Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!rajeev
From: rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: In defense of caste-based reservation
Message-ID: <410@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 00:07:57 EST
Article-I.D.: sftri.410
Posted: Sat Apr 20 00:07:57 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 04:38:01 EST
References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 66


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.