— ✍️ Jayant S. Ramteke

In a provocative new study, faculty from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Udaipur have analysed data from the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), encompassing more than 60,000 institutions and 4.38 crore students. Their bold assertion is that the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) students now "dominate" Indian higher education, outnumbering their General Category counterparts by a significant margin. According to the report, the combined share of these groups in total enrolments has surged from 43% in 2010-11 to 60.8% in 2022-23. At first glance, this appears to herald a transformative moment—a long-overdue influx of historically marginalised SC/ST/OBC communities into the nation's classrooms and campuses.

Yet, a closer examination reveals cracks in this narrative of triumph. The study's conclusions hinge on a simplistic aggregation of enrolment figures across all institutions, treating them as a uniform indicator of caste equity. To declare SC, ST, and OBC students as "dominant" based on sheer numbers is akin to boxing together a few luxury hotels with countless roadside eateries and proclaiming that the poor "dominate" the hospitality sector—simply because most diners hail from poor backgrounds. Such a metric obscures critical questions: Who owns the hotels? Who reaps the profits? Who controls the supply chains? And, crucially, who frequents the elite venues?

Similarly, the IIM Udaipur analysis equates a modest Arts, Commerce and Science college in a remote district—often underfunded, lacking labs and research facilities or placement support —with premier institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) or elite private universities in metropolitan hubs. A basic BA degree from the former seldom opens doors to high-stakes careers; it frequently leads to precarious unemployment in an oversaturated market. In contrast, a BTech from an IIT serves as a gateway to India's corporate elite, technological innovation, and bureaucratic leadership. By flattening this hierarchy of prestige and value, the report conflates mere quantity with genuine progress, peddling a reassuring tale of "social justice accomplished" while sidestepping who truly wields power in the system.

A more fundamental flaw lies in the demographic context. SC, ST, and OBC communities collectively represent a substantial majority of India's population, while upper-caste groups form a smaller segment. In a minimally equitable system, one would naturally expect higher absolute enrolments from these larger SC/ST/OBC communities. The pertinent inquiry is not their numerical edge, but whether their presence aligns with population proportions—and whether they enjoy equitable access to prestigious institutions and programmes.

Benchmarking against population estimates—approximately 52% OBC, 16% SC, 8% ST, and 24% General (including Economically Weaker Sections and religious minorities)—exposes glaring shortfalls. For 2022-23 AISHE data, OBC enrolments fell 25% short of expectations (1.70 crore actual versus 2.28 crore projected); SCs by 3% (67.9 lakh versus 70.1 lakh); and STs by 19% (28.2 lakh versus 35 lakh). Meanwhile, the General category enjoyed a 63% surplus(1.72 crore versus 1.05 crore). Even at 60.8% collective enrolment, SC, ST, and OBC groups lag behind their 76% population share. This "dominance" is illusory, born of a deliberate omission of proportional comparisons.

Any credible assessment of caste dynamics in higher education must dissect the institutional pyramid. At its pinnacle sit Institutes of National Importance and flagship public universities —IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, NITs, NLUs, IISERs, and select central and state varsities—that funnel talent into elite professions and research. Below them lie premium private universities in urban centres, with steep fees, global partnerships, and dominance in corporate placements, often bypassing reservation norms. Further down are mid-tier professional colleges offering degrees in medicine, engineering, management, and law of uneven quality. At the base: vast networks of general arts, science, and commerce colleges in rural and semi-urban areas, plagued by inadequate resources and scant career support.

The IIM Udaipur report glosses over these distinctions, offering no breakdown by institutional tier or programme prestige. Turning to sources such as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education's latest report (drawing on AISHE 2022-23), a starkly different picture emerges. In India's top 30 private universities, SC students comprise just 5%, STs less than 1%, and OBCs 24%—against their 76% demographic weight. Institutions like BITS Pilani reported zero SC, ST, or OBC students in earlier datasets; recent figures show SC and ST combined under 1%, with OBCs at 10%. O.P. Jindal Global University logs under 1% for SC and ST, and 8% for OBCs; Shiv Nadar University fares marginally better at 1.4% SC, 0.86% ST, and 16% OBC. These bastions of global opportunity remain bastions of privilege, belying claims of caste erosion at the summit.

Curiously, the report overlooks these insights despite citing parliamentary documents elsewhere. It trumpets SC, ST, and OBC students' 60% share in private-sector enrolments as evidence of a "merit-driven" shift, ignoring the sector's own stratification. AISHE data indicate that growth in private educational institutions for SC/ST/OBC community students clusters in low-fee, low-prestige programmes like general Arts and Commerce, not elite Medical, Engineering, or Management courses—where SC and ST representation hovers below 8%, and OBCs under 20%.

Even the report's internal data undercuts its rhetoric. In "professional and advanced courses," there is overwhelming over-representation of General category students: 39.5% in BE, 51.8% in BTech, 37% in ME/MTech, 48.8% in MBA, 55.3% in MBBS, and 60% in MD. Relative to a 24% population baseline, this signals General category students' 1.5- to 2.5-fold advantage in fields shaping India's engineers, doctors, and executives—hardly the demise of caste privilege.

The purported "decline" in General enrolments from 2020-21 to 2022-23 also crumbles. Post- 2019-20, AISHE introduced a 10% EWS quota, drawn from the same unreserved pool. By splitting General and EWS, the authors artificially deflate the former, fabricating an 11-lakh drop. But this is no sign of displacement; it's an accounting trick. Recombining them revealsstability and even growth, not contraction. A rigorous analysis would track a unified General EWS series and parse labelling effects from real shifts; this one does neither.

Equity, however, extends beyond enrolment tallies to real-world outcomes and institutional influence. The IIM study speculates about "caste-to-class mobility" without data on graduates' incomes, jobs, or upward trajectories. It overlooks critical markers like faculty representation—where SC, ST, and OBC groups are woefully underrepresented in academia's decision-making roles—as well as dropout rates and research opportunities. The questionisn't just "Are they enrolling?" but "Are they accessing the degrees that unlock real power?"

Undeterred, the authors advocate rethinking affirmative action, positioning their work as an "empirical foundation" for policy reform. This is a perilous overreach. Acknowledging SC, ST, and OBC deficits, General over-representation in elite spaces, and the bogus "decline" narrative of General Category enrolments strips away any basis for dilution of SC/ST/OBC reservations. The data at best affirm incremental access of higher education to SC/ST/OBC students, not reservation's obsolescence for them—particularly in the realm of premier public and private educational institutions.

Indeed, the Parliamentary Standing Committee that draws the more honest policy inference. Confronted with the “abysmally low” presence of SC/ST/OBC students in private higher education, it has urged the government to enact a new law mandating 15 per cent reservation for SCs, 7.5 per cent for STs and 27 per cent for OBCs in private institutions as well. That recommendation flows naturally from the data. The IIM Udaipur call for revisiting affirmative action does not.

Make no mistake: Decades of public expansion, reservations, scholarships, and activism have boosted marginalised participation in higher education—a genuine achievement. But progress is not parity. Confusing the two is not just analytical folly; it is politically charged, risking complacency amid calls for deeper intervention.

Equity demands scrutiny of outcomes, not just entries: Who teaches? Who leads? Who completes degrees that propel upward mobility? The IIM study's "dominance" trope could arm efforts to erode safeguards, even as official reports urge reinforcement. Aggregating institutions masks who commands the pinnacles, much like blending luxury hotels with dhabas ignores who dines at the summit. The marginalised have breached higher education's doors, but they remain barred from its inner sanctums. Until scholarship confronts this reality, declarations of caste equality will ring hollow and deceptive.

- Jayant S. Ramteke is a Business Owner, Founder and CEO, Meritorium Knowledge Academy. (director.meritorium@gmail.com)