Affirmative action in the context of "Dalit"

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their race, ancestry, ethnic or national origin, and/or skin color and hair texture. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate explicitly in law, for example through policies of racial segregation, disparate enforcement of laws, or disproportionate allocation of resources. Some jurisdictions have anti-discrimination laws which prohibit the government or individuals from being discriminated based on race (and sometimes other factors) in various circumstances. Some institutions and laws use affirmative action to attempt to overcome or compensate for the effects of racial discrimination. In some cases, this is simply enhanced recruitment of members of underrepresented groups; in other cases, there are firm racial quotas. Opponents of strong remedies like quotas characterize them as reverse discrimination, where members of a dominant or majority group are discriminated against.

Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements, and reflects a belief that social and economic gains by Black people and other people of color cause disadvantages for white people.

Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States; however, there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans are disadvantaged as a group. Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the ability to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group in the U.S. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power, which most sociologists and psychologists include in their definition of racism.

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

As of 2024, affirmative action rhetoric has been increasingly replaced by emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion and nine states explicitly ban its use in the employment process. The Supreme Court in 2023 explicitly rejected race-based affirmative action in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Court held that affirmative action programs "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today".

Bumiputera or bumiputra (Jawi: بوميڤوترا‎, Native), often shortened to Bumi in casual contexts, is a term used in Malaysia to refer to the Malays, the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia, various indigenous peoples of East Malaysia and certain Peranakans sub-groups. The term, rooted in the Sanskrit word later absorbed into the classical Malay bhumiputra (Sanskrit: भूमिपुत्र, romanized: bhū́miputra), literally translates as "son of the land" or "son of the soil". In Indonesia, a related term, "Pribumi", is used, although in Malaysia it more broadly denotes indigenous peoples.

Following the 13 May incident in 1969, the government implemented the New Economic Policy (NEP), a set of measures granting extensive social, economic and political advantages to bumiputera communities. These included affirmative action in education, housing and preferential treatment in the public sectors, officially aimed at improving the socioeconomic position of the bumiputera and appeasing the Malay majority by granting them a constitutionally enshrined privileged status over Malaysian citizens who are Chinese or Indians. Although originally presented as a temporary solution to interethnic tensions, the policy has remained in force for decades and has been described as a form of institutionalised racism.

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) responsibility for "safeguard[ing] the special position of the 'Malays' and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities" and goes on to specify ways to do this, such as establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education.

Article 153 is one of the most controversial articles in the Malaysian constitution. Critics consider Article 153 as creating an unnecessary distinction between Malaysians of different ethnic backgrounds, because it has led to the ethnocentric implementation of affirmative action policies which benefit only the Bumiputra, who comprise a majority of the population. Critics also consider the preferential treatment to be against both meritocracy and egalitarianism. Technically, discussing the repeal of Article 153 is illegal—even in Parliament, although it was originally drafted as a temporary provision to the Constitution. Despite this prohibition on discussion (in order to ostensibly manage race relations, thus appearing to defuse and avoid ethnic hatred, ethnic conflict and ethnic violence), the article is hotly debated, both privately and publicly among Malaysians, against the continued perpetual retention and implementation of the article although ostensibly maintaining support for the special race-based privileges. Nevertheless, the article is viewed as a sensitive matter by many, with politicians who are in favour or opposed to it often being labelled as racist and engaging in social exclusion.

Malaysian Malaysia was a phrase used to support the idea of Malaysia as a country for all Malaysians, as opposed to emphasising affirmative action to support the Malay ethnic group. "Malaysian Malaysia", first used in the mid-1960s, was the rallying motto of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, a coalition of political parties led by Lee Kuan Yew of the People's Action Party (PAP) that served as an opposition bloc to the governing Alliance Party.

Although Lee Kuan Yew did not object to the special rights of the Malays as accorded in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution (which allows for special quotas to be allocated to the Malays and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia in admission to the public service, awarding of public scholarships, admission to public education institutions and the awarding of trade licences), he disagreed with the approach of the Alliance Party on the basis that Malay special rights alone could not solve the problem of Malay poverty. This difference in approach can be seen in Article 89 of the State Constitution of Singapore (now Article 152 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore) which states that the Malays are in a special position as the indigenous people of Singapore and that the Government of Singapore has a duty to safeguard their interests. Although special rights with respect to certain quotas are not specifically listed, the government still provided free education to all from primary education up until university.

In the People's Republic of China, the government had instated affirmative action policies for ethnic minorities called preferential policy (simplified Chinese: 优惠政策; traditional Chinese: 優惠政策; pinyin: Yōuhuì zhèngcè) or bonus point for minority ethnic groups (simplified Chinese: 少数民族加分; traditional Chinese: 少數民族加分; pinyin: Shǎoshù mínzú jiāfēn in College Entrance Examination) when it began in 1949 and still had impact until today. The policies give preferential treatment to ethnic minorities in China. For example, minority ethnic groups in China were not subjected to its well-publicized (former) one-child policy. Three principles are the basis for the policy: equality for national minorities, territorial autonomy, and equality for all languages and cultures.