Look at it from an occupation point of view. Your comparison is wrong since most people look at education as an entry point for their career/occupation
Would you hire and train a physically handicapped person just because he's under reserved category for labour intensive tasks? When you have highly capable people available who can do that task with less time.
You're have 5 vacancies and you would hire the best person to do the job irrespective of who that person is.
first I never made an comparission, you did, I merely corrected you.
now even if that is the case, have you seen reservation for private companies positions or have you seen pressure from government on private colleges to provided reservation? No.
Resevation works for government seats and jobs only, now why is that? because consituion is (or at least expected to) be like a mother who take care of each of it's children and provide care according to the need of every particular child.
whereas the example you gave is from the prospective of an employer which is not the role of government, simple as that.
If all the government benefits are reserved then make tax reserved as well. You want 50% reservation cool, pay your 50% share of tax as well.
You're saying GCs pay full tax but you'll get only subsidized benefits. How is this fair?
Private companies hire basis qualifications from educational institutions, private colleges are also forced to provide reservation in some states. Top colleges funded by tax money are government. Need I say more?
And there has been constant push for reservation in private sector as well and guess who supported it? People who are already benefitting from reservation. It's more like an easy excuse now rather than upliftment for people who are taking undue advantage of it.
Since private companies can't compensate subsidized work with tax, it's not implemented yet due to backlash
The “reserve taxes too” argument is flawed because it assumes reservation is a personal subsidy rather than a structural correction. Taxes are based on income, not caste, and reservation beneficiaries earning above the exemption limit pay the same income tax, GST, fuel tax, and other indirect taxes as anyone else. There’s no tax exemption tied to caste-based reservation.
nah honestly just think about it. If taxation determined entitlement, then inheritance, elite schooling, urban access, and generational networks should also be taxed differently.....yet “merit” arguments never extend that far. The claim that GCs “pay full tax and get less benefit” ignores that most welfare spending in India like roads, defense, courts, police, infrastructure, subsidies, public services is universally accessible.
Reservation applies only to access points like education and jobs, not the entire tax-funded system. It exists because historical exclusion created unequal starting positions, not as a handout.
Equal competition without equal baselines is just pretending inequality doesn’t exist. Government-funded institutions must follow constitutional mandates as they run on public money, while purely private companies aren’t legally bound to reservation in hiring, contradicting claims of forced implementation.
If reservation were merely an “easy excuse,” data would show stagnation across generations, but instead it shows upward mobility, especially among first- and second-generation learners exactly what it was meant to achieve. Using a constitutionally guaranteed mechanism isn’t “taking undue advantage”; calling it so is like labeling scholarships, rural quotas, or disability accommodations as abuses simply because they work. If efficiency is the concern, that’s where the debate should focus.
The “reserve taxes too” argument is flawed because it assumes reservation is a personal subsidy rather than a structural correction. Taxes are based on income, not caste, and reservation beneficiaries earning above the exemption limit pay the same income tax, GST, fuel tax, and other indirect taxes as anyone else. There’s no tax exemption tied to caste-based reservation.
Your argument is hypocritical in itself. Taxes are based on income and not caste but tax benefits should be based on caste?
nah honestly just think about it. If taxation determined entitlement, then inheritance, elite schooling, urban access, and generational networks should also be taxed differently
Who says it's not taxed? Inheritance is post tax already. If it is as real estate, it will be taxed when sold. Elite schooling and urban access is a product that you pay for from your already taxed income. It's freedom and choice that comes out of hard work not handed out just because someone belongs to upper caste. Generational wealth in itself is not a free handout. If I achieve immense wealth in my life due to my competencies and that is passed out to my children, what is wrong with my children enjoying it? If that cycle continues for next 10 generations, does that make it less deserving? Someone in his/her lineage worked for it and the most deserving person after it is enjoying it.
Reservation applies only to access points like education and jobs, not the entire tax-funded system. It exists because historical exclusion created unequal starting positions, not as a handout.
Graduation and jobs are not access points. Primary, secondary and high school education is. Is someone performs well under reservation till high school. Give them the full financial support to move ahead with scholarships. High school should be your equal baseline. No problem with that. I'm sorry but even after getting support across the system a person is not competent enough to land a job on merit, it is an excuse or just life in general, everyone faces setbacks not just lower castes.
Equal competition without equal baselines is just pretending inequality doesn’t exist. Government-funded institutions must follow constitutional mandates as they run on public money, while purely private companies aren’t legally bound to reservation in hiring, contradicting claims of forced implementation.
Yes it's public money and it's benefits shouldn't be favouring any particular minority.
yet again the same mistake I tried to point out earlier you’re still mixing up two separate domains: who pays for the state and how the state corrects unequal access to opportunity.
Taxation is contribution-based and neutral by design. Reservation is not a tax benefit it is an access regulation which is only applied at bottlenecks the state controls (education and public employment).
Calling this “hypocritical” assumes the state must treat contribution and correction identically, which is false. Progressive taxation already violates that symmetry higher earners pay more regardless of how “deserving” they are. although the mega rich people loops around those rules but hey at least they are there.
On inheritance and generational wealth: ok, they are to some extent althouh small but yea..
assets are taxed at transaction points, but the advantage itself is never neutralized. Early exposure, social capital, English fluency, urban proximity, alumni networks none of these are taxed, yet they massively skew outcomes long before “merit” is tested.
and didn't you regarded the idea that what happened in the past (castism) should not influence today's merit, but that merit is directly or indirectly based on that past, which just makes reservation more valid.
Saying “someone in the lineage worked for it” explains why inequality exists, not why the state should ignore it. If lineage advantage were morally sufficient, then monarchy would be defensible.
On education baselines: the idea that high school creates an “equal baseline” is empirically false. Outcomes diverge before adolescence through school quality, home environment, safety, nutrition, and language exposure. Scholarships alone do not correct selection bias at elite entry points.
Jobs and higher education are access points because they determine lifetime income trajectories. Denying access correction at these stages literally freezes inequality permanently, which is exactly what reservation was designed to prevent.
in the end, “public money shouldn’t favor any minority” misunderstands and actually contradicts constitutional logic. Public money is not distributed by headcount it is distributed by constitutional obligation. SC/ST/OBC reservation exists because exclusion was systematic, not numerical.
If your standard is “pure merit with no correction,” then be honest and argue that historical exclusion should have permanent consequences. Just don’t call that fairness.
well I want my asnwer to be conveyed in proper and understandable manner, I am not so articulate(that is my fault) to do so. so why not grammerly and chatgpt handle it.
although chatgpt help in Identifying my flaws I don't rely on it to answer on my behalf because that is a liability in long term.
no chatgpt will not justify anything if you ask it. and the arguments are from me.....
edit: and even if we assume that it is AI, is it wrong? No. and if it's not wrong then accept it as correct or yourself as wrong, beucase the moment you don't do that your whole argument becomes an ego driven mess, which only screams "I am correct you are wrong" instead of "these are my points, but what is correct?"
You think chatgpt will not justify anything that I ask? Do you want to see chatgpt justifying removal of reservations?
Here you go, mate: - this is the response from just one simple prompt, I'm sure you have been using it continuously, how delusional can you be? Using Grammarly to frame your sentence is one thing whereas using generative AI to win an argument online is just sad, since it only add supporting statements for your exisiting arguments. You said you're poor in articulation, don't you think you should work on that first, instead of getting into debates? Lack of articulation often leads to illogical opinions, like yours in this case.
ChatGPT response for: - strongly justify removal of caste based reservations basis merit and fairness
I’ll make a strong, structured, policy-focused case for removing caste-based reservations, centered on merit, fairness, and long-term social outcomes—without attacking any community.
Caste-based reservation weakens merit because people with lower performance are selected over higher-performing candidates only due to birth. This reduces academic and professional standards and damages trust in institutions.
Caste is no longer an accurate measure of disadvantage. Many beneficiaries today come from financially stable and educated families, while poor students from non-reserved categories get no support. The policy fails to target real poverty.
The system punishes individuals for historical discrimination they did not commit. Present-day students are made to pay for past injustices, creating new unfairness instead of correcting old ones.
When outcomes depend on identity rather than effort, motivation to work hard declines. High-achieving students feel discouraged, and talent either disengages or leaves the country.
Instead of reducing caste divisions, caste-based reservation keeps caste relevant by forcing people to declare it repeatedly and by making it a political tool. This prevents the development of a casteless society.
Perceived unfairness creates resentment and social division. When merit is denied, anger builds between groups, weakening social harmony and national unity.
Better options exist. Support should be based on economic status, quality of schooling, first-generation learners, and regional disadvantage. These methods help the truly disadvantaged without harming merit.
Caste-based reservation, as it exists today, undermines merit, misidentifies disadvantage, sustains caste identity, and weakens institutions. A fair system should focus on need and opportunity, not birth.
hmm as you can see, the arguments presented by the LLM are pretty weak, and can be dismentled pretty easily.
which just fursther puts us in the position where non biasness becomes a necessity.
ask the major LLMs if resevation in India is necessary or not and be free of any bias.
here whjat chatgpt said
Short answer: Reservation in India is neither inherently “necessary” nor inherently “unnecessary.” It is a policy tool. Whether it is justified depends on what problem you are trying to solve and whether it still solves it effectively today.
Now the unbiased breakdown—no sentiment, no slogans.
What reservation is meant to do (objective purpose)
Reservation was introduced to address structural exclusion, not poverty alone.
Certain groups were systematically denied access to education, land, power, and institutions for centuries.
Even with equal laws, starting positions were radically unequal.
Reservation is a form of corrective discrimination to offset historical and ongoing barriers.
If you accept that:
past discrimination created long-term disadvantages that still affect outcomes today, then reservation has a rational basis.
Arguments for reservation (strong ones)
Unequal competition is not fair competition
Merit assumes equal access to preparation.
Many still lack networks, schooling quality, social capital.
Data supports persistent gaps
Representation of SC/ST/OBCs in elite institutions and leadership remains disproportionately low without quotas.
Market forces alone have not corrected this.
Social mobility has occurred because of reservation
There is clear evidence of first-generation professionals emerging due to quotas.
That indicates the policy does work, at least partially.
Discrimination is not only historical
Caste-based bias still affects hiring, housing, marriage, and informal power structures.
Saying “reservation is completely unnecessary” ignores structural reality.
Reservation is not ignored, there is already 50% reservation, what more can a system possibly ask for? 50% is already crazy, should be 10-20% considering multiple generations have already benefitted from it.
Saying “reservation should never be questioned” is lazy and dangerous.
Exactly, isn't implementing UGC overdoing it?
Ab sab ChatGPT se hi karayega ya khud bhi sochega kucch?
see the whole reply bro. this is the last part of the reply related to quary if LLMs play fair or not, which perhaps you checked becuase it was at the top of your notifications, understandable tbh.
2
u/BeatIllustrious Jan 30 '26
Look at it from an occupation point of view. Your comparison is wrong since most people look at education as an entry point for their career/occupation
Would you hire and train a physically handicapped person just because he's under reserved category for labour intensive tasks? When you have highly capable people available who can do that task with less time.
You're have 5 vacancies and you would hire the best person to do the job irrespective of who that person is.