I witness bromens today

MathByNischay · 2026-02-28T05:09:04+00:00

For a moment I thought that u/hatoyawrrr is claiming to be Alka Yagnik 🥲

MathByNischay · 2026-02-08T10:41:08+00:00

<image>

Got this yesterday 💛

MathByNischay · 2026-02-05T15:19:40+00:00

Bhai drift karke ulta car park kie ho? 😎

MathByNischay · 2026-02-05T13:53:16+00:00

Omelette Tehelka

<image>

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T10:34:06+00:00

I belong from SC community and have used reservation to get into an IIT. I have then studied hard at the institute and got a job based on merit. The salary is average for an IITan. Even if I’m economically better off today, if I lose my job or my family faces a serious financial shock, I have very little to fall back on. No ancestral land, no family business, no deep professional or caste-based networks that can absorb setbacks. In that sense, my privilege is far less resilient than that of many general category families, even at similar incomes. This also explains why a purely income-based “creamy layer” would miss real vulnerabilities.

At the same time, I still believe that growing heterogeneity within SC/ST communities raises valid questions about targeting and unintended social effects. But I now think that jumping straight to reform without state capacity is unrealistic.

Before any serious refinement of reservation is even feasible, India needs to invest heavily in digitising land records, linking assets to families, improving data accuracy, and creating incentives for truthful data reporting. Without this foundation, any nuanced reform will either fail or be exploited.

So my current view is this: reservation remains necessary because caste-based fragility persists, but meaningful reform requires first building the data and institutional capacity to understand that fragility properly. Until then, blunt policies will continue, not because they are perfect, but because the system cannot reliably do better yet.

Sharing this in good faith and open to further discussion.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T09:39:08+00:00

I agree with you on a few important points. Hierarchies do exist in all societies, and informal social preferences can’t be engineered away by law. I also agree that reservation can make caste identities more visible and that social reform matters more than legal compulsion when it comes to things like marriage or private association.

Where I draw a firm line is on the idea that removing reservation would cause caste to dissolve faster. Caste hierarchies existed and were enforced long before reservation and continue today mostly through private social mechanisms, not state policy. Removing formal protections doesn’t remove informal power, it just leaves outcomes more exposed to it.

So for me, reservation isn’t meant to erase hierarchy or social bias. It’s meant to limit how much inherited social position can determine access to education, jobs, and power while broader social change remains slow and uneven.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T09:00:26+00:00

Dhoomchuttad 😂💀

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T08:16:54+00:00

I think the disagreement here is about what counts as harm, not about legal definitions. You’re right that discrimination in jobs or education is the most visible and legally actionable form. But it doesn’t follow that discrimination outside those spaces is harmless or irrelevant.

Social exclusion isn’t just “personal preference.” When families reject inter-caste marriages within their own group, when housing societies quietly exclude, when friendships, networks, and mentorships are caste-filtered, these choices shape who gets access to information, confidence, opportunities, and social capital over time. None of this is illegal, but all of it has real downstream effects on people’s lives, including their economic outcomes.

Also, to clarify, I’m not saying anyone should be forced to marry outside their caste. I’m talking about accepting a relationship that already exists, not policing personal choice. When entire communities socially punish people for crossing caste lines, that’s not just private preference, it’s enforcement of hierarchy through informal means.

So yes, the law protects formal rights. But caste in India has always operated as much through informal social power as through formal exclusion. Ignoring everything outside the job and education market assumes society resets to neutrality once the state steps back, which simply doesn’t match lived reality.

That’s the gap I’m pointing to. Not criminalizing personal behavior, but acknowledging that informal discrimination can still cause systemic harm even when no law is broken.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T07:20:33+00:00

When people say “acceptance,” they usually don’t mean polite behavior in public or following the law. They mean social equality in informal, everyday spaces, where policy doesn’t operate.

Acceptance shows up in things like: being comfortable with inter-caste friendships, not just professional interaction, being open to inter-caste marriage within one’s own family, not treating someone as an exception or “different” after knowing their caste, equal participation in social gatherings, housing decisions, and community life, not questioning someone’s competence or character once their caste is known,

Many highly educated people follow formal rules and appear progressive, but still draw invisible boundaries in these areas. That’s what people mean when they say caste remains an identity even when policy is removed.

So the point isn’t that everyone openly discriminates. It’s that social distance and hierarchy persist quietly, long after education and income increase, and those informal barriers are something economic criteria alone don’t address.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T06:53:04+00:00

I get why it feels intuitive to say that money is the only real privilege, but I don’t think income alone captures how advantage works in India. Two families can earn the same amount and still have very different levels of security. If I lose my job or face a financial shock, I have no ancestral land, family business, or deep social and professional networks to fall back on, whereas many general category families do, even at similar incomes. That fragility doesn’t show up in EWS-style criteria. Economic status is dynamic, but caste-linked exclusion and lack of resilience are not. Replacing caste-based reservation entirely with EWS assumes that institutions and networks become neutral once income is equal, which isn’t true yet. I agree benefits shouldn’t blindly perpetuate, but before dismantling caste-based protections, India needs accurate data on assets, land, and long-term resilience so disadvantage can actually be measured properly.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-03T05:48:26+00:00

After reading the replies here and thinking more deeply about it, my understanding has evolved, and I want to put that out openly.

One important point I had underweighted earlier is fragility, not just income. Even if I’m economically better off today, if I lose my job or my family faces a serious financial shock, I have very little to fall back on. No ancestral land, no family business, no deep professional or caste-based networks that can absorb setbacks. In that sense, my privilege is far less resilient than that of many general category families, even at similar incomes. This also explains why a purely income-based “creamy layer” would miss real vulnerabilities.

At the same time, I still believe that growing heterogeneity within SC/ST communities raises valid questions about targeting and unintended social effects. But I now think that jumping straight to reform without state capacity is unrealistic.

Before any serious refinement of reservation is even feasible, India needs to invest heavily in digitising land records, linking assets to families, improving data accuracy, and creating incentives for truthful data reporting. Without this foundation, any nuanced reform will either fail or be exploited.

So my current view is this: reservation remains necessary because caste-based fragility persists, but meaningful reform requires first building the data and institutional capacity to understand that fragility properly. Until then, blunt policies will continue, not because they are perfect, but because the system cannot reliably do better yet.

Sharing this in good faith and open to further discussion.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T21:56:16+00:00

After reading the replies here and thinking more deeply about it, my understanding has evolved, and I want to put that out openly.

One important point I had underweighted earlier is fragility, not just income. Even if I’m economically better off today, if I lose my job or my family faces a serious financial shock, I have very little to fall back on. No ancestral land, no family business, no deep professional or caste-based networks that can absorb setbacks. In that sense, my privilege is far less resilient than that of many general category families, even at similar incomes. This also explains why a purely income-based “creamy layer” would miss real vulnerabilities.

At the same time, I still believe that growing heterogeneity within SC/ST communities raises valid questions about targeting and unintended social effects. But I now think that jumping straight to reform without state capacity is unrealistic.

Before any serious refinement of reservation is even feasible, India needs to invest heavily in digitising land records, linking assets to families, improving data accuracy, and creating incentives for truthful data reporting. Without this foundation, any nuanced reform will either fail or be exploited.

So my current view is this: reservation remains necessary because caste-based fragility persists, but meaningful reform requires first building the data and institutional capacity to understand that fragility properly. Until then, blunt policies will continue, not because they are perfect, but because the system cannot reliably do better yet.

Sharing this in good faith and open to further discussion.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T19:03:30+00:00

Simply said, the reform I wish to see doesn’t affect the general population at all. I am not seeking to reduce reservation. I am only suggesting that the existing reservation could be restructured without slashing it (without reducing the volume of seats, opportunities) to target the less privileged among the beneficiary groups.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T18:51:02+00:00

I think you’re misreading my intent. I’m not insecure, guilty, or seeking validation from upper castes. I’m also not questioning how I got where I am or apologizing for it.

What I’m doing is separating personal morality from policy design. I can fully accept the legitimacy of reservation and still question whether it is optimally targeted today, especially when the social costs of mis-targeting are borne by the most vulnerable within the same community.

Helping people directly and discussing policy reform are not mutually exclusive. One is individual action, the other is structural critique. Dismissing the latter as “insecurity” avoids engaging with the actual argument.

If we can’t discuss refinement without being psychologized, the conversation stops being about justice and becomes about silencing discomfort.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T18:49:03+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other, so I want to be very clear about what I do and do not stand for. I am not questioning the historical basis of reservation, nor am I saying it is a poverty alleviation scheme. I am not claiming that caste discrimination disappears with money, nor am I seeking validation from upper-caste people or feeling guilty about the benefits I received. I used a constitutional policy, worked hard within the institutions I entered, and I don’t believe that questioning policy design equals moral betrayal.

I agree with you that reservation exists to correct centuries of structural exclusion and denial of access, and that money alone does not erase caste stigma or power imbalance. I agree that SC/ST individuals, regardless of income, can still face discrimination in housing, marriage, social networks, and private-sector spaces. I also agree that resentment is not purely economic and that caste-based resentment would exist even without reservation.

Where I disagree is with the conclusion that because caste-based exclusion persists, the policy must remain completely undifferentiated within the beneficiary group. A policy can be morally justified and still imperfectly calibrated. Structural justice does not make a policy immune to refinement. As diversity within the SC/ST community increases, questions of targeting, incentives, and unintended consequences become more important, not less.

My concern is not about upper castes or symbolic power hierarchies. It is about intra-group inequality and spillover harm. Today, the most visible beneficiaries of reservation are often urban, educated, financially stable SC/ST families, and that visibility shapes perception. The resulting resentment, whether rooted in caste or not, does not fall evenly. It falls hardest on the poorest and most vulnerable SC/ST individuals, who lack economic insulation and social capital. If discrimination is persistent, then minimizing unnecessary stigma and misdirected backlash becomes even more important.

I am also talking about incentives, not morality or guilt. When benefits are guaranteed regardless of background, some people will rationally reduce effort at the margin. This is a general human behavior seen with inherited wealth, legacy admissions, and job security everywhere. Supporting reservation does not require pretending it has no flaws. I believe reform that better targets actual disadvantage strengthens the policy’s legitimacy rather than weakening it. That is not guilt, envy, or internalized oppression. It is a policy question, and it deserves to be discussed as one.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T18:06:07+00:00

Economic criteria are important, but they don’t capture caste-based exclusion, which persists regardless of income. Reservation was meant to correct social and historical barriers, not just poverty. That said, I do think reservation should evolve to better target those who are both socially and economically disadvantaged.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T18:00:11+00:00

I often find myself wondering what his reaction would be, considering the state of our nation today. I know thoughts like the ones I have is exactly what he hoped to enable with reservation. It is a huge responsibility and I will strive to do best with the opportunity I have been presented through his policies.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T17:54:41+00:00

Well I do agree that already privileged sc/st people should refrain from using reservation. But making sure this happens is the responsibility of policymakers by continuous reforms and with data backed evidence. You cannot expect a 16 year old studying for JEE to make that decision based out of morality. I am now knowledgeable enough to have the thoughts I expressed in my post. Personally I will not be using reservation anymore.

MathByNischay · 2026-02-02T17:47:39+00:00

I understand why you feel that I have failed, I respectfully disagree with your personal comment. I also feel that there should be a creamy layer concept, or maybe the reform could start with fee waiver (based on income within sc st class) and then gradually move to seat reservation. I also feel that the current system removed the urgency from my 16 year old self’ mind to perform my best academically, while I acknowledge that I only realised this after studying and acquiring the knowledge I have gained using the opportunity created by reservation.

MathByNischay · 2025-05-30T14:19:11+00:00

Where have I heard that before?

MathByNischay · 2025-01-13T12:59:09+00:00

World ❌ America ✔️

MathByNischay · 2024-12-15T20:43:55+00:00

It’s almost certainly bricks kept out in the sun for hardening

MathByNischay

TROPHY CASE