Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Affirmative Action and Protective Discrimination are mechanisms employed by states to redress historical injustices and promote social equity. The USA’s Affirmative Action, initially conceived in the 1960s, aimed to dismantle racial discrimination in education and employment. Simultaneously, India's Constitution, recognizing the marginalization of Scheduled Tribes (STs), enshrined Protective Discrimination, a system of reservations and targeted benefits. However, recent Supreme Court rulings in the USA (e.g., *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard*) have significantly curtailed Affirmative Action, prompting a reassessment of its efficacy and future. This response critically compares these two approaches, exploring their similarities, differences, and implications for social justice.
Understanding the Frameworks
Affirmative Action in the USA
Affirmative Action in the United States originated as a response to pervasive racial discrimination, particularly against African Americans. Initially, it involved voluntary steps by institutions to increase diversity. Executive Order 11246 (1965) mandated equal employment opportunities for minorities. Later, court rulings, notably *Regents of University of California v. Bakke* (1978), attempted to define permissible parameters, emphasizing merit-based selection with consideration for diversity. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* (2023) effectively ended the consideration of race as a determining factor in college admissions, severely restricting its application.
Protective Discrimination in India
Protective Discrimination in India, primarily manifested through reservations, is enshrined in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. It aims to uplift Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) who have historically faced systemic oppression and marginalization. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and subsequent amendments define the STs. Reservations exist in government jobs, educational institutions, and legislatures. Furthermore, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides specific protections and rights to tribal communities.
Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Affirmative Action (USA) | Protective Discrimination (India) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Initially, Executive Orders and Court Rulings; now severely curtailed by Supreme Court | Constitutional provisions (Articles 15(4) & 16(4)), Statutory Laws (e.g., Forest Rights Act) |
| Beneficiaries | Initially, racial minorities (primarily African Americans); broadened to include other underrepresented groups. | Specifically, Scheduled Tribes (as defined by the Constitution) |
| Scope | Primarily education and employment. Now significantly restricted. | Education, employment, political representation (reservations in legislatures), and access to resources (e.g., land, forest produce). |
| Implementation | Voluntary measures, quotas (historically), point systems. | Mandatory reservations, targeted schemes, scholarships, and special development programs. |
| Criticisms | Reverse discrimination, meritocracy concerns, quota system debates, perceived as unfair. | Creaming of benefits, political opportunism, perpetuation of caste identities, potential for inefficiency. |
| Effectiveness | Increased representation in education and employment, but impact debated. Recent rulings challenge its continued effectiveness. | Improved access to education and employment, but socioeconomic disparities persist. Forest Rights Act has faced challenges in implementation. |
| Constitutional Context | 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) - balancing equality and diversity. | Article 14 (Equality before Law), Articles 15 & 16 (Prohibition of Discrimination) – constitutional mandate for affirmative action. |
Critical Evaluation
While both approaches share the common goal of promoting social equity, their operational contexts differ significantly. The USA's Affirmative Action has been significantly challenged by legal interpretations emphasizing individual merit, leading to its erosion. The Indian system, rooted in constitutional provisions, enjoys a greater degree of legal protection, although implementation challenges remain.
A key difference lies in the understanding of identity. In the USA, race has been a contentious issue, with concerns about essentializing identity. In India, caste, while also complex and nuanced, is legally recognized as a basis for affirmative action. However, the Indian system risks reinforcing caste identities and potentially hindering social integration. The Forest Rights Act in India, while crucial for tribal empowerment, has also faced resistance from various stakeholders, highlighting the complexities of implementing affirmative action in resource-rich areas.
Case Study: The Forest Rights Act, 2006
The Forest Rights Act (FRA) exemplifies Protective Discrimination in India. It aims to restore traditional rights over forest land and resources to forest-dwelling communities, primarily STs. While it has been instrumental in recognizing the rights of millions, implementation has been slow and uneven, facing resistance from corporations and state governments. A 2018 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) highlighted significant delays and inconsistencies in FRA implementation, underscoring the challenges in translating constitutional mandates into tangible benefits.
Conclusion
The comparison reveals that while both Affirmative Action in the USA and Protective Discrimination in India strive for social justice, their trajectories and effectiveness are shaped by distinct legal and social contexts. The USA’s experience highlights the vulnerability of affirmative action to legal challenges, while India's system faces implementation hurdles and the risk of perpetuating caste identities. Moving forward, both nations need to reassess their approaches, focusing on inclusive growth strategies that address the root causes of inequality and promote genuine social integration beyond mere representation.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.