IRRF Global Policy Article

Published by IRRF Global — International Reservation Reform Forum

India’s colleges and universities are not merely institutions for degrees. They are places where young people from different states, languages, religions, castes, communities and economic backgrounds study together, build friendships, exchange ideas and prepare for the future.

That is why an educational campus should promote not only academic excellence but also social harmony, equal dignity and constitutional fraternity.

There should be no place in any educational institution for discrimination, caste-based humiliation, harassment or exclusion.

If an SC, ST, OBC, General Category or any other student is discriminated against because of caste, religion, language, region, gender, disability or social background, that student should have an effective right to complain and seek justice.

But IRRF Global raises an equally important question:

In trying to eliminate discrimination, are we institutionalising caste identity even more deeply among students?

This question lies at the heart of the debate around the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

A technical clarification is also important. These are not a new “UGC Act.” The principal legislation remains the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The controversial 2026 framework is a set of UGC Regulations relating to equity in higher education.

The Objective May Be Right — But the Framework Must Also Be Fair

Caste discrimination has been a real part of India’s historical and social experience. It should not be denied.

If a student is humiliated, excluded or harassed because of caste, there must be a strong grievance-redressal mechanism.

But public policy must be judged not only by its intention, but also by its design, implementation and long-term consequences.

IRRF Global is not opposed to anti-discrimination protection.

Our question is simpler:

Why should protection against caste discrimination not be available equally to every student?

If caste-based humiliation of an SC student is wrong, it is wrong.

If it happens to an ST student, it is wrong.

If it happens to an OBC student, it is wrong.

And if a General Category student — including a Brahmin, Kshatriya or any other community — is targeted, abused, boycotted or humiliated because of caste identity, that student’s dignity should also matter.

Discrimination cannot become acceptable merely because the identity of the victim changes.
Existing Mechanisms Already Existed

Higher Education Institutions were not operating in a regulatory vacuum before 2026.

The UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations, 2012 already existed. Student grievance-redressal systems, anti-ragging rules, anti-sexual-harassment mechanisms and other institutional safeguards also existed.

That raises legitimate policy questions:

Were the 2012 Regulations inadequate?

Was the problem in the law itself or in implementation?

How many complaints remained unresolved?

Which forms of discrimination were not being addressed?

Could the existing framework have been strengthened instead?

Before creating a new regulatory structure, the Government should answer these questions with evidence.

More regulation does not automatically mean more justice.
Supreme Court Intervention Makes the Debate Even More Important

The controversy around the 2026 Regulations is not limited to political or social debate.

On 29 January 2026, the Supreme Court kept the 2026 Regulations in abeyance and allowed the earlier 2012 framework to continue in the interim.

In August 2026, the Centre also informed the Supreme Court that the Regulations were under reconsideration.

That makes this an appropriate moment for a broader national review.

IRRF Global therefore believes that the Government should not treat criticism of the Regulations as resistance to equality.

Instead, the pause should be used to create a framework that is more balanced, inclusive and constitutionally sustainable.

Do Not Institutionalise Caste Consciousness on Campus

Why does an 18- or 20-year-old enter university?

To study engineering.

To learn medicine.

To understand law.

To work on Artificial Intelligence and Data Science.

To conduct research.

To build businesses.

To create technology.

To prepare for a career.

The central question of university life should not become:

“Which caste do you belong to?”

Educational institutions should gradually reduce inherited social barriers and strengthen a common student identity.

If institutional structures repeatedly divide students into caste categories, there is a risk that students who once saw one another simply as classmates begin to see one another primarily through social identities.

That may create mistrust rather than fraternity.

Discrimination Is Not Only an Indian Problem

Identity-based discrimination is not unique to India.

Across the world, societies have experienced different forms of division based on:

Race
Ethnicity
Religion
Tribe
Language
Nationality
Immigration status
Community identity
Caste

In some societies, there has been a long history of Black–White racial discrimination.

In others, ethnic or religious communities have faced conflict.

In parts of Africa, ethnic and tribal divisions have contributed to social and political tensions.

In Europe and elsewhere, immigrants and minority communities have faced discrimination and exclusion.

India has its own historical experience of caste discrimination.

The broader lesson is important:

Discrimination is not the permanent characteristic of one caste, one community or one country. It is a human social problem that can appear in many forms.

Therefore, future generations should not be permanently divided into inherited categories of “oppressor” and “victim.”

History must be understood.

Historical injustice must be addressed.

But present-day justice must also judge actual conduct.

**A child does not choose caste.

A child does not choose race.
A child does not choose the family into which he or she is born.**

A young person should not automatically inherit personal guilt for what ancestors may have done.

Likewise, discrimination against a young person should not become less serious merely because that person belongs to a historically advantaged group.

What Should India Learn From the World?

If a society has a history of racial conflict, the purpose of education should not be to transfer that hostility permanently to the next generation.

If two ethnic communities have fought in the past, schools and universities should promote reconciliation, equality and cooperation.

India should follow the same principle.

Historical caste discrimination must not be denied.

Corrective support may

Social Justice Must Evolve with Society

India’s reservation policy was created to address a serious historical reality: large sections of society had suffered discrimination, social exclusion and denial of educational and economic opportunities for generations.

The objective of affirmative action was therefore legitimate and necessary — to create representation, provide opportunity and help disadvantaged communities move toward social and economic equality.

But a policy designed to correct inequality must also be periodically reviewed to determine whether it is reaching the people who genuinely need it, whether benefits are being distributed fairly, and whether the system remains compatible with equal opportunity, merit and national development.

More than seven decades after the Constitution came into force, India needs a serious, evidence-based and constitutional discussion on reservation reform.

This should not be a debate about removing support from disadvantaged citizens. It should be about making that support fairer, better targeted and more effective.

Nehru Warned Against Allowing Reservation to Undermine Merit

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, expressed serious concerns about caste-based preference, particularly when it affected efficiency in public services.

In a letter to Chief Ministers dated 27 June 1961, Nehru wrote:

“I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in Services.”

He also referred approvingly to the view that assistance should be provided on economic considerations and not on caste.

Nehru argued that disadvantaged groups should receive strong educational opportunities, including technical education, but warned against policies that could lower standards or undermine administrative efficiency.

In another letter dated 4 July 1961, he argued that reservation should not come at the cost of merit, particularly in higher levels of public service and promotion.

These views do not mean that disadvantaged communities should be denied support. Rather, they highlight a question India still faces today:

How can we provide social justice without weakening merit, efficiency and equal opportunity?

IRRF believes these objectives are not contradictory. India can protect disadvantaged citizens while simultaneously protecting standards.

1990: The Mandal Commission Changed the Scale of Reservation

A major turning point came with implementation of recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission — commonly known as the Mandal Commission.

The Commission submitted its report in 1980. In August 1990, the Government of India issued an order providing 27% reservation in Central Government employment for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The policy was challenged before the Supreme Court. In the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, the Court upheld the 27% OBC reservation while requiring exclusion of the socially advanced or “creamy layer.”

This fundamentally expanded the reservation framework.

At the Central Government level, the traditional reservation structure subsequently became broadly:

15% — Scheduled Castes
7.5% — Scheduled Tribes
27% — Other Backward Classes

Together, these amount to 49.5%.

The Supreme Court’s reservation jurisprudence has repeatedly recognised a general 50% ceiling, although constitutional developments and exceptional circumstances have added complexity to that principle.

Economic Disadvantage Has Now Been Constitutionally Recognised

Another major development occurred in 2019.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling reservation of up to 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among citizens who are not covered by the existing SC, ST and OBC reservation systems.

This development is significant because it acknowledges an important reality:

Poverty and economic disadvantage also restrict opportunity.

A poor child from any community may face inadequate schooling, poor nutrition, lack of coaching, weak digital access, financial pressure and limited exposure.

If disadvantage is the justification for government assistance, economic circumstances cannot be ignored.

IRRF therefore believes the future reservation framework should give much greater importance to economic condition and genuine disadvantage.

Is Reservation Reaching All the People It Was Intended to Help?

One of the strongest arguments for reform comes from within the reservation system itself.

In 2017, the Government constituted the Justice G. Rohini Commission specifically to investigate the inequitable distribution of reservation benefits among communities included in the Central OBC List.

Its mandate included determining whether reservation benefits were being disproportionately distributed and developing a mechanism for sub-categorisation.

The Government itself subsequently acknowledged that there were communities within the Central OBC List that had not been able to obtain major benefits from the existing reservation system.

The Rohini Commission finally submitted its report to the President on 31 July 2023.

This raises a fundamental question:

If some communities repeatedly receive significant benefits while other eligible communities remain behind, is the system achieving genuine social justice?

Reservation should create mobility, not simply preserve a permanent category of entitlement.

The Problem of Repeated Benefits Across Generations and Stages

Another area requiring serious discussion is repeated access to reservation benefits.

Under the existing framework, depending on the applicable category and rules, a person may potentially benefit from reservation at different stages of education and employment, while subsequent generations of an eligible family may also remain within the reservation framework.

IRRF believes India should examine a different principle:

One Family — One Meaningful Reservation Opportunity

If government intervention successfully enables a family member to enter a major professional or higher educational pathway, the system should progressively prioritise another disadvantaged family that has never received such an opportunity.

For example, if a student receives a major reservation benefit for entry into higher education, IRRF proposes examining whether the same individual should again receive reservation advantages at every subsequent stage.

The purpose should be:

Lift one family → create mobility → extend the next opportunity to another disadvantaged family.

This would allow reservation benefits to spread more widely through society.

Reservation Cannot Become an Unlimited Political Instrument

Reservation is understandably an emotionally and politically sensitive issue.

Every attempt to reconsider quotas, eligibility or beneficiary categories can quickly become an electoral controversy.

This creates a danger that political

🇮🇳 भारत की प्रतिभा भारत के काम क्यों नहीं आ रही?
Brain Drain केवल पलायन नहीं—यह व्यवस्था के लिए एक चेतावनी है

भारत दुनिया की सबसे युवा आबादी वाले देशों में है। हमारे बच्चे IIT, NIT, मेडिकल कॉलेज, विश्वविद्यालय और तकनीकी संस्थानों में प्रवेश के लिए वर्षों मेहनत करते हैं। परिवार अपनी बचत खर्च करते हैं, कई बार कर्ज लेते हैं और अपने बच्चों को अच्छी शिक्षा दिलाने के लिए अपनी जरूरतों तक से समझौता करते हैं।

फिर भी एक गंभीर सवाल हमारे सामने खड़ा है—

इतनी मेहनत से तैयार की गई भारतीय प्रतिभा आखिर अमेरिका, यूरोप, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, Middle East और Africa की अर्थव्यवस्थाओं को मजबूत करने क्यों चली जाती है?

हर व्यक्ति विदेश केवल इसलिए नहीं जाता कि भारत में उसके साथ अन्याय हुआ। बेहतर वेतन, अंतरराष्ट्रीय exposure, research facilities, जीवन-स्तर और global careers भी बड़े कारण हैं। लेकिन हमें यह स्वीकार करना होगा कि भारत में गुणवत्तापूर्ण रोजगार और शिक्षित युवाओं की आकांक्षाओं के अनुरूप अवसरों की कमी भी समस्या का महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सा है।

ILO की India Employment Report 2024 ने स्पष्ट किया कि भारत में शिक्षित युवाओं की बेरोजगारी विशेष चिंता का विषय है और उच्च शिक्षा हासिल करने वाले युवाओं की संख्या बढ़ने के अनुपात में पर्याप्त रोजगार अवसर नहीं बन रहे।

सरकारी PLFS के अनुसार भी 2023–24 में 15–29 वर्ष के युवाओं की बेरोजगारी दर 10.2% थी।

✈️ हम प्रतिभा तैयार करते हैं—दुनिया उसका लाभ उठाती है

विदेश जाने वाले हर भारतीय को “Brain Drain” कहना उचित नहीं होगा। लेकिन पैमाना जरूर सोचने पर मजबूर करता है।

विदेश मंत्रालय के अनुसार जनवरी 2025 में करीब 12.5 लाख भारतीय विद्यार्थी विदेश में उच्च शिक्षा प्राप्त कर रहे थे।

इनमें से अनेक वहीं career बनाते हैं। दूसरी तरफ Middle East और दूसरे क्षेत्रों में बहुत बड़ी संख्या में भारतीय रोजगार के लिए जाती है; विदेश मंत्रालय स्वयं Gulf देशों में बड़ी भारतीय workforce की मौजूदगी को स्वीकार करता है।

और मैं इसे केवल आंकड़ों में नहीं देखता।

मैं स्वयं पिछले 19 वर्षों से Africa में काम कर रहा हूँ।

मैं अपना देश छोड़कर इसलिए नहीं निकला था कि मुझे भारत से प्रेम नहीं था। मैं निकला क्योंकि मुझे ऐसा रोजगार और आर्थिक अवसर चाहिए था जिससे मैं अपने परिवार की जिम्मेदारियाँ सम्मानपूर्वक निभा सकूँ।

मेरे जैसे हजारों नहीं, लाखों भारतीय Middle East, Africa और दुनिया के दूसरे हिस्सों में काम कर रहे हैं।

वे इंजीनियर हैं।
IT professionals हैं।
Managers हैं।
Doctors हैं।
Technicians हैं।
Accountants हैं।
Entrepreneurs हैं।

उनकी मेहनत और skills आज दूसरे देशों के hospitals, factories, IT systems, infrastructure, businesses और economies को आगे बढ़ा रही हैं।

इसमें गर्व भी है—लेकिन एक सवाल भी है:

क्या भारत अपने ही लोगों को ऐसा अवसर नहीं दे सकता था?
🎓 समस्या रोजगार से पहले—स्कूल से शुरू होती है

हम कॉलेज और सरकारी नौकरी में सामाजिक न्याय की चर्चा करते हैं, लेकिन असमानता बच्चे के नौकरी के आवेदन भरने के दिन शुरू नहीं होती।

वह पहली कक्षा से शुरू हो जाती है।

एक बच्चा अच्छे private school में पढ़ता है—बेहतर शिक्षक, English exposure, computer lab, science lab, coaching और extracurricular activities मिलती हैं।

दूसरी तरफ गरीब परिवार का बच्चा यदि ऐसे सरकारी स्कूल में पढ़ रहा है जहाँ शिक्षक, infrastructure या learning outcomes कमजोर हैं, तो दोनों बच्चों को 18 वर्ष की उम्र में एक ही starting line पर खड़ा मानना अपने-आप में समस्या है।

गरीब बच्चा किसी भी जाति में पैदा हो सकता है।

SC हो।
ST हो।
OBC हो।
General हो।

गरीबी बच्चे का caste certificate देखकर उसके घर नहीं आती।

💰 अच्छी शिक्षा कितनी महंगी हो चुकी है?

2025 के सरकारी Comprehensive Modular Survey: Education के आंकड़ों के अनुसार urban India में private-school education पर औसत खर्च लगभग ₹31,322 प्रति वर्ष primary, ₹37,845 middle, ₹44,667 secondary और ₹49,075 higher-secondary स्तर पर था। उसी survey में private primary schooling का औसत खर्च urban government school की तुलना में लगभग 10.7 गुना था।

Professional education में बोझ और बढ़ जाता है।

2026–27 के एक वर्तमान engineering-fee database में उपलब्ध 184 colleges के sample में management-quota engineering की median first-year fee ₹2.1 लाख और चार साल की median fee लगभग ₹8.2 लाख पाई गई। यह पूरे भारत की सरकारी census नहीं है और dataset Karnataka/Bangalore की ओर अधिक weighted है, इसलिए इसे national average नहीं समझना चाहिए—लेकिन यह private technical education की affordability समस्या का उपयोगी संकेत देता है।

अर्थात middle-class परिवार के लिए केवल “बच्चे को पढ़ाओ” कहना पर्याप्त नहीं है।

सवाल है—

किस स्कूल में? किस कॉलेज में? और किस कीमत पर?
⚖️ अब आरक्षण पर भी ईमानदार संवाद होना चाहिए

आरक्षण का ऐतिहासिक उद्देश्य सामाजिक रूप से वंचित और पर्याप्त प्रतिनिधित्व से दूर समुदायों को अवसर देना था। उस इतिहास और आज भी मौजूद सामाजिक भेदभाव को नकारना उचित नहीं होगा।

लेकिन किसी नीति की समीक्षा करना उस नीति के उद्देश्य का विरोध करना नहीं होता।

मेरा सवाल आरक्षण समाप्त करने का नहीं है।

मेरा सवाल आरक्षण में सुधार का है।

क्या यह जांचना गलत है कि आरक्षण का वास्तविक लाभ किस परिवार तक पहुँचा?

क्या एक ही अपेक्षाकृत स्थापित परिवार को पीढ़ी-दर-पीढ़ी और अलग-अलग चरणों पर लाभ मिलता रहे, जबकि उसी आरक्षित समुदाय का कोई अत्यंत गरीब परिवार पहली पीढ़ी में भी अच्छी शिक्षा तक नहीं पहुँच पाए—तो क्या यह सामाजिक न्याय का सर्वोत्तम मॉडल है?

इसीलिए हमें “Family-Centric Reservation Reform” पर राष्ट्रीय चर्चा करनी चाहिए।

मेरा प्रस्ताव है:

“One Family – One Effective Reservation Benefit – फिर प्राथमिकता अगले वंचित परिवार को।”

इसका अर्थ किसी SC, ST या OBC बच्चे का अधिकार अचानक समाप्त करना नहीं होना चाहिए। इसका अर्थ है कि सरकार डेटा के आधार पर यह अध्ययन करे कि जिन परिवारों को reservation-supported educational/employment mobility मिल चुकी है, उनके बाद उसी समुदाय के अब तक लाभ से वंचित परिवारों को प्राथमिकता कैसे दी जा सकती है।

OBC में creamy-layer व्यवस्था पहले से इसी व्यापक सिद्धांत का एक रूप है। और 2024 के State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh फैसले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने SC वर्गों के भीतर sub-classification को संवैधानिक रूप से संभव माना; फैसले में creamy-layer जैसी अवधारणाओं पर भी महत्वपूर्ण न्यायिक टिप्पणियाँ सामने आईं।

अर्थात “आरक्षित वर्ग के भीतर सबसे वंचित तक लाभ कैसे पहुँचे?” यह प्रश्न अब केवल राजनीतिक नारा नहीं, गंभीर संवैधानिक और नीतिगत विमर्श भी है।

💡 केवल आर्थिक आधार ही पूरा समाधान है?

मेरे विचार में परिवार की आर्थिक स्थिति को बहुत अधिक महत्व मिलना चाहिए, क्योंकि ₹15,000–₹20,000 महीने कमाने वाले परिवार और करोड़ों की आर्थिक क्षमता वाले परिवार को केवल एक समान सामाजिक label से देखना वास्तविक परिस्थितियों को हमेशा नहीं दर्शाता।

लेकिन समाधान केवल income certificate भी नहीं हो सकता।

सामाजिक भेदभाव और आर्थिक गरीबी दो अलग वास्तविकताएँ हैं।

इसलिए बेहतर मॉडल हो सकता है:

Social Backwardness + Economic Condition + Educational Disadvantage + Previous Family Benefit

इन चारों को मापिए।

और सहायता उस परिवार तक पहले पहुँचाइए जो वास्तव में सबसे पीछे है।

⚖️ आरक्षण की सीमा पर भी स्पष्टता चाहिए

50% की बात करते समय कानूनी स्थिति को सही तरीके से समझना जरूरी है।

1992 के Indra Sawhney निर्णय से SC/ST/OBC reservation के संदर्भ में सामान्य 50% ceiling principle स्थापित हुआ। केंद्र सरकार ने भी संसद में यही स्थिति स्पष्ट की है। लेकिन 10% EWS reservation अलग संवैधानिक प्रावधान—Articles 15(6) और 16(6)—के तहत है, इसलिए वर्तमान व्यवस्था को केवल “कुल आरक्षण कभी 50% से अधिक नहीं हो सकता” कहना कानूनी रूप से अधूरा होगा।

मेरी व्यक्