Why UGC rules to stop caste-based discrimination have put Centre, BJP on the spot

The regulations, which were notified on January 13, were “within the ambit of the Constitution” and “done under the supervision of the Supreme Court”, he added.

The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, which replace the 2012 equity regulations of the commission, have seen protests by groups, mostly on social media, claiming that these could be used to “harass” general category students and create “caste divisions”. On Tuesday, some students protested outside the UGC office in Delhi seeking the withdrawal of the regulations.

On Monday, Bareilly City Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri announced his resignation citing the regulations, among other reasons, while there were reports of 11 BJP office-bearers in Uttar Pradesh stepping down in protest.

The main objection that has been raised is that there is no provision for penalties in the regulations against “false complaints of discrimination”, and that institutions can be subjected to action for not complying with the regulations.

Incidentally, a draft of the regulations shared for feedback in February last year had provided for penalties in the case of false complaints.

In another change, the notified regulations make a specific mention of OBCs while defining caste discrimination, and call for inclusion of OBC representatives in the ‘equity committees’ to be set up in higher education institutions. “Caste-based discrimination means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes,” say the regulations.

Sources in the Education Ministry pointed out that the regulations stem from a Supreme Court petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination, and that this matter remains pending before the Court.

At the last hearing, on January 15, the Supreme Court had taken note of the UGC’s notification of new regulations on January 13, and said: “Ms Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, wants to give some more suggestions that may be relevant for the effectivity of the notified regulations.” The next hearing is on March 19.

The Supreme Court also has another petition before it regarding the UGC regulations now, with advocate Vineet Jindal filing a plea on Monday asking why the definition of caste-based discrimination excludes persons belonging to “general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them”.

Pradhan’s statement, within a day of the protests gathering steam, shows that the Centre is cognizant of the backlash if it is seen as bending to any group, with the ruling BJP courting OBCs and Dalits, even while counting on upper caste Hindus as its natural base.

In sync with this, the BJP has ensured OBC representation in both the government and party. In 2018, after the Supreme Court ruled that any complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) must undergo a preliminary inquiry by a police officer triggered protests, the Modi government had promptly stepped in to restore the legislation through a constitutional amendment.

The BJP also realises that any caste friction will be seized upon by the Congress to reinforce its claim that the Modi government has failed to ensure representation for SCs, STs and OBCs at top levels of the government. Having faced a setback due to this Congress line in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls – specifically that a strong BJP would “alter” the Constitution – the Modi government has sought to recover ground with the announcement of a caste census.

In the recent Bihar elections, it also made an outreach to general category voters, who have been feeling left out. A significant number of upper class leaders were given tickets in the polls, as well as hold important positions in the party now, starting with its new president, Nitin Nabin, a Kayastha.

However, there is some disquiet, both over the lack of penalty for false complaints, as well as the fact that OBCs as a blanket category would also include groups that are actually dominant in many parts of India and exercise considerable power.

In a calibrated statement, RSS student wing ABVP said Tuesday that since a plea had been filed against the UGC regulations in the Supreme Court, “it (the commission) should clearly present its position and file an affidavit before the Court at the earliest”.

“At present, certain provisions and terminologies in the UGC regulations have led to ambiguity and misconceptions among society, students, and stakeholders. The UGC must take prompt cognizance of these concerns and initiate immediate action to ensure that no divisive situation arises,” the ABVP said.

Privately, ABVP insiders admitted unease. An ABVP member, speaking on condition of anonymity, cited three concerns: the ambiguity of “implicit discrimination”, the removal of penalties for false complaints, and the composition of institutional committees.

“Explicit discrimination, we understand – gestures, actions, comments. But implicit discrimination varies from person to person. How will you define it?” he said. “There is a fear that general category students might stop talking to reserved category students — not out of prejudice, but out of fear that anything they say might be interpreted as discrimination.”

Giving an example, he said: “If someone is called ‘Pandit hai, bhagwaan aa raha hai’, is that not caste-specific? If it is caste-specific, why is it not defined as caste-based discrimination?”

In its release on the UGC regulations Tuesday, Congress student wing NSUI called these mere symbolism, and said the commission had become a “puppet”. At the same time, it welcomed the regulations as “a necessary step towards addressing discrimination on campuses across the country”.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has often raised the matter of Vemula’s death to attack the Modi government.

NSUI president Varun Chaudhary said that while they welcome the UGC regulations, “the NSUI firmly asserts that the proposed committee must not remain symbolic or administrative in nature. It must include mandatory representation of students from SC, ST, and OBC communities, along with teaching faculty from SC, ST, and OBC backgrounds. To ensure independence, transparency, and credibility, serving or retired judges must also be included in the committee”.

The All India Students’ Association (AISA) defended the regulations, while describing the backlash as expected. “The student movement has been demanding a Rohith Act for years. The UGC had to bring this,” former AISA national President and ex-JNU president Balaji said.

On fears of misuse, Balaji said: “If misuse is the fear, then already the law is being misused by oppressors against the oppressed. Should we remove laws? No. You fight for stronger justice, not weaker law.” He described the reaction seen in UP as “a proxy war of state politics”.