Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach.” Do you agree ? Give reasons for your answer.

The statement “Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach” can be interpreted in various ways. In essence, welfare schemes for the vulnerable are inherently ‘discriminatory’ because they aim to cater specifically to certain segments of the population that are deemed to need more attention and resources. But the term ‘discriminatory’ typically has a negative connotation, implying unfairness. Let’s analyze this statement from both perspectives:

Agreement with the Statement:

1. Targeted Approach: Welfare schemes for vulnerable groups are specifically designed for them. This means that only certain sections of society are eligible to benefit from them, excluding others.
2. Resource Allocation: These schemes often divert resources towards these targeted groups, sometimes at the expense of broader public goods or services. For instance, resources allocated for tribal welfare may not be spent on general infrastructure projects.
3. Reservation Systems: In countries like India, affirmative action or reservation systems in education and jobs for marginalized groups can be seen as discriminatory by those who don’t qualify for these benefits.

Disagreement with the Statement:

1. Redressing Historical Wrongs: Many of the vulnerable groups have faced historical disadvantages and systemic discrimination. Welfare schemes aim to level the playing field and are a way to compensate and uplift these groups.
2. Equity vs. Equality: While the schemes may seem discriminatory when viewed from an equality lens (where everyone gets the same), they are rooted in equity (where everyone gets what they need). An equitable approach recognizes that different people have different needs.
3. Temporary Measures: Many welfare schemes for the vulnerable are meant to be temporary, to be phased out once the objectives of upliftment and parity are achieved.
4. Wider Societal Benefit: Uplifting the vulnerable sections has a cascading positive effect on society. For instance, educating the girl child has benefits not just for the girl but for society at large, as it leads to reduced fertility rates, better child nutrition, and overall societal development.

Examples:

1. Mid-Day Meal Scheme (India): Targeted towards school-going children, especially from underprivileged backgrounds, this scheme provides free lunches in schools. While it ‘discriminates’ by providing food only to students and not to the general public, it plays a crucial role in increasing school attendance and addressing child malnutrition.
2. Rural Employment Guarantee Schemes: Aimed at providing guaranteed employment to rural households, these schemes might seem discriminatory to urban dwellers. However, they address the critical issue of rural unemployment and migration.
3. Scholarships for Marginalized Groups: Many countries offer scholarships specifically for certain racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups. While this discriminates against those outside these groups, it is crucial for ensuring that historically marginalized communities can access higher education.

Conclusion:

While on the surface, development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable might appear discriminatory because they target specific groups, they are essential instruments to achieve social justice, equity, and inclusivity. The aim is not to perpetuate divisions but to ensure that historically marginalized and vulnerable sections get the necessary resources and opportunities to uplift themselves. The ultimate goal is to create a society where such targeted interventions are no longer needed.