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: <1693@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 23:04:29 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.1693 Posted: Tue Apr 23 23:04:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 04:30:47 EST References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP> <189@uscvax.UUCP> Reply-To: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 118 Summary: 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.