Umesh
>So how is this difference possible in minority's definition -race in US vs religion in India?
I am not sure what exactly you are asking. If you could be a bit more clearer.
--Ram da
On 5/8/06, umesh sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ram-da,I know that US has separation of state and the church and freedom to practice any faith (as I saw etched on Jefferson Memorial on Potomac river in DC) -- but so does India. Infact Indian constitution's preamble is :"India is a soversign, secular, socialist, democratic, republic. "So how is this difference possible in minority's definition -race in US vs religion in India?UmeshUmesh,There is a difference. When the US Affirmative laws were instituted, they were designed primarily to combat racism and lost opportunities for Blacks. Other races were also included.As far as Indians were concerned, they were considered "Caucasian" as far as catogorization, and those from China etc were in the Asian/Pacific Islander group.In any case, the problem of "religion" was taken care of by the framers of the US Constitution. Race, unfortunately has and wil always be a part of the US - hence they needed some affirmative action laws.--Ram da
On 5/8/06, umesh sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Ram-da,Why don't US people give Affirmative Action benefits (read to minorities as you said) to Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Taoists -ie based on religion - the way it is done in India - for non Hindus. Why do the winter break and spring break have to coincide with Easter (good Friday) and Christmas respectively only and no holidays for Hindus.If the argument goes that Hindus and Muslims are a tiny portion of the population -- then as per Columbia Univ 2002 report (I read in Wash. Post yesterday) 7 million Muslims are there in USA - more than Jews. So why are there minority rights based on religion - in India -- and only on basis of race in USA?Umesh
Ram-da wrote:Then the same would be true of race based quotas (affirmation laws). The US Affirmation laws have been designed to protect minorities and NOT majority communities.The basic concept in both the US and Indian Govts. is driven by some basics in democracy - ie to protect minority communities that may often not be able to compete on the same footing as the majority because they may not (or are not) given the same opportunities as all the people.
Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Barua,The test that you applied to the US Affirmation laws is good, and that should be the same test you should apply to the GOI. Politics is there in both US and in India. In the US you can call it race-baiting or race politics and in India its caste politics and caste baiting.
The GOI (just like the US Govt.) has to recognize that some of the castes (specially the lower ones) are still being marginalized IF they want to give them quotas. It does not mean that the GOI is overtly promoting the caste system.The Indian Constitution also does not discriminate on the basis of religion, but that does NOT mean they have to ignore that there are different religions in India - same with caste.>Whichever way you look at the problem, as long as there >would be Caste Based quota, one will be involved in politics, >the origin of which is the Hindu Caste System.Then the same would be true of race based quotas (affirmation laws). The US Affirmation laws have been designed to protect minorities and NOT majority communities.The basic concept in both the US and Indian Govts. is driven by some basics in democracy - ie to protect minority communities that may often not be able to compete on the same footing as the majority because they may not (or are not) given the same opportunities as all the people.My point was simply this: You would criticize the GOI if they were support quotas saying that they "recognize" and possibly promote casteism, and you would also criticize it not assigning quotas for the downtrowden castes.Sometimes one needs to make a stand, even if wrong, at least a stand has been taken.>the origin of which is the Hindu Caste System.Thats a different debate. Are you saying that the ancients advocated mistreating all the lower castes?Or do you think it is the so-called 'modern Hindus' like us who still base our thinking on who is a Bamun and who is a Xudhir?And even if the ancient Hindus did advocate such treatment, did we modern Hindus somehow lose our intelligence on the way and are incapable to visualize flaws in such a system?--RamUmesh Sharma
5121 Lackawanna ST
College Park, MD 20740
1-202-215-4328 [Cell Phone]
Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo.
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
