[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.