Breaking down the question

The question has a definitional first part — what is affirmative action — and a discursive second part asking you to substantiate theoretical positions with examples. The plural is deliberate: the examiner wants the competing justifications and objections, not a one-sided defence, each anchored in a concrete instance. The word substantiate means the theory must be tied to evidence, chiefly the Indian reservation system.

How to approach it

  • Define affirmative action as positive measures to correct historic disadvantage.
  • Set out the arguments for — reparative justice, representation, substantive equality.
  • Set out the arguments against — merit, reverse discrimination, elite capture.
  • Attach a concrete example to each position.
  • Close with a balanced note.

Model answer

Affirmative action refers to deliberate positive measures — quotas, preferences and targeted support — designed to improve the position of groups that have suffered historic and structural disadvantage, so as to move from formal to substantive equality. In India it takes the form of reservation in education, public employment and legislatures for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

Several theoretical positions justify it. The reparative or compensatory argument holds that groups wronged by centuries of discrimination, such as the former untouchables, deserve redress; Marc Galanter described Indian reservation as compensatory discrimination. The distributive justice argument, drawing on John Rawls, contends that inequalities are just only if they benefit the least advantaged, which licenses preference for the worst off. The representation argument stresses that a diverse bureaucracy, legislature and campus enhances legitimacy and role models — reserved seats in Parliament and panchayats illustrate this. The social integration argument sees affirmative action as a means of dismantling entrenched hierarchy and widening the circle of citizenship.

Against these stand equally theorised objections. The merit argument, associated with critics such as Andre Beteille in some of his cautions, warns that preference may compromise efficiency and penalise the individually able. The reverse discrimination argument holds that group-based preference violates equality by disadvantaging those outside the favoured category. The elite capture objection observes that benefits often accrue to the better-off within a group — the concern that produced the Supreme Court's creamy layer exclusion for OBCs. A further criticism is that reservation may harden caste identities it was meant to dissolve.

Indian policy has tried to reconcile these positions: the creamy-layer test answers elite capture, the emphasis on educational support addresses the merit concern, and periodic review addresses the charge of permanence. Affirmative action is thus best understood not as a settled doctrine but as a contested balance between the claims of historic justice and those of individual equality.

Examiner's perspective

The examiner rewards a two-sided treatment, since the question asks for positions in the plural. A frequent weakness is a purely celebratory account of reservation with no engagement with the objections, which caps the marks. Strong scripts pair each theoretical position with a concrete illustration — Galanter's compensatory discrimination, the Rawlsian difference principle, the creamy-layer ruling — because that is what substantiate with examples demands. A measured conclusion that presents affirmative action as a balance rather than a slogan lifts the answer. For the wider debate, see the note on dimensions of stratification.