Comparative Analysis of Affirmative Action in India and the US
Source:Indian Express ↗
Why It Matters
It directly addresses the GS Paper 2 syllabus on 'Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries' and 'Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of vulnerable sections.' It provides an excellent analytical framework for Mains answers comparing Right to Equality and social justice policies across democracies.
Summary
The article explores what the United States can learn from India's approach to affirmative action, especially in the wake of the US Supreme Court striking down race-based admissions in universities. It contrasts the American reliance on 'diversity' as a rationale with India's constitutionally mandated system of 'compensatory justice' aimed at addressing deeply entrenched historical inequalities, specifically caste discrimination. By comparing constitutional provisions like India's Articles 15 and 16 with the US Equal Protection Clause, the article highlights India's evolving policy mechanisms—such as the Mandal Commission, creamy layer principles, sub-categorisation, and EWS quotas—as structural tools for managing systemic disadvantages that the US could study.
Key Points
- Examines the differences between the US 'diversity' rationale for affirmative action and India's 'compensatory justice' model, which is rooted in addressing historical discrimination.
- Highlights how the Indian Constitution explicitly enables affirmative action through Articles 15 and 16, whereas the US Supreme Court recently struck down race-based affirmative action under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Discusses the continuous evolution of India's reservation policy, including the introduction of creamy layer exclusions, sub-categorisation, and the EWS quota, demonstrating adaptability.
- Suggests that India's objective criteria for identifying backwardness and structural acknowledgment of systemic inequalities offer a more robust framework for social justice than the subjective diversity goals in the US.
Important Terms
Article 15
A Fundamental Right that prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or birthplace, while allowing 'special provisions' for the advancement of backward classes and women in education.
UPSC context
GS-II/Polity; tests knowledge of Fundamental Rights and the legal basis for affirmative action in educational institutions.
Article 16
A Fundamental Right ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment. It permits the State to reserve posts for backward classes deemed inadequately represented in government services.
UPSC context
GS-II/Polity; essential for understanding constitutional provisions for public employment and social representation.
Mandal Commission
The 1979 commission that identified 'Other Backward Classes' (OBCs) and recommended 27% reservation in government jobs, significantly altering India’s social and political landscape.
UPSC context
GS-I/Social Justice; examines the history of OBC reservations and its socio-political impact on Indian society.
103rd Constitutional Amendment Act
A 2019 law that introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and government jobs, adding economic status as a criterion for affirmative action.
UPSC context
GS-II/Polity; tests understanding of recent constitutional shifts toward economic-based reservation criteria.
National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)
A constitutional body (Article 338B) empowered to investigate grievances and monitor safeguards for the welfare of socially and educationally backward classes.
UPSC context
GS-II/Constitutional Bodies; relevant for questions on institutional safeguards for marginalized sections.
Supreme Court of India
The final interpreter of the Constitution, responsible for establishing critical reservation benchmarks like the 50% cap and upholding the validity of EWS quotas.
UPSC context
GS-II/Judiciary; tests the role of judicial review in balancing individual rights with collective social justice.
Prelims Trap
"Article 16(4) guarantees reservation as an absolute Fundamental Right."
Article 16(4) is merely an enabling provision empowering the State. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that claiming reservation is not a fundamental right.
Static Concepts Connected
What distinguishes Formal Equality from Substantive Equality?
- Formal Equality: Focuses on procedural fairness and identical treatment under the law, disregarding historical or socio-economic disadvantages (e.g., 'equality before the law').
- Substantive Equality: Acknowledges entrenched structural inequalities and justifies differential treatment, like affirmative action, to achieve actual parity in society.
How did the 'Creamy Layer' principle evolve in India?
- Indra Sawhney (1992): Introduced the creamy layer exclusion for OBCs to ensure reservation benefits reach the most socially and educationally backward individuals.
- Jarnail Singh (2018): The Supreme Court extended the creamy layer concept to SC/STs specifically in the context of reservations in promotions.
Cross-Topic Patterns
Comparative constitutional schemes (GS2)
GS2 explicitly covers comparing the Indian constitutional scheme with others. The divergence between US 'diversity' jurisprudence and Indian 'compensatory justice' is prime Mains material.
Sub-categorisation of SC/STs
Connects this comparative debate to the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing states to sub-classify SC/STs to ensure reservation benefits reach the most marginalized groups.
Expect a GS2 Mains question comparing India's substantive equality mechanism with the fading US diversity-based affirmative action.
Linked PYQs · 3
Linked PYQs · 3
- 2021MainsGS2
Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Right to Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India.
- 2024MainsGS2
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
- 2023PrelimsGS1
Consider the following organizations/bodies in India: 1. The National Commission for Backward Classes 2. The National Human Rights Commission 3. The National Law Commission 4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission How many of the above are constitutional bodies?
