Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!raghu
From: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: In defense of caste-based reservation
Message-ID: <1638@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 21:38:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.1638
Posted: Wed Apr 17 21:38:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 01:31:13 EST
References: <403@sftri.UUCP>
Reply-To: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 49
Summary: 

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.