By Vivek Kalikotay
Introduction
In recent times, as India embarks on unleashing its massive potential to achieve the status of Vishwa Guru (a prosperous global guiding light); a stark internal contradiction is emerging. This contradiction is evident in the pushback by critics (primarily from the Savarnas categories) against caste-based reservation. While this resistance is not a new phenomenon, it highlights a decades-long societal tension that has persisted since constitutional enabling provisions first initiated affirmative action. Since then, various arguments against reservation have been brought to the fore by these critics. They frequently question why caste-based reservation still exists if it was initially intended for only ten years, why it continues after nearly eight decades of implementation, and why it has supposedly failed to fully uplift socially, culturally, politically, economically, and educationally marginalised groups.
Furthermore, their arguments rely on the premise that Indian society has transformed into a largely egalitarian one. Critics claim that marginalized groups misuse reservation to practice “reverse discrimination,” that quotas compromise meritocracy and efficiency, and that the system deepens caste divisions instead of vanishing them. While these grievances sound like objective assessments, they are a patterned accusation. Unfortunately, very few critics truly distinguish reservation as a tool for representative democracy. Instead, the majority continue to perceive it as a dysfunction of 21st-century Indian democracy.
What is Caste Reservation?
Caste reservation is a mechanism for social representation, opportunity, and equality for groups that were systematically exploited, marginalised, and alienated for centuries. It acts as a resistance against the iron cage of casteism and untouchability across social, political, educational, and economic dimensions. Reservation is not an act of discrimination against the unreserved categories; rather, it is a medium to invite all sections of society to walk together as equals. Furthermore, it does not compromise merit or devalue meritorious parameters. Instead, it redefines merit on the basis of equity.
Consequently, it paves the path toward a just society where individuals, irrespective of their caste background, can walk shoulder to shoulder. Constitutionally, reservation was enacted to ensure fair representation because alternative mechanisms, such as separate electorates, were not adopted. Ultimately, caste reservation builds a vital consciousness among historically oppressed groups, reinforcing the reality that they are equal stakeholders in the world’s largest democracy and that their agency matters in shaping the progressive future of India.
The Myth of the 10-Year Limit-
Critics consistently argue that the Constitution initially provided caste-based reservation for only ten years. However, a closer look at the constitutional framework reveals a clear distinction between political reservation on one hand, and educational and employment reservation in government entities on the other. The ten-year cap applied strictly to political quotas (seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies) under Article 334 of the Indian Constitution. Given the persistence of social inequalities, the Parliament has regularly extended this deadline through constitutional amendments. The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act in 2020, for instance, extended political representation for Scheduled categories until 2030.
Conversely, the reservation provided for education and government jobs under Article 15(4), 15(5), and Article 16(4) has no such time limit. The narrative that job and educational quotas were meant to expire in ten years is a complete myth that contradicts the constitutional spirit. Propagating this falsehood misleads the public, creating unnecessary anxiety and chaos among the youth. Critics weaponize this anxiety, persuading younger generations to fight against reservation in the name of justice. In reality, however, they are fighting against justice itself, normalising both past and present systemic inequities.
Protests and the Weaponization of “Merit”-
This deep-seated anxiety has recently culminated in the rise of a virtual and on-the-ground movement known as the “Reservation Hataao Aandolan” (RHA). The RHA functions as an umbrella front for like-minded critics seeking the total abolition of caste quotas in favour of purely economic criteria, relying heavily on the rhetoric of protecting “meritocracy” and “efficiency.” However, the nexus between merit and caste has a long, exclusionary history in India.
In a traditional, caste-ridden society, meritocracy was not an objective measure of ability; it was a rule based on inherited caste privileges. Under this pre-modern system, being born into a specific caste automatically dictated an individual’s “merit”—Brahmins alone could impart education, Kshatriyas were the sole protectors of society, and Vaishyas monopolized capital. Within this logic, the Shudras and the ex-untouchables were completely alienated, their human agency deemed worthless and left entirely at the mercy of the upper three classes. Historical meritocracy, therefore, was merely an instrument to centralize power and privilege.
But in the contemporary, RHA claims that shifting to economic reservation will establish a modern, non-casteist pathway that protects efficiency without compromising merit. Seemingly does this demand truly chart a neutral path? The reality says otherwise. Even with existing constitutional protections, socially marginalised sections remain severely underrepresented across high-level political, educational, and employment institutions relative to their actual population share. The vestiges of the pre-modern caste-merit system continue to heavily influence everything from state governance to local social relations.
Why Economy Cannot Replace Caste Reservation?
Privileged groups have a centuries-old head start, having accumulated vast amounts of social and cultural capital at the historical cost of Shudras and ex-untouchables. To expect historically marginalized groups to compete in the exact same “race of meritocracy” without equity is an inherent logical fallacy. While economic marginalisation can fluctuate and affect individuals across all sections of society, socially marginalised groups are historically fixed entities bound by systemic social degradation.
Therefore, economic status cannot be the sole metric for liberation from caste marginalisation. The non-material aspects of caste humiliation are far too stubborn for financial wealth to fix. The case of former IAS officer Balwant Singh who served in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, documented in his memoir An Untouchable in the I.A.S. (1997), represented a classic testimony. Despite reaching the highest echelons of civil service, he faced deep-seated caste prejudice, proving that professional and economic upliftment alone cannot erase the persistent psyche of caste division.
However, this does not mean economic assistance is inherently flawed. However, the parameters of economic reservation and the representation sought through caste reservation are fundamentally different because their root causes of marginalisation are distinct. As economic reservation addresses material deprivation to alleviate financial inequality, caste reservation addresses non-material, structural marginalisation—the very backbone of unequal social relations that severely limits an individual’s access to life chances.
Ultimately, caste reservation establishes a level playing field through fair representation. Far from destroying merit, it creates a true meritocracy—one built on equity rather than inherited historical privilege. Until Indian society completely overcomes one of the worst systems of social stratification in human history, reservation remains an indispensable tool for building democratic justice and fraternity.
(The author is a Research Scholar at the Department of Sociology North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong)
