The One-Generation Contract

• Why does a policy designed to correct history end up becoming a hereditary right?
• How long should a welfare mechanism continue before it begins to distort the very meritocracy it was supposed to balance?
• And what happens when tools for ‘upliftment’ turn into tools for ‘entitlement’?
• At what point does affirmative action unintentionally ‘punish’ the very people it once sought to ‘protect’?

And, here’s the hard truth — and the hard question — that India keeps postponing: How long should a ladder remain under a climber who has already reached the terrace?

This is the real crux behind Justice Pankaj Mithal’s remark, who had said: “Reservation should be given only to the first generation, not after that.” And whether one agrees or disagrees with him, the debate he has triggered can no longer be brushed aside with emotional rhetoric or political compulsions.

India has avoided these questions for decades — not because they are unimportant, but because they are uncomfortable. And yet, if a nation must grow, it must outgrow its fears.

The Original Spirit: Reservation Was a Springboard, Not a Sofa

Dr. Ambedkar’s vision for reservation was crystal clear:

• Use it as a temporary corrective mechanism until the social deformity heals — not as a perpetual caste-based guarantee for every descendant of the beneficiary.
   
• When a first-generation learner enters a university because of reservation, we compensate for centuries of exclusion.
   
• When a first-generation employee gets a government job, we acknowledge that systemic barriers cannot be overturned overnight.

But when a second or third generation — already educated, urban, economically stable, socially mobile — continues to claim the same preference, the logic begins to break.

Upliftment has occurred. The springboard has already worked. The rocket must now fly on its own fuel.

Why Perpetual Reservation Fails Logic, Fairness & Outcomes

1. Because disadvantage is not hereditary once mobility has occurred
   
   A child growing up in a metropolitan environment, studying in an English-medium school, and enjoying middle-class privileges cannot claim the same structural handicap as a child in a remote village school with no teachers, no resources, and no exposure.
   
   Yet both often claim the same quota because of their caste label — not their actual disadvantage.
   
   This is not justice. This is misclassification.
   
   
2. Because it blocks the truly needy within the same communities
   
   Let’s take a simple example.
   
   A family from a reserved community gets a government job in 1995. Their children grow up in a stable urban middle-class setting. But a family from the same community in a rural district still struggles with poverty, social exclusion, and zero educational exposure.
   
   Who needs reservation more?
   
   Today, both get the same preference — and the family that is already uplifted has a massive head start over the still-vulnerable family.  Ironically, indefinite reservation benefits the creamy layer within the community at the cost of the poorest in that very group.
    
3. Because generational reservation breeds entitlement, not empowerment
   
   A policy designed to create equality should not create dependency. When a student believes: “I will get in anyway because I belong to XYZ category,” the system has already failed.
   
   Reservation was meant to be a launchpad, but multi-generation reservation has turned it into a safety net, often misused.
   
   True empowerment means:
   
   ·         The first generation climbs.
   ·         The next stands on its own legs.
   
   Not:
   ·         The first climbs.
   ·         The next hangs on to the ladder indefinitely.
    
4. Because it creates a silent resentment that fractures society
   
   Let’s be honest: Meritocracy is not a dirty word. When equally qualified students are treated unequally because of hereditary reservation — even after their families are socially and economically on par — the resentment quietly builds. This resentment isn’t against upliftment. It is against unfair continuation.
   
   If not corrected, it will widen social rifts that reservation was supposed to heal.

The Most Rational Approach: Reservation Only for the First Generation

If India must preserve equity and merit, one principle stands out as both moral and practical:

Reservation should follow disadvantage, not surnames.

Extend it to:

• First-generation learners
• First-generation government employees
• First-generation urban migrants
• Those below a rational socio-economic threshold. 

Withdraw it from:

• Families with established education
• Second or third generations already benefiting from reservation
• Those who have crossed a defined socio-economic mobility marker. 

This is not cruelty. It is clarity.
This is not insensitivity. It is integrity.
This is not abandonment. It is accountability.

A Simple Illustration

Suppose a first-generation student, Arjun, gets admission through reservation in 2000, becomes an IAS officer, and provides a privileged upbringing to his child. Now compare his daughter with Meena, a girl from the same caste in a remote hamlet in UP, still struggling with basic schooling.

Should both have the same claim to reservation?

Should Arjun’s daughter — an IAS officer’s child — compete with Meena under the same quota?

The logic collapses.

Why First-Generation Reservation Works Better

Because it:

• Targets actual disadvantage
• Avoids misuse
• Encourages self-reliance
• Prevents creamy-layer capture
• Reduces social resentment
• Accelerates equality rather than freezing it

A nation cannot carry the same burden forever.

At some point, uplifted individuals must step aside for those still waiting at the bottom.

Final Thoughts: A Ladder, Not a Throne

Reservation was meant to be

A medicine — not a diet.
A therapy — not a tradition.
A bridge — not a boundary wall.

If upliftment has happened, continuing reservation is not justice; it is inertia.

India must now decide whether reservation remains a lifeline for the genuinely disadvantaged, or a legacy privilege enjoyed by those already uplifted. 

Justice Mithal’s comment forces us to re-examine the purpose, not the politics, of affirmative action. And perhaps, the fairest path forward is the simplest:

Help the first generation rise. Let the next generation rise on their own.