New regulations over caste discrimination spark protests in universities
Introduced by the University Grants Commission to combat casteism on university campuses, the regulations have been challenged by students in Uttar Pradesh from the "general classes”, i.e. those not covered by quotas, for their ambiguous language and the risk of generating new forms of exclusion. The Supreme Court has stayed their application, calling for a review. Meanwhile, existing protections remain in place.
Lucknow (AsiaNews) – New regulations introduced by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to promote equity in Indian universities and combat caste discrimination on campuses have sparked a wave of student protests by upper-caste students.
On Tuesday, numerous university students took to the streets, accusing the UGC, which regulates and oversees university education nationwide, of protecting only lower castes and introducing new forms of discrimination due to the unclear language in the regulations, an issue that saw the Supreme Court rule in their favour.
The protests were concentrated in the state of Uttar Pradesh. In the state capital, Lucknow, university students organised sit-ins and marches, but mobilisations and demonstrations were also reported in the districts of Kanpur, Prayagraj, Deoria, and Raebareli.
Several leaders of the ruling Hindu ultranationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have also criticised the UGC regulations, fearful that members of the upper castes would be singled out if complaints were filed.
Specifically, the challenge is directed at the “Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026”, which require all higher education institutions to prevent, monitor, and sanction discrimination, holding university officials directly accountable.
The rules also mandate the establishment of equal opportunity centres, tasked with assisting students from disadvantaged groups as defined by the Indian Constitution. These facilities are tasked with handling reports of discrimination and abuse and providing support.
Tragic incidents in recent years involving underprivileged university students partly motivated the adoption of such regulations.
In 2016, Rohith Vemula, a Dalit doctoral student, committed suicide in Hyderabad, while in 2019, Payal Tadvi, a young Muslim gynaecologist from a tribal community, took her own life in Mumbai after reporting severe discrimination against her.
Some student groups have clarified that their protest is not against the UGC's quest for fairness, but against the ambiguity of the regulations, which risks giving rise to abuse rather than solving the problem.
The most controversial point is the definition of "caste discrimination" contained in Regulation 3(c), which defines it as discrimination exercised “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against people from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). These are socially and economically disadvantaged groups for whom quotas have been reserved in public employment and higher education.
It is precisely the adverb "solely" that has attracted much of the criticism. Critics argue that such a formulation risks excluding complex situations, because discrimination often arises from a combination of factors. Some students also fear that other forms of humiliation occurring on campus could remain excluded.
Some groups from so-called general classes (those not covered by quotas) have also said that the regulations fail to recognise that students not belonging to the reserved categories can be victims of discrimination or hostility.
As a result, many are calling for broader protection of the "dignity of all citizens” without hierarchies among victims.
After the new regulations were challenged before the Supreme Court of India, the latter decided to stay their application. During the hearing, the justices called the language of the regulations "vague" and requested that the latter be reviewed with input from experts.
The Court also ruled that the UGC regulations currently in force, dating back to 2012, will remain in place until further notice, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to intervene to ensure "complete justice" by going beyond the literal interpretation of the rules, thus preventing existing protections for marginalised groups from being dismantled.
.png)
20/01/2022 18:07
07/02/2019 17:28
11/01/2022 16:49
