In a functioning democracy, the opposition is not a nuisance but a necessity. It exists to challenge the government, scrutinize its policies, and ensure accountability. Parliamentary and assembly debates sharpen governance by forcing leaders to defend their positions and refine their arguments. Mere discussions, where members speak without challenge, are not enough. Debates are the soul of democracy. Discussions may allow issues to be placed on record, but debates bring out the strength of arguments, test the credibility of policies, and sharpen the democratic process. Without debate, democracy risks becoming a monologue, where the government speaks but is never challenged.
Sadly, Nagaland’s Legislative Assembly has not seen a true debate in many years. The experiment with an ‘oppositionless government’ may have been designed for political stability, but it has weakened the very spirit of representative democracy. Without dissent, the Assembly risks becoming an echo chamber where decisions pass without genuine scrutiny.
This shortfall was once again evident during the seventh session of the 14th Nagaland Legislative Assembly, when reservation policy was brought up. Important as the issue is, the absence of debate deprived the discussion of the depth and contestation it deserves. What emerged instead was a series of appeals and responses, without the rigorous back-and-forth that could test the soundness of proposals.
Among the issues raised was the call to rethink the use of the terms “Advanced Tribes” (AT) and “Backward Tribes” (BT). After nearly five decades of implementation, these categories appear increasingly outdated. The word “Backward,” in particular, is now widely seen as derogatory. It not only stigmatizes communities but also encourages a culture of victimhood mentality and entitlement that goes against the spirit of empowerment. Labels matter, and continuing with such terminology risks perpetuating divisions rather than bridging them.
Equally troubling is the fact that the benefits of reservation have largely gone to the more privileged sections while many truly disadvantaged individuals remain excluded. This defeats the purpose of affirmative action. Reforming the system is not about dismantling reservation but about ensuring that its benefits reach those who genuinely need them, regardless of tribe or social label. The idea of revisiting categories, tightening eligibility criteria, and preventing multiple benefits for the same individuals deserves careful consideration.
Democracy cannot thrive on consensus alone; it thrives on contestation. For Nagaland, the challenge is twofold: to restore debate in the Assembly by strengthening the role of opposition, and to reform outdated policies in a way that balances justice with meritocracy. Until then, the state risks drifting further into a culture where pressing issues are discussed but never truly debated, leaving democracy weaker and its people underserved.
