The agitation by RMSA (Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan) teachers in Nagaland has now entered its tenth day, exposing not just a dispute over salaries and regularization but also the deepening trust deficit between educators and the state government. On Friday, Advisor for School Education and SCERT, Dr. Kekhrielhoulie Yhome, addressed the press to clarify the government’s position and appeal to striking teachers to return to classrooms. His statement, though detailed, underlines the complexity of a problem that is far from being resolved. Dr. Yhome reminded teachers and the public that the matter is sub judice, with the High Court having previously ruled in Favor of teachers on the principle of “equal work, equal pay.” The state has since filed a review petition, pending hearing. The advisor stressed that RMSA teachers were recruited under centrally sponsored schemes, with appointments made on a contractual and contingency basis. According to him, their demand for full regularization and scale pay goes against the very terms they had signed under the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).
Pointing to irregularities in teacher recruitment between 2010 and 2018, Yhome acknowledged that the government was left with a messy inheritance of ad hoc appointments and overlapping categories. He maintained that the state must now proceed carefully, balancing financial implications with legal boundaries. While Yhome emphasized that “nobody put a gun” to the teachers’ heads to sign their bonds, his dismissal of claims of duress has only added to resentment. For many teachers, the bonds signed years ago represent survival decisions in a system riddled with irregularities rather than genuine consent. With 367 RMSA teachers on protest from the 2016 batch alone, the demand is not just for higher pay but for dignity, security, and recognition of their contribution to Nagaland’s education system. Teachers point out that despite being contract-based, their consistent work has significantly improved matriculation pass percentages across the state. To them, the government’s reliance on technicalities feels like an excuse to delay justice.
Perhaps the most alarming fallout of this prolonged standoff is its impact on students—especially those from poorer families who cannot afford private tuition. Yhome himself admitted it “breaks his heart” that children are being deprived of classes, but the government’s appeals will mean little unless it provides a clear and time-bound resolution. Every day of lost classes deepens inequality and punishes children for a conflict they did not create. The advisor also cautioned against outside groups and individuals “exploiting” the protest for political mileage. While his warning may be valid, it risks being perceived as another attempt to shift blame rather than acknowledge the core issue of systemic neglect in teacher recruitment policies.
Nagaland currently has over 5,000 centrally sponsored contingency teachers under different schemes, yet the government seems to be treating the case of 367 RMSA teachers in isolation. This piecemeal approach raises a larger question: Why hasn’t the state worked on a holistic, long-term policy for contractual teachers? Yhome assured that a newly formed committee led by the Principal Secretary will study the matter, but the lack of trust between the government and teachers remains the central roadblock. Unless the state can demonstrate transparency and urgency, such committees may only add to the cycle of delay.
In the end, the RMSA teachers’ protest in Nagaland is more than just a tussle over contracts and pay—it is a reflection of a deeper structural failure in how education and teachers are treated in the state. Dr. Yhome’s clarification of the government’s stand highlights the legal and financial complexities surrounding the issue, but it also reveals the deep gap between policy frameworks and the lived realities of teachers who have dedicated years of service under uncertain terms. As RMSA Teachers’ Protest in Nagaland: Yhome Clarifies Government’s Stand, But Trust Deficit Remains, while the government insists on due process, the teachers demand dignity, recognition, and security, and between these two positions lie thousands of children who are the unintended victims of the deadlock. What is urgently needed is not another round of technical explanations or prolonged court battles, but a time-bound, transparent, and inclusive solution that balances financial prudence with human responsibility. If the state truly believes in “bringing dignity to teachers,” as the advisor said, then it must go beyond appeals and act decisively to restore trust. Until then, the protest will continue to symbolize a crisis of governance where teachers feel abandoned, students are deprived, and promises of reform ring hollow.