Do we follow some norms and ethics in this forum

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Mentioning Sri.Nara and Sow.Happy Hindu and talking about persons collecting money from outside religions undermining Hinduism in the same sentence or in the same paragraph is not agreeable. Heated debates need not get that hot. I have been feeling bad for the last 3 to 4 days about this. I do not believe such mentioning was meant to literally mean that way.

Sri.Nara and Sow.Happy Hindu, Kindly shurg some of the comments thrown at you as the comments came your way at the heat of the moment, please. (However, Sri.Nara, I request you not include the comment I made in this list, please. I know I offended you; I meant to offend you. I will provide the rationale when you ask me to do it).

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

....I had tangled with Prof. Nara before, probably because he misconstrued my words and probably also because I was not careful with my words, but that is now history.

I know we had harsh words for each other many months ago, and as you rightly say, it is now history. We still have vigorous arguments, but you have always shown me a level of courtesy and civility beyond what I am entitled to -- it is noted and appreciated.

Lot of water has passed under the bridge. This is going to be last post on this matter from me. When we argue sometimes we have a tendency to overstate our case. I can't say I am immune to it. If pointed out with evidence I will only be happy to accept and amend, and if necessary apologize.

In this instance, Shri RVR made a couple of sweeping statements, and made a ridiculous charge -- everyone knows it was against HH. Asking him to substantiate these statements and charges is not "cornering" or "blackening", at least in my books it is not. Instead of answering my questions, Shri RVR is hiding behind popular adulation and ad hominem attacks against me.

K often says, "stoop to conquer". I like that, it is good advice. But, IMO, too much stooping will make one reflexively stoop at the first instance of opposition.

Even after so much talk, and after HH's unwarranted but gracious apology, she has been denied justice. That will remain a black mark.

One thing I have noticed and bemoan is the lack of participation from women in our forum. Only two women participated regularly and we managed to drive one of them away. The other was on the verge of leaving. Thanks to Praveen's diplomatic silence we have managed to retain her for the moment. I hope we don't end up driving her away as well.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

(However, Sri.Nara, I request you not include the comment I made in this list, please. I know I offended you; I meant to offend you. I will provide the rationale when you ask me to do it).

Raghy, unintentional offense is understandable, but there is no cause whatever for intentional offense. Honestly, I have no interest in the rationale. Thanks anyway.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Forum,

I have not made any personal comment about Sri.Nara or Sow.Happy Hindu or anyone else in thiis thread (or in any other thread, for that matter). I felt for them and out of empathy, I wrote post #276. So, kindly don't think I offended either of them personally in anyway, please.

Sri.Nara, I have a huge respect for you. I made an offending comment about your 'arguement' (or about your message); never about your person (in post #123). Since I have this respect for you, I felt uneasy, even about the comment I made about your arguement.

In post #123 I said

Sri.Nara, Greetings. When I read your arguments justifying caste based reservations, it sounded very similar to justifying caste based discriminations. There is no difference between your arguments and the Kasi Pandit seen in in the youtube movie India Untouched - Part 1 and 2.

(kindly look at the high-lighted portions, please).

I received this reply from you in post #124:-

Thank you Raghy, I cannot argue with a person who expresses this view.

thank you ....

This reply surprised me since I was only commenting about your arguements. So, in reply I wrote IN POST #149 :-

That is fine. I openly expressed my mind. That Pandit tried justifying a load of crap, caste based discrimination, by quoting Vedas; You were trying to justify a load of crap, unfair (by your own words) caste based reservation. I saw both the arguments as utter nonsense.

(Kindly note the high lighted portion, please).

In post #276 when I said,

I know I offended you; I meant to offend you. I will provide the rationale when you ask me to do it

, still I meant commenting about your arguement. (I almost half expected you to say that I did not offend you personally. It seems, you were too involved in your debate to notice this small detail).

I respect your stand when you said in post #278,

Raghy, unintentional offense is understandable, but there is no cause whatever for intentional offense. Honestly, I have no interest in the rationale. Thanks anyway

Sri.Nara, Since you are not interested to listen to my rationale, there is no point in criticising your arguements. So, I unconditionally withdraw my comments I originally made about your arguements in post #123.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

... In post #276 when I said, , still I meant commenting about your arguement. (I almost half expected you to say that I did not offend you personally. It seems, you were too involved in your debate to notice this small detail).

Dear Raghy, I am impelled to respond, as a matter of basic courtesy, since you have taken the trouble of taking this seriously and responding at length. I have no doubt you have fond feelings for me and this feeling is mutual. This little incidence will not have any effect on that fond feeling from my side, and I am sure it will not from your side either.

There is one thing on which I have to disagree, opposing one's argument is perfectly alright, but equating one's argument to excreta, and that of most vile poison coming out of this wicked priest from Kasi, is not something that I would consider above the belt. It is my policy not to respond to any attack that I consider to be clearly below the belt.

I have already gone past this incidence, hope you can too.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
Are we reading the same reserch paper? Seems like we are reading the same lines and are arriving at different conclusions! Let me post some pertinent sentences from the paper and give you how I read them. You may want to explain what you read on these to 'bolster' your case:

1. On the other side, dalit and adivasi critiques of affirmative action charge that these policies are poorly implemented and have had very little effect. While the government reserves seats for dalit and adivasi students at college level, village schools continue to discriminate, preventing them from taking full advantage of these reservations (Galanter 1997)
This goes to my argument that we need to fix this at the village level.

2. Although there has been a substantial increase in literacy among dalits and adivasis, the rise is primarily a product of the population-wide increase in literacy and educational attainment levelsAt least one observer suggests that, “Our proposition is not that the state has failed to make a real difference in the lives of untouchables. Rather, the argument is that any major beneficial impact has tended to arise from polices directed to the whole population and not merely to untouchables” (Mendelsohn and Vicziany 1998:119). According to this argument, while upper social classes have long sought higher education, lower-income families, be they dalit or upper caste Hindu, are also beginning to develop high educational aspirations for their children. Increased access to school has made the fulfillment of these dreams feasible, and dalits and adivasis, rather than benefiting from affirmative action, have shared in this educational expansion along with poor upper caste Hindus.
Again goes to my saqme comment above.

3. Second, the gap between upper caste Hindu/other religious groups and dalits/adivasis diminished. This decline in inequality accelerated during the 1990s, a period of intensified affirmative action directed at dalits and adivasis.
Third, the educational gap declined at the primary school level rather than at the college levelHowever, our results show no improvement and even mild deterioration in college graduation rates for dalits, casting doubt on the effectiveness of these policies.
One would think after reading the 'second' conclusion, one would think that the quota system helped. But unfortunately that is destroyed by the 'third' conclusion.

4. While this analysis indicates narrowing of educational inequalities between dalits and adivasis on one hand and upper caste Hindus and Sikhs, Christians, and Jains on the other during the 1980s and 1990s, it cannot positively attribute these changes to affirmative action policies, although these are the years during which affirmative action policies intensified
So the study could not prove that the quota system was the cause of this redduction in inequality and they have already said that the inequality at the college level incresed. They have also said that it declined at the primary and secondary levels and last time I have looked, the quota system comes in to play only at the college level!

5. Educational inequalities are a function of many different factors: availability and quality of schools, returns to education, parental demand for schooling, and teachers’ attitudes. Within the context of our analysis, it is not possible to show unambiguously that the changes we observed are the results of positive discrimination or affirmative action.
So, where does your conclusion that the study bolsters your stand come from?

Also, please read this interesting paper on the failure of the quota system from a dalit well wisher:http://www.vidushaka.com/aahdalitindia.html

A direct quote from this:

"Measured against such objectives India’s affirmative action programmes have all but failed. Demolition of the edifice of caste, which in many senses is the very essence of Hindu social organization, is unlikely to be achieved in one or two life times."

This is a very well thought out article on the reasons why the quota system has failed, from a judicial perspective:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=ashokagrwaal

Again, the argument centers on the original intent on India's founding fathers and how it is not fulfilled.

Professor Nara, I can quote you more studies on how the quota system has failed. When a system fails, the answer is to improve it, which can not be done in the current political climate in India. The other remedy is to jettison the system, which will have majority support (due to various agendas), and put thye resources in a way that really help those communities.

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings

!



Yes, I know. As I have said repeatedly, I don't share your view that the current reservation system tantamount to punishment of the progeny of previous oppressors. I just don't see it that way and I base this on various factors I have already presented in detail. I thank you for providing the citation that bolstered my case.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[RVR]

Dear friends,

I thought the discussions are closed after Sri Silverfox posted his views.

I also did two postings on Kizhavenmani incident just to bring to your knowledge about the subsequent film & literary coverage of the event and also my own personal experience since I belonged to that area. I earnestly feel that I have not offended any body in these two postings but if you still feel so, I request the administration to remove the same.

In the subsequent postings I basically observed three points for which I would like answer.

1. It seems I am responsible for a lady member for not participating in the discussions in this forum now. To the best of my knowledge, Ms Renuka Karthikeyan is not participating in this forum now. If you go through the past postings, she use to call me `Anna’ in the discussions and I use to reciprocate calling her as `Sister’. Anybody can go through the discussions in the last six months where our friendship is built beyond this forum. I had a chat with her after she stopped posting here and she clearly told me that I am not in any way responsible for not coming to the forum.

If there is any other lady left the forum because of me, please inform her name either publicly or through personal message to me and I am willing to talk to her and try to sort out issues to the best possible extent.

2. I raised a suspicion regarding missionaries indulging in dirty activities of funding & creating problems in the forum.

This doubt has to my mind genuinely based on my past experience at Vaishnavi temple. I just have a doubt and I have not accused anybody.

In our forum also earlier a person was identified and banned by the administration since he was not belonging to our religion. He again re entered under a different name and was again caught. His ban was revoked subsequently but he is not seen here now.

Based on the above, it is for the administrators of this forum to act based on my suspicion.

If my suspicion turns out to be wrong, I shall be the happiest person.

If my suspicion turns out to be correct at a later date, still I don’t want to take any credit.

3. I never demanded apology from any member. When Ms. Happy Hindu called me a castiest, I wrote back saying that I don’t want a certificate from any body in this forum. I request our other honorable members also to restrain themselves from issuing certificates to fellow members.

Now if she tenders an apology also, I earnestly feel that I am not competent enough to accept it. I don’t think an apology is required between all of us.

Let us all forget these discussions and move on to positive side.

I have already appreciated and requested Prof Nara on his new thread on Sri Vaishanvism.

I have also opened a new thread on `Empowering poor and downtrodden people belonging to all communities’. I request our honorable members to participate in this thread and make valuable suggestions. Like our swayamvaram, this work also will create a good will for our forum among all communities.

All the best

 

[happyhindu]

Dear friends,

I thought the discussions are closed after Sri Silverfox posted his views.

I also did two postings on Kizhavenmani incident just to bring to your knowledge about the subsequent film & literary coverage of the event and also my own personal experience since I belonged to that area. I earnestly feel that I have not offended any body in these two postings but if you still feel so, I request the administration to remove the same.

In the subsequent postings I basically observed three points for which I would like answer.

1. It seems I am responsible for a lady member for not participating in the discussions in this forum now. To the best of my knowledge, Ms Renuka Karthikeyan is not participating in this forum now. If you go through the past postings, she use to call me `Anna’ in the discussions and I use to reciprocate calling her as `Sister’. Anybody can go through the discussions in the last six months where our friendship is built beyond this forum. I had a chat with her after she stopped posting here and she clearly told me that I am not in any way responsible for not coming to the forum.

If there is any other lady left the forum because of me, please inform her name either publicly or through personal message to me and I am willing to talk to her and try to sort out issues to the best possible extent.

2. I raised a suspicion regarding missionaries indulging in dirty activities of funding & creating problems in the forum.

This doubt has to my mind genuinely based on my past experience at Vaishnavi temple. I just have a doubt and I have not accused anybody.

In our forum also earlier a person was identified and banned by the administration since he was not belonging to our religion. He again re entered under a different name and was again caught. His ban was revoked subsequently but he is not seen here now.

Based on the above, it is for the administrators of this forum to act based on my suspicion.

If my suspicion turns out to be wrong, I shall be the happiest person.

If my suspicion turns out to be correct at a later date, still I don’t want to take any credit.

3. I never demanded apology from any member. When Ms. Happy Hindu called me a castiest, I wrote back saying that I don’t want a certificate from any body in this forum. I request our other honorable members also to restrain themselves from issuing certificates to fellow members.

Now if she tenders an apology also, I earnestly feel that I am not competent enough to accept it. I don’t think an apology is required between all of us.

Let us all forget these discussions and move on to positive side.

I have already appreciated and requested Prof Nara on his new thread on Sri Vaishanvism.

I have also opened a new thread on `Empowering poor and downtrodden people belonging to all communities’. I request our honorable members to participate in this thread and make valuable suggestions. Like our swayamvaram, this work also will create a good will for our forum among all communities.

All the best

Shri RVR,

Am a nobody to issue or accept certificates (please for heaven's sake..)...

Reg the apology, thankyou for the understanding.

Regards.

 

[silverfox]

To all the honorable members:

I am sure all of you will agree that this thread with the title "Do we follow..." has served its purpose but completely off-track now.
Therefore, I am proposing to close this thread. If any of you have any objections, please post them so.
Thank you.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

village schools continue to discriminate, preventing them from taking full advantage of these reservations (Galanter 1997)

Much of what you cite are "poorva paksha" cited by the authors of the article. The article itself was looking at education at all levels from both expanding opportunities and the need and efficacy of reservation/quota system. The findings they presented are couched in academic language, but the conclusion is clear. I summarized their conclusions in an earlier post. I welcome everyone to read the article and come to their own conclusion. In the meantime, let me try to contact the authors and get their comments if they care to give one.

Thank you ...

 

[renuka]

its my own decision

dear all,

i was informed by a member here that some think it was RVR ji who was responsible for my exit from this Forum.
i would like to clear everyones doubt that i decided to leave on my own and no one was responsible for it.
I just wanted a forum where i can concentrate on the spiritual aspect of life sans cultural practises and rituals..i have nothing againts cultural practises and rituals but for me i needed a neutral ground where the salient features of Sanathana Dharma can be focused upon leaving behind identification with anything else transient.
So i wish that no one be blamed for my exit cos no one is actually the causative factor for anyone in this world.
Kindly dont reply to this message as I wont be reading it.I just came to clear the doubt so that RVR anna wont be blamed.
Anyway my nature is also such that I dont hang around anywhere too long.So if you guys really want to blame someone, please blame me.

 

[RVR]

dear all,

i was informed by a member here that some think it was RVR ji who was responsible for my exit from this Forum.
i would like to clear everyones doubt that i decided to leave on my own and no one was responsible for it.
I just wanted a forum where i can concentrate on the spiritual aspect of life sans cultural practises and rituals..i have nothing againts cultural practises and rituals but for me i needed a neutral ground where the salient features of Sanathana Dharma can be focused upon leaving behind identification with anything else transient.
So i wish that no one be blamed for my exit cos no one is actually the causative factor for anyone in this world.
Kindly dont reply to this message as I wont be reading it.I just came to clear the doubt so that RVR anna wont be blamed.
Anyway my nature is also such that I dont hang around anywhere too long.So if you guys really want to blame someone, please blame me.

Sister Renuka,

First let me tender my apology for further postings after Sri Silverfox's posting and your request of not to reply to your posting.

Your knowledge of various philosophies of Hindu religion such as Advaitha, Vishishtadvaitha and Dwaitha is remarkable and your thread on `Avadhutha Geetha' was very much enlgihtening all of us. My knowledge of sanskrit is almost `zero' and I learnt a lot only from you as I didn't devote much time for sanskrit like what I did for Tamil Literature.

As a request from a `Sishya' and your brother, please continue to enlighten us on Hindu Philosophies where you have complete clarity and understanding. If you wish, you can avoid other threads completely.

All the best

 

[Nara]

... In the meantime, let me try to contact the authors and get their comments if they care to give one.

Sonalde Desai, one of the two authors, was kind enough to respond to me. I will give both the e-mail I sent to him/her (I don't know whether Solalde is male or female), and the reponse.

My e-mail to Prof. Sonalde Desai:

This is regarding your paper, "Changing Educational Inequalities in India in the context of Affirmative Action" Demography, Vol. 45(2), May 2008, 245 - 270.

I read this article with great interest. I have a couple of queries and would appreciate it if you would give your comments.

A colleague of mine seems to infer from your article that your view is that the reservation system as it is implemented at present is a failure. But what I understand is that even though the % difference between Dalits and Upper Caste Hindus & Others has shown no difference, that is because of success at lower levels of educational transition resulting in larger number of Dalits becoming eligible to transition into college. Further, the creamy layer issue is not supported by the data as the difference among all income levels remains the same.

These findings do not seem to say that you are arguing that the reservation system is a failure. I am not sure whether I am missing something. If possible I request you to comment on this.
​

The response:

I am actually a true supporter of affirmative action, however including the reservations in India, however, I do not feel that it is adequate.

Our results in this article show three things:
1. Clearly inequalities at lower education level have declined -- possibly associated with job rather than educational reservations.
2. There is little evidence of creamy layer effect.
3. The fact that there are only marginal changes to college graduation differences by caste are a testament to reservations because all theoretical considerations suggest that without it, the differences should increase.

However, it is also clear that inequalities persist and we may need different types of interventions.

My subsequent work shows that inequalities emerge in early school -- not just in graduation but in skill development -- suggesting that we may need to focus on elementary schools as site of creation of inequality.

Thank you for your interest in my work. It is a great pleasure to have someone read it so carefully.
​

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,

Thank you for alerting me to this. I somehow missed it earlier. My response below in]red
:

Sonalde Desai, one of the two authors, was kind enough to respond to me. I will give both the e-mail I sent to him/her (I don't know whether Solalde is male or female), and the reponse.

My e-mail to Prof. Sonalde Desai:

This is regarding your paper, "Changing Educational Inequalities in India in the context of Affirmative Action" Demography, Vol. 45(2), May 2008, 245 - 270.

I read this article with great interest. I have a couple of queries and would appreciate it if you would give your comments.

A colleague of mine seems to infer from your article that your view is that the reservation system as it is implemented at present is a failure. But what I understand is that even though the % difference between Dalits and Upper Caste Hindus & Others has shown no difference, that is because of success at lower levels of educational transition resulting in larger number of Dalits becoming eligible to transition into college. Further, the creamy layer issue is not supported by the data as the difference among all income levels remains the same.

These findings do not seem to say that you are arguing that the reservation system is a failure. I am not sure whether I am missing something. If possible I request you to comment on this.
​

The response:

I am actually a true supporter of affirmative action, however including the reservations in India, however, I do not feel that it is adequate.

Our results in this article show three things:
1. Clearly inequalities at lower education level have declined -- possibly associated with job rather than educational reservations.
2. There is little evidence of creamy layer effect.
3. The fact that there are only marginal changes to college graduation differences by caste are a testament to reservations because all theoretical considerations suggest that without it, the differences should increase.
This is exactly my contention. The 'Theoretical Considerations' are postulates, not backed by real data. They went out to see some real impact from today's system and to their surprise they could not see any. So they, as usual postulate a negative and try to prove it without any evidence. How can one prove that the gap in educational levels in college levels would have increased when they show the real opposite trends in lower levels and no data to establish why? This is what I would say as ideology centric research!

However, it is also clear that inequalities persist and we may need different types of interventions.

My subsequent work shows that inequalities emerge in early school -- not just in graduation but in skill development -- suggesting that we may need to focus on elementary schools as site of creation of inequality.
Vow! Is this not what I have been saying? Why should this be necessary if the quota system at college level is a smashing success?

Thank you for your interest in my work. It is a great pleasure to have someone read it so carefully.
​

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS