India Insights: When Universities Become Flashpoints: From Mandal to the UGC Regulations

Vardhan Halwai

In January 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) passed a bill to eliminate discrimination based on caste, religion, race, gender, etc. in academic spaces and to establish special committees to address complaints of discrimination. The bill sparked widespread criticism from those who are not included in its provisions, afraid that their issues will go unseen. Moreover, some are worried that the new regulations would lead to more complaints and disharmony on campuses. But this is not the first time a policy decision aiming at preventing discrimination has resulted in backlash. Similar concerns were raised with the establishment of the Mandal Commission in 1979. 

What do the UGC regulations say?

The rules mention the explicit inclusion of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in protection against caste-based discrimination along with Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The definition of discrimination has been broadened to include “unfair, biased or differential treatment, whether explicit or implicit, as caste, religion, race, gender, place of birth, or disability, including acts that impair equality in education or violate human dignity.” Furthermore, the false complaint penalty has been removed to encourage students to speak up about any injustices without reprisal. 

Nature of Current Criticism

Criticism has largely stemmed from people belonging to the “general” category who believe that the new regulations may result in discrimination against them. They are also worried that there are no current provisions for the upper caste or general category that could protect them. Moreover, they demonstrated concern about the “vague” definition of discrimination outlined in the regulations, which would end up with more complaints than ever. Students protested at Delhi University’s North Campus, and students from Patna asked for a nationwide strike against the decision. Many students also protested outside the UGC headquarters in Delhi. 

A Historical Parallel: The Mandal Commission

India has seen this anxiety before with the Mandal Commission. In August 1990, then Prime Minister VP Singh announced the groundbreaking regulations of the Mandal Commission that brought caste to the national stage for the first time. The Mandal Commission, led by B.P. Mandal in 1970, found that 52% of the Indian population belonged to the OBCs but did not see proportional representation. The 1950 constitution already outlined reservations for people belonging to SC and ST, but OBCs were largely ignored. Finally, in 1990, under VP Singh’s leadership, 27% of the seats in public universities and central government jobs and public sector undertakings (PSUs) were reserved for OBCs. 

This too led to widespread criticism, especially among student groups who feared their job prospects decreasing. Anti-Mandal protests raged in the streets, especially in Northern and Western India, which shut down schools and colleges. Some students threatened and even committed self-immolation, led by 19-year-old Rajiv Goswami, who set himself on fire, inspiring hundreds of others. 

In November 1992, the Supreme Court confirmed the 27% reservations but capped the maximum reservation at 50 per cent and introduced the concept of a “creamy” layer to exclude any student belonging to backward classes who is highly advanced economically and educationally from accessing the quota benefits. But VP Singh’s decision led to the collapse of this government 5 years before it completed its term in 1995. 

Key Differences and Similarities Between the Two Movements

First and foremost, the Mandal Commission dealt with reservation and quotas, setting up regulations for admission of oppressed classes to universities and offices, while the new UGC regulations are more about discrimination and grievance mechanisms. One distributes opportunities, while the other regulates conduct. 

UGC guidelines have been established previously, like the ones in 2012, which laid out regulations against discrimination, but the ones in 2026 have stricter follow-ups with an emphasis on deadlines and consequences if not followed through, such as funding cuts and loss of degree-granting power. 

Despite the differences, the arguments raised against both the decisions are similar. In both the cases, critics argue that the state interventions could lead to disadvantages for the non-reserved categories, such as people grouped under “general” or belonging to upper castes. Moreover, in both cases, universities emerged as the primary site of protest, reflecting the importance of academic spaces in debates about access, social mobility and state intervention. This is because universities are the gateway to the rest of our lives through professional employment. When people from different classes, castes and backgrounds come together, the space becomes charged with questions of access and social mobility. 

People often believe that academic spaces are those of castelessness, equality and meritocracy; the smartest ones find their way to the top. However, universities don’t exist in a void; they function within a society with various social hierarchies that dictate the rules and behaviours of people. 

There have been many instances in the past, including the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula, a 26-year-old student at the University of Hyderabad, that revealed the caste-based structures within the university. Furthermore, academics encourage us to question the social conditions under which merit is produced and that it is mediated by social and cultural capital within society.  

Thus, policies such as the UGC 2026 guidelines and the ones produced under VP Singh’s government acknowledge the discrimination within institutions, challenging the perception of equality and merit in academic spaces, which can provoke criticism, especially from the people benefitting from these structures.

Where the Debate Stands

The Supreme Court stayed the 2026 Equity Regulations, declaring them “too sweeping”. Instead, they ruled that the 2012 regulations should continue until the new bill is reviewed. As seen with the Mandal Commission, policies on caste-based inequalities often face much criticism before getting accepted institutionally. Whether UGC’s guidelines will follow a similar path depending on their interpretation and implementation is a question that remains unanswered. Similar to previous moments in India’s higher education history, universities are again in the spotlight about equality, access and addressing the social hierarchies.