Revision summary
Affirmative action is a classification for historic disadvantage, authorised in India by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4). Support reads equality as equal protection and as Ambedkar’s social democracy. Criticism reads equality as identical individual treatment and points to merit, capture, and frozen identities. Indra Sawhney, Nagaraj, and the EWS amendment show the courts and Parliament working inside that split. A complete analysis of equality must hold both the case for correction and the case for review.
Model answer
Introduction
Affirmative action is a set of public measures that allocate seats, jobs, or resources to groups defined by historic disadvantage. In the context of equality, support treats those measures as a means to equal citizenship. Criticism treats them as a departure from equal treatment of individuals.
Body
Equality that supports the policy
- Formal equality under Article 14 is equality before the law and equal protection. Equal protection has been read to allow reasonable classification.
- Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) expressly authorise special provisions for backward classes in education and public employment.
- Ambedkar argued that political democracy fails if social and economic inequality is left untouched; reservation was a time-bound instrument of that argument.
- John Rawls’s fair equality of opportunity and difference principle support correcting unearned disadvantage, though Rawls’s unit is the individual in a well-ordered society, not a caste as such.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld OBC reservation, imposed a 50 per cent ceiling as a general rule, and excluded the creamy layer from OBC lists, which is equality as both group repair and individual fairness inside the group.
Equality that criticises the policy
- Critics say equality means colour-blind or caste-blind treatment of persons, in the spirit of a strict reading of Mill’s individuality and of equal protection without group ranks.
- Reverse discrimination, stagnation of merit, and capture by the better-off inside a listed class are the main charges.
- M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required the state to show backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and administrative efficiency before Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe promotion quotas, a judicial attempt to keep equality of opportunity in service.
- The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) added an economically weaker section quota, which supporters call another equality tool and critics call a further departure from a single open competition.
- Communitarian writers such as Walzer can support group shares in some spheres and still worry that a caste census of every office freezes identities that justice should loosen.
Analysis
- The clash is between equality as identical treatment and equality as equal results or equal starting points.
- Support is strongest where exclusion was legal and social, as with Article 17 and untouchability, and where data show under-representation.
- Criticism is strongest where the policy has no review, no creamy-layer principle, and no companion work on schooling quality.
- A consistent equality argument keeps affirmative action, reviews lists, and protects open competition as a remaining sphere, rather than treating any one reading of equality as the whole.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD E[Equality] --> F[Formal equal treatment] E --> S[Substantive equal protection] S --> AA[Affirmative action] F --> C[Criticism: merit and reverse discrimination] AA --> IS[Indra Sawhney creamy layer]
Conclusion
Affirmative action is criticised and supported because equality itself is split between identical treatment and corrective equal protection. Ambedkar, Rawls, and Articles 15 and 16 support correction. Individual-merit criticism and creamy-layer doctrine name the costs. The analysis is of that split, not of a single slogan of equality.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Eurocentrism is both the target and the motive force of the post-colonial political theory. Discuss
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
Is reservation a violation of Article 14?
The Court has treated reasonable classification and the special-provision clauses as part of equal protection, not as a simple violation.
-
Does Rawls require caste quotas?
Rawls requires fair opportunity and concern for the least advantaged. Caste lists are one historical instrument, not the only possible one.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Marxism is a political theory of action demanding strict compliance with its core principles. Comment. -
2024 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The nature of relationship between equality of democratic citizenship and liberty of citizens is influenced by economic equality. Comment. -
2024 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Discuss the contribution of the Dalit struggle to establish egalitarianism in Indian society during the freedom movement. -
2023 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Sri Aurobindo's idea of Swaraj has deep significance in the Indian social, political and cultural history. Analyze -
2021 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Affirmative action. -
2021 · Q1(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Equality of outcome as a political idea.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.