Open Merit, Closed Doors

The reservation system in Jammu and Kashmir, like the rest of India, was initially conceived with the noble cause of rectifying historical injustices to ensure social and educational upliftment of marginalised communities. Its architects envisioned it as a bridge towards optimal representation in the race for opportunity. The objective was simple—a fair level ground for the SCs, STs, and OBCs in education, jobs, and social representation. The idea was plain and profound: equality carried on the shoulders of adequate opportunity.

However, what was once introduced to fight against discrimination has now evolved into one of its most potent instruments. Reservation has steadily convoluted into a merit-eating monster, devouring the very foundation it was built upon. It raises a serious question: Is reservation still about justice? Or an appeasement tool for vote-bank politics?

The current JKAS exam is a stark illustration of this conundrum, where 36 out of 90 vacancies fall under the ambiguous umbrella of ‘open merit,’ paradoxically up for grabs for the reserved category candidates who score higher, while their reserved seat gets passed down to the next in line—bagging two bites of the same pie! One comes from the quota, while the other comes from the “wide” open merit. Is it really equality? Or arithmetic injustice painted as inclusivity?

Complicating matters further, subcategories of reservation in ST 1 and ST 2 have emerged, while OBC and RBA run in parallel. What does this deepening of reservation signify? Is it an open admission of the failure of successive governments in reducing disparities between different sections of society even after nearly a century of independence? Are we more concerned with ‘managing’ inequality than correcting it? The world’s longest-running affirmative policy—with no sunset clause, in its 79th year and counting—suggests the same.

Meanwhile, Open Merit, once the sanctuary of meritocracy, now barely breathes justice. Amounting to a mere 40 percent in the current JKAS exam, it remains a pseudo-reservation, screaming to be called “merit open to vulnerability and exploitability.”

Once a lifeline for the marginalized, reservation now risks shapeshifting into a legacy of privilege, where even the offspring of top IAS or IPS and other Group A officials belonging to the reserved category continue to reap the benefits of its loopholes. From ‘affirmative action’ to ‘entitlement by inheritance’?

It is high time we confront both the dilution of intent and the repercussions of its execution. The once moral cause of reservation has devolved into transactional politics, serving selective outcomes. The essence of equality has succumbed to the greed of vote-bank politics. The government’s pursuit of uplifting the far-flung comes at the cost of crushing the ones at the centre of it all—the strugglers with no label of ‘backwardness’ to protect them.

And as the reservation system buckles under its own contradictions, the political theatrics kick in. The current state government, in their pre-election manifesto, boasting of “Dignity, Identity and Development,” under its section “WE FURTHER PROMISE” (page 22) promised “The reservation policy will be reviewed and any injustice and imbalance will be corrected.” This was of course before votes were cast and power was secured. Since then, dignity has disappeared, identity is selectively invoked, and development seems to be reserved.

Unsurprisingly, the disparity between what was promised and what was provided was quickly exposed. In December 2024, Aga Roohullah, MP of the ruling party, unexpectedly rallied against the reservation system his own party upholds, rattling the foundation of the government. Forced into damage-control by public outrage and predatory opposition, the Chief Minister publicly acknowledged the unrest and announced the formation of a sub-committee to review the policy.

By March 2025, the committee had a six-month deadline to submit its recommendations. Justice, long overdue, seemed finally on the clock.

Yet, in a baffling display of political somersaulting, the same government submitted an affidavit to the High Court, defending the reservation policy it had previously pledged to review and reform. So then, what rationale remains for the sub-committee, when the very policy it was meant to review is already being staunchly upheld?

Nevertheless, a complete overhaul is required, one where reservation is guided by ‘need,’ not nomenclature. The way forward lies not in discarding affirmative action, but in redefining it: A framework that assesses present socio-economic disadvantages, not “ancestral.” This shift is crucial because remedy cannot transform into reward, and while losing direction in governance is forgivable; losing dignity is not.

The author is a Civil Engineering Graduate and holds a Masters in Sociology.