Civilsdaily

Q.2 Do you think reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) is justified? What are the arguments against it? (10 Marks)

Written by

Staff @CD

in

Mentor’s Comments-

  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/whos-deserving-whos-not-ews-income-threshold-covers-households-even-in-the-top-10-its-land-holding-threshold-is-just-as-liberal/
  • In the introduction, talk about the 103rd amendment.
  • In the body, first give reasons as to why reservations were provided to EWS sections. Next, give arguments against it.
  • Conclude with a balanced view.

Comments

3 responses to “Q.2 Do you think reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) is justified? What are the arguments against it? (10 Marks)”

  1. Alankrit Srivastava Avatar
    Alankrit Srivastava

    Payment ID : #0000645504
    Staff @CD

    1. Staff @CD Avatar
      Staff @CD

      Alankrit

      Introduction is fine.
      In arguments in favour, points like unemployment, OoP health expenditure do point towards poverty but they are applicable for all sections, not just EWS. On the account of these factors, you can mention growing inequality between the poor and well-off and hence the need to provide quotas to the poor.
      Also, EWS came before pandemic, so pandemic point is not that much relevant here. Growing number of dropouts from school is a good point you can use. Last point is more about need for women reservation.
      Further, you can mention – Need for new deprivation assessment criteria (caste is not the sole determinant of backwardness); In Ram Singh v. Union of India, SC argued for a need to evolve new yardsticks of backwardness which can be talked about; Increasing dissatisfaction among various sections especially those poor who can’t avail caste-based reservation.
      Arguments against are fine..but some major ones are missing for example, primary purpose of reservation was to provide representation to the historically marginalized and not as a poverty alleviation program; in M.Nagraj, SC held that equality is part of basic structure and giving reservations over and above 50% (which was mandated by SC in Indira Sawhney case) is alleged to violate equality and hence the basic structure. Also, such short term measures can be again used for vote bank politics and it will increase demands from other sections.
      Conclusion is fine.
      Overall, the answer is a bit generic, some important points are missing, no mention of SC cases, need to read a bit more on the topic. 🙂

  2. Shubham Chate Avatar
    Shubham Chate

    KPfn46R1gsfT12 -My Razorpay ID

Leave a Reply

More posts