The government recently announced a partnership with Physics Wallah, a popular online education platform, to provide free coaching to thousands of students preparing for competitive exams. On the surface, this sounds like excellent news. But the announcement has sparked an unexpected debate about who gets help and who gets left behind.
What's the Scheme About?
In November 2025, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment signed an agreement with Physics Wallah Foundation. Under this deal, 5,000 students every year will receive completely free online coaching. This includes live classes, recorded lectures, study materials, practice tests, and mentorship for some of India's toughest exams, the civil services exam (UPSC), banking exams, and Staff Selection Commission tests.
The catch? Only students from the Scheduled Castes, Other Backwards Classes, and children covered under the PM CARES scheme are eligible. Students from what's called the "General Category" and the Economically Weaker Section cannot apply.
Physics Wallah will provide everything at no cost to the government or students. It's being called a step toward helping students from disadvantaged communities compete better in these highly competitive exams. The selection happens online based on merit, with 30% of seats reserved for female candidates.
Why Are Students Protesting?
This is where things get complicated. While many people welcomed the initiative, students in Delhi's coaching hubs started raising questions. Their complaint is simple that poverty doesn't follow caste lines. Vivek Mishra, a student preparing for the civil services exam in Karol Bagh, put it bluntly. He asked why coaching is being given to specific categories when there are students in the General category who genuinely cannot afford it. He pointed out that students from the Economically Weaker Section, who are also struggling financially, get nothing from this scheme.
Another student, Manoj Singh, who belongs to the Economically Weaker Section himself, said the government talks about inclusion, but exclusion is also happening. He explained that many General category students come from families that earn very little but receive no institutional support. Coaching today costs lakhs of rupees. How are these students supposed to compete?
The frustration is understandable. Imagine two students. Both come from poor families. Both dream of becoming civil servants. Both struggle to afford coaching that costs hundreds of thousands of rupees. One gets free coaching because of their caste category. The other gets nothing because they're from the General category, even though they're equally poor. This is the situation students are highlighting.
The Bigger Picture
This isn't just about one scheme. Various state governments run similar coaching programs. Communities like Muslims, Jains, and Aggarwals also provide free coaching to members of their own community. States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and West Bengal all have partnerships with coaching institutes. What's happening is a patchwork of support systems based on different criteria, sometimes caste, sometimes religion, sometimes community. But there's no comprehensive safety net based purely on economic need. The students aren't saying that reserved category students shouldn't get help. They're saying everyone who needs help should get it. An Economically Weaker Section student and an Other Backwards Class student might face the same money problems. But under current schemes, only one gets free coaching.
What Makes This Debate Important?
Competitive exams in India are incredibly tough. Every year, lakhs of students compete for a few thousand government jobs. Quality coaching has become almost essential, but it's expensive costing more than what many families earn in a year.
When only some poor students get help while others don't, it creates a new kind of inequality. Students who cannot afford coaching already start at a disadvantage. When schemes exclude them based on category rather than actual financial need, that gap widens further.
The Core Question
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question of whether help should be given based on caste or based on economic need. Supporters of caste-based schemes argue that historically disadvantaged communities need special support to overcome centuries of discrimination. Those questioning these schemes say economic hardship affects people across all categories. A poor General category student struggles just as much as a poor reserved category student.
Social media has highlighted this divide with stories of reserved category students whose parents have government jobs still getting free coaching, while General category families struggle to afford basic education expenses.
Is there a better way?
The solution doesn't have to be stopping schemes like the Physics Wallah partnership. Perhaps the answer is expanding them. Create programs that help students based on economic need, regardless of their caste or category. Make sure no deserving student is left behind simply because they don't fit a particular classification.
Several states have attempted this. Delhi's government, for instance, runs a scheme called Jai Bheem Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojana that covers General category students as well as SC, ST, and OBC students, though with different subsidy levels based on income.
The government could consider a multi-layered approach. Keep schemes for historically disadvantaged communities to ensure representation. But also create parallel programs that help economically struggling students from all backgrounds. Use income certificates, family financial statements, and transparent selection processes to identify who really needs help.
Looking Ahead
As competitive exams get tougher and coaching fees keep rising, this conversation will only grow louder. Every student preparing for UPSC, banking exams, or other government job tests needs support. The question is how to provide it fairly. The Physics Wallah scheme is undoubtedly good for the 5,000 students who will benefit each year. But it also highlights a gap in how we think about educational support. When we design schemes to help some students, we must ensure we're not unintentionally hurting others who are equally deserving.
. . .
References: