Article 15- This article prohibits the “State” from
discriminating any individual on the grounds of ‘only’ of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
The fallout of this is, art.15 prohibits the state
from discriminating any individual on the grounds of ‘only’ caste.
1.Does/ Should art.15 also prohibits the “Individual” from
discriminating any individual on the grounds of ‘only’ of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Does/ Should art.15
also prohibits the “Individual” from discriminating any individual on
the grounds of ‘only’ caste?
Yes,
it prohibits such discrimination → 2nd question and 3rd
question
No, it doesn’t prohibits. The individual can discriminate on their own subjective basis. Law can only prevent such discrimination. It can’t force an individual to change if his attitude involves such discrimination → 3rd question
No, it doesn’t prohibits. The individual can discriminate on their own subjective basis. Law can only prevent such discrimination. It can’t force an individual to change if his attitude involves such discrimination → 3rd question
2. Then how come individuals are free to openly
search for their life partners using public media under the clear headings of
their caste names(referring to Matrimonial sections). Aren’t they
discriminating ‘mainly’ on the basis of caste alone though other additional
reasons exists? Give your views.
3.Then do you feel that the individual is suffering
from harmful and immoral beliefs(conviction) of discriminating others ‘mainly’ on
caste basis?
No,
the individual is not having any immoral belifs → 4th question and 5th
question
Yes, the individual is having immoral belifs →5th question
Yes, the individual is having immoral belifs →5th question
4. Explain your views
5. Isn’t matrimonial, in most cases, facilitates
negative discrimination of caste than other positive reasons(like culture
related) of caste. Is State has the right/power ‘not’ to promote those
platforms which further facilitates the individual to discriminate negativelyon
caste basis?
No
to both→6th question Yes to both →7th question
6. By this idleness, isn’t State ensuring the
continuance of inequality in the society through such discrimination. Explain
your views.
7.Then why can’t State prohibit/ban those ways in matrimonials
which ‘primarily’ and ‘negatively’ discriminate on the basis of caste alone? (The advertisements for groom/bride
preferences is given under the clear headings of different caste names. Hence
Caste is the ‘primary’ basis for discrimination under such advertisements. And
for example, if a Brahmin advertises further under his sub caste, isn’t that
further promote ‘negative’ discrimination (and further unwanted divisions) as
the variation of culture(which is otherwise justified to be considered with
caste as a positive criteria) within Brahmins as a community is very less). Give your views.
Based on your above answers, proceed further.
In matrimonial, when an individual searches for his
life partner he expresses his wishes of how her life partner should be. By
doing so, he includes caste as one of his criteria. It is only an ‘additional’
criteria (Art.15 is not violated) when he gives such advertisements in the
matrimonial. Do you agree to this?
Yes,
Caste requisite is only an additional criteria. The main expectation he is
expecting from his life partner may be certain educational qualifications, financial
stability, kindness etc → 8th
question
No, Caste requisite is the main criteria (or one of the main criteria).
This is evident from the fact that the advertisement is given under the heading
of his caste name (culture as a reason to nullify this statement is unjustified
as the culture he expects includes within its fold few other related sub-castes
also. With this as the case, why can’t he include those sub-caste which goes
completely congruent to his caste(culture wise) in his preference list. Isn’t
his act of ignoring those congruent sub-castes in his matrimonial advertisement
tells that culture as the reason for him to consider caste is not true. There
is some true ‘negative’ discrimination with caste as the criteria but he
escapes under the cover of reasoning- culture associated with castes → 9th
question
8. If it is so, why he gives his advertisement under
the heading of his caste name. Isn’t that makes caste as the main/primary (or
one of the main/primary) criteria?
Yes,
It makes caste as the ‘primary’ criteria → 9th question The
individual gave his advertisement under his caste name as that is the usual
procedure in matrimonial advertisements → 9th question
No, It doesn’t makes caste as the ‘primary’ criteria → 10th question
No, It doesn’t makes caste as the ‘primary’ criteria → 10th question
9. If it is so, isn’t this act of individual and the
matrimonial section’s established norm of giving advertisement under the caste
name violating the “letter and the spirit of the law” as given under article
15? Give your views (and remedies, if your answer is ‘yes’ to the question).
10. Give your views.
Few other questions:
11. Isn’t matrimonial, in most cases, facilitates
negative discrimination of caste than the other culture related positive/acceptable
reasons that caste can deliver?
12. Discriminating on the grounds of ‘only’
caste. Discriminating with
caste as the ‘main’ criteria (along with other positive reasons that may or may
not be equally significant to caste as the ‘main’ criteria)
Can you say that the wrong intent in both as one and the same?
Does article 15 prohibits both?
13. If a person advertises in the matrimonial with
caste as the ‘only’ criteria, does law prohibits it? Can one say this as the ‘discrimination’ on the basis of ‘only’
caste?
14. Does/ Should article 17(abolition of
untouchabilty) also includes abolition of caste? If not why?
15. In your words, define Untouchability (a
Comprehensive definition).
16. The
constitution didn’t define untouchability but supreme court has defined it. Can
we consider untouchability as a discrimination both in physical and mental form
while answering the following question?
If discrimination on the basis of caste is
‘negative’ and is harmful, can it be included under the connotation of
untouchability? If Yes, shouldn’t caste
be abolished to the extent it promote such ‘negative’ discrimination (i.e
untouchability)
16. Is caste division the basis and one of the
reason for introduction of reservation
system? Can it be argued that it is unjustifiable to remove reservation system
leaving behind the caste system to continue?
If it is seen that caste has some positive
functional role and it is absurd to take steps to eradicate it since it carries
some negatives with it, then shouldn’t there be laws that clearly and strictly
prohibits any kind of ‘negative’ and harmful discrimination that flows out of
caste. And can we say that at present there is loopholes in laws which
facilitates such ‘negative’ discrimination toexist and occur (Matrimonial is a
classic example where many go for caste preference with irrational reasonings
in their mind but still remain under the cover that their preference of caste
is only an additional criteria)?
17. If abolition of caste hasn’t been included in
the constitution since such caste based discrimination may not be always in
unacceptable manner read the news report attached here (http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=365814&catid=35&show=archive&year=2011&month=4&day=13&Itemid=66)
and proceed further.
Isn’t even the efficient activists (politicians) who
have a great role in the politicization of caste is agreeing through the
protest mentioned in the news article that caste is now totally a negative word
as they are condemning even the mere use of caste names while referring to
national leaders or ‘any other individual’.
If caste names have become “not to be used” kind of
word, isn’t it is high time to go for abolition of caste (which will also
provide a strong reason to remove reservation in the near future). Just keep
outside the thought of possibility of such thing to happen and give your views
to this question
