PDA

View Full Version : Plight of upper-castes



hesh86
23 June 2012, 09:55 PM
Perhaps some of you have already seen this video and the other links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKG8yx3qmIQ
http://www.instablogs.com/entry/why-have-the-brahmins-become-a-miserable-lot-in-modern-india/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119889387595256961.html

With all of this happening, how can anyone possibly say that reservations for OBCs/SCs/STs alone is affirmative action? I come from an upper-caste family that was once poor and this is not even the tip of the iceberg actually.

The comments on the video show that Dalits have wanted revenge and not equal opportunity all along. The cat is out of the bag.

I don't want to offend anyone, but this is really wrong.

Believer
23 June 2012, 10:12 PM
Namaste,

Sad to see this!

Pranam.

Equinox
24 June 2012, 01:20 AM
Vannakkam,

This is something I never understood. If all castes are supposed to be "equal" in today's world, why are Brahmins discriminated?

If caste shouldn't exist, why reserve jobs and college seats for the "lower" castes, to the extent of excluding more deserving people just because they come from an "upper" caste?

Shouldn't it be based on the merit of the individual student determined by examination, rather than their caste?

What's weirder is that you even have to indicate your caste in applications? How disgusting!

Intelligence and IQ depends solely on the individual and not his family or caste or the way he was brought-up. It doesn't mean that if you come from an "upper" caste you're automatically smart, and the opposite if you come from a "lower" caste. How weird. And that's now an excuse for reservations for the "lower" castes? Everyone goes through the same amount of studies for the same number of years, whether they're Brahmins or Dalits.

Why can't the government make everyone sit for some good old-fashioned exams and then determine who deserves what instead of having reservations based on caste. It's something like racial discrimination. If we are so hell-bent on promoting equality, why discriminate in the first place? Everyone deserves an equal chance. In other words, to alleviate the sufferings of a certain community, why discriminate and add to the sufferings of another?

Call it revenge, but how is this fair? I'm just curious.

And another thing is that, this falls in place with Kali Yuga, don't you think?
It says that the "Shudra Varna" rules in this era. How accurate!

Shuddhasattva
24 June 2012, 01:39 AM
Although the following is in the context of the American affirmative action debate, I believe it has great bearing here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uH0vpGZJCo

For the record, I'm not supporting affirmative action per se, but I feel it's a complex and nuanced debate with many good points on both sides. I've not solidified my opinion yet. I'd like to see an end of affirmative action and any type of continuing discrimination, and some more effective means of true equality, but as that effective means is a political pipe dream given the current reality of politics, perhaps affirmative action is the best we can do right now.

Can anyone cite statistics on the % of upper castes vs scheduled castes in high-paying, or high-influence jobs? I think we will find that upper castes still enjoy a de facto affirmative action in many ways.

Actually I have seen myself working in India ad-hoc caste relations imposed within the hierarchy of the companies, where expectations of appointments and promotions, often drawn along social networking lines, carry with them strongly the burden of caste. I'm sure this is not universally representative at all, nonetheless it has been personally observed.

From the WSJ article:


Corrections & Amplifications:
The percentage of Brahmin households in India that earned less than $100 a month was about 50% in 2007 and 65% in 2004, according to the Center for the Study of Developing Societies. This article fails to note that the study mentioned in the article was from 2007, while the statistics in the accompanying chart were from 2004.
This is compared to 74% of "Others," 86% of Muslims, 89% for Scheduled Tribes, 91% for scheduled castes, 74% for other upper castes, and 74% for other backward castes (as of 2004.)

The other article is written by a brahmin (not that this alone would disqualify the opinion, but the self-interest is glaringly obvious as it shines through in the writing), whining unconvincingly (to me) about brahmins, and spewing thinly veiled sexism in the same breadth, while dismissing the historical fact of oppression and its social costs, and mouthing prettily about how it's worse to "polarize society" over these issues by addressing them than to allow their continuation.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

Namaste

wundermonk
24 June 2012, 02:25 AM
We all know that reservations in India are not about helping the needy - it is all about votebank. The people actually benefitting from reservations are the "creamy-layer", i.e., rich and well-off amongst the OBCs.

If reservation has historically helped the needy, one would imagine that over time, the categories classified as backward reduce in number. Has any "community" that was erstwhile classified as backward benefitted from reservation so that they are no longer in the backward category?

If yes, that would mean that reservation as a public policy works.

If no, i.e., no community has been a part of the reserved category and then had its name taken off the list, then reservation is a colossal failure.

hesh86
24 June 2012, 01:37 PM
<i> This is compared to 74&#37; of "Others," 86% of Muslims, 89% for Scheduled Tribes, 91% for scheduled castes, 74% for other upper castes, and 74% for other backward castes (as of 2004.) </i>

Consider that the value being told is that of the US dollar. The value of the USD fell from around 46 in 2004 to 39 in 2007!
http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&rlz=1I7ADFA_en&q=CURRENCY:USDINR&sa=X&ei=nlznT5n4FMqJ6AGyoszhDg&ved=0CGUQ5QYwAA
Automatically that ~15% drop in the value of the dollar on it own must have brought down the number of people who make less than $100/month. That is why it is meaningless to say that the number of Brahmins making less than $100/month decreased from 2004 to 2007. It tells us nothing.

<i>The other article is written by a brahmin (not that this alone would disqualify the opinion, but the self-interest is glaringly obvious as it shines through in the writing), whining unconvincingly (to me) about brahmins, and spewing thinly veiled sexism in the same breadth, while dismissing the historical fact of oppression and its social costs, and mouthing prettily about how it's worse to "polarize society" over these issues by addressing them than to allow their continuation. </i>

This is not just about Brahmins. If 74% of other upper castes are also below this threshold (which is comparable to SCs/STs/OBCs) it shows that Indian wealth is not as polarised by caste as one thought.

Shuddhasattva
24 June 2012, 03:05 PM
Namaste

You raise an excellent point with the decline of the dollar. Let us look at the other side of the equation though: of lokh & rajya sabh members, how many are brahmins, etc.? Of leading party figures, how many are brahmins, etc.? Of the socioeconomic elite, how many are brahmins, etc.?

Would you say it'd be a better idea to implement "reverse discrimination" policies based solely on level of income rather than any caste considerations? As wundermonk points out, himself raising excellent points, that just might break the vote bank - and thus not be a political reality.

Namaste

hesh86
24 June 2012, 03:29 PM
Namaste

You raise an excellent point with the decline of the dollar. Let us look at the other side of the equation though: of lokh & rajya sabh members, how many are brahmins, etc.? Of leading party figures, how many are brahmins, etc.? Of the socioeconomic elite, how many are brahmins, etc.?



Good question. The answer is not many.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234783

As for your and wundermonk's points, here is the truth. The OBCs/SCs/STs are increasing in number, not decreasing.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-09-01/india/27954417_1_obc-population-nsso-survey-scs-and-sts
What's more is that this statistic is significantly lower than what the Mandal Commission had reported in order to justify 27&#37; OBC reservations. As far as I know castes which fall under the 'reserved' category have not been removed, but several have been added.

sanjaya
25 June 2012, 01:23 AM
Well before I view the videos, I can guess what they're getting at. And I agree that the the concept of quotas for the so-called scheduled castes is not healthy. Few can deny that the lower castes have experienced great discrimination in previous times (whether or not the British are the cause is irrelevant to this discussion). The question is: how does one bring them out of economic disadvantage?

If it's an economic problem, then the solution should be economic, not caste based. As you said, there are many poor Brahmins in India, and they don't have an easy time either. I've seen the analogous effects of this in the American version of the quota system, namely affirmative action. When my brother was applying to medical schools (typical Indian-American), he had excellent credentials. With a perfect 4.0, an MCAT score greater than 99.2 %-ile, and plenty of volunteerism and research, he should have gotten into any school of his choice. Thank God he got in somewhere, but he only got accepted to a few average schools. A black student, on the other hand, could walk right into Yale with far worse credentials.

Now what's wrong with this? Well, I don't believe that I should judge others on their race, so all things being equal I would go to a doctor of any race. But now that I know that black students get into better medical schools and residencies with sub-standard scores, I don't think I'd ever actively choose a black doctor. In other words, the very system of quotes/affirmative action creates a legitimate caste or race bias. As another example, take my field of astrophysics. Science tends to be a meritocracy, and people are judged and rewarded based on their skills and results rather than their nationality. But say I were a professor in the US looking for a new postdoc. Given what I know about the quota system in India, I'd be tempted not to hire a low-caste graduate of IIT, since I know that the system gives preference to low castes.

I'm all for mending the divisions that caste has caused among Hindus. But creating a system where legitimate reason exists for caste-based discrimination is not the way to go about it. By all means give scholarships to the lower castes. But make them adhere to the same standards as everyone else when entering the academic system, and don't let them in just to fill a quota. Elsewise we are creating a system in which discrimination has a legitimate defense.