As Goa prepares for ST reservation in four Assembly constituencies, questions arise over representation,
political opportunity, rotation and whether the system will benefit those most in need
MITHIL FALDESAI
Four of Goa’s 40 Assembly constituencies are expected to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates in the upcoming election. This is exactly 10% of the Assembly, corresponding almost exactly to the ST population share of 10.23% recorded in the 2011 Census. The demand therefore has a constitutional basis. Article 332 provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State Legislative Assemblies, broadly in proportion to population. In 2025, Parliament also moved forward with legislation to facilitate ST reservation in Goa’s Assembly, although implementation depends on delimitation.
Before discussing ST reservation, Goa should examine its own experience with Scheduled Caste reservation. Pernem Assembly Constituency has remained reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category for over four decades, through various boundary changes and delimitation exercises. It is currently the only SC-reserved Assembly seat in Goa. Local groups and gram sabhas have sometimes called for its de-reservation or rotation, but Pernem remains an SC-reserved constituency today, with no sign of change in the coming years.
The question, therefore, should not be whether the ST community deserves representation. The real question is whether the proposed method of reservation preserves the democratic rights and political space of everyone else in Goa and public life. Political reservation was not originally conceived simply as a mechanism for permanently taking particular constituencies away from the general electorate. Its purpose was to ensure that communities historically unable to secure adequate political representation could have a voice in representative institutions.
India’s experience with reservation also shows that the issue has always involved a balance between social justice and equality. In ‘State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan’ (1951), the Supreme Court struck down the Madras Communal Government Order, which fixed admissions in educational institutions among different communities, holding that such classification based on religion, race and caste violated Article 29(2). Parliament responded through the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951, which inserted Article 15(4) to permit special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The episode shows how reservation has evolved through an attempt to reconcile corrective measures with the constitutional principle of equality.
The Constitution originally contemplated reservation of SC and ST legislative seats for only ten years. Article 334 initially provided for cessation after that period. Yet the provision was repeatedly extended, first to 1970, then 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 and finally to 2030 through the 104th Constitutional Amendment. If a measure intended as a temporary safeguard has been extended for decades, we should ask what measurable condition tells us that its objective has been achieved. Without meaningful review, a corrective instrument can become a permanent feature of political geography.
This question is especially important in Goa because it is a small state. In a 40-member Assembly, reserving four constituencies affects 10% of the House at once. The impact is not merely about who gets elected, but also who can represent. When a constituency becomes reserved, citizens outside the reserved category remain entitled to vote there but cannot contest that Assembly seat. Someone who has spent decades building relationships and a political career may suddenly find that the constituency where they built that career is no longer open for candidature.
Goa’s political history provides another important point. Members of communities later recognised as Scheduled Tribes have already demonstrated that they can win elections from general constituencies. Dhulo Chimlo Kuttikar won from Quepem in 1972. Vasu Paik Gaonkar won from Canacona in 1977, 1980 and 1984. Later, Dr Kashinath Jalmi, Prakash Velip, Ramesh Tawadkar, Govind Gaude, Prassad Gaonkar and Ganesh Gaonkar also entered the Assembly. Goa’s history shows that ST leaders have won general constituencies through support from people across communities. Voters are capable of electing candidates on the basis of leadership, credibility, personal relationships, political work and public acceptance, irrespective of community. That history should not be forgotten. The fact that ST candidates have won from general constituencies does not prove that there is no discrimination or historical disadvantage. It does, however, raise a legitimate question about whether political under-representation can be established merely by population percentage.
Representation should be examined empirically. How many ST candidates contested? How many received tickets from major parties? How many won? How many were elected from general seats? Have ST voters been politically excluded, or have they participated successfully in the broader electoral system? These questions deserve study.
There is another uncomfortable question. Goa has prominent ST political leaders occupying important constitutional and political positions, and their publicly declared election affidavits show substantial personal assets running into crores. This does not mean that the ST community as a whole is wealthy or erase historical disadvantage. If reservation is intended to represent those who are socially and politically under-represented, should reserved seats repeatedly become the route for leaders who are already established, influential and financially secure? If such leaders possess the networks, resources and public support to win from general constituencies, would it not be more just for the most marginalised members within the ST community to receive greater opportunity through reserved seats?
The ‘creamy layer’ principle, developed mainly through Supreme Court judgments such as ‘Indra Sawhney v. Union of India’ (1992), also raises a question about political reservation. If reservation is meant to give opportunities to those who remain under-represented, should leaders who have already held elected office and gained strong political influence continue to benefit from reserved seats? A similar principle could be considered to give opportunities to new and less-represented voices within the community, rather than allowing the same established leaders to benefit repeatedly.
Otherwise, reservation may benefit those already represented within the community rather than those for whom political reservation was originally intended. Population proportion is one constitutional consideration. It does not by itself establish political exclusion. The issue, therefore, is not merely about an individual’s right to contest, but about whether long-term, inclusive representation and equal opportunity should be preserved for future generations. In a democratic India, if serving the people is noble, why should geography decide who may represent them? The tree may belong to the soil, but its shade should never be reserved for one alone.
There is a strange happiness surrounding the political discussion in Goa. Everyone is congratulating everyone. The ruling party celebrates the reservation as an achievement. The Opposition celebrates it too, perhaps avoiding questions that may sound politically inconvenient. Others may be enthusiastic because they believe the consequences will fall elsewhere. It feels like everyone is applauding a new road, quietly hoping that it will pass through someone else’s field.
Political parties must ensure that reservation does not become an electoral instrument. If a community is offered political representation while parties expect goodwill, loyalty and electoral support, that is not social justice. It risks becoming appeasement politics wearing the language of social justice. I am also reminded of the sentiment attributed to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee: “There was a time when political leaders fought for the nation, not for power and wealth.” Is reservation really designed to empower the disadvantaged?
That is not opposition to reservation. It is a demand for fair, balanced and inclusive reservation. Being born into a reserved category is not a crime, and being born into the general category is not a crime either. Social justice should address historical disadvantage without creating a permanent sense of guilt or exclusion among others. The objective should be representation without resentment, equality without erasing history, and opportunity without permanently closing political doors.
Goa should demand better, fairer and more effective ST reservation for everyone. If four seats are constitutionally justified, let four seats be reserved, but the selection should follow transparent and legitimate criteria, with appropriate review and rotation. Most importantly, we should ask whether reservation addresses genuine political under-representation and whether its benefits reach those who most need representation.
Goa must therefore ask not only how many seats should be reserved today, but what happens after five, ten or 20 years. If the same constituencies remain reserved indefinitely, an entire geographical area could become permanently closed to citizens belonging to other communities. This could lead to a form of forced political migration, where people are compelled to shift their political base or seek representation elsewhere simply because their constituency has been permanently reserved. If reservation does not reach the most disadvantaged members of the reserved community, we may simply change who occupies political power without changing who benefits. That deserves honest debate. Not as one community against another. Not as reservation versus anti-reservation. The fundamental question is how Goa can protect legitimate ST representation while preserving every citizen’s meaningful opportunity to participate in the political life of their own constituency. That is the debate Goa should be having.
(The writer is an assistant
professor at Malikarujun College,
and Shri Chetan Manju Desai College, Canacona)
