India’s ongoing debate over affirmative action has recently drawn comparisons with China’s meritocratic system, highlighting divergent approaches to social mobility and economic progress in the two Asian giants. As India contemplates expanding caste-based quotas in government jobs and public higher education, critics argue that the country should consider China’s model, which emphasizes merit-based selection and has contributed to rapid poverty reduction and the emergence of a substantial middle class.

At a public forum in New Delhi last month, author and former Procter & Gamble India CEO Gurcharan Das underscored the challenge facing India: balancing democratic principles with meritocracy. He pointed to China’s success over recent decades, attributing much of that progress to policies that prioritize educational and leadership merit rather than identity or social background.

India’s affirmative-action system, rooted in addressing historical caste-based discrimination, faces increasing political pressure to expand beyond legally mandated limits. A 1992 Supreme Court ruling capped reservations for historically disadvantaged groups at 50% of government jobs and seats in publicly funded universities. However, the current government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi added a 10% quota in 2019 for economically disadvantaged individuals not covered by caste quotas, bypassing the court’s ceiling. Additionally, a recent census initiative aiming to comprehensively enumerate India’s numerous castes is widely perceived as groundwork for potentially increasing reservations further.

The caste system divides India’s 1.5 billion people into thousands of castes and subcastes, with about 70% of the population classified under groups eligible for quotas, including the Shudras, Dalits, and tribal communities. The “general castes”—comprising mainly Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas—make up roughly 30% of the population and generally do not benefit from these policies. This demographic structure fuels political incentives to widen quotas, as many politicians seek to secure votes by appealing to caste-based identities. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi advocates extending affirmative action into the private sector, further intensifying the debate.

India’s quota system has expanded markedly since independence, beginning with a modest 12.5% reservation for Dalits, regarded as the most disadvantaged group. Presently, close to 60% of central government and public sector jobs and university seats are reserved, effectively limiting open competition for these positions. Several state governments propose even higher reservation levels, raising concerns about long-term impacts on the nation’s competitiveness.

In contrast, China reinstated the gaokao, a rigorous national examination, in 1977 as the primary means of university admission, emphasizing meritocracy. Although China briefly experimented with privileging children of workers and peasants during the Cultural Revolution, contemporary attitudes view the gaokao as a comparatively transparent mechanism that allows talented individuals, regardless of background, to advance. Anthropologist Zachary Howlett has described the gaokao as “an island of transparency and fairness” amid broader social inequalities.

The implications of India’s affirmative-action policies extend beyond its borders, offering a potential cautionary example for countries like the United States, where debates over identity-based preferences continue. Economist Thomas Sowell has criticized such policies in India and elsewhere for becoming entrenched, undermining the self-confidence of beneficiaries, provoking resentment, and reducing national competitiveness.

There is evidence that India’s system may be contributing to a brain drain, as highly talented individuals increasingly relocate abroad. A recent analysis of Indian medalists in international physics competitions found that 70% of those with tracked careers now reside in the United States, with only a quarter remaining in India.

Whether India will reform its affirmative-action framework remains uncertain. Should China’s model continue to show economic gains, some hope India might shift toward a merit-based system. However, entrenched domestic political dynamics surrounding caste identities could sustain or even deepen reservation policies, potentially hindering India’s economic and social development even as China advances.