rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (04/14/85)
The recent debate about this has prompted me to point out a few things that I feel justify caste-based reservation schemes. First of all, I think there are two questions to be answered: a) Should there be caste-based reservation? b) If so, how much should it be? From the responses I have seen, most people feel that the answer to a) is "no". I disagree. On b) I admit I have no real feeling for what would be fair to all parties. 50% reservation is almost certainly too high. One of the major criticisms has run along the following lines: "Why should a poor high-caste person be denied the opportunities that a rich low-caste person is given?" This is really a non-issue, I think, because as far as I know, there are income limits that apply in most cases, especially the backward castes (as opposed to SC/ST). So it really benefits the lower-income lower-caste person. Another issue is that of merit. On the face of it, it seems most fair to insist that merit be the only criterion. But what does "merit" mean, say, in the context of professional college admissions? Grades in an entrance examination, most likely. But these examinations are heavily biased in favor of middle-class, urban students. An example is the disproportionately large numbers of students entering the IITs from the major cities, not because they are intrinsically brighter, but because they had access to coaching that made them able to score better in the entrance exam. (This phenomenon happens in the US as well, where cramming academies turn out students expert at beating the SAT's.) Similarly, I claim that a Harijan doctor who will go back to help his/her community is more "worthy" of a medical college seat than a high-caste urban student who has every intention of emigrating as soon as possible. "Merit" is somewhat harder to measure than scores in standard admission tests. There are also good historical reasons for extending special concessions to backward castes: nobody will deny that the Harijan's life is still pretty miserable -- the age-old problems continue to exist. Compared to that, the very occasional cases of "reverse discrimination" are trivial in the larger context, however painful they are to the individuals concerned. Besides, the establishment is still full of the old-boy networks of upper-caste people, and there is surely considerable covert discrimination. The troubles that Harijans face are not because they are incapable: those who have converted to Islam and Christian sects and thus escaped the oppression have often made good. I think reservation should exits as long as certain sections of society are demonstrably getting less than their share of the pie. The really negative aspect of caste-based reservation, I recognize, is that it perpetuates caste-based politics, social interaction, etc. But then so does the use of caste-based surnames (e.g., Iyer, Reddy). But nobody has suggested that people should switch to context-free names. And as we change into a more urban, industrialized society, there will, one hopes, be less caste-consciousness. People will make class-based distinctions rather than caste-based distinctions. As regards a "fair" quota system, it's hard to generalize, but I think 20-30% might not be too unreasonable, with the proviso that if there are not sufficient numbers of backward-caste candidates, the extra openings will be added to the general pool. Finally, I have often heard that giving an underqualified Harijan a medical college seat is akin to giving him/her "a licence to kill". But remember, a large number of upper-caste doctors finished bottom of their classes, and some of them are surely using the above licence :-) To flamers: if you feel the urge to flame, please remember that I am not on trial, only my opinions are :-) -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) (04/18/85)
In article <403@sftri.UUCP> rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: > >The recent debate about this has prompted me to point out a few things >that I feel justify caste-based reservation schemes. > I disagree with the premise that anything can justify a policy which differentiates between individuals on the basis of birth. What follows is a point by point rebuttal of some of Rajeev's arguments. > This is really a non-issue, I think, >because as far as I know, there are income limits that apply in most >cases, especially the backward castes (as opposed to SC/ST). So it >really benefits the lower-income lower-caste person. > The fallacy is obvious: the issue is that while a distinction based on income might be (I personally think it is) justifiable, one based on caste is most certainly not. Clearly, a scheme which benefits 'lower-caste, lower-income' people is not justifiable. What of 'non-lower-caste, lower- income people'? There are many such. > I think reservation should exits as long as certain >sections of society are demonstrably getting less than their share of the >pie. > I agree. But don't make 'certain sections' synonymous with 'certain castes'. > People will make class-based distinctions rather than >caste-based distinctions. > I'm not sure I understand this :-) !! > >Finally, I have often heard that giving an underqualified Harijan a medical >college seat is akin to giving him/her "a licence to kill". But remember, a >large number of upper-caste doctors finished bottom of their classes, and >some of them are surely using the above licence :-) > No system is perfect, and there are bound to be people who rise to (or beyond!) their level of incompetence. This does not mean we throw up our hands and grant positions of responsibility to those who are clearly incapable of handling it - this applies equally to an incompetent Harijan benefitting from misguided reservations and to an incompetent 'higher-caste' person benefitting from some other loophole.
bhatnaga@topaz.ARPA (Bhatnaga) (04/19/85)
> In article <403@sftri.UUCP> rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: > > > > >The recent debate about this has prompted me to point out a few things > >that I feel justify caste-based reservation schemes. > > > > I disagree with the premise that anything can justify a policy which > differentiates between individuals on the basis of birth. What follows > is a point by point rebuttal of some of Rajeev's arguments. > > > This is really a non-issue, I think, > >because as far as I know, there are income limits that apply in most > >cases, especially the backward castes (as opposed to SC/ST). So it > >really benefits the lower-income lower-caste person. > > > > The fallacy is obvious: the issue is that while a distinction based on > income might be (I personally think it is) justifiable, one based on > caste is most certainly not. Clearly, a scheme which benefits 'lower-caste, > lower-income' people is not justifiable. What of 'non-lower-caste, lower- > income people'? There are many such. > > > I think reservation should exits as long as certain > >sections of society are demonstrably getting less than their share of the > >pie. > > > > I agree. But don't make 'certain sections' synonymous with 'certain castes'. > > > People will make class-based distinctions rather than > >caste-based distinctions. > > > > I'm not sure I understand this :-) !! > > > > >Finally, I have often heard that giving an underqualified Harijan a medical > >college seat is akin to giving him/her "a licence to kill". But remember, a > >large number of upper-caste doctors finished bottom of their classes, and > >some of them are surely using the above licence :-) > > > > No system is perfect, and there are bound to be people who rise to (or > beyond!) their level of incompetence. This does not mean we throw up > our hands and grant positions of responsibility to those who are clearly > incapable of handling it - this applies equally to an incompetent > Harijan benefitting from misguided reservations and to an incompetent > 'higher-caste' person benefitting from some other loophole. I agree with what Raghunath has said in response to Rajeevs original message. I shall like to add some thing more. Most people will agree that caste based reservations are theoretically wrong. Any concept that divides humanbeings on the basis of birth is wrong and caste is one such concept. Some years ago ( after independence to be exact ) our policy planners made a mistake by granting caste based reservations and we have lived with that mistake all these years. Our problem is that we have no way to rid this situation overnight. Now we are at a situation where whatever decision the government takes, will ignite a spark. We are seeing violence in Gujarat (and elsewhere) against the reservations. If reservations are scrapped overnight, we will see worse violence and worse change in our social structure than this. One thing that I have noticed is that nothing is going on in India to reassure the lower castes. Except the reservations we have not done any thing to boost the morale of the downtrodden. We have not even told them that we did injustice to them for hundreds of years. I am talking of social and not governmental level. On social level our society is still caste ridden. What can we do? I suggest that we should think of abolishing reservations on a time-scale manner. Today if we have 17% reservations, we can reduce it at a rate of, say 1% a year. And, most likely, by the time we abolish the reservations to a zero level, we shall not need them any more. But more than any thing else we need to attack the problem on mental (and not political level). Even if we don't (current generations) discriminate on the basis of caste, our parents and grand parents did ( we don't have to go many generations behind ). And if we are proud of the achievements of the past generations, we are culpable for their sins (don't ask me to quote sections of the penal code; this is not a legal but moral setting ). I again repeat reservation is an evil, but we can't rid it over night. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (04/20/85)
In response to ut-sally!raghu's comments on my posting: > >The recent debate about this has prompted me to point out a few things > >that I feel justify caste-based reservation schemes. > > I disagree with the premise that anything can justify a policy which >differentiates between individuals on the basis of birth. I could not agree with you more: I believe strongly in equality. Unfortunately, we have such a "policy" active in India that discriminates by birth: the caste system. I find it reprehensible, but it is a fact of life, and it has to be dealt with. That is why I support reservation, which mitigates some of the ill-effects of caste prejudices. > > The fallacy is obvious: the issue is that while a distinction based on >income might be (I personally think it is) justifiable, one based on >caste is most certainly not. Clearly, a scheme which benefits 'lower-caste, >lower-income' people is not justifiable. What of 'non-lower-caste, lower- >income people'? There are many such. There is no fallacy: you have to recognize that economics is a zero-sum game. Nobody gains except at the expense of others: x's gain is always y's loss. The explicit intent of reservation is to improve the lot of the historically oppressed, the lower-caste poor, and it does this. Obviously, it is in the interests of other segments of society to take this away. From the point of view of objective justice it is unfair, because the lower castes are still oppressed. How many upper-caste people would trade in their upper-castehood to gain (along with the stigma) the reservation benefits of lower-castehood? Not many, I'm sure. Remember Meenakshipuram? > > > People will make class-based distinctions rather than > >caste-based distinctions. > I'm not sure I understand this :-) !! In Bombay (read stereotypical industrial city) nobody cares what your caste is, if you've got money: you're okay. And if you don't, then again, nobody cares: you're scum regardless of caste. > >Finally, I have often heard that giving an underqualified Harijan a medical > >college seat is akin to giving him/her "a licence to kill". But remember, a > >large number of upper-caste doctors finished bottom of their classes, and > >some of them are surely using the above licence :-) > No system is perfect, and there are bound to be people who rise to (or >beyond!) their level of incompetence. This does not mean we throw up >our hands and grant positions of responsibility to those who are clearly >incapable of handling it - this applies equally to an incompetent >Harijan benefitting from misguided reservations and to an incompetent >'higher-caste' person benefitting from some other loophole. "No system is perfect", but some are fairer than others. The above statement is an instance of unfair stereotyping: even a competent Harijan is assumed incapable because of his/her Harijanness, which should be irrelevant, and that is the injustice. I'm not advocating incompetency, but a recognition that the attitudes ingrained in many of us, and demonstrated by such seemingly innocuous statements, have yet to change. And that is why we need government-legislated programs such as reservation. Otherwise, the lot of the downtrodden will never improve. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (04/20/85)
> .. Most people will agree > that caste based reservations are theoretically wrong. Any concept > that divides humanbeings on the basis of birth is wrong and caste is > one such concept. If there were no caste system, there would be no need for reservations: therefore it is caste that is wrong, not reservation. > have lived with that mistake all these years. Our problem is that > we have no way to rid this situation overnight. Now we are at a situation > where whatever decision the government takes, will ignite a spark. I think maintaining the status quo would have been okay: it's only when the government tries to increase or decrease the reservation percentages that violence flares up. > One thing that I have noticed is that nothing is going on > in India to reassure the lower castes. Except the reservations we > have not done any thing to boost the morale of the downtrodden. > We have not even told them that we did injustice to them for > hundreds of years. I am talking of social and not governmental > level. On social level our society is still caste ridden. > Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. Social change is yet to come. > What can we do? I suggest that we should think of > abolishing reservations on a time-scale manner. Today if we have > 17% reservations, we can reduce it at a rate of, say 1% a year. > And, most likely, by the time we abolish the reservations to a > zero level, we shall not need them any more. But more than any thing > else we need to attack the problem on mental (and not political level). This is a sensible suggestion: a reduction of reservation over time if tangible benefits have accrued. Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure any progress because it is not in numbers of Harijans employed, but in social attitudes that improvements are necessary. In any case, I think the figure quoted here, 1% a year, is rather too drastic. > Even if we don't (current generations) discriminate on the basis of > caste, our parents and grand parents did ( we don't have to go > many generations behind ). And if we are proud of the achievements > of the past generations, we are culpable for their sins (don't > ask me to quote sections of the penal code; this is not a legal > but moral setting ). > I'm not sure the "current generation" is free of prejudice, either. From your statements, I conclude that your argument is along the lines of: "Yes, there is discrimination, and we should do something to atone for our sins and those of our ancestors, but that something is not reservation". Do you have a proposal for some other method by which lower caste people can improve their lot? I think that given the constraints of the situation, reservation is, while imperfect, adequate. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (04/21/85)
> In article <403@sftri.UUCP> rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: > > > > >The recent debate about this has prompted me to point out a few things > >that I feel justify caste-based reservation schemes. > > > > I disagree with the premise that anything can justify a policy which > differentiates between individuals on the basis of birth... I can't but be amused by the fact that whenever nations of the world try to right the inequities perpetrated by them in the name of race or caste, the privileged races or castes in each case seem to get religion in a hurry and start spouting self-righteous pseudo-egalitarian pap about the evils of "reverse discrimination". I guess it is not so much fun to have the shoe on the other foot! > is a point by point rebuttal of some of Rajeev's arguments. > > > This is really a non-issue, I think, > >because as far as I know, there are income limits that apply in most > >cases, especially the backward castes (as opposed to SC/ST). So it > >really benefits the lower-income lower-caste person. > > > > The fallacy is obvious: the issue is that while a distinction based on > income might be (I personally think it is) justifiable, one based on > caste is most certainly not. Clearly, a scheme which benefits 'lower-caste, > lower-income' people is not justifiable. What of 'non-lower-caste, lower- > income people'? There are many such. Indeed? Why should a bright little rich kid be deprived of opportunity in your income-based reservation system, simply because he or she is rich? Such a policy is based on birth, isn't it? Or is it the case that well-heeled applicants to college are all self-made milliionaires? It is hypocritical to accept discriminatory reservations on some arbitrary basis such as income, and equally arbitrarily rule out caste as a criterion on the other hand. The only possible conclusion is that the author is opposed to raising the educational and economic level of the depressed castes and tribes. When specific castes and tribes have been systematically and institutiionally deprived of education and opportunity for hundreds of generations, any bona fide attempt to remedy the situation has to address itself to the affected castes and tribes rather than try and sidestep the caste issue by hiding behind considerations of income. A caste-blind, income-based reservation system will, in the present circumstances, only benefit the poorer sections of the upper castes, largely excluding the depressed castes, since the institutions of society are all loaded in favor of the upper castes. If there is a limited number of seats open for admission to medical school, reserved for lower income people, regardless of caste, the odds are that the number of lower caste applicants will be far fewer than the number of upper caste applicants, simply due to ignorance and illiteracy already prevalent among those people. Also, if a poor Brahmin (say) boy and a poor Harijan boy both apply for the same reserved seat, and the Brahmin boy has somewhat better grades, but both the candidates make the cut, whom would you pick, as the Brahmin chairman of the admission committee? Really, it is utterly hypocritical to suggest that you can improve the lot of some specific castes by adopting a caste-blind policy. Are we really naive enough to believe that we can wish away centuries of oppression without having to pay some kind of price for it, in terms of injustice to individuals of upper castes, and yucky, un-cool caste-based politics? Judging by the kinds of things being said on the topic in this newsgroup, I am afraid we are. As the depressed castes become more militantly conscious of their collective plight, and of the insensitivity of the castes that had been responsible for that plight, you can be sure that there'll be hell to pay. Our choice is very simple: either we (the upper-caste dominated Indian society) make a small amount of sacrifice at the present time with a liberal caste-based reservation policy, and make it work well enough to give the depressed castes a stake in the continued integrity of Indian society, or we had better make plans to cope with a monstrous and bloody inter-caste conflict. We would be doing ourselves and our families a great favor by dropping the pretense that we are being very magnanimous in compensating the depressed castes for all the wrongs that our society has done them, and start realizing that reservations are the only way to save our skins. Do we need more Punjabs, Assams, Bihars, Bhiwandis, and so on to understand how thin is the veneer of stability that covers Indian society? > >Finally, I have often heard that giving an underqualified Harijan a medical > >college seat is akin to giving him/her "a licence to kill". But remember, a > >large number of upper-caste doctors finished bottom of their classes, and > >some of them are surely using the above licence :-) > No system is perfect, and there are bound to be people > who rise to (or beyond!) their level of incompetence. This does not mean we throw up > our hands and grant positions of responsibility to those who are clearly > incapable of handling it - this applies equally to an incompetent > Harijan benefitting from misguided reservations and to an incompetent > 'higher-caste' person benefitting from some other loophole. Hmm.. I wonder about all that stuff about Harijan professionals being incompetent, licensed to kill, and so on. I find it mighty suspicious that it is invariably the upper caste people, who resent the new "privileged" status of the Harijan, that say such things. Have there been any conclusive, credible studies on the relative effectiveness of Harijan doctors vs. caste Hindu doctors? If so, what would such a study prove? At worst, that there are varying degrees of mediocrity in Indian society! --Bapa Rao.
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) (04/22/85)
In article <410@sftri.UUCP> rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: >y's loss. The explicit intent of reservation is to improve the lot of the >historically oppressed, the lower-caste poor, and it does this. Obviously, >it is in the interests of other segments of society to take this away. Question: Shouldn't the objective of any reservation policy be to help all those who need (and deserve) help, rather than just one such group? If it creates an environment where one set of people find themselves unfairly discriminated against, there is something wrong. History should be used as a signpost to mistakes that should be avoided, rather than a compendium of wrongs to be righted. >From the point of view of objective justice it is unfair, because the >lower castes are still oppressed. How many upper-caste people would trade >in their upper-castehood to gain (along with the stigma) the reservation >benefits of lower-castehood? Not many, I'm sure. Remember Meenakshipuram? Unfair? Because it doesn't achieve the things it set out to achieve? I think unsuccessful is a better word. I agree that the caste system still exists, as a mental attitude in most cases, as a way of life in others. I am ashamed and disgusted that it is so. My solutions? Try to identify your prejudices, on a personal level. On a social level, ostracize anyone who is casteist (is that a word?!). On a national level, design a set of laws that disallow casteist distinctions, and ENFORCE them. This last is the most difficult. How does one design laws that can be enforced and at the same time do not infringe on the individual's rights? I don't know. But this is what we should be thinking about. The way to eliminate one set of caste based distinctions does NOT lie in introducing another such set. > >> No system is perfect, and there are bound to be people who rise to (or >>beyond!) their level of incompetence. This does not mean we throw up >>our hands and grant positions of responsibility to those who are clearly >>incapable of handling it - this applies equally to an incompetent >>Harijan benefitting from misguided reservations and to an incompetent >>'higher-caste' person benefitting from some other loophole. > >"No system is perfect", but some are fairer than others. The above >statement is an instance of unfair stereotyping: even a competent >Harijan is assumed incapable because of his/her Harijanness, which >should be irrelevant, and that is the injustice. I'm not advocating >incompetency, but a recognition that the attitudes ingrained in many >of us, and demonstrated by such seemingly innocuous statements, have >yet to change. And that is why we need government-legislated programs >such as reservation. Otherwise, the lot of the downtrodden will never >improve. I get the impression that my statement has been misinterpreted. The Harijan referred to is not incompetent by virtue of his Harijanness, but as a hypothetical, incompetent Harijan. No stereotyping was intended. If the point is that many people do indeed apply this stereotype, yes, that is true. That is true of many other things as well, and I see no solution other than individual honesty in evaluating others. Incidentally, if Harijans are held in low esteem, the reservation system may well be one reason since it pushes many people into positions that are beyond their capabilities. When one sees many people of a given denomination doing their jobs incompetently (of course, there are always exceptions) the usual tendency is to go away with a low opinion of those people. Let me emphasize something. I think the caste system, in its rigid, prevalent form, is evil and nauseating. I merely disagree with the policy of caste-based reservations as an approach to this problem.
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (04/23/85)
Sri Rajeev: > Unfortunately, we have such a "policy" active in India that discriminates > by birth: the caste system. I find it reprehensible, but it is a fact > of life, and it has to be dealt with. That is why I support reservation, > which mitigates some of the ill-effects of caste prejudices. You seem to be saying that two wrongs will make a right. I've never been convinced of that, and am not now. While your humanitarian motives are laudable, I'm not sure that unalloyed humanitarianism is in the best interests of any country. At some point, the effects of an action on the future well-being of the nation have to be taken into account. Which is why you probably wouldn't say, "Gee, this poor chap's been historically oppressed, so let's give him a PhD in Computer Science and put him on a fat salary!" And similarly with doctors, IAS/IPS officers, &c. I have no quarrel with a Harijan doctor if the guy knows what he's doing, and I won't go near a Brahmin doctor who doesn't know his stuff. The only reasonable criterion, in the long run, is merit. In recognition of the fact that some _deserving_ people might not be in a position to use their talents, it might be reasonable to help them along at the beginning. But I don't see how "deserving" can be defined with respect to caste. I, for one, don't want to carry incompetents - Harijan or Brahmin - to fulfil mindless quotas of any sort! People who support caste-based reservation usually cite "historical discrimination" as justification. It seems strange that these same people are blind to the fact that caste-based reservation policies simply replace one policy of discrimination by another. They seem to argue that, since one discrimination policy is bad, two of them will somehow neutralize each other. This argument seems naive, at best ... and one need only look at Gujarat and elsewhere for confirmation. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) (04/24/85)
This is in response to Baparao's article. My position is this:
Yes, the caste system is and has been an unsavoury instance of one
group of people oppressing another (we ignore its historical precedent,
the class system). We all know the present situation: a large majority
of Hindus are from the backward castes, a large majority of Indians,
both backward and forward castes, are close to or below the poverty
line. The question: What should we now do to improve this situation?
My answer: Identify the ways in which the backward castes are still
discriminated against, and devise punitive measures to eliminate them.
It goes without saying that we as individuals should avoid these
prejudices. The other point of view: Have a reservation scheme based
on caste (currently, over 50% of college seats and government jobs
are so reserved) so as to help the segment of society that has been
exploited historically.
I think I am right:
. On moral grounds. I don't think the way to eliminate one set of caste
distinctions is to introduce another. Two wrongs don't make a right
(although two Wrights may have made a wrong - Ogden Nash on the airplane!).
They merely underline the differences, and further split our society.
And yes, I think I am entitled to use the word moral. I don't think
I am obligated to bear the cross for my forefathers. (If someone
differs on this point, I would be obliged if they took the trouble
to read Ayn Rand, say 'Atlas Shrugged', before they took up cudgels.
I don't agree with all of Rand's views, but she does defend my basic
position very well ('my' position? 'her's' might be fairer!))
. On practical grounds. If you insist on a policy which systematically
elevates incompetent people into positions of responsibility at the
expense of more competent people, and justify this on the basis that the
incompetents 'need' this help, the results are bound to be disastrous.
Again, 'Atlas Shrugged' contains a good, if exaggerated, description
of the consequences.
Two clarifications are in order: First, I don't mean
to imply that all backward caste people who benefit from these
reservations are incompetents, merely that a majority are so. This is
not a judgement on their native ability, but on the process of selection,
which places such a low premium on merit. Second, how do I justify my
stand in favour of income-based reservations given these arguments?
Quite simply: In measuring merit, we must consider not only what the
person can do, but also the conditions under which he acquired that
ability, if one is to measure his true potential. And I submit that
potential, used within limits, is a better, as well as a fairer,
measure of merit. And I think that the purpose for which I propose this
- entry decisions at the university level - is well within those limits.
I think that the financial status of a man is one good index of his
advantages or disadvantages. Given that people are discriminated
against on the basis of caste, it might be argued that this is another
such index, but I submit that this further divides our society with
very little gained - those backward caste people who qualify for help
will do so under an income based scheme too. Note something else:
the children of a poor man who benefits from an income based reservation
will probably not need the scheme since their father will (hopefully)
have earned enough to go beyond it, but the children of a man who
benefits from a caste based reservation will continue to qualify -
this is potentially a perpetual scheme.
Finally, a look at some of Baparao's comments on an earlier article of mine:
>I can't but be amused by the fact that whenever nations of the world try to
>right the inequities perpetrated by them in the name of race or caste, the
>privileged races or castes in each case seem to get religion in a hurry and
>start spouting self-righteous pseudo-egalitarian pap about the evils of
>"reverse discrimination". I guess it is not so much fun to have the shoe on
>the other foot!
>
'Self-righteous, pseudo egalitarian pap'? You may be right, but on the other
hand, maybe there is some sense buried in that pap? :-). And you bet it is
no fun to be discriminated against, reverse or otherwise!
>Indeed? Why should a bright little rich kid be deprived of opportunity in
>your income-based reservation system, simply because he or she is rich? Such
>a policy is based on birth, isn't it? Or is it the case that well-heeled
>applicants to college are all self-made milliionaires? It is hypocritical
>to accept discriminatory reservations on some arbitrary basis such as
>income, and equally arbitrarily rule out caste as a criterion on the other
>hand. The only possible conclusion is that the author is opposed to raising
>the educational and economic level of the depressed castes and tribes.
The other possible conclusion is that the author is interested in saving his
precious butt. You bet he is. But I think I have anwered this point already.
>of the upper castes. If there is a limited number of seats open for
>admission to medical school, reserved for lower income people, regardless of
>caste, the odds are that the number of lower caste applicants will be far
>fewer than the number of upper caste applicants, simply due to ignorance and
>illiteracy already prevalent among those people.
A caste based scheme is not going to help. The people you are talking about
will not be able to meet even the basic requirements of such a scheme
(high school education, for instance). The solution is not legislative
but social. A good primary education system at the village level would do
more good than all these schemes.
>Are we really naive enough to believe that we can wish away centuries of
>oppression without having to pay some kind of price for it, in terms of
>injustice to individuals of upper castes, and yucky, un-cool caste-based
>politics?
Are we really naive enough to believe that we can wish away caste distinctions
by introducing some more?
>our families a great favor by dropping the pretense that we are being very
>magnanimous in compensating the depressed castes for all the wrongs that our
>society has done them, and start realizing that reservations are the only
>way to save our skins. Do we need more Punjabs, Assams, Bihars, Bhiwandis,
>and so on to understand how thin is the veneer of stability that
I am very interested in saving my skin. But I don't agree that caste-based
reservations are the way to do it. The Punjabs, Assams and Bihars merely
underline the point that we are a country with large groups of people who
come from different castes and religions, and that there is 'going to be
hell to pay' unless we learn to bridge those differences. Caste reservations
underline these differences.mvramakrishn@watdaisy.UUCP (Rama) (04/27/85)
> This is in response to Baparao's article. My position is this: > > Yes, the caste system is and has been an unsavoury instance of one > ..... > . On moral grounds. I don't think the way to eliminate one set of caste > distinctions is to introduce another. Two wrongs don't make a right > (although two Wrights may have made a wrong - Ogden Nash on the airplane!). > They merely underline the differences, and further split our society. > And yes, I think I am entitled to use the word moral. I don't think > I am obligated to bear the cross for my forefathers. (If someone > differs on this point, I would be obliged if they took the trouble > to read Ayn Rand, say 'Atlas Shrugged', before they took up cudgels. > ........... Two wrongs? Well, then every body agrees one wrong has been committed. We are talking about : Is reservation justified? So don't assume it is wrong and proceed. 'bear the cross for my forefathers' Here again it seems to be implicitly assumed that forefathers did sin. Nobody has put the upper castes behind bars OR guillotined the upper castes for the sins of their forefathers. It it was done, then you may say what you have said. What the victims of SIN/WRONGS are asking is for corrections/compensations for their sufferings. If I may say so without intending any offence, it is clear you are too emotional in this issue, because of your wordings "TWO WRONGS" "BEAR THE CROSS FOR MY FOREFATHERS", "REVENGE"(I am not sure if it was you who used this word, but somebody did use this word). I would rather say that WRONGS have been committed and some people have suffered. The current forward caste people have some advantages because of this and the current lower castes have certain disadvantages. To set these things right, SOME concessions have to be extended to the lower castes for SOME years until The lower castes reach their natural level. This will invariably cause some loss to the upper castes. This is the price to be paid to set the wrongs of our society.(Here I said "our society" because if the lower castes never let the upper castes dominate in the past, then there would be no problem now. So we all have to agree that they have some part for their status. Upper castes should feel happy that what happened in FRANCE etc didn't happen. If it did then I agree for "TWO WRONGS", "BEAR THE CROSS", "REVENGE" etc., are the right words to use). If a rich man killed some body while he was drunk and driving, then it seems logical to expect the rich man's son, (who inherited the property) to pay something to the victims son. I certainly do not support too high a percentage of reservation which would significantly affect the best competant people and hence the country's progress. FACT: I have seen SC/ST having been invited for dinner in a brahmins house in city (ofcourse he was an officer, having benifited from reservations) and untouchability practiced in rural areas. FACT: To get admission in BANGALORE UNIVERSITY medical and Engineering colleges, you need to have I class even if you are a SC/ST.(There are enough first class(marks!) candidates among SC/ST to fill the reserved quotas). I mentioned these facts to illustrate the effects of reservation. May I suggest that future discussion should consider the realities and mentalities of common people in India rather than well educated residents of USA. (As we are reading this there is a school teacher out there, who is very nice ofcourse, but grew up in a rural orthodox brahmin's house and he/she doesn't even think that untouchability is wrong. Well, nobody can blame that teacher). If the whole population consisted of people like us (who are reading this news group) then ofcourse there is no need for reservations and indeed it will be "WRONG" and "SIN". I also think it is wrong to single out brahmins in this regard since the other upper castes also practice untouchability etc. -------- Ramakrishna -------- UUCP: {decvax,utzoo,ihnp4,allegra,clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!mvramakrishn CSNET: mvramakrishn%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: mvramakrishn%watdaisy%waterloo@csnet-relay.arpa
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (04/28/85)
> both backward and forward castes, are close to or below the poverty > line. The question: What should we now do to improve this situation? > My answer: Identify the ways in which the backward castes are still > discriminated against, and devise punitive measures to eliminate them. > It goes without saying that we as individuals should avoid these > prejudices. The other point of view: Have a reservation scheme based > on caste (currently, over 50% of college seats and government jobs > are so reserved) so as to help the segment of society that has been > exploited historically. > I would point out that these two "points of view" you mention are certainly not antithetical. > I think I am right: > > . On moral grounds. I don't think the way to eliminate one set of caste > distinctions is to introduce another. Two wrongs don't make a right > (although two Wrights may have made a wrong - Ogden Nash on the airplane!). > They merely underline the differences, and further split our society. > And yes, I think I am entitled to use the word moral. I don't think > I am obligated to bear the cross for my forefathers. (If someone It was never clear to my dull mind where the moral code that "two wrongs don't make a right" originated, or why we seem to be so cavalier about unthinkingly using that tantalizing phrase to buttress our arguments. After all, the Mosaic law, one of the early formal codes of morality that is the basis of most Western and Indian criminal jurisprudence, calls for "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Most of the criminal law around the world is based on the concepts of retribution and restitution, (in case you were going to bring it up, rehabilitation is a newfangled Western liberal notion, that had a brief run, now discredited by popular mandate here in the U.S.) both of which certainly "wrong" the criminal. So, unless you are prepared to hold that the entire system of world jurisprudence is morally bankrupt, (in which case I would question the meaningfulness of your "morality" that does not exist in practice except perhaps on Mars :-)) the notion that "two wrongs *do* make a right" should be *at least* considered as an alternate moral position. As for bearing crosses for one's forefathers, consider the fact that in India, a son is *morally* obligated to pay his father's debts (which fact is behind a number of cases of hereditary bonded labor in India) which means that one is faced with the uncomfortable choice of taking up a noble, moral position and assuming responsibility for the crimes of one's forbears, or to shrug it all off like your pal Atlas, and proclaim "the virtue of selfishness". You see, taking an upright moral position is a neat little debating trick, but it does have its drawbacks. You simply can't reel off a list of things that you will live by, and arbitrarily slap the label of "morality" on the whole shebang. Another problem is that you can't take a "moral" stance and in the same paragraph, cite some views that a lot of reasonable people would regard as immoral, to support your moral stance. (This may come as a rude shock, but the grovelling hoi polloi are also allowed to have views on morality and some of them have been called reasonable, and not just by me! :-)) Of course, I could be hopelessly wrong in all this, having failed to take note of the fact that Science had at last tamed Morality to be the handmaiden of the Objectivists, in which case, my mediocre apologies. :-) > differs on this point, I would be obliged if they took the trouble > to read Ayn Rand, say 'Atlas Shrugged', before they took up cudgels. > I don't agree with all of Rand's views, but she does defend my basic > position very well ('my' position? 'her's' might be fairer!)) Surely we can argue about national affairs without help from the sociopathic views of some Russian sourpuss, who writes like she has just had an unhappy love affair with a grizzly! (Oh, dear, I did it, didn't I! I suppose all you Objectivists will be on my tail now! :-) ) But seriously, if we concede (just for the sake of argument, Raghu :-)) that moral considerations require some form of restitution to be made to the specific castes that been the victims of caste-based crimes in the previous generations then the question is where do these victims go for restitution? One solution is to dispatch the whole bloody lot of them from our guiltless sight to the presence of our forefathers who had wronged them and let them file compensation claims in God's court, (or the other guy's, I can't be sure where *my* forebears are! :-)) thus obtaining a rather interesting Final Solution to the whole thing! (Oops, there I go again, Mr. President, after having promised to be serious! :-)) Another is to simply pay up from the estates of the criminals (not an untenable legal position), that is to say, our own sweet little bunch of privileges! > . On practical grounds. If you insist on a policy which systematically > elevates incompetent people into positions of responsibility at the > expense of more competent people, and justify this on the basis that the > incompetents 'need' this help, the results are bound to be disastrous. > Again, 'Atlas Shrugged' contains a good, if exaggerated, description > of the consequences. > > Two clarifications are in order: First, I don't mean > to imply that all backward caste people who benefit from these > reservations are incompetents, merely that a majority are so. This is > not a judgement on their native ability, but on the process of selection, > which places such a low premium on merit. Second, how do I justify my Excuse me, but if the "native ability" just might be there, then what is the problem with picking out a bunch of depressed caste people with native ability and giving them the proper training to be doctors or whatever? If "native ability" is not a criterion of merit, then what exactly is this "merit"? Is it like the kind of thing you get by dunking yourself in the Ganga a prescribed number of times? :-) This whole argument about reservations, by their very nature, encouraging mediocrity is specious. The fact is, huge chunks of the Indian education system are geared towards mediocrity, and against merit, period. If there is the needed amount of political will, I hold that it is eminently feasible to design a system of caste-based reservations for college admissions which strict maintain minimum standards for admission (e.g., must possess a given amount of "native ability"), and for graduation, and in between afford all possible help to overcome their educational disadvantages. > A caste based scheme is not going to help. The people you are talking about > will not be able to meet even the basic requirements of such a scheme > (high school education, for instance). The solution is not legislative > but social. A good primary education system at the village level would do > more good than all these schemes. As I noted above, your "social" scheme and my "reservation" scheme are not mutually exclusive. > Are we really naive enough to believe that we can wish away caste distinctions > by introducing some more? > I am very interested in saving my skin. But I don't agree that caste-based > reservations are the way to do it. The Punjabs, Assams and Bihars merely > underline the point that we are a country with large groups of people who > come from different castes and religions, and that there is 'going to be > hell to pay' unless we learn to bridge those differences. Caste reservations > underline these differences. > ... We all know the present situation: a large majority > of Hindus are from the backward castes, a large majority of Indians, OK, the whole crux of the argument seems to be that caste-based reservations only serve to divide society, not unite it. Talking about "bridging caste differences", I seem to notice that all the anti-reservation postings on the net tacitly assume that caste-based reservations are something to be "given" to the depressed castes out of misguided a sense of humanitarianism (Mr. Debray in article # 353, I believe it was) or out of guilt or on a moral basis or whatever. Really, now! Has anyone asked the more articulate among the deperessed castes whether they agree with this assumption of charity on the part of the upper castes? I know I haven't, but I do know, if I were that spokesman, I might (conceivably) feel in the following way: " My community is getting only a small portion of what is rightfully its share of restitution for the wrongs it has suffered, and I would feel perfectly justified in keeping the caste issue alive and pursuing whatever means are necessary to ensure full restitution, upper-caste sentiment in favor of instant amnesia on the caste question notwithstanding. After all, we (the depressed castes) are in the majority, and we have little or nothing to lose, and absolutely no stake at all in the stability of a system that has been so inhumane to us. The upper castes, on the other hand, are a numerical minority, and have everything to lose, and a desparate stake in national stability. I believe that I can get in touch with some of those of foreign fellers who mentioned something about "liberation" and "arms deals" or whatever. I think I'll let them chew on this argument in favor of reservations for a while... Pernicious and dastardly? Blackmail? Maybe, but when did I ever get a kind word from upper-caste people to worry about their good opinion now? I wasn't there, but I would suspect that it was probably a sophisticated version of this position taken by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly that led to the institution of reservations in the first place. The whole point is that we might, in good faith, be prepared to forget the caste issue, and let bygones be bygones, but the victims of that system might not be so willing. Our protestations of personal innocence will not wash with an angry victim who has no one else to direct his anger against except the heirs of those that brought about his plight. If we think that caste-based reservations deepen caste differences, consider what would happen in their absence. All it takes is ONE militant, charismatic, and unscrupulous leader (dare I say it, a Dalit Bhindranwale) to emerge among them, and we'll be reminded of the caste issue every day, in blood. We could, of course, declare a national emergency, martial law, and shoot the *@# s. Granting that oppressive measures against a majority are indeed feasible, we might want to question whether that is the shape we want our nation to take.
unni@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/29/85)
My 2 paise-worth : Why have any reservation at all ? All this appeal to historic oppression seems to beg the question - can we remedy the past by going overboard in the present ? I feel it is very sad that a capable person - regardless of his birth or financial status - is denied the opportunity for the full flowering of his talents. My solution - all SELECTION should be purely by merit - and if a costlier school provides a better access to selection, there is something WRONG with the selection procedure. However, those worse off financially should be helped along FINANCIALLY through loans and stuff. So, OFF with RESERVATIONS and ON with better SELECTIONS ( 21st point formula). PLEASE FLAME, I LOVE MAIL.
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (04/30/85)
Ramakrishna: > The current forward caste people have > some advantages because of this and the current lower castes have > certain disadvantages. To set these things right, SOME concessions > have to be extended to the lower castes for SOME years until The lower > castes reach their natural level ... Yes, but if I remember correctly the "SOME years" was initially supposed to be 10 -- as things stand, political "realities" will probably extend it ad infinitum! -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) (05/03/85)
I think that most of the arguments for and against caste based reservations have been made, and I don't wish to belabor the point. However, I think a few comments on Bapa's articulate defense of caste based reservations and en-passant pokes at Objectivism are in order! >for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Most of the criminal law around the >world is based on the concepts of retribution and restitution > So, unless you are >prepared to hold that the entire system of world jurisprudence is morally >bankrupt, (in which case I would question the meaningfulness of your >"morality" that does not exist in practice except perhaps on Mars :-)) the >notion that "two wrongs *do* make a right" should be *at least* considered as >an alternate moral position. Criminal law operates by convicting an INDIVIDUAL of his transgressions and by punishing him accordingly. I reject the concept of a Law which judges a PEOPLE. Nazi war criminals can be tried. Not Germans. >As for bearing crosses for one's forefathers, consider the fact that in >India, a son is *morally* obligated to pay his father's debts (which fact is >behind a number of cases of hereditary bonded labor in India) which means >that one is faced with the uncomfortable choice of taking up a noble, moral >position and assuming responsibility for the crimes of one's forbears, or to >shrug it all off like your pal Atlas, and proclaim "the virtue of >selfishness". I'll take Atlas every time. The 'noble, moral position' is by your definition of morality (which involves my lugging the aforementioned cross!) - not mine. (That grizzly-loving Russkie would have loved this!) >> reservations are incompetents, merely that a majority are so. This is >> not a judgement on their native ability but on the process of selection, >> which places such a low premium on merit. Second, how do I justify my > >Excuse me, but if the "native ability" just might be there, then what is the >problem with picking out a bunch of depressed caste people with native >ability and giving them the proper training to be doctors or whatever? If None whatsoever. I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. What I meant to say was that my references to incompetents were not intended to imply that all backward class people were incompetents. I have no quarrels with a system that selects those who have 'native ability' and helps them get over educational disadvantages. I do object to caste being used as the yardstick for measuring such disadvantages. >instant amnesia on the caste question notwithstanding. After all, we (the >depressed castes) are in the majority, and we have little or nothing to >lose, and absolutely no stake at all in the stability of a system that has >been so inhumane to us. The upper castes, on the other hand, are a numerical >minority, and have everything to lose, and a desparate stake in national >stability. I believe that I can get in touch with some of those of foreign >fellers who mentioned something about "liberation" and "arms deals" or >whatever. I think I'll let them chew on this argument in favor of >reservations for a while... Pernicious and dastardly? Blackmail? Maybe, but >when did I ever get a kind word from upper-caste people to worry about their >good opinion now? In reply to the hypothetical articulate BC person (who takes the above stand): "If you think you have nothing to lose, and no stake at all in the stability of India, go ahead, grab your arms deals. If you are holding back due to concern over the good opinion of upper caste people, grab your arms deals. But stop for a moment to consider if that is what you really want. The collapse of a system hurts everyone. Maybe you should think of the alternatives available to you in saving your skin (along with, regrettably perhaps, some uppercaste skins! :-))." I have said all I have to say, at tedious length I'm afraid, and I promise not to post any more articles on this issue! Anyway, I'm glad we were able to bring out some of the many arguments on this issue. One last observation. You've all seen the difficulty in arriving at some agreement, even in a reasonable forum. This is a burning issue (cliche! cliche! But can't you smell the kerosene?) in India, and guess who's got to resolve it? Politicians. A sobering thought.
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (05/03/85)
It seems to me that Bapa Rao's observations (which,I must admit are rather well put and have a certain plausibility in a purely theoretical sense ... might appeal to the arm chair spinner of theories) can be summarised as follows (My comments are within brackets) : 1.Your own personal beliefs and conduct however noble are of no importance compared to the historical position of the social group you happened to be born in ---[ The best defence of caste organization of society I have ever seen. A person who believes this should love the caste system]. 2.Persons who profess to be concerned about merit,competence and talent are merely aggrieved over lost caste privileges and their arguments can be ignored as insincere.[I would think that any argument needs to be met on its own grounds and its validity has nothing to do with the emotional or psychological state of its proponent but for someone who believes in point 1 (see above) this may not be obvious] 3.A majority driven to frenzy by a charismatic thug is capable of great atro- -cities and the solution is to perpetrate non-violent but very real injustices upon huge segments of minorities.----[The problem of harijans who have been oppressed in the past of course needs to be tackled systematically and vigorously. The speed and felicity with which under-privileged people are brought into the mainstream will determine the success of our society.But undermining sensible concepts like merit and talent is not the answer.Education,financial help,economic development,social propaganda and religious reform are the steps that will really work in the long term.Counter-oppression,appealing only to revenge, has given rise to a whole generation of cheap politicians who will never give up their power base in caste oriented politics.Would you like to live in a society where incompetence rules and nobody knows what he is doing ? Witness Amin's Uganda.] . e -term solutions -- Raghu Seshadri
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (05/04/85)
In response to sbcs!debray: > While your humanitarian motives are laudable, I'm not sure that unalloyed > humanitarianism is in the best interests of any country. Well, I guess it means something (I don't quite know what) when someone disapproves of you for being a humanist. I don't know whether to be honoured or insulted :-) (I guess I'll take it as an honour, Jerry Falwell's views on those "commie pinko secular humanists" notwithstanding.) > At some point, > the effects of an action on the future well-being of the nation have to be > taken into account. And what makes you believe that your views on what's good for the "well- being of the nation" are the right ones? Once we take that small step from "we do what is morally right" to "we do what is expedient", totalitarianism, eugenics, genocide, etc. are no longer unthinkable. It might make sense for a country plagued by overpopulation to impose compulsory sterilization, but I'm sure you would disagree with that on moral grounds, though it's good for the country in the long run. Without morality in public affairs, we are no more than barbarians. > People who support caste-based reservation usually cite "historical > discrimination" as justification. It seems strange that these same people > are blind to the fact that caste-based reservation policies simply > replace one policy of discrimination by another. They seem to argue that, > since one discrimination policy is bad, two of them will somehow neutralize > each other. This argument seems naive, at best ... and one need only look > at Gujarat and elsewhere for confirmation. > Au contraire, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" I want to avoid creating a Beirut in my backyard. How long do you think an increasingly aware and increasingly angry population of the lower castes will tolerate the humiliations and injustices heaped on them? The almost daily lynchings of Harijans, the rapes of Adivasis... ? I concur with uscvax!baparao's view that a just and peaceful coexistence of all castes is the only way to avoid disaster. I think it is myopic wishful thinking on the part of the privileged that they can preserve the status quo and hide their heads in the sand. > I have no quarrel with a Harijan doctor if the guy knows what he's doing, > and I won't go near a Brahmin doctor who doesn't know his stuff. The only I applaud your fair-mindedness. But you err in assuming that this attitude is popular among the large majority of the Indian population. There is no dearth of bigots in our midst. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, ATT Info. Sys., Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
pankaj@sbcs.UUCP (Pankaj Gupta) (05/04/85)
There has been enough rhetoric in this newsgroup regarding caste based reservations. Personally I don't have anything against the idea of caste based reservations. However our society has done little to reverse the trend of discrimination against the weaker sections. Thirty five years of caste-based reservations have done little to improve the lot of the scheduled castes as a whole. S.C. leaders like J. Ram are more interested in promoting themselves as leaders of their group rather than bringing about any change in their condition. And such politicians are only interested in keeping their parliamentary constituencies reserved and in extending the caste based reservations every ten years. My viewpoint is that it is meaningless to talk about the merits and demerits of the reservation policy. If the society does not discriminate against a certain section then there is no need for reservations, and if it does then reservations are a poor fix as a solution for the problem. Pankaj Gupta SUNY at StonyBrook
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (05/07/85)
It's lonely at the top dept: > It seems to me that Bapa Rao's observations (which,I must admit are rather > well put and have a certain plausibility in a purely theoretical sense > ... might appeal to the arm chair spinner of theories) can be summarised > as follows (My comments are within brackets) : > This has GOT to be fame. My works are now being interpreted by the scholars, and I can't even understand the interpretations. From being mere random net postings, my writings have moved up into the serious Literature bracket. Talk about bracket creep! :-) > 1.Your own personal beliefs and conduct however noble are of no importance > compared to the historical position of the social group you happened to be > born in ---[ The best defence of caste organization of society I have ever seen. > A person who believes this should love the caste system]. > > 2.Persons who profess to be concerned about merit,competence and talent are > merely aggrieved over lost caste privileges and their arguments can be ignored > as insincere.[I would think that any argument needs to be met on its own > grounds and its validity has nothing to do with the emotional or psychological > state of its proponent but for someone who believes in point 1 (see above) this > may not be obvious] > > 3.A majority driven to frenzy by a charismatic thug is capable of great atro- > -cities and the solution is to perpetrate non-violent but very real injustices > upon huge segments of minorities.----[The problem of harijans who have been > oppressed in the past of course needs to be tackled systematically and > vigorously. The speed and felicity with which under-privileged people are > brought into the mainstream will determine the success of our society.But > undermining sensible concepts like merit and talent is not the answer.Education,financial help,economic development,social propaganda and religious reform are > the steps that will really work in the long term.Counter-oppression,appealing > only to revenge, has given rise to a whole generation of cheap politicians who > will never give up their power base in caste oriented politics.Would you like to live in a society where incompetence rules and nobody knows what he is doing ? Witness Amin's Uganda.] > > . > e > -term solutions > -- > Raghu Seshadri Raghu old chap, I really don't know what to reply to all this since I didn't say any of this stuff, certainly not the way you chose to put it. All the sensible arguments in favor of C.B.R.s have been made by my fellow-members of the non-verkrampte minority, Messrs. rajeev@sftri and nvramakrishna@wattdaisy in much more eloquent fashion than I can hope to muster. (Don't you believe it, Rajeev, I included you out of sheer politeness! :-) ) However, PURELY out of some abstract theoretical arm-chairy objection to having one's statements grotesquely misinterpreted, let me repeat the gist of what I have been trying to convey: 1. Wrongs perpetrated by the caste system can only be redressed by addressing oneself to the specific castes that have been wronged. This doesn't mean that I support the caste system. I am vehemently opposed to the idea. It is just that I don't understand how to persuade a Backward caste person to instantly accept the idea of a casteless society (amounting to an unequal freeze) when his caste is backward precisely because of the caste system, and will continue to remain backward even after the upper castes proclaim a casteless society. 2. I don't believe that the choice in India is between a Utopian meritocracy on the one hand, and C.B.R. based national mediocrity on the other hand. There is a great deal of mediocrity in India (which is why we are a poor country) and a lot of it can be attributed to the caste system (not C.B.Rs!) in which there is wholesale and vicious oppression of the human spirit and no cross-fertilization of ideas between the various castes. I stated clearly that it should be possible to have an honest C.B.R. system whereby quality of training is not compromised. The current C.B.Rs are considered to be handouts both by the upper and backward castes. They are, and should be treated as, challenges and opportunities to excel (Gospel of Reagan? Like all platitudes, it happens to be trivially true.). Removal of C.B.Rs doesn't guarantee an end to mediocrity; C.B.Rs are (if at all) not necessarily the only source of mediocrity. 3. As a group of mostly upper caste Hindus, the people on the net have been generally expressing attitudes and ideas that typify their less restrained brethren (and sistren?) back home, who'd rather say it with kerosene. We tend to stereotype the BCs (There is nothing I can add to Rajeev's excellent encapsulation of the concept of stereotyping); we fail to see the issue from their viewpoint; we take some arbitrary lofty "moral" position and smugly assume automatically that we (as upper caste persons) have the power to impose that view on the BCs. It rarely occurs to us that it is not enough to convince ourselves of the "rightness" of our moral position, it is in fact the aggrieved party in the matter (the BC person) who should be listened to, and it is in fact the upper caste person that needs to show some good faith. Incidentally, there is nothing hypothetical or theoretical about trying to place oneself in the other guy's shoes; if you find out how much they pinch, you might understand why the guy is jumping up and down. 4. Most of our so-called analysis of the C.B.R. issue seen here and elsewhere can be safely dismissed as pious self-justification on the part of the upper castes. Admittedly, ideas should be considered regardless of their origin, but in this particular case I believe that people's arguments tend to skirt the hard issues, precisely because of their motivations. If we share a genuine interest in the survival of India and her development into a strong and powerful nation, we should (as upper-caste middle-income Hindu men for the most part) take a hard look at our attitudes and exactly what it is we want our relationship with the poor, the lower caste, the Muslim, the Sikh and other Indian groups who seem to be saying that they have a problem. If we don't listen to the more reasonable elements of these communities and work things out in good faith, we will end up having to deal with (there's that name again) the Bhindranwales. As Malcolm X said to America about Dr. Martin Luther King: (Not an exact quote) "You have a choice: you deal with this brother today, or you'll have to deal with me tomorrow". Malcolm was a man of integrity who felt compelled to issue a warning; most radicals would rather see the moderate factions fail. --Bapa Rao.