Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in the Indian context encompasses a wide spectrum of social and economic disadvantages, leading to the proliferation of targeted development and welfare schemes. These schemes, designed to uplift marginalized communities – Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, women, persons with disabilities, and the economically weaker sections – inherently involve differentiating between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. This differentiation, at first glance, appears ‘discriminatory’ as it doesn’t treat all citizens equally. However, a deeper examination reveals that such targeted approaches are often considered a necessary corrective to pre-existing societal inequalities and are rooted in the principles of social justice and equitable development.
Understanding the Nature of Differentiation
The statement that development and welfare schemes are ‘discriminatory’ hinges on the definition of discrimination. While generally understood as unfair or prejudicial treatment, in the context of affirmative action and social justice, differentiation can be a tool for achieving equality. These schemes don’t aim to harm any group but rather to provide a leg-up to those historically disadvantaged. The Indian Constitution, through Articles 15(4) and 16(4), explicitly allows for special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Arguments Supporting the Statement
- Perpetuation of Stigma: Targeted schemes can inadvertently reinforce societal stereotypes and stigmatize beneficiaries, creating a sense of ‘otherness’.
- Exclusion Errors: Identifying and accurately targeting vulnerable groups is challenging. Exclusion errors – failing to include genuinely deserving individuals – are common, leading to inequity. The Public Distribution System (PDS) often faces this issue, with eligible beneficiaries excluded due to documentation challenges.
- Potential for Rent-Seeking & Corruption: Targeted schemes are more susceptible to corruption and rent-seeking behavior, as the smaller beneficiary base makes it easier to manipulate the system.
- Creation of Dependency: Over-reliance on welfare schemes can create a culture of dependency, hindering individual initiative and long-term economic empowerment.
Arguments Against the Statement – Justifying Differentiation
- Addressing Historical Injustice: Many vulnerable groups have faced centuries of systemic discrimination and marginalization. Targeted schemes are a necessary step towards rectifying these historical injustices. For example, reservation policies aim to address the historical exclusion of certain communities from education and employment.
- Equitable Resource Allocation: Universal schemes, while seemingly fair, often benefit the already privileged disproportionately. Targeted schemes ensure that resources reach those who need them most, maximizing the impact of limited public funds. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is a prime example, providing a safety net for rural households.
- Meeting Specific Needs: Different vulnerable groups have different needs. Targeted schemes allow for tailored interventions that address these specific challenges. Schemes for persons with disabilities, like the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan, are designed to address their unique accessibility requirements.
- Promoting Inclusive Growth: By empowering vulnerable groups, these schemes contribute to more inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Increased participation of marginalized communities in the economy benefits society as a whole.
The Role of Universal Basic Income (UBI)
The debate around UBI often arises in this context. Proponents argue that UBI, being universal, avoids the pitfalls of targeted schemes. However, critics point out that UBI may be fiscally unsustainable and may not adequately address the specific needs of the most vulnerable. A hybrid approach, combining targeted schemes with a basic level of universal support, may be the most effective solution.
| Targeted Schemes | Universal Schemes |
|---|---|
| Focus on specific vulnerable groups | Benefit all citizens equally |
| Higher administrative costs due to identification & monitoring | Lower administrative costs |
| Potential for exclusion errors & corruption | May not adequately address the needs of the most vulnerable |
| Examples: PM-KISAN, National Food Security Act | Examples: UBI (proposed), certain pension schemes |
Conclusion
While development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable are, by their very nature, discriminatory in the sense of differentiating between citizens, this differentiation is often justifiable and necessary. It’s a tool for addressing historical injustices, promoting equitable resource allocation, and fostering inclusive growth. However, it’s crucial to minimize exclusion errors, combat corruption, and avoid creating dependency. The ideal approach lies in a carefully calibrated mix of targeted interventions and universal support, constantly evaluated and refined to ensure maximum effectiveness and minimize unintended consequences. A focus on empowerment, rather than mere welfare, is key to achieving lasting social justice.
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.