Article 15 And 17 Of The Indian Constitution

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 → 2^nd question and 3^rd 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 → 3^rd 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 → 4^th question and 5^th question                                                                                                      
Yes, the individual is having immoral belifs →5^th 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→6^th question                                                                                                                           Yes to both →7^th 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  → 8^th 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 → 9^th 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 → 9^th question                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        The individual gave his advertisement under his caste name as that is the usual procedure in matrimonial advertisements → 9^th question                                                                                                                
No, It doesn’t makes caste as the ‘primary’ criteria → 10^th 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

Identity

The inclusiveness of your identity proclamation simply depends on how well you can dig deep into the history. 

Rewind until 1947 and limit  yourself to be an Indian. Or fall into the next wall and unite with Pakistanis as blood and flesh against the Britons. Rewind faster and look beyond Christ’s birth, unadulterated by the Rig Vedic time's ‘Varnashrama  Dharma’ that will tempt you to stop on the way to fall into its caste categories, you will be greeted either by Aryans or Dravidians to join their group. Just allow yourself to slip and you will land in the enigma to wonder where the Harappan and other such civilizations came from. Inquire all those people and their ancestors and the ancestors’ ancestors to trace back the path from where they all came from. Finally land at that land and give a thought at that moment of how you have transformed from an Indian to an aboriginal African! Challenge your guts to lose yourself and go farthest from the present till you glimpse at the REAL root of your REAL family tree, to realize yourself to be a nude homo sapien unaccompanied by the identities that has been created by all of us to form History. 

Ponder a little. Isn’t at this junction, History is burying itself, yet to be born, totally wrapped and undisturbed by us? Isn’t History is helplessly made to be confined as an embryo of homo sapiens that Biology has given birth to? Isn’t History saying to us, after all it is the creation of us? 

Choice is before us to choose the extent till where we realize and proclaim our identity? History or Biology? The former that we created which unfortunately gave many confusing identities and prepared ourselves to defend for those identities even though the means to do that may be wrong Or the latter that created us and pleaded relentlessly not to forget that you and me, he and she are all nothing but we and us – belonging to a single species called homo sapiens, to simply put, Human Beings devoid of all identities in actuality.