A savvy demonstration of a working republican democracy rests in a constant public discourse concerning recent or former behaviors and projects. It is, after all, nothing more than an equitable dialogue that seeks enhancements in an operational democracy. Though what stains its sanctity and makes it stink of obsolescence is a lack of comprehension of the fundamental edifices upon which the debate shall be held.
One of the many essential edifices that might be endlessly discussed is the capacity to understand what a particular legislation seeks to remedy and the kinds of rationales it is founded on.
The standard Indian discourse, whether in a political setting or a drawing room conversation, never ceases to fracture people over the concept of the Indian genre of affirmative action: reservation, and if the rationales in place are faithful to the aim of Indian society.
One frequently advanced argument against reservation is the concept of meritocracy, asserting that a just society should allocate public roles and responsibilities solely based on individual merit. In this framework, those who achieve higher scores or demonstrate superior abilities would progress, while individuals deemed less deserving would be restricted from attaining more significant positions or opportunities.
This utopian dream of an equitable society based on merit, howbeit, is nowhere grounded in reality. And there's much reasoning to back it. Merit makes essentially a ruse, a way for the glitterati to flex greater muscle.
Merit is a Veil to Retain Plutocracy
Reckon me this: What construes talent? Since merit calls for the ultimate reward of talent, what exactly is it? Talent is an amalgamation of nothing more than one's genetic engineering and the immediate environment the person in question surrounds himself with.
One with richer genetic material will intrinsically outshine the rest of the pack on certain variables. But genetics can only carry you so far, and the field beyond can merely be mapped in accordance with how his genetic abilities have been nurtured and refined by the circumstances around him.
A more abundant array of genetic material fused with a abysmal upbringing will eventually find itself ensnared in disgrace. Conversely, genetic material that, while unremarkable, when paired with overt encouragement, has the potential to ascend to a decently commendable pedestal. It is, on that account, a child's-play to recognize that what one finds himself surrounded by construes a far reaching impact on his merit than what biological object was transferred to him in his lineage.
Though it is widely and agreeably understood that the ability to acquire superior genetics is solely the result of a game of accident, the latter, that is one's immediate environment, derives its roots not from a match of chance but from the monetary and societal proficiency of what clan or family he was born into.
Thereby, in the long run, which individual is more purported to stand out in respect of merit? One who has been able to avail greater quality of tutelage, medicine, parenting—all of which is a direct result of financial and, in the Indian context, social proficiency—and other amenities; or an individual who, despite having acquired immaculate genetic material, was held in deprivation of even the basic utilities to survive, let alone tutelage and medicine, all because of his and his family's monetary backwardness combined with casteist retardation?
If truth be told, meritocracy is a self-destructive theory. One founded on the premise of achieving social fairness by awarding ability, but when meticulously engrossed in a society reeking of inequality—be it financial or social, or even an amalgamation of both, one that is tragically prevalent in Indian society—it only serves to widen the aperture between the able and unable.
What meritocracy effectively implies to you is that you are incapable to land a certain profession or a particular seat in a prominent institution because your parents are insufficiently capable. And that, by whatever means or viewpoint, smacks of anything but a decent social arrangement.
Meritocracy, in practice, is a fabrication and, at best, a delusion. A fantasy of the moneyed to monopolize society towards what is favorable to the interests of a financial and social minority. And it will remain thus until the domain of inclusion is reached in retrospect. So long as deprivation in society is relevant, so long as a social class or caste is denied amenities based on what clan or family they are born into, so long as a society stinking of capitalism flourishes, meritocracy will continue to preserve its trademark of being the propertied's virtue.
It is therefore critical to acknowledge that the theory of meritocracy is congruent with the idea of maintaining a plutocratic social order that rewards those who are financially and/or socially fortunate.