In a country where debates around reservation policies are often politically charged and emotionally sensitive, hard data can be the clearest guide. A close look at Bihar’s recently released caste survey and its 2023 reservation policy reveals something surprising, even counterintuitive: despite receiving the largest share of reservation, Backward Classes (OBC + EBC) in Bihar are actually the most disadvantaged when it comes to per capita access to seats in jobs and education.
Meanwhile, General category, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST)—despite having fewer total reserved seats—actually face less competition per seat within their respective categories.
This article breaks down the numbers to explain how and why this happens.
This data shows that nearly two-thirds of Bihar’s population falls under the OBC/EBC umbrella, forming the majority.
🪑 Reservation Breakdown (Bihar, 2023)
In November 2023, Bihar passed a landmark law increasing total reservation to 75% in public employment and education.
This means General (unreserved) category students are competing for just 25% of total seats—yet that’s still more per capita access than any other group.
🧮 Let’s Do the Math: Seats per Person
To understand which category is most competitive within itself, we compare each group’s percentage of population to the percentage of seats available to it.
🎯 Interpretation:
-
A ratio > 1 means more seats per capita than your population share (easier competition).
-
A ratio < 1 means fewer seats per capita than your population share (harder competition).
So, despite having the largest share of reservation, the Backward Classes collectively face the toughest odds simply because they have to share it with a huge chunk of the population.
🧠Why This Feels Counterintuitive
The public narrative often assumes that reserved seats automatically mean advantage—but this ignores how many people are competing for those reserved seats.
A General category candidate might be competing for fewer seats overall, but they’re also part of a much smaller population group (15.52%). Meanwhile, a BC candidate is fighting for more seats (43%) but against more than 4 times the number of people (63.14%).
⚖️ A Broken Equity?
This leads us to a simple but overlooked conclusion: seat distribution does not automatically mean equity unless it’s proportional to population. While Bihar has gone further than most states in trying to align reservation with caste numbers, the most populous category—Backward Classes—still ends up short.
Unless the seat-to-population ratios are brought into balance, meritorious candidates from backward groups will continue to be under more pressure to outperform their peers, even within the quota system.
🛠️ What Could Be Done?
-
Subcategorization of OBC/EBC: Breaking them into more granular quotas, as suggested by several commissions, could balance internal disparities.
-
Dynamic seat allocation: Using a model that adjusts seat percentages based on real-time population and demand data.
-
Horizontal reservations within OBC/EBC to ensure representation of the most marginalized (e.g., Muslim OBCs, Most Backward Castes).
📌 Final Thoughts
This data-driven view forces us to rethink assumptions about reservation and merit. Equity is not just about allocating seats—it’s about fair access per person. And by that measure, Bihar’s reservation system, while progressive on paper, still leaves its largest and most disadvantaged population group at a competitive loss.
The system isn’t unfair because it gives “too much” to some—it’s unfair because it doesn’t give proportionately enough to the ones who need it most.
