In the complex landscape of Indian social politics, the conversation surrounding caste has no boundaries. It is a harsh reality that the struggles of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes are often juxtaposed against a narrative that vilifies upper castes (Savarna). Those who push this specific narrative of victimhood often go to great lengths to spread their viewpoints, depicting almost every facet of society as a tool of oppression designed by upper castes to maintain their dominance.

For years, we have heard claims that the education system, the bureaucracy, and the entire democratic structure of India suffer from inherent caste bias. However, this focus has now shifted to a new and unexpected frontier: artificial intelligence. The latest enemy for these "caste warriors" is ChatGPT, which is now being accused of holding a bias toward their traditional targets—the upper castes.

Vijender Singh Chauhan, a well-known Associate Professor at Delhi University and a familiar face in the mock interview circuits for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at Drishti IAS, recently sparked a controversy. Known for guiding future civil servants, Chauhan used a public platform during a recent book launch to direct accusations against the upper-caste community through the lens of technology, doing so in front of a cheering audience.

In his speech, Chauhan suggested that the AI model itself is prejudiced. He stated, “Provide a brief prompt to ChatGPT and examine the data it generates. There is a higher likelihood that the information will lean towards the upper castes due to the individuals who have trained it. ChatGPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer. It is trained on existing content that favours the upper castes and the people in power. It is trained by excessively represented individuals from this group.”

His argument hinges on the idea that because the data fed into AI comes from a society he deems unequal, the machine itself perpetuates injustice. He continued his reasoning by adding, “Consequently, if there is a machine with a flawed foundation, how can it be anticipated to deliver justice? Therefore, the battle is not only with the vice chancellors of universities, chief ministers, prime ministers, or bureaucrats, but also with an algorithm. In fact, the challenge is more pronounced with the algorithm because it strips away your ability to discern right from wrong.”

While these comments might seem laughable to some, they reveal a deeper, more worrying trend. There is a consistent pattern of denouncing upper castes without fear of social or professional backlash. These narratives serve to divide Hindu society further, pitting communities against one another by painting one side as the eternal villain and the other as the perpetual victim. This strategy of exploiting social fault lines for political or personal gain is not new; it has been used historically by colonizers and invaders to control India, and later by various political parties for electoral benefits.

The Online Reaction: Satire and Criticism

The video of Chauhan’s speech spread rapidly across social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), drawing sharp criticism from the online community. Many questioned the logic of dragging caste politics into technology.

A UPSC aspirant, representing the students who look up to these figures, expressed deep concern about introducing “caste angles into something as neutral as AI.” He highlighted the shock of seeing such divisive propaganda in 2026. In a comment that resonated with many, he pointed out, “As someone prepping for UPSC myself, I expect educators to unite us, not spread hate under the guise of observations. This kind of talk is harmful and sets a bad example for aspirants. We need better from our mentors.”

Taking a more humorous route, the popular satirical social media handle known as "The Skin Doctor" poked fun at Chauhan’s logic. In a hilariously sarcastic post, he wrote that Chauhan was actually correct because Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, was secretly from a "Maithil Brahmin" lineage in Bihar’s Samastipur district. The satirist joked that Altman’s family moved to the United States when India gained independence because they “would no longer be able to exploit Dalits” and subsequently changed their surname.

Continuing the jest, "The Skin Doctor" remarked that Altman still wears the “janeu” (sacred thread), practices Brahminism, and trained ChatGPT on the principles of the ancient text “Manusmriti,” which explains the AI’s supposed bias. He humorously concluded, “Sam thought he was too smart and wouldn’t be caught, but the eagle-eyed watchfulness of our UPSC coach Vijender Singh Chauhan exposed him.”

Others were less forgiving. One user bluntly labelled Chauhan a “clown,” questioning his basic common sense and the validity of his academic credentials. The user insinuated, “Anyone can understand how he would have got his degrees. This country is becoming a place of clowns because of these social justice schemes.”

facing this backlash, the professor released a follow-up video where he attempted to defend his position by citing the “intrinsic bias” of AI, claiming his statements were backed by “several studies.”

If the world were truly as rigged in favor of upper castes as these narratives suggest, comments targeting a specific community with such hostility would likely invite legal action. However, in the current climate, hostility toward upper castes is often ignored, while the national discourse focuses heavily on discrimination against lower castes. This occurs even when there are reports of laws like the SC/ST Act being weaponized to settle personal scores, rather than for genuine justice.

The Normalization of Prejudice Against Upper Castes in Academic Coaching

The portrayal of upper castes as the ultimate enemy is not an isolated incident; it has become a widespread norm. This sentiment is found not just in political rallies but, more alarmingly, inside the coaching centers responsible for training the country’s future bureaucrats.

For instance, Vision IAS Academy, a prominent coaching institute, faced severe criticism in 2022. A faculty member, Smriti Shah, was recorded referring to the Bhakti movement—a significant devotional trend in Hinduism—as a “cult.” She argued that it was created as a reaction to the arrival of “Liberal Islam,” suggesting that Hinduism borrowed concepts of equality from Islam.

In her lecture, she claimed, “It was nothing but Islam arriving in India in the seventh century. It was very liberal and talked about equality. There was no caste system either.” Instead of correcting this historical inaccuracy, the institution defended her, doubling down on her statements under the guise of issuing a clarification.

Shah’s controversial takes did not stop there. In another video, she made sweeping generalizations about polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands), specifically referencing the character of Draupadi from the Mahabharata and commodifying women in agricultural communities.

She stated, “In the agricultural communities from Punjab and Haryana, the livelihood depends on land. If you have five sons, you have to purchase a wife. You must have that much money to take a bride for each of your sons. Once you get her, the chances of property division are also high, since now there would be five different families. To avoid the fragmentation of land-holding, you instead buy one bride for all your sons.”

She went on to emphasize her point by saying, “Polyandry solves two purposes, one, you have to purchase one woman instead of five and second, your economic assets would be retained. When you question if this is illegal, the reference is then made to Draupadi, your culture.”

Even festivals were not spared. Shah was seen giving a sermon to her students about Diwali, mocking modern traditions. “We never had this culture of giving gifts during Diwali. It was always about lighting diyas and cleaning your homes because Goddess Laxmi arrives. Nowadays, that Sonpapdi (sweet) Box travels from one household to another until the expiry date doesn’t come,” she remarked.

Similarly, Vikas Divyakirti, the founder of Drishti IAS, faced intense scrutiny that same year. He sparked outrage for comparing Goddess Sita to “ghee contaminated by a dog.” In a lecture, he indicated that Lord Ram told his wife, “that just as food licked by a dog becomes unfit for consumption, you are no longer acceptable to be my wife,” a statement that many scholars argue is a blatant distortion of the Valmiki Ramayana.

Following this, netizens dug up more clips from his lectures, accusing him of instilling "Hinduphobia" under the pretense of education. In another video, Divyakirti was seen calling Lord Ram a "casteist." He contended that the poet Tulsidas omitted a controversial story regarding a Dalit named Shambuk to protect Lord Ram's image—even though this specific instance is not referenced in the original Sanskrit epic.

Final Thoughts on the Ideological Shift in Competitive Exam Preparation

It is becoming increasingly undeniable that many UPSC coaching centers have transformed into hubs of anti-Hindu rhetoric. Both the founders and the staff hired to mold the nation's future leaders often seem to harbor deep resentment toward the Hindu religion and the upper-caste community—a resentment that appears to be escalating.

Given this environment, it is hardly surprising that figures like Chauhan have identified a new enemy in ChatGPT. It is crucial, however, to recognize that their comments closely mirror anti-Hindu sentiments often promoted by certain political factions. These narratives masquerade as opposition to "Brahminical patriarchy," allowing them to attack Hinduism indirectly while maintaining a facade of academic neutrality.

The motivation behind Chauhan’s recent outburst is open to speculation. It could stem from a decline in viewership for his mock interviews, which previously garnered millions of views. Alternatively, it could be a strategy to remain relevant on social media. Provoking Hindus and upper castes is currently the safest way to stay in the news without fearing violent repercussions, such as the “sar tan se juda” (beheading) threats often associated with criticizing other religions.

Nonetheless, these remarks have tangible, real-world consequences. History serves as a warning. The infamous slogan “Bhura Baal Saaf Karo” (eliminate upper castes) coined by politician Lalu Prasad Yadav had deadly effects on the community, particularly during the Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) rule in Bihar, often referred to as "Jungle Raj." Unfortunately, aversion towards upper castes has become so normalized in the consciousness of these educators that they remain unaffected by the dangerous implications of their own rhetoric.