I am missing something here. The point about "merit". Though the point is not without merit I think it is blown out of proportion.
Yesterday on Times Now, I saw Delhi Univ medical students agitating. One of the students interviews was genuinely angry about the reservation. She said "would you place your life in the hands of an incompetent person". This is an argument that is widely made and wholeheartedly subscribed to by many. And IMO the argument is flawed.
Entrance test based admissions is more a rejection procedure than a sensitive evaluation of merit. There are not enough seats for all applicants so we have the entrance exam scores to be the determinants. As competition intensifies the cut-offs cut-offs become extremely sharp and people get rejected upto two decimal points !! It is ridiculous to suppose the selected person is better (or to use the expression of the season: more competent) than the the rejected one.
Anyone who has looked at how close the cutoffs for the various categories are getting will say that the candidates who are finally selected are not "incompetent" by any stretch of imagination.
There are other problems with reservation as the target group is largely missed and people who ought to be able to compete in the open garner the benefits (this is once again proven by how close the cut-offs for the various categories are). But I don't think competency is as big an issue as it is being made out to be.