---

🏛️ Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi’s Opinions on Caste-Based Reservation

Caste-based reservation has been one of India’s most debated and enduring social policies. Designed as a corrective mechanism for centuries of discrimination, it has also sparked complex questions about merit, equality, and national identity. Two of India’s prime ministers—Jawaharlal Nehru and his grandson Rajiv Gandhi—had influential, yet cautious views on this subject.

Though they shared a political lineage and a vision for a modern India, their approaches to caste-based reservation reflected their distinct historical contexts and leadership challenges.

---

🧠 Nehru’s Vision: Modernism with Measured Affirmation

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, was a staunch modernist. He believed in a secular, scientific India rooted in equality and progress. To him, caste was a divisive relic that had no place in a modern democracy.

Yet Nehru wasn’t blind to the stark realities of caste oppression. He supported the inclusion of reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Constitution—as a temporary measure, not a permanent fixture.

“I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in services. I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards.”
— Jawaharlal Nehru, 1961

Nehru feared that excessive reservation could lead to mediocrity in public services and deepen caste divisions rather than erase them. He wanted a future where merit thrived and historical wrongs were corrected through education, economic opportunity, and social reform, rather than long-term quota-based entitlements.

---

🏛️ Rajiv Gandhi’s Dilemma: Balancing Justice and Unity

By the time Rajiv Gandhi took office in 1984, India had changed. Caste was no longer a passive social reality—it had become a mobilizing force in Indian politics. Rajiv faced the turbulent phase of post-Mandal Commission India.

The Mandal Commission, submitted in 1980, recommended 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Rajiv, despite inheriting the report, did not implement it during his term. His stance was cautious, critical, and strategic.

When V.P. Singh implemented Mandal in 1990, Rajiv, then Leader of the Opposition, delivered a powerful speech in Parliament. He warned that caste-based expansion of reservations would fragment society:

“You are going to create caste tensions. You are going to divide this country… not for uplifting the backward classes but for short-term political gain.”
— Rajiv Gandhi, 1990

Rajiv argued for economic criteria in determining backwardness, not caste alone. His focus was on holistic development—education, rural upliftment, and skill-building.

---

✍️ Where They Agreed—and Where They Didn’t

Both Nehru and Rajiv:

• Acknowledged the need for affirmative action for historically oppressed groups.
• Feared that long-term caste-based quotas could cement identities instead of dismantling them.
• Emphasized education and economic opportunity as the foundation for real empowerment.
• Advocated periodic review and sunset clauses for reservations.

Yet, their styles differed.
🟦 Nehru was more philosophical and administrative in his approach.
🟥 Rajiv was more political, navigating a society where caste-based mobilization had become powerful and emotive.

---

🎯 Why Their Views Still Matter Today

Fast forward to today’s India—caste-based reservation remains a cornerstone of public policy, yet it’s also under scrutiny. The introduction of the 10% EWS quota in 2019 reflects a shift toward economic-based affirmative action, echoing ideas Rajiv proposed decades ago.

As demands rise from newer communities for inclusion, and as meritocracy debates get louder, Nehru and Rajiv’s concerns remain highly relevant:

• Are we correcting historical wrongs or creating new social fault lines?
• Can we achieve equality without entrenching caste consciousness?
• Should reservation be perpetual, or should we aim for a society where it is no longer needed?

---

🧭 Final Thoughts

Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi did not reject reservation—but they approached it with a blend of idealism and realism. They understood the weight of historical injustice, but also the risks of permanent social engineering through quotas.

Their legacies urge us to ask:
Are our policies building bridges—or reinforcing boundaries?

As India continues its complex journey toward equality, the balanced, forward-looking views of Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi offer not just a historical lens—but a roadmap.

---

The above article was written by AI. I gave the prompts and it wrote.