[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dalits and Christian dalits



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ash Mahesh wrote:

This is completely besides the point, and in fact betrays the real
problem. What are you trying to do - assuage non-dalit fears of further
reduction in opportunity? How about assuaging the same fears among
dalits,
then? Won't the addition of non-Hindu dalits reduce their opportunities?

Selling divisive stuff is a dangerous game, one can't assuage all
opinions if the premise is that one must belong to predetermined and
UNALTERABLE groups. Economic mobility is a much better basis.

Prof. Jagdiswara Rao's comments:

My suggestion that a dalit should not be deprived of the benefits
conferred to dalits simplify because of a change in his religious faith
is
purely based on objectivity. I know of a Christian dalit who could not
be
appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Venkateswara University until he managed
to
get a false certificate from a local Hindu religious institution that he
got
admitted into Hinduism. The vast majority of dalits do not wish to treat
a
fellow dalit not to be a dalit on the basis that he changed his
religious
faith, got into a job, or became rich. The denial of the rule of
reservation
to the creamy layer of dalits could not be so far implemented because of

this reason. How can then we deny the benefit of rule of reservation to
a
dalit simplify because of a change in religious faith?

---------------------

May I point out, professor, that you forgot to quote the part that I
objected to in this rebuttal. Thankfully, there are archives. So here it
is
again, for your consideration.

" Non-dalits may note that such a move will not in any way result in a
further reductions of their opportunities in education and employment. "

My questions remain the same -

By that statement, are you trying to assuage non-dalit fears of further
reduction in opportunity? How about assuaging the same fears among Hindu

dalits, then? Won't the addition of non-Hindu dalits reduce their
opportunities? Should they be concerned?

What you are saying, in essence, is "don't worry, it won't take any
opportunities away from non-dalits". My take is that this is no basis
for
judgement, because one can always find a group (Hindu dalits, in this
case)
whose opportunities will be diminshed by the addition of new members to
the
reserved groups. Let's say I am a Hindu dalit, and I am worried that my
job
reservations are going to be reduced by the addition of Christian
dalits,
then should I worry?

Your friend, incidentally, broke the law. You state his case as though
those
reservations should have accrued to him by law, when in fact he got a
bogus
certificate to get them. My proposal was that the reservation should not
be
based on religion (that much I think we agree on). Whereas I go on to
say
that some other yardstick should be used (such as economics) you say
that
all religions should be afforded the reservation, completely
side-stepping
economics.

Here's a simple choice for you, professor. Which of the following two
statements do you feel more inclined towards?

(*) all dalits, no matter what their religion, should get equal
treatment
and opportunity. By this consideration, no distinction should be made
between rich and poor.

(*) all poor people, no matter what their religion, should get equal
treatment and opportunity. By this consideration, rich and poor should
be
separated, since they NEED different levels of opportunity.

- ash




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------