UGC reform debate, faultlines in politics of social justice

Recent debates over proposed changes in regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) have triggered wider political discussions on caste privileges, social discrimination and the idea of social justice in institutions of higher academics. A section of upper caste elites has opposed the UGC’s regulations even as the higher judiciary quickly put the policy reform in abeyance. Media and social networks pushed for its annulment, calling the regulations discriminatory toward the social elites.

Though initiated by the Union government, the Bharatiya Janata Party has also hesitated to defend the UGC rules. This is only logical for the right-wing party to avoid upsetting its core political supporters, mainly the social elite. Yet, such distancing risks alienating Bahujan groups as they have joined the Hindutva bandwagon hoping to expand their representation in power and gain substantive social and class mobility. In the current debate, though Bahujan groups have remained fragmented and leaderless in promoting their interests, they have the potential to harm the electoral prospects of the right-wing party.

Inclusive subaltern Hindutva

The rise of Narendra Modi as the dominant leader in national politics has led to the social character of the BJP changing considerably. It was suggested that the BJP shift from its visible Brahmanical focus to bringing Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi (DBA) groups into the party structure. The BJP’s electoral success as a new ‘Subaltern Hindutva’ party is overly dependent upon the support of the DBA groups, while the social elites have remained its committed support base. The party’s new social engineering also checkmates the ‘official’ parties of the Dalit-Bahujan castes, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar. A sizable faction within the vulnerable castes (especially the lower Other Backward Classes, or OBCs) have trusted the BJP more for their welfare, hoping that an inclusive Hindutva platform would offer them social dignity and equitable participation in the power structures.

The shift of certain DBA sections has made the BJP a formidable force. However, in return for their support these groups have only received some tokenistic presence in the power structures. Their class conditions remain precarious, and they often face discrimination and violence from dominant social groups. The lower OBC groups (mainly the artisanal castes, landless labourers and lower middle-class sections of the urban population) have negligible presence in modern state institutions and the urban market economy. Further, limited access to quality higher education keeps their presence in IT-related and other elite professions minimal.

The OBC question

After the release of the Bihar Caste Survey in 2023, a similar factsheet showed that almost 40% of the State’s population is considered Extremely Backward Castes (EBCs), a majority of whom are landless or dependent on the rural economy and an education status that is similar to Dalits and Adivasis. It was expected that the ruling establishments, at the State and Centre, would take cognisance of the grave situation and formulate policy for their welfare. However, there was no such initiative.

It appears that the new UGC regulations were drafted to address the growing problems faced by OBC candidates in academic institutions. The Education Ministry faces constant criticism by the Opposition for failing to meet Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) and OBC quotas in central universities and premier institutes such as the IIMs, IITs, and AIIMS. The parliamentary report on the recruitment of professors in central universities has shown that OBCs constitute less than 3% of central university faculty. Importantly, they also face overt discrimination in the recruitment process (by using the ‘not found suitable’ rubric). Unlike SC/STs, OBC members have limited institutional support to protect them from caste-based discrimination on campuses.

In the new UGC regulations, the addition of OBCs and other vulnerable groups (like the EWS) alongside SC/STs is an acknowledgment that a vast section in university campuses survive as vulnerable social groups under the dominant presence of the social elites and, therefore, in need of legal safeguards. The new regulations appeared to be crucial corrective measures in making academic institutions more democratic, inclusive and responsible towards the agenda of social justice. However, the reforms have stalled following backlash, leaving the vulnerabilities that DBA groups face unaddressed.

The BJP’s dilemma

The BJP’s inclusive Hindutva has captivated sections among the DBA and has presented the party as a promising representative of Hindu unity. The UGC debate has challenged this celebrated idea, revealing that caste-based divisions occupy social space. The counter against the new UGC reforms has shown that the social elites have little concern for the inclusive welfare of marginalised social groups. As social justice policies reveal and disturb the control and hegemony of the traditional ruling elites, such attempts are targeted as anti-national, harmful to meritocracy or as an appeasement of identity politics.

The BJP has failed to convince social elite opponents about the political necessity of such a policy framework that would also ameliorate the deplorable conditions of DBA groups.

The uproar by a section of the social elites has become effective because of the BJP’s tacit silence and hesitation to defend the policies of social justice. Such a nexus between the right-wing party and conservative social elites may have relegated the agenda of social justice to the periphery. But it also ignites a new consciousness among vulnerable social groups about their expendability within Hindutva politics, resulting in their exit from the right-wing party.

Harish S. Wankhede is senior faculty at the Centre for Political Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi