Fixing J&K’s Reservation Crisis: A Call for Fairness and Reform
In a rigorous three-part series published in Greater Kashmir on July 3rd, 4th, and 5th, renowned economist and former Finance Minister Dr. Haseeb Drabu undertakes a dispassionate yet incisive analysis of the reservation regime in Jammu and Kashmir. The three part series —“Reservations: In lieu of a report,” “Reservation Framework: Intent, Infirmities and Implications,” and “Reservations: Towards a Solution”— goes much beyond documenting a controversial policy evolution. It dissects its historical logic, exposes its contemporary distortions, and proposes a calibrated, region-sensitive alternative that may well redefine how affirmative action is imagined in the Union Territory.
Throughout the series, Dr. Drabu puts forward a central argument: that since 2019, the reservation system in Jammu and Kashmir has moved away from its original goal of ensuring social justice. Instead, it has increasingly become a tool for political maneuvering. He points to examples like the granting of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to Paharis and the continued reservation benefits for Gujjars and Bakarwals—not as efforts to help the truly disadvantaged, but as ways to build and maintain political support.
Dr. Drabu begins by setting the historical context. For Kashmiris, the struggle for government employment dates back to the 1930s, when representation in state services was linked to political assertion. In a region where private enterprise remains weak and state employment is still seen as the most secure path to social mobility, access to public sector jobs has remained highly contested. The failure of successive economic strategies to generate employment has only heightened the stakes. Ironically, what began as a fight for inclusion has now turned into a protest against perceived exclusion, particularly in Kashmir.
The first article traces the structural evolution of reservations in J&K, from the Glancy Commission of 1932 to the post-Article 370 alignment with the national framework. Unlike the rest of India, J&K historically employed a region-based reservation model, introducing categories such as Resident of Backward Area (RBA) and Line of Actual Control (LAC). Drabu points out that this distinctiveness is now being eroded. With the extension of the central caste-based system, the current framework is a confusing hybrid—partly functional (based on caste/tribe) and partly structural (based on geography/economics)—resulting in inefficiencies, overlaps, and ambiguities.
The second piece, perhaps the most scathing, lays bare the conceptual flaws and regional distortions of the reservation policy. Citing data from the Social Welfare Department, Dr. Drabu reveals a shocking regional skew: 87% of reservation beneficiaries are from Jammu, while only 13% are from the Kashmir Valley. Scheduled Castes and most EWS candidates are overwhelmingly from Jammu, despite Kashmir’s larger population. This produces a beneficiary-to-population ratio of 1:10 in Jammu versus 1:84 in Kashmir—a glaring inequity that contradicts both the spirit and the letter of affirmative action.
A particularly revealing case study is that of the Pahari-speaking population. According to Haseeb Drabu, the grant of ST status to this group—previously covered under RBA and LAC—is redundant, unjustified, and constitutionally tenuous. The Paharis, he argues, are neither a homogenous tribal community nor socio-economically disadvantaged by any objective measure. Their inclusion on the basis of language, rather than backwardness, not only violates established norms but also displaces more deserving candidates. The result is a reservation policy that rewards political pliancy rather than structural marginality.
Drabu also flags a key constitutional concern: with total reservations now at 70% (60% vertical + 10% horizontal), the policy exceeds the Supreme Court’s 50% cap set in the Indra Sawhney (1992) ruling. This undermines merit as the default principle and opens the framework to legal and institutional instability. The situation, he argues, is ethically suspect and constitutionally unsustainable.
Yet what makes Drabu’s intervention especially resonant is how it aligns with grassroots realities often overlooked by caste-centric policy frameworks. One such reality is the persistent urban poverty in areas like Downtown Srinagar (Shehr-e-Khas). In my earlier column—”Rethinking Reservation: A Call for Justice Beyond Caste” (Greater Kashmir, April 18, 2025)—I examined how communities in this historic area, despite facing extreme economic distress, remain outside the reservation net. Tens of thousands live in decaying, overcrowded shared homes without land, secure employment, or access to credible private education. They have been left behind by earlier land reforms and lack representation in government services.
What makes their exclusion particularly unjust is that their socio-economic reality mirrors, and in some cases exceeds, the hardship experienced by those from reserved categories. Youth from these areas face high dropout rates, unemployment, and rising drug abuse—outcomes directly tied to systemic neglect. Yet they are not considered eligible for affirmative action simply because they don’t belong to officially classified backward castes.
These realities, when placed alongside Drabu’s structural critique, point to a deeper failure: a policy framework that prioritizes identity over need. In such a scenario, economic deprivation becomes invisible, especially when it doesn’t align with caste-based categories.
Another critical concern raised by Dr. Drabu is the unchecked rise of “creamy layers” within the reserved categories—those who have already reaped the benefits of affirmative action across generations. In one of my earlier articles I also touched upon this issue. In many cases, these individuals continue to monopolize quotas, crowding out more deserving and genuinely disadvantaged candidates from the same communities. This internal stratification within reserved groups undermines the very purpose of affirmative action: to uplift the historically marginalized, not to entrench privilege within select families. Without periodic review and the exclusion of such creamy layers, reservation risks becoming hereditary entitlement rather than a vehicle for social mobility.
In his third column, Dr. Haseeb Drabu presents a compelling, region-sensitive proposal. He suggests recalibrating the reservation framework by aligning it with population and socio-economic data. His model would increase the share of open merit in Kashmir from 40% to 63%, while rationalizing quotas in Jammu—bringing the overall reservation pool back under the 50% ceiling. Importantly, Dr. Drabu draws on comparative lessons from states like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, where region- or sub-category-based quotas have been tried. While these often confront the quota ceiling, recent Supreme Court rulings indicate a willingness to interpret Article 16 more contextually, opening space for such reforms.
Haseeb Drabu is well aware that making these changes won’t be easy. It would require legislative updates and probably approval from central authorities. Some groups that currently benefit from the existing system—like Paharis, Scheduled Castes, and parts of the OBC community—might resist any reduction in their advantages. However, not taking action could come at a greater cost, leading to ongoing alienation in the Valley, a loss of public trust, and growing inequality.
Dr. Drabu’s intervention is both timely and necessary. In a polity where most reservation discourse is either rhetorical or self-serving, his analysis stands out for its empirical rigor, legal clarity, and ethical depth. Paired with lived experiences from neglected areas like Shehr-e-Khas, it becomes clear that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. What we need is not to dismantle affirmative action but to reimagine it—so that it truly serves those in need, not just those who fit inherited categories.
If taken seriously, Dr. Haseeb Drabu’s framework—grounded in grassroots realities—could mark an important starting point for restoring public faith in the reservation system. Rather than being seen as a tool of vote-bank politics, it has the potential to once again be viewed as a genuine vehicle for justice and inclusion. For policymakers, the path ahead is clear: they can either persist with a narrow, outdated calculus of caste and patronage, or begin shaping a more balanced and forward-looking model that reflects the complex social fabric of 21st-century Jammu and Kashmir.
Syed Shakeel Qalander is a social activist and an industry leader
