Editor,
In a post on his social media account on 'X', Chief Minister Pema Khandu made a simple but meaningful point: "If you are going to serve the people of Arunachal, you should be able to speak at least one of the dialects of its people."
Since the State Cabinet took the historic decision to introduce uniform eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to all Group A, B and C posts, the decision has been widely welcomed by many indigenous tribal communities across the state. At the same time, a section of people has expressed concerns, particularly over the provision for an indigenous tribal language proficiency test. Some have even criticised the government for responding to public and student union demands.
However, the people of Arunachal Pradesh must understand that the decision to scrap the 80:20 quota and introduce the trinity criteria of PRC, APST/indigenous tribal status and indigenous tribal language proficiency could not have been taken overnight. Such a significant policy decision would naturally require careful consideration of its implications, including its advantages and challenges.
More importantly, the government has kept the language proficiency requirement as a post-joining test, rather than making it a pre-recruitment or recruitment-stage eligibility condition. This distinction is important.
Those who are apprehensive about the language test should also understand what is actually being expected from candidates. It is not about obtaining an academic certificate, passing a formal language course, or becoming fluent in a language overnight. The basic expectation is the ability to communicate through simple conversation with the people one is appointed to serve.
Learning a heritage or indigenous language is also not the same as learning a completely unfamiliar foreign language. For many people, their indigenous language is deeply connected to their family, community, culture and childhood environment. Even when a person has not formally learned the language, there may already be a certain familiarity with its sounds, expressions and social context.
Of course, some aspirants may feel anxious about the requirement. That concern should not simply be dismissed. But because the test is to be conducted after joining, candidates will have sufficient time to learn and practise. With sincere effort and regular interaction with native speakers, basic conversational ability can certainly be developed over time.
Ultimately, the purpose of the language requirement should not be to create an unnecessary barrier for young people seeking government employment. Rather, it should encourage a deeper connection between public servants and the communities they serve.
Arunachal Pradesh is still evolving, and we have a long way to go. Our society is diverse, our languages are our identity, and our indigenous cultures are among our greatest strengths. If the government is making an effort to recognise the sentiments and aspirations of the people while protecting the rights and interests of indigenous tribal communities, it deserves thoughtful consideration rather than immediate criticism.
A government servant is not merely an employee of the government; he or she is ultimately a servant of the people. And if knowing the language of the people helps build trust, understanding and a stronger connection between the administration and society, perhaps the effort is worth making.
Yiri Kamcham,
Kamcham,
Lower Siang
