⚡ A QUESTION THAT WON’T GO AWAY

Across india, state governments run scholarship schemes to support students from economically vulnerable backgrounds. On paper, this looks like social justice in action. But scratch the surdata-face, and a disturbing question emerges.

In Madhya Pradesh, the MPTAAS scheme supports poor students from SC, ST, and OBC communities, from Class XI all the way to PhD.

The intent sounds noble.
The reach is massive.

Yet one group is missing.

Poor students from the General Category.

And their absence is not a rounding error — it is a policy choice.

1️⃣ A WELFARE SCHEME THAT ALREADY COVERS ALMOST EVERYONE

SC, ST, and OBC communities together make up roughly 85–90% of the population in many indian states.

When a scholarship scheme covers nearly the entire demographic spectrum, one has to ask:

👉 What exactly is the eligibility logic now — caste or poverty?

If the stated goal is upliftment of the poor, excluding the remaining section purely by caste becomes harder to justify.

2️⃣ DOES THE STATE believe ALL GCs ARE RICH?

There are only two possible assumptions behind such policies:

Option A:
The state believes all General Category families are economically secure.

This is demonstrably false.

Option B:
The state knows many GCs are poor, but chooses not to include them.

That is far more troubling.

Because when the state is aware of deprivation and still designs schemes that exclude those affected, exclusion stops being accidental. It becomes structural.

3️⃣ WHEN POVERTY IS FILTERED THROUGH CASTE

Here’s the uncomfortable reality:

In the current welfare design, poverty is not treated as a standalone condition.
It is recognised only when it belongs to certain castes.

If you are poor and SC/ST/OBC → the system sees you.
If you are poor and GC → the system looks away.

That isn’t affirmative action anymore.
That’s administrative blindness.

4️⃣ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VS PERMANENT EXCLUSION

Reservation and caste-based welfare were designed as corrective measures, not as eternal filters.

They were meant to:

• Offset historical disadvantage

• Ensure access

• Level the playing field

They were never meant to redefine poverty itself.

When economic hardship is acknowledged for some but denied for others, the policy quietly shifts from justice to discrimination, even if wrapped in progressive language.

5️⃣ THE SILENT COST: education LOST, TALENT WASTED

A poor GC student dropping out after Class XII doesn’t trend on social media.
There’s no headline.
No outrage.

But the loss is real:

• Fewer degrees

• Fewer researchers

• Fewer professionals are climbing out of poverty

• 
  

When scholarships are caste-gated instead of need-based, education stops being a ladder and becomes a locked door.

6️⃣ THIS IS NOT ABOUT REMOVING BENEFITS — IT’S ABOUT ADDING FAIRNESS

Let’s be clear.

This argument is not about taking scholarships away from SC, ST, or OBC students.

It’s about asking a simple, rational question:

👉 If poverty is the problem, why is caste still the gatekeeper?

A parallel, economic-criteria-based scholarship for all poor students would not dilute social justice.
It would complete it.

🧨 FINAL WORD: POVERTY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT CASTE — WHY DOES POLICY?

Hunger doesn’t ask for a caste certificate.
School fees don’t change based on surnames.
Debt doesn’t discriminate.

When the state designs welfare that does, the message is clear:

Some poverty is visible.
Some poverty is inconvenient.

And some poverty is quietly ignored.

If india wants to be serious about equality, it must confront this contradiction head-on — because justice that stops at caste is not justice at all.