THE GREAT INDIAN DEBATE — DAY 16 Did Mandal destroy meritocracy or expose its myth?
THE STAKES In June 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the 27% OBC quota in NEET admissions, reigniting the debate over reservations and merit. The case wasn’t just about medical seats—it was about whether India’s affirmative action policies correct historical injustice or distort a system that should reward talent alone. With the 2024 Lok Sabha elections seeing the BJP and opposition parties clash over caste census data, the question of who "deserves" opportunity has never been more urgent. At stake is not just access to education and jobs, but the very idea of fairness in a country where birth still determines destiny for millions.
THE ARGUMENT FOR: Mandal exposed the myth of meritocracy Those who argue that Mandal exposed meritocracy’s myth point to a simple truth: India’s so-called "merit" has always been rigged in favor of the privileged. Before 1990, when V.P. Singh’s government implemented the Mandal Commission’s recommendations for OBC reservations in government jobs, the upper castes—who make up less than 20% of the population—held over 60% of Class I government posts. The 1980 Mandal report itself documented how caste discrimination had systematically excluded OBCs from education and employment for centuries.
Proponents of Mandal argue that "merit" is not a neutral, objective standard but a social construct shaped by access to resources. A 2018 study by the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies found that upper-caste students in elite institutions had significantly higher family incomes, better schooling, and access to private coaching—factors that have little to do with innate ability. Reservations, they say, don’t undermine merit; they level a playing field that was never level to begin with.
Constitutionally, too, the case is strong. The framers of the Indian Constitution, including B.R. Ambedkar, saw reservations as a temporary but necessary corrective to centuries of oppression. Article 16(4) explicitly allows the state to make provisions for "backward classes" who are "not adequately represented." If meritocracy were truly the goal, critics ask, why did the same system that produced it also produce generations of upper-caste dominance? Mandal didn’t destroy meritocracy—it revealed that it was always a facade.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST: Mandal destroyed meritocracy Opponents of Mandal argue that reservations, while well-intentioned, have eroded the principle of merit in India’s institutions. They point to data showing that in some states, reserved category candidates with significantly lower scores are admitted to prestigious institutions like IITs and AIIMS, while general category students with higher marks are left out. A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that in IITs, reserved category students had, on average, 10-15% lower entrance exam scores than their general category peers.
Critics also argue that Mandal’s implementation was flawed from the start. The Mandal Commission’s definition of "backwardness" was based on caste rather than economic status, leading to absurdities like wealthy OBC families benefiting from reservations while poor upper-caste students are excluded. The Supreme Court’s 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment capped reservations at 50%, but states like Tamil Nadu have since breached this limit, with some institutions reserving up to 69% of seats.
The most damning critique is that Mandal has created a system where caste, not ability, determines outcomes. In 2023, the Supreme Court itself noted that reservations should not become "a vested interest" and called for a review of their continued necessity. If meritocracy means rewarding talent and hard work, opponents say, then Mandal has indeed undermined it—by making caste, not competence, the primary criterion for opportunity.
THE HIDDEN DIMENSION: The unspoken class divide within caste Most debates about Mandal focus on caste, but the real elephant in the room is class. Reservations were designed to uplift the most marginalized, but over time, they have disproportionately benefited the relatively privileged within backward communities. A 2021 study by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) found that 63% of OBC reservations in central government jobs were cornered by just 10% of the most affluent OBC sub-castes. Meanwhile, the poorest OBCs, Dalits, and Adivasis—those who need reservations the most—remain underrepresented.
This class divide within caste complicates the meritocracy debate. If reservations are meant to correct historical injustice, why are the benefits flowing to those who are already upwardly mobile? The answer lies in the way India’s reservation system is structured: it rewards access to education and networks, which are easier for the relatively well-off to obtain. The result is a perverse outcome where reservations, intended to uplift the poorest, often end up reinforcing existing hierarchies within marginalized communities.
WHERE INDIANS STAND Public opinion on Mandal is deeply divided. A 2019 India Today Mood of the Nation poll found that 48% of respondents supported caste-based reservations, while 45% opposed them. However, support varies sharply by caste: 62% of OBCs and 78% of Dalits favored reservations, compared to just 28% of upper castes. The 2024 Lok Sabha elections saw the BJP and opposition parties clash over the demand for a caste census, with the INDIA alliance pushing for it and the BJP resisting, reflecting the political sensitivity of the issue.
YOUR VIEW If reservations were designed to uplift the poorest, why do the most privileged within backward communities benefit the most? What does that say about the system’s original intent?
This newsletter aims to clarify genuine arguments on complex issues. It does not endorse any political position or party.