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: <425@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 22:12:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.425
Posted: Fri May  3 22:12:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 02:00:59 EDT
References: <403@sftri.UUCP> <1638@ut-sally.UUCP> <410@sftri.UUCP> <243@sbcs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 52

In response to sbcs!debray:

> While your humanitarian motives are laudable, I'm not sure that unalloyed
> humanitarianism is in the best interests of any country.  

Well, I guess it means something (I don't quite know what) when someone
disapproves of you for being a humanist. I don't know whether to be
honoured or insulted :-) (I guess I'll take it as an honour, Jerry 
Falwell's views on those "commie pinko secular humanists" notwithstanding.)

>							At some point,
> the effects of an action on the future well-being of the nation have to be
> taken into account.  

And what makes you believe that your views on what's good for the "well-
being of the nation" are the right ones?  Once we take that small step 
from "we do what is morally right" to "we do what is expedient",
totalitarianism, eugenics, genocide, etc. are no longer unthinkable.
It might make sense for a country plagued by overpopulation to impose
compulsory sterilization, but I'm sure you would disagree with that on
moral grounds, though it's good for the country in the long run.
Without morality in public affairs, we are no more than barbarians.

> People who support caste-based reservation usually cite "historical
> discrimination" as justification.  It seems strange that these same people
> are blind to the fact that caste-based reservation policies simply
> replace one policy of discrimination by another.  They seem to argue that,
> since one discrimination policy is bad, two of them will somehow neutralize
> each other.  This argument seems naive, at best ... and one need only look
> at Gujarat and elsewhere for confirmation.
> 

Au contraire, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" I want to avoid creating a
Beirut in my backyard. How long do you think an increasingly aware and
increasingly angry population of the lower castes will tolerate the 
humiliations and injustices heaped on them? The almost daily lynchings
of Harijans, the rapes of Adivasis... ? I concur with uscvax!baparao's
view that a just and peaceful coexistence of all castes is the only way
to avoid disaster. I think it is myopic wishful thinking on the part of
the privileged that they can preserve the status quo and hide their heads
in the sand.

> I have no quarrel with a Harijan doctor if the guy knows what he's doing,
> and I won't go near a Brahmin doctor who doesn't know his stuff.  The only

I applaud your fair-mindedness. But you err in assuming that this attitude
is popular among the large majority of the Indian population.
There is no dearth of bigots in our midst.
-- 
...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev   -- usenet
ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY   -- arpanet
Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, ATT Info. Sys., Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.