“Merit is a completely flawed concept. The very notion of merit itself is an unfair idea,” declares Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi, dismissing its importance with little regard. Hardly surprising, considering he himself is a product of dynasty, not merit. He surely knows where he would have landed had his position been based on merit alone. He claims to champion a caste census in the name of social justice, pledges to scrap the 50% reservation cap, pushing for even more ridiculously high reservation. But does such rhetoric hold any weight when it comes from someone whose only qualification for the positions, he enjoys is his last name and his birth into a particular family? Probably not—unless, of course, there’s a larger agenda at play.
His stance reflects the direct influence of institutions like Harvard, where scholars such as Ajantha Subramanian have been at the forefront of attacking India’s premier institutions, including the IITs. These scholars accuse these premier institutions of promoting “Brahmanical superiority” and argue that the so-called upper caste dominance is masked under the guise of merit, pitching a case for more reservations. Meanwhile, widespread protests in Jammu & Kashmir highlight growing discontent over increased reservations, arguing that they undermine merit and encourage mediocrity.
This moment offers an opportunity to openly discuss a topic long deemed too sensitive to debate : Reservations and the concept of social justice. Let’s break down the issue step by step to better understand its complexities and explore the way forward.
A precursor to the Discourse
It is crucial to understand the narrative on which the concept of social justice is built and seek relevant answers to the following questions:
- The Left portrays society as inherently oppressive, while the colonial narrative presents the State as savior of the oppressed, when in fact the State has been the main oppressor. Given this, how does the State shape society’s destiny? If its role is significant, how did Hindu society fare under different regimes—the Hindu State, Islamic aggression, and British colonialism?
- The current discourse follows the state’s social segregation into forward-backward castes. But who defines these classifications, and on what basis? More importantly, do our social concepts support such hierarchical distinctions? If not, who introduced them, and what is their applicability??
- The basic premise on which the prevailing narrative is built is that society is inherently oppressive and exploitative. To support this, selective excerpts from texts are often cited to fit the narrative. Texts are not properly read but are frequently misquoted to reinforce a pre-conceived premise. Even so, how much did our society’s lived reality truly reflect these out-of-context references?
- What lens does the current narrative provide for interpreting our past? Do we understand our social reality from an insider’s perspective, or are we seeing it through an external, imposed viewpoint?
By addressing these questions, we can gain deeper insight into the present narrative, the policies it influences, their consequences, and the way forward.
Examining the Current Narrative
The current narrative suggests that a minority within Hindu society has historically exploited the majority in the name of caste. This idea is largely borrowed from European history, where an elite minority—the King, the Church, and the Landlords—oppressed the peasants, exploiting them fully. However, applying this European framework to Hindu society is a flawed extrapolation, and lacks direct evidence.
In Europe, the hierarchy was clear: peasants were systematically exploited and dehumanized by the ruling classes. In India, however, the narrative presents a contradiction. On one hand, it claims that Shudras were oppressed by the rest of Hindu society; on the other, it asserts that Hindus as a whole oppressed Muslims. How can a group be both oppressor and oppressed at the same time? This dual role as both oppressors and oppressed is logically inconsistent.
More significantly, the 1931 Census— the foundation for current discussions on backwardness—shows that the so-called oppressed were a small minority, not exceeding 20% of the population. How, then, did this minority transform into an overwhelming majority, allegedly oppressed by a small minority for most parts of history, which is both illogical and counter factual. This contradiction raises serious questions about the narrative of systemic oppression.
The latest construct, the “Bhim-Meem” narrative falsely constructs an artificial solidarity between Dalits and Muslims, portraying both as victims of so-called upper castes. This is not only false but also treasonous – it attempts a consolidation of Hindu hating and thus India hating tendencies. History shows that Muslim rulers were often the oppressors, while Dalits were the worst victims of Islamic aggression. Bundling both the oppressor and the oppressed into a single victim category distorts reality of the past as well as present.
Furthermore, history records that Muslims always aligned with foreign powers—whether the Persians against the Rajputs and Marathas, or the British in the 19th century or subsequently the Arab Wahabi and other such trans-national treasonous alliances. In contrast, the much-maligned Brahmins and other so-called upper castes were at the forefront of India’s resistance against colonial rule. There is no greater distortion than labeling those who fought for the nation as oppressors while portraying those who sided with enemies as victims.
Secondly, the malafide intention in the current narrative is evident. Historical data clearly shows that Indian society suffered immensely during Islamic and British period. Yet, this narrative reframes these periods as “Islamic rule” and “British rule” while labeling the prosperous Hindu era as “Brahmanical oppression”, thereby attempting to mainstream an explicit anti-Indian and anti-Hindu policymaking.
Thirdly, A lack of representation of certain communities in specific professions is often cited as proof of systemic inequality. However, this argument is based on the flawed assumption that every group aspires to every profession equally. Just as individuals have inclinations toward certain fields, communities, too, gravitate toward particular vocations. Even today, with all professions open to all, some groups continue to demonstrate more propensity towards certain fields like Vedic learning, military service, farming, metal work etc or business.
Finally, the colonial narrative portrays society as inherently oppressive and the state as its savior, whereas reality is the exact opposite – it is the Islamic, British and later proxy colonial state which has been the oppressor of society and society has been the victim of state driven oppression. It ignores the role of repeated foreign invasions and British colonial policies—especially “divide and rule”—in deepening social divides. In reality, all sections of Indian society suffered under foreign aggression. Brahmins were displaced from knowledge-based roles. Learning systems have been destroyed and replaced with colonial “education” system. India was extensively demilitarized under British, making Kshatriyas irrelevant. Vaishyas saw their trade destroyed, and several sudra groups lost their vocations. All four varnas were essentially reduced to servile activities.
Examining the Source of the Narrative
As the above narrative seeped into modern policymaking, a critical question emerges: how does the Indian state assess a group’s backwardness? Astonishingly, it relies on the 1931 caste census, a tool crafted by the British to fracture Indian society and bolster their rule. Though the colonial agenda behind this census is evident, why has independent India clung to it as the foundation for its policies? Could Indian state not apply Indian worldview, or did it consider our worldview morally inferior?
A Thought Experiment: A Simple Economic Indicator
Consider this timeline:
- For nearly 1,800 years (1 CE – 1820 CE), India was the world’s largest or second-largest economy.
- Under Mughal rule, India’s economy declined slightly but rebounded under the Marathas.
- From 1820 to 1947, under British rule, India plunged from a global economic powerhouse to one of the world’s poorest nations.
- Post-independence (1947 to 2025), India has risen again, becoming the world’s fifth-largest economy.
What does this simple fact tell us? Clearly, India thrived before colonial rule and suffered under British exploitation. Let’s explore additional compelling data points.
Indian economic glory till 1820 is well documented. People like RC Dutta, Lala Lajpat Rai or recent research by western scholars like Angus Madison establish the fact that For nearly 1,800 years until 1820, India reigned as the world’s top economy. For centuries, it ranked among the top two economies, contributing one-third of the world’s GDP at its peak. The 1820s Madras Presidency reports reveal a sophisticated educational system surpassing England’s literacy rates, thriving agriculture, robust industries, and near-zero unemployment. The decadal censuses conducted between 1871 and 1911 provide further evidence of social fluidity and harmony among castes. During this period, inter-caste mobility was common, with many social groups striving for upward movement based on economic and social factors. Remarkably, even after the British rigidified caste hierarchies, numerous groups petitioned for recognition as higher social strata, reflecting an innate drive for upward mobility.
In stark contrast, the 1931 census painted a grim picture of India’s social and economic conditions. It focused heavily on caste representation in government jobs and emphasized issues like untouchability and restricted access to temples, portraying Indian society negatively while obscuring the devastation wrought by British rule. The context exposes its bias: no widespread demand existed for caste-based job quotas or separate electorates. Indians instead lamented the British devastation of traditional livelihoods, which plunged them into poverty.
Despite compelling evidence highlighting India’s historical prosperity and social cohesion, the 1931 caste census endures as the cornerstone of policy. Why? It conveniently aligns with political agendas that thrive on depicting Indian society as irredeemably flawed, overshadowing a legacy of resilience and harmony that refuses to be erased.
But how could British successfully erase such a strong legacy and plant a treasonous narrative in Indian mind?
Deceptive Conflation with social status
The British deliberately manufactured social evils that had no place in India’s lived reality. Early in their rule, they recognized the strength of India’s social groups—what they called “caste”—and falsely linked it to untouchability. In reality, untouchability was not a feature of the caste system but a result of its feudalization and the struggle for wealth and power. The British cunningly bundled unrelated practices under the label of untouchability to distort history and linked it to caste.
It was they who introduced feudalism to India, yet they deflected blame by portraying caste and untouchability as inseparable. This deception led people to believe that eradicating caste was the only way to end untouchability, when the true solution lay in dismantling feudal structures and restoring India’s traditional social order.
Following the British playbook, the Indian Left fabricated atrocity literature to depict Hindu society as oppressive and exploitative. Rather than studying the texts, they misquoted and distorted them to push a false narrative. They deliberately misread these texts as normative, interpreted expiation as a penal code, and selectively highlighted passages out of context to reinforce their oppression narrative.
Jesuits and Communists conveniently omitted empowering verses and the highest ideals, crafting atrocity literature that continues to fuel division today. Neither communists nor Jesuits have ever treated this society as theirs and as a result remain outsiders. An outsider’s perspective always breeds conflict, while an insider’s understanding—rooted in both the texts and lived reality—fosters harmony.
A common method of distorting true narrative is to selectively highlight incidents from certain personalities’ lives in the past while ignoring context, using them to vilify society. Two frequently cited examples are Karna’s life and Shivaji’s coronation. Karna is portrayed as a victim of the caste system, while Shivaji’s coronation is framed as proof of the so-called “upper castes’” reluctance to accept him as king.
In reality, Karna’s caste was never an obstacle to his success. He received strong support from the very society that is now unjustly vilified, allowing him to showcase his talent and enabled his rise. Similarly, objections to Shivaji’s coronation were distinct from his acceptance as king. Those who raised concerns about the coronation had already acknowledged, respected, and even guided him as their ruler. His birth origins were never a barrier to his kingship, and society as a whole stood firmly behind him.
Yet, these incidents are repeatedly misrepresented to depict Indian society as caste oppressive. By endlessly repeating this falsehood, they have succeeded in making people believe in caste-based discrimination where none existed.
Another misleading narrative is that certain groups living outside villages were victims of discrimination. Indian society was not divided simply because different groups lived in separate spaces within villages. In reality, such settlements included people from all sections of society. There was a dedicated space for everyone to live. There were no grievances about this arrangement. This reflects a structured and harmonious way of life, not discrimination.
Islam, primarily an urban civilization, created a demand for menial labor and forcibly assigned people to such roles. Before Muslim invasions, mass scavenging did not exist in India—this system was imposed, as documented by K.S. Lal in Growth of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Medieval India. Similarly, the British disrupted India’s social fabric by enforcing an urban-rural divide, fostering competition. People were forced to live in shared spaces. This resulted in the creation of slums in urban set ups. Thus, it was the British who created slums in India. Yet, they misrepresented India’s traditional village-based coexistence as caste discrimination, instilling a misplaced sense of guilt in society.
Similarly, the claim that some groups were never allowed to pursue specific professions is based on selective misinterpretations of scripture. History shows no instance where a willing group was systematically denied a vocation. In fact, powerful post-Mahabharata kingdoms such as Magadha and Vijayanagara were ruled by kings of Shudra lineage, who were respected just as any other rulers. What better evidence exists of social harmony and inclusivity? Unfortunately, these realities have been erased from dominant narratives, replaced with divisive distortions.
Re-evaluating Social Justice Measures
A rational system demands periodic review and course correction to ensure its policies remain effective. However, today’s discourse discourages any scrutiny of policies built on selective data and misleading narratives. It is time for an honest assessment of where we stand today.
Rising backwardness is antithesis to economic progress
At the time of independence in 1947, India was struggling with severe poverty and had little economic significance at world stage. Over the past 75 years, it has made remarkable economic progress, become the world’s fifth-largest economy and poised to reach third place within five years. Yet, during the same period, the proportion of people classified as “backward” has risen from about 23% in 1950 to nearly 70%. This presents a contradiction—How can a nation grow into a strong economy when the backward groups do not thin down but expand from a fourth to three fourth of society? It Clearly demonstrates that there is something wrong with the present backwardness metrics. Many who have achieved socio-economic progress continue to claim backward status, a trend that warrants serious discussion and reassessment.
Incentivizing Backwardness
The claimed goal of reservations was to uplift socially and economically disadvantaged groups, integrating them with the rest of society. Yet, in 75 years, not a single community has been removed from the SC/ST category or stripped of reservation benefits. Is this not a clear failure of the policy?
In contrast, in 1950, around 1,100 castes were classified as backward. Today, that number has multiplied several times. Does this mean more people have actually become backward? No—it reflects a system that incentivizes backward status to the point where many take pride in backwardness tag rather than striving to move beyond it.
Eroding survival fitness of the groups
The Supreme Court of India recently cautioned that reckless freebies and welfare schemes risk turning large sections of society into parasites. The same applies to certain social justice policies. When benefits are provided indefinitely without encouraging effort or self-improvement and any accountability, they erode motivation and competitiveness. Over time, they weaken resilience, adaptability, and survival skills, leaving individuals unprepared for an ever-changing world.
A revealing statistic highlights this decline in survival fitness. In 1931, even by the British administration’s biased estimates, only about 30% of the population was classified as “backward,” while 70% were independent and self-sufficient. Today, the numbers have flipped—over 70% are labeled backward, while less than 10% bear the burden of supporting the rest.
The Modern State’s Blunder: A Rigid Caste Hierarchy
Claiming to rectify the flaws of a birth-based caste system, the modern state has instead created an even more rigid hierarchical structure, fueling present-day divisions. Traditional Indian society was fluid, with social groups complementing rather than competing with each other. Historical records, including the 1871–1901 census, show that people freely pursued vocations of their choice, and inter-caste mobility was common. Today’s hierarchical system, however, has eroded this flexibility, pitting groups against one another and deepening social conflict.
Massive Brain Drain
The state’s prioritization of representation over merit, resulted in massive brain drain, forcing talented individuals to leave the country in search of better opportunities. Additionally, in the name of social justice, stringent laws enacted to ensure some protection to some groups have created an atmosphere of fear, where one group can act with impunity while others are silenced. If the initial wave of brain drain had resulted from a lack of opportunities, a new wave is now unfolding—driven by fear and the consequences of biased policies. Though it is true that India could make progress to become fifth largest economy in spite of such policies, it would be impossible to reach to top two without retaining the brightest minds.
Reshaping the concept of social justice
Social Justice is a Desired Outcome, not a Natural Principle:
The foundation of the entire exercise of reservations and caste-based policies—social justice—is itself a concept that warrants scrutiny. While justice is a universal principle, “social justice” is an artificial construct. Social justice is a desired outcome, not a natural principle. It is not founded on any deterministic metric. The premises upon which it has been established as a guiding principle are faulty and baseless.
The way forward
The first step toward meaningful correction is to stop vilifying society and instead acknowledge its greatness, appreciating it for what it truly is. Historically, Indian society has been prosperous and harmonious, valuing merit and character above all. It has remained open and inclusive, offering opportunities to those who excel, regardless of their background.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself rose to prominence because of this societal openness. Since ancient times, Indian society has revered individuals with exceptional knowledge and impeccable character, placing them on the highest pedestal. It has always ensured that those with wisdom and integrity rise, irrespective of their origins.
History stands as proof of this inclusivity. Even during the oppressive British rule, figures like Ambedkar and Gurram Jashua emerged as influential personalities, reinforcing the inherent fairness of society. A closer look at Ambedkar’s life reveals that the very people often criticized as oppressors were, in fact, instrumental in helping him rise. On the contrary, there is an absence of evidence to society hindering rightful people coming up.
Review Reservations, Focus on Competency
Seventy-five years after reservations were introduced, numerous groups have been added, yet not a single one has been removed. While many have benefited, reservations were intended as an opportunity, not a lifelong substitute for competency. In the absence of accountability, the policy has fostered inefficiency, to the point where even the concept of merit is now questioned.
Some groups have used reservations to advance, while others remain stagnant, and some others have even been actively discriminated against by state policies. It is crucial to review the system, identify those who have benefited, and phase them out while including newly disadvantaged groups based on current realities. Reservations should not extend beyond the second generation, ensuring a fair rotation that prioritizes those truly in need.
In the name of giving opportunities to some, many deserving individuals have been denied theirs. Beneficiaries must recognize that their advantage comes at the cost of someone more qualified. Just as it is unjust to extend reservations indefinitely, it is equally unfair to deprive the deserving for generations. Deserving opportunity should not be withheld beyond one generation, because it eventually compromises the skills and abilities by continued denial of opportunity. And this would be State doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing- it is scuttling the society instead of enabling it.
Placing Blame Where It Belongs
It is often alleged that Varna Vyavastha is responsible for our present societal decay. However, it is incorrect to even call Varna a “system” when it was never rigidly structured as one. More importantly, neither the British, who ruled for 130 years, nor the Indian state over the last 75 years, have governed the country based on Varna. Therefore, blaming a system that has not been in force for over two centuries serves only to divert attention from the inefficiencies and failure of the present system. As discussed earlier, it was the British who introduced divisive constructs that disrupted social harmony, and it was their exploitation that impoverished the nation.
Outlook for the future
The state’s misdiagnosis of problems and misplaced priorities have been the real drivers of disharmony and the stagnation of human potential. India’s progress over the past seven decades has occurred despite the state, not because of it. Even without our best minds working for us, we have become the world’s fifth-largest economy. But breaking into the top two—or reaching the very top—demands a new approach.
Our systems must be built on human aspirations and reflect our worldview. Current social justice policies, modeled on a Western perspective, reduce individuals to mere economic units driven by rational self-interest. Though claimed to have been inspired by Enlightenment ideals, they have become even more draconian than their Western counterparts. Instead, our policies should be rooted in our own cultural ethos—one that views individuals as beings striving for happiness through the fulfillment of their true potential.
Instead of making the state responsible for uplifting individuals, we must reshape it into an enabler—one that empowers people to achieve their highest potential rather than fostering dependence.
Conclusion
In summary, it is time to abandon the flawed narrative that unfairly portrays our society as inherently evil and to address the serious consequences that have arisen from it. A sincere and objective review of a) State’s view to society and creating artificial segregation (b) outcomes of such segregation, such as reservations and caste vote bank politics is essential, with a focus of helping build capability and create social integration instead of state by itself trying to actively uplift and cause social disharmony and scuttle society.
We must incentivize upward mobility and nurture aspirations, fostering a society where progress is celebrated rather than penalized. Only by doing so can we reclaim our nation’s path to greatness and reestablish India as a Vishwaguru—a guiding light for the world.
References
- Maddison, Angus – The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (2001) – Provides GDP estimates and India’s share in the global economy.
- R.C. Dutt – The Economic History of India – Describes economic policies under British rule and their impact.
- Census of India, 4th 1911 – Provides details about the social groups petitions to recognize as Upper Castes
- Lala Lajpat Rai – England’s Debt to India – Describes the plunder of the British
- Madras Presidency Reports, 1820 –
- Lal K.S – Growth of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Medieval India – provides details on how Islam created menial labor in India and urban rural divide happened
Rashtra Mimamsa 
Leave a comment