Reality Check India

Government defends OBC quota list

Posted in Uncategorized by realitycheck on September 27, 2007

supreme-court.jpg

The petitioners recently completed their arguments in the OBC quota case. The government opened its arguments yesterday.

It appears that the government is trying to argue that caste is the main (if not the only) requirement for a group to gain entry into the OBC list. This would be an effective way to deflect people who want data and not life stories to dictate public policy.

Mr Vahanvati argued :

“In matters of this kind, namely removal of backwardness, removal of untouchability and achieving a casteless society, there can be no time limits. No time limits can be fixed for the measures of social engineering,” he said.

Source : HT

Lets leave untouchablity out of this. Why cant there be a time frame for removal of “backwardness” ? If there is program without a timeframe, then there is no way to calibrate it.

No data required

Central to the governments’ arguments lie the intepretation that : like SCs the SeBCs are also purely caste based. There is no need for data, because even if you could show that every OBC owned a beach house and a Mercedes it would make no difference. (Sorry for the extreme example, but this is a theoretical possibility). In other words, data is deemed illogical !!!

If caste is identified as being backward and individual survey for determination of Socially and Educationally Backward classes is out of question then nothing more can be done. Caste should be considered as the determining factor of backwardness for the purposes of reservation, said centre.

Source : Economic Times

The question is: If caste alone determines membership into the OBC group, then states like TN who have classified 72% as OBC (NSSO 61st round)  need to be explained. Are the remaining 4% (NSSO 61st round)  so dominant politically, economically, and educationally (control of private education) – that they can drive so many into backwardness. Conversely, are Bengal, Assam, and J&K such a picture of harmony ? If caste alone determines OBC status, then what about Muslims and Christians ?

Inclusion of castes

The court recently asked whether a single caste has been expelled from the OBC list (remember TN is approaching 85+ years of caste based reservation).

Mr Vahanvati said :

… National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) has rejected several politically dominant castes including Khandayat from Orissa and Marathas from Maharashtra

Source : Economic Times

On exclusion,

The government claimed that no complaint has been received for over-inclusion so far (removal of a caste from the OBC list)

To a question why not a single caste had been excluded from the list so far, Mr. Vahanvati told the Bench, “There has not been a single complaint made before the State Commission or the National Commission with regard to overinclusion of any caste or community.”

Source : Hindu

The question is : Is this level of public participation desirable or even possible in this issue ? How can anyone complain if there is no up-to-date public data available for each caste in the OBC list ? Is the public expected to conduct private field studies targeting the removal of a caste from the list ?

No body would like to target a single caste. This policy, even if it worked exactly as designed will is a recipe for caste wars.

Meanwhile, the Law and Other Things blog thinks the governments arguments are “robust”.

About these ads

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bruno said, on September 30, 2007 at 6:11 am

    Hi RC,

    You have the following questions still not answered

    1. Why is the forward castes shouting regarding something called as creamy layer.

    2. Is this creamy layer mentioned in constitution

    3. Why is that Shiv Keras do not find it appropriate to file a case “for merit” when the court says Women Quota (that means a forward caste woman is benefitted) can exceed the 50 % mark

    Or in short, why is the caste based quotas ALONE OPPOSED (please don’t say that these constitute the large number. I have categorically proved umpteen number of times that this is not the case)

  2. reason said, on September 30, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    >> 1. Why is the forward castes shouting regarding something called as creamy layer.

    How does it matter who ‘shouts’ regarding ‘something called as creamy layer’? Shouldn’t the Dravida rational minds merely stick to the validity or otherwise of an argument on its merits rather than attacking it based on who said it? Didn’t the great poet Thiruvalluvar say ‘Epporul yaar yaar vaai ketpinum apporul meipporul kaanbadhu ARIVU’?

    That said, our constitutional sections guarantee equality before law and equal treatment to all citizens (not withstanding the amendments made to sneak thru reservations). A forward caste person who lost (or can potentially lose) a seat to a textile mill owning ‘backward caste’ person even after scoring higher marks, has all the rights to question that and sue.

    And creamy layer is not merely ‘forward castes shouting’. It is part of several judgments from the apex court. Unless in the dravida rational minds, supreme court judgments too are to be treated as ‘forward caste persons shouting’.

  3. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:43 am

    Reason

    My questions are still unanswered, inspite of you “shouting” without any logic

    1. Is this Creamy Layer mentioned in Constitution

    Please answer to the point

    And note that I never said that “Forward Caste should not shout”.. They have every right to shout..

    My question is WHY

    If you have an answer give that

    Or else, tell that you are shouting “without any data”

    //A forward caste person who lost (or can potentially lose) a seat to a textile mill owning ‘backward caste’ person even after scoring higher marks, has all the rights to question that and sue.//

    This is the problem….. You seem to have NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER about reservations

    The forward caste person will loose his seat to a textile mill owning backward caste person if the creamy layer is EXCLUDED from Reservation and not if the creamy layer is included…. This is my question

    Why are the forward caste demanding something that is going to harm them

  4. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

    Another Question : If you want Creamy Layer to be excluded, then DO YOU ACCEPT THE FACT that reservations are needed…

    Please answer

    (you can only ask for exclusion of Creamy Layer after ACCEPTING THE RESERVATION).

    Please understand

    At one point you say that reservations are against merit
    Next you say that reservations should be given

    I am not able to understand this logic

    By asking for Exclusion of Creamy Layer, YOU ACCEPT Reservations

    Exclusion of Creamy Layer means YOU ARE ASKING FOR RESERVATIONS to the Back ward Caste…..புரியுதா

    இது கூட தெரியாம திருவள்ளுவர் எல்லாம் சொல்லாதீங்க ஸார் :) :) :)

    And then

    Is this creamy layer given in constitution

  5. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:51 am

    Let me put it simple

    Mr X Says “I am against Reservation”
    Mr.X Says “I want Creamy Layer to be Excluded” (This second sentence means he is pro reservation)

    To put it in a nutshell Mr.X இரட்டை வேஷம் போடுகிறார்…..

    My question is ஏன் இந்த இரட்டை வேஷம்
    //How does it matter who ’shouts’ regarding ’something called as creamy layer’?//
    It does not matter as to who is having …இரட்டை வேஷம்
    The question is WHY…ஏன் இந்த இரட்டை வேஷம்

    Please answer

  6. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:53 am

    Let me put it simple

    Mr X Says “I am against Reservation”
    Mr.X Says “I want Creamy Layer to be Excluded” (This second sentence means he is pro reservation)

    To put it in a nutshell Mr.X is playing double games இரட்டை வேஷம் போடுகிறார்…..

    My question is WHY is this double speak ஏன் இந்த இரட்டை வேஷம்
    //How does it matter who ’shouts’ regarding ’something called as creamy layer’?//
    It does not matter as to who is twisting his tongue or it does not matter whether you have a write to double speak… That is for you to morally decide …இரட்டை வேஷம்

    The question is WHY double speak… ஏன் இந்த இரட்டை வேஷம்

    Please answer

  7. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:59 am

    For clarification, please read my stand on reservation at http://bruno.penandscale.com/2006/01/reservation-and-upliftment.html
    ———————
    So… You have to give reservation for ONE Generation Only…..

    That is reservation need not be given to children whose parents have enjoyed the benefits….

    That is ……… If Mr.A has got MBBS seat or a Govt job by reservation, his children have to compete is Open Quota ONLY…….

    We have ample proof to say (see the admission list in Tamil nadu in the link given at the top of this post) that Once you give an oppurtunity to backward class, the next generation are able to be on par with other people
    ———————
    Now explain your stand please

  8. Barbarindian said, on October 1, 2007 at 4:22 am

    Is this creamy layer given in constitution

    Is this “reservation” given in constitution?

  9. Reason said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:04 am

    “(you can only ask for exclusion of Creamy Layer after ACCEPTING THE RESERVATION).

    Please understand”

    If there is a message saying ‘do not drink and drive’, should that message be taken as an endorsement for binge drinking?

    Ennaa laagic saar?

  10. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:20 am

    //If there is a message saying ‘do not drink and drive’, should that message be taken as an endorsement for binge drinking?//
    That means you can drink
    But after drinking, you cannot drive

    The correct message is
    Do not Drink

    லாஜிக் புரியுதா ஸார்…..

  11. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

    Barbarindian….
    You have not answered my question….. Please answer

    As far as the fact that whether Reservation is provided in Constitution or not, the answer is “I don’t know”

    As far as the fact that whether Creamy Layer is provided in Constitution or not, the answer is “I don’t know”

    I am ready to know the correct answer from you/ any one for both of this questions

    And again, you have not answered my main questions.

    1. Why is forward castes asking for exclusion of the creamy layer which is going to affect them

    2. How can you justify the stand that you are opposed to reservation, but want exclusion of creamy layer… Isn’t it double standard

  12. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

    @ reason who said “If there is a message saying ‘do not drink and drive’, should that message be taken as an endorsement for binge drinking?”

    That means you can drink
    But after drinking, you cannot drive

    The correct message is
    Do not Drink

    The do not drink and drive message endorses drinking and is a classic example of double standard

    லாஜிக் புரியுதா ஸார்…..

    Any how the situation in reservation is far different from that…. In this case, the forward castes are going to be AFFECTED by exclusion of creamy layer… Do you understand this point or not. If you are not able to understand this, please tell and I am ready to explain (Inspite of the fact I have explained this umpteen times)

  13. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:29 am

    barbarindian – do you understand that if creamy layer is excluded, the forward castes are going to be affected. ????

  14. Reason said, on October 1, 2007 at 7:35 am

    >> The do not drink and drive message endorses drinking

    this would be the point where logic takes leave.

  15. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 8:29 am

    >> The do not drink and drive message endorses drinking
    this would be the point where logic takes leave.

    That means that the person who says that is not at all concerned about drinking in bars, drinking in home etc but in concerned only about drunken driving… The do not drink and drive message endorses drinking and is a classic example of double standard where drinking is permitted in bars, but not permitted in driving…

    There is no defiation from logic….

    The question is not into the validity of the message (correct or wrong).. the question is very simple.. Is that double standard or not

    Any way I have told clearly that this is just an (unsuited) analogy told by YOU and the actual scenario in reservation is much different from this.

    You are yet to answer my question… and trying to cover that up by GIVING An unsuited example yourself and then talking at the same example

    Please try to answer by questions, if have any “data” or “proof”

  16. srinias said, on October 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Creamy Layer concept is not practical.Best thing is to review the status of each caste every five years and remove it from the reservation list if they exceed the national average values.This shall be applied to all castes which come under “sudra” and SC/ST category..Seal the reservation limit to 50%.Reservation shall not be given to dwijas.They can be given scholarships.The OBC politicians shall accept the 50% limit.

  17. xyz said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    dear friends,
    i have exhausted myself on this issue.
    One more time,i will cry hoarse.
    There are smart people in all communities.Everyone can progress .There are opportunities for everyone.

    But look at it from the view point of dravidian ideologues.They are not comfortable with the idea of india.They want cauvery,mullaiperiyar but not paappans.
    1)eka india endra peyaral tamizhan nassukapaduvan.
    2)paarpana arivu jeevikaludanudan nam (all the thugs ) veetu pillaikalal pottiyada mudiyathu.(This is very very important.Why should we compete with paapan.The paapan are a homogenous extraordinary master race out to destroy the superior,cultured dravidian race.
    3) we(koteeswara,toyota,ford, foreign jaunts addikara chinna veedu vechurikara “pirpaduthapattavar”) have been oppressed,are being oppressed,will be oppressed by the paappans.
    4)Tamil nationalism is used to blackmail the centre.

    From the dravidian viewpoint they have the integrity to ask for reservation on the basis of language,not imaginary backwardness.

    In a way.just like mandal I we might have to finally accept mandal II for the sake of national unity.

    Given the uniqueness of tamil language/identity ,perhaps this is a concession that has to be given to tamils for integration with the rest of the country,though the crude,vulgar,petty short sighted chauvinists do not understand the damage to the nation.(for which they have no emotional attachment,which is the crux of the issue.)

    This is perhaps the only reason to condone the attitude of the likes of nram,who have their ears close to the ground .Many young(and not so young) middle class brahmins have to consider the pressures faced by manmohan,who is a prisoner of the nehruvian dogma,which had great support among a substantial section of tamil brahmanas.

  18. Kumar said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Burno,
    >>Is this Creamy Layer mentioned in Constitution

    If we go by constitution, the author Ambedkar advocated doing away with the whole concept of reservation within a decade. That would be say 50 years ago?

  19. Kumar said, on October 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    And Burno

    Mr.X Says “I want Creamy Layer to be Excluded” (This second sentence means he is pro reservation)

    Could it mean that Mr X is pro reservation based on economic criteria and not some caste/race/religion?

  20. xyz said, on October 1, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Most importantly.all identities are frozen.A human being is not complex,but is perceived as a prototype of his caste,in this case,the villified paapan.

  21. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    //Could it mean that Mr X is pro reservation based on economic criteria and not some caste/race/religion?//

    That means that all the arguments Mr.X talks about “merit” is a double standard…

    That is Mr.X does not mind a poor student with 98 marks getting selected while a rich student with 99 marks does not get the seat

    But Mr.X does not want a SC student with 98 marks getting selected while a Forward Caste Student with 99 marks does not get the seat

    So Mr.X’s argument about Merit is a double speak – he does not want seat for a SC Student, but wants seat for a poor student — Well that is his right and opinion, but he should not use the word Merit

    This is exactly my argument

    —If the earlier claim that merit is going to be affected by reservation based on caste is true, then merit is going to be affected if the quota is based on economy or for that matter any other reason like the state of domicile (Delhi – 100 percent reservation for Delhi Undergraduates) , Religion (eg Andhra Pradesh) , college graduated (eg JIPMER)

    So a person whose primary aim is preservation of merit should NOT ALLOW ANY QUOTA.
    ——

    (If you are anti reservation and if you use merit as an argument, i can understand) But, any one who wants exclusion of creamy layer should not use the word merit

    Is it enough Mr.Kumar

  22. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Mr.Kumar, please try to answer my questions…. THey are still left unanswered :) :) :)

    Mr.XYZ… I have asked a very specific question , for which you have not answered

    I want to make this thread meaningful

  23. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    A person whose primary aim is preservation of merit should NOT ALLOW ANY QUOTA…… Is there any doubt….

  24. Bruno said, on October 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    @ Mr.Srinivas : Instead of reviewing a caste, why can’t you review the individual. If a individual’s parent has got college seat / job by quota, he is not eligible for quota… Will not this be a better alternative….. What is wrong with this

  25. Kumar said, on October 1, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Bruno:
    Mr.Kumar, please try to answer my questions…. THey are still left unanswered
    Sorry late entrant into game. What was your question? I’ll try to answer it.
    Of course you’ll then have to answer mine :-)
    You can take the first shot.

  26. Bruno said, on October 2, 2007 at 4:04 am

    Sorry late entrant into game. What was your question? I’ll try to answer it.

    My questions are given in this same page… why can’t you see that

    The problem with most of the anti-reservation guys is that they do not know any thing about the past and the rational of reservations (late entrants being a very correct word) and write against caste based reservation for the sake of writing, without even caring to know a little bit of fact by themselves :) :) :) , typically personified by this attitude …

  27. reason said, on October 2, 2007 at 10:33 am

    I dont know how is it logical to deduce that the message ‘do not drink and drive’ endorses binge drinking. The message says nothing about the sayer’s views on drinking itself, much less that the sayer endorses drinking.

    all arguments are in a context – the opposition to creamy layer benefiting from reservation is in the context of governments pushing thru caste based reservations and supreme court mandal judgments. That does not and need not mean someone opposing creamy layer is supporting caste based reservations.

    >> The forward caste person will loose his seat to a textile mill owning backward caste person if the creamy layer is EXCLUDED from Reservation and not if the creamy layer is included…. This is my question

    Exactly how?

    if there is 50% caste based reservation, in the open competition 50%, more marks beat less marks. Regardless of caste. A fake-backward getting in with lesser marks in the reserved 50% negates the guarantee of equality that is in the constitution.

  28. Bruno said, on October 2, 2007 at 11:36 am

    //That does not and need not mean someone opposing creamy layer is supporting caste based reservations.//

    That is YOUR Logic.. and it is wrong.. .THe problem is that you are not realising that it is wrong

    //The forward caste person will loose his seat to a textile mill owning backward caste person if the creamy layer is EXCLUDED from Reservation and not if the creamy layer is included…. This is my question

    Exactly how? //

    Good Question.. Now you are trying to come to terms with reality
    Please see the old posts where I have explained this issue in details

    If you have any specific doubt, please ask

  29. Bruno said, on October 2, 2007 at 11:40 am

    //A fake-backward getting in with lesser marks in the reserved 50% negates the guarantee of equality that is in the constitution.//

    Yes..
    The truth is that ANY ONE GETTING a SEAT WITH LESSER MARKS through any quota (caste based, sex based, domicile based, army, institution, economy based) negates equality

    it is not just the caste based quotas that negate equality

    yet, we permit equality to be negated in the larger interest of the society – eg ex service man quota, handicapped quota

    Equality is not negated in only one quota alone…. Please understand

  30. Kumar said, on October 2, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    why can’t you see that
    Coz of the god-damn dravidian characters you’ve been using (Tamil for others)… thought there was something in there I missed. Apparently not.

    Anyway, your Pavlovian response was not surprising. As I can see, your questions been asked and answered though you can do verbal ju-jitsu till Pope himself converts. So let me cut short here – I’m love reservations and the 74% reservation in your dravidistan is 26% too less. Happy Bruno?

  31. Kumar said, on October 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    >>I dont know how is it logical to deduce that the message ‘do not drink and drive’ endorses binge drinking

    It is logical, some people think like that only. For example, I get up late in mornings because I’m afraid of being eaten by the early bird and we all know what happened to worm who was early.

    And I have plans of suing the Surgeon General for my smoking addiction.

  32. reason said, on October 2, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    “>> //A fake-backward getting in with lesser marks in the reserved 50% negates the guarantee of equality that is in the constitution.//

    Yes..”

    so you agree there are fake-backwards?

  33. Observer said, on October 2, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Have any you guys seen the Star-Trek TNG episode “A Matter of Time”? This is when Geordi and Troi are caught in a time-loop endlessly repeating the same vapid sequence over and over again, with the memory being wiped clean with every time-cycle. I feel like I am reliving another one of those episodes, in a different context. But this time it is not a science-fiction story, it is a Dravida-fiction time-loop real life event! These things actually do happen in real life! I am amazed.

    I am even more amazed that Christians are so obsessed with the Hindu caste system. Why is this so? I think it bespeaks of a deeply divided psyche, torn between a need for justification lost in antiquity, and a secret yearning to erase the memory of apostasy from Hinduism. Christianity has no concept of caste. It is egalitarian, and yet, and yet, this obsession with caste! Why?

  34. Barbarindian said, on October 3, 2007 at 12:25 am

    it is not just the caste based quotas that negate equality

    True, but technically everyone can avail the other quotas. There are rich folks in every caste that buy seats, there are handicapped people from every caste, there are army veterans etc. Also, they are usually limited to a very small percentage.

    caught in a time-loop endlessly repeating the same vapid sequence over and over again

    This is the classic holdup technique for groups seeking incentives. The perceived economic loss to the other groups is much smaller compared to the perceived economic gain (which will gradually be expanded to other things gradually) to this group. They have an incentive to endlessly go on and on, suspending everything else.

  35. Bruno said, on October 3, 2007 at 5:58 am

    //so you agree there are fake-backwards?//

    Yes.. those guys from forward caste who bribe the officials and get fake community certificate…

  36. Bruno said, on October 3, 2007 at 6:04 am

    //it is not just the caste based quotas that negate equality

    True, but technically everyone can avail the other quotas. There are rich folks in every caste that buy seats, there are handicapped people from every caste, there are army veterans etc. Also, they are usually limited to a very small percentage. //

    Here comes your analogy

    You are PRIMARILY DIVIDING The people on caste

    How can a normal person get handicapped quota
    How can I get army quota
    How can I get institute quota

    So your statement that “True, but technically everyone can avail the other quotas. ” is completely false

    It shows that you have not matured to see life beyond a caste angle ….

    Please analyze (your statement) once more and you will know that your statement implies that you classify the person PRIMARILY based on Caste….

    This exactly is the problem why caste based quotas are opposed while other quotas are not opposed…

    This is what I am trying to tell

    You are PRIMARILY DIVIDING The people on caste

    How can a normal person get handicapped quota
    How can I get army quota
    How can I get institute quota
    (the certificate is fake :) :) :) )

    Please understand the reality

    Of course, the statement can be modified as “technically every caste can avail the other quotas.” and that is indeed true. If that be a truth, then that exposes a very ugly stand ” you will support any quota till YOUR caste can get that, but will oppose that if your caste cannot get that”

    I did not expect this :) :) :) :)

    I will close my arguments here. Good Bye
    Thanks for enlightening me :) :) :)

  37. Bruno said, on October 3, 2007 at 6:07 am

    //s I can see, your questions been asked and answered//
    Not answered

    Let me repeat the question
    You please repeat the answers

    1. Why is the forward castes shouting regarding something called as creamy layer.

    2. Is this creamy layer mentioned in constitution

    3. Why is that Shiv Keras do not find it appropriate to file a case “for merit” when the court says Women Quota (that means a forward caste woman is benefitted) can exceed the 50 % mark

    Please answer again

    Common Man… Don’t try to escape from reality.. This blog is for checking reality

  38. Gaurav said, on October 3, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Bruno,

    Is your excessive use of smilies a Dravidian revolt against Brahminnical tyranny or a result of inability to comprehend net etiquette ?

  39. Kumar said, on October 3, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Hopefully the quack’s still around :)

    As far as the fact that whether Reservation is provided in Constitution or not, the answer is “I don’t know”
    Then why on your good Lord’s great green earth are you asking the question?? :)

    As far as the fact that whether Creamy Layer is provided in Constitution or not, the answer is “I don’t know”
    Then why on your good Lord’s great green earth are you asking the question?? :)

  40. Kumar said, on October 3, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Observer,
    Christianity has no concept of caste
    It’s hoax. A grand one.Gandhi came close to converting to Xitanity in SA after reading the Sermon on Mount but he saw the true face of Xitanity practised at Church’s entrance where blacks and colored ones were politely directed to another church in neighbourhood.
    Not relevant here, some other day perhaps.

  41. Barbarindian said, on October 4, 2007 at 4:36 am

    Of course, the statement can be modified as “technically every caste can avail the other quotas.” and that is indeed true. If that be a truth, then that exposes a very ugly stand ” you will support any quota till YOUR caste can get that, but will oppose that if your caste cannot get that”

    It is not ugly, it is called self-interest.

    You don’t support creamy layer exclusion but you seem to offer other solutions like single generation quota etc. Elsewhere you argued that social backwardedness must include factors such as education levels of parents etc.

    You see Dr. Bruno, nominally speaking this is how the process of lobbying works. I bet there are areas in the country where you could get lynched even for suggesting that single generation idea. I suspect you are just throwing a Red Herring here.

  42. Jai_Choorakkot said, on October 4, 2007 at 5:00 am

    1. With a slightly extreme example Sujai K showed that quota may be needed for 3 or 4 generations. His cutoff seemed to be govt employment or some comparable middle class lifestyle. Just another POV from the pro-quota camp.

    2. Some few ppl are born handicapped, but more go to that state thru accidents etc. The qualifications soldier, institute grad etc. can be acquired by anybody regardless of their caste or religion, but a quota tuned to OBCs just cannot be utilized by a non-OBC however backward he/she is, and currently can be utilized by anybody that is an OBC regardless of how advanced he/she is, unless there is a meaningful exclusion of creamy layer.

    3. Bruno keeps harping on the fact that creamy layer exclusion sharpens the competition for FCs and will lead effectively to FCs getting even fewer seats than they do currently. Perfectly valid point. He appears to think and I kind of agree that most everybody views everything thru the prism of their self-interest. If I remember RC, you did promise a post on this.

    4. Like somebody else commented here, this has become some kind of time loop, no new points are being put up by any party and everybody seems to think they’ve won.

    regards,
    Jai

  43. Barbarindian said, on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    everybody seems to think they’ve won.

    I doubt all the people are just debating for debate’s sake. The actual loss to a set of people is going to be very real.

  44. realitycheck said, on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Just catching up,

    Bruno,
    If the castes are identified correctly there is no need for an artificial and in my opinion, insane terminology called “creamy layer”. If the caste are not identified correctly, then there needs to be a basic check against abuse. Even there, I think the 1 generation rule is better than the creamy layer rule.

    Bruno again,
    Yes, I dont think Army quotas, womens quotas, are required at all institutes at all levels. They also compromise equality. However, as Barb pointed out – they are not 27% – and they do not distort democracy.

    Reason,
    Good to see you back !

    Jai,

    I think we already talked about the 5 generation cut off. Why should a rat-eater wait for 5-generations of pig-hunters to advance before he gets his turn ? Besides who gets to call the 5 generation cut off, why not 50 generations ?

    There is nothing wrong with self-interest – as long as rights are also given due respect..

  45. Revathi said, on October 8, 2007 at 9:18 am

    I dont know where all this discussion will lead but one thing is certain today: a lot more people get higher degrees but these degrees are not even as valuable as the paper they are printed. I recently got a thesis for evaluation from a so called reputed indian university and there was a spelling error in every second sentence. The scientific content was at best mediocre. The only consolation perhaps is that the standard of the universities in pakistan is even worse. Does that make anyone feel better?

  46. priyesh said, on February 26, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    I want to ask to the Indian government that weather ‘JAIN ‘ cast is under ‘OBC’or ‘GENRAL’.

  47. rc said, on February 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    >> want to ask to the Indian government that weather ‘JAIN ‘ cast is under ‘OBC’or ‘GENRAL’.

    Take a wild guess :-)

  48. Dozssinl said, on May 8, 2009 at 10:55 am

    A5Wpvu comment4 ,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: