Caste or Income? Why Reservation Should End, Not Expand
Anti-reservation protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi (Image video grab)
By RAVI SHANKER KAPOOR
Anti-quota protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar are right to question caste-based reservation, but economic reservation would merely extend the quota system rather than address its underlying problems.
New Delhi, August 28, 2026 — Economic status, not caste, should be the criterion for granting reservation benefits—this is the sum and substance of the anti-quota protestors at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Many of them were also against the divisive University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Equity Regulations and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which has occasioned false cases against countless (perhaps lakhs of) people.
As I wrote earlier, their courage to oppose caste-based reservation and the above-mentioned legal provisions is laudable. However, they err when they ask for reservation on economic grounds. The need of the hour is the end of all reservation; only this can help build a merit-based society.
The proponents of caste-based reservation are right in their assertion that certain communities have suffered for centuries because of systemic social discrimination which enjoyed religious sanction. To undo this, it was necessary to give a leg up to these communities, but this should have been done by improving their social, economic, and educational conditions, by helping the young in those communities to become competent enough to get good education and jobs, not by lowering standards in government education institutions and jobs for them.
By the same logic, reservation based on economic grounds is also wrong.
Pro-reservation activists argue that a child from a so-called lower caste or poor family shouldn’t be judged by the same yardsticks that are used to assess a child from a well-off family. On the face of it, the argument looks credible, but its convincing power arises from its emotional appeal, not its reasonableness. And the argument itself emanates from contemporary egalitarians’ obsession with equity, which is the antithesis of equality.
There are several problems with this line of argument. First, there are enough examples of men and women from impoverished families doing well in studies and life. B.R. Ambedkar, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Teejan Bai are well-known examples of such people. And there are also men and women of wealthy, privileged backgrounds who failed in studies, career, and life.
Reservation Policy Has Become “Dynastic,” Says Political Analyst, Calling for Overdue Review
Second, quota zealots stay focused only on socio-economic conditions, while there are numerous other factors which make a person privileged or disadvantaged. Beautiful women always enjoy attention, while plain women don’t; handsome men have more chances of success with women than ordinary-looking men have. Taller men and women have several advantages. There are some sports in which height is of prime importance. For instance, only two out of 24 tennis grand slam winners of this century were below six feet. Then there are people with good health, and those who suffer from various health issues, often without their fault. There are children whose grasping power is very good, and they do very well in studies. On the other hand, there are kids who find it difficult to understand any subject.
Perhaps, God is unjust, or nature is just chaotic, but the fact is that we are differently endowed; there are factors beyond our control which make us what we are. We must accept this fact, and strive to make better whatever we can. As Jawaharlal Nehru said, “Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism; the way you play it is free will.” But a game of cards cannot be played with the rules of, say, cricket.
Third, the votaries of reservation are convinced only government can make the difference. This is wrong in theory and practice. Whether it is in India or the United States, as Ronald Reagan said, government is the problem. Anyone who has lived in India realizes this truth every day everywhere.
Fourth, if the motto of ‘Jiski jitni sankhya bhaari, uske utni hissedaari’ (Benefits should be distributed in accordance with the respective population shares of different communities) is embraced in letter and spirit, chaos will prevail. Take the case of Parsis in India, whose population is below one lakh; but their presence in business is greatly disproportionate to their population. So, what do the champions of quotas suggest? Should their businesses be snatched from them, nationalized, and distributed to other communities?
The only time India won the world cup in hockey was in 1975. At that time, seven out of the 16 players were Sikhs, whose share in the population was less than 2 per cent. Should there have been fewer Sikhs for the sake of jiski jitni sankhya bhaari…? Should the coveted world cup have been sacrificed at the altar of diversity?
There is no point in lowering standards so that shorter men can do well in tennis, non-Parsis in business, and non-Sikhs in hockey. In fact, this will be neither morally acceptable nor practically feasible.
Coming to the subject of poor children, the government and charitable institutions should provide them the requisite facilities. To be sure, a lot of money is government spent for this purpose—typically, without much efficiency. The result is that even people living in slums prefer to send their kids to private, English-medium schools which charge exorbitantly. So, the need of the hour is the transformation of government schools.
A good solution would be the voucher system. Instead of running schools, the government sets the criteria of excellence and issues free vouchers to the needy, which they can deposit at private schools in place of fees. This will provide a big incentive to private schools to improve the quality of education, without burdening the poor.
Other solutions could also be worked out if shrill rhetoric and loud sloganeering are dispensed with. But lowering the standards on any grounds, poverty or historic injustice to some communities, cannot and should not be accepted as the way out.
(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are the author’s own. The article brought in collaboration with The Hindu Chronicle.)
Who Is Ajeet Bharti? Inside the Face of India’s Anti-Reservation Movement
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
