Monday Musing

[ Amar Sangno ]

The jubilation of the All-Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU) and the Arunachal Frontier Tribal Front (AFTF) over the Pema Khandu-led government's decision to tighten the criteria for new job recruitment has been jolted by a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Lekang Indigenous Rights Forum (LIRF) and four other organisations, represented by Hurojit Moran, Basanta Sonowal, Arup Hazarika and Basil Urang, against the state government on September 23, 2026. The PIL has played spoilsport, throwing the new recruitment criteria into the courts for a legal determination.

Some experts feel that a simple notification merely requiring a working knowledge of any Arunachali dialect would have circumvented the legal hassle, instead of staging a rumbustious protest demanding the scrapping of the 80:20 ratio.

The PIL petitioners have challenged the Chief Secretary's notice issued to impose mandatory eligibility criteria such as a Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC), Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) status and proficiency in tribal languages for participating in public examinations.

The petitioners have also challenged the advertisements issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) dated September 1, 2026, and September 9, 2026, wherein new eligibility criteria have been imposed.

The petition argues that the notification appears to be manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. It contends that the new criteria are contrary to the historical rights and privileges that have long been enjoyed by certain sections of the populace.

The government succumbed to considerable pressure from AAPSU and AFTF, leading to the scrapping of the existing 80:20 ratio. Subsequently, the premier recruiting agencies, the APPSC and the APSSB, issued new job recruitment criteria.

AFTF chairman Tadak Nalo argued that the eligibility criteria are nothing new. All states, especially the tribal states of Northeast India, have outlined similar eligibility criteria in their respective recruitment examinations, including Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Sikkim and even Assam. "We have only taken their recruitment policies as points of reference. If the recruitment policies are constitutional in all these states, then ours is also absolutely constitutional," Nalo added.

It is said that the 80:20 arrangement, introduced in Arunachal Pradesh in 1991, meant that 80% of state government posts were reserved for APST candidates, while the remaining 20% were kept open to other eligible candidates.

The PIL has legally revived the age-old debate over the future of non-APST communities living in the Mahadevpur area of Namsai and Changlang districts, following the bloody violence in February 2019 that erupted in protest against the government's decision to grant PRCs to non-APSTs living in Namsai and Changlang. The violent protest left three people shot dead, hundreds of cars torched, then-Minister Nabam Rebia's Takar Complex set ablaze, and Deputy Chief Minister Chowna Mein's official bungalow and private residence ransacked.

More importantly, the door to any debate or discussion on PRCs for non-APSTs remained permanently shut. Until now, indigenous people have not been ready to have a conversation on PRCs for non-APSTs, and the message on the wall was clear: no further action would be taken on PRCs for non-APSTs, and no further debate would be allowed. However, the court has now opened the door for debate and discussion on this previously forbidden issue. The court's intervention makes it clear that when there is little scope for conversation and debate in a civilised manner, legal recourse comes into play.

LIRF chairman and advocate Hurojit Moran, one of the petitioners, stated that the denial of PRCs to them has severely impacted the youth. Referring to the shift from the previous 80:20 job reservation policy to the current 100% recruitment criteria mandating ST and PRC requirements, he asked, "Where will our children go?"

Clarifying the forum's stand, Advocate Moran stated that the LIRF had appealed to AAPSU through a press conference to consider the plight of Lekang students. Moran made it clear that the forum has no objection to barring outsiders or individuals from other states from entering the state quota. However, he emphasised that indigenous residents of Lekang-many of whom hold legal domicile status dating back to records from 1968, which are not easily issued-deserve rightful consideration.

He warned that if future job reservation policies, such as shifting from 80:20 to 50:50, create complications, the respective student unions must take responsibility rather than blaming Lekang. He said that the forum prefers dialogue over conflict and that it is fully prepared to legally defend its rights.

AFTF chairman Nalo also felt that the PIL presented an opportunity for the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to resolve the claims of non-APST communities such as Kacharis, Morans, Deoris, Tai Ahoms and Adivasis residing in Arunachal Pradesh, who are also recognised as ST communities in Assam. "How can the same communities hold multiple ST statuses in different states? The issue of non-APST communities claiming ST status must be addressed once and for all," he added.

The new job recruitment eligibility criteria may also face challenges from within.

Assistant Professor (Sr.) Moti Pangkam of Fakir Mohan University, Balasore, Odisha, observed that protecting indigenous languages is important, but equality must come first.

"Protecting, preserving and promoting indigenous languages is undoubtedly important. Our languages are an integral part of our identity, history and cultural heritage, and every effort should be made to strengthen and revitalise them," Pangkam said.

Pangkam maintained that abruptly making knowledge of an indigenous language a uniform eligibility criterion for public employment in a state as linguistically diverse as Arunachal Pradesh deserves serious reconsideration. "The reality on the ground is not the same across all regions and communities," she added.

There is also the spectre of the Indra Sawhney vs. State of Maharashtra ruling, in which the court upheld the 50% ceiling on job reservations. Until the court decides the fate of the 100% job reservation regime based on mandatory PRC, ST certificates and local-language proficiency, let's make the most of the new reservation arrangement while it lasts and await the final verdict.