Any Dalit or OBC could have been sent in place of Shukla ji.” This careless statement by Congress leader Udit Raj, made in response to Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla’s selection for the Axiom-4 space mission, is more than just an insult to scientific achievement. It reflects a growing trend in public life where merit, preparation and professional excellence are seen as less important than identity.
When space missions, among the highest examples of human competence and discipline, are reduced to caste politics, it becomes clear that we have lost perspective on what reservation was supposed to achieve. Unfortunately, this is not just rhetoric. I say this from experience. In the UGC-NET December 2024 examination in the Law subject, I secured 99.45 percentile, yet I was not awarded the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) under the general category. Meanwhile, more than 70 candidates from the caste-based reserved categories (OBC, SC, ST, EWS) were awarded the JRF at scores lower than mine only because they belonged to certain caste-based reserved groups.
This is not a matter of personal frustration, but a reflection of how our system functions; a system where even meritorious performance can be ignored if you are not born into what I call the “now privileged” category. When reservations were introduced after Independence, they were meant as temporary support to help those who had faced historical injustice. The Constitution itself reflected this intent. Article 334 had fixed a 10- year limit on caste-based representation in legislatures. Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which only allow (not mandate) the State to make special provisions for backward classes and reservations in public employment, were designed to uplift, not to permanently divide.
Yet today, more than seventy years later, the policy has become permanent. Not only has it been extended indefinitely, but every attempt to review or rationalise it is met with political hostility. The situation has become worse because reservation today no longer serves the weakest. The benefits are often captured by the most politically powerful or economically secure among the reserved categories. For OBCs, the creamy layer rule exists but is weakly enforced. For SCs and STs, there is no economic filter at all. On the other hand, candidates from general category backgrounds are left to compete at considerably much higher cut-offs. This raises a basic question of fairness.
If the purpose is to uplift, then why must it involve pushing someone else down? If seats or posts are to be reserved for certain categories, then the total number of seats should be increased. Let the reserved candidates be accommodated through additional capacity rather than by cutting into the existing general pool. There is no reason why a deserving general category student should be denied simply to make space for someone else. The Constitution does not say that upliftment must come by displacement. The government can and should create more opportunities rather than reduce competition to a zero-sum game. What is even more troubling is that, instead of reviewing the system after decades of implementation, political parties are competing to expand it further.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has openly demanded 85 per cent reservation. Rahul Gandhi has called for reservations to be extended into private sector jobs. If, even after so many years of reservation, these leaders believe the problem remains unresolved, then is it not proof that the current policy is not working? Yet no one asks why. The answer lies in vote-bank politics. Caste has become a political asset, not a social problem to be solved. Even leaders who claim to be educated and reformist, such as Arvind Kejriwal, do not touch the subject of reservation reform. When he campaigned in Punjab, he declared that a Dalit would be made Deputy Chief Minister; not based on competence or vision, but simply on caste.
This shows how caste identity has become a major tool to attract votes rather than a factor for real empowerment. No major political party, whether in power or in opposition, has the courage to even raise a discussion on whether the reservation system needs reform. They fear losing caste-based vote banks more than they care about fairness. Meanwhile, institutions suffer. In IITs and AIIMS, large differences in entrance scores have created serious academic pressure on some reserved category students, leading to high dropout rates and stress. In government jobs, promotion through reservation often results in juniors overtaking more experienced seniors, damaging morale and performance. In competitive exams like UPSC and UGC-NET, general category candidates work for years, yet still face artificial ceilings due to their birth identity.
This does not build equality. It builds resentment, confusion and silence. This is not a call to end all affirmative action. Support must exist for those who truly need it. But support should not become a permanent entitlement passed down through generations. We need to move towards a system that considers both social and economic disadvantage, strictly applies the creamy layer across all groups, sets reasonable cut-offs even for reserved seats, and creates additional seats wherever possible. Most importantly, we must be willing to periodically review whether the objectives of reservation are being achieved or not. When merit is ignored and identity becomes the only qualification, the very idea of justice loses its meaning.
What began as a noble policy to remove discrimination has now become a political tool that discriminates differently. If this continues, we will not only lose the confidence of the youth but also the quality of our institutions. Talent will either leave the system or fall silent. India cannot afford either. The time has come to speak clearly. Social justice should not mean permanent inequality. Uplifting one section must not involve downgrading another. And no democracy should reward identity more than it rewards effort. The longer we avoid reforming this system, the more damage it will cause, not just to individuals but to the entire country.
(The writer is a legal professional.)