Understanding the Forms of Affirmative Action in India and Beyond

Affirmative action is one of the most debated policy tools in modern democratic governance. At its core, it refers to a set of measures designed to correct historical injustices by providing preferential treatment or targeted support to groups that have been systematically disadvantaged. In India, these measures take the form of reservation policies, economic welfare schemes, political representation quotas, and educational support systems. Globally, countries like the United States, South Africa, and Malaysia have adopted their own versions. But the forms these policies take-and the logic behind them-vary considerably from one nation to another. Let’s break down the major forms of affirmative action, how they work in India, and how they compare with global practices.

Reservation policies in India 🔗

The reservation system is the centrepiece of affirmative action in India. It is a constitutionally backed policy that reserves a specific percentage of seats in government jobs, educational institutions, and legislative bodies for historically marginalised communities. These communities include Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), and persons with disabilities.

India’s reservation system is widely considered the oldest affirmative action programme in the world, with its roots going back to the colonial period. After independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution-led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar-enshrined these protections as fundamental rights under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 15(4) and 15(5) allow the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs in educational admissions. Article 16(4) permits reservation in public employment for any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in state services.

Quota percentages in education and employment 🔗

In centrally funded educational institutions and government jobs, the current reservation breakdown is as follows: 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, 27% for OBCs, 10% for EWS, and 4% for persons with benchmark disabilities. This brings the total reservation in central institutions to approximately 59.5%. The EWS quota was introduced through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019, which the Supreme Court of India upheld in its 2022 ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India.

At the state level, reservation percentages can vary significantly. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has a total reservation exceeding 69%, while northeastern states like Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya reserve up to 80% of state government posts for Scheduled Tribes. Private unaided educational institutions are generally not required to follow reservation norms, though this remains a point of ongoing policy discussion.

The creamy layer concept 🔗

An important distinction in India’s reservation framework is the creamy layer provision. This concept applies specifically to OBC reservations. It excludes the more economically privileged members of the OBC community from availing reservation benefits. In practice, this means that OBC families whose annual income exceeds the government-specified threshold are classified as “creamy layer” and are ineligible for the OBC quota. Notably, there is no creamy layer criterion for SC and ST reservations-members of these groups are eligible for reservation regardless of their family income or the positions held by their parents.

The Mandal Commission and OBC reservation 🔗

The extension of reservation to OBCs is one of the most politically significant chapters in India’s affirmative action history. The Mandal Commission, set up in 1979, recommended a 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions. When these recommendations were implemented in the early 1990s, they sparked widespread protests across the country. The Supreme Court, in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, upheld OBC reservations but introduced the creamy layer exclusion and set an overall 50% ceiling on total reservations. The 103rd Amendment’s EWS quota, however, has pushed the total reservation beyond this 50% ceiling in central institutions.

Economic benefits for the underprivileged 🔗

Beyond quotas in education and employment, affirmative action in India also includes a range of economic welfare measures aimed at improving the material conditions of marginalised communities. These measures address basic needs like food security, financial support for education, and entrepreneurship development.

Subsidised food and the public distribution system 🔗

One of the most widespread welfare mechanisms is the ration card system under India’s Public Distribution System (PDS). Ration cards enable eligible households to purchase essential food grains-rice, wheat, and coarse grains-at heavily subsidised prices from government-authorised fair price shops. Under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, Priority Household (PHH) cardholders receive 5 kg of food grains per person per month at nominal rates. The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) category, which targets the poorest of the poor, provides even higher allocations of 35 kg per household per month.

Low-income families, SC/ST communities, landless labourers, and urban slum dwellers are frequently included under the PHH and AAY categories. By 2026, most Indian states have transitioned to digitised ration card systems, and the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) scheme allows beneficiaries to use their ration cards anywhere in India-a particularly significant benefit for migrant workers.

Scholarships and educational support 🔗

The Indian government runs an extensive scholarship infrastructure for students from SC, ST, and OBC communities. The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment administers several key programmes, including pre-matric and post-matric scholarships for SC students, the Top Class Education scheme for SC students admitted to premier institutions like IITs and IIMs, the National Fellowship for SC students pursuing M.Phil and Ph.D research, and the National Overseas Scholarship for higher studies abroad.

Additionally, the government provides free coaching for SC and OBC students preparing for competitive examinations such as UPSC, SSC, and bank recruitment tests. The SHRESHTA scheme selects meritorious SC students through a national entrance test and places them in high-quality private residential schools for secondary education. At the state level, similar schemes operate with varying eligibility criteria and benefit amounts, often administered through the National Scholarship Portal (NSP).

Financial empowerment and credit access 🔗

Economic support also extends to entrepreneurship and livelihood. The National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC) finances income-generating activities for SC families living below double the poverty line. The Stand Up India scheme facilitates bank loans between ₹10 lakh and ₹1 crore for SC/ST and women entrepreneurs to set up new enterprises. State-level Scheduled Caste Development Corporations across 27 states further provide margin money loans, subsidies, and skill development programmes to eligible beneficiaries.

Political representation for marginalised groups 🔗

Affirmative action in India is not limited to education and economics-it extends directly into the political domain. The Indian Constitution mandates reserved constituencies in both Parliament and State Legislatures for SC and ST communities under Article 334. In these constituencies, only candidates belonging to the designated SC or ST category can contest elections, although all voters in the constituency-regardless of caste-can vote.

How reserved constituencies work 🔗

The number of reserved seats in any state is roughly proportional to the SC/ST population in that state. These constituencies are periodically redrawn by the Delimitation Commission. In a reserved constituency, candidates from the general category or OBC cannot stand for election-this ensures that elected representatives from these seats belong to the communities the policy seeks to empower. The goal is not just symbolic representation but substantive participation of marginalised groups in legislative decision-making.

Local governance: Panchayats and municipalities 🔗

Political reservation extends further into local self-government. Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution require that seats in panchayats (village councils) and municipalities be reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their population. Additionally, not less than one-third of all seats-including those reserved for SCs and STs-must be filled by women. This dual layer of reservation at the grassroots level has significantly increased the participation of both marginalised castes and women in local governance across India.

The 33% women’s reservation in Parliament 🔗

In September 2023, India passed the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, a historic bill that reserves 33% of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for women. This policy extends the principle of political affirmative action beyond caste to address gender underrepresentation, making India one of a growing number of countries with legislative gender quotas.

Contrast with global practices 🔗

While India’s affirmative action system is built primarily around caste-based identity, other countries have developed their policies around different axes of historical discrimination-most commonly race, ethnicity, gender, or economic status.

The United States: race-based affirmative action 🔗

In the United States, affirmative action historically focused on improving opportunities for African Americans and other racial minorities in education and employment. The policy gained legal status through the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed race to be considered as one factor in university admissions, while striking down rigid racial quotas. Unlike India, the US never adopted a system of fixed percentage reservations. Instead, institutions used race as one of several factors in what were called “holistic” admissions processes.

However, in June 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, effectively ending affirmative action in American higher education. This marked a sharp divergence from India, where constitutional amendments have repeatedly reinforced and expanded reservation policies even in the face of legal challenges.

Key differences between the Indian and American models 🔗

The most fundamental difference lies in legal status. India’s reservation system is embedded in the Constitution as a fundamental right, making it justiciable and enforceable. The American affirmative action policy, by contrast, was never a constitutional right-it was an enabling policy that could be, and ultimately was, overturned by judicial interpretation. A UNU-WIDER systematic review found that India’s quota-based approach has produced stronger effects on minority representation than the softer, non-quota measures used in the United States.

In terms of scope, India’s system is far more extensive. It covers education, government employment, promotions, and political representation. The US model was largely limited to college admissions and, to some extent, federal contractor hiring practices. India also addresses economic disadvantage through the EWS quota-something the American system never incorporated.

Other global examples 🔗

Affirmative action is not unique to India and the United States. In South Africa, the Employment Equity Act mandates preferential hiring for Black, Coloured, and Indian populations to address apartheid-era exclusion. Malaysia’s New Economic Policy reserves opportunities in education and business for the ethnic Malay (Bumiputera) majority to correct economic dominance by ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. In Great Britain, the Equality Act permits “positive action”-such as targeted training programmes-but prohibits “positive discrimination” like hiring a less qualified candidate solely based on protected characteristics. New Zealand reserves dedicated Māori seats in Parliament to ensure indigenous political representation.

A UNU-WIDER research paper reviewing 194 studies found that 63% concluded affirmative action programmes improved outcomes for target groups across education, employment, and political participation. Yet in over half of the countries studied, these policies also triggered significant public protests-underscoring the tension between corrective justice and perceived fairness.

Challenges and ongoing debates 🔗

Despite their significance, affirmative action policies in India face several persistent challenges. One concern is the gap between policy and implementation. Research published in the BMJ Global Health journal has noted that many affirmative action schemes do not adequately reach their intended beneficiaries, with reservation quotas sometimes going unfilled-particularly for Scheduled Tribes. The underrepresentation of marginalised communities among university faculty and institutional leadership remains stark; as of recent data, only about 2.5% of faculty in Indian universities belong to the ST community.

Another debate centres on whether caste-based reservations should eventually give way to income-based criteria. Proponents of the EWS quota argue that economic deprivation cuts across caste lines and deserves independent recognition. Critics respond that the reservation system was always intended to address social stigma and structural caste-based exclusion-not just poverty-and that economic criteria alone cannot substitute for this purpose.

There are also concerns about social integration within educational institutions. Reports of discrimination, caste-based harassment, and mental health challenges among students admitted through reservation quotas have raised serious questions about whether access alone is sufficient, or whether deeper institutional reforms are needed to create genuinely inclusive environments.

Why forms of affirmative action matter 🔗

The different forms of affirmative action-reservation quotas, economic welfare, political representation, scholarships-are not isolated tools. They work as an interconnected framework designed to address inequality on multiple fronts simultaneously. Reservation in education creates access; scholarships make that access financially viable; political reservation ensures that policy decisions reflect the interests of marginalised communities; and economic support programmes address the material conditions that perpetuate disadvantage.

Understanding these forms matters because debates about affirmative action often reduce it to a single dimension-usually the quota system. In reality, affirmative action in India operates through a layered architecture of constitutional provisions, legislation, executive schemes, and judicial rulings that together form one of the most extensive social justice frameworks in any democracy.

What do you think? Can a reservation system that was designed for a newly independent India in 1950 remain effective in addressing inequality in the 2020s-or does it need fundamental restructuring? And if affirmative action is successful in improving outcomes, as research suggests, why does it continue to provoke such intense controversy across democracies?

References

1. https://socialjustice.gov.in/common/19536
2. https://www.clearias.com/reservation-in-india/
3. https://cleartax.in/s/ration-card
4. https://scholarships.gov.in/
5. https://www.standupmitra.in/
6. https://www.tatapower.com/blogs/what-is-affirmative-action-in-india-learn-its-real-purpose
7. https://ihe.bc.edu/pub/d4d0mnb7
8. https://oxfordpoliticalreview.com/2023/10/22/two-unequal-policies-on-equality-of-opportunity-comparing-usas-affirmative-action-policy-with-the-indian-reservation-system/
9. https://unu.edu/article/affirmative-action-policies-increase-diversity-are-successful-controversial-around-world
10. https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/impact-affirmative-action-india-and-united-states
11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7212055/