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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.