No, you clearly don't understand. It's not simply a matter of choice. The castes are listed so that you don't marry below your station. If, for example, a Kashmiri Pandit married a dalit from the south of India there would likely be uproar in the family - "Not only are they uneducated, they're dark skinned!", or "Someone from a village!?".
Calling it OK because it's choice is like saying it's OK for a shop to choose not to serve blacks. Just because it's a chocie doesn't mean it's not discrimination.
And for record, if you decide that you are only going to marry blondes then you are discriminating against brunettes. OK, so it's trivial and unimportant, but if you take that discrimination into wider society ( as happens with caste-based discrimination ) then it becomes an issue.
Please, take off your rose-tinted spectacles.
Caste-based discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, is rife in India.
One only need take a look at the matrimonial adverts in any daily paper to see this. Not only do you 'filter' your matches on their religion, but you also search by caste ( and sub-caste! ). If caste-based discrimination was not rife, why would this be ?
If lower-caste citizens have so many rights, why do many Dalits convert to christianity or buddhism to escape the shackles of the Hindu caste system ? Also, why do state governments then try to stop then ?
India is a fantastic place, half my family live there, I got married there and go regularly but to pretend it doesn't have serious problems is to close your eyes to reality.
Re:Posting anon to protect the guilty
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
There is a difference between server-side Java where all you see is the HTML output and browser-side Java where you see the problems you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you clearly don't understand. It's not simply a matter of choice. The castes are listed so that you don't marry below your station. If, for example, a Kashmiri Pandit married a dalit from the south of India there would likely be uproar in the family - "Not only are they uneducated, they're dark skinned!", or "Someone from a village!?". Calling it OK because it's choice is like saying it's OK for a shop to choose not to serve blacks. Just because it's a chocie doesn't mean it's not discrimination. And for record, if you decide that you are only going to marry blondes then you are discriminating against brunettes. OK, so it's trivial and unimportant, but if you take that discrimination into wider society ( as happens with caste-based discrimination ) then it becomes an issue.
Please, take off your rose-tinted spectacles. Caste-based discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, is rife in India. One only need take a look at the matrimonial adverts in any daily paper to see this. Not only do you 'filter' your matches on their religion, but you also search by caste ( and sub-caste! ). If caste-based discrimination was not rife, why would this be ? If lower-caste citizens have so many rights, why do many Dalits convert to christianity or buddhism to escape the shackles of the Hindu caste system ? Also, why do state governments then try to stop then ? India is a fantastic place, half my family live there, I got married there and go regularly but to pretend it doesn't have serious problems is to close your eyes to reality.
There is a difference between server-side Java where all you see is the HTML output and browser-side Java where you see the problems you mention.