Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!baparao
From: baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: In defense of caste-based reservation (Loooong!)
Message-ID: <238@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 19:25:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.238
Posted: Sat Apr 27 19:25:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 03:08:12 EDT
References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP> <189@uscvax.UUCP> <1693@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 179

>   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 would point out that these two "points of view" you mention are
   certainly not antithetical.


>   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

It was never clear to my dull mind where the moral code that "two wrongs
don't make a right" originated, or why we seem to be so cavalier about
unthinkingly using that tantalizing phrase to buttress our arguments. After
all, the Mosaic law, one of the early formal codes of morality that is the
basis of most Western and Indian criminal jurisprudence, calls for "an eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Most of the criminal law around the
world is based on the concepts of retribution and restitution, (in case you
were going to bring it up, rehabilitation is a newfangled Western liberal
notion, that had a brief run, now discredited by popular mandate here in the
U.S.) both of which certainly "wrong" the criminal. So, unless you are
prepared to hold that the entire system of world jurisprudence is morally
bankrupt, (in which case I would question the meaningfulness of your
"morality" that does not exist in practice except perhaps on Mars :-)) the
notion that "two wrongs *do* make a right" should be *at least* considered as
an alternate moral position. 

As for bearing crosses for one's forefathers, consider the fact that in
India, a son is *morally* obligated to pay his father's debts (which fact is
behind a number of cases of hereditary bonded labor in India) which means
that one is faced with the uncomfortable choice of taking up a noble, moral
position and assuming responsibility for the crimes of one's forbears, or to
shrug it all off like your pal Atlas, and proclaim "the virtue of
selfishness". 

You see, taking an upright moral position is a neat little debating trick,
but it does have its drawbacks. You simply can't reel off a list of things
that you will live by, and arbitrarily slap the label of "morality" on the
whole shebang. Another problem is that you can't take a "moral" stance and
in the same paragraph, cite some views that a lot of reasonable people would
regard as immoral, to support your moral stance. (This may come as a rude
shock, but the grovelling hoi polloi are also allowed to have views on
morality and some of them have been called reasonable, and not just by me!
:-)) Of course, I could be hopelessly wrong in all this, having failed to
take note of the fact that Science had at last tamed Morality to be the
handmaiden of the Objectivists, in which case, my mediocre apologies.  :-) 


>      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!))

   Surely we can argue about national affairs without help from the
   sociopathic views of some Russian sourpuss, who writes like she 
   has just had an unhappy love affair with a grizzly! (Oh, dear, I did
   it, didn't I! I suppose all you Objectivists will be on my tail now! :-) )

But seriously, if we concede (just for the sake of argument, Raghu :-)) that
moral considerations require some form of restitution to be made to the
specific castes that been the victims of caste-based crimes in the previous
generations then the question is where do these victims go for restitution?
One solution is to dispatch the whole bloody lot of them from our guiltless
sight to the presence of our forefathers who had wronged them and let them
file compensation claims in God's court, (or the other guy's, I can't be
sure where *my* forebears are! :-)) thus obtaining a rather interesting
Final Solution to the whole thing! (Oops, there I go again, Mr. President,
after having promised to be serious! :-)) Another is to simply pay up from
the estates of the criminals (not an untenable legal position), that is to
say, our own sweet little bunch of privileges!

>    . 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

Excuse me, but if the "native ability" just might be there, then what is the
problem with picking out a bunch of depressed caste people with native
ability and giving them the proper training to be doctors or whatever? If
"native ability" is not a criterion of merit, then what exactly is this
"merit"? Is it like the kind of thing you get by dunking yourself in the
Ganga a prescribed number of times? :-) This whole argument about
reservations, by their very nature, encouraging mediocrity is specious. The
fact is, huge chunks of the Indian education system are geared towards
mediocrity, and against merit, period. If there is the needed amount of
political will, I hold that it is eminently feasible to design a system of
caste-based reservations for college admissions which strict maintain
minimum standards for admission (e.g., must possess a given amount of
"native ability"), and for graduation, and in between afford all possible
help to overcome their educational disadvantages.


> 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.

As I noted above, your "social" scheme and my "reservation" scheme are not
mutually exclusive.

> Are we really naive enough to believe that we can wish away caste distinctions
> by introducing some more?
> 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.

>   ... We all know the present situation: a large majority
>   of Hindus are from the backward castes, a large majority of Indians,


OK, the whole crux of the argument seems to be that caste-based reservations
only serve to divide society, not unite it. 

Talking about "bridging caste differences", I seem to notice that all the
anti-reservation postings on the net tacitly assume that caste-based
reservations are something to be "given" to the depressed castes out of
misguided a sense of humanitarianism (Mr. Debray in article # 353, I believe
it was) or out of guilt or on a moral basis or whatever. Really, now! Has
anyone asked the more articulate among the deperessed castes whether they
agree with this assumption of charity on the part of the upper castes? I
know I haven't, but I do know, if I were that spokesman, I might
(conceivably) feel in the following  way:

" My community is getting only a small portion of what is rightfully its share
of restitution for the wrongs it has suffered, and I would feel perfectly
justified in keeping the caste issue alive and pursuing whatever means are
necessary to ensure full restitution, upper-caste sentiment in favor of
instant amnesia on the caste question notwithstanding. After all, we (the
depressed castes) are in the majority, and we have little or nothing to
lose, and absolutely no stake at all in the stability of a system that has
been so inhumane to us. The upper castes, on the other hand, are a numerical
minority, and have everything to lose, and a desparate stake in national
stability. I believe that I can get in touch with some of those of foreign
fellers who mentioned something about "liberation" and "arms deals" or
whatever.  I think I'll let them chew on this argument in favor of
reservations for a while... Pernicious and dastardly? Blackmail? Maybe, but
when did I ever get a kind word from upper-caste people to worry about their
good opinion now?

I wasn't there, but I would suspect that it was probably a sophisticated
version of this position taken by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly
that led to the institution of reservations in the first place. The whole
point is that we might, in good faith, be prepared to forget the caste
issue, and let bygones be bygones, but the victims of that system might not
be so willing. Our protestations of personal innocence will not wash with an
angry victim who has no one else to direct his anger against except the
heirs of those that brought about his plight. If we think that caste-based
reservations deepen caste differences, consider what would happen in their
absence. All it takes is ONE militant, charismatic, and unscrupulous leader
(dare I say it, a Dalit Bhindranwale) to emerge among them, and we'll be
reminded of the caste issue every day, in blood. We could, of course,
declare a national emergency, martial law, and shoot the *@# s. Granting
that oppressive measures against a majority are indeed feasible, we might
want to question whether that is the shape we want our nation to take.