Reservation for Jats

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#31

Ambedkar IMO is one of the best, and one of the most underrated, things to have happened to India. This was one man who swam against the tides all his life. He exposed Gandhi's and most mainstream politician's hypocrisy on the subjects of caste and women. People like Gandhi claimed to respect all castes but also believed that social harmony can come only when people are content with working within the limits of their caste assigned duty. For the sake of political correctness and not antagonizing orthodox supporters none of the popular leaders ever dared to denounce caste. Ambedkar was the first person who attacked the roots of social inequality rather than gently sniffing at its symptoms.

In the early 50s when our laws were being framed the Hindutva groups came up with their own marriage bills that would have done away with woman's right to divorce, remarriage and property and even given man the right to marry more than once if his first wife was incapable of conceiving a son, in lieu with the Hindu Shastric laws. Some were even speaking of decriminalizing Sati. It was Ambedkar's unyielding perseverance that brought about the Hindu code bills, that for the first time in India gave women equal rights and human dignity. This was nothing but the most farsighted, broad and revolutionary law for a country like India.

Edited by Rehanism - 11 years ago

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#32

Do we still need to go on increasing the resrvation? maharashtra govt recently okayed 16% foe marathas and 5% rservation for muslims. How long do these continue? They say it is to be for 5 years but we all know that no political party will commit harakiri by abolishing it once implemented. Does that bode good for the country? Is that the only way to ensure justice for the people?

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: zorrro
Do we still need to go on increasing the resrvation? maharashtra govt recently okayed 16% foe marathas and 5% rservation for muslims. How long do these continue? They say it is to be for 5 years but we all know that no political party will commit harakiri by abolishing it once implemented. Does that bode good for the country? Is that the only way to ensure justice for the people?

I am not a social scientist so I cannot comment on what percentage of quota is appropriate. But I believe reservation should be considered for two groups:

Traditionally marginalized and socially disadvantaged groups - dalits, tribals, OBCs and women.
Minorities who may suffer biases in education and employment opportunities - they may have been rulers in past, eg Muslims or Christians, but are presently seen with suspicion and suffer practical insecurities as a consequence of post-partition bitterness, sectarian divides or nationalism.

I don't know how Marathas and Jats fall in any of the above categories. AFAIK both of them are politically and socially empowered and have traditionally commanded quite a bit of respect and authority. I think judiciary should have a greater say on proper use/abuse of reservation and should intervene if quotas are granted merely as political lollypops.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: Rehanism

I can't tell whether you only pick those debates that have tremendous emotional appeal or if you are always trying desperately to tug at the heartstrings every time you post. Can we have at least one debate, unemotionally, where it doesn't look like we are crying all over the place?

Take the picture that you posted. One look at the picture and it becomes obvious that the barricade is what is obstructing the shorter people from watching he game. Now metaphorically speaking, if caste is the barricade, how is artificially propping up one or two kids a logical solution? Why not get rid of the barricade as a permanent solution? Why not aim to abolish the caste system altogether?

So you say people are being discriminated even today. Why not criminalize such discrimination? How is introducing a new discrimination going to nullify the discrimination that came before it?

There is no way you can continue with the "prop" system that you proposed in the picture. for the simple reason, the criteria for "short" is never established.

Caste is a poorly defined concept to begin with. It's best to do away with it now rather than continue promoting it in some shape or form. How do you do that? Now, that could be a good debate.

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I can't tell whether you only pick those debates that have tremendous emotional appeal or if you are always trying desperately to tug at the heartstrings every time you post. Can we have at least one debate, unemotionally, where it doesn't look like we are crying all over the place?

Take the picture that you posted. One look at the picture and it becomes obvious that the barricade is what is obstructing the shorter people from watching he game. Now metaphorically speaking, if caste is the barricade, how is artificially propping up one or two kids a logical solution? Why not get rid of the barricade as a permanent solution? Why not aim to abolish the caste system altogether?

So you say people are being discriminated even today. Why not criminalize such discrimination? How is introducing a new discrimination going to nullify the discrimination that came before it?

There is no way you can continue with the "prop" system that you proposed in the picture. for the simple reason, the criteria for "short" is never established.

Caste is a poorly defined concept to begin with. It's best to do away with it now rather than continue promoting it in some shape or form. How do you do that? Now, that could be a good debate.

Its your problem if you choose to live in a fantasy world of your own and sniff at reality.

Caste discrimination is already illegal on papers. But how exactly do you 'abolish' caste system from the society and minds of millions in a single blow? Wish it away? Or let me guess, find a Caste-gene and mutate it! Simpuull!..Writing a constitution or making a law is one thing and getting that idea realized in a country of 1 billion more diverse than any other is wholly different. If there were another way to get rid of caste system - a 3 millennia old belief that forms the edifice of Hindu society - don't you thing at least someone would have suggested it?

And in any case, reservation is hardly about punishing the upper castes or discriminating against them. Its the only feasible way of providing a psychological encouragement to the socially disadvantaged groups and pulling them up to ensure proportionate representation - the very thing caste system has traditionally hindered. That is the only way caste hierarchy can be diluted over time, and ofcourse there has to be stern action against casteist traditions without any regard for 'religious sentiments' and protection for intercaste marriages that are the greatest victims of honour crimes.

There's a reason why I have normally avoided all your posts. Because they prove that you don't have the faintest clue of how the real world works. Though I am sure you are sincere in your own place but in topics that involve society, morality, or anything less 'sciency' or more subtle and subjective - anything that requires a pragmatic understanding of society and cultures and less of technical jargon or mechanistic approach (precisely things that you deem 'vague' and 'vapid') - you serve the role of a troll. You go on scribbling over 20-30 pages with profound arrogance and without even understanding what the issue was to begin with. Please spare this topic at least!

Edited by Rehanism - 11 years ago

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#36

One good way of minimizing reverse discrimination is that of excluding the creamy layer, which is partly in place (for OBCs). The main problem with quota system is not the idea behind it but the way its implemented in the country - its politicization. That's why I believe the courts should have greater say is implementation/controlling reservations based on recommendations of non-partisan committees rather than allowing the legislature to wield all of the decisive powers. When that happens quotas become lollypops for wooing voters. Also many people forge documents, hiding their actual income, to continue to enjoy benefits of quota.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#37

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Caste discrimination is already illegal on papers. But how exactly do you 'abolish' caste system from the society and minds of millions in a single blow? Wish it away?

I proposed that we could have a debate on how to accomplish that. You probably missed that while hastily composing your passionate diatribe.

Or let me guess, find a Caste-gene and mutate it! Simpuull!..Writing a constitution or making a law is one thing and getting that idea realized in a country of 1 billion more diverse than any other is wholly different. If there were another way to get rid of caste system - a 3 millennia old belief that forms the edifice of Hindu society - don't you thing at least someone would have suggested it?

The first step is to understand what is a hate crime and what is not a hate crime. A "thought crime" is not a hate crime. We are not going to punish free speech. We are only going to punish those criminal acts which are motivated by bias against caste or ethnicity or language (or any other parameter that fits a hate crime).

And in any case, reservation is hardly about punishing the upper castes or discriminating against them. Its the only feasible way of providing a psychological encouragement to the socially disadvantaged groups and pulling them up to ensure proportionate representation - the very thing caste system has traditionally hindered. That is the only way caste hierarchy can be diluted over time, and ofcourse there has to be stern action against casteist traditions without any regard for 'religious sentiments' and protection for intercaste marriages that are the greatest victims of honour crimes.

Again, what is feasible and what is not feasible is a debate unto itself. Your statement that "upper castes" are not being punished or discriminated against, is merely an opinion.

There's a reason why I have normally avoided all your posts. Because they prove that you don't have the faintest clue of how the real world works. Though I am sure you are sincere in your own place but in topics that involve society, morality, or anything less 'sciency' or more subtle and subjective - anything that requires a pragmatic understanding of society and cultures and less of technical jargon or mechanistic approach (precisely things that you deem 'vague' and 'vapid') - you serve the role of a troll. You go on scribbling over 20-30 pages with profound arrogance and without even understanding what the issue was to begin with.

Just because a topic is "less sciency" doesn't mean it gives one the license to expatiate generalizations. To say that those who oppose reservations are those that " see things only from their narrow creamy-layered urban viewpoint" is a generalization. Just because a topic is subjective, doesn't give one the leeway to malign any/all groups with impunity. You seem perfectly at peace with your apparent hatred for Brahmins or Hindus but the moment you think a "lower caste" person is slighted, you are all up in arms. How is that not prejudiced?

Please spare this topic at least!

😊

If it is ludicrous, it will not go unchallenged.

P.S: Italics are only used for emphasis. The fact that you italicize everything you write suggests that you think every thing you say is highlight worthy. That to me is profound arrogance.

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Just because a topic is "less sciency" doesn't mean it gives one the license to expatiate generalizations. To say that those who oppose reservations are those that " see things only from their narrow creamy-layered urban viewpoint" is a generalization. Just because a topic is subjective, doesn't give one the leeway to malign any/all groups with impunity. You seem perfectly at peace with your apparent hatred for Brahmins or Hindus but the moment you think a "lower caste" person is slighted, you are all up in arms. How is that not prejudiced?

Most of the anti-reservation arguments are indeed made from a strictly urban point of view and by the urban or by the hardliner nationalists. Most of them don't even understand what reservation is for. Either they believe that its assumed lower caste people are invariably poor and upper castes are well off (that's why they suggest reservation should be for poor people) or because they think its a way of punishing the upper castes as some sort of poetic justice. Very few people actually understand the extent of marginalization and isolation certain communities face or the need for representation from the marginalized sections. I do not see too many informed people who oppose the very idea of reservation or dismiss its necessity; the only thing that's debatable is to whom and how much. Most of the social surveys and reports have continued to stress the importance of affirmative action. So it wasn't a crude generalization at all.

As for hatred for Brahmins, I was myself born a Brahmin and most of my family is Brahmin. Its not people but the ideas that are actually worthy of hatred. I defended Ambedkar not because of his caste but because of his struggle and contributions to our country being slighted.

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#39

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Your statement that "upper castes" are not being punished or discriminated against, is merely an opinion.

That is not the point. The point is what is the intended purpose of reservation!

No one denies that there will be some amount of reverse discrimination, misplacement of opportunities and waste of talent. I had already admitted that. But that trade off has to be made for the sake of bringing social equality. That's the difference between a socialist representative democracy and a Nazi state. The latter may employ social darwinism to sieve the best and fittest, but the former must take everyone with itself including the (social) handicaps, even if that slows down its over all progress.

The best we can do is to minimize that sort of discrimination through efficient filtering of the already uplifted creamy layer.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#40

I understand the need for a level playing field. I understand the need to compensate for past discriminatory practices. What I don't understand is quotas. Why not rely on the "good faith efforts" of schools and workplaces, just like the western world does (at least US as far as I know), to address underutilized, underrepresented groups of populations? And then set active, measurable goals to see if the schools and workplaces are indeed practicing what is a good faith effort? If they are not, taxing them or penalizing them might help? At least, you are not sowing further seeds of resentment between groups, with this approach?

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8

Reservation for Jats - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics