[furyroad]

>> The problem is that a caste-based reservation did NOT eliminate caste-based bias.

It is not the goal of the reservation system to eliminate caste-based bias. The goal is to eliminate unfair competition by ensuring candidates of equal backgrounds compete with each other. A low caste candidate who was historically denied education can not compete with a higher caste student from an educated family. Hence the candidates are categorized based on their caste background such as BC, SC/ST etc and they compete within those categories. A BC candidate competes with other BC candidates, a SC with other SCs and so on.

Drawing from the analogy posted elsewhere in this thread. This is roughly comparable to the weight divisions in boxing. The divisions exist because it is unfair to let a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight fighter. Without weight divisions, the competition is favorable to the heavyweights, which was the case before the reservation system.

Saying reservation should be based on economic status rather than caste is akin to saying boxers should be categorized based on height instead of weight. Economic status is less relevant here because it does not directly affect the chances of success. In a math competition, the candidate born in a family of upper class math teachers has an advantage over a candidate born to rich but uneducated parents who were denied education for generations.

The idea of reservation is to provide opportunity to people who were denied opportunity in the name of caste. They were not denied opportunity because they were poor, but because they were from a low caste. When discrimination was based on caste the remedy should also based on caste. Moreover, economic status is transient, where as the caste is rigid. A poor family can become rich but a low caste person can never become a upper caste as the caste is decided on birth. It is not sound to say a person from a caste who was oppressed for thousands of years should not be given reservation because they become rich in the last generation.

[yumraj]

> A poor family can become rich but a low caste person can never become a upper caste as the caste is decided on birth. It is not sound to say a person from a caste who was oppressed for thousands of years should not be given reservation because they become rich in the last generation.

I appreciate your comment and you do make some very interesting points. But the above quote seems to contradict the gist of your earlier points.

Once a lower-caste family has become affluent and is educated, they should be competing with people, per your own earlier statement, with those of equal backgrounds. The background of a lower-caste but educated and affluent family is no longer the same as that of a poorer lower-caste person from relatively uneducated family. So, how in any way can an argument be made that the affluent family should be allowed to reap rewards from reservation for ever, while the same is not available to poor lower-caste family. If makes no logical, nor socially justifiable sense.

Also, there is an implied assumption that every upper-caste, richer or poorer has a strong educational background. I believe that economic conditions dictate educational and other background a lot too.

Of course, I will accept that solely going by economical criteria may not be sufficient, but it has to be a major factor.

[furyroad]

> Also, there is an implied assumption that every upper-caste, richer or poorer has a strong educational background.

That assumption is valid, owing to the traditional jobs that were assigned to each group. Out of the five classes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Dalits, the last to were physical laborers doing menial jobs.[1] The first three traditionally had access to knowledge and power due to their professions. Brahmin's duty was to read, memorize, recite and teach religious scriptures. Kshatriyas were rulers and administrators and thus powerful. Vaishyas were merchants, business people and large land owners who had access to both knowledge and power. Shudras and Dalits never had the opportunity to get educated and were also systematically denied status and opportunity by repressive religious laws and social norms. Caste being assigned on birth, there was no way for upward mobility.

Before the reservation system, jobs such as bureaucrats, judges, teachers, academics, knowledge workers etc were all occupied by the top three groups, and it is easy to understand why. Whereas Shudras and Dalits were left behind, uneducated and doing low level jobs.

> The background of a lower-caste but educated and affluent family is no longer the same as that of a poorer lower-caste person from relatively uneducated family.

The existing creamy layer rules ensures that the wealthy individuals do not get reservation, even though they are from low caste. This is not a reason to suggest the entire reservation criteria should be based on economic status instead of caste.

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616

[kamaal]

This argument doesn't make sense in the Indian context, where historically there has been so much scarcity. In any society where there is so much scarcity every one hoards as much resources as they can for the bad days.

This being the case the individual and the peer groups maximize for their gains at all costs. Its a race condition like scenario, where you have to acquire resources before others do, or others will prevent you from acquiring resources.

This is basically the root of all the problems facing in the Indian system. This system plays out at the level of a language, state, religion, even caste. Once a group acquires power they will ensure even systematically, other groups don't.

Its not just about economically uplifting 1 individual person anymore. If a particular groups holds power they will starve the under privileged person off resources at the first chance. This is why you need a reserved set of opportunities in a pool to avoid resource starvation through bias.

The easy way out of this problem is brutal equality. But even the upper castes, forwards states, progressive linguistic groups, majority religions will refuse to comply to this because it now means vacating a superior social position and being dragged to the level of the under privileged position.

Any scene where we discuss absolute freedom of lifestyle choices, equality and liberty is a net negative to the groups that currently hold power.

[kushan2020]

> This is roughly comparable to the weight divisions in boxing. The divisions exist because it is unfair to let a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight fighter.

In your example if the son of a lightweight boxer happens to be a heavy weight boxer he will not be made to fight with a lightweight boxer right?

The idea of reservation in its current form sounds great when talking about a generation or two, but it starts to show its deficiencies in the long term. You have created a system which never fully solved the root problem and you have cemented the caste based division even further in the minds of your population.

> It is not sound to say a person from a caste who was oppressed for thousands of years should not be given reservation because they become rich in the last generation.

You are talking as if that person witnessed the caste oppression for thousands of years. If a lower caste family has become wealthy and rich due to reservation, how is their usage of caste based reservation for their grandkids really solving the root problem? That seat which their privileged grandkid will take could be better taken by someone else in need.

[furyroad]

>> In your example if the son of a lightweight boxer happens to be a heavy weight boxer he will not be made to fight with a lightweight boxer right?

I used that example to emphasize on the importance of having categories in the competition to ensure fairness. I do not wish to extend the analogy in a way it was not intended. Keeping the analogy aside, let me address the essence of your question.

The problem of caste discrimination is deep rooted and it existed for a very long period of time. Expecting a family to come out fully from the effects of the discrimination in a single generation is not reasonable.

>> You have created a system which never fully solved the root problem.

As I said earlier, the goal of the reservation system is not to solve the caste system. The creators of the system very well understood that a deep rooted social problem that existed for thousands of years can not be eradicated by a mere statute. The system was intended to serve as a crutch; not as a treatment for the broken leg. I am against using the crutch forever. I am also against removing the crutch without treating and healing the broken leg first.

>> You are talking as if that person witnessed the caste oppression for thousands of years.

The oppression still exists so as the effects of the oppression that they did not witness for thousands of years. 99% of the Hindus cannot become a priest in Tirupati Tirumala and most other temples. Inter caste marriage is still not widely accepted. Honor killings are still happening. The social and psychological effects of a thousand year old oppression is as powerful as the oppression itself.

>> If a lower caste family has become wealthy and rich due to reservation, how is their usage of caste based reservation for their grandkids really solving the root problem?

You are equating economic status to social status. I have explained the distinction in my previous comment. Again, the system is not intended to solve the root problem.

[srean]

> The idea of reservation in its current form sounds great when talking about a generation or two, but it starts to show its deficiencies in the long term.

As some who opposes the typical right-wing opposition to caste based reservations (aka left wing nut), I agree with your point of view.

For example, I would be fine with constituting a one time generous fund that qualified people can withdraw from (and invest), if care is taken to cover all those who should benefit from such a scheme. Its then up to the families to use the funds as they wish. There is also the notion of giving someone a fish and teaching someone how to fish. A financial fund targets the former and will not be enough, more lenient admissions but something that does not persist forever, seems a reasonable balance.

An eternally persistent reservation is tilted the other way. One can definitely argue about the details of how persistent the terms of the benefits should be, but all I will say lack of consensus on what the decay factor should look like should not come in the way of implementing something that is better than nothing, or terminating something that is better than nothing.

A common argument I see often is caste is not the problem, that poverty is the problem and reservations should target poverty alone and ignore caste. I disagree with this sentiment and consider poverty uplifting an important but orthogonal problem.

Caste reservation is about reparations/compensation for historical damages that has(d) that had been inflicted over centuries.

Kashmiri pandit's losses will not get addressed/compensated by social schemes for the poor. It has to address the issue the forceful, unlawful eviction from their home.