The Indian University Grants Commission (UGC) drafted new regulations for the “promotion of equity in higher education.” The purported aim is to make campuses “free and fair” by eradicating caste-based discrimination. In this endeavor, the UGC is interjecting that the majority of Indians — including Muslims, Sikhs and Christians — are oppressed and need special rights.

The UGC regulation released on January 14, 2026, is generating an intense response from citizens. There are protests in many universities, and legal luminaries have filed petitions in the Supreme Court (SC). The SC, for the time being, has put a stay on the implementation of the guidelines.

The supporters of the regulation claim they are not against anyone; rather, they argue that the regulations are meant to bring about equality. Those who oppose the regulations say that this will further crush merit and reduce unreserved (meaning not considered disadvantaged by the government or entitled to benefits such as reservation) male and female students to the margins of college life.

The guidelines stated the objective is:

To eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions.

This objective is noteworthy, normatively speaking. 

The Indian Constitution itself, through Articles 14 and 15, guarantees equality and protection against any form of discrimination. However, noble intentions do not automatically translate into sound policy. The true test lies in intent, implementation, precision and long-term consequences.

Oversimplification of Indian society 

The first thing that stands out from the guidelines is that, except for the unreserved castes, everyone is oppressed (a part of the reserved castes). This is an extreme oversimplification of Indian society that allows only a one-sided debate of “oppressed vs. privileged.”

Under this framework, a prosperous government officer or landowner from a reserved category remains “backward,” and a daily-wage laborer or small farmer from the general category remains “privileged.”

Such binary thinking ignores economic realities and individual circumstances. Even though the constitution guarantees rights to individuals rather than groups, the guidelines dictate group identity rather than individual freedom. 

Multiple commissions, including the Rohini Commission, as well as SC judgments on subcategorization, have acknowledged that several communities within the reserved categories have achieved social and economic parity. Yet, this reality is sidelined by the UGC guidelines. 

The regulations have also ignored the fact that the backward castes have significant political representation. Multiple states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and others, have been ruled for decades by leaders from backward communities. Numerous national and regional parties explicitly represent these groups, and substantial budgetary allocations are made each year to support these groups. For instance, the Union Budget of 2025 allocated over ₹1.68 lakh crore ($18.26 billion) for Scheduled Caste development across various ministries.

If these ministers and thousands of crores in the budget are not helping achieve proportional outcomes, then the entire policy behind these populist schemes must be questioned. However, the reverse is happening with caste rigidity being institutionalized on campus. 

The guidelines ultimately state that in 2026, the majority of Indians are still living in oppression. Notwithstanding the fact that the social conditions of the past no longer exist.

Vague definitions

The second major concern about the guidelines is the vague definition of discrimination. The guidelines define discrimination as: “unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit.” How will one define what constitutes “explicit and implicit”? An example of this ambiguity and possible weaponization was found in a piece published in the Indian Express.

On January 28, writing in the Indian Express, a sociology assistant professor from Delhi University wrote, “persistent criticism of reservation in employment and education has led to an environment in which efforts to bring parity and equity keep getting delayed.” What she is telling us is not to even question a policy that decides who gets education, jobs, scholarships, loans, etc. We must accept this reverse discrimination faced by millions of Indians as a fait accompli (irreversible decision). We must disown the writings of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, and Sardar Patel, the first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, on reservation.

Another thing that emanates from this narrative is that if someone questions reservation under the new UGC regulations, it will be counted as “implicit discrimination”, thus the student is liable to be charged with discrimination. The ambit of the “implicit” will keep expanding. The end result will be the end of a liberal campus where free speech rules supreme — something we are already seeing signs of. 

Polarization along caste lines 

The third major impact of the guidelines is the polarization of the campus. These guidelines give broad immunity to a large group of people to abuse the general category. According to the stated objective of the guidelines, discrimination “only against the members of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, and persons with disabilities” is recognized as discrimination.

This parochial definition leaves no institutional safeguard for the unreserved castes to seek redress against any discrimination they might encounter. Even the SC, while hearing the petition against the guidelines, observed, “that the regulations are prima facie vague and are capable of misuse.” 

When we already see that abusive slogans are regularly raised against the unreserved castes, such vague guidelines carry the potential to further divide the students. In addition, such abusive slogans foment hatred and take us away from the road of discussion to the road of antagonism. This condition transforms campuses from a place of scholarship into a place of ongoing fights and brawls. This indeed will plunge Indian education further into the abyss. 

The way forward

The UGC’s new regulations, despite their stated intentions, will deepen social divisions, restrict freedom and weaken institutional credibility. The regulation aims to establish equity, which cannot be achieved by administrative maneuvering. It is the society that must be shaped to discuss and debate, finding ways to strengthen one another.

Inclusion cannot be built on ambiguity. Justice cannot flourish in an atmosphere of fear, hatred and polarization. Thus, any policy to counter caste mobilization on campus must be grounded in evidence and long-term national interest, not political convenience. 

We must strive to build a society that is based on equal opportunities for all. A society where, in the words of Indian polymath and Nobel Prize winner Rabindranath Tagore, “the mind is without fear, and the head is held high; where the knowledge is free, where the world has not broken into fragments, by the narrow domestic walls.”

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.