Reservation in India : Time to Ask the Uncomfortable Questions

Reservation in India: Time to Ask the Uncomfortable Questions

          By ABHAY PANDEY    

The general category students are back on the streets after the recent UGC issue. This time, they are demanding reforms in caste-based reservations and a complete rollback of the UGC guidelines. The issue of reservation has always been a concern among the general category, but there was always a hope that the system would be reformed in the future. However, the political trend seems to be moving in the opposite direction, with demands for more and more quotas, unfair rules, and the benefits of reservation being taken repeatedly by those who are already relatively uplifted.

The current protests once again bring the reservation debate into the public discussion. They are fighting against multiple layers of a single system against the government, the opposition, the police brutalities, big media houses, and all the so called activists. The reservation system in India has become a live wire that nobody dares to touch, which is very concerning. The question is not simply whether reservation should exist or not, but whether the system needs serious reforms according to the needs of the present time.

Why was reservation introduced ? 

After Independence, when the Constituent Assembly was framing the Constitution, one of the major concerns before it was the condition of sections of society that had been historically neglected and discriminated against. Many of these communities were socially and educationally backward and had very limited access to education, employment and political representation. It was difficult for them to compete on an equal footing with sections of society that were already socially, educationally and economically better placed. The basic idea behind reservation was therefore to provide these communities with an opportunity to come forward, improve their social and educational position and participate equally in the building of a new India.

The Constitution provided specific safeguards for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), including reservation of seats in legislatures. Over time, reservation expanded beyond SCs and STs. The biggest turning point came with the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in the 1990s. The Central Government introduced 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government employment. The Supreme Court's 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment upheld OBC reservation while laying down the general principle that reservations should ordinarily not cross the 50% ceiling.

At the Central level, the present reservation structure for direct recruitment through open competition provides 15% reservation for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs. Together, this comes to 49.5%. Some states have adopted reservation levels well above 50%. Tamil Nadu, for example, follows a 69% reservation policy, which has been in force since 1990 and was subsequently protected through its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.
The expansion of reservation also changed the nature of the political debate. Once reservation became an important instrument of social and political mobilisation , more communities began demanding inclusion and larger quotas. The debate was no longer limited to how historically disadvantaged communities could be brought into the mainstream , it increasingly became a political competition over who should receive reservation, how much reservation should be given and whether existing quotas should be expanded further.
This raises an important question for the present generation: if reservation was introduced as a means of helping historically disadvantaged communities achieve social and educational mobility, should the system continue indefinitely in the same form, or should there be a regular review of who actually needs the benefit and whether the original objectives are being achieved?
The debate today is therefore not simply about reservation versus merit. It is about whether a policy created for social justice can remain effective if it is continuously expanded without a serious review of its beneficiaries, outcomes and changing social realities.

Has reservation achieved its purpose ? 

Every public policy needs to be assessed: How far has it achieved its objective? What obstacles remain? Who has benefited from it? Who has been left behind? And, most importantly, is the policy still desirable in its present form? The same questions should be asked about reservation in India. But where is the comprehensive assessment of the reservation system? How many times has it been properly evaluated? What has been the outcome after decades of implementation? How many communities and individuals have actually moved out of the conditions of backwardness? How much longer should the present system continue, and what should be changed?

One of the biggest problems is the lack of detailed, regular and transparent data showing which communities are benefiting from reservation and to what extent. There is also a serious question about whether the benefits are reaching the most disadvantaged sections within the reserved categories. The Justice G. Rohini Commission was specifically asked to examine the unequal distribution of OBC reservation benefits. Its analysis of central government jobs and admissions found that nearly 97% of the benefits had gone to about 25% of OBC communities, while 983 OBC communities, around 37% of the communities examined, had no representation at all. The data also showed that just 10 OBC communities had received almost 25% of the benefits.
This raises a very basic question: If reservation is meant to help the most backward, why are its benefits so unevenly distributed even within the reserved categories? Instead of treating an entire category as one uniform group, there should be a serious assessment of which communities remain deprived and which have already achieved substantial social and educational mobility.

The problem becomes even more important in today's India. Government jobs are limited, good educational institutions have limited seats, and competition for professional courses is extremely high. When opportunities are scarce, any system that changes the relative chances of candidates must be examined very carefully. The question should not simply be whether reservation exists, but whether the method of distributing these limited opportunities is fair, transparent and capable of producing the best possible social outcome.

The NEET-PG controversy provides an example of why standards and public interest cannot be ignored. In 2025, after a large number of postgraduate medical seats remained vacant, the qualifying cut-off was reduced to zero and, for SC/ST/OBC candidates, to minus 40 marks out of 800.
The issue is that such a low qualifying threshold allowed candidates with very low scores to enter the counselling process. This creates a legitimate question about where the minimum academic standard should be maintained, particularly in a field such as medicine where the consequences of inadequate training can affect society as a whole.

The JNU admission system raises a different but related question. JNU provides deprivation points, with a maximum of 12 additional points in certain circumstances, to applicants from identified disadvantaged backgrounds. Such measures may have a legitimate social-justice objective, but they also raise an important question: how much additional weight can be added to an entrance score before the original examination ceases to reflect the candidate's actual performance? If multiple layers of reservation, relaxation and additional points are combined, there should be complete transparency about their cumulative effect on selection.

There is another important problem: the system often focuses on whether a person belongs to a particular category rather than measuring the actual level of disadvantage faced by that individual. Two people belonging to the same broad category may have completely different family incomes, parental education, access to coaching, quality of schooling, urban or rural backgrounds and social circumstances. Treating both as equally disadvantaged may itself create a new form of inequality.

The question of the 'creamy layer' also becomes important here. If a family has already benefited from education, government employment, economic stability and social mobility through several generations, should the same benefits continue to be available to every subsequent generation without any review? If the purpose is upliftment, then successful upliftment should eventually have some policy consequences.

Another important question is whether reservation should be linked to outcomes. A policy cannot be considered successful merely because reserved seats have been filled. We should ask whether beneficiaries have actually experienced better educational attainment, employment, income, representation and social mobility.
Therefore, the real issue is not simply whether reservation has worked or failed. The more important question is: Which parts have worked, for whom, at what cost, and for how long should they continue in their present form?

Is reservation the only solution ?

If the real objective is to uplift marginalized communities, then we need to ask a simple question: Is reservation the only possible solution? Reservation is only one tool of affirmative action. It can provide access to education and employment, but it cannot replace good schools, quality education, financial support, skill development and adequate employment opportunities. If a child receives poor schooling for ten years and is then given a reserved seat in a competitive institution, we are solving the problem at the last stage instead of addressing it at its root.

The government should first ensure that a child from a disadvantaged family receives good education, proper nutrition, scholarships, access to technology, coaching and the opportunity to develop skills. This would create genuine equality of opportunity instead of waiting until college admissions or government recruitment to correct the inequality.
International experience also shows that affirmative action does not always have to mean fixed quotas. The United States has historically used broader affirmative-action approaches in which institutions considered social and educational background and used outreach and other measures to widen opportunities. Different countries have therefore experimented with different combinations of targeted support, outreach, financial assistance and preferential policies rather than relying on one instrument alone.

If the government cannot provide comparable educational opportunities, affordable higher education and enough productive employment, reservation becomes a way of distributing scarcity rather than removing the scarcity itself. Instead of asking only “How many seats should be reserved?”, we should also ask “Why are there so few good seats, good schools and good jobs in the first place?”

Reservation Is a Solution for Caste Discrimination: A Myth

There is a basic confusion in the reservation debate: caste discrimination and reservation are two different issues. Reservation cannot be the solution to caste discrimination.
If someone is denied a job, admission, housing or social dignity simply because of their caste, the answer should be strong anti-discrimination laws, effective enforcement, speedy justice and social awareness. Giving another person a reserved seat does not automatically change the mindset of the person practicing discrimination.
At the same time, reservation itself creates a different question of fairness. When two candidates compete for the same limited opportunity but are treated differently because they belong to different categories, candidates outside the reserved categories can feel that they are being judged by a different standard. Whether such affirmative action is justified is a separate constitutional and policy question ,it should not be presented as if it directly eliminates caste discrimination.

Therefore, we should stop treating reservation as the complete answer to caste discrimination. Punishing discrimination, creating equal opportunities and building a fair society are the real solutions. reservation is, at most, one policy instrument within that larger effort.The ultimate aim should not be to create a society permanently organised around caste categories, but to create one in which caste matters less and equal citizenship matters more.

The Voice That Can No Longer Remain Silent

For decades, the concerns of general-category students remained largely unheard. Today, that silence is turning into a voice at Jantar Mantar. The Reservation Hatao Andolan is not merely a protest; it is a demand to be heard, understood and treated fairly. The government should not ignore this rising voice. It should listen, engage and find a solution that moves India towards equal opportunity, equal dignity and a truly fair society. A voice that remained silent for decades has finally found the courage to speak. Now, it is time to listen.

About the Author :

 Abhay Pandey is a Political Science graduate from Ramjas College, University of Delhi, and a law student at RMLAU, with an interest in politics, society and public policy.                                                  EMAIL : pandeyabhay224188@gmail.com                                                                                               Instagram: abhaypandey___