100% agreed, I worked for a big 3 Letter Corp and heard manager speaking in his native language of the State (same as the company was located) to another member of team from same State, saying please work a little and i will promote you as a manager ,who will i do it for, if not for you. In the meantime, we were working our ass off and got nothing.

Its there for real, you can easily see it - If you join a multinational company and find a team with more than 50% of people are from same State - There is something going on. First thing that should be banned in india is attaching Caste as the Last Name.

I agree but people will still discriminate.

People think I am south indian even when speaking in northish accent. They make many implicit assumption based on how I behave, talk and look.

What is a "big 3 letter corp"? Haven't heard this phrase before.

I'd guess SAP or IBM.

IBM

IBM or TCS (Tata Consulting Services).

The reason I joined the private sector instead of the government sector, is that these issues are much much worse in the government sector. I was brainwashed to belive that merit will be valued in the private sector by the HR department and the managers. Which its not in the few places I have worked at.

I'm not even low-caste but still faced these issues.

My dad worked for the government for 30 years and he was not promoted even once until this year. this is not because he was not good at his work, the work is actually pretty simple and stupid, but because of affirmative action policies of all governments current and past, left or right.

One thing I've noticed with regards to discrimination at a couple I have worked is the treatment of mediocrity. At one American software shop I worked at early in my career I would see mediocre African American employees catch shit for being mediocre, but mediocre white people would not. So basically if you were not white you needed to be a stellar performer.

No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, and most of us are somewhere on the scale between great and crap. My partner and I joke about this concept of the mediocre white man, and how their workplace is dominated by these mediocre white men. Whereas if you're a woman, or if you're not white, you're not allowed to be mediocre. You gotta be great.

There are essentially two separate sets of measurements; one for white men and one for everyone else. And I notice this as a white man.

As a white man, that is also my perception.

Discrimination has outsize effect on mediocre people. Exceptionally good people will always be able to get far and exceptionally incompetent are likely to be poor.

The discrimination usually shows in lots of small decisions that each separately is very difficult to call discrimation but together amount to making your life more difficult.

Mediocre people don't get many chances to get ahead and they can slip up sometimes. Discrimination makes those few occasions to get ahead much less likely and pay much less and the occasions when they slip up much more unforgiving.

The writer Sarah Hagi is often quoted: "Lord, grant me the confidence of a mediocre white man".

Any discrimination and groupthink seems intensified in workplaces with (1) little reassignment, (2) long tenures, & (3) little external, objective performance feedback.

E.g. government and many portions of academia.

People who don't support it leave, and people who are ambivalent adopt the attitudes of their remaining colleagues.

I don't think that performance feedback or reassignment has necessarily anything to do with it. Would you like to be frequently reassigned at your job? I don't know many people who would.

Yes, all these things might create entrenched groups, but make working viable in many occupations in the first place. I would take the groupthink in that case too.

In a company that is successful and growing, with new teams and projects and offices, there will be more promotion opportunities per candidate - and fewer situations where they have several strong candidates and an almost-arbitrary choice to make between them.

If you're in a sector that isn't growing, or might even be shrinking, I imagine promotions are a lot more competitive...

Admittedly, 'reassignment' might not be the most precise term for this...

The issue is not lack of possible promotions. The issue is who the opportunities goes to. In a growing company, the friends, family and "one of us" will still be more likely to be get the good stuff.

I'm not saying it completely eliminates bias by any means, but I've worked at a company growing from 200 developers to 2,000 developers - and getting promoted for me has been a heck of a lot easier than my friends in fixed-size organisations.

When you need to find that many trusted, competent managers that quickly, you can't afford reject people on the basis of their surname :)

I left startup because it was like the worst experience I think I had regarding gender (I am woman). Not that they would be toxic out right as tech bro stereotype, they were not. Generally they were good people.

But the lack of process and inexperience basically amplified the bias. There too much guess work going into decisions, so they were primary based on pattern matching like things. People were making decisions on very little information and in ambiguity, which made all the assumptions matter more. Where while bigger company I am in now, while there are people who openly express sexist opinions, in general I think I am getting more equal results.

Mostly because once they are making the decision, it is more likely to be based on my actual track record rather then feelings. Not that it is perfect, but when it is unfair, it unfair in all kind of various ways toward everyone and it seems more random. More likely based on personality conflict or something of that sort.

I wasn't so much using it as a proxy term for growth, but rather as a direct description of work culture.

I've worked and consulted at a variety of companies. Of the ones that had an expectation that you do 1-2 year stints on teams, then rotate to different teams and challenges, I would describe ~100% as having a healthy workplace political culture.

Of the ones that did not have that expectation, and people typically stayed on a single team for 2 years+, I would describe ~25% as having a healthy workplace political culture.

My conclusion is that, more-so than anything else, cultivating and encouraging regular internal transfers produces healthier companies. (And that's not even broaching the documentation and repeatability benefits!)

It seems counter-intuitive, and I never would have guessed if I hadn't seen it again and again...

Another anecdote, my previous manager has one of those last names. He was hiring for a position and screening the resumes. He would send them to me for initial phone screen. After a while, I saw a pattern, all the candidates he chose to move forward with had same last names.

Hmm excuse my ignorance. But why couldn’t someone legally change their last name to one of these? Could they really tell what family, tribe, or caste you’re from by face? I suppose regional dialect can be noticed.

It's more about just the name. The best way to understand is to think of India is as similar to European Union with each caste as a country. At some point all the castes intermingled, but they have their own unique set of cultures to this day. So it's more about discrimination against other set of cultures. Loosing your last name at that point is like loosing your culture.

I guess this does not stop in Jobs but also in VC Funding . Most VCs/Seed funds are run by few upper caste Indians . They do have discrimination if you come from a backward caste . if you belong to the same caste , chances of getting a fund are more .

What is a "backward caste"? Haven't heard this term before

I have heard this term often but never gotten used to it being used to describe an entire ethnic group nonchallantly - like the comment you are replyig to. I have had several conversations with Indian colleagues where some would use this term to describe other non-privileged classes as "backward" so matter of factly. This is racism of the quintessential kind.

The use of the word "Backward" is racist and derogatory.

It's the official terminology: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class

It's not considered derogatory in India.

I know. It perpetuates the racism and derogatory attitudes.

That's the point of this whole thread.

I saw the same kind of discrimination in an Indian office I used to manage part of (that is to say, a fair number of the staff functionally reported to me but all the local management and HR decisions happened in India). It was interesting, though: the office was in Chennai and they essentially banned even interviewing anyone from outside Tamil Nadu, no matter how qualified. Perhaps someone from Andhra Pradesh or Kerala got in every now and then, but no one from farther afield.

I mentioned this before and got marked down for it. In the UK Caste was added a few years into the anti discrimination law.

I know one of the MP's involved in getting that through parliament.

Wasn't the bill not passed through the parliament due to opposition by British Hindus? [1] Or you talking about a separate law?

[1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-38663143

I am not sure I thought that Parmjit Danda, Keith Vaz and Lord Gupta had got it through.

Incidentally the person concerned in that article lives in my home town

I hope this nonsense can stop and talent can be rewarded regardless of caste.

> This was all very hush-hush, I know of it because I overheard them talking about it.

Of course it is. In India, there are some ridiculuous rules related to caste discrimination. For example someone from "lower" caste can sue a person for libel and have him thrown in jail with no FIR. Caste based discrimination is wrong. But arrest-before-FIR is worse and can destroy someone's life.

Do you know why such a law came into existence? Because of atrocities against "lower" castes which wouldn't even be investigated. But most laws in India end up being misused. (For example dowry harassment laws.)

None of this actually fixes anything. The core problem is poverty and lack of good education. If affirmative action was based on poverty instead of caste and wasn't in terms of hiring/reducing marks but giving out resources to those who lack it, it might have save more lives because currently more rich or upper middle class families benefit from the affirmative action.

10% of country owns approximately 80% of the wealth.

Majority is poor. You don't need to look at the caste.

Anti discrimination laws are important but if we keep focusing on caste, nothing will change if you don't tackle the core problems that is extreme inequality.

I firmly believe the mentality of digging graves for each other is a mindset of poverty and that is what happens in most of India. Scammers exist because scams pay more than real jobs. Stereotypes are formed because some of that disproportionately affect poor communities or specific group. It's a vicious cycle. Poverty makes everyone angry and find reasons to seem better than others. Caste is one of them sometimes when you can't find others.

This is nonsense. As is demonstrated in this thread, even people with similar educational and professional backgrounds are discriminated against on the basis of caste. Since historically the managerial class is dominated by upper castes, the ones being discriminated against are naturally lower castes.

Yes, the reservation system is imperfect and is abused. That doesn’t mean that we replace it with a system that is caste-blind. Rather, incorporate income into it, so that the lower-caste poor ppl get help

No this is looking at the problem superficially. The upper castes feel neglected because there are close to 50% reservation in Government jobs. So they have no choice but to go to private sector. Now they practice undeclared reservation in private sector and not give jobs to the lower castes even if they are equally good and if not better. This is a systemic problem. Each one feels slighted. The lower castes have reservation in Government jobs so upper castes create undeclared reservation in private jobs. Both are harmful to the society!

Even the architect of the Caste-based reservation system Dr. Ambedkar (who is also the architect of the Indian Constitution) said that the Reservation in its current form should only exist for 10 years and not be extended. He contended that 10 years is more than sufficient to have a caste-based reservation. But it kept continuing for 70+ years. It is high time we revamp it to only provide reservation for those who are from low income categories. Doesn't matter which caste they are from. That will actually be helpful.

Caste-based reservation only enforces caste system in India. It doesn't help get rid of it! And it also goes against one of the six Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution: The Right to Equality. Caste-based reservation violates this Fundamental Right. It was a temporary stop-gap measure which we have made permanent not to upset a section of the Indian society. But it is causing more harm than good. That is a fact!

The upper castes are in a minority of the country. It’s not like they’re inherently better at their jobs, they just have better access to important resources like social capital, economic capital, and education.

I know friends who are from not from upper class and super rich/educated and wealthier but still enjoy the benefits of caste based quota system, while there are people from upper caste and poor and never able to come up through the system. As long as Reservations and Quotas are present - this will prevail. It should be merit based and not caste based.

No other country has such laws. It's against even the basic magna carta principles.

I know about "victims" who lie about the accusitions in these cases, the local community knows that its a lie but people are still guilty until proven innocent.

I disagree with this, even though I faced such discrimination.

P.S That does not mean discrimination does not take place or that there are no genuine complaints.

> Because of atrocities against "lower" castes which wouldn't even be investigated

> I know about "victims" who lie about the accusitions in these cases, the local community knows that its a lie but people are still guilty until proven innocent.

Both of you are offering anecdotes, and I assume the former far outnumbers the latter, but we would find more anecdotes of the latter on HN, because most Indians here are not low-caste.

P.S That does not mean that discrimination does always take place or that there are no false cases.

Unfortunately for you I can back up my "anecdotes" https://asiatimes.com/2018/03/indias-supreme-court-accused-h...

>The court also referred to data released by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment showing that of the 15,638 cases decided by the courts in 2015, 11,024 resulted in acquittals or discharges. Another 495 cases were withdrawn and only 4,119 cases resulted in convictions.

Unfortunately that doesn't have to mean anything. If the courts are biased it is possible they are only convicting if the evidence is so strong they dare not. Or maybe some courts are honestly decided and others are corrupt...

I'm not in India so I have no idea what the truth is. I do know corruption is a problem there and corruption is a hard problem to solve.

There are in fact preumption-of-validity ("prima facie" evidentiary) laws outside of India. In the case I'm considering these don't directly apply to civil or criminal law, though they operate closely adjacent to these.

We have "prima facie evidentiary" laws in India too. The law the parent is talking about has nothing to do with it. FIR is registered irrespective of whether there is a case made out prima facie or not. That is the biggest problem with this law. It turns the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" over its head.

"Civil forfeiture".

But that is for property. Does not extend to a human being. That is the same everywhere. You are confusing the two things. Even in India authorities have legal rights to confiscate property they feel is being used in criminal activity. That is allowed and doesn't require a warrant. But do you, in the United States, have any law where you can be arrested without there being a charge-sheet or an arrest warrant or prima-facie evidence? Even the arrests that cops make in the US are based on prima-facie evidence: not providing information as asked for by law, hiding drugs or on the basis of suspicion. No where does anyone get arrested because someone else just complained about the said person.

So, I've been responding to several, often unclear and inconsistent, though absolute claims, made by several commentators in this thread, for which any counterexample would be sufficient refutation.

I'm also not defending the Indian law, only making clear it is not as fully exceptional as portrayed by some here.

Answering your specific question as to the US and detention without charge or due process: yes, definitely. Guantanamo Bay is an extraterritorial detention centre for supposed terrorists, held without trial and subject to torture, since the prison opened in January 2002. 779 prisoners are acknowledged to have been held at some point, 40 remain. I don't find a statement of longest detention, but that could be as much as 18 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention#United_St...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Tens of thousands of detainees are held by immigration authorities, with nearly 400,000 having been booked into ICE custody in 2018. Detentions are on the basis of (suspected) immigration status, not criminal disposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_U...

Could you explain the situation with dowry harassment laws?

American with a question here. In the U.S. you can legally change your name. What would happen if a Dalit went to court and petitioned to get his named changed to Gupta or Sharma?

They don't need to go to court.

https://legaldesk.com/name-change/procedure-for-name-change-...

The problem is that you need an entire stack of documentation for different sets of paperwork, and that comes with your old name. The only way to get a change done safely in ways that will not show a name change is by getting the name right at birth.

Would the entire stack be checked for a job in the private sector?

Depends on the job. The good jobs involve background checks, and the entire stack may be checked.

The weaker sections usually need the social support provided by their caste. They are therefore more likely to want to keep it.

It is easy to cosmetically change your caste, in schools if you are not "lower" caste you do not mention anything and you fall into "general category".

On the other hand you need to prove that you are "lower caste". As government benefits follow.

I guess the difference is that Dalits are much less likely to be in a position of influence or power

There is about 27% Quota for SC/ST (a category that covers Dalits). So, you would find Dalits in state and central government jobs.

Private Sector is not subjected to those quotas even though attempts are made.

No surprise there. Nepotism, casteism and regionalism are widespread at certain companies in India.

Not to forget extreme nationalism.

Please spare the dalits my friend :) they are the worst affected from this caste based discrimination! :) Sure, there may be a few who engage in the kinds of practices you are referring to but the majority don't. Even if they did, that would be to protect themselves (these kinds of dalits tend to be enlightened about their plight in society and local politics in their organization) and to create checks and balances they engage in this stuff.

Couldn't people just change their last name? I imagine if suddenly everyone's last name was Gupta, that kind of discrimination would become difficult.

I am from the state of Tamil Nadu. Unlike other states, we don't use a last name. The official forms and documents of state government/schools will not have a last name field. If pressed for last name, we just use fathers name. The first time I had to give a last name was when I was >20 years old when applying for passport from the Indian government. (Federal govt. not the state govt.) My last name is my fathers first name. My fathers last name is his fathers first name. My grand fathers last name was his caste name. Till my grand fathers generation, caste name as last name was prevalent. It all changed with the Self-Respect movement led by social justice icon Periyar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periyar_E._V._Ramasamy

At fist Self-Respect conference held on Feb 1929, Periyar passed a resolution to drop caste names. The press report about the conference reads “The necessity of the resolution to drop caste titles is strengthened because of the practice of discriminating persons on the basis of their names without knowing anything about their character, ability or intelligence. The demand that such discriminatory caste titles and religion-markers are abolished will appeal to all those in favour of unity and equality.” Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/all-in-your-name/arti...

It is rather popular to use the education qualifications after a persons name (like MBA, Masters in Engineering etc), as most seen on wedding invitations behind bride and grooms name, to emphasize on the importance of education and skills as a status marker rather than birth. Example: https://kingofcards.in/media/others/printing/templates/templ...

If you think caste discrimination does not exist in TN just because of this, you are fooling yourself. Politically powerful castes like Vanniyars and Gounders still discriminate against Dalits and other castes, especially in rural areas.

I don't disagree. The powerful classes still dominate the lower classes. Caste system is deeply rooted in the culture for thousand of years. It will take a very long time and massive efforts to eradicate it. Self-respect movement was one of the early efforts in the right direction and it had found great success in my opinion. I attribute my life progress to the effects of Self-respect movement. I was born in a poor low-caste family, raised by a single mother. I completed a STEM masters degree in India, migrated to the US and now work at one of the FAANG companies. I benefited from the educational and social policies of my state govt. and was able to push myself up despite financial and social disadvantages.

The major turning point in my life was when I was able to secure a seat at the top technical college of the state through single-window counseling which was introduced by the state govt. the year before. Without that system, I would have applied to individual colleges separately (costs lot of money) and had been at the mercy of racially biased selection committees, dominated by the so called upper castes. I neither had the light skin, nor the deep pockets to pay for a "management seat".

I made use of the best resources at the institution presented by the opportunity I wouldn't have got otherwise. It changed my life forever.

I don't have anything informative to add, but wanted to comment that I liked reading your story. Well done.

An even better approach is to just change your religion. I was born a hindu dalit but I converted and so have many of my friends and family. Religious conversions have become so common in India that states have started to bring out laws to curtail it. Casteism is a construct of Hinduism and other religions don't suffer from it in the same way as Hinduism does. So you can change your religion , your name and claim that you have no caste. Hindus have no problem seeing a converted christian as equal to them, but will refuse to see people from their own religion as equal.

Convert and you might get beaten up by your local Bajrang Dal chapter.

I understand the reason you have described to change religion or become an atheist. But in part of India where I am from, I see people adopting another religion and still taking the cast name with them. They will only allow marriage within "Christian + same cast" people. Even People who have renounced God and become atheist home on to their cast. I guess it is the tribal instincts of human being kicking in.

The other religions in India haven't given up on casteism - https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/Focus-on-quota-...

> You should read up a bit about the apology made by the church for being responsible for the Rwandan genocide.

That's a misleading statement. The church was complicit, not responsible. Still reprehensible.

The church was responsible for promoting the division so they could convert. That is not just complicit but also responsible.

If you are engaged in arson, and the church watches silently or hand out gas it is complicit. If it pours gas on the building so you can light it on fire it is responsible.

Yes. That's what Sikhs do.

> Male Sikhs generally have Singh ("lion") as their middle or last name, though not all Singhs are Sikhs. Likewise, female Sikhs have Kaur ("princess") as their middle or last name. [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs

But don't Sikhs also have their own (diluted?) form of caste system?

You can change your last name to Rockefeller, and some get away with it [1], but usually you'd be exposed because not only would you not have the right clothes, manners, alma maters, accent, etc... but most of all, you wouldn't know the right people. "Oh you're a Rockefeller, eh? So I'll see you at the Wickliffe's garden party in Martha's Vineyard this June?"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gerhartsreiter

Although I agree with your general sentiment, it seems that Christian Gerhartsreiter got quite far (e.g. member of the Algonquin club), and wasn't discovered because of poor manners or a declasse accent or the wrong clothes, but for parental child abduction.

Yep. He even married a McKinsey partner back when that was an admirable career.

For some reason this reminds me of this Senegalese immigrant to France who, upon receiving citizenship, petitioned to have his legal name changed to better reflect his new identity.

He chose "Charles de Gaulle." This was 30 years ago, I don't remember if he was successful.

For those unfamiliar with French history: the original Charles de Gaulle was born in Lille, France, in 1890, and was the leader of the French government in exile during WW2. Taking his name would be something like an American immigrant naming themselves George Washington.

That wasn't a popular name chosen by immigrants to America, but very popular among freed slaves who had a similar opportunity to choose a new name:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/washington-the-bla...

He will willing to, almost literally, give up his identity to assimilate. Plus he apparently had a pretty good understanding of the culture.

I hope he got the name, a good job, and maybe some sort of award for "French Person of the Year".

Well, he got an airport and nuclear aircraft carrier named after him!

The other side of the story is the positive discrimination via Reservations that some castes are granted for college admissions, jobs, promotions, financial help etc. available to them. I don't know the legal position of this, but I imagine changing a name might be seen as giving up on your caste based reservations. Politicians favour caste/religion based voter segmentation, which doesn't help either.

In some states, it is impossible to get into good med schools, even if you score 100% in your tests, because there could be only three seats in the open quota, and 4 candidates got 100%

Reservation is not granted based on the last name. It is granted based on the caste marked in the documents.

While it is true that the fourth candidate with 100% may not get a seat, the same is true in reserved seats as well. If there are 20 reserved seats and 21 candidates score 100%, the last guy may not get a seat. I don't understand what is that you are calling unfair as.

> Reservation is not granted based on the last name. It is granted based on the caste marked in the documents.

Yes.

I was responding to "why not change the last name". There is a correlation between some castes and last names, so changing the last name may seem as giving up on the caste-based reservation. ie, a practical reason to retain the family name.

I wondered the same thing when I was in India years ago. So I asked our guide. There are a lot of clues beyond family name to determine ones caste. Would be nice if it where that easy, so.

And I assume some people like their last name, regardless of discrimination they might face because of it…

Curious what extreme left ideology looks like in India.

Unlike the USA, India was under the control of the left since independence. So people who call themselves left are the ones who want to preserve the status quo and go back to the good old times.

The new progressive India that you see does not have a real right, because it is mostly still a poor country. Nevertheless it has moved closer to the free market, trying to cut down government interference if not for anything but corruption by the erstwhile leftists.

The extreme left consists of elitists, close knit extended family of the ruling powers. In fact even today much of India's media and who is who political influencers consist of people who attended the same elitist schools in Delhi.

Ironically, they still have not come to terms with a tea seller becoming the Prime minister, so they keep running smear campaigns against him both inside and outside the country.

this post 1.conflates of economic ideology and political ideology. 2.conflates political left, political center.

Political left was unpopular with the previous centrist government and with this one. But this one is especially intolerant to dissent. Prominent Dalit scholars and activists have been arrested because they "promote enmity between caste groups". Because surely asking for rights for the historically marginalized is 'promoting enmity'. The grassroots left movements are one of the biggest threats to caste politics and current establishment. Unfortunately, it currently doesn't have wide enough traction to change government policies.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio... https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/sudha-bh...

I wholeheartedly agree to your argument that right & left is irrelevant in India.

An "Activist" however is not a peoples representative. In a democratic country, you stand for elections to become a peoples representative.

These "activists" are instead involved in armed violence with the democratic state.If they did that in 1950 fine, there is some justification but not in 2020.

I would call them terrorists, mafia or fascists - the Indian word is Naxal/Urban Naxal.

Democracy is not perfect, but I am not buying the promises of insanely wealthy self proclaimed activists who have enough money & resources to run armed conflicts and hire the best lawyer, but somehow never win in the elections.

> I would call them terrorists, mafia or fascists - the Indian word is Naxal/Urban Naxal.

Pray enlighten the rest of us as to how the current regime favouring one particular corporation isn't fascism?

Where is this definition of "urban naxal" defined? Just because one thought so? If speaking against the atrocities of authorities is being "urban naxalism", most of the current leaders also did so, during the emergency in India. Is there a Retired/Erstwhile "Urban Naxal" title too, for them?

Please keep HN civil. Your ultra-right thoughts can find good currency on Twitter/Reddit.

HN being invaded by ultra-right, on a thread that talks about caste-based discrimination.

Guess it is enough Internet for one day!

What is it that I said makes me ultra-right?

India has been democratic for more than 70 years. I say picking up guns to disrupt civil society with an intent to capture power through violence is not Activism.

That is the recipe of fascism.

And "emergency" is by definition a suspension of democracy.

> In a democratic country, you stand for elections to become a peoples representative.

Participatory democracy doesn't mean that responsibility ends the moment one gets off the voting booth. In fact, the resposibility starts right there, by casting the vote, to ensure that the representative works for the benefit of people.

Us Indians just find the latter part, of dealing with that responsibility, a lot harder, and just convince ourselves otherwise.

And anyone else would get termed "activist" "leftist".

Left => left nothing. Left out off the mainstream (development, benefits, facilities), for being contrarian.

Not left as in left hand side.

Thank you for your right wing propaganda. Left parties have been active only in 2 Indian states, and today in just one.

All parties are somewhat socialist because India is a poor country.

The current government is hard right, its founders were inspired by Nazi Germany and the media landscape today resembles radio rwanda.

India was romancing with the USSR, until it fell in 1990. How much more left do you want to get?

And the USA is romancing Saudi Arabia - what is your point?

You can go to r/india to see that. That sub is peak irrational leftism.

And people generalizing Brahmins and other upper castes as oppressors are not exactly right. For many of us who are Brahmin by caste but have a rural, agriculture etc.. background otherwise, we have not witnessed such extreme casteism.

Disclaimer: Brahmin by caste / surname but my community is traditionally agriculturist.

Lets put it this way , you guys had the privilege. AFAIK atleast 2 generations ahead with the reading and writing compared to other communites. Please dnt pick exceptions here. The community had a headstart privilege access to reading and writing. If you look at the data of professors here in US and the first generation of guys in US doing higher studies you know. So you have a community base here . Its the same with IITs and reputed educations institutions .

> AFAIK atleast 2 generations ahead with the reading and writing compared to other communites

Can you explain then why Dr. Ambedkar asked for only 10 years of caste-based reservations and to be done with it after that? Did he not know of this statistic when he asked for the reservation to be scrapped after 10 years: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/columnists/290917/ti... ?

We continued to have caste-based reservation for 70+ years. That is almost 3 generations. We are well into the 4th generation. This is more than sufficient time for uplifting lower castes. And let us not forget that access to education and industry has improved exponentially in this period while it wasn't available previously.

The time has now come to move away from caste-based reservations to income based reservations. For how long will we keep enforcing caste in everything? Then the upper castes will also enforce undeclared caste based reservations in private sector because they did not get the same treatment in Government sector. Isn't it? This will just end up being a never ending process of one trying to out-do the other. You now have political parties specifically oriented around Dalit issues like the Bahujan Samajwadi Party. Do you have a political party specifically oriented around Brahmin issues? Nope. This shows that the system has empowered the lower castes well enough already! So we can now move to empowering the actual downtrodden in society: no matter what caste, creed or religion they belong to!

> why Dr. Ambedkar asked for only 10 years of caste-based reservations and to be done with it after that?

That's a misconception. There are 4 types of reservation.

1. Political reservation.

2. Reservation in Education.

3. Reservation in (Public) Employment.

4. Reservation in promotion.

That 10 years thing Ambedkar talked is about Political reservation. He said every 10 years it should be REVIEWED to end it or not. The other two reservation in education and employment is a fundamental rights in constitution. So it'll go on till there's discrimination in the society. The last one is not a fundamental right, that's why recently Supreme court of India reject it to implement.

20% of reservation in education was given to SC/STs in 1954, who form the 22.5% of the population. Reservation in (public) employment for them started in 1982 with 22.5%. Reservation for OBCs started in 1992 with 27%, who form the 52% of the population. Indian states have their own ratio for reservation with the condition that total reservation percentage should not exceed 50%. Now notice that the public sector in India only provide 3.8% of the total employment. Private sector is free of any reservation. So much for 70 years of reservation.

This is 2020 ,we are still talking about upper caste management suppressing lower caste in USA. If there has been 70+ years of equality driving measures taken , then this news shouldnt be there.I hope you understand how authority works in India, the Upper caste is already in decision making positions when this movement started 70 years back, i can very well imagine what would have happened. I m not supporting reservations , but there is always a benefit of doubt thats for the suppressed ones.

Here let me use your own argument and just replace upper and lower caste with caste based reservations instead of upper caste management in private organizations. This is what I get:

"This is 2020, we are still talking about caste based reservations suppressing upper castes in India. If there has been 70+ years of equality driving measures taken, then this news shouldn't be there. I hope you understand how authority works in India, the lower caste is already in decision making positions now that the caste based reservation has been around for 70 years, i very well know how it happened. I am not supporting upper caste dominance in private sector, but there is always a benefit of doubt thats for the suppressed ones."

You see how easily I can make the same point for upper castes? How can you justify 50% reservation for lower castes for 70+ years? You can't. You can't even say that there is underrepresentation in our Parliament because there is adequate representation. We have reserved constituencies in which only lower castes can participate. They can participate in the unreserved constituencies too. Heck even the remaining 50% unreserved seats can be contested by lower castes by just choosing to not use their caste certificates. There are so many Adivasi parties and political organizations. There isn't even one for Brahmins. I am not saying this is bad. I am saying that this is the progress we have already achieved in 70+ years. We have a stringent SC/ST act which will jail people without prima facie evidence. Are you not bothered about the Fundamental Rights to Equality as promised under the Constitution of India? If everyone is equal then why this special treatment for 70+ years? I can understand one needs uplifting and for that a reasonable amount of time is required. But 70+ years? That is not justifiable by any means.

Just to put it in perspective: Our Honorable Prime Minister of India is from OBC (Other Backward Class). Our Honorable President of India is a Dalit. So no, our Country has progressed a lot and lower castes are actually holding positions of power more so than ever before. Exceptions cannot become the norm. But has the system become obsolete now? I believe it has! You can't keep the system going on and on for a few exceptional cases. Then it can have negative consequences down the road! The system has to evolve and meet challenges that we are all facing currently and not keep harking back to the past. Ultimately Caste System needs to be rooted out of our country. We can't do that if we keep the reservation system in the present state! We need to change it to income based reservation so that once you have obtained it and gotten a leg up you don't utilize that system anymore and let others who really need it take its benefits.

> If you look at the data of professors here in US and the first generation of guys in US doing higher studies you know. So you have a community base here . Its the same with IITs and reputed educations institutions .

This is not the generalization I oppose. I agree with this. (Although as far as IITs are concerned it is mostly well-off Bania's rather than Brahmins, but still privilege at play).

What I don't like is the generalizations that sound like all Brahmins were well-off and oppressed / actively harassed other people. While there is some divide between every two castes of India, and some of the traditional ways of Brahmins passively hurt people of other castes, that's not the way to put it.

I m not generalizing all are well off . I do know of BPL families from this community , but thats 1% , the rest 99% are others. I want to emphasize the majoritarianism . While i was graduating in engineering ,I was the first engineer in my Family tree. I wanted to purse my MS in US, but struggling to find information and support , while my other friend from the same middle class upper caste community had all information + 10 cousins in US to guide and support him . I was working in startup with a Ultra Upper caste founder ,he brought in his dumb cousin as the VP PM.My friend who was from the upper caste , who was working his ass off was never promoted , the CEO was trying to do best for his community.

Obviously there is partiality in favour of their own castes among Brahmins, Banias etc.. then there is favouring Indians over other people. Mostly among management types - that's how they are taught to think. The same mindset that thinks management is superior to doing work yourselves is likely to favour people on such basis instead of qualification.

> https://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Indian_Programmers

> The Russian programmers have found the concept of "indocritical mass" - this is the limit of Indian programmers that can work safely in one company. If this mass is exceeded the count of the Indian programmers starts increasing in a geometrical progression until every position in the company is occupied by Indians. Indian programmers are coming!

> It is not clear how the Indian programmers breed but judging by the speed at which they breed there is high probability that they breed by division like an unicellular organisms.

I agree there is lot of such bias. But what I don't like is stereotyping all Brahmins like that. Maybe that's a counter bias from your standpoint; nothing is black and white.

dude, why would you witness such extreme casteism? Its like being White in the US and saying I don't see any racism.

> why would you witness such extreme casteism?

Ok that wasn't much clear. Things like untouchability or fights between castes aren't there. And while in-caste marriage etc.. are a thing, that's not exactly discrimination thing. Eg: there are multiple sub groups in Brahmins based on origin and while they don't have 'lower' 'higher', the marriages are preferred to be within that sub groups because each of them have distinct cultures, language dialects etc..

Why not let the two people getting married make the decision if they want to merge the two cultures?

I do not ask this rhetorically. I am Indian, though raised in America with very liberal parents. I have a cousin in India who can not get married to her boyfriend because his mother won't accept a marriage to someone who speaks a slightly different language. Both are similar caste, same religion, just from different parts of India.

That is absolutely batshit insane.

In India, you don't ask elders "why?" for anything they tell you to do, that's considered disrespect - whether it is parents or teachers. That's why many customs that made sense once upon a time, have morphed into meaningless ones, because they continued by tradition rather than understanding.

At the time marriages were arranged by parents, this made sense because you get to preserve your culture, traditions, language etc.. (in a situation where dialect depends on the place and caste).

> Why not let the two people getting married make the decision if they want to merge the two cultures?

Well that's insane. Maybe, thinking from the place of those elders who are highly interested in conserving their culture, it doesn't make sense to leave everyone to their own causing a mix-mash of different cultures and interests, and that's the generation gap. Although it is more likely attributed to belief rather than such line of thinking.

Agreed. I'm ignorant of Indian culture, but I am married to someone from a very different racial and ethnic backround than my own. My experience has led me to believe that intermarriage is one of the most powerful ways to break down cultural barriers. I would not go so far as to say people should avoid marrying people similar to themselves, but I do believe barriers to intermarriage are harmful. And if you seek a rich life full of new and interesting experiences, marrying someone from a totally different background than your own isn't a bad way to start!

> Why not let the two people getting married make the decision if they want to merge the two cultures?

They absolutely can. Nothing in Indian law stops them from doing it.

> That is absolutely batshit insane.

It absolutely is. Now the point is, what stops your cousin from getting married to the boy she likes? The boy can always move out of the home if his mother is unhappy with it. Ultimately it comes down to preferences. Nothing to do with law. Law is quite clear in this that you can marry anyone as long as you have attained legal age.

Also, are you telling me that such preferences don't exist in America? I am sure you have a mother somewhere in the US right now being pissed with her son for choosing a girl she doesn't like. She might not like the girls face, her family, her status, her location or whatever it might be. This is something that is prevalent everywhere. It is not specific to India alone. Just the excuse for opposing is different. That is about it really. If I want to find an excuse to not like someone I can make up a 100 of them. Nothing stops me.

> I have a cousin in India who can not get married to her boyfriend because his mother won't accept a marriage

She can but she won’t, or do mothers have to sign-off on marriages?

Only a brahmin would point out that he is brahmin TWICE in his comment. We know that you are a brahmin and feel 'proud' of your caste. You sir, are the reason why casteism exists in India.

That crossed into personal attack and is not ok.

I appreciate the experiences that you've been sharing in your other comments, but you provoked a flamewar in this case and should not have done that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> You are the anti-brahmin hypocrite [...] People like you are why

Please do not cross into personal attack, even when provoked, and do not take the thread further into flamewar even when baited. Doing those things only makes the thread even worse. And actually the bulk of this thread, when I looked at it last night, was doing relatively well considering the difficulty of the topic.

For over 2 millenia dalits were not even allowed to enter schools or gain education. Ambedkar was famously the only dalit student in his school.

If dalits and other lower castes were not allowed to enter schools for more than a thousand years , then doesn't that mean that brahmins and other upper castes had 100% reservation in education for more than a thousand years? Why complain about reservation now when it was you guys who started it?

> For over 2 millenia dalits were not even allowed to enter schools or gain education.

I agree. But reservation as it is in practice currently is rather a knee jerk reaction and not a scientific system. The problem with all these SJW "empowerment" plans is they empower the people who are already empowered.

A retired judge told that the only way to ensure reservation won't be misused is restricting it to one member in one family, and I agree with that, or even restricting reservation to those with less income. The problem with second approach is people easily fake income in income certificates.

The misuse of reservation system is why there is lot of complaints against it, even for people who would score a low amount in tests, reservation would become a scapegoat when the other person with similar economical status gets a job or seat in good college with similar scores.

And your generalization isn't true either. My dad learned till 4th standard, which is almost the average in the area regardless of the caste. My grandmother told she didn't go to school, and I have not seen my grandfather to ask how much he studied.

At this point, you may consider me biased because I don't know about harsh realities in other regions. But keep the data point.

This is the biggest fallacy peddled by upper castes against reservation/quotas and to deny that caste discrimination in India. Reservations in India are not meant to equalize income or opportunities among the castes. They are meant to keep the government machinery unbiased against the 'lower' castes through representation - so that their services are not biased against lower caste citizens. It has nothing to do with the economic status of the reserved castes. Why is it needed? Precisely because of the type of incidents explained in the news article. It's extremely common for dalit officers to be harassed and denied opportunity by upper caste groups playing politics. Same goes for recruitment. This is far more common than the incidents where a reserved category person is promoted without merit. Just imagine how prevalent that is in India if they are willing to take such toxic practices to a corporation in US. That my friend, is the harsh reality. I didn't want that whitewashing narrative to go unchallenged here.

Fuck, does that mean you can ignore merit and let the guy who grew up with more privileges and less qualifications still get better opportunities than one with better qualifications just because the former is from a caste that is oppressed by someone else somewhere else? This will just increase dissatisfaction among non-reserved castes and reinforce the discrimination.

Even then, what is wrong with the retired judge's suggestion I mentioned?

The story of how a merited upper caste lost out to an unqualified reserved caste is another misleading anecdotal argument. Even merited reserved caste people face the same accusation. I have anecdotes for that as well, but I've never seen the accusers accept that there are merited lower castes. But what is revealing is the demography of the upper hierarchy of the government positions. There are progressively more upper castes as go up the hierarchy -with almost all institutional heads being a sharma, verma or gupta. And it has nothing to do with merit either. It's a result of systematic discrimination, harassment and office politics against lower castes. It's evident in their discrimination against the customers too - if you ever accessed a government service. It's all too evident to even deny. This is prevalent even in elite educational institutions [1]. The instances of this injustice far outnumber the ones you talk about - even neglecting that meritorious lower castes face discrimination. Even the rich lower castes don't get to compete on a level playing field - your caste determines your opportunities, not economic status.

As for the supreme court judge's comment - they are not all that righteous or infallible. The SCI is infamous for decisions that favour super rich or conservative ideology. The same problem of upper caste domination politics exist among the judges too - just check the list of chief justices [2]. The solution the justice gave doesn't address the representation and bias problems that reservation is supposed to solve.

[1] https://theprint.in/opinion/brahmins-on-india-campuses-study...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chief_justices_of_Indi...

You are just arguing what's on your mind without even properly understanding my arguments.

> As for the supreme court judge's comment - they are not all that righteous or infallible.

There is no point in talking about the person. Point me what is wrong in his comment.

> The story of how a merited upper caste lost out to an unqualified reserved caste is another misleading anecdotal argument.

Because you don'taccept that it happens, it is misleading, lol. In NITs/IITs, some people get seats with JEE rankings of 100K, which are otherwise allotted within 10K without reservation. And it is well known that most of people are economically well-off to pay for coaching and study materials (self studying candidates are extremely rare).

Some years ago, a scheduled caste student from a middle class family who got All India Rank 1 in JEE Mains and got lot of publicity got 100+ rank in JEE advanced. If he was a general category student, he couldn't get CSE in IIT Bombay, but he got CSE seat by reservation. Now imagine a person who got 90th something rank in JEE advanced, coming from similar or worse economical background, and still missed the seat in top institution because someone thought that is the way to do reservation.

India's literacy rate in 1947 is right below 10%. It was not just Dalits that did not have education. Education for a long time has been limited to few people and vast number of those people are not western educated either. They got traditional oral education well into mid-19th century.

As an American with an interest in South Asian culture, I found this ten percent number striking. A quick look at the US Library of Congress via Google search, shows these major newspapers of India in the 1940s.

https://www.loc.gov/newspapers/?all=true&dates=1940-1949&fa=...

I believe there were more than 15 languages in India with newspaper circulation of 1 million or more, in addition to English and Hindi, in the 1980s. Even illiterate Yemen had a literacy rate greater than 50% in the 1980s, by my understanding. So I am very sceptical of this ten percent statement about India.

India's population in 1950 is roughly 400 million. 10% of that is about 40 million.

15 news papers with million or more circulation and 40 million people who are considered literate, the numbers show how high news paper penetration rate was (in era of limited radio and no TV in India).

Edit: Found this graph abt literacy in India around 1950, it is about 13-16% ball park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India#/media/File:...

> For over 2 millenia dalits were not even allowed to enter schools or gain education.

Any source for the 2millenia part?

> A person with ½ of my competetive exam scores, and double the income easily gets a seat in NIT because reservation based on caste. The generalization that all upper caste people are oppressors and all lower caste people are oppressed is wrong.

Just wait for it. Even certain 'upper castes' have now started getting reservation and getting a seat on a merit in the open category is only going to get more difficult. Certain states have already crossed the 50% reservation limit set by the Supreme court[1][2][3]. So much for Supreme court's power.

While this has happened at the state level, it's only a matter of time that these demands will go to the national level.

1. https://www.news18.com/news/india/reservation-for-economical...

2. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/mapping-quotas-how-india...

3. https://m.timesofindia.com/t10-nov-30-2018/1-what-happened-t....

Well they stopped going against reservation and started demanding some percentage for themselves.. peak social justice /s

That doesn't really help. Even Modi's so called "10% reservation for general merit" scheme is a cheap votebank trick. With income limits as high as 8 Lakh, it is just like taking 9.9% and giving 10%.

They are mostly people from the east coast. If you draw a line from the state of bihar to kerela and people in the 4 big cities. punjab and kashmir to some extent too. Some support the communist party of india, which still holds power in some states but is steadily declining. Many support fringe armed terrorists and domestic terrorists and breaking up the country.

Before independence there was a strong movement to push india towards a communist revolution like china or the USSR. The indian national congress which is still the main party on the left absorbed many of these radicals. In the cold war, these parties aligned India with the USSR, despite the absurd hypocrisy that india is a member of NAM but also signed a cooperation treaty with USSR. You will find that roads in new delhi are named after thugs from the eastern bloc like Tito, thats something you will not find even in ex-yugoslav states. But zero roads or monuments named after anyone from the western bloc or indians not part of the nehru-gandhi dynasty.

It is mostly orphans of this movement which disbanded after 1991. They're against everything america does but send their kids to the USA for studying in america's best universities.

In India, "the Left" represents socialism, while "the Right" represents liberal economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_left

People with leftist political leanings are generally unhappy with all governments, and have very strong opinions about how the country should be run. They end up forming their own tight clubs.

EDIT: corrected "libertarian economics" to "liberal economics"

I disagree with this actually. The right in India in terms of economic policy is as far left as in the democratic party in USA. The left is further left.

Sure, I'll take your word about US politics. But I don't see a disagreement ... the Indian right still represents the liberal end of the Indian spectrum on economic policy. Whether that is far or near in US terms does not constitute a disagreement.

It is by no means "libertarian" if the current government has strengthened public food distribution systems and other policies like MNREGA.

That is not what libertarian means.

Ah, that. Thanks, I corrected the use of "libertarian" to "liberal" in my GP comment. I am sure that is not perfect either, but should be good enough to answer the original question ... "left" in India is more about economics than liberty.

it looks like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZb4lGYkjrg

trying to establish context between the video and GP question. are you saying the extreme left are the Dalit or the Sharma's and Guptas's ?

We have Naxalites and Maoists who have been fighting the Indian state for quite sometime now[1]. They are allegedly funded by China[2].

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insu...

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/chinese-intellig...

What if you change your last name to either of these?

Most forms ask you to fill your parents name and they also ask you to fill your reservation group, that is general, OBC or SC/ST(schedules class/tribe). A lot can be gathered from this. Even if you lie, there are background checks for this. The smarter parents, register their kids as something generic like "kumar" or "singh" in schools.

Interesting, I've often seen CVs from people applying from India include their parents' details. I assumed it was something to do with caste but I was still surprised to see it added even when not required.

An even better approach is to just change your religion. I was born a hindu dalit but I converted and so have many of my friends and family. Religious conversions have become so common in India that states have started to bring out laws to curtail it. Casteism is a construct of Hinduism and other religions don't suffer from it in the same way as Hinduism does. So you can change your religion , your name and claim that you have no caste. Hindus have no problem seeing a converted christian as equal to them, but will refuse to see people from their own religion as equal.

That is weird and very foreign to me. Why not become an atheist? Or doesn't that count?

Atheism still lets you be Hindu. Belief in any number of gods is optional, including 0.

Would it help Indian citizens to change their last name?

I would be thinking about changing my name.

> A big problem is the the leftist politics of painting everything as social problems, instead of dealing with them as they are.

I don't understand. If caste-based discrimination is not a social problem, what is it then?

I agree, caste-based discrimination has to be almost as pure a social problem as problems can get.

But in defence of what gp said, it is possible for the major problems to be unidentified and cause misattributed to discrimination. Consider the classic US Berkeley bias case [0].

No doubt sexism is rampant at universities as it tends to crop up everywhere, but sexism wasn't the cause of the statistical anomaly that was the issue of the day. In a nutshell, the existence of discrimination doesn't mean that it is causing the issue at hand.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox#UC_Berkeley_...

We are no longer forced to follow our father's profession or live in our villages.

Caste names are very local, when you move to a city or another state where people speak a different language people will have no way of knowing.

I am NOT a brahmin and I am not taking a privileged position, however the people claiming to be SJWs real goal is to make these divisions larger.

A lot of educated and intelligent black Americans, do not support BLM precisely for this reason. The far left benefits from all the violence and politics, whereas ordinary black people will pay the price of greater mistrust.

Yes I do because I live here. Becuase most of the original adherents of jainism are from the merchant caste and if you ask a layperson that is how they will describe them. And there is still a strong syncreticism between hinduism and jainism. Most jains still run businesses, companies and corners shops.

> In a country where just 70 years ago, people were shipped off to the caribbean as bonded labourers and as slave replacements.

And they largely took that caste system with them to their new homes, unfortunately.