When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

 

When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

Unpacking the Double Standards of Caste Privilege in India

In India, the conversation around social mobility often reveals a stark hypocrisy. For those in the “general category” — a polite euphemism for upper castes — opportunities handed down through family ties, alumni networks, or social circles are celebrated as savvy “networking.” It’s seen as a natural extension of merit, hard work, and personal connections. But when lower castes, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), access affirmative action through reservations or quotas, it’s frequently demonized as unfair favoritism, a handout that undermines true achievement. This double standard isn’t just rhetoric; it’s rooted in centuries of systemic inequality that continues to shape Indian society today.

This article delves into how upper castes justify their privileges as legitimate networking while vilifying quotas for others. We’ll trace the historical factors that built these upper-caste networks from ancient times and explore why lower castes have been systematically denied the same advantages. Drawing from historical context and contemporary analyses, the goal is to highlight how caste operates as an invisible force, often unacknowledged by those who benefit from it most.

The Myth of Merit: How Upper Castes Frame Privilege as “Networking”

Upper castes in India have long positioned their advantages as the fruits of individual effort and strategic connections, rather than inherited privilege. For instance, in professional fields like tech, finance, and academia, upper-caste individuals often leverage family legacies, elite school alumni groups, and informal referrals to secure jobs or promotions. This is praised as “networking” — a skill anyone can supposedly learn. Yet, as discussions on platforms like Reddit point out, these networks are rarely accessible to outsiders, and they’re built on generations of exclusivity.

A key justification is the narrative of “meritocracy.” Upper castes argue that their success stems from superior education and skills, ignoring how caste has historically monopolized access to these resources. In the tech industry, for example, upper-caste dominance in Silicon Valley and Indian IT firms is often attributed to talent, but research shows it’s largely due to early migration waves favoring those with pre-existing privileges like English education and urban connections.

This framing allows privilege to hide in plain sight: when a Brahmin or Kshatriya gets a leg up from a relative in a high position, it’s “using connections wisely.” Meanwhile, quotas are labeled as “reverse discrimination,” eroding standards.

This hypocrisy extends to everyday discourse. Upper-caste individuals might dismiss caste as irrelevant in modern India, claiming society is now “casteless” for the privileged. But as one analysis notes, this invisibility is itself a privilege — upper castes don’t “see” caste because it works in their favor, maintaining homogeneity in elite spaces like universities and corporations.

Studies from higher education institutions reveal that upper-caste students often view their advantages as earned, while perceiving lower-caste peers as undeserving beneficiaries of quotas.

Demonizing Quotas: The Backlash Against Lower-Caste Support

On the flip side, affirmative action programs — designed to counteract centuries of exclusion — are routinely attacked as unjust. The 10% quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) among upper castes, introduced in 2019 and upheld in 2022, sparked outrage from activists who argued it further entrenches privilege by benefiting those already advantaged, while diluting reservations for historically oppressed groups. Critics from lower castes see this as a “violation” of constitutional equity, yet upper castes frame it as a fair extension of economic aid.

The demonization often boils down to resentment: quotas are portrayed as “stealing” opportunities from the “meritorious.” In media and social commentary, lower-caste success via reservations is dismissed as tokenism, ignoring the barriers they overcome. For example, in science and academia, upper castes dominate due to inherited networks, but quotas for lower castes are blamed for any perceived drop in quality.

This narrative conveniently overlooks how upper-caste “networking” functions as an unofficial quota system, reserving spots through referrals and social capital.

In essence, when lower castes get institutional help, it’s seen as charity at the expense of others. But upper-caste networking? That’s just business as usual.

From Ancient Roots: The Historical Foundations of Upper-Caste Networking

The origins of this disparity trace back to India’s ancient caste system, formalized in texts like the Manusmriti around 200 BCE to 200 CE. This varna system divided society into four hierarchical groups: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (laborers), with Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) outside it entirely. Upper castes, particularly Brahmins, were granted exclusive rights to education, land ownership, and religious authority, creating early networks of power.

Over centuries, these structures evolved under various rulers, from medieval kingdoms to British colonialism. Upper castes adapted by aligning with colonial administrators, gaining access to English education and civil service roles. This built intergenerational wealth and connections: families passed down knowledge, property, and social ties, forming closed networks in bureaucracy, business, and academia.

In the modern economy, these networks persist. In Mumbai’s industrial era, upper castes used caste-based associations to secure jobs in mills and factories. Today, in global migration, upper castes dominate tech and professional diasporas because historical privileges like better schooling and urban access enabled them to capitalize on opportunities first. Economic studies show Brahmins enjoy higher education, income, and social connections, reinforcing their networks.

Caste-based segregation in cities further cements this, with upper castes clustering in affluent areas for mutual benefit.

These factors — rooted in ancient hierarchies and amplified through history — have created a self-perpetuating system where upper castes “network” effortlessly, often without recognizing it as privilege.

Barriers to Entry: Why Lower Castes Don’t Have the Same “Networking” Privileges

Lower castes have been systematically excluded from building similar networks due to entrenched discrimination and resource deprivation. Historically, they were barred from education, property ownership, and social mixing, enforced through untouchability and violence. This legacy persists: lower castes face poorer schools, underfunded institutions, and exclusion from elite networks.

Economically, caste restricts access to finance and entrepreneurship. Dalits and OBCs encounter discrimination in hiring, loans, and business partnerships, limiting their ability to form robust networks. In rural areas, landlessness and manual labor trap generations in poverty, while urban migration favors those with prior advantages — often upper castes.

Socially, caste homogeneity in elite spaces makes integration difficult. Lower castes report invisibility or outright bias, with upper castes refusing to collaborate or mentor. During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, lower castes suffered disproportionately due to lack of safety nets and networks. Macroeconomic analyses estimate that caste discrimination reduces entrepreneurial potential and overall growth, as lower castes are denied the capital and connections upper castes take for granted.

In short, lower castes aren’t just starting from behind; the system is rigged to keep them there, without the “networking” luxuries afforded to others.

Toward a More Equitable Future

Recognizing this double standard is the first step toward dismantling it. While quotas provide essential redress, true equity requires addressing the invisible networks that perpetuate upper-caste dominance. As India evolves, conversations around caste must move beyond denial to acknowledgment — only then can networking become a tool for all, not just the privileged few.By examining these dynamics, we see that privilege isn’t always overt; it’s often woven into the fabric of society. For a nation aspiring to meritocracy, confronting caste head-on is non-negotiable.

The CJI Gavai Shoe-Throwing Incident: Unpacking the Controversy, Selective Outrage and Misplaced Anger in India

In a brazen act of courtroom disruption on October 6, 2025, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ram Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing.

Shouting slogans about the “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” Kishore was swiftly detained by security, but the incident has since spiraled into a national conversation on judicial respect, communal tolerance, and the double standards in India’s socio-political landscape.

This event, rooted in Kishore’s fury over a prior judgment by CJI Gavai, not only exposes the volatility of religious sentiments but also reveals how certain groups weaponize them while others exercise restraint.

Amid this chaos, the Supreme Court has issued numerous judgments in recent years that have been perceived as challenging Muslim practices, yet no Muslim has ever resorted to such violence against the judiciary. This stark difference underscores the Muslim community’s tolerance in the face of adversity. Meanwhile, the lack of stringent action against Kishore — despite his act — highlights how Hindutva fanatics often evade accountability, potentially emboldening further extremism.

The Prior Judgment: A Misconstrued Remark on Lord Vishnu and the Role of ASI

The shoe-throwing incident was not spontaneous but stemmed from simmering resentment over a Supreme Court judgment delivered by CJI Gavai in mid-September 2025, in what has come to be known as the Khajuraho case.

The plea, filed by a devotee, sought directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu, which had been beheaded during the Mughal era and was discovered as an archaeological artifact in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

Dismissing the petition, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an expert body responsible for preserving historical artifacts.

He noted, “It’s an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… there are various issues.”

In a light-hearted aside to the petitioner, who professed deep devotion to Lord Vishnu, the CJI suggested, “If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”

This remark was misconstrued by elements within the Hindutva ecosystem as an insult to Sanatan Dharma, with critics accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs and deities.

However, the comment was far from insulting — it was a pragmatic redirection to the appropriate authority, underscoring the judiciary’s role in deferring to specialized bodies like the ASI for matters involving historical preservation.

CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, affirming, “I respect all religions” and emphasizing his belief in true secularism, while noting that his words had been taken out of context.

The judgment itself was neutral, avoiding judicial overreach into archaeological decisions.The ASI, established in 1861, operates under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As such, any policy on restoring or altering artifacts like the Vishnu idol ultimately falls under the executive branch’s purview. If the Hindutva ecosystem is dissatisfied with the ASI’s potential reluctance — due to guidelines protecting the integrity of historical finds — they should direct their ire toward the Modi government, which has the authority to influence or amend such policies through legislative or administrative means.

Yet, the outrage has been disproportionately aimed at CJI Gavai, perhaps because deferring to the ASI disrupts narratives seeking judicial validation for religious restorations. This misplaced anger ignores the government’s role, raising questions about whether the criticism is truly about devotion or a strategic attack on judicial independence.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Muslim Community’s Restraint

In contrast to this aggressive response, the Supreme Court has handed down several rulings in recent years that have directly impacted Muslim communities, often reshaping their religious and cultural practices. The 2017 ban on instant triple talaq, the 2022 upholding of hijab restrictions in certain educational institutions, and ongoing discussions on a Uniform Civil Code have all been met with criticism from Muslim groups for encroaching on personal laws.

Despite these setbacks, Muslims have channeled their dissent through peaceful protests, legal appeals, and democratic engagement — never through physical assaults on judges.

No Muslim has thrown a shoe at a CJI, even amid judgments perceived as biased or intrusive. This pattern of tolerance, rooted in a commitment to non-violence and institutional respect, stands as a testament to the community’s resilience. As social media users have pointed out, “Muslims face rulings on talaq, polygamy, and more, yet respond with petitions, not projectiles.”

The shoe incident, conversely, exemplifies how some Hindutva proponents resort to extremism when faced with even mild judicial pushback.

Hindutva Fanatics Roam Free: No FIR, Muted Response

Following the incident, Kishore was questioned and released without an FIR being filed, as CJI Gavai personally directed officials not to press charges, opting instead for composure and continuity in proceedings.

The Bar Council of India suspended his license, but Kishore expressed no regret, claiming a “divine force” compelled him.

This leniency is telling: Had the perpetrator been Muslim, the fallout would be immense — multiple FIRs under contempt and assault charges, nationwide condemnations from BJP leaders, and a barrage of dehumanizing campaigns by the party’s IT cell.

In reality, while PM Modi called the act “utterly condemnable,” there have been no statements from the President or governors. BJP figures have issued measured rebukes, but online, Hindutva supporters defend Kishore as a “hero” defending faith. Critics like Nupur J. Sharma have shifted blame to the CJI’s “loose tongue.”

This asymmetry grants a free hand to Hindutva extremists, normalizing violence under religious pretexts.

A Broader Implication: Erosion of Secular Fabric

The episode, intertwined with caste dynamics given CJI Gavai’s Dalit heritage, signals deeper biases.

By targeting the judiciary while sparing the government, the Hindutva narrative risks undermining institutions. India’s Muslims have shown exemplary tolerance; it’s imperative that all communities follow suit to preserve the nation’s democratic ethos. Unchecked, such incidents could pave the way for more “Hindutva terrorism,” where fanaticism trumps law and reason.

The Myth of Merit in India: Unpacking the Reservation Debate

 In India, the concept of "merit" is often wielded as a weapon in debates over caste-based reservations, particularly by those from the general category. Critics argue that reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) undermine merit by prioritizing caste over hard work. The underlying assumption is that general category students succeed solely through diligence, while reserved category students are "lazy freeloaders" who benefit unfairly. This narrative, however, ignores the structural inequalities that shape access to opportunities. Merit, as popularly understood, is not a neutral measure of hard work but a product of socioeconomic privilege, access to resources, and systemic advantages. This article explores why merit is not what most Indians think it is, using data to highlight disparities in wealth, education, and access to resources.

The Misconception of Merit as Hard Work

The popular notion of merit equates it with individual effort—hours spent studying, discipline, and perseverance. General category critics often imply that their success in competitive exams like JEE, NEET, or UPSC is due to superior hard work, while reserved category students rely on "undeserved" quotas. This framing paints SC, ST, and OBC students as inherently less capable, ignoring the broader context of their circumstances.

In reality, success in competitive exams is not solely a function of hard work. Access to quality education, private coaching, and socioeconomic stability plays a massive role. As the Supreme Court noted in 2022, “Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination” and must be “socially contextualized” to account for systemic inequalities. The court emphasized that competitive exams do not reflect the “social, economic, and cultural advantage” accrued by privileged groups, which significantly boosts their performance.

The Resource Gap: Private Schools, Coaching, and Wealth Disparities

One of the most significant factors shaping exam performance is access to resources, which is heavily skewed along caste and class lines. General category students, who are disproportionately from upper castes, often benefit from better schools, private coaching, and tuition—resources that are financially out of reach for many SC, ST, and OBC families.

Private Schooling and Quality Education

• Disparity in Access: A 2024 study in Tamil Nadu revealed that 62% of upper-caste students attend private elite schools, compared to only 16% of SC and 25% of Most Backward Classes (MBC) students. Meanwhile, 60-70% of SC/ST students study in low-quality government schools, where English is often introduced only in the fifth or sixth grade. This early educational divide creates a lasting gap in foundational skills.
• Impact on Outcomes: Private schools offer better infrastructure, trained teachers, and exposure to English, which is critical for competitive exams. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data shows that scheduled castes are the most educationally backward, followed by STs and OBCs, with large gaps in higher education enrollment compared to upper castes.

Coaching and Tuition

• Cost of Coaching: Preparing for exams like JEE or NEET often requires enrolling in expensive coaching institutes, with fees ranging from ₹1-2 lakh per year. General category students, with greater financial resources, dominate these programs. In contrast, SC, ST, and OBC students, who often come from economically weaker backgrounds, are less likely to afford such coaching.
• Wealth Disparities: The 2011-12 India Human Development Survey showed that upper-caste households have a median income nearly twice that of SC households and significantly higher than ST and OBC households. This wealth gap limits access to supplementary education. For example, a 2023 post on X noted that Dalits own only ~5% of rural land, reflecting their limited economic resources.
• Coaching Impact: Coaching institutes provide structured preparation, mock tests, and exam strategies, giving students a competitive edge. Without this, even hardworking SC/ST/OBC students face a disadvantage, as their preparation relies on self-study or subpar resources.

Socioeconomic Barriers

• Financial Strain: Many SC/ST/OBC students come from families with limited means, forcing them to balance studies with economic responsibilities. A 2016 study highlighted that SC/ST students often drop out between school and college due to accommodation costs, travel expenses, and lack of family support for higher education.
• Cultural Capital: Upper-caste students inherit “cultural capital”—social networks, communication skills, and familiarity with elite institutions—that enhances their confidence and performance. The Supreme Court in 2022 noted that this capital, including “access to quality schooling and tutorials,” is a privilege not available to marginalized groups.

The Structural Reality: Merit as a Product of Privilege

The “merit vs. reservation” debate often ignores how privilege shapes outcomes. Michael Sandel, in The Tyranny of Merit (2020), argues that meritocracy can exacerbate inequalities by rewarding those with pre-existing advantages. In India, this is evident in the dominance of upper castes in elite institutions:

• Faculty Representation: Only 6% of faculty in Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and 9% in Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are from SC/ST/OBC categories, with 98% of academics in top IITs belonging to upper castes.
• Systemic Bias: A 2011 study by economists Ashwini Deshpande and Thomas Weisskopf found no evidence that reservations in Indian Railways reduced productivity, suggesting that diversity does not compromise quality. Meanwhile, private sector recruitment often favors upper-caste surnames, indicating caste-based discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on OBC quotas in NEET emphasized that “reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences.” It argued that merit must account for “fortitude and resilience” in overcoming deprivation, not just exam scores. This reframing challenges the narrow view of merit as individual achievement.

The Reservation Reality: Addressing Historical Injustices

Reservations were introduced to correct centuries of caste-based exclusion, not to reward laziness. The Indian Constitution, drafted under Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, recognized that SC, ST, and OBC communities were denied basic rights, including education and employment. Data underscores the ongoing need for affirmative action:

• Poverty and Caste: Five out of six people below the poverty line in India are from SC, ST, or OBC communities.
• Educational Gaps: The Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) in higher education for SCs (25.9) and STs (21.2) lags behind the national average (28.4).
• Discrimination: A 2023 article in Nature highlighted implicit casteism in academic institutions, where SC/ST students face derogatory labeling as “reserved” and experience mental health challenges due to discrimination.

Reservations provide a pathway for marginalized groups to access opportunities, but they do not level the playing field entirely. SC/ST/OBC students still compete in a system stacked against them, with fewer resources and greater social barriers.

Reframing Merit: Toward a Fairer System

The criticism of reservations as “anti-merit” stems from a flawed understanding of merit as an individual trait divorced from context. To address this:

• Economic-Based Criteria: Some argue for replacing caste-based reservations with economic criteria, but the Supreme Court in 1992 ruled that economic backwardness alone cannot define backwardness, as caste-based discrimination persists.
• Strengthening Access: Increasing scholarships, free coaching, and quality government schools for SC/ST/OBC students can reduce the resource gap. Programs like those for ST female students, which led to a 47.6% enrollment increase from 2017-18 to 2021-22, show the impact of targeted support.
• Challenging Narratives: Public discourse must move beyond the “merit vs. reservation” binary. As a 2023 post on X stated, “Merit is a myth” when social capital determines outcomes. Recognizing privilege is key to understanding true merit.

Conclusion

The idea that reservations undermine merit ignores the reality that merit itself is shaped by access to resources, wealth, and privilege. General category students, often from upper castes, benefit from private schools, coaching, and socioeconomic stability, giving them an edge in competitive exams. Meanwhile, SC, ST, and OBC students, despite facing systemic barriers, demonstrate remarkable resilience and achievement. Data shows that reserved category students often meet or exceed general cutoffs, debunking the myth of their “inferiority.” By reframing merit to account for structural inequalities, India can move toward a more equitable system where hard work is truly rewarded, regardless of caste or class. Reservations are not the opposite of merit—they are a step toward making merit accessible to all.