Polite Indian

There is a discussion at The Other India that I have been a part of and some interesting points stand out from the whole discussion.

I wish to ponder about one point made by suresh about losing your identity based on caste. While I agree that it is nobody’s business to tell anybody how to identify himself or even how not to identify themselves, A few questions then arise in my mind…

1. What are the reasons that we tend to identify ourselves with our caste?
2. What good possibly comes out for a “lower” caste person to identify himself with his caste?
3. Why would a person from an “Upper” caste not identify himself with his caste?
4. Is it our religious beliefs that make us so tied to our caste?

These are the questions that I think if answered will help us understand better if abolishing caste by a legislation makes any sense at all.

What are the reasons that we tend to identify ourselves with our caste?

The first and foremost reason is that caste is something that we inherit and what we inherit is something we have to live with. We don’t question that and we grow up with that identity since childhood. Historically people with different castes have had different life styles and have been following different food habits, customs and traditions. We grow up with these customs, traditions and life style as ours and some of these customs and rituals are unique to our caste. When we think of those customs they automatically get tied to the caste. We do not have to make any extra effort to identify with our caste, it just comes naturally to us.

Another reason is the in built-in social hierarchy in our caste-system. A brahmin being on the top of the hierarchy feels good about being a brahmin and wants to maintain his caste. A Shudra or a Dalit does not enjoy the same position but are made aware of their position in the social hierarchy by those holding the top positions. Such acts in the society reinforces the notion of caste on a daily basis. We being a part of the society cannot escape it.

What good possibly comes out for a “lower” caste person to identify himself with his caste?

Given the social handicaps that accompany a person from the lower caste, I cannot think of a single reason why someone from the lower caste will not be willing to shed off the caste identities.

In today’s world one reason could be to avail the facilities/benefits provided by the government to help elevate their economic status. I wouldn’t even consider this a reason but judging from the numerous cases of fake caste certificates, it can be seen that even people from the “upper castes” are willing to be identified as “lower caste”. This I think is a trend more in urban and semi urban areas.

Why would a person from an “Upper” caste not identify himself with his caste?

Due to the social hierarchy, any upper caste person can easily harbor a false “superiority complex”. The brahmins enjoy the top position and they are treated with some respect no matter what their economic status is. This is more evident in the rural areas. Given this, why would the brahmins not want to identify themselves as brahmins? Why would they want to lose the social position that they have been enjoying for ages?

One reason as I mentioned before is the case of fake caste certificates that the upper caste would identify themself not with their own caste but with a lower caste. Such cases are observed only in the poorer segement of the upper caste.

The only reason why an upper caste will be willing to shed ther caste identity would be when the caste becomes irrelevant. Meaning there is niether a benefit nor a handicap for belonging to any particular caste. RealityCheck makes the same argument in one of his comments at a The Other India.

Is it our religious beliefs that make us so tied to our caste?
This question is an important one. If a caste identity is sanctified in the religion then people have every reason to identify with the caste.
Many authors have argued that the caste system is in built in hinduism and there are many others who do not think so. One such article written by M.V Nadkarni argues that the caste system is not intrinsic to hinduism. It is a long article and makes some compelling points.

On the other hand Ambedkar’s Annihilation Of Caste and Who were the shudras makes a case that the religious sanction to the caste system is provided by our religious texts. He even argues that it goes as far as the Rig Veda quoting verses from the Purusha Sukta.

I am in no position to comment which theory is correct but I wish Mr Nadkarni is correct because it would make it easier to abolish caste. If he is wrong then the abolishing caste amounts to a reform of the hindu religion which is a much tougher task.

Mr. Suraj Bhan had made some progress towards reforming the hindu religion. Below is an excerpt from this news article at dalits.org. His efforts indicate that the caste is so tied with the religion and he would have to take help from the shankaracharyas to Delete Dalit slur from scriptures

Delete “objectionable references” to Dalits from the scriptures if you want to intensify the fight against untouchability, says National Commission for Scheduled Castes chairman Suraj Bhan. Bhan claims he has the blessings of the Sankaracharya of Sringeri Mutt has for his demand and he will soon meet other Sankaracharyas to garner support for his cause. Addressing a press conference on Tuesday, Bhan said that references like dhol gan-war shudra pashu nari, sakal tadan keadhikari (drum, illiterate, Dalit, animal, women, all are fit only to be beaten) in Ramcharitmanas should not be allowed in print in a society with a Constitution giving equal rights to all. He said fresh edited versions of these scriptures should be brought out. Bhan said the Commission will hold conferences in all the states to “generate awakening” on the subject. In a bid to garner support for his endeavour, Bhan met the religious head of the Sringeri seat earlier last week. “He has agreed to support my cause and
asked me to speak to other Sankara-charyas on this issue and then a joint appeal can be made,” he said.

It can thus be seen that there are arguments to both sides but even though I would like to believe Mr Nadkarni there are evidences pointing to the contrary. He argues that the caste system is evident in the DharmaShastras and that the Dhrmashastras are just rule books and do not form a part of hinduism. This might be a very valid point but difficult to sell.

Caste-System in India is visible not only among Hindus but also Sikhs, Muslims and Christians as pointed out by this article at backwardpeople. If anybody has to think of abolishing caste, it is not only hinduism that would need reform but Indian version of Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Though it might be easier with other religions because the religious leaders of other religions blame hinduism for “polluting” their religion with the caste system.

Should we then identify ourvselves with our caste?

It is obvious that this is not an easy question. Even if one is not caste conscious there are many subtle things that makes one identify with his caste. We have seen that there is some impact of religion on the caste system as well. When the religion comes in picture, it is easy to lose sight of reason and blindly follow what it says.

However difficult it may seem, my personal view point is that we should not identify with our caste. The lower castes in my view do not want to identify with the caste anyway. So it mostly comes to the upper castes. We all should make a conscious effort to erase caste boundaries. If religious reform is needed, we should encourage every effort that aims for it. Any person or organisiation promoting the view that caste system is not intrinsic to hinduism should be encouraged with all the support. The Caste system, when branded as an evil and spoken as not being a part of hinduismin in the same breath is likely to get denounced by the religious leaders as well. Once it gets established that caste is not a part of religion the case to abolish caste might get easier.

I would also like to ponder on what would happen if we were to abolish the caste by a legislative action. But that for later…

The Kashmir problem in India is a very old problem and can be considered the cause of terrorism in India. Sujai Karampuri has written a series of posts about his solution to Kashmir. Here are his posts I II III and IV. He also reasons why the Indians have somehow silently turned towards supporting Israel against Hezbollah and against Muslims in general. He puts the blame on the Kashmir issue in his post titled I am on my way to hell.

While I may not agree with some of his views but the series makes an interesting read.

[Update : 12th Spt 2006]

Part V and Part VI are 2 more by Sujai in the series.

Nirali is suffering from a rare type of Acute Lymphoblast Leukemia and needs a marrow transplant to be treated.

She needs a bone marrow donation from a Indian/South Asian donor. Since Indians are a minority race in USA, in the national marrow registry, there aren’t as many Indians registered and as a result, the possibility of a match is much less for patients of Indian origin. There’s no organized marrow registry in India either that we can look for a match in.

Visit Nirali’s website to see how you can help.

I would request all of you to put this request on your websites/blogs so that maximum number of people find out about this.

This article came as a shocker to me. Didn’t know Nepal had the same evil caste system as India.

Some of the highlights of the article are:

1. Public Taps for so called ‘upper caste people’ throughout the village, Dalits forced to fetch drinking water from river
2. Dalit women trashed for touching a public tap
3. This is how so called ‘upper caste’ people seize land from helpless Dalits
4. Discrimination practiced in front of regional administration office
5. Dalit runs Republican Hotel

It is so sad to see Untouchability being practised in India and even in Nepal…When will this end?

A lot of emminent bloggers have blogged about the “myth of merit”. This attitude towards meritrocracy has emerged after the announcement of 27% reservations for OBCs in the “elite institutions” by HRD minister Arjun Singh.

The current criterion of merit has been ridiculed over and over to emphasize that “merit” as we see it is not good enough and hence if anybody not so “meritorious” gets admitted to the Institute,it will not in any way affect the quality of students produced from the Institutes. The IITs are a prime target for this kind of reasoning.

What I want to ask people ridiculing merit, is …

1. Is the current definition of “merit” resulting in the relative backwardness of the BC/OBCs?
2. If “merit” was measured using some standards other than those that are used today, would the BC/OBCs be better off than what they are today?
3. If we redifine”merit”, will that achieve a better representation of BC/OBCs in our Institutes?

The answer to all the above questions is No. No matter how you define merit, those classes that are not proportionately represented today, would not have been proportionately represented anyway. This is because it is not the definition of “merit” that is preventing them from becoming “meritorious”. It is the socio-sconomic condition that is preventing them to acquire the desired skills to be “meritorious”. The statement that Anybody given the right opportunity and circumstances can be come meritorious is very true. The whole idea behind reservations is to provide them the opportunity. Hence the idea that the current standards to measure merit are not good enough does not hold ground in the reservation debate.

So why are so many scholars/bloggers attacking the merit? I guess they are either doing so out of the urge to confuse the matters or they do not understand that there is no relationship between merit and the plight of the BC/OBCs.

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet” - William Shakespeare

This is true even in the case of merit.

Merit if defined by any other criterion would be as difficult to achieve by the socially and economically backward classes.

The above statement doesn’t undermine anybody’s intelligence but underlines the fact that if someones socio economic conditions are such that they cannot achieve “this Merit” then it would be as difficult to achieve “That merit” as well. Arguments similar to “Myth Of Merit” do not help the cause of BC/OBCs.
Reservations is about proportional representation and providing opportunity and not redefining merit.

I came accross this at Zoo Station. This is the letter of resignation from Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the member-convener of the National Knowledge Commission.

I write to resign as Member-Convener of the National Knowledge Commission. I believe the Commission’s mandate is extremely important, and I am deeply grateful that you gave me the opportunity to serve on it. But many of the recent announcements made by your government with respect to higher education lead me to the conclusion that my continuation on the commission will serve no useful purpose.

The Knowledge Commission was given an ambitious mandate to strengthen India’s knowledge potential at all levels. We had agreed that if all sections of Indian society were to participate in and make use of the knowledge economy, we would need a radical paradigm shift in the way we thought of the production, dissemination and use of knowledge. In some ways this paradigm shift would have to be at least as radical as the economic reforms you helped usher in more than a decade ago. The sense of intellectual excitement that the commission generated stemmed from the fact that it represented an opportunity to think boldly, honestly and with an eye to posterity. But the government’s recent decision (announced by Honorable Minister of Human Resource Development on the floor of Parliament) to extend quotas for OBCs in central institutions, the palliative measures the government is contemplating to defuse the resulting agitation, and the process employed to arrive at these measures are steps in the wrong direction. They violate four cardinal principles that institutions in a knowledge based society will have to follow: they are not based on assessment of effectiveness, they are incompatible with the freedom and diversity of institutions, they more thoroughly politicise the education process, and they inject an insidious poison that will harm the nation’s long-term interest.

These measures will not achieve social justice. I am as committed as anyone to two propositions. Every student must be enabled to realise his/her full potential regardless of financial or social circumstances. Achieving this aim requires radical forms of affirmative action. But the numerically mandated quotas your government is proposing are deeply disappointing, for the following reasons. First, these measures foreclose any possibility of more intelligent targeting that any sensible programme should require. For one thing, the historical claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the nature of the deprivations they face are qualitatively of a different order than those faced by Other Backward Castes, at least in North India. It is plainly disingenuous to lump them together in the same narrative of social injustice and assume that the same instruments should apply to both. It is for this reason that I advocated status quo for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes until such time as better and more effective measures can be found to achieve affirmative action for them.

Some have proposed the inclusion of economic criterion: this is something of an improvement, but does not go far enough. What we needed, Honorable Prime Minister, was space to design more effective mechanisms of targeting groups that need to be targeted for affirmative action. For instance, there are a couple of well-designed deprivation indexes that do a much better job of targeting the relevant social deprivations and picking out merit. The government’s action is disappointing, because you have prematurely foreclosed these possibilities. In foreclosing these possibilities the government has revealed that it cares about tokenism more than social justice. It has sent the signal that there is no room for thinking about social justice in a new paradigm.

As a society we focus on reservations largely because it is a way of avoiding doing the things that really create access. Increasing the supply of good quality institutions at all levels (not to be confused with numerical increases), more robust scholarship and support programmes will go much further than numerically mandated quotas. When you assumed office, you had sketched out a vision of combining economic reform with social justice. Increased public investment is going to be central to creating access opportunities. It would be presumptuous for me to suggest where this increased public investment is going to come from, but there are ample possibilities: for instance, earmarking proceeds from genuine disinvestment for education will do far more for access than quotas. We are not doing enough to genuinely empower marginalised groups, but are offering condescending palliatives like quotas as substitute. All the measures currently under discussion are to defuse the agitation, not to lay the foundations for a vibrant education system. If I may borrow a phrase of Tom Paine’s, we pity the plumage, but forget the dying bird.

Second, the measures your government is contemplating violate the diversity principle. Why should all institutions in a country the size of India adopt the same admissions quotas? Is there no room at all for different institutions experimenting with different kinds of affirmative action policies that are most appropriate for their pedagogical mission? How will institutions feel empowered? How will creativity in social justice programmes be fostered, if we continue with a “one size fits all” approach? Could it not be that some state institutions follow numerically mandated quotas, while others are left free to devise their own programmes? The government’s announcement is deeply disappointing because it reinforces the cardinal weakness of the Indian system: all institutions have to be reduced to the same level.

Third, and related to diversity, is the question of freedom. As an academic I find it to be an appalling spectacle when a group of ministers is empowered to come up with admissions policies, seat formulas for institutions across the country. While institutions have responsibilities and are accountable to society, how will they ever achieve excellence and autonomy if basic decisions like who they should teach, what they should teach, how much they should charge are uniformly mandated by government diktat? As you know, more than anyone else, the bane of our education institutions is that politicians feel free to hoist any purpose they wish upon them: their favourite ideology, their preferred conception of social justice, their idea of representativeness, or their own men and women. Everything else germane to a healthy academic life and effective pedagogy becomes subordinate to these purposes. Concerned academics risked a good deal, battling the previous government’s instrumental use of educational institutions for ideological purposes. Though your objectives are different, your government is sending a similar message about our institutions: in the final analysis, they are playthings for politicians to mess around with. Nations are not built by specific programmes, they are built by healthy institutions, and the process by which your government is arriving at its decisions suggests contempt for the autonomy and integrity of academic life. Your government has reinforced the very paradigm of the state’s relations with educational institutions that has weakened us.

In this process, the arguments that have been coming from your government are plainly disingenuous. It is true that a constitutional amendment was hastily passed to overturn the effects of the Inamdar decision. At the time I had written that the decision was property rights decision that was trying to unshackle private institutions from an overbearing state. But since the state had already displaced its responsibilities to the private sector it decided that the ramifications of Inamdar would be too onerous and passed a constitutional amendment. One can quibble over whether this amendment was justified or not. But even in its present form it is only an enabling legislation. It does not require that every public institution has numerically mandated quotas for OBCs. To hear your government consistently hiding behind the pretext of the constitutional amendment is yet another example of how we are foreclosing the fine distinctions that any rigorous approach to access and excellence requires.

Finally, I believe that the proposed measures will harm the nation’s vital interests. It is often said that caste is a reality in India. I could not agree more. But your government is in the process of making caste the only reality in India. Instead of finding imaginative solutions to allow us to transcend our own despicable history of inequity, your government is ensuring that we remain entrapped in the caste paradigm. Except that now by talking of OBCs and SC/STs in the same narrative we are licensing new forms of inequity and arbitrariness.

The Knowledge Economy of the twenty-first century will require participation of all sections of society. When we deprive any single child, of any caste, of relevant opportunities, we mutilate ourselves as a society and diminish our own possibilities. But, as you understand more than most, globalisation requires us to think of old objectives in new paradigms: the market and competition for talent is global, institutions need to be more agile and nimble, and there has to be creativity and diversity of institutional forms if a society is to position itself to take advantage the Knowledge Economy. I believe that the measures your government is proposing will inhibit achieving both social justice and economic well-being.

I write this letter with a great deal of regret. In my colleagues on the Knowledge Commission you will find a group that is unrivalled in its dedication, commitment and creativity, and I hope you will back them in full measure so that they can accomplish their mission in other areas. I assure you that the commission’s functioning will suffer no logistical harm on account of my departure.

I recognise that in a democracy one has to respectfully accede to the decisions of elected representatives. But I also believe that democracies are ill-served if individuals do not frankly and publicly point out the perils that certain decisions may pose for posterity. I owe it to public reason to make my reasons for resigning public. I may be wrong in my judgment about the consequences of your government’s decisions, but at this juncture I cannot help concluding that what your government is proposing poses grave dangers for India as a nation. On this occasion I cannot help thinking about the anxieties of a man who knew a thing or two about constitutional values, who was more rooted in politics than any of us can hope to be, and who understood the distinction between statesmanship and mere politics: Jawaharlal Nehru. He wrote, “So these external props, as I may call them, the reservations of seats and the rest, may possibly be helpful occasionally, but they produce a false sense of political relation, a false sense of strength, and, ultimately therefore, they are not so nearly important as real educational, cultural and economic advance which gives them inner strength to face any difficulty or opponent.” Since your government continues to abet a politics of illusion, I cannot serve any useful purpose by continuing on the Knowledge Commission under such circumstances.

With warmest personal regards.

pratapbmehta@yahoo.co.in

Whatever points have been raised in the letter are so genuine that they cannot be ignored. I wish some wise guy breaks through the shackles of populist politics and looks at the real issue of social injustice. We need more voices like Pratab Mehta to get the message accross

There are lot of people out there screaming to implement the creamy layer for the proposed quota bill. What that means that the OBCs belonging to creamy layer should not be considered eligible for quota benefits.
There are an equal number of people who claim that the creamy layer criteria should not be implemented. In fact it has been argued that excluding creamy layer will in fact “dilute” the quota bill. Their another argument is that the GC(General Category) candidates do not want the benefits to be extended to OBC candidates and hence they harp about the creamy layer argument.

Let us really examine this with some numbers and see who benefits and how.

The Current Situation Without Reservations.
As of now out of 100 seats 22 are for SC/ST and igonring other quotas, there 78 seats for the GC which includes the OBCs. This means GCs and OBCs will together compete for 78 seats.

Now Let us consider two cases, one with the creamy layer exclusion and one without the creamy layer exclusion.
I will make one assumption here that even without reservations there are at least 27% OBCs getting admitted in Educational Institutes and that most of them will fall into the creamy layer.

Case 1: Creamy Layer Not Included In The Quota Bill
Let us assume there are 100 seats and 22 are there for SC/ST and 27 for OBCs. That leaves 51 seats for the GC.
Now look at the 27 OBCs who were going to get admission anyway even without quota.

1. If all these were from creamy layer then they will compete with the GC for 51 seats meaning now extra 27% students compete for 51 seats. This will hurt the GC more but will be in line with the philosophy of quota that a lot of other OBCs get admission to educational institutes which would have been neglected otherwise.
2. If all these are from non creamy layer then the ratio of the students will be the same as before. Then what will be the benefit? The benefit will be to the OBC students so that they might be able to choose better discipline e.g. he could now get “Computer Engineering” instead of “Civil Engineering” if there was no quota. This may hurt the GC candidates a bit in a way that even though they make it to the desired institution, they might not get their desired field of study.
3. The actual situation might be in between the two cases mentioned above.

Case 2: Creamy Layer Included In the Quota Bill:
Taking the same case of 100 seats let us see what happens now.
Loot at the 27 OBCs

1. The 27 OBCs that were getting admitted will still get admitted but the difference will be that they will now be able to take better field of study in the same institution. This may hurt the GC candidate in a way that he might not get his desired field of study.
2. These 27 OBCs would have gotten admitted anyway. Quota or no Quota. The only thing quota helped them achieve is to get better field of study. This system will not benefit any new OBCs or would not achieve the desired goal of admitting OBC students who would not have gotten admission otherwise.

If you compare the two cases, you will see that the first case hurts the GC candidate’s chances more than case 2 but most of the GC are still fighting to get Case 1 implemented because that will help attain the desired goal of providing more representation to the under privilged.

Now you can decide who is asking for the right thing. The OBCs asking for case 2 in my view are being selfish because they don’t want the truly underprivileged OBCs to be represented well in the educational institution.

If you do not agree on my assumption that at least 27% OBCs are already getting admitted to educational institutions. If that is an incorrect assumption then the quota for OBC will help the underprivilged as it is designed to.