The United States and India are both robust and diverse democracies that have sought through preferences to overcome centuries of discrimination against some of its most vulnerable citizens.
But the means used by the two countries are starkly different. In the United States, strict quotas have long been banned by judicial decree; in India, quotas are the rule in government jobs and schools. Preferences in the United States have been limited to minority populations, and those who benefit in university settings are generally a small share of the overall student body.
In India, preferences are sometimes given to the majority, and the share of university seats in states like Tamil Nadu given by preference often far exceeds 50 percent. Thus, it is often those with the most political power, and sometimes the most money, who get preferences.
In the United States, the elec tion of Barack Obama as president has led some to argue that the need for affirmative action policies has ended. If a black man can become president, they ask, what evidence is there that blacks continue to face the kind of discrimination that justifies preferences?
The response to such arguments, of course, is that Mr. Obama is just one man, and his success does not prove that discriminatory practices have disappeared. But imagine the argument if Mr. Obama were the seventh or eighth black president. That is the situation in many Indian states, where leaders have sprung from castes that continue to get preferences.
Critics in both countries have advocated transitioning to need-based programs that give preferences based upon economic or geographic circumstances, but such need-based programs have yet to garner the political support of those based upon identifiers that have more political resonance, like caste and race.
What do you think of India's caste-based quotas? They were originally intended to serve only a small share of the population and for only 10 years. Have they grown too large, or are they still serving a valid social purpose?
