On July 22, as the protests against Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan gained momentum, something unusual began happening online. A new movement suddenly appeared. Reservation Hattao Andolan. At first, it barely had any followers. But on the very day that Pradhan resigned, its reach exploded. It now has millions of followers. The people behind reservation hatao andolan position themselves as ideologically opposite of those who force Pradhan's resignation. At the same time, they insist that they're not aligned to any political party. So was it simply a coincidence that an anti-reservation campaign surged just as the Modi government was facing one of its biggest political setbacks. We may never know. What we can expose is the fake narratives and flawed logic behind this mysterious new campaign. Its central argument is simple. Reservation should be based on economic status and not caste. That argument falls apart once you understand why reservations exist in the first place. Look, reservation is not a poverty elevation program. It's designed to address social exclusion. It's meant for those castes whose economic status had no impact on their social standing. It's for those individuals who could become rich entrepreneurs or powerful bureaucrats and still be denied entry into a temple or a public space. Economic success does not erase caste. Simply put, reservation is a way to include those groups in the mainstream that are identified as Shudra, Chandala, Mlechya or Avarna in the Hindu scriptures. Of course, this argument is unlikely to persuade those who deny that caste discrimination is rooted in Hindu society or those who believe caste was merely a creation of the Mughals or the British. But that isn't the argument I want to spend time on today. Instead, I want to look at a different claim, one that is repeated endlessly by anti-reservation movement, that reservations have stolen educational opportunities and government jobs from forward-cast communities. Because the evidence tells a very different story. Let me explain. Now, before I move on, here's one request. Over the last few days, as India watched a remarkable Gen Z movement unfold, we also saw how a large section of the mainstream media responded. Many chose to vilify the protesters, question their motives, and in some cases even amplify attempts to create legal trouble for them It was independent that stepped in to document what was really happening If that journalism mattered to you then this is the time to support it Spend some of your hard-earned money to protect democracy. If my work or the News Minute's reporting has helped you understand what's happening around you, then please become a News Minute subscriber or you could make a direct contribution to this show. Your support helps us remain independent and keep holding power to account. Now, as I said, I'm not going to get into the question of why reservations are necessary. That debate has resurfaced repeatedly from the Mundell protest in 1990 to the anti-OBC reservation protest in 2006. Instead, let's ask this question. Are reservations really taking away the jobs and educational opportunities of the Savarna communities? Or are reservations not even being implemented the way constitution intended? Once you look at the numbers, the answer becomes much harder to ignore. The state is supposed to ensure 16% reservation for scheduled cars, 8% for scheduled drives and 27% for the other backward classes or the OBCs. Of course, there are also far more SC, SD and OBC students in higher education, government jobs and the judiciary today compared to the time when there were no reservations. But far from meeting the required quota, there are institutions across India that deliberately violate these guidelines. Now, let's start with an institution where reservations don't exist at all. That's India's higher judiciary. If you really want to know what happens when affirmative action is absent, The courts offer a revealing answer. According to data tabled in Parliament earlier this year, nearly 80% of High Court judges appointed between 2021 and Jan 2026 belong to upper caste or so-called general category communities. These communities make up only 12% of India's total population. Scheduled caste, who are nearly one-fifth of the population, accounted for just 4% of the appointments. Scheduled tribes, who make up close to 10% of the population, were only 2.3%. OBCs, who make up more than half of India's population, accounted for just 13.5%. Now supporters of status quo often argue that reservations compromise merit. But the higher judiciary, where there are no reservations, raises a different question. If appointments are based purely on merit, why do they remain so overwhelmingly dominated by a small social group? Many scholars argue that the answer lies in the way the legal profession is structured. Entry into the higher judiciary is often shaped by family networks senior lawyers and informal patronage The few that do make it past this gatekeeping are rarely in a position to challenge the caste cartels that dominate the topmost courts. Professor Mohan Gopal, former vice chancellor of the National Law School in Bengaluru, has described this as caste oligarchy, where a handful of families continue to dominate the institution. Now, when you look at higher education, that presents another glaring example of impunity. Reservations in student admissions are largely implemented across central universities, that's your IITs and IIMs. But when it comes to faculty recruitment, implementation has been far, far weaker. Although reservations are mandatory in teaching posts, more than 80% of faculty members in many premier institutions continue to belong to the general category, large number of reserved posts remain vacant. So to sum it up, reservations have improved access to higher education and public employment over the last few decades. But that doesn't mean these students no longer face ostracisation. Every day we hear of instances of casteism in these institutions. And in many of India's influential institutions, representation still falls short of what the constitution envisioned and that's where another important question comes in. Even if representation has improved in the public sector, what about the private sector? Because unlike government jobs and public educational institutions, there is no reservation in private sector employment and that's where most new jobs in India are being created. Now the problem is that we know surprisingly little about who gets these jobs. Private companies are not required to publish the caste composition of their workforce, but the evidence we do have point in the same direction. There are studies that show that SC and ST communities are significantly less represented in the private sector than in the government employment. In state private universities, scheduled castes make up just 2.99% of faculty and scheduled tribes 1.77%. In private deemed universities, ST representation falls to just 0.45%. A parliamentary standing committee also found that SC and ST admissions in elite private institutions remain below 1% each. Employment data tells a similar story. Upper-caste groups hold a disproportionately large share of organised private sector jobs, while SC and ST communities remain underrepresented. Research also shows that the larger the company, the lower the representation of SC and ST employees. Now the Bihar Car Survey offers one of the clearest illustrations Although scheduled cars make up nearly one of the state population they account for just 0 of organized private sector jobs Scheduled tribes account for only 0.68%. But wait, the disparities don't end with just hiring. SE workers in the organized private sector earn, on an average, about 32% less than forward cars workers. Researchers estimate that hiring discrimination accounts for nearly 60% of the gap in access to private sector jobs. But discrimination isn't confined to the private sector. Even when reservations are mandatory, another practice has come under scrutiny, not found suitable, or NFS. Now, NFS allows for a selection committee to leave reserved post vacant. When? If it concludes that no candidate meets the required standard. The principle itself isn't that controversial. Reservation doesn't exempt candidates from meeting eligibility criteria. The controversy lies in how the rule is applied. Anti-caste groups have long argued that NFS is used to keep reserve posts vacant, particularly in universities. Government data shows that thousands of reserve faculty positions remain unfilled despite repeated recruitment drives. Now, that raises an obvious question. Who decides what suitable means and how transparent is that decision? One of the most influential studies on discrimination in hiring was conducted by economist Sukti Othorath and sociologist Paul Atwell. This was done in 2007. The researchers sent hundreds of identical job applications to employers. Every application listed the same qualifications and experience. The only difference was the applicant's name. Some names signalled a Dalit identity, others an upper caste Hindu or a Muslim identity. The results they found were striking. Applicants with upper caste Hindu names were significantly more likely to receive interview calls than equally qualified applicants with Dalit or Muslim names. The study doesn't suggest that every employer discriminates, but it does show that caste can influence hiring decisions even when qualifications are identical. For scholars like Torat, that's precisely why the debate over reservations cannot be limited to government jobs alone. This also exposes one of the biggest flaws in the argument against reservations. Critics often say reservation should be based only on the economic status. But poverty and caste are not the same thing. A poor upper caste student and a poor Dalit student may both struggle financially. But only one belongs to a community that has faced generations of exclusion from education, public institutions,
