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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!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: <411@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 09:28:24 EST
Article-I.D.: sftri.411
Posted: Sat Apr 20 09:28:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 05:38:26 EST
References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP> <1672@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 58

>				.. 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.