Recognition
How should the state answer inherited disadvantage — by seeing groups, or by refusing to? This axis runs from caste-blind rules to group-based remedy.
Formal equality
What this end means
The state should treat citizens as individuals, not as members of communities. Help the poor of every community by income, and move institutions toward one common set of rules.
Positions from the quiz
- Replace quotas with scholarships and support for the poor of every community
- Keep support income-based, like EWS — not caste-based
- Stop counting caste in the census; the state shouldn’t classify citizens by it
- One set of rules for every institution, minority-run included
Group remedies
What this end means
Centuries of exclusion don’t dissolve under neutral rules — they hide there. Count caste, measure the gap, and design remedies for the groups history held back until representation matches population.
Positions from the quiz
- A full published caste census, with policies redesigned around the numbers
- Remove the 50% cap — representation should match population share
- Extend SC/ST/OBC quotas to large private employers
- Promotion quotas with consequential seniority — leadership must reflect the population
Sitting near the middle
Near zero means keeping today’s settlement — existing quotas plus EWS — without expanding or unwinding it.
Commonly misread
Neither pole is “against equality” — both claim it. The disagreement is whether equality requires the state to see groups, or to stop seeing them.