After a cabinet meeting on 3rd December2025, J&K CM Omar Abdullah informed the media that J&K’s reservation policy has been “rationalised”, and this may sound convincing at first, but the actual changes brought in tell a different story. The so called rationalisation as per various media outlets has been achieved by cutting the RBA and EWS shares only to increase the General category to a fixed 50 percent. The EWS quota has been reduced by 7 percent and the RBA quota by 3 percent, and the entire 10 percent taken from these two disadvantaged groups has been added to the General category so that it touches the minimum 50 percent mark. This does not look like genuine rationalisation. It looks more like adjusting numbers in favour of one section while weakening the categories that genuinely need support. People naturally want to know what logic, formula, or updated data guided this exercise, because nothing has been explained so far. When the government does not share data or reasoning, people are left to assume that the change is not based on fairness but on the need to protect a specific category. A large portion of Kashmir’s population lives in backward rural areas where basic services are limited. Roads are poor, colleges are few, healthcare is weak, and job opportunities are almost nonexistent. These areas were given RBA status after decades of being left behind. Many families depend on this reservation to give their children a chance at a better life. When the RBA quota is reduced, these families lose real opportunities. In Jammu region, the number of RBA-classified area is smaller, while in the Valley it is much larger. This difference cannot be ignored. When the same percentage cut is applied across both regions, the Valley suffers more simply because it has more RBA households. People in the Valley understand this very clearly, and that is why the decision feels unfair to them.
Another concern is the way the General category was fixed at 50 percent before other categories were adjusted. If the goal was to rebalance and update the reservation policy, then every category should have been re-evaluated using fresh socio-economic information. Instead, it looks like the General category’s share was treated as a non-negotiable number, and the remaining categories were forced to adjust around it. When one section is kept untouched and weaker sections are asked to give up part of their share, the process loses all sense of fairness. It becomes redistribution rather than rationalisation. So far, there has been no public explanation about what data was used to make the new percentages. People do not know if the government studied population patterns, district-wise backwardness, or deprivation levels. There is no clarity about whether officials looked closely at the fact that backward areas in Kashmir are more widespread and more severely deprived. If the government believes that backwardness has reduced so much that the RBA share can be cut, it should share the proof. It should show that literacy has gone up, that health access has improved, that unemployment has gone down, and that rural development has reached these areas. But none of this has been presented. On the ground, people in many parts of Kashmir still struggle with the same old problems. If backwardness is still there, then cutting RBA becomes difficult to justify.
“The best and most feasible solution to the reservation issue, which avoids changes or redistribution, is to implement legislation to conduct recruitment at the division and district level instead of the state level. The author expresses hope that those in power will adopt this approach to solve the issue permanently.”
The reduction of the EWS quota creates another layer of worry. Kashmir’s economy has fewer industries and limited private-sector jobs. Many families struggle financially even if they belong to socially forward communities. For them, the EWS quota provides a fair chance. Reducing the EWS share by such a large margin, without any explanation, makes people think that the decision was not based on economic reality. It feels like the interests of economically weaker households were ignored simply to increase the General category share. People are not saying that reservation should never change. They understand that policies sometimes need review. But they expect honesty, clarity, and fairness. They want to know what data was collected and how backwardness was measured. They want to know why the Valley, which has more RBA population, has been made to bear a larger impact. These are simple and natural questions. When decisions affect thousands of students and job seekers, people deserve clear answers. A genuine rationalisation exercise should involve fresh household-level surveys, updated socio-economic mapping, and a transparent method of identifying which areas are still backward and which have improved. It should include an open sharing of all data and calculations so that people can understand the reasons behind the final percentages. It should also involve listening to the communities who stand to lose the most, because policies that affect people deeply cannot be made behind closed doors. If such a process had been followed, trust would have been built, and people would have accepted changes even if they were uncomfortable.
Right now, the opposite has happened. People feel that the policy has been changed silently, without discussion, without explanation, and without evidence. They feel that the new arrangement harms the most backward sections of Kashmir while benefiting the already strong sections. This is why the reaction in the Valley is emotional. It is not because people oppose change; it is because the change does not appear to be rooted in fairness. People want a reservation system that matches real ground conditions. They want it to reflect actual backwardness, not mathematical targets. They want a policy that does not reduce opportunities for those who already live at the margins. Unless the government comes forward with clear data and transparent reasoning, the new reservation policy will continue to be seen as a move that weakens disadvantaged groups, especially in the Valley, for the sake of touching an arbitrary percentage for the General category. The demand from the people is simple: show the logic, show the data, and make sure the policy is fair to all regions. Only then can it be called true rationalisation. As argued earlier elsewhere, the only best and feasible solution to the reservation issue without making any changes or redistribution is to bring in a legislation to make recruitments at division and district level instead of state level. Hope the wise people in the power corridors understand this and solve the issue once and for all.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Defying Winter, Kashmiri Style
