Motion prep
Asian Parliamentary · social · Hard

This House, as India, would scrap caste-based affirmative action.

A reservation motion that requires actual knowledge of how Indian reservations work. Generic affirmative-action arguments do not survive contact.

Runs inAsian Parliamentary / WSDC / BP adaptable
DifficultyHard
SidesGovernment / Opposition
Reading the motion
What it asks

Whether India should end caste-based reservation in education and public employment. The serious version of Prop replaces it with an economic-criteria system rather than removing support entirely.

Who proves what

Prop must engage caste as a live social fact, not just a historical one. Opp must answer creamy-layer capture, which is the strongest empirical attack available.

Ground worth taking

Prop should take replacement with an income-and-assets criterion, keeping the total quota size. That reframes the round from "abandon the disadvantaged" to "target the disadvantaged accurately."

Both cases
Government

Reservation is capturing the wrong beneficiaries within the right categories, and the categories themselves have become political currency.

01 The benefit concentrates at the top of each category
Claim
Within reserved groups, the same families access reserved seats across generations.
Warrant
This is why the creamy-layer exclusion exists for OBCs at all. The exclusion is under-enforced, and the poorest within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities remain under-represented in the seats reserved for them.
Impact
The policy is not reaching the people it was designed for, and an economic criterion reaches them directly.
02 It has become a political market
Claim
Reservation categories are expanded and contested for electoral reasons.
Warrant
The Jat, Patidar, and Maratha agitations were campaigns by relatively prosperous, landholding communities for reserved status. The 50% ceiling has been repeatedly pressured, and the EWS amendment breached it.
Impact
The system entrenches caste as the operative political identity, which is the opposite of what the constitutional framers intended it to achieve over time.
03 It hardens the category it was meant to dissolve
Claim
Permanent legal salience keeps caste central to public life.
Warrant
Ambedkar framed reservation as a transitional measure. Seventy-five years in, caste certificates are a routine part of administrative identity for every citizen who uses the system.
Impact
You cannot make a category obsolete by attaching resources to it indefinitely. The timeframe argument is Prop's and it is strong.
Opposition

Caste discrimination is present-tense and economic criteria do not detect it.

01 The disadvantage is social, not just financial
Claim
Caste operates through networks, housing, marriage, and hiring, independent of income.
Warrant
Audit studies in Indian labour markets show callback gaps by surname at matched qualifications. A wealthy Dalit applicant still faces the network exclusion that an income test cannot see.
Impact
An economic criterion under-serves exactly the harm reservation exists to correct, so Prop's replacement misses the mechanism while claiming to target it better.
02 Representation has independent value
Claim
Reserved seats in the bureaucracy and judiciary change how institutions treat those communities.
Warrant
A police force or district administration with no Dalit officers handles caste-atrocity cases differently. Representation is not only a benefit to the appointee.
Impact
Prop's income-based replacement produces a poor-but-upper-caste intake, which does nothing for institutional composition.
03 The creamy layer is an argument for reform
Claim
Capture is a case for enforcing the exclusion, not for scrapping the basis.
Warrant
Sub-categorisation and stricter creamy-layer enforcement are available now and directly target Prop's stated harm.
Impact
Comparative failure: Prop pays the full cost of removing caste protection to fix a problem with a cheaper and better-aimed remedy.
The clash that decides it

Is caste disadvantage reducible to economic disadvantage?

How Government wins it
Prop wins by showing the surviving discrimination is concentrated among the poor within each caste, so an economic criterion captures nearly all of it and misdirects less.
How Opposition wins it
Opp wins on the audit-study evidence: identical income, identical qualifications, different outcome by surname, which economic targeting cannot reach by construction.
Where rounds go wrong
Government mistakes
  • Running American colourblindness arguments. The Indian system is quota-based and constitutionally grounded, and the transplant shows.
  • Ignoring atrocity data. If you claim caste is fading, Opp will produce the numbers.
Opposition mistakes
  • Denying creamy-layer capture. It is well documented and denial costs you the round's credibility.
  • Treating reservation as permanent by right. Ambedkar did not, and Prop will quote him.
Prep something next to it
This House, as ASEAN, would adopt a binding South China Sea code of conduct.
An actor motion. You are ASEAN, so every argument has to run through what ASEAN can actually do.
Asian Parliamentary · Hard
This House would pay couples in aging East Asian economies to have children.
A pronatalist motion where the evidence base cuts against Prop and Prop has to know that going in.
Asian Parliamentary · Medium
This house would ban billionaires.
A wealth-cap motion that turns on whether extreme fortunes are a political problem or an economic signal.
Parliamentary / APDA · Medium
This house would abolish the electoral college.
A first-principles democracy motion where the real fight is over what a presidential election is supposed to represent.
Parliamentary / APDA · Intro