Every few years, India finds itself engaged in a familiar debate: Should reservation continue, or should it be abolished? The argument is often presented as a question of merit. Those opposing reservation ask why a person’s caste, tribe, social background or economic circumstances should influence access to education and employment. They argue that every citizen should compete on equal terms and that merit alone should determine success.
At first glance, this sounds fair. But there is one question that this argument often leaves unanswered: Were all Indians ever given the same starting line? If the answer is no, then the debate on reservation cannot begin merely with examination marks, cut-offs and percentages. It must begin with history. Reservation is not simply about reserving a certain number of seats in educational institutions or government employment. At its heart, it is about representation. It is about ensuring that communities that were historically excluded from education, administration, land ownership, social institutions and positions of power are not permanently absent from the structures that govern society. To understand reservation, therefore, we must first understand exclusion.
Equality on Paper Is Not Always Equality in Life
The Indian Constitution promises equality before the law. It prohibits discrimination and abolishes untouchability. Article 17 explicitly declares that untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Article 46 directs the State to promote, with special care, the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and exploitation. These provisions were not inserted into the Constitution without reason. The makers of the Constitution understood that a society cannot become equal simply by declaring everyone equal. If centuries of social exclusion have prevented a section of society from accessing education, property, employment and dignity, then merely announcing formal equality does not erase the consequences of that exclusion.
The History of Untouchability Cannot Be Deleted
For generations, millions of Indians were treated as inferior because of the caste into which they were born. Untouchability was not merely a social belief but a system of exclusion that dictated where people could live, work, draw water and access public spaces. The Constitution’s abolition of untouchability under Article 17 reflects the scale of this injustice. Yet, independence did not end caste discrimination. Laws such as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were enacted because constitutional equality alone could not erase social prejudice. The continued work of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes further shows that discrimination has not disappeared. Caste has survived the Constitution, modernisation, urbanisation and education—and, in many ways, has even entered the digital age.
Reservation Is About Who Gets to Be Seen
This is where the debate about reservation must move beyond the language of “seats”. A seat in a medical college is not merely a seat. A position in the civil services is not merely a job. A place in a university is not merely a degree. A representative in an institution is also a message. It tells a child from a marginalised community that someone like them can sit in that classroom. It tells a young tribal student that their community is not destined to remain invisible. It tells a child from a socially backward family that public institutions belong to them as much as they belong to anyone else. This is why representation matters. A democracy cannot be fully representative if large sections of its population remain disproportionately absent from institutions of power and decision-making.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes itself identifies adequate representation and equal opportunities as part of the constitutional safeguards intended for Scheduled Castes. The purpose, therefore, is not simply to distribute vacancies but to address historical and continuing under-representation. Reservation, in this sense, is not about telling one person that they are less capable. It is about acknowledging that capability exists in every community but opportunity has not always been distributed equally.
The “Merit” Argument Needs a Wider Definition
One of the strongest criticisms of reservation is that it compromises merit. But merit is not created in a vacuum. Marks are measurable. Circumstances are not. The quality of schooling, access to coaching, nutrition, family income, social networks, language, geography and inherited educational advantages all influence a person’s ability to compete. This does not mean that merit is meaningless. It means that merit should not be separated from opportunity.
A society that spends centuries restricting opportunities for certain communities cannot suddenly declare that the consequences of those restrictions are irrelevant and that everyone must now compete as though history never happened. If one generation inherits wealth, education, social connections and institutional familiarity from previous generations, while another inherits deprivation, it is misleading to compare only the final examination score and call the competition completely equal. True equality requires creating conditions in which talent can emerge from every section of society. Reservation is one instrument toward that goal. It is not the only instrument.
Reservation Must Recognise Different Forms of Disadvantage
Reservation cannot be understood only through the lens of caste. Scheduled Tribes, for instance, have historically faced geographical isolation, limited access to education and healthcare, displacement and economic marginalisation. For a tribal child in a remote area, the challenge may not simply be competition but the absence of a quality school or basic educational facilities.
The same applies to OBCs, EWS and people from backward regions, whose disadvantages may arise from social and educational backwardness, economic hardship or geographical barriers. India’s inequality is not one-dimensional; caste, tribe, poverty, geography and historical exclusion often intersect. Therefore, affirmative action must recognise different forms of disadvantage while remaining transparent, evidence-based and subject to constitutional scrutiny. The debate should be about making reservation more effective and fair—not simply about abolishing it.
Incidents
Despite numerous legal reforms, caste-based atrocities continue to occur in various forms across India. Some of the most infamous incidents include:
- Khairlanji Massacre (2006) – A Dalit family in Maharashtra was brutally murdered by an upper-caste mob. The attack was sparked by caste-based resentment and a long-standing history of discrimination. The victims were not only murdered but also tortured, highlighting the extreme levels of caste hatred that still exist in rural India.
- Dalit Groom’s Baraat Secured by Police: On 22 January 2025, a Dalit groom’s wedding procession in Rajasthan’s Ajmer district took place under heavy police protection after the bride’s family feared opposition from upper castes. Around 200 police personnel ensured the ceremony was incident-free as Vijay Regar rode a mare to Aruna Khorwal’s village. The family, determined to proceed despite concerns, sought support from activists and authorities, leading to police deployment.
- Rohith Vemula Suicide (2016) – A Ph.D. scholar from Hyderabad Central University, Rohith Vemula, died by suicide due to alleged caste-based discrimination in academia. His death sparked nationwide protests, bringing attention to the subtle but deeply rooted caste prejudices that persist in educational institutions, affecting the mental well-being and career prospects of Dalit and lower-caste students.
- Manisha Valmiki Case (2020) – A Dalit woman was brutally raped and murdered in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The response of the authorities, including the late-night cremation of the victim’s body without the family’s consent, exposed systemic bias in law enforcement and the justice system, further fueling the debate on caste and gender-based violence.
- Discrimination Against Gujjars & Bakarwals in Jammu & Kashmir – Prominent figures who happen to be elite Kashmiris, have faced such abuses like Gujjars and Gaddars on social media. The troubling extent of this stereotyping is evident in the saying, “If you encounter a Gujjar and a bear in the jungle, kill the Gujjar first.” This phrase, though seemingly innocuous to some, reveals the depth of discrimination faced by the Gujjar community. The use of the term “Gujjar Khaslat” (Gujjar character) further highlights how stereotypes are used to belittle individuals and undermine their credibility.
The Question We Should Really Ask
Those demanding the abolition of reservation often ask: “How long will reservation continue?” It is a legitimate question. But there is another question that deserves equal attention: How long will discrimination continue? If the social conditions that necessitated reservation have disappeared, then a rational society should have no difficulty discussing reform. But if caste discrimination, untouchability, social exclusion and unequal representation continue, then abolishing affirmative action without addressing those realities could simply mean returning to a system in which formal equality exists but substantive equality remains distant. Reservation should not become a permanent substitute for social reform. But neither should social reform become an excuse to dismantle reservation prematurely. The long-term goal must be a society in which reservation is no longer necessary. But that day should be determined by the disappearance of structural disadvantage—not by political convenience or public impatience.
Reservation Alone Cannot Build an Equal India
There is, however, an important truth that supporters of reservation must also acknowledge. Reservation alone cannot eradicate caste. It cannot educate every child. It cannot guarantee employment. It cannot eliminate poverty. It cannot change prejudiced minds. It cannot replace quality public education or economic opportunity. For that, India needs better schools, accessible higher education, scholarships, skill development, economic empowerment, strict enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and genuine social reform.
The government must also ensure that reservation benefits reach those for whom they are intended and that policies are periodically evaluated using credible data. There is room for reform. There is room for debate. There is room for criticism. But there is no room for pretending that the problem reservation was created to address never existed.
Do We Want Equality or Simply Equal Rules?
The reservation debate ultimately comes down to what we mean by equality. Treating everyone identically may sound fair, but true equality also requires addressing the historical disadvantages that continue to affect education, income, social status and representation. Reservation is therefore not a favour but a constitutional instrument of social justice.
The ultimate goal should be a society where caste, tribe, community, birthplace or economic background no longer determines opportunity. Until that becomes a reality, abolishing reservation without addressing the inequalities that made it necessary would not create equality—it would merely create equality on paper.
The author is an independent researcher and columnist who writes on public policy, social change, youth affairs and governance. He can be reached at shahidhakla@shahidhakla.com
