The debate over reservation policy in Nagaland has reached a boiling point, with the Five-Tribes Committee on Review of Reservation Policy (CORRP) and allied tribal bodies threatening to boycott all state government functions, including the highly symbolic Independence Day celebrations on August 15, 2025. This unprecedented move comes as a direct response to the state government’s decision to include civil society organisations (CSOs) in the recently constituted Reservation Review Commission (RRC), a choice that the committee says undermines the commission’s neutrality and independence.
The latest escalation was announced on August 9, 2025, after a joint meeting at Hotel URA in Kohima. Representatives from the Angami, Ao, Lotha, Rengma, and Sema tribes—along with their youth and student wings—gathered to voice their collective frustration. According to Mokokchung Times, the committee and its supporters unanimously adopted a series of resolutions, all centered on the belief that the current makeup of the RRC is flawed and fails to honor prior agreements made with the state government.
“The inclusion of civil society organisations compromises their independence and impartiality,” CORRP convenor Tesinlo Semy told reporters. He emphasized that the committee’s demand is simple but non-negotiable: “The review panel must be made up entirely of serving or retired bureaucrats for an unbiased review.” This sentiment was echoed throughout the meeting, with leaders insisting that only a commission free from external influences can ensure a fair and objective examination of the reservation system.
The roots of this standoff stretch back to a key meeting on June 3, 2025, between the committee and the state government led by Deputy Chief Minister Y. Patton. Out of that discussion came a broad consensus: a review commission would be formed, and its members would be government officials or retired bureaucrats. The state cabinet’s approval of this plan on June 12 seemed to signal progress. However, the final composition of the RRC, announced on August 6 and including CSO representatives, blindsided the committee. As one convener put it to Northeast Live, “CSOs were never part of the agreement. The decision to include them now goes against the principle of neutrality we had all agreed upon.”
While the committee has welcomed the idea of a commission to review the existing reservation policy, its opposition to the involvement of CSOs is unyielding. “We are not against the formation of the Commission. But we are firmly opposed to its composition. The inclusion of CSOs compromises the Commission’s independence and impartiality,” a committee spokesperson stated. The committee’s position is that civil society groups, however well-intentioned, may bring biases or external agendas that could skew the commission’s findings.
Frustration has also been fueled by recent statements from government spokesperson Minister KG Kenye, who claimed that 64% of government jobs in Nagaland are held by members of the so-called “advanced” tribes, while 34% are held by backward tribes. The committee has dismissed these numbers as “wildly imaginary” and “provocative,” warning that such claims only serve to deepen divisions. As the committee put it, “As a government spokesperson, one must refrain from presenting misleading statistics that can aggravate tensions.” CORRP leaders have announced plans to release their own data soon, promising a more accurate picture of the current reservation landscape.
At the heart of the committee’s agitation is a broader concern for fairness and transparency in state policy. The five tribes argue that the reservation framework, as it stands, no longer ensures equity among Nagaland’s diverse communities. They see the RRC as a crucial opportunity to address these imbalances—but only if the commission is truly impartial. The inclusion of CSOs, in their view, threatens to derail that process.
The committee’s resolutions reflect both urgency and impatience. While they support the state cabinet’s August 6 decision to set a six-month deadline for the RRC to submit its recommendations, they have made it clear that any delay or extension beyond that period will be “totally unacceptable.” They further insist that the government must implement the commission’s recommendations immediately upon submission, without waiting for the completion of the national census. “If the state government remains adamant on interlinking the RRC outcome with the next census, then the backward tribes reservation must be suspended till such time,” the committee declared in its joint resolution.
As part of its third phase of agitation, the committee and its allies have resolved to abstain from all government-organised functions, starting with the upcoming Independence Day celebrations. This decision, they say, is intended to send a clear message to the authorities: the ball is now in the government’s court. “We are ready to engage, but the ball is now in their court,” a leader told reporters, indicating a willingness to negotiate if the government revisits the commission’s composition.
The move to boycott Independence Day—a day typically marked by unity and national pride—has raised eyebrows across the state. For many, it underscores just how deep the rift between the five tribes and the government has become. The committee’s decision is not merely symbolic; it signals a readiness to escalate their protest if their concerns are not addressed promptly and satisfactorily.
In the background, the state government has maintained that its approach is inclusive and that the RRC’s broader composition will allow for a more representative review. However, the committee remains unconvinced, arguing that the original understanding did not include CSOs and that any deviation from that agreement is unacceptable. The government, for its part, now faces a delicate balancing act: responding to the committee’s demands without alienating other stakeholders or undermining the perceived legitimacy of the review process.
With only days left before Independence Day, the standoff has placed the spotlight firmly on the state’s reservation policy and the processes by which it is reviewed. The coming weeks will likely determine whether the government can find common ground with the five tribes or whether Nagaland will see further agitation and division over an issue that touches on the very fabric of its society.
For now, the committee’s message is unambiguous: unless the state government takes concrete steps to address their concerns over the RRC’s composition and functioning, they will not participate in any official events. The outcome of this standoff will shape not just the future of reservation policy in Nagaland, but also the broader question of how diverse communities can work together to forge policies that are fair, transparent, and inclusive.
