Q&A: Laura Dudley Jenkins

Laura Dudley Jenkins' book,

Identity and Identification in India: Defining the Disadvantaged

, questions the ways in which democracy is able to succeed in such a diverse country. Here the associate professor of political science addresses that question and explains her interest in India.

Q:

Before you comment on the book, explain how you became interested in India.

A:

As a college student, I went there on a study abroad program and took classes, traveled, did a project on politics and language, and studied classical Indian violin. I returned as a Fulbright scholar to do most of the research for this book. These opportunities truly changed my life. My ongoing fascination is driven by a puzzle: how does democracy work in such a culturally diverse place? This Hindu-majority country has a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President, and the majority party is led by a female Catholic. India can provide insights into how to balance majority rule and minority rights in countries such as Iraq, which must balance Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish aspirations.

Q:

You talk about Indians' approach to affirmative action. Does their system have relevance for Americans?

A:

Affirmative action activists at a rally I attended were singing "We Shall Overcome" in Hindi, so they certainly see connections. One of my goals is to make Americans more aware of such similarities. India's longer experience with affirmative action and more complex categories provide lessons for the United States. India uses both group and individual criteria to determine eligibility for certain forms of affirmative action. For example, your caste must be included in an official list of lower castes, and your parents' socioeconomic status cannot exceed a certain threshold.

Q:

So "disadvantaged" in your subtitle refers to groups identified by caste, gender, class, race, and ethnicity. How have they been able to work around rigid categorizations to achieve gains?

A:

Individuals don't fit neatly into categories, and in India, defining affirmative action beneficiaries is complicated by migration, religious conversion, intermarriage and socioeconomic mobility. Despite these complications, lower castes now employ the categories previously used to oppress them to achieve gains in legislative seats, government jobs, and higher education. Women have a guaranteed minimum number of seats on local councils.

Q:

Do you think Americans would be willing to implement the kinds of changes necessary to make our system more like that of India?

A:

Some colleges and universities in America already take into account broader notions of "disadvantage" in admissions decisions, including assessments of students' family and educational histories. In 2003, the Supreme Court praised such a "highly individualized, holistic" approach in Grutter v Bollinger, but Americans may be in too much of a hurry to move beyond race- and sex-based anti- discrimination policies when racism and sexism still exist. India's antidiscrimination policies recognize several factors, but caste and gender remain the focus. Many are willing to recognize the persistence of discrimination (against the very lowest castes in particular), and very specific constitutional protections for affirmative action policies there suggest they may last longer than in the United States.