the interest of both is satisfactorily served? If the NPF cannot answer these pertinent questions, the PDCC should take the issue to the public for an open debate. Having raised these few points the matter is left to the sensible public to judge whether the present Chakhesang leaders have miserably failed to protect the interest of the Chakhesang people as stated by the PDCC, or whether actually the people were benefiting from it, as claimed by the NPF Phek Division.
Kedoutsolhi Wetsah,
Vesapra Rakho
