The issue of reservation has been the subject of continuous debate in Nepal. While a section of dominant classes and communities opposes reservation, historically oppressed communities have consistently struggled for its effective implementation, considering it a right. This divide is also reflected in the differing perspectives on reservation held by the two groups.<\/p>\n
Predominantly men from the Khas-Arya community, who have long dominated virtually every structure of the state, tend to view reservation as a reduction in their opportunities in order to provide opportunities to oppressed communities. In contrast, Indigenous nationalities, Dalits, Madhesis, Muslims, Tharus and other communities that have historically faced discrimination and exclusion from state power regard reservation as a fundamental democratic right. This is why the debate over reservation in Nepal remains highly contentious.<\/p>\n
Reservation is not a comprehensive program for the liberation of oppressed communities. However, it is certainly a mechanism that can contribute to reform. As a means of ensuring representation in state power, Nepal’s Dalit community had been raising the issue of reservation collectively since 2028 BS, while Indigenous nationalities, women, Madhesis and other oppressed communities have also raised similar demands through various struggles. As a result, the state has introduced reservation to some extent in political decision-making bodies, education and government employment. Yet a section that has historically benefited from state power continues to strongly oppose reservation. Such opposition stems from either a failure to understand or a deliberate disregard for the discriminatory history of the Nepali state.<\/p>\n
The reality is that Khas-Arya dominance has historically prevailed across all organs of the Nepali state, resulting in the continuous exclusion of the majority of ethnic groups, languages, cultures and communities. One community not only maintained control over the power, authority and resources available through the state, but also has a history of deliberately creating laws and policies that subjected oppressed communities to severe discrimination, repression and exclusion. Reservation was introduced as a form of compensation for the historical injustices inflicted by the state on oppressed and marginalized communities. Since reservation is intended to compensate for historical discrimination, it is not a reduction of the rights of any particular caste or community. Inclusion is an essential condition of Nepali democracy, and reservation is therefore one of the mechanisms for making the state more democratic.<\/p>\n
Reservation in the Civil Service<\/strong><\/p>\n Political parties, leaders and political tendencies in power may change from time to time, but the structure and tendencies of the civil service do not change easily. The civil service is therefore often regarded as a form of permanent state power. Khas-Arya dominance has long prevailed within this influential institution. Of Nepal’s 26 chief secretaries, 21 have come from the Khas-Arya community, while more than 90 percent of serving secretaries are Khas-Arya.<\/p>\n The structure of the civil service itself appears to have provided the greatest share of reservation to the Khas-Arya community. Following movements demanding representation of different castes, genders and communities in the civil service, the state amended the Civil Service Act, 2049 BS, in 2064 BS, allocating 55 percent of positions to open competition and 45 percent to reservation.<\/p>\n The 45 percent reservation quota was treated as 100 percent for distribution among different groups: 33 percent for women, 27 percent for Indigenous nationalities, 22 percent for Madhesis, 9 percent for Dalits, 5 percent for persons with disabilities and 4 percent for people from backward regions.<\/p>\n However, the seats allocated to women do not require representation from different castes and communities. Because of this provision in the law, representation of historically excluded communities in the civil service has gradually increased. Nevertheless, despite comprising around 31 percent of the population, the Khas-Arya community accounts for approximately 62 percent of the civil service, while Dalits, who make up around 13 percent of the population, account for only about 2 percent.<\/p>\n Since marginalized communities tend to apply primarily through targeted reservation quotas, the 55 percent open competition category effectively becomes almost reserved for the Khas-Arya community. If this process continues, achieving full inclusion in the civil service will still take decades.<\/p>\n The state belongs to everyone. Therefore, as in other state institutions, proportional representation of all communities in the civil service is essential. This is a fundamental condition of inclusive democracy. When social diversity is represented in the civil service, talented people from a wide range of backgrounds gain access to public administration, while the perspectives and aspirations of different classes, genders, castes and communities are also represented.<\/p>\n In reality, only an inclusive civil service can respect the sentiments of the people and strengthen the practice of inclusive governance. The civil service must be inclusive for the overall development of the state. However, the dominant class and communities that have historically controlled state power not only oppose an inclusive and democratic civil service system but also, wherever possible, engage in efforts to remove reservation from the civil service.<\/p>\n Conspiracy Against Reservation<\/strong><\/p>\n Although the Constitution has embraced the principle of proportional inclusion, various efforts continue to prevent its meaningful implementation in practice.<\/p>\n For example, in 2076 BS, the Public Service Commission opened applications to recruit 9,161 employees. However, the quota for inclusive groups was allegedly reduced in a manner that undermined the constitutional principle of inclusion. Based on proportional inclusion, Indigenous communities should have received 70 seats at the officer level and 285 at the assistant level. Instead, only 14 officer-level and 152 assistant-level positions were allocated to Indigenous candidates.<\/p>\n Similarly, Dalits should have received 23 officer-level and 95 assistant-level seats, but only five officer-level and two assistant-level positions were allocated to them. The Public Service Commission argued that the recruitment was based on demands from local governments and therefore could not apply the inclusive principle to all positions.<\/p>\n This, however, represented an effort to preserve the dominance of historically privileged castes and communities. It was a deliberate attempt to weaken the representation of communities that had long faced exclusion and discrimination in the civil service.<\/p>\n Similarly, in 2077 BS, Binay Kumar Panjiyar filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court demanding reservation in postgraduate medical education, arguing that constitutionally mandated reservation had not been provided for historically excluded castes and communities. The petition primarily concerned reservation in postgraduate medical education. However, in Shrawan 2078 BS, the Supreme Court went beyond the petitioner’s specific demand and ruled more broadly that reservation should be provided on the basis of need rather than caste.<\/p>\n The ruling, according to this perspective, distorted the principle that reservation should compensate for historical discrimination based on caste, gender and community. The judgment did not clearly define what was meant by “need.” Its implication, according to critics, was to perpetuate the dominance of elite classes and communities. A narrative was also created that reservation had been captured by a so-called “creamy layer.” Yet the ruling did not clearly explain whether the communities that had dominated state structures for decades or those who had only begun gaining opportunities after 2064 BS should be considered the “creamy layer.” This represented another injustice against reservation, according to the argument.<\/p>\n Under the Constitution of 2072 BS, the state established various constitutional commissions, including the National Inclusion Commission. In accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, the commission is expected to play a role in ensuring the firm implementation of proportional representation across all state institutions.<\/p>\n In 2079 BS, the commission conducted a study on the impact of reservation. The report concluded that proportional representation of all castes and communities would be achieved across the civil service by 2091 BS, after which reservation would no longer be necessary. It also promoted the argument that reservation had negatively affected merit, competence and efficiency. According to this view, such a conclusion was not based on facts or sound reasoning but was a product of efforts to preserve the monopolistic dominance of particular groups within the civil service.<\/p>\n At present, the “Federal Civil Service Bill, concerning the formation, operation and conditions of service” has been tabled in Parliament. A review of the bill suggests that it does not clearly provide for inclusive representation at every level of the federal civil service. Inclusion in the civil service should not mean representation at only a particular level; meaningful and effective representation of different social communities must be ensured at every level.<\/p>\n When recruiting civil servants, representation of oppressed communities should be ensured not only within the 45 percent reservation quota but also within the 55 percent open competition category. Furthermore, if positions allocated to a particular caste or community remain unfilled in one recruitment cycle, the law should require those positions to be re-advertised specifically for candidates from the same community. Otherwise, seats allocated to particular genders and communities may once again end up benefiting historically privileged groups. The current federal civil service legislation must address this issue concretely.<\/p>\n Reservation as a Necessity<\/strong><\/p>\n Inclusive democracy is a system that the Nepali people achieved through struggle. The development of Nepali society is possible only through an inclusive democracy based on proportional representation. Like other components of the state, the civil service must also be inclusive in recognition of the historical contributions and roles of different castes, ethnicities, languages, cultures and communities. All communities have played an important role in building society and the state. They have also shared sacrifices in virtually every revolution and struggle.<\/p>\n Everyone has contributed the labor necessary to keep society moving, and everyone has paid taxes to the state. When there is equality in contribution but inequality in opportunity, it amounts to injustice against particular communities. Because the state historically imposed systematic discrimination and exclusion on Indigenous nationalities, Dalits, women, Madhesis, Tharus and other marginalized communities, effective representation of these groups should be ensured at every level of institutions such as the civil service.<\/p>\n The monopolistic dominance of particular groups must be dismantled, and a diverse civil service capable of responding to the expectations of the people is a necessity today. From a constitutional perspective, proportional inclusion in the civil service is an essential requirement.<\/p>\n There are still several misconceptions surrounding reservation. Some argue that reservation should be based on class, but this argument is fundamentally misguided, according to this perspective. Historically, exclusion and oppression were imposed on the basis of caste, gender and community. Therefore, the remedy should address the same basis on which the discrimination occurred. Since exclusion was based on caste and community, reservation should also be provided on those grounds. An abstract system based on “need” would not adequately benefit the groups targeted by reservation.<\/p>\n Reservation is not a poverty-alleviation program. Individuals or communities living in poverty should be included in poverty-reduction programs rather than being expected to benefit from reservation as a substitute for such programs.<\/p>\n To enter the civil service, an individual must already meet specific educational qualifications. A person appointed through reservation therefore possesses not only formal education but also experiential knowledge that can be valuable in the workplace. For example, a policymaker from the Tharu community understands the language, culture and social psychology of the Tharu community. For that society, a civil servant who understands Tharu society and culture may therefore be particularly well suited to addressing its needs.<\/p>\n It is therefore necessary to move beyond the misconception that people entering the civil service through reservation are somehow less capable.<\/p>\n If the civil service makes full use of the knowledge and skills found across all communities, it can increase people’s sense of ownership and belonging while also contributing to inclusive governance. Therefore, the Federal Civil Service Bill currently before Parliament should embrace the constitutional principle of proportional inclusion and ensure proportional representation of historically oppressed castes, genders and communities at every level of the civil service.<\/p>\n Opinion by JB Vishwakarma, published in Kantipur on Jestha 4, 2081 BS (May 17, 2024).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The issue of reservation has been the subject of continuous debate in Nepal. While a section of dominant classes and communities opposes reservation, historically oppressed communities have consistently struggled for its effective implementation, considering it a right. This divide is also reflected in the differing perspectives on reservation held by the two groups. Predominantly men […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":161,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-reservation"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Aarakshan.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=160"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":162,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160\/revisions\/162"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/161"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.samatakhabar.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}