Sir,
I think two issues may be getting confused here- preferential discrimination and systemic discrimination.
I was avoiding the sociological discourse here. But, it is good to learn that you have found some taste for it. Let me tell you Althusser has stated that what you make of yourself is not a single psychological self, it is more reflected as
social self. And, this social self has number of inputs to it. One of the most basic input is the
education. The discrimination or the
social stratification begins according to him from the educational differences. Now, how does the education creates stratification? The fact cannot be better exemplified by the fact that Brahimins had barred the Shudras from hearing the Vedas. The one who does so should be punished by making him deaf.
So, when you call in the distinction for the preferential and systemic discrimination. So there are various social institutions that contrbute to stratification and also then the subsequent preferences.
Money and
land is also of that class. These elements then create a yard scale where your preference system works. The point is how you justify your preferences, as I show you in the following.
Let me tell you how hey are the umbilical twins and they act as in an inside-outside relation.
Say for example there is a professor in a University who has a PhD student. This student is of an average class but he does all his household work, a kind of seva like the spoilt system is seen in much of the higher education. If he wants to take him as a recruit then you would call it a
preferential discrimination. But, how to do that. This professor does an innovation. He creates a post with a particular kind of desirable qualification that there are very few applicants to that post. And, finally he has used the
systemic disrimination to get his half work done under the preferntial discrimination.
The kill is that even though this student may or may not be from his caste but the subservience is required. This is the only secular element to this kind of corruption.
So at times the casteist discrimination gets hedged under the secular instruments of discrimination.
What impact comes from caste preference is that such decision the one as in above case are taken from the caste perspective and no from the perosnal(professor's) perpective.
So casteism is very much community preference. Corruption is also a kind of community preference but it is of a very universal kind. The people who practice such preferences in fact take pride by stating that they are dong community service.
भले ही चाहे देश की कार सेवा हो जाये ।
They both go together. After all it is the individual at the top who sign the appointment letters and they decide who should be the COAS. And, they have preferences too, a blend of course.
Quoting my earlier case. Let me tell that Lt Gen Sinha was not superceded by Gen AD Vaidya wihout adquate reason. The excuse was that he had refused to comply with MRs. Gandhi's order of moving the troops to Golden Temple premise, an opportunity which Gen Vaidya promptly captured. So, there would always be justifications for discrimination. But, if it was justified then why Lt Gen Sinha was not court marshalled and in fact awarded the Governeship of ASSAM.
The simple reason is subservience.शरण में चले जाओ, माफ ही नहीं बल्कि पुरुस्कार भी पाओगे ।
यही जाट की सबसे बङी दुविधा है , शरण में जाना मंजूर नहीं है ।
