Poverty exists in almost every country in the world. Likewise, minority groups can be found in nearly every country. How are the poor and minorities treated in these countries? Do they offer enough protection and opportunities for empowerment to allow them to live with dignity?
Let us compare two prominent democracies, as well as examine some other nations.
India’s Reservation Policy and the USA’s Affirmative Action aim at uplifting marginalised communities, addressing past injustices, and advocating for equality. These frameworks share common goals but operate within distinct social and political contexts. They also employ different approaches. It is important to explore their historical roots, methods of implementation, accomplishments, and challenges. We will also examine comparable policies implemented in other nations to offer a worldwide outlook on efforts to tackle systemic disparities.
Historical Context
India’s Reservation Policy has its foundations in the long-standing caste system, which has perpetuated social divisions for centuries. Hindu society was divided into four main varnas, with a separate group known as Dalits. Previously, they were called the “Untouchables” who existed outside of this social hierarchy. This resulted in widespread discrimination and social marginalization. After India’s independence, the Indian Constitution made it mandatory to have reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) aka Dalits and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This was done to address the long-standing discrimination they faced. In 1990, the policy was expanded to include Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
In the United States, Affirmative Action originated during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. It aimed to end racial discrimination and encourage diversity. Its origins can be linked to President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 in 1961. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent executive orders further solidified the policy. These placed a strong emphasis on equal opportunities for historically discriminated groups like African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, and other minorities.
Policy Mechanisms
India’s Reservation Policy implements a quota system. It sets aside a specific percentage of seats in educational institutions and government jobs for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). As of 2024, the reservation quotas are:
- 15% for Scheduled Castes
- 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes
- 27% for Other Backward Classes
- 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general category
The policy is supported by different legislative measures. Then there are promotional initiatives for SC and ST employees in government services and educational assistance such as scholarships and specialised coaching.
In the United States, Affirmative Action is implemented through outreach programs, holistic admissions processes in education, establishment of diversity goals in hiring and contracting, and implementing diversity training programs. However, recent legal hurdles have adversely affected these practices, especially the higher education.
India’s Reservation Policy provides many advantages. It promotes fairness in society, enhances political representation for marginalised communities, and enables economic empowerment. Research has indicated a decrease in poverty rates among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The policy has its fair share of controversy. Critics contend that it undermines meritocracy and perpetuates caste identities instead of eradicating them. In the past, the policy had left out economically disadvantaged individuals from higher castes, which was a mistake. Even with these criticisms, the policy continues to be a vital instrument in addressing past inequities and creating chances for marginalised communities in India.
Implementing Affirmative Action in the United States has yielded multiple benefits. It has promoted diversity in both workplaces and educational institutions. It has also rectified past injustices and fostered economic growth by encouraging innovation in diverse companies.
Critics argue that this policy can result in reverse discrimination against majority groups. They question the legality and ethical implications of considering race in the admissions and hiring processes. Concerns also arise regarding the potential stigmatisation of minority students or employees who receive advantages from these policies. However, Affirmative Action remains an important tool in the efforts to promote equal opportunities and representation in American society.
Comparative Analysis
Although both policies have the same goal of promoting equal opportunities, they vary in terms of their extent and implementation. In India, the policy is characterised by rigid quotas, whereas the U.S. has traditionally taken a more flexible approach. In India, the focus of policy is on combating caste-based discrimination, whereas the U.S. prefers to address racial and gender inequalities.
India’s policy is mandated by the constitution and applies to a diverse range of public sectors. In comparison, the U.S. policy has been put into effect using executive orders and court rulings, with a particular emphasis on education and employment. Despite this, its reach has been significantly curtailed by recent Supreme Court decisions, especially in higher education.
Global Perspectives
Brazil has established quotas in universities and public employment for Afro-Brazilians and indigenous populations. The 2012 Quota Law mandates that 50% of admission to federal universities be reserved for students from public schools. This includes a proportion specifically reserved for low-income students and individuals who identify as Black, mixed race, or indigenous. This policy has led to a significant increase in the percentage of Black students in federal universities.
South Africa’s policies after the apartheid era include the implementation of Black Economic Empowerment. It promotes the economic involvement of Black citizens and marginalized communities. Although these policies have helped in the development of the Black middle class, there is still a significant disparity in income.
The Bumiputra Policy in Malaysia was implemented in 1971. It grants certain advantages to Malays and indigenous communities in areas such as education, employment, and business. This policy has helped decrease poverty among Bumiputras and enhance their ownership of shares in limited companies. However opponents argue that it has contributed to a brain drain and a decline in competitiveness.
In 1986, Canada implemented the Employment Equity Act. It aims to improve the representation of designated groups in workplaces under federal regulation. This has resulted in a higher presence of visible minorities and women in both the federal public service and managerial roles.
Current Trends
Recent data in India indicates that there have been advancements in educational opportunities for SCs and STs. Their Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education has risen. Research has also discovered that these groups experience positive effects on occupational mobility. The Indian Constitution ensures political representation by reserving seats in the Lok Sabha for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, proportional to their population ratios. It is also possible for them to compete in elections from the general quota seats. For example, Awadhesh Prasad, a Dalit member of the Samajwadi Party, emerged victorious in the general category seat of Ayodhya during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He won the election against the upper caste candidate from the BJP by a margin of over 50,000 votes.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States, there has been a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic individuals in private sector jobs. Major tech companies have also made significant efforts to improve diversity.
Challenges
Challenges confront India’s reservation policy. These include political manipulation and demands of various groups to be included in the OBC category. There are also recommendations to replace caste with income as the criterion for reservations. Introducing the Economically Weaker Section quota in 2019 was a move towards this goal. The “creamy layer” topic has sparked discussions about excluding economically advanced individuals in backward classes from reservations.
The 2023 Supreme Court ruling in the United States effectively abolished race-based admissions in higher education. This has ignited discussions about the future of Affirmative Action. The public’s view on Affirmative Action programs has been volatile. The 2022 Gallup poll revealed a decline in support compared to previous years. Companies still face challenges in finding the right balance between diversity objectives, legal obligations, and merit-based principles.
Future Directions
There is currently a debate in India about expanding reservations to the private sector and reevaluating the criteria for the creamy layer. Skill development programs have also been a key focus of the government to increase employability among marginalized communities.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on race-conscious admissions, universities in the United States are exploring alternative strategies to ensure diversity. These strategies include considering socioeconomic factors and getting rid of legacy admissions. Certain states and institutions are exploring race-neutral approaches to enhance diversity.
There is a global movement towards adopting more comprehensive approaches that consider various forms of disadvantage, such as socioeconomic status, as well as race, caste, and ethnicity. There’s also an increasing focus on creating inclusive environments and measuring the long-term impact of these policies.
Conclusion
Affirmative action and reservation policies remain crucial in addressing past injustices and promoting diversity, though their effectiveness and fairness are debated. Future approaches may be more targeted, influenced by changing demographics, societal attitudes, and legal contexts. These policies aim to create fairer societies with equal opportunities for all, regardless of background. Continuous evaluation and updates are necessary to address discrimination and inequality while fostering social harmony and economic growth.
To achieve equality and social justice in the 21st century, innovative methods, cross-cultural education, and inclusive societies are essential. Nations can empower marginalized communities by learning from global experiences and adapting policies to meet evolving needs. As we move forward, it's crucial to develop alternative strategies within existing legal frameworks to promote diversity and equality effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment