We often take comfort in increasing reservation percentages, as if that alone can resolve inequality. It cannot. Because in India, inequality does not begin at the point of selection—it begins much earlier, at the point of access. Unless that stage is addressed, we are not solving the problem; we are merely managing its outcome.
Recent developments, particularly in states like Odisha, reflect a steady expansion of reservation in professional courses. On paper, this appears progressive—ST reservation rising to around 22.5%, SC beyond 16%, and OBC quotas expanding, collectively nearing the 50% threshold. At first glance, this signals a deeper commitment to social justice. But a closer look raises uncomfortable questions.
This is not an argument against reservation. Its constitutional and moral basis—to correct historical injustice—remains undeniable. The real question is whether the current framework is reaching those it was designed to uplift.
Consider competitive examinations like NEET. Each year, lakhs of students appear, including roughly 3–4 lakh candidates from SC/ST communities. Yet, this is only a fraction of the eligible population. A far larger segment never even reaches the stage of application.
The barrier is not merit. It is access.
Across large parts of rural India, students navigate a system stacked against them—under-resourced schools, shortage of trained teachers, limited academic guidance, and, in many cases, complete unawareness of opportunities like NEET or CLAT. Dropout rates remain high. Aspirational pathways are often unclear or entirely absent.
This is not just data—it is lived reality.
Having recently cleared CLAT, I can say that in my own village, most students are unaware that such an examination even exists. I myself discovered it only through a friend. There are no functional offline coaching centres nearby. Had that one conversation not happened, I might never have considered appearing for the exam.That is how fragile opportunity is. Not defined by talent, but by exposure.There are thousands of students with equal—if not greater—potential who remain excluded, not because they lack ability, but because the system never reaches them.
Even within outcomes, certain patterns deserve scrutiny. A noticeable proportion of successful candidates from reserved categories often come from relatively stable backgrounds—families with prior institutional exposure or government employment. Their success is fully deserved. But it raises a structural concern: why do the most marginalized remain underrepresented even within these categories?The answer lies in a discomfort we often avoid—the assumption that these categories are uniform.
They are not.
SC, ST, and OBC communities are internally diverse. Some groups have made significant progress, while others continue to face deep, structural deprivation. Yet policy design rarely reflects this complexity. In the absence of effective sub-categorisation, benefits risk being concentrated rather than distributed.
Similarly, while the concept of a “creamy layer” exists for OBCs, its absence in SC/ST discourse remains a sensitive but necessary conversation. Ignoring it does not preserve equity—it risks distorting it. From a governance standpoint, increasing reservation percentages is visible and politically rewarding. It signals intent. But real transformation lies elsewhere—in strengthening government schools, investing in teachers, expanding rural awareness, and building academic ecosystems where none currently exist.
These are not quick fixes. They require time, consistency, and political will.But that is precisely where justice begins.If the goal is genuine inclusion, intervention must start earlier in the pipeline:
* Who is dropping out before Class 10?
* Who remains unaware of national-level examinations?
* Who are first-generation learners navigating the system without guidance?
Today, opportunity is largely accessed by those who have already crossed a minimum threshold. The deeper question remains unanswered: what about those who are still at the starting line? Because the issue is not just who gets selected. It is who gets the chance to compete at all.Until access is widened and foundational inequalities are addressed, expanding reservation alone cannot fulfil its intended purpose.
That is the gap we continue to overlook.
