Author: Atharv Bhatkhande, Avantika University
Abstract
“This critique contends that the ‘Justice for the Margins’ (JFM) ideology, despite its noble aims, functions as a dangerous ‘Trojan Horse’ within India’s diverse context. When implemented through policies prioritizing group identity over individual merit and rights, JFM fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law and constitutional guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14) and equality of opportunity (Article 16(1)). It fosters deep societal resentment, risks institutionalizing a permanent ‘quota raj’ driven by politics, and dangerously misinterprets Indian mythology’s core concepts of justice (Nyaya), Dharma (righteous individual duty), and Karma (individual consequence), which emphasize personal conduct, not state-mandated group outcomes. Furthermore, the pursuit of statistical ‘equity of outcome’ through expansive identity-based quotas sacrifices meritocracy, crippling India’s global competitiveness and threatening national unity by fueling social fracturing and competitive Balkanization. Drawing upon constitutional principles, binding case law (like Indra Sawhney establishing the 50% cap and creamy layer exclusion), demographic realities, economic imperatives, and mythological wisdom, this analysis argues that India’s future demands a recommitment to individual rights, formal equality, and meritocratic opportunity, rejecting the divisive and constitutionally suspect path of extreme JFM frameworks.”
“Justice for the Margins” is a Trojan Horse:
Betting on Merit, Promoting Disunity, and Booking India’s Rise. It is a dangerous assumption that cuts against the overall euphoria of integral human rights and social justice frameworks, more so if implemented in India’s diverse canvas. At the theoretical level, this criticism argues that the “Justice for the Margins” (JFM) ideology, as much as it would please high ideals, is a serious threat when materialized as policies prioritizing group identity over merit norms and individual rights. It literally defeats the Rule of Law, incites social hostilities, warps India’s rich mythological heritage of justice, and can even land the nation’s future competitiveness in the global market behind bars. Here, in this review, constitutional law, population scenario, economic necessity, and ageless wisdom of Indian mythology are invoked in an effort to reach the thesis that irresponsible borrowing of JFM without individual responsibility and juridical parity risks undermining the solidarity and potential of India at the altar of identity politics.
Finally, the content of the objections is firm: JFM, increasingly enforced as increasingly comprehensive identity-based quotas and seeking statistical outcome parity, infringes the fundamental constitutional principles of equality before the law (Article 14) and equality of opportunity (Article 16(1)). It penalizes merit-based conduct, generates cause-and-effect resentment in society, and can institutionalize a permanent “quota raj” based as much on political opportunism as on actual uplift. Moreover, it misunderstands the nature of justice (Nyaya) inherent in Indian myth – Dharma (correct duty in relation to individual nature and situation) and Karma (natural result of individual action) are concerned with individual action and outcome, not state-designed group outcome. India needs a talented and united future and not the Balkanizing rationality and meritocratic spin of radical JFM schemes, but a road to Balkanization.
Evidence of such claims is revealed in palpable legal, social, and economic consequences. The built-in contradiction demonstrates technical application of legal wording and meaning. Policies that require preferential treatment based only on group identity in the interest of providing required “equity” are not constitutionally valid under strict scrutiny. They cannot perceive a compelling state interest narrowly framed, typically reaching beyond the allowable boundaries of limitation set by the Constitution and binding precedents. Article 15 discriminates merely by religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth – JFM policies discriminate on precisely these grounds against non-target groups. Article 16(4) reservations were not thought of as an ad interim, exceptional move in the direction of providing “adequate representation” to socially and educationally backward classes but not in the shape of a permanent entitlement regime with a promise of outcome equality. Case Laws repeatedly reaffirm the limitations: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) held communal reservations in the name of caste to be illegal, and Article 15(4) was inserted by the First Amendment. Significant, landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Case) created the 50% quota ceiling, directed exclusion of “creamy layer” from backward classes as a condition precedent to allow benefit to trickle down to the genuinely disadvantaged, and outright held against reservations in promotions. This case enshrines the doctrine of basic structure on equality concepts. New state laws beyond the 50% threshold have serious constitutional consequences precisely because they undermine this crude framework, which undermines the Rule of Law and principle of formal equality.
Second, socio-economic circumstances become operative. Quota mechanical extension, for example, in advertisement for recruitment intruding into the sphere of privacy and promotion, has the immediate effect of denying objectively better-qualified candidates. There is conflicting evidence of declining poverty based on the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) and agency reports such as that of the World Bank, but it speaks of inefficiency and the rise of “credentialism” at the expense of true talent. Emphasis on “equity of outcome” ignores the extremely important role of effort and agency on the part of an individual and creates a perverse incentive structure. This brings about widespread social disintegration: toxic envy boils among the excluded as they cluster around socio-economic marginalization (poor “general” class against better-off “creamy layer” from privileged groups). It leads to a toxic grievance industry as political parties nurture culture of victimhood in order to win votes at the expense of actually discouraging real social mobility on merit and ability. Most perilously, it creates competitive Balkanization, where groups compete with one another to be officially accredited as being “marginalized” in an attempt to achieve something, breaking up national integration on ever-narrower identity fault lines. This is the opposite opposite of India’s founding myths’ unifying ideals.
Thirdly, JFM activism appeal to mythology is usually a grave misreading. Hindu Dharma respects first and foremost Svadharma – righteous duty according to one’s natural nature and social position, involving personal responsibility and ethical behaviour. Karma remembers us of the return of personal action for better or worse. Nyaya (Justice) is interwoven within itself with maintaining Dharma (righteousness) and not state-forced numerical justice between collectives. Even while epics such as the Mahabharata contain brutal denunciations of caste oppression and social deception (the slaying of Eklavya, the curse inflicted on Karna due to his birth), they are not tolerant of top-down, group-outcome management. Rather, they are fixated on individual justice, resolve, honour, and tragic social cost of Adharma – unrighteousness engaged in by jealousy, vanity, and irresponsibility. The dangers realized in such old fables – society breakdown by the deterioration of morals and mass egoism at the expense of ethics – sound ominous in senseless society breakdown and are worthy of annihilation caused by extremist JFM policies.
Overall, the pursuit of “Justice for the Margins,” if blindly distorted into an uncompassionate demand for unlimited group-favouritism and end result equality, is an unsafe detour for India. It replaces the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity and equality before the law with one that is sunset-proof but discriminatory in nature. It would rather sacrifice meritocracy, the same momentum that drives national progress and international competitiveness, for the cult of identity politics. It gives rise to social polarisation and resentment, as opposed to national integration essential for India’s 21st-century aspiration. And it perverts the deeper Indian values of mythology that promote virtuous personal behaviour and caution against the social destruction of jealousy and unfair calls for differential treatment. India’s future demands a reassertion of the core principles of individual rights, procedural fairness, and opportunity on merit to deliver genuine benefits without fragmenting India or robbing it of its potential. Justice is not in constantly defining citizens in terms of past margins, but in giving every man and woman of whatever origin a fair chance to make it on his own work and merit, under an equal rule of law – a dream closer to constitutional promises and the enlightened tradition of Dharma and Karma.
FAQS
Q: Is it not anti-aid to the poor if one is opposed to “Justice for the Margins”?
A: Not at all. It is a criticism of the particular model of untrammelled, mass-scale caste/community-based quotas and inflicted outcome equality as the chief instrument. It suggests effective, targeted welfare for the really poor and disadvantaged on the grounds of their need and merit irrespective of caste or community and heavy investment in universal quality education, health, and infrastructure. The grievance is in policy under which identity has been accorded priority over need and deservingness and generally end up excluding the really deserving and generating fresh discrimination and resentment.
Q: Were not the reservations granted by the Constitution itself excluded? Does that merit the JFM approach?
A: Article 16(4) of the Constitution sanctioned reservations as a temporary, exceptional device for the limited purpose of redressing some historical wrongs and providing “proper representation” to backward classes which were underrepresented. It was never envisioned as a repeated group benefit tool or means for bringing about statistical end-state equality in all domains. Traditional judgments such as Indra Sawhney (1992) construed with strict zeal this transitory nature and imposed strict limits (50% cut-off, creamy layer exemption).
Q: How does mythology justify your argument against social justice?
A: Mythology (for example, Dharma and Karma philosophy) demands individual responsibility, applied justice, and individual responsibility of self. Mythology criticizes the maladies of society but not equal outcomes imposed by the state based on membership in certain groups. Examples such as Karna or Eklavya offer pathos of discrimination based on birth, but their existence is compelled to confer individual valour and daring, and not settlements in numbers mandated by the state. The epics caution against social disorder (Adharma) brought about by envy and breach of duty – risk inherent in politics of dismemberment characteristic of provocations stemming from intransigent JFM polemic.
Q: Isn’t “meritocracy” just good for the elite anyway?
A: A meritocracy should be real and only on equal terms with equal access to quality education, health, and nutrition at the outset. The critique is not creating this platform but distorting choice at the point of opportunity — school or in the workforce — on the basis of group membership instead of individual talent and ability, after basis equity measures are established. This indeed works to the advantage of both the reject meritorious candidate and, as likely, the beneficiary who is placed in a position they are presently unable to hold.
Q: Do you then mean to assert that there is no caste discrimination or that it has no need to be eliminated?
A: Not at all. Caste discrimination is a shame that has to be fought with every ferocity through strict enforcement of law, social transformation, education, and economic empowerment. The contention here is that piling up reservation’s ad infinitum is a losing and counter-productive strategy to fight this war. It does not deal with the causes, gives an unfair advantage to already established reserved classes (overlooking the creamy layer), generates greater ill will, and diverts attention to more effective universal remedies to the real all-colour disadvantaged.
