A call for justice beyond caste
India’s reservation policy has long stood as a symbol of the country’s commitment to social justice. Originally envisioned to uplift communities historically marginalized by the rigid caste system—namely Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC)—it was a necessary corrective measure in a deeply unequal society. In the decades following independence, this policy delivered significant progress by expanding access to education, employment, and public representation for groups long excluded from the mainstream.
However, over time, what was meant to be a temporary measure has become deeply entrenched, creating a different set of problems. While the policy has benefited many and opened doors previously shut, it has also become a source of tension. A growing number of people—particularly those from economically weaker sections of the general category—feel that their merit and effort are being overshadowed by an inflexible, quota-driven framework. This concern is no longer limited to isolated voices; it is being echoed in political, social, and academic circles, especially in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where the dynamics of exclusion are layered and complex.
Jammu and Kashmir has a long history of being denied proportional access to opportunities, especially for its marginalized populations. In 1931, amid widespread unrest, the British government set up the Glancy Commission to address these concerns. Led by Sir Bertrand James Glancy, it investigated the grievances of the majority community, who were severely underrepresented in education, administration, and public services. The Commission’s findings exposed deep inequities and led to the recommendation of reforms aimed at improving access for the marginalized.
Before its reorganization in 2019, Jammu and Kashmir had its own reservation system, governed by the J&K Reservation Act of 2004, which was specifically designed to address the region’s unique socio-demographic needs. However, following the abrogation of Article 370, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act extended all central laws, including the national reservation policy, to the newly created Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. While this change was intended to create uniformity and promote inclusivity, it has sparked new controversy, particularly with the Kashmir region facing limited opportunities under the new framework.
The introduction of new reservation categories into an already layered framework has raised concerns among civil society and political leaders. Rather than addressing socio-economic disparities, many argue, the revised quotas risk institutionalizing a new kind of inequity. The reduction of the ‘open merit’ category to less than 40% has triggered widespread criticism, prompting the government to set up a cabinet sub-committee to revisit the policy implemented by the L-G administration.
Public discontent reached a peak during the NEET postgraduate entrance exam, where 73.4% of the seats were reserved, leaving just 26.6% open. After invoking rule 17 of the Reservation Act, only 78 seats out of 293 PG seats were allotted to the open merit category. For many, this was not just about numbers—it was about fairness. Critics argue that such overwhelming reservations leave little room for talented candidates from economically weaker sections of the general category, effectively pushing them out despite genuine merit and need.
This frustration is also evident in the promotion system within government services. There are numerous instances where individuals from reserved categories join the service under the supervision of general category officers but later surpass them through reservation in promotions, eventually becoming their superiors. Meanwhile, more qualified and senior general category officers often remain stuck in lower positions. A policy originally meant to ensure representation is now seen by many as undermining meritocracy, creating deep resentment. Critics argue that once a person secures a position through reservation, further promotions should be based on performance, merit and seniority, not continued preference.
Perhaps the most serious flaw in the current reservation system is its inability to recognize economic disadvantage outside of traditional caste categories. While caste-based quotas have played a vital role in correcting historical wrongs, they often exclude large segments of the population who, despite being from ‘forward’ castes, live in abject poverty and lack access to quality education or secure jobs. This creates a sense of exclusion among the economically weaker sections of the general category, who feels abandoned by a system that prioritizes social identity over present-day hardship.
A case in point is urban Downtown Srinagar, or Shehr-e-Khas, once celebrated for its vibrant ecosystem of artisans, craftsmen, master chefs, skilled professionals, amoung others. This rich cultural and economic legacy, however, has gradually eroded over the years—undermined by exploitation at the hands of middlemen, shifting economic dynamics, entrenched social prejudices, and a chronic lack of institutional support.
Today, tens of thousands live in dire poverty in the area, in cramped, decaying houses, without land or stable jobs. Despite their severe hardship, they remain outside the reservation net simply because they do not belong to a listed backward caste.
A large number of children from these families lack access to quality education, particularly in established private institutions, and consequently do not acquire the skills necessary for gainful employment—leaving them ill-equipped for both traditional trades and the formal job market.
Meanwhile, the reservation policy limits their chances in government jobs, deepening their despair. This frustration is visible in the rising instances of drug abuse and social alienation among the youth of the area.
Their situation mirrors the struggles of SC, ST, and OBC communities, however, with additional layers of complexity. These families often share small homes between multiple households, lack access to amenities and secured housing, and cannot afford school fees for their children. On a conservative estimate, more than 90% of households in these localities are without any government job or income security. Many rely on irregular, informal work, and were left out of earlier land reform initiatives, depriving them of property ownership and economic stability.
During an official visit to Downtown Srinagar, a senior IAS officer, himself selected through reservation from a remote region, was visibly moved by the stark poverty in the area. In an unguarded moment, he admitted that the living conditions were worse than those in his own underdeveloped hometown. Yet, communities like these remain invisible to the reservation framework, which continues to prioritize caste over economic hardship.
This isn’t an isolated case. Across Jammu and Kashmir, similar urban and semi-urban communities are falling through the cracks of policy attention. These areas suffer from poor infrastructure, high school dropout rates, unemployment, and lack of access to basic services and secured housing. However, because they do not fall under any recognized backward classification, they are consistently excluded from reservation benefits.
The solution to the crisis is not to discard reservations but to rethink them. Affirmative action is vital for justice and representation but must adapt to current socio-economic realities. Introducing economic criteria across all categories can ensure benefits reach those in need, regardless of caste, while regular reviews can prevent monopolization of opportunities by the same families. The urban poor, often overlooked, also face significant hardship and must be recognized in policy. Lastly, while affirmative action should open doors, it must be balanced with merit, particularly in fields like medicine, civil services, and higher education, where quality is paramount.
There is also a compelling case for ending reservation in promotions. Once a candidate has secured entry through reservation, future advancement should depend solely on performance and seniority. This would foster a more fair and efficient working environment while encouraging excellence across all social groups.
The NEET-PG issue highlights a deeper structural imbalance that, if unaddressed, could undermine public trust in the system. Critics argue that admission to medical colleges under reserved categories already ensures a level playing field, as all students receive equal academic instruction, clinical exposure, and support. Therefore, postgraduate admissions should be based purely on merit, without further reservations, to uphold fairness and academic standards at the highest level.
Reservations should act as a Launchpad, not a lifetime entitlement passed down through generations. They must support those genuinely in need, offering a fair shot at upward mobility. Today, poverty, limited opportunity, and lack of education are no longer confined to specific castes—they affect communities across the board. To stay relevant, our approach to social justice must evolve. In regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where historical exclusion intersects with present-day hardship, policy should serve as a bridge—not a barrier. A just society demands bold, adaptive thinking—where opportunity is shaped by need, not identity alone.
Syed Shakeel Qalander is a social activist and an industry leader
