Readers Forum

Wangtum H Lowang Arunachal Pradesh is a land of remarkable diversity, home to more than 20 tribes and over 100 sub-tribes. While it is neither practical nor possible to ensure parliamentary representation for every tribe, it is both achievable and desirable to ensure that all major regions of the state are fairly represented in national decision-making. Broadly, Arunachal Pradesh may be viewed as comprising four major regions: Western Arunachal (from Tawang to Pakke-Kessang), Central Arunachal (from Papum Pare to Upper Siang), Eastern Arunachal (from Dibang Valley to Namsai), and South-Eastern Arunachal comprising Tirap, Changlang, and Longding (TCL). Since Arunachal Pradesh’s first Rajya Sabha election in 1978, representation in the Upper House has come primarily from the Central and Eastern regions. Central Arunachal has produced five Rajya Sabha Members, while Eastern Arunachal has produced two. In contrast, the TCL region remains the only major geopolitical region of the state that has never been represented in the Rajya Sabha. For nearly five decades, Tirap, Changlang, and Longding have remained absent from Arunachal Pradesh’s Rajya Sabha journey despite their significant contributions to the state’s development, security, and cultural heritage. Located along the international border with Myanmar, the region occupies a strategically important position and is home to vibrant indigenous communities whose perspectives deserve a place in national policymaking. The call for a Rajya Sabha representative from TCL is not a demand for special treatment, nor is it directed against any tribe, district, or region. It is simply a call for equitable regional representation. Every major region of Arunachal Pradesh should have an opportunity to contribute its voice, aspirations, and experiences to the Parliament of India. The present Rajya Sabha election offers a unique opportunity to correct this long-standing imbalance. Out of the twelve candidates who have filed nominations, eleven belong to regions that have already enjoyed Rajya Sabha representation. Only one candidate comes from the TCL region. This fact carries special significance. Not only has TCL never sent a representative to the Rajya Sabha, but this is also among the very few occasions—if not the first—when the region has produced a serious candidate for consideration. As such, this lone candidature represents far more than an individual political aspiration. It symbolizes the hopes and aspirations of an entire region that has patiently waited for nearly fifty years to be included in the state’s parliamentary representation. Electing the next Rajya Sabha MP from TCL would therefore be more than the selection of a candidate. It would be a historic step toward ensuring balanced regional representation in Arunachal Pradesh. It would affirm the state’s commitment to inclusivity, fairness, and equal participation, while sending a powerful message that every major region matters and deserves a seat at the national table. The question before the electors is not merely who should occupy the Rajya Sabha seat. The larger question is whether the only major region of Arunachal Pradesh that has remained unrepresented since 1978 should finally be given its rightful opportunity to contribute to national policymaking. After nearly five decades, the case for TCL’s first Rajya Sabha representative is compelling. The time has come to complete the circle of representation in Arunachal Pradesh. The next Rajya Sabha Member from Arunachal Pradesh should be from the TCL region. (The writer is Director of Nocte Digest)

Esteemed Editor, While the debate over the 80:20 ratio in Arunachal Pradesh’s state competitive examinations continues to dominate public discourse, a far more insidious inequity quietly undermines the integrity of the APPSCCE — the complete absence of moderation or scaling of optional subject marks. The optional papers, carrying 500 marks (two papers of 250 each), are supposed to offer candidates a level playing field. The results of APPSCCE 2024, however, revealed a stark and troubling discrepancy. Optional subjects such as Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science, Agriculture, Anthropology, Public Administration, Economics, Botany, etc. recorded significantly high average marks, while candidates who chose Sociology, Geography, and Political Science & International Relations (PSIR) etc. received considerably lower marks in comparison. This wide gap — across subjects of equivalent weightage — makes it evident that what was being measured was not just candidate performance, but also the varying standards of examiners across disciplines. Candidates who scored high in their optional subjects deserve every bit of their success — they performed well, and their marks reflect that. But the concern is not with them. The concern is with those equally capable candidates in other optional subjects who also performed well, yet did not receive marks that truly reflected their effort and ability — not because they wrote poorly, but because the examiners assessing their papers operated on a different and stricter standard. This is where the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission has fallen short. In the absence of any statistical moderation or scaling mechanism, examiner subjectivity goes unchecked. The result is that a candidate’s final rank is shaped not just by how well they performed, but by which optional subject they chose — an element entirely outside their control. Equally important is the need for proper orientation and standardisation of the examiners appointed to evaluate these papers. The Commission must ensure that the teachers and academics selected to check answer scripts are of comparable expertise and experience across all subjects. A structured orientation process before the Mains would help align marking standards and significantly reduce the kind of examiner-to-examiner variance that currently disadvantages sincere candidates. This issue receives little public attention because it does not cut across all communities uniformly. But the absence of noise does not diminish the injustice. The goal of moderation is not to pull down those who scored well — it is to ensure that those who also deserved high marks actually receive them. With the Preliminary Examination scheduled for September 6, and the Mains still approximately three to four months away, the Commission has a meaningful window to act. I urge the APPSC to introduce subject-wise moderation or percentile-based scaling for optional marks, and to put in place a rigorous examiner standardisation process before the Mains — in line with best practices followed by the UPSC and other state commissions. I also call upon civil society, student organisations, and legislators of Arunachal Pradesh to take cognisance of this silent but deeply damaging inequity.   Yours sincerely, An Aggrieved Aspirant  

Manish Gupta The Honourable Supreme Court of India has issued a stern warning to the local bodies – both Municipal Corporations/Councils as well as the Gram Panchayates/Zilla Panchayats to put their acts together in maintaining cleanliness and management of Solid waste. In its recent order passed on 5th May 2026, and another order issued on 19th Feb 2026 in the matter of Bhopal Municipal Corporation Vs Dr Subhash Pandey and others, hearing of which was attended by all the Chief Secretaries as well as senior representatives from Government of India, the Hon SC has ordered all stakeholders, including the Central Government, State Government, Municipalities, Panchayats, waste generators and people’s representatives to coordinate their efforts to administer the Solid Waste Management Rules 2026 in its letter and spirit, and preserve the planet from man-made destruction caused by mis-management of solid waste. “It should be a shared commitment to leave behind a tolerable planet for future generations”, the court said. The issue has come into the limelight due to recent notification of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rule 2026 by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India which has very specific prescriptions to all the authorities and waste generators and managers, on how to handle and manage solid waste. This is the third revision of SWM Rules effected by the Ministry. The first generation Rules, 2000 focused on Municipal Authorities and basic collection and disposal practices by local bodies. The SWM Rules 2016, expanded the scope beyond municipal areas to include census towns etc, and specific public areas like railway stations, bus stations etc. The current generation Rules, 2026, transitions to a circular economy framework and introduces Extended Bulk Waste Generator Responsibility (EBWGR). Bulk waste generators are required to set-up and operate waste processing facility on-site. If unable, they may get their waste delivered and processed through local body’s processing centre on payment, and obtain EBWGR certificates. These 2026 rules are also designed to close historical compliance gaps by making EBWGR and local bodies accountable, transparent and responsible for proper management of waste. They are required to register on centralised portal, and file real-time returns and data of compliance to the rules. The new rules also require four stream segregation of waste – Wet, Dry, Sanitary and Special Care to be mandatorily followed by all. The Hon Supreme Court has issued directions to the Councillors, Mayors, Chairpersons of the Municipalities, Corporators or Ward-members, Gram panchayat and Zilla Panchayat members, being the primary elected representatives of the people, and designated them as lead facilitators for implementing source segregation and education of public. “It is their statutory duty to enrol every citizen within their ward in the implementation of the 2026 rules” it has said. Deputy Commissioners have been directed to communicate the orders of the Hon SC through their respective Commissioners/CEO/Panchayat Secretaries to all the elected councillors and panchayat members. The Hon Court has further directed that the local bodies (Panchayats and Municipalities) must bring door-to-door collection of waste and source segregation at its focus. They shall prepare a framework for ensuring four stream segregation and Bulk waste generator compliance protocols. Door to door mapping of waste generators and identification of Bulk Waste Generators should be done along with challaning of non-compliant persons. RRR (Reduce-Reuse-Recycle) centres should be established in the neighbourhoods, to facilitate citizen to meet their obligations. Collection and (secondary) transportation of waste should be in closed vehicles, Garbage vulnerable points should be monitored, and penalties should be imposed on persons littering. Local bodies should utilise services of Special Purpose Vehicles – set up for solid waste management, having specialisation in managing / processing all streams of waste. There should be no dumping of waste in legacy dump-sites, and only rejects after processing of waste should be allowed to such landfills. Local bodies have been mandated to furnish compliance returns along with photographic evidence to the District Collector on regular basis. District Collectors have been given responsibility for supervising the administration and implementation of SWM Rules 2026, by the said local bodies, Waste generators and other stakeholders. They will not only oversee the implementation, but also have been granted powers under section 23 of Environment Protection Act 1986 to issue directions, including that for stoppage of water / electricity to bulk generators who disregard the said rules. They can also supervise and inspect waste processing, dump sites, public spaces and waste transportation vehicles and issue directions to local bodies (or any other agency) if the rules are being disregarded. District Collectors have also been empowered to carry out infrastructure audits of SWM set up (by local body/bulk waste generators) and fix timelines to all such agencies for ensuring compliance. The State Governments have been directed to review sanctioned and available manpower in the local bodies (municipalities and panchayats) and fill identified vacancies in a time bound manner, as well as creating technical capabilities in such local bodies. Apart from providing the funding under Swachch Bharat Mission (Urban) and Swachch Bharat Mission (Gramin) to the concerned local bodies, state government has been directed to consider appropriately financing the local bodies to implement the SBM Rules 2026. The Hon Supreme Court has expressed strict actions over non-compliance of the Rules and the directions issued by it. The failure to comply shall no longer be treated as a mere administrative lapse, and there will be three tier enforcement of directions. Tier-1 – Immediate imposition of fine for initial non compliance on generators / local authorities; Tier-2 – Continued disregard will result in criminal prosecution under environmental laws; and Tier-3 – Prosecution will extend to persons neglecting their responsibilities and statutory duty. The Court also intends to deploy mobile courts to address real time violations. The directions of the Hon Supreme court coincides and resonates with the vision of our Prime Minister under the Swachch Bharat Mission to make our country clean and healthy, and improving waste management and creating a sense of civic duty amongst the citizen. The order, not only makes our