The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation was introduced as a landmark social justice initiative to provide educational and employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged families belonging to the general category. Its purpose was simple and noble: to ensure that poverty does not deprive deserving youth of opportunities merely because they do not fall under existing reservation categories. However the implementation of the EWS policy in Jammu & Kashmir presents a deeply concerning picture. Official government statistics reveal a glaring regional imbalance that calls for urgent policy review and corrective action.
According to government data 26558 EWS certificates have been issued in Jammu & Kashmir during the last two years. Out of these 24545 certificates (92.4%) were issued in the Jammu Division, while only 2013 certificates (7.6%) were issued in the Kashmir Division. These figures cannot simply be ignored. They raise an important question, Has the present EWS eligibility framework unintentionally excluded thousands of genuinely poor families in Kashmir?
This is not an issue of regional politics. Nor is it an attempt to pit one region against another. It is a question of whether a welfare policy meant for the poor is actually reaching the poorest. The most significant concern lies in the housing criterion prescribed for EWS eligibility. Across Kashmir thousands of economically distressed families continue to live in large ancestral houses constructed decades ago when joint families were common, land was relatively abundant and traditional architecture accommodated multiple generations under one roof. Today those same houses often shelter several nuclear families living independently with little or no stable income. Many of these structures are old, cracked, unsafe and in poor condition. Some lack even basic amenities. Yet merely because the built-up area exceeds the prescribed limit, these families become ineligible for an EWS certificate. Ironically the very families that struggle to afford education, healthcare and even two meals a day are denied the benefits of a scheme specifically designed for the economically weak.
A house inherited from one's forefathers is not a measure of present financial strength. A daily wage labourer earning barely enough to feed his family may own an old ancestral house but possess no savings, no government employment, no business and no reliable source of income. His children may study under extremely difficult circumstances with hopes of securing government employment. Yet they are denied EWS benefits because of a house that has existed for forty or fifty years and has little economic value. Can such a family honestly be considered economically privileged?
The answer is self-evident. The purpose of EWS reservation is to identify economic weakness not architectural inheritance. The disparity becomes even more significant when viewed in the context of Jammu and Kashmir's distinct geographical and social realities. Settlement patterns in Kashmir have historically been different. Large ancestral homes accommodating extended families have long been a characteristic feature of rural Kashmir. In contrast, many areas of Jammu have different patterns of housing and land utilisation. Applying identical housing parameters without recognizing these historical and regional differences inevitably creates unequal outcomes. Equality does not always mean treating unlike situations identically. True equality lies in recognizing genuine differences and framing policies that produce fair outcomes.
The present data suggests that this balance has not been achieved. The implications are serious. Every deserving student denied an EWS certificate loses access to reservation in admissions, scholarships and government recruitment. At a time when educated unemployment is already one of the greatest challenges facing Kashmir's youth such exclusions further reduce opportunities for those who are already struggling economically. More worrying is the perception that the policy instead of correcting inequalities is creating new ones.
There is another contradiction that deserves serious reflection. Under the existing framework, a family with a stable monthly income of around ₹50,000 may remain eligible for EWS if it satisfies other prescribed conditions. On the other hand, an unemployed graduate or a private-sector employee earning merely ₹5,000 to ₹12,000 per month may be denied EWS solely because his family owns an ancestral house exceeding the prescribed size. Such outcomes defeat the very objective of the legislation. No social welfare policy should allow inherited residential structures to overshadow actual financial hardship.
Economic vulnerability is best measured through present income, employment status, recurring financial liabilities and actual living standards not by the dimensions of a family home built decades ago under entirely different social conditions. This is not to suggest that the safeguards against misuse should be diluted. On the contrary, stringent verification mechanisms must continue to ensure that affluent families do not exploit benefits intended for the poor. But the eligibility framework should distinguish between inherited residential property and genuine economic capacity.
The Government of Jammu & Kashmir should constitute a high level committee to undertake a comprehensive review of EWS implementation in the Union Territory. The committee should examine the reasons behind the enormous regional disparity, analyse district-wise data and recommend amendments that reflect the unique socio-economic realities of Jammu and Kashmir.
The review should particularly focus on Making annual family income the principal indicator of economic weakness. Reassessing the housing criterion where ancestral residential houses are involved. Recognising the historical and geographical differences in housing patterns between Jammu and Kashmir. Strengthening verification mechanisms to eliminate misuse while ensuring genuine beneficiaries are not excluded. Periodically reviewing EWS implementation based on official data and ground realities.
The statistics speak for themselves. When 92.4 percent of EWS certificates are issued in one division and only 7.6 percent in the other policymakers cannot remain indifferent. Whether this imbalance results from the existing criteria implementation practices or regional socio-economic factors it deserves immediate examination.
Public confidence in any welfare policy depends upon its fairness. If the poorest unemployed youth of Kashmir are denied EWS benefits because they happen to live in ageing ancestral houses while economically stronger families continue to qualify the credibility of the policy itself comes into question.
The EWS reservation was never intended to reward ownership of modest inherited property or penalise traditional housing patterns. It was meant to uplift economically weaker citizens belonging to General Category. The Government must therefore review the existing eligibility criteria with urgency and compassion. A more realistic, income-oriented and region sensitive framework will ensure that the benefits of EWS reach those for whom they were originally intended. Social justice cannot be measured by the size of an ancestral house. It must be measured by the economic reality of the people living inside it.

Email:---------------------------wanimudasirnazir@gmail.com