Join JKNews and Jobs Update on WhatsApp

Protective Discrimination; does this violates Principle of Fairness.

 

Protective Discrimination is the policy of granting special privileges to the downtrodden and under-privileged sections of society. As the term itself suggests “protective discrimination” means policy measures deliberately designed to discriminate among the citizens on the basis of certain specified criteria so as to protect the interests of the worst-off among them. Ideally, for a state each citizen is equal and shall be treated equally by it but modern liberal welfare state has acknowledge an avenue for a differentiated treatment for its citizens hailing from varied socio-economic backgrounds. In India, this special status to some sects of society which are economically backward is known as Reservation.

Reservation means setting up a quota in educational and employment avenues, in proportion to the population of the targeted group. Protective discrimination is not only limited to reservation, it may also involve other measures; for example, outreach programs, sensitization programs, special training programs, financial assistance, apprentice or tutoring, soft quotas such as compensatory discrimination in selection process such as higher age limit or giving some bonus points etc.

 

     The issue of Protective Discrimination has been very emotive, divisive and contentious throughout its journey. There has been an outcry against protective discrimination. Those people whose prospects have been adversely affected have claimed it to be unfair, while those whose underrepresentation has been addressed by it, support such policies. Whether protective discrimination violates principles of fairness or not depends upon which notion of distributive justice we subscribe to. Those believing in “Dessert” may out rightly reject the notion of protective discrimination. Within “Egalitarians” we may find different versions and their conditional support to protective discrimination. While within the “Need” based notion of distributive justice we found full support to protective discrimination.

DISCUSSION

Protective Discrimination is healthy for our society/country. It can uplift the economically backward classes. It provides them a good number of opportunities to involve in social, public, and in political activities and affairs. It provides a better stage or base to downtrodden and economically weaker sections from where they can present their talent. History is witness that these downtrodden sections have been exploited by owners and masters in the past. It is the protective discrimination that can help them to forget about past brutalities and be part of modern society. As it is the fact that children of economically weaker sects and children of owners or rich people are not comparable in any way, children of rich people get better educational facilities, healthy and luxurious life. While the children of downtrodden sects are deprived from these facilities. Children of rich people get more opportunities in every part of life, while children of economically weaker sections do not get sufficient opportunities, so it is the protective discrimination which provides opportunities to economically weaker sections of country. If there will be an end of protective discrimination then the downtrodden sects will not get sufficient opportunities. With that every department and office will be dominated by higher classes or rich people and there will be chances of creation of classes in our country and society, then country will not prosper as there will be class conflicts. Through protective discrimination every sect of society is involved in governing the country, through protective discrimination every sect of society is involved in decision making policy and process, by these ways protective discrimination keeps country in a healthy state.

Protective discrimination violates the Principle of Fairness, and it is unhealthy for a state. Protective discrimination is opposed and can be opposed by many arguments. Some schools of thought like the “Libertarians” in America and some extreme conservative Capitalist ideologies do not agree with the tool of protective discrimination. When some people are asked to suffer positive discrimination in fovour of others, the same sort of discrimination is practiced on them. Granting privileges to people by way of protective discrimination for reason of their being of a particular caste, race or sex in the procedural sense is as depriving them of opportunities for the same reason. Further it is unfair to deny present generations of communities opportunities because of how their ancestors may have behaved is totally unfair. Also such measures disturb the confidence and initiative of talented and meritorious. Hence there are moral problems with protective discriminations and equality should be limited to equality to equality of opportunity.

CONCLUSSION

Protective discrimination is a Democratic concept. In the democracy, there should be a classless society, as democracy has promised, there should be an end of casteism, racism and discrimination on the bases of religion. This is the modern world there is no place of such discriminations under democracy, but with the emergence of globalization we saw a rise of capitalization, which we witnessed with centricity of wealth, making a scope of classes in our society broadly two main classes-Rich and Poor, rich holds the capital while poor works for them. Thus, there emerged a group of two classes in our society Rich and Poor. In this means if there is protective discrimination then it should be strictly based on difference in incomes of the citizens of a country. Government of country should set a minimum level of income below which the people should be called as reserved category people and protective discrimination should be granted only to them, by this way protective discrimination will be healthy to our society.