Hindu caste system in different point of view

[Hellfire]

I knew the last defense will be turning topic towards Pakistan.

Au contraire sir, there is no defense involved. I hardly bother about defending/attacking a point. I merely am about the facts as they stand.

I also do not take the flags as something to attack. Had that been the case, the oft repeated 'idol worship' and 'Muslim' refrain used in sentences by every other poster here, would have been the butt of my joke from day 1 as to the irony in the flag of the member itself.

Anyways, I digress.

I shall try and clarify my reason for quoting you. Your statement as under:

Caste based discrimination is embedded in constitution of India. Calling it positive discrimination doesn't change the basic fact.

The allusion to the legalization of discrimination is being challenged.

But you have wrong understanding about this topic, as parts of federal jobs are allocated based on population of provinces rest are open merit where other think that recruiter favor Punjabis. This impression right or wrong have nothing to do with constitution, so your attempt is futile because I didn't talk about practices or impression of different communities in India which will be never ending discussion.

I did post references to even the existence of a class system within the Pakistani society and sought your comments on the same. Something you have chosen to leave un-addressed.

As per your statement above, the allocation of federal jobs is based on population of provinces. Fair enough. What makes you think that a Constitutional provision to help the historically down-trodden masses, is anything but based on precisely the same yardsticks of alleviating a social issue? After all, if I may, the 'positive or affirmative action' (as used by you) is also seen here. Then why the hesitation of using the same yardstick and calling it a discrimination?

Let me cite the same for you:

Writing that long essay wasn't needed, I have heard that argument dozen of times. Whatever the purpose is the basic fact remains that constitution of India tells that there are backward classes, it have list of those as schedule and yes it discriminate Indians based on castes which you call positive discrimination or affirmative action etc. by giving special benefits or quotas etc.

So, by the same yardstick, there is a discrimination, right?

If not, how is it different then? There is no static caste/class/tribe list and the same is revised as per the provisions of the Constitution of India with due process as per the relevant Articles as referenced by your self. So, when there is no static list of a caste or a class or a tribe (hence referred to group for discussion), then any member of the group can be a part of the group today yet taken off the group next year or later, whenever. So, where does a discriminatory practice get legalized?

In the analogous situation that I have given, I am not very sure, but I do not think that the proportional quotas based on population in Civil Services, a lucrative profession by far, is exactly extrapolated into the Appointments of the various State Governments, thereby lending a 'Punjabi' dominated Bureaucracy. Is that, in your learned opinion, discriminatory then? Especially with higher echelons of Government being dominated by one region and the relative better economic and social development of Punjab as opposed to other regions?


Sir, my analogy in presenting this was precisely to draw out your attention that the intent behind the act needs to be judged. One can argue over the wisdom of both the decisions as being put forth here.

Dude, You are denying the bare fact. Rest of your post is just d!ck measuring contest which I am not interested in.

Hardly sir. Am not the age of indulging in such as both time and wisdom have given the knowledge that neither of us can match the Congolese nor does it matter.

I am actually put off that you chose to get down to such an interaction. I shall desist from interacting further after this post as nothing good comes of any such interaction where the level is to be brought down to levels incommensurate with an interaction as adults. After all, petulant childhood is a thing of way past for me.

That's Illogical, as in professions people can move up the ladder of management based on their capability and hard work. They get extra compensation for carrying out dangerous, difficult and critical tasks. Field is open for everyone as per rules. These privileges are earned not given for free.

Precisely. Again discriminatory if the logic you have forwarded now - of positive reinforcement for behavior modification, is looked at the way the original post of yours has been made.

Regards

 

[Sugarcane]

Au contraire sir, there is no defense involved. I hardly bother about defending/attacking a point. I merely am about the facts as they stand.

I also do not take the flags as something to attack. Had that been the case, the oft repeated 'idol worship' and 'Muslim' refrain used in sentences by every other poster here, would have been the butt of my joke from day 1 as to the irony in the flag of the member itself.

Anyways, I digress.

I shall try and clarify my reason for quoting you. Your statement as under:

Caste based discrimination is embedded in constitution of India. Calling it positive discrimination doesn't change the basic fact.

The allusion to the legalization of discrimination is being challenged.

Dear, Do you deny that "affirmative actions" based on caste (aka SC/ST defined and list notified under constitutional articles) in place to deliver constitutional guarantees/safe guards/Welfare for select castes are in place and legal in India?

I did post references to even the existence of a class system within the Pakistani society and sought your comments on the same. Something you have chosen to leave un-addressed.

As per your statement above, the allocation of federal jobs is based on population of provinces. Fair enough. What makes you think that a Constitutional provision to help the historically down-trodden masses, is anything but based on precisely the same yardsticks of alleviating a social issue? After all, if I may, the 'positive or affirmative action' (as used by you) is also seen here. Then why the hesitation of using the same yardstick and calling it a discrimination?

Let me cite the same for you:

I think we are discussing constitution here not social evils which is altogether different debate as third world countries are full of social evils. As far as constitution is concerned, as I already said - religion based discrimination do exist in constitution of Pakistan.

If not, how is it different then? There is no static caste/class/tribe list and the same is revised as per the provisions of the Constitution of India with due process as per the relevant Articles as referenced by your self. So, when there is no static list of a caste or a class or a tribe (hence referred to group for discussion), then any member of the group can be a part of the group today yet taken off the group next year or later, whenever. So, where does a discriminatory practice get legalized?

Static/Dynamic list doesn't negate my point. May be I am wrong, but till today there are demands of inclusion into list, at-least I haven't come across rare incident where a caste demanded to be excluded from list.

In the analogous situation that I have given, I am not very sure, but I do not think that the proportional quotas based on population in Civil Services, a lucrative profession by far, is exactly extrapolated into the Appointments of the various State Governments, thereby lending a 'Punjabi' dominated Bureaucracy. Is that, in your learned opinion, discriminatory then? Especially with higher echelons of Government being dominated by one region and the relative better economic and social development of Punjab as opposed to other regions?

In order to keep the discussion simple and on topic, let's say that Punjabi discrimination exists in Pakistan. How this will change anything about caste based affirmations/discrimination in India?

Sir, my analogy in presenting this was precisely to draw out your attention that the intent behind the act needs to be judged. One can argue over the wisdom of both the decisions as being put forth here.

Dear, I didn't questioned intents behind it. There definitely will be good intents behind it, and there are pros and cons of these measures as well - which itself is an interesting topic where politics of British India era will also come into discussion. I merely pointed out the existence.

Hardly sir. Am not the age of indulging in such as both time and wisdom have given the knowledge that neither of us can match the Congolese nor does it matter.

I am actually put off that you chose to get down to such an interaction. I shall desist from interacting further after this post as nothing good comes of any such interaction where the level is to be brought down to levels incommensurate with an interaction as adults. After all, petulant childhood is a thing of way past for me.

You were turning discussion into "what about you" type of argument, which is actually d!ck measuring contest and there's no prize for guessing what kind of debate it will become.

Precisely. Again discriminatory if the logic you have forwarded now - of positive reinforcement for behavior modification, is looked at the way the original post of yours has been made.

Regards

Glass is half full or half empty can be never ending argument, but the fact which can be agreed upon is that there is glass that contains water. I rest my case.