[aildours]

Complete bs.

>Caste-based surnames are extremely uncommon in South India (20% of India's population), and it's not even a recent thing.

No, caste-based surnames are uncommon among some upper caste communities. A significant chunk (Gowdas, Reddys, Nairs etc.) have surnames strongly linked to castes. And what you might refer to being a "recent thing" is having a western style surname at all.

>FWIW, as someone who has spent considerable time in Indian academia, this article reeks of BS. No one cares about your caste in Indian academia. The languages you speak, the part of India you come from, etc., cause a bigger divide than caste.

I've also spent time in Indian academia (and left it, for unrelated reasons) and can say that caste matters a lot, in a very insidious way. Respectfully, if you can't tell that Bulsara is a Gujarati surname (which means it could be a Hindu, Parsi or a Muslim surname, so may not even be linked to a caste as is the case with Freddie Mercury), then you may not know enough to comment on caste.

>How exactly did the author find their castes?

Perhaps try reading the article? He has even linked the RTI responses if you doubt him so much.

[b215826]

.

[aildours]

> I can assure you that the vast majority of upper-caste people here don't use a caste-based surname anymore.

Oh, I don't need assuring for this, this was the point I was making! Basically, some south Indian upper castes use their father's first name as their surname. And this in itself is a strong signifier that the person is from the upper caste!

And yes, some surnames like Bulsara are linked to a place, some are neutral like Kumar, or some are rare enough to not signify caste unless you really know. So what? Even now, a large chunk of the Indian population uses caste-linked surnames, and it is one way they get discriminated. This is the point he makes when he says "Typically, one's surname (last name) is a giveaway".

> RTI responses will only tell you the number of candidates who were hired through caste-based reservation.

No, the RTI responses that he has linked is for the "breakdown of faculty members in the respective category of reservation..." (see the linked pdf for IITD, for example), not if they were hired through caste-based reservation. The category of reservation being information that every Indian citizen is asked to provide in government forms.

[b215826]

.

[aildours]

This will be my last comment in this chain since this is going nowhere. Patronymics and matronymics are used by some south Indians, who are at the most 20% of the population. The simple point made in the OP is essentially that caste-based surnames are typical in India, and which you have not refuted.

No, you don't have to fill your caste but you are typically expected to tick one of the SC/ST/OBC/General boxes (these being the categories of reservation), and then provide a proof if required. The sentence you quote refers to this, and not on how they were hired, which is what you are saying. RTI queries can absolutely answer things of this kind, please just read the question the OP asks in the linked pdfs.

[Ar-Curunir]

Did you read the RTI response? There’s no reservation for upper castes, yet the vast majority of faculty in all of the RTI response are upper caste

[b215826]

.