We might all have come across the argument of “Reservation vs Merit” at some point in our lives. For many, it is one of the most uncomfortable and difficult conversations to have. It is also a debate that cannot be understood simply by comparing examination scores or individual economic circumstances. Reservation is a form of affirmative action intended to address the historical and social disadvantages faced by certain communities. It is not merely a form of financial assistance. Rather, it is intended to improve representation and provide opportunities to communities that have historically been excluded from education, employment, political institutions and other avenues of social participation. There are different forms of affirmative action and reservation systems across the world. In India, however, one of the most debated forms is reservation for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). For centuries, communities that were placed at the bottom of India’s caste hierarchy faced severe discrimination and social exclusion. In many parts of India, people were denied access to public sources of water, education, temples and other common facilities because of their caste. Restrictions were also imposed on occupations, property ownership, residence, clothing and social interaction. Practices of untouchability and forced or exploitative labour deprived many communities of dignity, security and equal participation in society. These historical realities played an important role in the thinking of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other social reformers during the making of modern India. Ambedkar strongly argued that political democracy could not survive without social democracy and meaningful equality. The question of political representation was particularly important during the constitutional negotiations. Ambedkar initially supported separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, but the Poona Pact of 1932 resulted in a different arrangement: reserved seats for the Depressed Classes within a common electorate. After independence, the Constitution of India incorporated various safeguards and affirmative-action provisions for historically disadvantaged communities. Today, reservations for different groups operate through several constitutional provisions. For example, Articles 15 and 16 provide the constitutional framework for reservations and special provisions in education and public employment, while Articles 330 and 332 provide for reserved seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. However, reservation does not mean that merit becomes irrelevant. A candidate benefiting from reservation still has to satisfy the eligibility requirements and compete within the applicable selection process. At the same time, it is understandable why candidates in the unreserved category may feel that the system is unfair when someone with a higher score does not receive a seat while another candidate receives one through a reserved category. That feeling of individual disadvantage should not simply be dismissed. An individual who loses an opportunity despite achieving a higher score can genuinely feel wronged. The question, however, is whether examination marks alone are sufficient to measure merit in a society where people have historically experienced vastly unequal access to education, resources, social networks and opportunities. This is where the debate becomes much more complicated. Reservation is not necessarily a permanent solution to caste-based inequality. It can be viewed as an instrument of representation and social justice intended to compensate, at least partially, for structural disadvantages. Ideally, the ultimate objective should be a society in which a person’s caste does not determine their opportunities, dignity or social position. In simpler words, reservation is a bandage over a deeper problem that exists in Indian society. Therefore, the question should perhaps not simply be “Reservation or Merit?” It should be: “How do we create a society in which merit and equal opportunity can genuinely coexist?” If reservation were to be abolished without addressing the underlying inequalities that produced the need for it, simply removing the policy would not automatically remove caste discrimination. The social hierarchy could continue to reproduce itself through unequal access to education, wealth, networks and opportunities. At the same time, reservation policies should not be immune from examination or reform. Their effectiveness, beneficiaries, duration, implementation and interaction with other forms of disadvantage should be continuously evaluated through evidence and constitutional principles. Reservation is a policy that can be revoked, but discrimination is a mindset—one that is deeply rooted in society and far more difficult to eliminate. The long-term goal should not be to preserve reservation forever. Nor should it be to abolish it merely because it creates difficult cases. The long-term goal should be to create a society where caste no longer determines a person’s dignity, opportunity or representation. Until that reality is achieved, the debate over reservation will remain far more complex than a simple comparison between two candidates’ marks. Reservation is not the opposite of merit. The real challenge is to ensure that merit is allowed to flourish in a society where everyone has a meaningful opportunity to develop it. All rights reserved with the author.