The glaring disparity in application fees — ₹1500 plus 18% GST for general category candidates and zero for SC/ST applicants — has reignited a long-standing debate over the fairness of India’s reservation and relaxation policies. While affirmative action was originally introduced to correct historical injustices and uplift marginalized communities, many now argue that the system has veered off its intended path.
For general category aspirants, especially from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the financial burden of application fees, coupled with limited access to subsidies or free coaching, feels like a double blow. Meanwhile, they are constantly reminded of their “privilege,” despite receiving little to no institutional support.
This imbalance has begun to feel less like social correction and more like punitive economics. It is not merely about money — it’s the growing perception that merit is being taxed, and that opportunities are unevenly distributed not on the basis of need, but on fixed social labels. The frustration isn't with the upliftment of disadvantaged groups — it’s with a system that no longer differentiates between a Dalit millionaire and a struggling general category student.
When caste alone becomes the basis for lifelong benefits without periodic review or socio-economic filtering, the policy loses moral ground and turns into a vote-bank strategy. As a result, merit-based competition is diluted, and resentment builds among those who feel locked out not by ability, but by birth.
Today, India’s divide is less about caste and more about mindset — logic versus optics. The political class thrives on symbolism, perpetuating systems that offer visible handouts rather than meaningful reforms. Freebies and blanket quotas become tools to secure electoral loyalty, not to ensure justice or equity. The truth is, real social justice requires nuance, reform, and the courage to revisit outdated models. Without that, the very idea of equality becomes hollow — a slogan rather than a solution. In the name of progress, we risk institutionalizing a new form of discrimination, one where opportunity is rationed not by effort, but by identity.
For general category aspirants, especially from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the financial burden of application fees, coupled with limited access to subsidies or free coaching, feels like a double blow. Meanwhile, they are constantly reminded of their “privilege,” despite receiving little to no institutional support.
This imbalance has begun to feel less like social correction and more like punitive economics. It is not merely about money — it’s the growing perception that merit is being taxed, and that opportunities are unevenly distributed not on the basis of need, but on fixed social labels. The frustration isn't with the upliftment of disadvantaged groups — it’s with a system that no longer differentiates between a Dalit millionaire and a struggling general category student.
When caste alone becomes the basis for lifelong benefits without periodic review or socio-economic filtering, the policy loses moral ground and turns into a vote-bank strategy. As a result, merit-based competition is diluted, and resentment builds among those who feel locked out not by ability, but by birth.
Today, India’s divide is less about caste and more about mindset — logic versus optics. The political class thrives on symbolism, perpetuating systems that offer visible handouts rather than meaningful reforms. Freebies and blanket quotas become tools to secure electoral loyalty, not to ensure justice or equity. The truth is, real social justice requires nuance, reform, and the courage to revisit outdated models. Without that, the very idea of equality becomes hollow — a slogan rather than a solution. In the name of progress, we risk institutionalizing a new form of discrimination, one where opportunity is rationed not by effort, but by identity.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel