The phenomenon of positive discrimination for castes is oft debated. For anyone who may not know of it, I will summarise here: Indians (and not only Hindus) have followed a system of caste for a very long time. The constitution of India recognises the caste system as an evil of the society but to counter the effects of long standing discrimination also forwards some measures of positive discrimination for the long ignored and downtrodden castes. Two schedules (or lists) were made, one of castes and other of tribes, chosen for positive discrimination.
Now it is ironical that in an intention to remove the caste system this positive discrimination actually bolsters it. It does empower the castes that were considered lower than others once (and still are not doing comparatively better) but the concept of castes is bolstered, whereas it should have been reduced through education and equal opportunity based on merit. It's a complicated debate whether religious groups such as Muslims and Christians which claim to be casteless, should get any such positive discrimination, since in reality the caste systems prevails across religions in India.
The hard working and fair playing, even non-partisan and secular youth of India has to bear the incremental disadvantage of limited resources such as opportunities of education and work which is forwarded towards the scheduled groups of lesser merit. It is argued that lesser merit is accrued due to lesser resources and more severe disadvantages to begin life with.
During the second world war officers the Third Reich plundered the wealth of other people, especially Jews. The wealth from such exploitations still sit in the Swiss Bank accounts and there are many claims made towards these in many different manners and forms by the descendent who now live in USA, Israel etc. The most interesting form I came across was when Michael Moore dressed one of his actors up as Hitler and sent him into the bank to claim that he has come to collect the money and redistribute it to those that rightfully own the wealth, instead of the bank and ultimately the Swiss govt that taxes it, and make gains from investment and reinvestment. Hold on to this thought.
A few days ago, I had a heated discussion with someone who is not an Indian but has lived in India for a long time, when they were pointing out how they hate the Indians who litter, and in general care only for themselves. Without much reason and provocation, my patriotic side woke up and I started a long tirade about the mentality of grab-and-hold-on due to very limited resources and large population since the birth of the nation; the severe lack of public education infrastructure inherited by this recent post-colonial nation; and then the whole culture of bad governance inherited.
I am guilty of bad reasoning in blaming it all to colonisers, I know. But something did come out of that practice of free speech, I realised that I was the disadvantaged group in this case. and wouldn't it be fair if there was more identification of the exploitation of my people for over 200 years? A systematic pay back, a monetary compensation for the colonial nations to make towards us would be a good start. As a right, not in the form of aid as if they are helping us out. If the Jews deserve to get their money back, the colonised nations surely do. And since there may be no listed people the money should be repaid to the governments. Only fair, right? Like the tax payers money and future opportunities going towards the scheduled people.
Such a claim may seem unfair, because the people of England who will be making the payment are not the ones who colonised us. But did they inherit only the advantages of wealth or also the responsibility towards the acts through which such wealth was amassed? In case of an individual it seems fair to ask the innocent descendent of a king (unscrupulous or any other kind) to give up almost all their wealth, as did happen at the birth of all democracies, I am familiar with the case of India and Pakistan where selected representatives went with a standing army to reclaim the property and wealth that belonged to the erstwhile kingdoms and fiefdoms. Why can't it work between nations?
Good idea if I am the nation that gets paid. But I think our world cannot function on historical fairness. The temporal limits to fairness will be very tricky. If we were going to go back in time to settle issues fairly, where, at what time, will we stop? We might have to go back all the way to the beginning of the recorded history. Maybe a life time - 60 years, about the time since reservation exists is a good enough time. How about a few hours?
If the claim of a few hours seem very unfair, imagine a hypothetical passing of a new bill of law in the parliament of your country. And that such a news reaches people only through a news paper, the earliest one published is in the evening, a few hours after the session is closed. A few hours before people could have picketed against a possible passing of the bill, which seems so much easier to do, compared to repealing of a law which (like the making of a new law) needs 2/3 majority in the house and other harsher measures. A policy window has passed by in a few hours. History has moved on with all its inertia.
Fairness, then, is only a matter of coincidence. We can only move ahead within the framework given to us - laws, conditions of existence, values, religions, and on and on. Many agencies will collide for the next possible change. Which is exactly it is, a collision and a next. There is no going back and in such a movement of time, there is no 'justice' - a vague concept that we were given through the idealistic sources such as religion, fables etc. And books, such as our constitutions. Even though some give us clues to the true nature of fairness:
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.
Now it is ironical that in an intention to remove the caste system this positive discrimination actually bolsters it. It does empower the castes that were considered lower than others once (and still are not doing comparatively better) but the concept of castes is bolstered, whereas it should have been reduced through education and equal opportunity based on merit. It's a complicated debate whether religious groups such as Muslims and Christians which claim to be casteless, should get any such positive discrimination, since in reality the caste systems prevails across religions in India.
The hard working and fair playing, even non-partisan and secular youth of India has to bear the incremental disadvantage of limited resources such as opportunities of education and work which is forwarded towards the scheduled groups of lesser merit. It is argued that lesser merit is accrued due to lesser resources and more severe disadvantages to begin life with.
During the second world war officers the Third Reich plundered the wealth of other people, especially Jews. The wealth from such exploitations still sit in the Swiss Bank accounts and there are many claims made towards these in many different manners and forms by the descendent who now live in USA, Israel etc. The most interesting form I came across was when Michael Moore dressed one of his actors up as Hitler and sent him into the bank to claim that he has come to collect the money and redistribute it to those that rightfully own the wealth, instead of the bank and ultimately the Swiss govt that taxes it, and make gains from investment and reinvestment. Hold on to this thought.
A few days ago, I had a heated discussion with someone who is not an Indian but has lived in India for a long time, when they were pointing out how they hate the Indians who litter, and in general care only for themselves. Without much reason and provocation, my patriotic side woke up and I started a long tirade about the mentality of grab-and-hold-on due to very limited resources and large population since the birth of the nation; the severe lack of public education infrastructure inherited by this recent post-colonial nation; and then the whole culture of bad governance inherited.
I am guilty of bad reasoning in blaming it all to colonisers, I know. But something did come out of that practice of free speech, I realised that I was the disadvantaged group in this case. and wouldn't it be fair if there was more identification of the exploitation of my people for over 200 years? A systematic pay back, a monetary compensation for the colonial nations to make towards us would be a good start. As a right, not in the form of aid as if they are helping us out. If the Jews deserve to get their money back, the colonised nations surely do. And since there may be no listed people the money should be repaid to the governments. Only fair, right? Like the tax payers money and future opportunities going towards the scheduled people.
Such a claim may seem unfair, because the people of England who will be making the payment are not the ones who colonised us. But did they inherit only the advantages of wealth or also the responsibility towards the acts through which such wealth was amassed? In case of an individual it seems fair to ask the innocent descendent of a king (unscrupulous or any other kind) to give up almost all their wealth, as did happen at the birth of all democracies, I am familiar with the case of India and Pakistan where selected representatives went with a standing army to reclaim the property and wealth that belonged to the erstwhile kingdoms and fiefdoms. Why can't it work between nations?
Good idea if I am the nation that gets paid. But I think our world cannot function on historical fairness. The temporal limits to fairness will be very tricky. If we were going to go back in time to settle issues fairly, where, at what time, will we stop? We might have to go back all the way to the beginning of the recorded history. Maybe a life time - 60 years, about the time since reservation exists is a good enough time. How about a few hours?
If the claim of a few hours seem very unfair, imagine a hypothetical passing of a new bill of law in the parliament of your country. And that such a news reaches people only through a news paper, the earliest one published is in the evening, a few hours after the session is closed. A few hours before people could have picketed against a possible passing of the bill, which seems so much easier to do, compared to repealing of a law which (like the making of a new law) needs 2/3 majority in the house and other harsher measures. A policy window has passed by in a few hours. History has moved on with all its inertia.
Fairness, then, is only a matter of coincidence. We can only move ahead within the framework given to us - laws, conditions of existence, values, religions, and on and on. Many agencies will collide for the next possible change. Which is exactly it is, a collision and a next. There is no going back and in such a movement of time, there is no 'justice' - a vague concept that we were given through the idealistic sources such as religion, fables etc. And books, such as our constitutions. Even though some give us clues to the true nature of fairness:
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.
- Shakespeare, Macbeth
And I hover over a given distribution of fairness and foulness over the mass of all individuals. Its density around me changes every moment.
And I hover over a given distribution of fairness and foulness over the mass of all individuals. Its density around me changes every moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment