Share Economy

Everyone deserves EQUAL EDUCATION

Believe in #indian_constituion #Humanist
I'm on the path of #SAHID_BHAGAT_SINGH_& #KHUDI_RAM_BOSE... and many more...

[Share Economy @RHumanity1st]

@abhijeet_dipke Good 😊👍 👍

[Nitin Meshram @nitinmeshram_]

दलितों को अब CJP/Student Protest को छोड़ देना चाहिए। यदि इस आंदोलन से कांग्रेस, सपा और आम आदमी पार्टी जैसी पार्टियाँ मजबूत होती हैं, तो सत्ता में आने के बाद वे दलितों को फिर उसी लंबे संघर्ष में धकेल सकती हैं, जैसा अतीत में हुआ है, और इसकी कीमत दो-तीन पीढ़ियों को चुकानी पड़ सकती है।

बीजेपी का कमजोर होना अच्छी बात है, लेकिन कांग्रेस जैसी पार्टियों का मजबूत होना दलितों के लिए उतना ही खतरनाक हो सकता है। इसके अलावा, सरकार कभी भी आंदोलन के खिलाफ कठोर कार्रवाई कर सकती है। ऐसे में विरोध प्रदर्शन कर रहे दलित युवाओं को लंबी कानूनी लड़ाई का सामना करना पड़ सकता है और उनका भविष्य वर्षों तक प्रभावित हो सकता है।

जिस आंदोलन से दलितों को कोई ठोस लाभ मिलने की संभावना नहीं है, उसमें फँसकर अपनी ऊर्जा, समय और भविष्य को दाँव पर लगाना समझदारी नहीं है।

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

Based on Sukhdeo Thorat sir’s critique, here are the ten primary limitations of the UGC 2026 regulations and the corresponding improvements needed,\:

[1] Restoring the Exhaustive List of Prohibited Acts: The 2026 regulations represent a step backward by omitting the specific "forms of discrimination" defined in the 2012 rules. To be effective, the new regulations must explicitly list the roughly 28 (or more) specific behaviors that constitute discrimination, ensuring that neither the victim nor the perpetrator is left in doubt about what is illegal.

[2] Codifying Discrimination Beyond Caste: While caste remains a central concern, the regulations fail to provide a rigorous framework for identifying discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, tribal status, religion, disability, and economic background. The rules should be improved by including expert-defined markers for these specific identities, ensuring a truly intersectional approach.

[3] Removing Institutional Discretion in Defining Bias: By leaving it to individual "Equity Committees" to identify forms of discrimination, the 2026 rules risk 60,000 different interpretations of justice. The improvement needed is a centralized, uniform standard that prevents local committees—who may lack the necessary expertise or remain biased themselves—from narrowing the scope of what counts as discrimination.

[4] Mandating Diverse Representation on Equity Committees: A significant flaw is the lack of guaranteed representation for marginalized groups within the watchdog bodies. The regulations must be amended to mandate the inclusion of SC, ST, and OBC members on every Equity Committee to ensure that the lived experiences of those most affected are at the heart of the decision-making process.

[5] Closing Jurisdictional Loopholes for Premier Institutes: Currently, the rules narrowly define "institutions" under the UGC Act, 1956, which potentially leaves students at IITs and IIMs in a regulatory vacuum. The scope must be explicitly widened to cover all "Institutes of National Importance" and those governed by their own specific Parliamentary Acts.

[6] Establishing a "Whole-of-Government" Purview: Because many specialized universities fall under ministries like Agriculture, Law, or Defence, a UGC-only regulation is insufficient. The solution is for the 2026 regulations to be issued as a Central Government mandate that overrides ministerial silos, ensuring the same protections apply at the National Defence Academy as they do at a state university.

[7] Harmonizing with Existing Anti-Atrocity Laws: The 2026 regulations should be improved to align more closely with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By adopting the "evolving list" model—where the law was updated in 2018 to include 40 forms of discrimination—the UGC can ensure that the regulations remain dynamic and responsive to modern social realities.

[8] Eliminating Legal Complexity and Fragmentation: Allowing each college to set its own "rules of engagement" for discrimination will lead to a mountain of litigation. A unified set of rules would simplify the legal process, providing a clear path for redressal that is consistent across the country’s entire educational landscape.

[9] Addressing the Technical Expertise Deficit: Institutional committees often lack the sociological and legal training required to spot systemic or structural exclusion. The regulations should provide a pre-set "Technical Manual of Discrimination" based on Thorat’s findings to bridge this expertise gap and provide committees with a clear roadmap for investigation.

[10] Ensuring Universal Coverage for Standalone Colleges: Many technical and professional institutions under the AICTE or Bar Council currently operate outside the proposed 2026 UGC framework. The rules need to be redrafted to ensure that every student, regardless of whether they study film, law, or engineering, is protected by a singular, robust anti-discrimination law.

This is also in line with our proposals made earlier.

[The Mooknayak English @TheMooknayakEng]

Caste Rights Activists Slam UGC's 2026 Regulations as Inadequate for SC/ST/OBC Protections. Read Why

Report— @GitaSunilPillai

https://t.co/PDXMfOTaML

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

In line with my objections i noted in my first Mooknayak Article
https://t.co/S7WXc84zq0

Im happy that finally many are understanding what i was talking about.

Many abused me, made humiliating comments against me...

But today, I can say with 100% confidence im correct that UGC regulations 2026 is inadequate for SC,ST and OBCs...

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

Traps laid out in UGC regulations are clear..

Equity committee is what they want to create replacing the SC ST OBC liason officers..

Who are there in these committees ?

Let us imagine there are 10 people and only 2 are from SC ST and the head is an upper castes..

A victimized oppressed dalit kid will he or she go and complain their..

Will he or she believe these equity committee??

SC ST liason officers were introduced with this sole objective so that victims can feel safe..

What do you think will equity committee will be better for SC ST OBCs???

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

Getting an amendment done from the parliament in the Advocates Act is far more simple

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

UGC regulations are not pro SC ST OBC.
I bust the myth propagated by few its anti general category..
Frankly speaking its a trap of mines where if you enter you will surely get blasted

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

@nethrapal is the only apolitical social analyst who can analyze such traps laid out for the entire community...

Here I'm back with a completely independent analysis on why UGC regulations are more pro-general category than SC, ST, OBCs...

Remember there were existing 2012 UGC regulations in place... This has been replaced by a new one...

In the new ones, at least I noticed that many provisions that exclusively helped SC/ST students have been removed...

I have penned down this analysis only to protect the interest of SC-ST students whose life itself is a struggle in the university...

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

यूजीसी समानता विनियमन 2026: एससी, एसटी और ओबीसी के हितों पर एक गहरा आघात

वर्तमान में सामान्य श्रेणी के बीच इस बात को लेकर शोर है कि इन विनियमनों के कारण उन पर 'फर्जी मामलों' की बाढ़ आ जाएगी।

लेकिन जब हम यूजीसी (उच्च शिक्षण संस्थानों में समानता को बढ़ावा देना) विनियमन 2026 की तुलना 2012 के विनियमनों से करते हैं, तो सच्चाई इसके बिल्कुल विपरीत दिखाई देती है।

रोहित वेमुला और पायल तडवी जैसे छात्रों की स्मृति को समर्पित, यह विश्लेषण उन 10 कारणों को रेखांकित करता है कि क्यों ये नए नियम एससी, एसटी और ओबीसी समुदायों के विरुद्ध हैं:

1. आईआईटी और आईआईएम का बाहर होना
सबसे बड़ी बाधा धारा 3(1)(n) में है। ये नियम आईआईटी (IITs), आईआईएम (IIMs) और अन्य प्रमुख संस्थानों पर लागू नहीं होते क्योंकि वे अपने स्वयं के अधिनियमों से संचालित होते हैं। जबकि जातिगत भेदभाव और आत्महत्याओं के सबसे गंभीर मामले इन्हीं शीर्ष संस्थानों से सामने आते हैं, यूजीसी 2026 उन्हें इस जवाबदेही से मुक्त रखता है।

2. 'भेदभाव' की परिभाषा का विलोपन
2012 के विनियमनों में 'भेदभाव' को स्पष्ट रूप से परिभाषित किया गया था, जिसमें उत्पीड़न, रैगिंग और प्रतिकूल व्यवहार शामिल थे। 2026 के नियमों में इस स्पष्टता को हटा दिया गया है, जिससे अब विश्वविद्यालय के शीर्ष अधिकारियों के पास यह विवेकाधीन शक्ति होगी कि वे किसे भेदभाव मानें और किसे नहीं।

3. प्रवेश प्रक्रिया में सुरक्षा का अभाव
2012 की धारा 3(2)(a) विशेष रूप से एससी/एसटी के लिए थी, जो आरक्षण नीति के उल्लंघन, प्रवेश न देना, दस्तावेजों को रोकना और अतिरिक्त धन की मांग करने जैसे भेदभावों पर रोक लगाती थी। नए नियमों में इन विशिष्ट सुरक्षा कवच को पूरी तरह समाप्त कर दिया गया है।

4. कक्षा में होने वाले अपमान पर चुप्पी
पुराने नियमों की धारा 3(2)(b) में कक्षा में जाति के नाम पुकारने, छात्रों को 'आरक्षित श्रेणी' के रूप में लेबल करने, जातिगत टिप्पणी करने या प्रयोगशाला और खेल सुविधाओं में भेदभाव करने पर कड़ा प्रतिबंध था। नए नियमों से "उत्पीड़न" और "प्रतिकूल व्यवहार" जैसे शब्द ही गायब हैं।

5. मूल्यांकन और अंकों में भेदभाव
2012 के नियमों की धारा 3(2)(c) उत्तर पुस्तिकाओं के गलत मूल्यांकन और आरक्षित वर्ग के छात्रों के परिणाम घोषित करने में देरी जैसे भेदभाव को रोकती थी। यह धारा जातिवादी मानसिकता वाले प्रोफेसरों के लिए एक डर का काम करती थी, जिसे अब हटा दिया गया है।

6. फेलोशिप में पक्षपात
पीएचडी छात्रों को फेलोशिप के स्तर पर सबसे अधिक भेदभाव का सामना करना पड़ता है। 2012 की धारा 3(2)(d) इस भेदभाव को रोकती थी, जिसे अब हटाकर शोधार्थियों को असुरक्षित छोड़ दिया गया है।

7. हॉस्टल और सामाजिक अलगाव
हॉस्टल में अलगाव, कैंटीन और खेल के मैदानों जैसे साझा संसाधनों के उपयोग में भेदभाव और सांस्कृतिक कार्यक्रमों से बाहर रखे जाने जैसे मुद्दों पर 2012 की धारा 3(2)(e) बहुत सख्त थी। अब इसे बहुत कमजोर कर दिया गया है।

8. सामाजिक बनाम आर्थिक विकलांगता का भ्रम
मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने आदित्य नारायण पांडे बनाम भारत संघ मामले में स्पष्ट किया था कि एससी/एसटी/ओबीसी की सामाजिक अक्षमताएं, ईडब्ल्यूएस (EWS) की आर्थिक वंचना से भिन्न और स्थाई हैं। नए नियमों में ईडब्ल्यूएस, दिव्यांगों और सामान्य वर्ग की महिलाओं को एक ही 'इक्विटी सेल' में शामिल कर दिया गया है। यह न केवल एससी/एसटी के प्रतिनिधित्व को कम करेगा, बल्कि सामान्य वर्ग की महिलाओं या ईडब्ल्यूएस श्रेणी के माध्यम से एससी/एसटी/ओबीसी छात्रों के खिलाफ फर्जी मामले दर्ज करने का एक उपकरण भी बन सकता है।

9. संपर्क अधिकारियों (Liaison Officers) की अनुपस्थिति
डीओपीटी (DoPT) के दिशा-निर्देशों के अनुसार एससी, एसटी और ओबीसी के लिए अलग-अलग संपर्क अधिकारी अनिवार्य हैं। 2026 के नियमों में संयुक्त सचिव स्तर के इन अधिकारियों को 'इक्विटी सेल' का हिस्सा बनाने का कोई अनिवार्य प्रावधान नहीं है।

10. साझा 'इक्विटी सेल' का नुकसान
एक साझा सेल एससी-एसटी के प्रतिनिधित्व के लिए हानिकारक है। कर्नाटक के उदाहरण की तरह, जहाँ अल्पसंख्यकों को एक समूह में शामिल किया गया, यह उन समुदायों की विशिष्ट समस्याओं की अनदेखी करता है जिनके पास साक्ष्यों (थोरट समिति, सेंथिल कुमार समिति आदि) के आधार पर भेदभाव के ठोस प्रमाण हैं। एक साझा सेल तभी प्रभावी हो सकता है जब उसमें एससी-एसटी-ओबीसी का प्रतिनिधित्व कम से कम 50% से 75% हो।

निष्कर्ष: यूजीसी के इन नए विनियमनों पर दोबारा विचार करना अनिवार्य है। यह समानता की ओर एक कदम नहीं, बल्कि सामाजिक न्याय के संवैधानिक वादे से पीछे हटना है।

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

10 reasons why UGC Equity Regulations 2026 is against SC, ST, and OBCs more than the General category

A huge uproar has started among the general category that there will be umpteen numbers of fake cases against them using these regulations.

I had a look at the latest UGC Equity Regulations 2026 and compared it with the 2012 UGC Equity Regulations.

My initial analysis suggests that there is complete dilution of 2012 regulations. Ten reasons are listed below for everyone's benefit:

[1] UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, are not applicable to IITs/IIMs and many other institutions. You should remember IITs/IIMs are governed by other acts and not the UGC act. The definition of higher education institutions as per section 3(1)(n) of UGC 2026 needs to be amended to include IITs/IIMs/other institutions. This is the biggest bottleneck in the act. The biggest issue of caste discriminations/suicides is in IITs/IIMs and top institutions. Now these UGC 2026 guidelines currently are not applicable to them.

[2] In the above regulations, the word "discrimination" has been diluted. The earlier 2012 regulations defined the word "discrimination," and specifically defined scenarios were provided. It also included harassment, ragging, unfavorable treatment, and victimization, which were included in 2012 guidelines. In the latest regulations it is missing. Not defining this would allow discretion to the top office bearers of the universities to take a call on what amounts to discrimination.

[3] Section 3(2) of UGC 2012 was exclusively for SC/ST and defined the forms of discrimination. For example, Section 3(2)(a) talks about discrimination in admission against SC/ST, like breaches in the policy of reservations in admissions, not admitting reserved candidates, not processing their applications correctly, not giving admissions even when they are eligible, withholding degree certificates or giving documents that were given for seeking admission, demanding more money, and treating them unfavorably.
So this was specific to admissions, wherein SC/ST students face huge hurdles. This is completely done away with in the new regulations.

[4] Section 3(2)(b) of the 2012 UGC regulations describes various ways of higher educational institutions harassing or victimizing any student, which should be prohibited. For example, announcing verbally the names of castes in class, labelling students as reserved category, passing derogatory remarks using caste, allotting differential time to meet faculty compared to others, keeping students idle in the laboratory, earmarking separate seats, differential treatment in the issue of books and journals, differential treatment in sports facilities, etc.
However, this has been completely done away with, and now the words “harassment," "victimization," and "unfavorable treatment” do not figure in the new UGC regulations.

[5] Section 3(2)(c) of the 2012 regulations talks about discrimination in the evaluation of marks, like not properly evaluating, evaluating examination papers, and delaying declarations of results of reserved category students. Etc.
This is completely removed, and this acted as a deterrent on casteist professors.

[6] Section 3(2)(d) of the 2012 regulations talks about discrimination in fellowships. This is completely removed. Maximum discrimination is faced by Ph.D. students.
This would adversely affect them.

[7] Section 3(2)(e) of the 2012 regulations talks about hostel segregation, usage of common resources like canteens, playgrounds, etc. It also talks about ragging, extortion, and not allowing reserved category students to participate in cultural programs or sports events. This is now diluted.

[8] Now SC/ST discrimination is on account of social disabilities. Now in these regulations, EWS and physical disability are also included in one act.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the Aaditya Narayan Pandey v. Union of India case clearly mentioned that the handicaps faced by OBCs, SCs, and STs are different, and hence there is a need for age relaxation, but EWS is an economic deprivation that can change, while social disabilities remain with economic progress too. In view of this, the UGC Equity regulations to bring in EWS and PWD categories also into the UGC Equity cell are not correct. There is no data to prove that there is significant discrimination against these groups. Even if it is there, it is not caste-based; it may be economic-based and needs a different cell altogether. Now for women, sexual harassment guidelines and acts are already in place.
Now a woman from SC, ST, or OBC can take recourse to any discrimination listed above.
But now the question of General category women facing exclusive discrimination is still not known.
Where is the data to prove this? Now gender-based disabilities and economic disabilities cannot be equated with social disabilities. This cannot be clubbed along with the SC/ST/OBC regulations cell. Now the women's cell should be a different cell from the SC/ST/OBCs. The women's cell should be exclusively manned by women alone, and in case they mix up everything, there will be dilution of representation, and bias cannot be ruled out.
Again, this can become a tool for general category women and EWS/PWD category students also to file fake cases against SC/ST/OBC students as well...

[9] The DOPT guidelines clearly mention the need for having liaison officers for SC, ST, and OBCs. Now these liaison officers are not appointed and also not part of the committee. This is a big issue. There should be a liaison officer of the rank of joint secretary or equivalent for each category of SC/ST and OBCs. He should be part of the equity cell.

[10] Finally, a common equity cell is more injurious to SC-ST, which faces the max discrimination.
For example, in Karnataka, the state introduced the Rohit Vemula Act, but it included minorities as a single protected group. If we go into this bill, it included Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Muslims, Parsis, and Sikhs too in it.
Now this bill failed to recognize that minorities can run their own educational institutions, and secondly, there is no data to prove that Jains or Muslims face discrimination in universities.
Numerous committees like the AIIMS Thorat Committee, the Elayaperumal Committee, the Senthil Kumar Committee, the Prof. Pavarala Committee, and others have predominantly targeted discrimination faced by SC/ST communities.
Separate equity cells should be considered for each category; however, a common equity cell would work only if SC-ST-OBC representation is at least 50%-75%.

So, UGC regulations need a relook for sure.

This analysis is dedicated to Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, one from the SC and the other from the ST community, who committed suicide because of institutional discrimination.

[Share Economy @RHumanity1st]

@SurajKrBauddh Although big number of males in India violates "consent" and dose such wrong touch or abusive things..

[Share Economy @RHumanity1st]

@SurajKrBauddh As in video,

She rubs thrice (unintentionally or intentionally to incite or film) at seconds 14,15,16,18.

He intentionally or unintentionally does twice at seconds 18 or 18 & 19.

His such intentions might be
Influenced of SM🚫film's - how females sends signal of interest.

[Share Economy @RHumanity1st]

@Mikasaa_15 Yeah, a few seconds horribles turns into trauma of years whether it is based on violations of "consent" in gender case, or "wordly or behavioural abuse" in case of discrimination of caste/race/ethnicity or else.

[Nitin Meshram @nitinmeshram_]

Out of 34 judges, the Supreme Court of India has 15 Brahmin judges. SC/ST/OBC reservation must be implemented, @narendramodi.

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

National Commission for Scheduled caste in its report in 2014 on Reservation in Promotions had clearly highlighted that creamy layer in SC and ST cannot be implemented since there is a nine bench judgement in the case of Indra sawney. All the earlier judgements including the recent one like Davinder are at max 5 bench judgements. A higher bench order has more value.
I noticed that the current bench which is listening in supreme court is a 3 bench court. I don’t understand how can this bench over rule 9 bench judgement. Max they can refer the matter to 11 or 13 bench court to adjudicate the matter.

Let them do it.

Till then i will wait

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

-40/800 in PG NEET is a fake narrative being built all over India. Many prominent politicians, media houses, news paper have published this issue. I have placed my detailed analysis on why this is a fake narrative.

You can access this here
https://t.co/OPdpynONfq

Bahujan media share this widely and also make news using the key data points published and counter all such news.

We should stand with our hardworking SC,ST,OBC kids.

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

SC, ST, and OBC students who secure more than General Merit Cutoff should be treated as General in every stage and not at the final stages.

A major supreme court clarification.

Our detailed analysis and its impact on UPSC,SSC and other exams.

https://t.co/jKA4EDLZW1

[Nethrapal @nethrapal]

General get selected at 80%, Reserved get selected at 40%
A common narrative busted using 2007 to 2017 UPSC Marks.
A mind-blowing analysis which took everyone by surprise

[Share Economy @RHumanity1st]

@SurajKrBauddh CM Adityanath z, सैकड़ों SC-ST छात्रों के भविष्य की गंभीरता को समझते हुए वह इस मामले में दखल दें और समाज कल्याण विभाग एवं मंत्रालय को निर्देशित करें कि इस मामले को गंभीरता से लेते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट में प्रदेश सरकार SC-ST समुदाय के छात्रों की आवाज बने।

@asim_arun @myogiadityanath