Rekha Boyapalli

Indianeeds a more intelligent affirmative-action architecture: preserve protection against discrimination but deliberately widen first access to families and communities still waiting for opportunity. India’s affirmative-action journey predates the Republic. In 1902, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur reserved 50 per cent of government posts for backward classes, recognising that formal equality meant little when entire communities lacked access to education, administration and power. After Independence, B R Ambedkar and the Constitution gave this principle a durable democratic framework: equality sometimes requires corrective measures where history has produced structural exclusion.

Reservation is not a poverty scheme:

Reservation should not be confused with poverty alleviation. Its central purpose is social inclusion, representation and protection against entrenched discrimination. A family may gain education or a government job and still encounter caste identity in workplaces, housing, social networks and marriage. One successful generation therefore cannot automatically be treated as proof that discrimination has disappeared.

Who is still waiting?

At the same time, supporters of reservation must confront an uncomfortable question: are the benefits circulating widely enough within eligible groups? Families that have already acquired education, information and networks can often compete more effectively, while a first-generation student from a deprived family may never reach the starting line. The answer is neither to stigmatise repeat beneficiaries nor to abolish reservation. It is to improve its distribution.

A first-opportunity window:

A pragmatic reform would create a “first opportunity” window within the existing reservation categories. Around 25–35 per cent of opportunities could be prioritised for first-time or first-generation beneficiary families. If adequate candidates are unavailable, those opportunities should flow back to the wider parent category rather than remain vacant. Previous beneficiaries would not suddenly lose all protection; instead, the system would ensure that a meaningful share reaches families that have never received its benefits.

Apply deprivation measures across categories:

The same logic can travel upward across the opportunity structure. Rural or remote schooling, low family income and assets, parental education, first-generation graduate status and poor access to quality schools can disadvantage candidates even outside caste-reserved categories. These factors should supplement—not replace—caste-based safeguards. A transparent opportunity or deprivation index could operate horizontally across categories, because a wealthy rural household and a poor urban household cannot sensibly be treated as identical simply by geography.

Political representation also needs circulation:

The principle should also inform political representation. Within constitutionally reserved political opportunities, India should debate mechanisms that encourage first-generation political entrants and sections that remain under-represented, rather than allowing representation to become concentrated in a small set of political families or networks. A 25–30 per cent first-opportunity principle deserves serious study here too, although any such mechanism would require careful constitutional and legislative design.

Beyond endless sub-caste fragmentation:

The Supreme Court’s 2024 Davinder Singh decision opened constitutional space for sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs). That can help governments address unequal access, but India should be cautious about answering every inequality by permanently multiplying caste compartments. Policy should increasingly ask measurable questions: Who has received opportunities? Who remains excluded? Which families are first-generation entrants? Where is representation still weakest? The goal should be circulation of opportunity, not permanent social fragmentation.

Reform is better than ‘reservation hatao’:

The August anti-reservation mobilisation around Jantar Mantar reflects genuine public dissatisfaction, including demands for greater attention to economic disadvantage. Such concerns deserve democratic debate. But abolishing caste-based affirmative action because its benefits may be unevenly distributed would confuse a problem of design with a failure of purpose. The answer to imperfect affirmative action is better affirmative action.

Make reservation less necessary:

The ultimate success of reservation should be measured by whether society gradually needs less of it. That requires far more than quota engineering. India must equalise school quality, enforce anti-discrimination norms in employment and housing, weaken caste barriers in marriage and social networks, and reduce unnecessary caste signalling in routine public life—while retaining caste data where needed to measure exclusion and enforce rights. A mature policy should neither romanticise reservation nor demonise its beneficiaries. It should keep opening doors until birth no longer determines opportunity.

(The writer is Vice-President of Telangana Pradesh Mahila Congress)