Social Justice

There is absolutely no reason to believe that if every class at the Institutions of Higher Education contained fifty percent Hindu students from the erstwhile disadvantaged sections of the society — who are admitted with little reference to other qualifications — the institutions’ standards and reputation would automatically improve. Similarly, there is absolutely no reason to believe that if every public and professional service in the country contained fifty percent public servants and professionals from the erstwhile disadvantaged sections of the society — who are taken on board without any reference to their calibre and capabilities — the standards of public and professional service would automatically improve.

Hindus should not, qua Hindus, ask for special privileges and concessions in educational institutions and job opportunities. I say so because I strongly believe that such demands will not solve the problems faced by the weaker elements among the Hindus, i.e. those who do not now possess essential educational, financial, and social resources. Experience tells us that “concessions” mostly benefit those who already are in better circumstances. We should also bear in mind that any institution readily giving “concessions” soon begins to decline in status and standards.

If the so called advantaged sections of the Hindu society were guilty of not letting the disadvantaged sections progress in the past, the disadvantaged sections cannot take away the opportunities from the so called advantaged sections in future through a constitutional arrangement. This is like making the future generations pay for the crimes of the previous by denying them their future. Such a system of social justice cannot reduce but only increase the social divide.

Bringing up the educational, financial, and social resources of the disadvantaged is both a national and a social imperative. But bringing them up by keeping the advantaged down is possibly not the right approach. Nor would it solve the economic problems faced by the disadvantaged Hindus. Blindly granting privileges to all the disadvantaged would only cast a shadow over the achievements of the worthier and more talented among them.

The ‘socially disadvantaged’ class should not be converted to a ‘constitutionally advantaged’ class in a way which creates a new class of ‘socially-advantaged-constitutionally disadvantaged.’


If you like the posting, let the author know by following him here on WordPress! You will remain informed about future postings.

Please go ahead and share the post with your friends and networks!!

You could follow the author’s blogs –


Precariat – Appreciating the Rise of This Social Class

The richest 1 per cent in India cornered 73 per cent of the wealth generated in the country last year, a worrying picture of rising income inequality. Besides, 67 crore Indians comprising the population’s poorest half saw their wealth rise by just 1 per cent, as per the survey released by the international rights group Oxfam. The situation appears even grimmer globally, where 82 per cent of the wealth generated last year worldwide went to the 1 per cent, while 3.7 billion people that account for the poorest half of population saw no increase in their wealth. That the global picture is worse than what it is for India can be a very fragile solace.

In sociology and economics, the precariat is a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. Specifically, it is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.

In pursuit of competitiveness, governments have implemented policies of labor flexibility, making labour more insecure, leaving millions without health care, pensions or other benefits. Governments have turned to means-tested social assistance and to workfare. The welfare state has withered. The precariat has emerged from the liberalisation that underpinned globalisation. It consists of a multitude of insecure people, living bits-and-pieces lives, in and out of short-term jobs, without a narrative of occupational development, including millions of frustrated educated youth who do not like what they see before them, millions of women abused in oppressive labour, growing numbers of criminalised tagged for life, millions being categorised as ‘disabled’ and migrants in their hundreds of millions around the world. They are denizens; they have a more restricted range of social, cultural, political and economic rights than citizens around them.

Precariat is a new dangerous class-in-the-making, internally divided into angry and bitter factions, who face overlapping challenges of unemployment, low income and loss of social security. Most in it do not belong to any professional or craft community; they have no social memory on which to call, and no shadow of the future hanging over their deliberations with other people, making them opportunistic. The biggest dangers are social illnesses and the risk that populist politicians will play on their fears and insecurities to lure them onto the rocks of neo-fascism, blaming ‘big government’ and ‘strangers’ for their plight.

So far, the precariat in Europe has been mostly engaged in EuroMayDay parades and loosely organised protests. But this is changing rapidly, as events in Spain and Greece are showing, following on the precariat-led uprisings in the middle-east. Recent political discourse directed at the Precariat shaping the success in the election outcomes of the US, France and Philippines show the strength of this emerging class. Precariats face insecurity, instability and vulnerability. This tribe is as much anti-state as it is anti-business.

A progressive strategy for the precariat must involve more equitable control over other key assets of a tertiary society – quality time, quality space, knowledge and financial capital. There is no valid reason for all the revenue from financial capital going to tiny elite who have a particular talent to make money from money. The only way to reduce income inequality in an open market society is to ensure an equitable distribution of financial capital.

This article draws on “The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class” by Guy Standing


Affirmative Action and Reservation


I have no quarrels with the idea of affirmative action. I have disagreement with the basis and quantum of reservations.

If personal taxation is based on economic criteria, the same should be the basis for reservations. Conversely, how about personal taxation based on caste? Does that not sound too insensible? How about religion based taxation, a higher order idiocy.

Why are reservations not followed across the board in all public opportunities?

Caste based reservation only highlights and perpetuates the caste system. The inter-caste social tensions will only increase.

Reservation running at 50 percent means that non SC/ST/OBCs can at best get access to only 50% opportunities which may go up in some cases where SC/ST/OBCs choose not to avail of their claims.

The gender based affirmative action is a pipe dream.