Editor,
The recent developments surrounding the district-wise quota (DWQ) in Arunachal Pradesh, especially the court’s decision to admit a writ petition against it, call for a deeper public understanding of why such a policy exists in the first place. Any discussion on DWQ cannot be isolated from the historical, regional, and social realities of our state.
Arunachal Pradesh is a unique land, not only because of its geographic remoteness but due to the deep socio-cultural and developmental disparities among its districts. Historically, only a few regions – such as Pasighat in East Siang or parts of Papum Pare or Lower Subansiri – saw early educational exposure and administrative contact. It is worth noting that the first formal school in Arunachal was established in Pasighat only in 1918, and for decades, education did not reach vast parts of the state. Many districts like Kurung Kumey, Dibang Valley, and Longding continue to face significant educational and infrastructural challenges even today.
Due to these uneven beginnings, certain communities and regions naturally progressed faster and have come to dominate representation in government services, especially in Group C and D posts. A quick observation of the state secretariat reveals how skewed this representation has become, with a handful of tribes and districts consistently filling the ranks, while others are nearly absent. The issue here is not of individual merit but of unequal starting lines.
In this context, DWQ was not introduced arbitrarily. It was a conscious policy effort – backed by a 2011 state notification and further reinforced by cabinet mandates – to ensure that each district gets proportional representation in state jobs, especially for lower-tier positions that serve as a lifeline for local communities. Such localised reservation systems are not unique to Arunachal. States like Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Nagaland, and Mizoram have adopted region-specific quotas to address their own versions of underdevelopment and regional imbalance.
Legally too, DWQ stands on firm ground. Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows the state to make provisions for reservation in appointments in favour of “any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented.” The Scheduled Tribe communities of Arunachal, especially in remote districts, clearly qualify under this criterion. DWQ is not merely about domicile – it is about ensuring that the developmental benefits and opportunities meant for tribal groups are equitably distributed among all, not hoarded by a few.
Another critical and often unspoken layer in this debate is the tribal consciousness that defines our society. Every tribe in Arunachal is deeply conscious of its identity, language, and progress. In a healthy way, every tribe aspires to excel in education, jobs, sports, and business – but in doing so, there is also a visible anxiety: no tribe wants to be left behind, and no tribe wants another to rise too far ahead. This competitive tribalism often leads to friction, but it also underlines why equal distribution of opportunities across districts is essential for long-term peace and unity.
One only needs to observe the increasing trend of community-based educational sponsorships and scholarships – every tribe wants its own achievers. In such a social atmosphere, DWQ becomes not just a policy but a stabilising mechanism, ensuring that no district or tribe feels ignored or marginalised in the state’s growth narrative.
Therefore, DWQ, while currently under legal scrutiny, must be understood in light of historical inequities, constitutional provisions, and the very real social dynamics of Arunachal. Justice is not only about uniform rules but also about fairness – and in a state as diverse and unevenly developed as ours, DWQ is an instrument of that fairness.
A tribal youth from a remote district