The reservation policy in India, a successful affirmative action followed by the state to correct historical injustice done by the “upper caste” to the subaltern caste.
A recent opinion published on Maktoob (21 April 2025) by a Sociology research scholar Afsheen Rizvi reflects a troubling perspective on the reservation policy, one that aligns with an upper caste Muslim worldview. The author, who self-identifies as belonging to an “upper caste” background, uses this social capital to question the legitimacy of reservation policies and frames reserved-category students—SCs, STs, and OBCs—in a dismissive and dehumanising light. This article critically engages with that opinion and argues that such a position risks ignoring structural exclusions and misrepresents the purpose of affirmative action, especially in light of the author’s claim of being denied admission to a PhD program while others from reserved categories were selected.
What is “merit”?
The opinion raises the idea of “merit” without engaging with its complex social underpinnings. Michael Sandel, in The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?, argues that “merit” based solely on outcomes is unfair due to structural inequalities. The scholar’s framing implies that the presence of reserved category students in general seats is unjustified, ignoring the reality that these students often rank highly and earn those positions through merit despite generations of social disadvantage. Her argument reflects a broader upper caste sentiment historically expressed by figures such as Champakam Dorairajan in the 1950s.
The article’s language—suggesting that “the ‘merit’ loophole must be closed to prevent reserved categories from disproportionately claiming general seats”—evokes a mindset where marginalised groups are expected to remain confined within the quota boundaries, even when they qualify beyond it. This is a contradiction: to simultaneously accuse these groups of lacking merit while also resenting their success in open competition.
As a typical Savarna upper caste Hindu woman, the author quotes that though she was first in her MA class, she was denied PhD seat in JNU. The reason she quotes is due to her Muslim identity and plays it cunningly to criminalize the whole reserved students— SCs, STs and OBCs. We could observe from the words she used and we quote “The “merit” loophole must be closed to prevent reserved categories from disproportionately claiming general seats.” Typically, the upper caste Hindu wants the reserved students— SCs, STs and OBCs to be in their places like the colonies, chawals, do their caste based job and shouldn’t aspire for top positions or even claim the general seats. According to her, they should just stay in their place and just take up the seats allotted to them i.e 15% SC, 7.5% ST, 27% OBC. If the majority of the people of this country belong to the Ati Shudra and Shudra as lower Caste who engage in all inhuman caste jobs to any physical labour is accused as merit less, at the same time blaming the same people for getting eight unreserved seats through their merit. It is self-contradictory of Afsheen Rizvi opinion.
The entrance examinations and interviews were conducted to filter the students. From university admissions to UPSC, the ST/SC/OBCs perform better in entrance exams, where they were given the lowest marks compared to Brahmins. It is an open secret. We have always wanted to get rid of entrance examinations and interviews, which remain a bottleneck for the ST/SC/OBC, who have not been part of formal education for centuries. The Tamil Nadu government abolished the entrance examinations for undergraduate programs during the tenure of Kalaignar Karunanidhi. In the selection process, discrimination based on Caste can’t be nullified because almost every institution is facing the problem of Brahmin Monopoly. Brahmins in the DoPT denied allocating the service for the OBC candidates who cleared Prelims, Mains and the Interview by stating that they fall under the Creamy layer category, which is false. The replies from the Union government to the parliament’s questions expose the reality of not implementing the reservation policy. Similarly, in the RSS and BJP regimes, the Islamophobia experienced by the Muslim community cannot be neglected.
For a long time, Indian Muslims maintained that there are no castes in Islam and that Muslims do not have a caste system like the Brahmanical Hindu Religion and their religious texts like Manu Smriti. However, upon learning about “Upper Caste Muslims,” it follows logically that there must also be lower caste Muslims. This raises the need for horizontal reservations for Dalit Muslims within the Muslim reservation.
Upper caste agenda criminalising reserved students
The opinion piece criminalises reserved category students—SCs, STs, and OBCs—under the pretext of debating Muslim reservation, yet fails to make a convincing case for Muslim-specific affirmative action. There is a lack of substantive engagement with evidence or existing parliamentary reports that reveal the continued underrepresentation of these communities. The broader concern here is how some narratives, instead of advancing inclusive arguments for Muslim reservation, end up echoing dominant caste anxieties that delegitimize affirmative action itself. The need is not to pit communities against each other but to build solidarities rooted in historical evidence and social justice.
The Mandal Commission is still not fully implemented. One should look at how the proper evidence-based reservation policy is implemented in the state of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu government provides 3.5% reservation for Muslims separately.
Tamil Nadu reservation policy
| Category | Percentage |
| ST | 1% |
| SC | SC(A) 3% SC 15% Total 18% |
| BC | BC General 26.5% BCM 3.5% MBC 13% DNC 7% Total 50% |
| Total | 69% |
*ST- Scheduled Tribe, SC- Scheduled Caste, SC(A)- Scheduled Caste (Arunthatiyars), BC- Backward Caste, BCM- Backward Caste Muslim, MBC- Most Backward Caste, DNC- DeNotified Caste
We would like to ask: in her piece, where does she speak about the reservation of Dalit Muslims? Yet she acknowledges that she belongs to an “upper caste” Muslim background, typically mimicking the savarna “upper caste” Hindu women’s narratives. But history shows us who our enemy is: it’s these savarna upper caste people of all religions who oppose reservation tooth and nail through different means. We acknowledge that there are issues in the current reservation policy followed by the Union Government; one glaring example is the EWS reservation.
Government of India Reservation Policy
| Category | Percentage |
| ST | 7.5 |
| SC | 15 |
| OBC | 27 |
| EWS | 10 |
| Total | 59.5% |
*ST- Scheduled Tribe, SC- Scheduled Caste, OBC- Other Backward Caste, EWS- Economic Weaker Section
One solution we propose for this issue in the reservation policy debate is Proportional Representation, a path shown by Dr. Ambedkar and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy. Learn from Tamil Nadu—the demand for Proportional Representation has a history of a hundred years. During the early twentieth century, the Brahmin monopoly in the Indian Civil Services (ICS) during the British era was challenged by Dravidian movement stalwarts like Iyothee Thass Pandithar, T. M. Nair, C. Nadesan Mudhaliar, and Thyagaraja Chetty of the Madras Presidency. The first step toward Proportional Representation a hundred years ago was taken in Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy left the Congress and started the Self-Respect Movement (later Dravidar Kazhagam) as the Congress failed to implement the demand for Proportional Representation. Periyar E. V. Ramasamy advocated for Proportional Representation, Babasaheb’s concept of a separate electorate, and dual suffrage for Dalits given by the British Indian government. During the Poona Pact, in support of Babasaheb, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy went to the extent of saying, “let Gandhi die.” Periyar E. V. Ramasamy said, “The majority of Muslims in India desire that Muslims should be represented by Muslim representatives elected solely by Muslim votes. Brothers! I am very happy that you have unanimously supported and implemented the idea of a separate electorate. Do not stop here; take this forward to the end and strive for success.” (Kudi Arasu, 21.06.1931).
In the Periyar-Ambedkar-Jinnah meeting before Indian independence, held on 8 January 1940, Periyar briefed about Dravidasthan or Dravida Nadu. Ambedkar and Jinnah agreed to visit Madras and tour in support of it and many other demands. So, the Muslim and Non-Brahmin unity dream is not new. Till today, conversion to Islam is considered a way to get rid of caste in the Brahmanical Hindu religion. The inclusive Dravidian identity is not limited to any religion but to the majority of Indian society who were victims of Brahmanism. The Non-Brahmin and Muslim unity co-exist despite the right-wing propaganda of Hindu-Muslim hate and riots.
Post-Independence, in 1951, the first constitutional amendment was made because of Periyar E. V. Ramasamy. Senbagam Dorairaj, a Brahmin lady, filed a case in the Madras High Court, saying that she was denied medical admission because of her caste. The court scrapped the reservation policy. Alladi Krishnasamy Iyer was the advocate for the petitioner. (He was also a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee and one of the four Brahmin members in a total of six members). From that time to now, the demand for Proportional Representation has strong roots in Tamil Nadu, and it’s time to bring it back.
But for the Union Government, lessons from the current Tamil Nadu government led by the Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) are needed. The Tamil Nadu government, headed by the Chief Minister M. K. Stalin, in April 2023, passed a resolution in its assembly to provide Dalit Christians reservation in the SC category—another historic milestone in the need to demand Proportional Representation. Even for some government schemes like educational scholarships and others, Dalit Christians, a minority community, were included in the SC category in Tamil Nadu—a lesson for everyone. This need for the inclusion of Dalit Christians and Muslims in the SC category raised the need for Proportional Representation and should be debated, rather than a rant by an upper-caste Muslim woman against the reservation policy for not being selected for a PhD course in JNU.
In the first week of January 2024, the Welfare Party of India Kerala chapter organised a massive protest in Kerala at the Secretariat, Trivandrum, demanding Proportional Representation, in which Professor Arvind Kumar spoke about the need for a caste census and emphasised the demand for Proportional Representation by quoting Periyar’s “Why Proportional Representation?” On the same stage, I (Elaiya) spoke on behalf of the Students’ Federation of Dravidians. “They demolished Masjids, they killed our people, and they made us feel like refugees in our own country with fear. They have done everything illegally and captured power because of the Brahmin monopoly from educational institutions to the Apex Court of India. They mobilise people for the Hindu Rashtra. To counter it, we have to end the Brahmin monopoly in education and employment and unite for the cause of social justice,” I said.
Today, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi demanded a caste census and the removal of the 50% cap in the reservation policy. The Union Government has also announced that they will conduct a caste census. In this critical situation, putting forward a personal experience of a casteist Muslim against the reservation policy now, after the implementation of EWS, when every social category benefits, won’t help the author to get reservations for the Muslim minority community across the country. It is necessary to provide proportionate representation by conducting religious and caste censuses by the Union Government. Though we welcome the move by the Union Government to conduct the caste census, there should be a proper timeline for its implementation. It is mandatory to implement horizontal reservation based on caste in each religion, which still gives space to caste and discriminatory practices. To annihilate caste, the first basic minimum step is to provide Proportional Representation. If not now, then when?
Aravind B is a PhD candidate at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Elaiyakumar R is a PhD candidate at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).
The views expressed in this piece are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
