Arvind Kumar is a visiting Lecturer in politics and international relations, University of Hertfordshire, UK. He holds a PhD in Politics from Royal Holloway, University of London, UK. He tweets @arvind_kumar__
Affirmative action exists in jobs, college admissions and other government subsidies in USA,Canada and Australia for Native Americans, Aboriginals and people of African descent. Indians in these countries take full advantage of this affirmative action, including the ones graduating from Ivy League Universities like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc.
However, the same people oppose affirmative action in their own country. Talk about hypocrisy and double standards. Both judges mentioned in this article are upper caste wealthy individuals. Where are the inputs from SC/ST/OBC jurists? Are there any at all in the Indian judiciary?
Equality can never be achieved by treating people differently. This is equally true for caste based laws as well as women centric laws. The repeated argument that these benefits to certain classes are enshrined in the constitution is nothing but an attempt to ensure it’s continuation in perpetuity. Far from being a social stigma, caste is now looked upon as a trump card for benefits from the government and vote banks for the politicians. This is amply evidenced by more and more castes claiming ‘backward’ ‘status’. If a caste being classified as ‘backward’ is such a stigma can someone please explain why so many people are fighting for their communities to be classified as’backward’? The Marathas, Jats, the Patels? There is only one genuine backwardness which is poverty and that can affect anyone irrespective of their caste or gender. Poverty is also something which people can overcome with education and hard work. Education for all must be provided by the government and hard work is a individual persons ability and choice. The way to eradicate casteism is to stop making caste a decision point for everything from education to jobs.
“So, any law which claims to be treating people equally must treat people differently.”
The above sentence demonstrates the writer’s erudition (After all he is a PhD scholar in UK! Not a plebian in India). The force of his erudition is to argue the absurd against common sense. The most militant of feminists do not want perpetual preferential treatment. But all Bahujan leaders want rights in perpetuity. If they were modest at the time of writing the constitution and got 22.5%, they are already the largest voting block. So what else do they need? Methinks they cry too much.
Governments are swayed by political / electoral compulsions. The Constitution can be amended in 48 hours to provide reservation to poor upper caste individuals. In the present case, the apex court had injected a note of reasonableness to drastic provisions in the SC / ST Act regarding automatic arrest and denial of bail. How this Act works on the ground, MLA Sengar from Uttar Pradesh provides a better example. In the calm, judicious rooms of the apex court, it is expected that basic questions of equity and fairness will be raised, as the two learned judges have done in this instance.
The paragraph that talks about constitution keeping group’s rights over individual’s rights is problematic. The Constitution makers don’t do that. It’s not about hierarchy. If it were about hierarchy, Art.44 of UCC wouldn’t have been incorporated. And i think the smallest group/minority is always an individual. Every individual is an end in itself.
Affirmative action exists in jobs, college admissions and other government subsidies in USA,Canada and Australia for Native Americans, Aboriginals and people of African descent. Indians in these countries take full advantage of this affirmative action, including the ones graduating from Ivy League Universities like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc.
However, the same people oppose affirmative action in their own country. Talk about hypocrisy and double standards. Both judges mentioned in this article are upper caste wealthy individuals. Where are the inputs from SC/ST/OBC jurists? Are there any at all in the Indian judiciary?
Equality can never be achieved by treating people differently. This is equally true for caste based laws as well as women centric laws. The repeated argument that these benefits to certain classes are enshrined in the constitution is nothing but an attempt to ensure it’s continuation in perpetuity. Far from being a social stigma, caste is now looked upon as a trump card for benefits from the government and vote banks for the politicians. This is amply evidenced by more and more castes claiming ‘backward’ ‘status’. If a caste being classified as ‘backward’ is such a stigma can someone please explain why so many people are fighting for their communities to be classified as’backward’? The Marathas, Jats, the Patels? There is only one genuine backwardness which is poverty and that can affect anyone irrespective of their caste or gender. Poverty is also something which people can overcome with education and hard work. Education for all must be provided by the government and hard work is a individual persons ability and choice. The way to eradicate casteism is to stop making caste a decision point for everything from education to jobs.
“So, any law which claims to be treating people equally must treat people differently.”
The above sentence demonstrates the writer’s erudition (After all he is a PhD scholar in UK! Not a plebian in India). The force of his erudition is to argue the absurd against common sense. The most militant of feminists do not want perpetual preferential treatment. But all Bahujan leaders want rights in perpetuity. If they were modest at the time of writing the constitution and got 22.5%, they are already the largest voting block. So what else do they need? Methinks they cry too much.
Governments are swayed by political / electoral compulsions. The Constitution can be amended in 48 hours to provide reservation to poor upper caste individuals. In the present case, the apex court had injected a note of reasonableness to drastic provisions in the SC / ST Act regarding automatic arrest and denial of bail. How this Act works on the ground, MLA Sengar from Uttar Pradesh provides a better example. In the calm, judicious rooms of the apex court, it is expected that basic questions of equity and fairness will be raised, as the two learned judges have done in this instance.
The paragraph that talks about constitution keeping group’s rights over individual’s rights is problematic. The Constitution makers don’t do that. It’s not about hierarchy. If it were about hierarchy, Art.44 of UCC wouldn’t have been incorporated. And i think the smallest group/minority is always an individual. Every individual is an end in itself.