印度种姓制度如何生存

Feb 8, 2016 Shashi Tharoor

新德里—1月17日，印度泰伦加纳邦海德拉巴大学博士候选人维穆拉（Rohith Vemula）上吊自尽。即使在这个拥有12亿人的国家，一个人的死也能造成巨大影响。

维穆拉是一位“达利特”（Dalit），即曾经的“贱民”，属于印度教种姓制度的最底层。他也是海德拉巴大学安贝卡学生会（Ambedkar Students Association）领袖，为达利特主张权利。维穆拉的死让他取得了无法想象的成就：他成为国家英雄，他的悲剧成为最好的写照，证明了种姓在印度发展叙事中的挥之不去的遗毒。

和种族不同，种姓看不见：看一个人的面孔无法知道他属于哪个种姓。但种姓在印度社会中根深蒂固，它限制了一个人在生命所有各阶段所能获得的机会。身为达利特，你就披上了看不见的耻辱外衣，日常互动都要低人一等。维穆拉之死再次提醒印度人，三亿多属于最低级种姓的人，以及“部落民”（即土著），仍面临着来自社会所有阶层的歧视、偏见、敌意甚至暴力。

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

Shashi Tharoor

Writing for PS since 2002
166 Commentaries

Shashi Tharoor, a former UN under-secretary-general and former Indian Minister of State for External Affairs and Minister of State for Human Resource Development, is an MP for the Indian National Congress. He is the author, most recently, of Pride, Prejudice and Punditry: The Essential Shashi Tharoor (Aleph Book Company, 2021).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Gopal Baliga Aug 8, 2016

The Case Against Affirmative Action
If, after 25 years, affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination, perhaps it is time to try something else.

By David Sacks & Peter Thiel

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.

But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.

What's gone wrong? The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.

When University officials boast of "looking for racism everywhere," as multicultural educator Greg Ricks did in a 1990 Stanford Daily interview, then perhaps the most sensible (and certainly the most predictable) response will be for white students to avoid dealing with such quarrelsome people. In this way, the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness.

None of this is to deny that there are some people in America who are racist and that there are some features of American life that are legacies of a much more racist past. But racism is not everywhere, and there is very little at a place like Stanford. Certainly, no one has accused Stanford's admissions officers of being racist, so perhaps the real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.

Although Stanford's admissions office cannot undo the wrongs of history, its mission is still very important -- namely, admitting the best class of students it can find. The sole criterion in finding the members of this class and in defining "merit" should be individual achievement -- not just grades and test scores, of course, but a broad range of accomplishments, in athletics, music, student government, drama, school clubs and other extracurricular efforts. But race and ethnicity (or gender or sexual preference) do not have a place on this list; these are traits, not achievements.

Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised. It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst -- that preferences have skewed the entire class -- they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.

A Stanford without affirmative action will be a Stanford in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered. It will no longer need to be answered because it will no longer need to be asked, not even sotto voc.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduced from article :David Sacks, '94, is a law student at the University of Chicago. Peter Thiel, '89, JD '92, runs an investment firm. They are co-authors of The Diversity Myth: "Multi-culturalism" and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gopal Baliga Aug 8, 2016

Blame the politicians for fostering this caste bias in society for furthering their own political interest of cultivating vote banks. The caste bias is a result of a growing frustration and heartburn in community due to blatant neglect of merit .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
sree krishna chaithanya Apr 28, 2016

Mr.Tharoor he was not a dalit.Get your facts correct.
- Viswanath Swamy Jul 28, 2016
  
  he was a dalit.........
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
artheek vijay Feb 21, 2016

nobody talks about biology invpolved in caste system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
artheek vijay Feb 21, 2016

see caste is known by face.ask anyone in india who has contact with other people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Feb 11, 2016

On a side issue, may be the Westminister System imbibed by the political elite is the structural edifice which needs macro correction - after independence from British Raj.
British believed in divide and rule; and the (existing) caste system played right into their hands & their Viceroys rule.

This vast subcontinent cannot be governed by discordant political caste based political system & their cohorts. It's a road to diminishing returns; and may be it's time to reconsider the Westminister System -> Presidential System might provide some social subterfuge to current political chaos system of rule.
Schumpeter's *creative destruction* is fundamental to righting the Indian subcontinent from its current political malaise.
Mainland China doesn't have to content with gravity of Indian social caste system & its development, since 1970's, underwrite the wisdom of Hans civilization.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D MZ Feb 11, 2016

Isn't this a cultural phenomenon and, therefore, something that will require many generations to lessen its impact?
the question is, how do you change cultural norms especially in a country as vast and diverse as India where educational levels are as diverse as the population and where "superstitions" still sway large numbers of the populace? Top down will have very limited impact
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mahendra Mahagaonkar Feb 9, 2016

Excellent and in-depth
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 9, 2016

The head of "The Caste Snake" was our erstwhile First Family - the high priests of Secular Democracy marginalized The Majority collaborating with Global Sectarian forces in unleashing "Caste Mathematics". Sovereign Economics became an afterthought - whereas in China it was the DNA. Hence the Mandarins perspicacity in understanding the limitations of Bretton Woods Institutions. And marshalling the Sovereign Economic Development process that took China to heights India will never.

Because our DNA is The Caste System - easily abused by the high priests of Secular Democracy.

2500 years ago Enlightenment had its Fountainhead in India - that enabled the transformation of The Transient into The Eternal by unleashing The Trinity across Ashoka's Asia and Alexander's Europe. The pursuit of knowledge - absence of knowledge regarded as the source of suffering - led to the establishment of The Sangha (and The Church) as The World's First Global Institution. The Holy Trinity was the precursor of The Zero and its Twin - Infinity. The transformation that resulted ensured The Sangha (and The Church) remained as The DNA forever.
India reverted back to its high priests and "The Caste System" - that ensured eternal succour.
Sovereign Economics has remained an afterthought ever since.

In China and Europe - The Sangha and The Church became the bedrock that determined their destiny.
In India - the high priests by birth determination destiny.
Our erstwhile First Family exploitation of "Caste Mathematics" ensured an Economic Geography that marginalized The Majority.
Until The Sangha destroyed Dynasty - JP fired the first salvo in 1977, Vajpayee repeated it in 1998, and now the Modi magic in 2014.

Fundamentalist cannot be condoned - Caste Fundamentalism no different from Religious Fundamentalism.
The Secular Democrats - and their high priests - chose one over the other.
The crime no less.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Feb 8, 2016

Shashi, I'm happy you finally decided to take on the Indian Caste System & its impact on development in the subcontinent - after a Dalit (Ph.D.student) committed suicide because of caste discrimination by his university administration.

However I don't think you're capable of redressing the dynamics of caste discrimination in Indian politics & its eventual demise. I want the ancient Indian caste system destroyed - for ever! Otherwise India will NOT rise...

See "Why I finally 'came out' as Dalit — and what happened next" by Yashica Dutt, PRI's The World - PRI - Thursday, February 4, 2016.
The story is from a NDTV personality who finally admits the story of her untouchable identity & how she kept it under the rugs - before relocating to NY recently.

The claim that India is the largest democracy in the world emotes very little empathy when seen in light of Yashica Dutt's reporting from her life experience as a Dalit & her Tumbler site.

Either Indian politicians/leaders are blind; or they find themselves unable to undo the Brahamin alchemy of Casteism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/kMxTk1kzh

印度种姓制度如何生存

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

How India’s Caste System Survives

Log in/Register

印度种姓制度如何生存

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification