A society that does not reward its brightest minds is a society destined for stagnation
Iqbal Rashed
The recent shift in the reservation landscape of Jammu and Kashmir has sparked a heated debate regarding the principles of equity, meritocracy, and social justice. By restructuring the quota system, the administrative framework has effectively reduced the space for Open Merit (OM) candidates to just 30 per cent. For a segment of the population that constitutes a significant majority—estimated by many advocates to be nearly 70 per cent—this move is being viewed not as a progressive step toward upliftment, but as a systematic “massacre” of opportunity.
The Core Grievance
The crux of the grievance lies in the stark disproportion between population size and available opportunities. When 70 per cent of the youth are forced to compete for only 30 per cent of available seats in government employment and educational institutions, the competition reaches a breaking point.
– Shrinking Horizons: Students who score in the top percentiles often find themselves excluded, while seats remain reserved for categories that, in aggregate, represent a smaller demographic slice.
– The Brain Drain: When merit is sidelined, the most talented individuals are forced to seek opportunities outside the Union Territory or the country, leading to a loss of human capital that J&K desperately needs for its development.
Reservation was originally conceived as a tool to bridge historical gaps and provide a level playing field for the marginalised. However, the current 70:30 ratio in J&K is perceived by many as an inversion of that logic.
“Equality of opportunity should mean that every individual has a fair shot. When the ‘open’ category is squeezed into a minority of seats, the system ceases to be about upliftment and begins to look like institutionalised discrimination against merit.”
The Youth’s Frustration
The frustration among the youth is palpable. Years of rigorous study and academic excellence are being met with a wall of administrative quotas. This creates a sense of alienation and hopelessness among OM candidates, who feel they are being punished for their background rather than judged on their capability.
Furthermore, such a drastic imbalance risks deepening social fissures. Instead of fostering a collaborative society, it pits different communities against one another in a desperate struggle for limited resources.
If selection is truly about merit, why does it feel like merit itself is being sidelined?
For years, I have observed a growing concern: candidates from the Open Merit category are competing in a space that keeps shrinking. While OM seats are open to all, the reality is that only one group bears the full weight of competition without any fallback. Yes, the idea of reservation is rooted in upliftment and equity. But somewhere along the way, a genuine question arises: should fairness for one group translate into reduced opportunity for another?
When a candidate chooses a category, should the competition not remain within that category? Why should one section have access to both lanes while another is confined to just one? This is not about opposing anyone’s rights. It is about asking for a system where justice feels balanced, and merit is not overshadowed.
A healthy system should uplift the disadvantaged but also ensure that no section feels unheard, unseen, or unfairly treated. Time to reflect. Time to discuss. Time to find a better balance.
The Demand
The demand from the Open Merit community is not necessarily the total abolition of support for the underprivileged, but a rationalisation of the quota system. True justice requires a system that:
– Respects Demographic Reality: Aligns seat distribution more closely with population percentages.
– Upholds Excellence: Ensures that merit remains a primary driver for professional and academic success.
– Periodic Review: Implements data-driven assessments to identify which groups truly need support, rather than applying blanket percentages indefinitely.
The current policy in J&K stands at a crossroads. To ensure a stable and prosperous future, the administration must address the outcry of the majority. The “massacre” of merit serves no one in the long run; a society that does not reward its brightest minds is a society destined for stagnation.
iq*************@***il.com