25.May.2006 at 25 | hso
Positive Discrimination
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Or Affirmative Action as we all know is just what it is. Morally I support it, after all, it was intended to “promote a group/class that have traditionally been discriminated against?. But ethically, in a Secular state like India, such programs make for a “disastrous brew?.
There are two fundamental issues that stem from such provisions, allow me to explain:
Issue A - Say group #1 benefits from affirmative action because group #2 discriminated against group #1’s ancestors. Does that mean, group #1 benefits just as much from their ancestors suffering (or being discriminated) as group #2 did. if so, does two wrongs make one right? If not, why does group #1 not subjected to the same provisions (or lack of) as group #2.
Issue B - Indian government classifies a broad group (over 25 percent of its 1.2 billion) of its citizens as group #1 (or those who are eligible for benefiting from affirmative action), of those, only about 12 percent lived in truly segregated societies (Scheduled Cast /Scheduled Tribes), these groups receive about 22 percent reservation in all academic and governmental opportunities, a disparity in number to percent ratio that has been in debate since the 80’s. The government is proposing adding an additional 27 percent reservation for Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and other minority Hindu castes, who the government claims are socially disadvantaged groups, many of who do not have cast systems and have not traditionally been denied of any privileges. How then do they qualify for affirmative action?
If Issue A is true (and it is in an ideal world), they affirmative actions should be made obsolete.
If issue B bill manages to pass congressional approval, then the system, which portrays itself as Secular would fail to follow the most basic rule of Secularism, the exclusion of religion in deciding state affairs.
If anything, Muslims (Persians and Afghans) and Christians (English) belittled Indigenous people and ruled over Indians for over 800 years! Why then must they benefit from a program, and not indigenous people? Being small in numbers alone should not justify the endorsement of rights to such provisions, which will further segregation, promote hatred among religious groups, create an unequal playing field for Indian youth and essentially curb independent intellectual advancement.
So what you may ask would be the best solution? For one, caste and class are two entirely separate entities. Underprivileged individual are not necessarily always from minority groups, but rather a function of economy, hence they should be dealt purely with economics. Providing free quality education or provisions for economically backward to avail tax incentives would promote and encourage academics, and that alone should suffice.
For more visit BBC
1. Adrian MacNair | May 26, 2006 #
I have always strongly been against affirmative action, pretty much since I learned the definition as a child. I’ve been raised and taught that people should always be treated based on their values, their skills, and their merit in regards to the position being sought. It is never, under any circumstances whatsoever, ethical to allow affirmative action, as it takes one group of people based on an arbitrary classification such as race, religion, or sex, and separates and discriminates against them. In every moral objective concept of affirmitive action, it is extremely wrong. It furthermore cannot be proven that affirmitive action has any positive merits whatsoever, as the candidates for this “assistance” may never know if they were qualified for the position on their own skills. Vice versa, we may be denying the opportunity of a brilliant individual the chance for a position simply because of categorization and labelling. I may be white in skin colour, and traditionally those of white skin colour have succeeded in stark contrast to other “races” in North America. But I can assure you that nothing about my race has ever provided me with privilege, and affirmitive action here in Canada would only perpetuate the life of poverty and disadvantage I have always known already.
India has a different history, certainly, the concepts are not. Whether or not Hindus have always benefited in a general way over Christians or Muslims is irrelevant. Societal values are changed slowly over time, but to try and “force” them only creates animosity and further invokes racism and resentment. It’s time we stopped labelling and classifying people, regardless of whether or not they “belong” to a religion, and simply treat people based on their merits for the job/position.
Nothing can ever be “positive” about discrimination. State sponsored discrimination is just about the most irresponsible form of it possible.