Education can’t be the fiefdom of social elites

The entry of Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi (DBA) students into the citadels of higher education is now a reality. Many of them are the first in their families to attend university. Due to their historically marginalised social status and modest economic conditions, they often lack the ‘social capital and professional networks’ required to navigate academic institutions as robust participants. Their social-elite counterparts, shaped by entrenched prejudices, frequently hesitate to acknowledge them as equals. The exclusions operate at multiple levels, ranging from subtle aggressions like a student changing hostel rooms to avoid a Dalit roommate or a professor giving minimum marks to a DBA student in viva voce exams to structural failures such as the deliberate non-fulfilment of reserved quotas in admissions, faculty recruitment and administrative positions. This friction can manifest itself as humiliation, physical violence and, in extreme cases, ‘institutional murders’ disguised as suicides.

Since the tragic deaths of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, civil society groups and political organisations have consistently demanded a substantive constitutional mechanism to protect the rights, dignity, and careers of DBA students. This is because higher education institutes still lack internal mechanisms to address compartmentalised caste relationships and their toxic effect on campus life.

Friction Point
Against this backdrop, the University Grants Commission’s proposed Equity Regulations Bill —replacing the 2012 framework—appeared to be a significant and democratic step toward substantive justice. However, these regulations have faced sporadic protests from some social elite groups who argue that they will exacerbate caste divisions and may be misused to file false complaints against general category students. Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, has been a particular point of contention.

Such opposition is not new. Similar anxieties were expressed during attempts by the state to expand reservation for OBCs in central govt jobs in 1990 and admissions to higher education institutes in 2006. In both instances, the higher judiciary safeguarded these provisions and legitimised the role of the state to formulate such measures for the inclusive welfare of the marginalised. However, in the present case, the Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi have put UGC’s equity measures in abeyance, calling them “vague” and “too sweeping”. Ironically, it was the SC that had previously directed the Union govt to create a ‘very strong and robust mechanism’ to tackle caste discrimination. Multiple reports, including those by Sukhadeo Thorat (2007) and Bhalchandra Mungekar (2012), have established that premier institutions like the AIIMS, IITs, IIMs, and JNU practise subtle forms of exclusion, restricting the academic and professional progress of DBA students.

Elite Backlash
Those opposed to these regulations argue that the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is sufficient to deal with such issues. While the Act is a powerful tool, it is ill-equipped to handle the nuances of institutional negligence, prejudice-based social discrimination and other biases that DBA members in academic spaces routinely encounter. Further, OBC students also face subtle and strategic forms of discrimination which may not come under the purview of the Atrocity Act. It is precisely to address these institutional gaps that the UGC equity regulations were proposed. Resistance to these reforms, however, suggests an unwillingness to acknowledge the structural nature of caste discrimination or to engage in meaningful reconciliation.

Towards Reform
While reservation policies have facilitated the entry of DBA students in universities, they cannot dismantle entrenched social prejudices. Attempts to increase the participation of DBA members in institutions or safeguard their constitutional rights are routinely described as a threat to meritocracy and ‘national unity’. Such narratives risk normalising discrimination and belittling the movement for social justice.
Universities are not merely centres of learning but also spaces for social transformation. Ensuring substantive social inclusivity, therefore, is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative. The UGC regulation is a corrective reconciliation and a substantive policy reform, showcasing govt’s greater accountability towards the social justice agenda. Without such protective measures, the citadel of education will remain under the fiefdom of social elites.

END OF ARTICLE