and anand, pls also give us more specifics about AA :

what constitutes AA the usa?

lesser gradation?

does it also use a "minimum" merit like 55% in india?

and why 55% - why not 45% or 65%?

also why a minimum gradation at all?

why not try to address the possible causes for under representation like lack of infrastructure or awareness or exposure etc?

also why should we follow what has been done in the usa - apart from "the gora did it and so we slave minded desis have to follow"?

rather why not shape specific solutions based on our enviornment?

>So let us agree to disagree. You can oppose affirmative action, and I will continue to >vigorously support this. Fair enough?

no.

you have yet to provide supporting evidence for :

1. the actual statistics to show that a state like tamilnadu actually needs AA.
2. that AA in theory in the USA supports a majority of the populace.
3. the actual statistics of AA in education and employment in the usa.

beyond AA you also have to answer for :

1. why you do not support the cause of the truly underpriveleged while still supporting the creamy layer. for every son of a doctor/engineer/banker in urban areas still enjoying the benefits of reservation, there are numerous others in rural areas who could really do with a helping hand.
2. the continued priveleges still enjoyed by the jaathi elite.
3.the continued demonization of brahmins inspite of their historical lower economic status in comparison with the jaathi elite.

>Well, there is compelling anthropological and genetic evidence to suggest that this is indeed >the case.

comrade nair, i think you've to reconcile with the fact that you have to substantiate so called "facts". pls give us the source for this.

>Actually surveys and studies have shown this to be more or less true in case of large groups >of human beings (whether castes or ethnic communities) -- when extraneous conditions >such as socio-economic backbground is normalised. 

such is mutually contradictory - because if every community had even groups of smart/stupid people then no single community would be able to dominate - even less so a community which is a tiny minority.

>The so called Wallace Paradox is the observation 

but that's just an "observation". not an established fact. you would need a lot more experimentation with varied dynamics - population of varied sizes, varied cultures, varied circumstances etc - to even establish the plausibility of such a theory. but even then it can only be considered plausible - not fact.

>Of course you would disagree with the above. You still believe that some large communities >are under-represented because of innate lack of merit, or unwillingness to work hard.

this is winning the argument by other means? if you cannot argue with substance, then demonize your opponent with misrepresentation?

>Around 500 generations back, agriculture was not yet discovered -- that is, plants (like wheat) >or animals (like the cow) were not yet domesticated. All human beings were hunter gatherers >till around 10,000 years (400 generations) back. We know this based on genetic evidence...

most of what passes for "science" today is just heavy speculation - which may appeal to "rationalists" in desh. but to reconcile such "science" with reality of the enviornment is another thing altogether - and often can lead to disasterous consequences.

Nandakumar Chandran,

I had said, "The point that you miss is that such normal genetic variation among individuals distributes evenly among all large groups of people."

Responding to the above, you asked me, "can anybody really prove this?"

Well, there is compelling anthropological and genetic evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case. It is this evidence (which became widely available only in the 20th century) that finally demolished the earlier "scientific justifications" for racism, caste system, colonialism and so on.

You said (sarcastically), "all castes will have 20% stupid people. 20% intelligent people. 20% lazy people."

Actually surveys and studies have shown this to be more or less true in case of large groups of human beings (whether castes or ethnic communities) -- when extraneous conditions such as socio-economic backbground is normalised.

(Even in the 19th century this was observed by the scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace. The so called Wallace Paradox is the observation that a child of parents from a hunter-gatherer tribe, none of whose ancestors were ever literate, has ALREADY a brain that is capable -- if given the same opportunity to go to schools and colleges -- of learning tensor calculus with the same ease -- or difficulty -- as an Asian or European child whose parents and grandparents were well educated for the past hundreds of years. The fact is that the human brain has NOT evolved since the time human beings were hunter-gatherers. Some races or caste groups are NOT innately more "brainy" than other groups!)

Of course you would disagree with the above. You still believe that some large communities are under-represented because of innate lack of merit, or unwillingness to work hard. If you have any supporting evidence for your view, you have not told us! But certainly, yours is not the mainstream scientific perspective of the 21st century!

You can continue holding on to your ideas on caste based merit -- even if in the face of changing scientific opinion on this. I prefer to accept the mainstream scientific view. So let us agree to disagree. You can oppose affirmative action, and I will continue to vigorously support this. Fair enough?

Anand

PS.

A quote from http://newmedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anthropotropism#The_Wallace_Paradox :-

"Historical time is too short for the mechanisms of evolution to have much effect [on the human brain]. Barbara Parker points out that it takes 500-1,000 generations for a survival-enhancing adaptation to become genetically encoded and we have had only about 100 generations since the birth of Jesus Christ. It is unlikely then that there is much genetic difference between our hunter-gatherer ancestors and you and I."

Around 500 generations back, agriculture was not yet discovered -- that is, plants (like wheat) or animals (like the cow) were not yet domesticated. All human beings were hunter gatherers till around 10,000 years (400 generations) back. We know this based on genetic evidence...

>The point that you miss is that such normal genetic variation among individuals distributes >evenly among all large groups of people. 

what kind of BS is this? 

can anybody really prove this? all castes will have 20% stupid people. 20% intelligent people. 20% lazy people.

more "scientific" mumbojumbo?

>The fact of genetic variation among individuals does NOT explain gross under-representation >of large groups of identifiable communities from some professions and colleges.

why do you need all this complex reasons?

the brits impoverished india. their indian successors have continued the job. with poverty naturally comes ignorance. also industrialization is still new to a large part of india which was traditionally agrarian. lot of people in rural areas do not have a culture of education/knowledge or the exposure to know about its benefits.

just pump money into all the rural areas with better schools, better paid teachers, propoganda films showing the benefits of education etc. things will change.

>Truth defintely comes in shades of grey. But the black opinion (as you hold) that under->represented groups are backward because they are innately lazy or undeserving is far off >from the grey truth!

i never said that. but you're pushing it to further your own argument as you have run out of substance.

>The status quo that you defend that of social inequity! You oppose reservations because this >has moderately succeeded in Tamil Nadu in pulling a caste ridden society out of the status >quo of social inequity.

what? commie mumbojumbo again?

>You said, "but you have no statistics to prove this claim!"

>This is okay so long as the courts are satisfied that the statistics provided the government, >duly validated by the Registrar General of Census, are okay! 

no - the courts themselves are not clear about this issue. and so the reason that they are opposiing the moves of politicians in encouraging reservation.

>You went on to claim, "statistics of tamilnadu will show that so many castes identified as >"backward" are actually well represented in the "elite" sections"

>You ask me to prove statistics that have been validated by the Registrar General of Census, >as also survived judicial scrutiny. Yet, in the very next breath, you feel no qualms about making >preposterous claims as above! What statistics are YOU talking of? 

i'm a brahmin. i also know so many brahmins. i'm also a tamil and know a lot of other tamils. i've also studied indian/tamil history and traditional literature in depth. i have also taken care to pay attention to what happens in my society. that gives me enough background to make such an assertion about my community and enviornment (which you cannot as you are not a tamil).
 
that brahmins historically/traditionally were priests and not engineers or doctors is a known fact which only an idiot would not accept.

>Have you no sense of shame or personal dignity?

all these stunts cannot substitute for a sound argument.

Nandakumar Chandran,

You said, "human nature/reality is much more complex. truth is in shades of grey and not black and white"

Where does "human nature" come in here? We are NOT talking of individuals at all. We all know that there is wide disparity between the abilities, skills and even intelligence of different individuals in any society! Indeed, there are genetically lazy indiduals and genetically hardworking individuals.

The point that you miss is that such normal genetic variation among individuals distributes evenly among all large groups of people. The fact of genetic variation among individuals does NOT explain gross under-representation of large groups of identifiable communities from some professions and colleges.

The issue that AA seeks to address is one of under-representation of large groups of endogamous communities. The racist explanation for gross under-representation is that these groups lack merit and are lazy. Today, this racist explanation stands totally discredited by both anthropological and genetic evidence.

Truth defintely comes in shades of grey. But the black opinion (as you hold) that under-represented groups are backward because they are innately lazy or undeserving is far off from the grey truth!

The status quo that you defend that of social inequity! You oppose reservations because this has moderately succeeded in Tamil Nadu in pulling a caste ridden society out of the status quo of social inequity.

You said, "but you have no statistics to prove this claim!"

This is okay so long as the courts are satisfied that the statistics provided the government, duly validated by the Registrar General of Census, are okay!

You went on to claim, "statistics of tamilnadu will show that so many castes identified as "backward" are actually well represented in the "elite" sections"

You ask me to prove statistics that have been validated by the Registrar General of Census, as also survived judicial scrutiny. Yet, in the very next breath, you feel no qualms about making preposterous claims as above! What statistics are YOU talking of? Have you no sense of shame or personal dignity?

You ask, "how can brahmins for instance - as is happening in tamilnadu - be kept out of engineering or medicine ....?"

If brahmins are "kept out" engineering or medicine, this would be racism or caste system of the type that you seem to support.

Reservations neither seeks to keep out brahmins, nor has the unintended effect of keeping out any community from any profession. The aim of affirmative action is the opposite -- that is to create a society where no identifiable group is "kept out"!

Anand

and are you claiming that there's no such thing as laziness in people?

it is normally found in people for doing things where they have no interest or motivation.

yea i can understand the case of a poor boy in some remote village with no idea of the benefits of being a doctor or engineer.

but what excuse can be given for a candidate who is well off, has the necessary exposure, the background (say the son of a doctor or engineer or a banker) - for not getting the necessary marks in open competition to qualify for a medical/engineering/management seat?

and for every such undeserving candidate they are numerous others who are more deserving. wouldn't it be reasonable to then to lend a helping hand to the deserving instead of the undeserving?

statistics of tamilnadu will show that so many castes identified as "backward" are actually well represented in the "elite" sections - and have also been historically so.

if you take medicine for example, there was traditional medicine in india even before we got colleges doling out mbbs. so many intermediate castes were practicing this profession.

likewise with engineering or banking - the traditional varieties of it.

and almost no brahmin historically practiced these. so how can brahmins for instance - as is happening in tamilnadu - be kept out of engineering or medicine based on "lack of representation"?

what kind of BS is this?

>According to you, the current inequitous status quo is a true reflection of natural distribution of >"merit" among individuals and among groups. In your imaginary world, hard working >individuals with merit are those who are well off. Those who are not well off are the lazy and >undeserving people. Ditto in case of identifiable groups that are presently over-represented >and under-represented.

anand, the typical nature of an immature argument is that it will tend to extremes to prove its point - just as you are doing. but human nature/reality is much more complex. truth is in shades of grey and not black and white.

am i in anyway supporting the present status quo in tamilnadu where official reservation is 69% and practical reservation is 97%?

what are you talking about?

the reality in tamilnadu is that too many people are manipulating the reservation quota without deserving it and availing of its privelges. and also the current system bestows priveleges without trying to extract the maximum potential for achievment even in those candidates who deserve quota by granting them seats on a platter based on a ridiculously low "minimum criterion". also a tiny minority is targeted as a reason for this reservation and specifically kept out of educational and employment opportunities. these are the things that i'm arguing about.


>a) Gross under-representation of identifiable groups (whatever the historical causes for >this) is a factor that retards the surfacing of potential merit. 

but you are not telling us what this "factor" is. to prescribe a solution you have to first state the problem clearly. what is that such people/groups lack which prevents them from competing with others?

>b) The basis of Affirmative Action in India is the recognition that our traditionally caste->ridden society lacks social diversity. (This had been so, for hundreds of years BEFORE the >Turks and the Moghuls and the British came in -- and continue to be so, after these >invasions too). 

these are all too generic. you have to first clearly define social diversity. then you have to show statistics to prove that the society lacks this.

>Some endogamous groups are (and were traditionally) grossly over- represented in >certain highly rated occupations and educational pursuits. This has led up to a society that >is characterised by mediocrity and general paucity of merit....

but you have no statistics to prove this claim!

Nandakumar Chandran,

The contradiction that you do see (in my stand on affirmative action) is ONLY because of the reason that you tout for gross under-representation and wide spread social inequity.

According to you, the current inequitous status quo is a true reflection of natural distribution of "merit" among individuals and among groups. In your imaginary world, hard working individuals with merit are those who are well off. Those who are not well off are the lazy and undeserving people. Ditto in case of identifiable groups that are presently over-represented and under-represented.

Let me assure you that all those who support affirmative action (anywhere in the world) disagree with the above reason for gross under-representation of groups, and for wide spread social inequity. Our perspective can be summarised as under:-

a) Gross under-representation of identifiable groups (whatever the historical causes for this) is a factor that retards the surfacing of potential merit. Societies (anywhere in the world and in what ever period) that are characterised by widespread social inequity are condemned to remain backward and conflict prone.

b) The basis of Affirmative Action in India is the recognition that our traditionally caste-ridden society lacks social diversity. (This had been so, for hundreds of years BEFORE the Turks and the Moghuls and the British came in -- and continue to be so, after these invasions too). Some endogamous groups are (and were traditionally) grossly over- represented in certain highly rated occupations and educational pursuits. This has led up to a society that is characterised by mediocrity and general paucity of merit....

There is thus no mutual contradiction in the two views as under:-

a) Affirmative Action is NOT a concession or a sop that is generously offered to handicapped or "backward" individuals who lack merit.

b) Affirmative Action is intended to combat mediocrity and social conflict, which are unavoidable in a situation of gross social inequity.

Anand