NOT EDUCATION REFORM BUT A DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT IN SOCIAL ENGINEERING, A BREADDOWN IN TRUST AND A CRISIS IN DEMOCRACY: DEVNAND SINGH

NOT EDUCATION REFORM BUT A DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT IN SOCIAL ENGINEERING, A BREADDOWN IN TRUST AND A CRISIS IN DEMOCRACY: DEVNAND SINGH

12-FEB-ENG 6

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA----------------------------When the government presents a policy as "reform," but that same policy creates fear, insecurity, and distrust among a large segment of society—raising questions becomes not just a right, but a democratic duty. The proposed UGC (Unified Governance Code/Common Framework) stands today at this very test. It is no longer merely a matter of changing the education system, but has become a direct question of the intentions of power, social balance, and political experimentation.

From Uttar Pradesh to Bihar, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, the growing discontent within the general (upper caste) society is not the product of a "WhatsApp University," but a reaction to a reality the government is deliberately trying to ignore.

The "equality" the government invokes in support of the UGC sounds appealing, but appears extremely one-sided in ground reality. The politics of the past three decades has completely transformed the structure of power, resources, and representation in the country. In post-Mandal politics, OBCs, regional and caste groups came to the center of power—this was a historic reform and cannot be challenged.

But today's situation is such that upper caste society already has a limited role, from the pinnacle of power to the administrative structure and political decisions. The question then is: why does the impact of reforms always reach the same class that is already politically weakened?

If equality means that one class continues to sacrifice while another class continues to receive political patronage, then this would not be called equality but selective justice.

Why is the government avoiding a question? In support of the UGC, the government and its spokespersons are consistently avoiding answering a question:

Which state, what system is it, where the upper caste society is today systematically and structurally exploiting another community?

In Bihar, the politics of social justice has been in power for decades. In Maharashtra, Maratha-OBC politics is decisive.

Upper caste rule in Rajasthan is now history. Delhi's social structure is completely different. And even in Uttar Pradesh—where upper caste dominance was once touted—OBC and regional forces have long held power and social control. So, who is this reform aimed against? If the exploiters aren't visible, who is the hammer falling on?

Disconnecting the UGC from Uttar Pradesh politics is either political ignorance or deliberate misdirection. This is the state that determines power at the center. And this is the state where even a slight alteration of the caste balance can alter the power equation.

The biggest question is: if the UGC was such a necessary and public-friendly reform, why wasn't it introduced before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections? Even then, the government had an absolute majority, ideological control, and parliamentary power.

The truth is that social discontent could have become a risk for the government in 2024. But raising such issues before 2027 could also be a deliberate strategy to reorient state politics toward caste polarization. In Indian politics, policies are often formulated based on the election calendar—the UGC appears to be no exception.

The silence of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on a serious and sensitive issue like the UGC is unusual. No one can call him a "silent leader." He is known for speaking clearly and making clear decisions.

Is this a strategic silence, where the state is protecting itself from potential political losses by ceding power to the center? Or is it an admission that the state government has no room to question the central government's decisions? Silence in Uttar Pradesh politics is never neutral. It always serves as a signal for a larger political agenda.

The UGC's weakest point is that it doesn't address the real problems of education. Thousands of teaching positions remain vacant in the country's universities. The quality of research is steadily declining. Students are uncertain about their employment and future. Government higher education institutions are struggling with a lack of resources.

It's unclear what the government's priorities are on these issues. Instead, there's talk of structure, framework, and ideological discipline. There's also a fear that the UGC will benefit foreign universities and private educational institutions, while further weakening the Indian public education system.

If education reform means only centralization, control, and ideological discipline, then it's not reform, but an attack on academic freedom.

The opposition to the UGC isn't just the dissatisfaction of a particular group. It signals a breakdown of the trust on which democracy rests. If the government dismisses every dissent as "politically motivated" or "misguided," it is itself closing the avenues for democratic dialogue.

In a democracy, reforms come not through orders, but through consensus. And consensus is built through dialogue—not imposition.

The UGC today appears to be becoming more of a tool for social engineering than for educational reform. If the name of equality creates fear among a section of society, if social balance is disturbed in the name of reform, and if policies become part of electoral strategy—this is a dangerous sign for democracy.

The government can no longer avoid this question—Is UGC truly an education reform, or a new social experiment in Uttar Pradesh politics? The government still has an opportunity—to communicate, to be transparent, and to build trust to fix the situation. But if this opportunity is missed, history will remember it not as reform but as a stubbornness of power.