There is a considerable distance between possessing a right and being able to exercise it. A constitutional provision may establish an entitlement, a government order may prescribe a procedure, and an institution may announce its commitment to equality. Yet, for the individual standing outside its gates, the decisive question remains: will these promises make a difference to my life?
I often return to this question when discussions about reservation and social justice become heated. As a teacher at the University of Delhi, and as someone whose roots lie in a village near the Abujhmarh region, I encounter these issues through both academic debate and lived proximity to tribal society. My own community is non-tribal, but generations of association with the Madiya people have shaped my understanding of their world. That proximity does not authorise me to speak for every tribal person. It does, however, make it difficult to view their aspirations as an abstract policy question.
The debate surrounding the University Grants Commission’s equity regulations has brought these concerns into sharper focus. Behind arguments about definitions, institutional authority and possible misuse lies a larger question: how far has our society travelled towards making equal citizenship a practical reality?
My answer is that we have travelled a meaningful distance, but the journey remains unfinished.
Progress and its uneven reach
The achievements of independent Bharat deserve recognition. Education and affirmative action have opened opportunities that earlier generations could scarcely imagine. The emergence of teachers, administrators, professionals and public representatives from historically disadvantaged communities is an important achievement of our constitutional democracy.
But the success of some individuals cannot become the measure of an entire community’s circumstances. A family’s first graduate may represent extraordinary progress while neighbouring families remain far from completing school. A tribal scholar appointed to a university does not demonstrate that every student from a remote settlement now competes under comparable conditions.
Official figures illustrate this unevenness. According to the Ministry of Education’s AISHE 2021–22 findings, the higher education Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Tribes rose from 13.5 in 2014–15 to 21.2 in 2021–22. This improvement deserves appreciation. Yet the overall ratio stood at 28.4, leaving a substantial gap. The figures establish neither the cause of every disadvantage nor the experience of every student. They nevertheless challenge the assumption that educational equality has already been achieved.
The public debate often moves too quickly from acknowledging progress to questioning the continued need for support. I find this troubling. If measures intended to expand opportunity have helped people advance, their success should encourage a careful assessment of what remains to be done. It should not automatically become an argument for withdrawing them.
What a student carries into the classroom
Teachers know that students arrive with different preparations, resources and expectations. Some have attended well-equipped schools, received private coaching and grown up in households familiar with university life. Others have negotiated interrupted schooling, financial uncertainty and the absence of anyone who could guide them through an application form.
For a student from a remote tribal settlement, the university may involve several transitions at once: geographical, linguistic, academic and social. A language spoken confidently at home may find little space in the classroom. A student accustomed to a different educational environment may hesitate to ask a question, even when the capacity to understand is present.
Such hesitation can easily be mistaken for lack of ability. Silence can become an informal judgment about merit.
I believe teachers must be alert to this possibility without assuming that every tribal student has the same needs. Communities are internally diverse, and individuals possess different strengths. What matters is whether an institution can identify a student’s actual difficulties and respond constructively.
Admission, therefore, is only the beginning. A delayed scholarship, unaffordable accommodation or lack of academic guidance can undermine an opportunity already secured. Equality must be examined throughout the educational journey, including the ability to remain, succeed and progress.
The constitutional understanding of equality
Our Constitution anticipated that equal treatment alone would not erase inherited disadvantage. Articles 15(4) and 15(5) enable special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(4) provides a constitutional basis for reservation in public employment for backward classes inadequately represented in state services.
Article 46 places a further responsibility upon the State: promoting the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and protecting them from social injustice and exploitation. As a Directive Principle, it guides public policy rather than functioning in the same manner as an individually enforceable fundamental right. Together, these provisions demonstrate that the constitutional understanding of equality includes purposeful efforts to address disadvantage.
I regard affirmative action within this framework. It requires competent implementation, scrutiny and periodic assessment. Its benefits must reach those for whom they are intended. However, the discussion should begin with the circumstances that made such measures necessary, rather than with impatience towards their beneficiaries.
Param Pujaniya Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan Bhagwat ji has stressed sensitivity in approaching this subject. The RSS’s official account of his August 2025 interaction reiterated his support for constitutionally valid reservation and his assurance of standing with beneficiaries for as long as they felt its need. I find the emphasis on listening particularly significant. Those who experience disadvantage must have a meaningful place in discussions about whether it has ended.
Rights beyond the university
My association with Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram has reinforced my belief that tribal development and the protection of rights belong together. Education, livelihoods, community institutions and dignity influence one another.
A household facing insecurity over its livelihood may struggle to sustain a child’s education. A community with little effective influence over local decisions may find its priorities repeatedly overlooked. These connections explain why laws concerning self-governance and forest rights matter within a broader discussion of opportunity.
The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, commonly known as PESA, provides safeguards for local governance in Scheduled Areas. The Forest Rights Act, 2006, recognises specified individual and community forest rights of eligible forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Their practical effectiveness matters deeply to community security and participation.
Kalyan Ashram’s September 2015 resolution called for effective implementation of PESA, restoration of powers intended for Gram Sabhas and coordinated implementation of PESA and the Forest Rights Act. This documented position reflects an understanding that development requires communities to exercise rights, rather than merely receive assistance.
For me, the principle extends naturally to education. Tribal youth must be able to participate in institutions that shape knowledge, policy and public life.
An administrative decision with social consequences
The controversy over the 13-point faculty reservation roster offered a revealing example of how procedure affects opportunity. To someone unfamiliar with university recruitment, the difference between a department-based roster and a university-based roster might appear technical. For communities seeking representation, the choice of unit was consequential.
Kalyan Ashram’s public record documents a delegation to the Union Home Minister in February 2019 seeking an ordinance on this issue. Parliament subsequently passed legislation restoring the university or college as the reservation unit in covered Central Educational Institutions, replacing the department or subject as the unit and restoring the earlier system based on the 200-point roster.
The episode strengthened my conviction that policies must be judged through their operation. A commitment expressed in an advertisement can lose much of its meaning if the procedure governing appointments does not provide effective opportunities.
This is why attention to apparently technical matters is indispensable. The structure of a roster, the treatment of vacancies and the criteria used in assessment can shape careers and representation over many years.
Understanding the UGC debate
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on 13 January 2026, sought to establish institutional arrangements against discrimination, including Equal Opportunity Centres, complaint procedures and appeals.
A major point of contention concerned their definitions. The specific definition of caste-based discrimination referred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, while the broader definition of discrimination extended more generally to stakeholders. The relationship between these provisions became central to the controversy.
On 29 January 2026, the Supreme Court directed that the regulations be kept in abeyance and that the 2012 equity regulations continue until further orders. The Court identified ambiguities and questions requiring detailed examination. Its intervention was an interim order, not a final determination of constitutional validity. In August, the Centre informed the Court that the regulations were being reconsidered.
I believe this legal context requires a considered response. Supporting protection against discrimination does not oblige us to defend every formulation in a regulation. Equally, identifying weaknesses in a formulation does not establish that institutional safeguards are unnecessary.
We should seek a clear, fair and effective framework. Every person deserves protection from discrimination, while the framework must remain attentive to the particular disadvantages experienced by historically marginalised communities.
The question of misuse
Concerns about misuse should be examined when evidence supports them. No responsible institution should disregard deliberately fabricated allegations. Yet allegations against individuals cannot justify suspicion towards an entire community.
A fair complaint mechanism must protect both the complainant and the respondent. It should provide confidentiality, impartial inquiry, an opportunity to answer allegations, reasoned findings and an effective appeal. Protection from retaliation is equally necessary if people are to report wrongdoing without fear.
An unsubstantiated complaint is not automatically a malicious one. Evidence may be insufficient, unavailable or difficult to establish. Deliberate falsification requires its own fair determination.
Conversely, an adverse academic judgment or an ordinary disagreement should not automatically be treated as discrimination. Context and evidence matter. Clear procedures can help distinguish these situations while preserving confidence in the institution.
I see fairness as essential to the durability of protective measures. People are more likely to trust safeguards when they know that complaints will be taken seriously and decisions reached impartially.
When “unsuitable” needs an explanation
Faculty recruitment presents another challenge. Universities need professional discretion to assess candidates. Minimum eligibility cannot, by itself, guarantee appointment. Nevertheless, discretion should be exercised through criteria that are consistent, recorded and open to appropriate review.
Official figures presented to Parliament showed that, as on 30 June 2025, Central Universities had 704 sanctioned Scheduled Tribe Assistant Professor posts, of which 595 were filled. At Professor level, 24 of 144 sanctioned ST posts were filled. The same response stated that figures for candidates declared “Not Found Suitable”, or NFS, were not maintained centrally.
These numbers require examination. They do not establish that every vacancy resulted from discrimination, nor do they explain every recruitment outcome. But they make it reasonable to ask whether institutions adequately understand the barriers to representation.
Where eligible candidates repeatedly appear before committees and reserved posts repeatedly remain vacant, a recorded explanation becomes important. Published assessment criteria, documented evaluations, category-wise recruitment information and scrutiny of recurring NFS outcomes would strengthen accountability.
Academic excellence benefits from credible selection. Qualified candidates should know that their work will receive fair consideration, and institutions should be able to explain how they reached their decisions.
The responsibility that remains
As a teacher, I believe our responsibility includes examining the judgments we make about students and colleagues. Accent, confidence, social familiarity or access to influential networks should not become substitutes for assessing knowledge and potential.
As someone concerned with tribal advancement, I also believe we must listen carefully. Communities need opportunities to articulate their priorities, assess institutional performance and participate in policy decisions. Their dignity requires recognition of their agency.
Affirmative action should be accompanied by scholarships delivered on time, affordable accommodation, mentoring, language assistance and transparent recruitment. Each addresses a different stage at which an opportunity can become inaccessible.
The debate should ultimately bring us closer to institutions worthy of public trust. We need safeguards strong enough to confront injustice, procedures fair enough to protect everyone and evidence reliable enough to guide improvement.
I remain convinced that withdrawing protections prematurely would disregard the distance many people still have to travel. Our task is to reduce that distance through sustained and accountable work.
A constitutional right acquires its fullest meaning when the person entitled to it can exercise it with confidence. For the tribal student entering a university, the scholar seeking an appointment and the community seeking a voice in its future, that confidence remains a measure of how well we have fulfilled our democratic promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment