A new study published by Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, analysing data from the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), encompassing more than 60,000 institutions and 4.38 crore students, makes some bold and provocative assertions. The study – simply called a “document” by its authors – has been prepared by a member of the faculty at IIM Udaipur, a visiting faculty member and a retired data research analyst. They conclude in their document that the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Class (OBC) students now “dominate” Indian higher education, by having outnumbered their General Category counterparts by a significant margin.According to the study, the combined share of these groups in total enrolments has surged from 43% in 2010-11 to 60.8% in 2022-23. At first glance, this appears to herald a transformative moment – a long-overdue influx of the historically marginalised SC, ST and OBC communities into the nation’s classrooms and campuses.Yet, a closer examination of the conclusions and inferences reveals cracks in this narrative of triumph. The study’s conclusions hinge on a simplistic aggregation of enrolment figures across all institutions, treating them as a uniform indicator of caste equity. To declare SC, ST, and OBC students as “dominant” based on sheer numbers is akin to boxing together a few luxury hotels with countless roadside eateries and proclaiming that the poor “dominate” the hospitality sector simply because most diners are from impoverished backgrounds.Also read: New Study Shows How Class, Religion and Caste Limit Urban Indian CitizensSuch a metric obscures critical questions: Who owns the hotels? Who reaps the profits? Who controls the supply chains? And, crucially, who frequents the elite venues?Similarly, the IIM Udaipur analysis equates, say, a modest Arts, Commerce and Science college in a remote district – often underfunded, lacking labs and research facilities or placement support – with premier institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) or elite private universities in metropolitan hubs. A basic BA degree from the former seldom opens doors to a high-stakes careers; it frequently leads to precarious unemployment in an oversaturated market.In contrast, a BTech from an IIT serves as a gateway to India’s corporate elite, technological innovation and bureaucratic leadership. By flattening this hierarchy of prestige and value, the study conflates mere quantity with genuine progress, peddling a reassuring tale of “social justice accomplished” while sidestepping who truly wields power in the system.A more fundamental flaw in the study by IIT Udaipur lies in its demographic context. The SC, ST and OBC communities collectively represent a substantial majority of India’s population, while the elite and upper-caste groups form a significantly smaller segment.Even a minimally equitable system would, naturally, expect higher absolute enrolments from the larger section of the population. The pertinent inquiry, therefore, is not the numerical edge that the SC, STs and OBCs have apparently gained but whether their presence aligns with their proportions in the overall population – and whether they are able to enjoy equitable access to prestigious institutions and programmes.The IIM Udaipur study refers to the Justice Rohini Commission on sub-categorising the OBC quota, but goes a step further, suggesting exclusion of caste groups that have fared well from reservation benefits. Source: Screenshot of IIM studyBenchmarking against population estimates – approximately 52% OBC, 16% SC, 8% ST and 24% for the rest (including Economically Weaker Sections and religious minorities) – exposes glaring shortfalls.AISHE data for 2022-23 shows that OBC enrolment fell 25% short of expectation (1.70 crore actual versus 2.28 crore projected); SCs by 3% (67.9 lakh versus 70.1 lakh); and STs by 19% (28.2 lakh versus 35 lakh). Meanwhile, the General Category enjoyed a 63% surplus (1.72 crore enroled versus the 1.05 crore expected).Even at 60.8% collective enrolment, SC, ST and OBC students lag behind their 76% population share. Their “dominance” is illusory, born of a deliberate omission of proportional comparisons.Also read: Preference for English, Upper Caste Candidates: How UPSC ‘Biases’ Impact Civil Services ExamAny credible assessment of caste dynamics in higher education must dissect the institutional pyramid. At its pinnacle sit the Institutes of National Importance and flagship public universities – the IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, NITs, NLUs, IISERs and select central and state varsities – that funnel talent into elite professions and research.Below them lie premium private universities in urban centres, with steep fees, global partnerships and dominance in corporate placements, which easilybypass reservation norms. Further down the hierarchy are mid-tier professional colleges offering degrees of uneven quality in medicine, engineering, management and law. And at the base are vast networks of general arts, science and commerce colleges in rural and semi-urban areas, plagued by inadequate resources and scant career support.On its third page, the IIM Udaipur study says its findings will compel a “necessary re-evaluation” of affirmative action policy since the historically marginalised have made ‘substantial gains’ and all others have seen ‘stagnation and decline’.The IIM Udaipur study glosses over these distinctions, offering no breakdown by institutional tier or programme prestige.Turning to sources such as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education’s latest report (drawing on AISHE 2022-23), a starkly different picture emerges. In India’s top 30 private universities, SC students comprise just 5% of all enrolments, ST students below 1% and the students from backward classes 24% – against their 76% demographic weight.Institutions like BITS Pilani have reported zero SC, ST or OBC students in earlier datasets, while recent figures show SC and ST combined mark their presence at fewer than 1% of enrolment and the OBC were merely 10%. O.P. Jindal Global University logs under 1% for SC and ST representation in enrolment and 8% for OBCs; Shiv Nadar University fares marginally better, with 1.4% SCs, 0.86% STs and 16% OBC enrolments.These bastions of global opportunity remain bastions of privilege, belying all claims of caste erosion at the summit. Curiously, the study overlooks these insights despite citing parliamentary documents elsewhere. It trumpets SC, ST, and OBC students’ 60% share in private-sector enrolments as evidence of a “merit-driven” shift, ignoring the sector’s own stratification.The IIM Udaipur study focuses on big-picture numbers without entering the granular details on where representation exists and where it doesn’t. Source: Screenshot of study.AISHE data indicate that growth in private educational institutions for students from the SC, ST and OBC communities cluster in low-fee, low-prestige programmes like general arts and commerce or non-elite medical, engineering or management courses – where SC and ST representation hovers below 8%, and of OBCs under 20%.Even the study’s internal data undercuts its rhetoric. In “professional and advanced courses,” there is overwhelming over-representation of General Category students: 39.5% in BE, 51.8% in BTech, 37% in ME/MTech, 48.8% in MBA, 55.3% in MBBS, and 60% in MD. Relative to a 24% population baseline, this signals General Category students’ 1.5- to 2.5-fold advantage in fields shaping India’s engineers, doctors, and executives – hardly the demise ofcaste privilege.Students of OBCs, STs and SCs have shown greater interset in pursuing education than they did in the past. Source: Screenshot of IIM Udaipur study.The purported “decline” in General Category enrolments from 2020-21 to 2022-23 also crumbles. Post-2019-20, AISHE introduced a 10% EWS quota, drawn from the same unreserved pool. By splitting General and EWS enrolments, the authors artificially deflate the former, fabricating an 11-lakh drop. But this is no sign of displacement – it’s an accounting trick. Recombining them reveals stability and even growth, not contraction.The IIM Udaipur study shows a fall in non-SC, non-ST and non-OBC student enrolment.A rigorous analysis would track a unified General-EWS series and parse labelling effects from real shifts; this one does neither. Equity extends beyond enrolment tallies to real-world outcomes and institutional influence. The IIM study speculates about “caste-to-class mobility” without data on graduates’ incomes, jobs or career-path trajectories. It also overlooks critical markers like faculty representation – where SC, ST and OBC groups are woefully underrepresented in academia’s decision-making roles – as well as dropout rates and research opportunities.The question isn’t just “Are they enroling?” but “Are they accessing the degrees that unlock real power?”Undeterred, the authors advocate rethinking affirmative action, positioning their work as an “empirical foundation” for policy reform. This is perilous overreach. Acknowledging SC, ST and OBC deficits, General over-representation in elite spaces and making the bogus claim of a “decline”in General Category student enrolments strips away any basis for dilution of SC, ST and OBC reservations.Also read: The Supreme Court Looks Inward: What the New Caste Report Reveals – and ConcealsThe data at best affirm incremental access of higher education to SC, ST, OBC students, not reservation’s obsolescence for them – particularly in the realm of premier public and private educational institutions.Indeed, it is the Parliamentary Standing Committee that draws the more honest policy inference. Confronted with the “abysmally low” presence of SC, ST and OBC students in private higher education, it has urged the government to enact a new law mandating 15% reservation for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs in private institutions as well.That recommendation flows naturally from the data. The IIM Udaipur call for revisiting affirmative action does not.The primary initial inference of the IIM Udaipur scholars is that since OBCs, SCs and STs have overtaken General Category students in absolute numbers, therefore, they are ‘transcending’ quotas. Source: Screenshot of study.Make no mistake: decades of public expansion, reservations, scholarships and activism have boosted marginalised participation in higher education – a genuine achievement. But progress is not parity. Confusing the two is not just analytical folly; it is politically charged, and risks complacency amid calls for deeper intervention.Equity demands scrutiny of outcomes, not just entries: Who teaches? Who leads? Who completes degrees that propel upward mobility? The IIM study’s “dominance” trope could arm efforts to erode safeguards, even as official reports urge reinforcement. Aggregating institutions masks who commands the pinnacles, much like blending luxury hotels with dhabas ignores who dines at the summit.Let us, therefore, be clear: the marginalised have breached higher education’s doors, but they remain barred from its inner sanctum. Until scholarship confronts this reality, declarations of caste equality will ring hollow and deceptive.The study/document has been published by the Centre for Development Policy and Management in December. It is described in the study as ‘An IIM Udaipur initiative’.Jayant S. Ramteke is the founder and CEO of Meritorium Academy, Mumbai, an AI Training and consulting firm. He writes on education, employment and issues of marginalised communities in elite institutions.