The trajectory from entrepreneur to political aspirant can be swift when controversy provides the catalyst.
On June 15, social media lit up with controversy after Anuradha Tiwari, a content marketing entrepreneur and TEDx speaker, claimed a formal tie-up with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mandi for a new nine-month course titled Minor in AI & Data Science.
According to Tiwari, the course, promoted through IIT Mandi’s Centre for Continuing Education (CCE), offered a merit-based scholarship with “no reservation.” She highlighted a Rs 99 refundable registration fee, shared promotional material under the IIT brand, and suggested official sanction.
Within hours, IIT Mandi issued a categorical denial. The institute publicly disassociated itself from Tiwari, clarified its strict adherence to government-mandated reservation norms, and warned of legal action over what it called misinformation.
The “no reservation” narrative quickly snowballed into a broader pro-merit movement, setting the stage for a political debut. Just a day later, today, June 16, Tiwari launched the Dharma Party of India, describing it as a “revolution against reservation.”
What began as a course announcement soon escalated into a larger conversation about caste, access, and the weaponisation of merit narratives in Indian higher education.
Activist and entrepreneur Prashant Kanojia emerged as one of Tiwari's most vocal critics, questioning not just the procedural legitimacy of her claims, but their underlying ideology.
“Whatever she claimed is highly questionable,” Kanojia observed. “There's no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), no institutional clearance. Yet she used the IIT name to promote a course laced with caste-insensitive messaging.”
For Kanojia, the episode represents something more insidious than misguided ambition. “She constantly questions reservation policies on her platform. When you say, ‘no reservation’ in the context of a government institute, you're not just stating a preference, you're violating constitutional norms.”
He pointed out that for most Dalit and Adivasi students, higher education is not inherited but hard-won, often as first-generation learners. “Discrediting their presence by implying it’s unearned isn’t just ignorant, it’s damaging,” he added. “There is no reservation in passing exams or surviving institutions. Yet these students are made to feel like imposters.”
Kanojia also described Tiwari’s rhetoric as part of a broader strategy to scapegoat marginalised communities for systemic failures. “Tiwari even tweeted that the Indrayani bridge collapse was caused by reservation. That's not critique, that's scapegoating.” Such statements, he argued, deflect attention from institutional corruption while reinforcing deep-rooted societal biases.
Despite IIT Mandi's swift clarification, Tiwari escalated rather than retreated. She posted screenshots allegedly showing the institute had encouraged her to use the phrase “no reservation” and challenged them to sue her for Rs 1 crore. She further accused the institute of capitulating to pressure from Ambedkarite groups, claiming the course listing on their official website originally omitted mention of reservation policies.
The announcement of the Dharma Party of India added a political dimension to what had begun as an academic controversy. With its launch coming immediately after the backlash, it signalled a shift in Tiwari’s public strategy, from defending a disputed course to spearheading a broader ideological campaign.
While Kanojia acknowledges Tiwari's democratic right to participate in politics, he questions the tone and messaging of her platform. “Everyone has a right to launch a political party. But a party built on exclusion, disguised as merit, isn't just bad politics. It's dangerous. Especially when it tries to erase the struggle of communities who've only just begun to access power and dignity.”
The episode illuminates how contemporary political movements can emerge by using educational access as a battleground for broader ideological conflicts. The weaponisation of merit discourse serves to legitimise exclusionary politics while maintaining plausible deniability about discriminatory intent.
And for students from historically marginalised communities, it adds yet another barrier: psychological, social, and structural, in a system where the playing field was never level to begin with.
