Answer

Introduction

India’s vision of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas emphasizes inclusive development. The Indian Constitution mandates affirmative action for the socially and economically disadvantaged. In this light, development schemes for vulnerable groups aim to promote equality of opportunity, though they are often perceived as discriminatory.

Body

Discriminatory Nature of Welfare Schemes for the Vulnerable

• Perceived Reverse Discrimination: Excluding non-vulnerable yet needy groups creates dissatisfaction and a sense of unfairness.
  Eg: Demands for EWS reservation arose from general category students who lacked access to caste-based welfare despite economic hardship.
• Overlapping Benefits and Identity Politics: Targeted schemes often overlap or concentrate on politically influential identity groups.
  Eg: Political focus on Jat or Maratha reservation movements reflects how schemes become tools of competitive populism.
• Exclusion Errors Due to Rigid Criteria: Schemes based on fixed caste or tribal lists may leave out similarly deprived individuals from non-listed categories.
  Eg: Poor upper-caste migrants were initially excluded from PM Garib Kalyan Yojana during COVID-19.
• Creation of Dependency Rather than Empowerment: Some schemes focus more on recurring subsidies than on sustainable, capability-based upliftment.
  Eg: Free electricity/water in some states benefits all, including the already well-off, leading to resource misuse and no incentive to improve.
• One-Size-Fits-All Design Lacks Local Sensitivity: Schemes meant for vulnerable groups may ignore intra-group variations and specific local needs.
  Eg: Tribal welfare schemes in central India don’t fully address cultural dislocation or language barriers, reducing actual impact.
• Politicisation and Vote-Bank Targeting: Schemes are sometimes designed with electoral motives, leading to a skewed allocation of resources.
  Eg: Pre-election announcements of farm loan waivers often benefit landed farmers more than landless labourers.
• Lack of Exit Strategy or Review Mechanism: Schemes continue indefinitely even after a section achieves upliftment, causing stagnation and resentment among others.
  Eg: Delay in implementing the creamy layer exclusion in OBC reservations caused unfair advantage to already well-off OBCs.

Though welfare schemes may seem exclusionary, they are rooted in the constitutional goal of equity and aim to bridge structural gaps for inclusive and just development.

Non-discriminatory Nature of Welfare Schemes for the Vulnerable

• Corrective Justice for Historical Disadvantages: Schemes aim to reverse centuries of discrimination and marginalisation.
  Eg: SC Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan ensure fund earmarking proportional to population share.
• Targeting Structural Inequality: They address structural gaps in education, healthcare, and livelihood.
  Eg: Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) exclusively cater to tribal children in remote areas.
• Affirmative Action for Equal Opportunity: It helps to create a level playing field for weaker sections.
  Eg: Stand-Up India Scheme mandates loans for at least one SC/ST and one woman per bank branch.
• Geographical Equity and Regional Balance: Schemes reduce regional disparities in development.
  Eg: Aspirational Districts Programme focuses on backward districts with poor socio-economic indicators.
• Empowerment through Representation: Political and administrative representation ensures long-term upliftment.
  Eg: PESA Act empowers tribal gram sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas for self-governance.
• Improved Human Capital Outcomes: Focus on vulnerable children and women improves education and health metrics.
  Eg: POSHAN Abhiyaan reduces malnutrition by targeting children and mothers from BPL families.
• Community Participation and Ownership: Schemes are increasingly participatory, involving local institutions.
  Eg: MGNREGA empowers rural poor through wage employment with gram sabha oversight.

Conclusion

Affirmative welfare is not discriminatory, it fulfils India’s constitutional promise of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The need is to align such schemes with transparency, efficiency, and broader social acceptance. True development must empower the weakest, even if that means differential treatment.

DOWNLOAD PDF