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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!raghu
From: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: In defense of caste-based reservation (Loooong!)
Message-ID: <1802@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 00:49:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.1802
Posted: Fri May  3 00:49:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 08:29:48 EDT
References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP> <189@uscvax.UUCP> <1693@ut-sally.UUCP> <238@uscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 75

I think that most of the arguments for and against caste based reservations
have been made, and I don't wish to belabor the point. However, I think
a few comments on Bapa's articulate defense of caste based reservations
and en-passant pokes at Objectivism are in order!

>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

>    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. 

Criminal law operates by convicting an INDIVIDUAL of his transgressions
and by punishing him accordingly. I reject the concept of a Law which
judges a PEOPLE. Nazi war criminals can be tried. Not Germans.  

>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". 

I'll take Atlas every time. The 'noble, moral position' is by your definition
of morality (which involves my lugging the aforementioned cross!) - not mine.
(That grizzly-loving Russkie would have loved this!)

>>      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

None whatsoever. I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. What I meant
to say was that my references to incompetents were not intended to imply
that all backward class people were incompetents. I have no quarrels with
a system that selects those who have 'native ability' and helps them get
over educational disadvantages. I do object to caste being used as the
yardstick for measuring such disadvantages.

>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?

In reply to the hypothetical articulate BC person (who takes the above stand):
"If you think you have nothing to lose, and no stake at all in the stability
of India, go ahead, grab your arms deals. If you are holding back due to
concern over the good opinion of upper caste people, grab your arms deals.
But stop for a moment to consider if that is what you really want. The
collapse of a system hurts everyone. Maybe you should think of the 
alternatives available to you in saving your skin (along with, regrettably
perhaps, some uppercaste skins! :-))."


I have said all I have to say, at tedious length I'm afraid, and I promise
not to post any more articles on this issue! Anyway, I'm glad we were able
to bring out some of the many arguments on this issue. One last observation.
You've all seen the difficulty in arriving at some agreement, even in a
reasonable forum. This is a burning issue (cliche! cliche! But can't you
smell the kerosene?) in India, and guess who's got to resolve it?
Politicians. A sobering thought.