The Supreme Court has effectively rescued the Bharatiya Janata Party from the ‘divine’ wrath of the Savarnas. It has also given it a shield to save itself from the surging indignation of the Dalit and Backwards communities, which are essential if it wants numbers to be in power. While staying the implementation of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC’s) new regulations against various forms of discrimination, the court aired a dire apprehension: a fear that such measures for ending discrimination might deepen and widen social divisions, perhaps leading to a state of affairs reminiscent of the old America, where Black and White children attended separate schools.This order is not the final word, though. Yet one finds it curious that it comes from the same bench of the court that had asked the UGC to formulate these rules, as it found that the previous 2012 rules had not been effective in curbing discrimination. It could not ignore the data given by the state itself, which showed that there was a staggering 118% increase in the cases of discrimination. Most of them are related to caste. Yet, the same bench lost that sense of urgency when it saw the fury of the Savarna community. Even when small in number, the sheer might and influence of the Savarnas are laid bare by this judicial intervention. How interesting it was to see the media covering it as a popular revolt.To understand these regulations, one might begin with a story – an entirely true incident of which I was a witness. I shall withhold names for obvious reasons. In a certain university, after interviewing candidates for a teaching position, the selection committee sat down to draw up the list of those deemed fit for the posts. The moment we – the two experts – mentioned the name of the candidate at the top of our list, the third member of the committee lost all composure. He declared he would not, under any circumstances, approve that name.The reason? During the interview, the candidate had discussed Brahminism critically. The learned expert argued that this person was unfit to be a teacher because if they could speak thus in an interview, they would surely “spew venom” in the classroom. We tried to reason with him – that Brahminism is an ideology, one that can be found in individuals of any caste or community; to critique it is not to oppose every person born into a Brahmin family. But he refused to concede. You can guess the outcome in the pursuit of “consensus.” I finally told him: it is proven that even in this Kaliyuga, there is no sanctuary from Brahmkop (the wrath of the Brahmin).The court has proven the same. In this democracy, Brahmkop remains the most formidable of wraths.It was a coincidence that all three experts on that board were Brahmins. One of them decided to penalise the best candidate for critiquing Brahminism. Others fell in line. Should we see this as an instance of discrimination? Or should we view it not as caste discrimination, but as a matter of ideological divergence?Also read: How Upper Caste Groups’ Backlash Against UGC’s New Regulations Highlight Unease With BJP’s Hindutva PoliticsIn recent years, to take care of this prejudice, observers from every community have begun sitting on selection committees, reducing the possibility of overt caste-based discrimination. But why was the need for such observers felt at all? Is it not because, even 78 years after Independence, most committees are still dominated by the upper castes? And is it not true that among them, if not outright hostility, there exists at least a general prejudice toward the Scheduled Castes, Tribes, or Backward communities? This is why “General Category” experts require monitoring. Is this not an insult to them? Why have the “upper castes” never raised their voice against this or boycotted these committees? But this has not happened. They, too, understand the logic of this system. Discrimination based on caste is embedded in the very nature of our society; it operates incessantly, directly or indirectly. Its redressal is essential because it not only harms the marginalised but also weakens democracy by violating the idea of equality.The reality of our educational institutions remains that the highest academic and administrative posts are occupied by the “upper castes.” Consequently, certain caste prejudices operate without ever being voiced. One such prejudice concerns the ‘General Category.’ One must repeatedly explain that ‘General Category’ does not necessarily mean an ‘Upper Caste Category,’ but rather a space where anyone who secures marks or grades above a certain threshold is entitled to a seat. Yet, it is often observed that candidates from Scheduled Castes, Tribes, or Backward classes are pushed into reserved categories even when they secure equal or higher marks. What shall we call this? Is this discrimination or not?With its decision, the Supreme Court has poured cold water on the anger of the upper castes and doused it. These groups claimed that under the guise of these regulations, ‘upper caste’ students, teachers, or administrators could be targeted. They took to the streets, created mayhem on the social media platforms, showered abuses on the chosen leader and the BJP, threatening them that the ‘general category’ support should not be taken for granted by the leader and the party. It was natural for the party to run for cover. The SC order came just when it was most needed by the BJP.It is fascinating that ‘upper caste’ people refer to themselves as the ‘General Category.’ This is legally incorrect, as the General Category can include people from every caste and community. By hiding their real identity – the ‘upper caste’ – and calling themselves the ‘General Category,’ it becomes evident that the truth is something that causes them a sense of embarrassment. Those who have traditionally enjoyed privilege now wish to call themselves ‘General’ (normal), while labelling those who were deprived of rights and are now staking a claim to them as ‘Special.’ They are thus framing the marginalised as the ones possessing ‘privilege.’Even if we ignore this linguistic disingenuity, it is difficult to understand why upper castes are so enraged. The regulations announced by the UGC to end campus discrimination and establish equality are not entirely new. In 2012, the UGC had formulated regulations for this very purpose. The new rules are merely a modified version or improved version of the 212 rules. If one reads them carefully and compares the two, it becomes clear that the new regulations are actually weaker than the 2012 version in many respects.Secondly, the new regulations include ‘upper castes’ among the groups that can be potentially discriminated against. The categories facing unequal treatment include the disabled, women, and the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). It goes without saying that these categories include upper-caste individuals; in fact, the EWS category is composed entirely of the upper castes.According to the regulations, if people from any of these categories experience unequal treatment or discrimination due to their condition, they can complain, and action must be taken. This clarifies that the regulations are not biased against upper-caste groups. They were created to identify and redress various forms of discrimination.My colleague, political scientist N. Sukumar, pointed out that this list includes all those groups often derisively called “Kotawale“ (the quota people). Reservation based on religion or region is rare, but the rest are all “quota people”: the disabled, EWS, OBCs, SCs, and STs. Beyond these, discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, region, and religion persists in society, so its presence on campus cannot be denied. We must note that even in these categories, upper-caste people are included.If an ‘upper caste’ person is discriminated against for being a ‘Bihari,’ they too are a victim, and their complaint will be heard. People from the Northeast face discrimination in Delhi or Bangalore; similarly, I have heard from Biharis that they feel discriminated against on campuses in states like Kerala. These forms of discrimination can be subtle.Either we assume that no discrimination exists in educational institutions, or if we accept the fact of discrimination, we must find a way to redress it. The business of education cannot function with people suffering from a sense of discrimination. It is a source of mental agony that weakens both student and teacher. It is difficult to survive in education with a sense of humiliation and inferiority. Suicide is the extreme reaction to this insult. Can this be permitted?Of all forms, caste discrimination is the most prevalent and is an all-India problem. Ostensibly, such discrimination can only be practised by those placed higher in the caste hierarchy. A Dalit is hardly in a position to discriminate against a Savarna; merely being at a higher level in an institution is not enough for that. Therefore, the argument of those calling themselves Savarna – that they too could face caste-based discrimination – will seem laughable to anyone who knows this society.Furthermore, the ‘upper castes’ allege that these regulations treat them as criminals. From which part of the regulations can this be concluded? If anyone feels discriminated against due to disability, gender, region, religion, race, or caste, they have the right to complain. That complaint must be heard immediately and acted upon without delay. Action, in this case means an inquiry where both sides get a full opportunity to present their case and evidence. Any objection to the committee’s decision can be sent to an Ombudsman.Also read: Language of Balance Recourse of the Powerful: Satish Deshpande on Opposition to UGC Equity RulesThe way a social community has flared up shows as if the UGC has done something unheard of that suggests they were entirely unaware of the 2012 regulations. It also suggests that, in truth, no effective action was ever taken under the 2012 anti-discrimination rules. Had there been any punitive action, it would have been impossible for it to pass without discussion or uproar.Even after the 2012 rules, students in higher education have committed suicide due to the sense of insult and harassment rooted in their caste status. Why is there no expression of pain for that among the ‘upper caste’ communities? Why was it that after Rohith Vemula’s suicide, all the influential sections of the upper-caste community busied themselves trying to prove that Rohith was not a Dalit and that his mother was lying?Sociologist Satish Deshpande wrote that the 2026 regulations establish the fact of discrimination in education for the first time. With a slight correction, one could say the fact of discrimination was first registered in 2012. The 2012 regulations identified the forms of discrimination more precisely but failed to create an effective mechanism for redress. The 2026 regulations moved forward in this direction, though they did not define the forms of discrimination as accurately. They are also not adequate as institutions like IITs and professional institutions are not covered by them. Most of the suicides have taken place in these institutions.Just as the 2012 regulations could hardly do anything substantial to address discrimination, our education system possesses enough high caste resistance to render the 2026 regulations ineffective. This is because its leadership is still ‘upper caste,’ and it refuses to accept the fact of social discrimination. This same leadership has been trying for the last 11 years to remove the mention of caste or discrimination from the curriculum, syllabus and textbooks. They argue that mentioning caste creates division in society, whereas the purpose of education is to establish harmony. But we know when division exists and discrimination is rampant and ignoring it does not create harmony; it breeds bitterness.Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.