Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction: Brief Overview of Affirmative Action

• Purpose of Affirmative Action: Define affirmative action as a set of policies and practices designed to address historical discrimination against marginalized groups and promote equality in education, employment, and other sectors. It aims to provide equal opportunities to historically underrepresented or disadvantaged groups based on factors like race, caste, gender, or income.Fact: Affirmative action aims to rectify historical and ongoing discrimination, particularly based on race, ethnicity, caste, or gender.

2. Genesis and Rationale

• India:
  • Historical Context: Affirmative action in India, through the reservation system, is designed to correct the socio-economic disparities caused by the caste-based hierarchy.
  • Primary Target Groups: Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
  • Legal Basis: Constitution of India, particularly Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46, allows for reservations in education, employment, and other areas to promote social justice.

  Fact: India’s reservation system originated with the Constituent Assembly in 1950, providing legal provisions for the upliftment of marginalized castes (Source: Indian Constitution).

• United States:
  • Historical Context: Affirmative action in the U.S. emerged to address racial discrimination, particularly against African Americans, Native Americans, and later, Hispanic groups, following the civil rights movements of the 1960s.
  • Legal Basis: Introduced through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly under Title VI (which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs), and reinforced by judicial rulings like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).

  Fact: Affirmative action in the U.S. gained traction after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Source: U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964).

3. Scope and Implementation

• India:
  • Coverage: The reservation system is broad, applying to education, employment, promotions, and even political representation (e.g., reserved seats in legislative bodies).
  • Quota System: Fixed quotas are set at 50% for SCs, STs, and OBCs (as per the Indra Sawhney case in 1992). The recent 103rd Amendment (2019) added a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) within the general category.

  Fact: According to the Indra Sawhney case (1992), the total reservation limit for all groups cannot exceed 50%. The 103rd Amendment (2019) expanded this by introducing reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS).

• United States:
  • Coverage: The scope is primarily focused on education (college admissions) and employment (hiring and promotions).
  • Quotas: There are no fixed quotas for affirmative action in the U.S., and policies vary by state, university, or employer. The implementation is often based on “race-conscious” admissions, but quotas are not legally required.
• Fact: U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), have ruled that race can be considered as a factor in college admissions, but quotas are unconstitutional.

4. Targeted Groups

• India:
  • The primary groups targeted are Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
  • The recent expansion of reservation has also considered Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), irrespective of caste.

  Fact: The reservation system targets SCs, STs, OBCs, and now also includes EWS as per the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 (Source: 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019).

• United States:
  • The U.S. affirmative action policies primarily target African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other racial/ethnic minorities.

  Fact: The target groups include African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other racial minorities who face systemic discrimination (Source: U.S. Civil Rights Act, 1964).

5. Legal Framework and Judicial Oversight

• India:
  • Affirmative action is constitutionally backed, with clear provisions in Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The reservation policy has been scrutinized and interpreted through various judicial rulings like Indra Sawhney and M Nagaraj cases.

  Fact: The Indian Constitution provides for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), giving a legal basis for affirmative action (Source: Indian Constitution).

• United States:
  • Affirmative action in the U.S. was not initially constitutionalized but was shaped through acts like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and judicial interpretations.
  • Key legal cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) have influenced the scope and legality of race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

  Fact: Affirmative action in the U.S. is guided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various Supreme Court rulings (Source: Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S. Supreme Court).

6. Emerging Trends and Challenges

• India:
  • The reservation system is expanding to include economic criteria as seen with the introduction of the 10% EWS quota.
  • There is ongoing debate about the efficacy of caste-based reservations, and some calls for reform, including possible moves towards merit-based systems.

  Fact: The 103rd Amendment introduced a 10% quota for EWS, expanding the scope of affirmative action beyond caste.

• United States:
  • U.S. affirmative action is facing restrictions, with the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University (2023) that race cannot be considered as a determining factor in college admissions, signaling a shift away from race-based policies.

  Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling restricted race-conscious admissions, highlighting a trend towards reducing affirmative action.

7. Conclusion

• Summarize the Key Differences and Similarities:
  • Both India and the United States use affirmative action to address historical discrimination, but India’s system is more rigid and caste-based, while the U.S. focuses on race and ethnicity in educational and employment contexts.
  • The legal framework in India is constitutionally explicit, while in the U.S., it has evolved through legislation and judicial rulings.
  • Both countries are witnessing emerging trends: India is expanding affirmative action to include economic criteria, while the U.S. is limiting its scope through judicial intervention.