Clarification: We would like to point out that the below article is NOT the same as the original, but it is Legally India’s take on it that is structured very differently and omits several arguments and some of the nuance of the original, in order to raise awareness of the issues. We would therefore urge you to read the original article in full on the Quirk to learn more fully about the author’s intentions in writing it.
The author of the piece – an NLS student who submitted the blog anonymously - writes:
“The point of this piece is to highlight, from my personal observation that caste pervades the NLS student body more than we are willing to admit. First, by our silences and lack of engagement with the issue of caste within NLS and outside it, because this engagement offers no rewards or connections which can be vetted on your master CV. Second, because through our casual comments on meritocracy and hard work, we try to delegitimize and demoralise the presence of a section of the student body which is also legally entitled to the same educational experience as everyone else.”
In the blog the author gives five instances of lack of mindfulness by the student body on the issue of caste:
1. Don’t worry you’re one of us
The author took admission to NLS under a quota-based reservation they were eligible for. In the first year of law school when the author was ranting about their unsatisfactory debate performance, to a classmate, the classmate chose to console them in the following terms:
“Don’t worry, everyone already thinks you’re one of us. You don’t have to prove anything.”
The author writes:
“My [All India Rank] had happened to be enough to qualify sans the quota as well. Therefore, I was not an usurper. The implication was that I ‘deserved’ to be at NLS. The implication was that others didn’t by virtue of getting in through the quota. That was my first real encounter with caste at Law School. That if your diction and pop culture qualified, you were one of us.
2. Overcrowded and underpopulated spaces
The NLS student body is apolitical and the popularity of political discussion events is feeble at the law school unless it concerns personal privileges such as benefits at the canteen.
“Yes, the Law and Society Committee and the Legal Services Clinic and now IDIA have always gone out of their way to ensure that questions of inclusion, diversity, religion and politics are brought to the mainstream but there’s always an alternative vibe to it. I was particularly impressed by LawSoc’s activity for incoming freshers about recognising their privilege. We say that NLS allows everyone a space to pursue what they want. Yes, the spaces exist. However which spaces are the most crowded provide an interesting insight into our conscience. We need to stop pretending that people go to Allen and Overy partner talks and a screening of Jai Bhim in similar numbers. We are content to politicise mess coupons, but turn a blind eye to who is picking up our trash.”
3. Politically inclined students are unpopular
Case-in-point: A student senior to the author was considered a “shrill” activist by the student body in general, for discussing constitutional questions about caste.
“One of my immediate seniors was unpopular because he would keep discussing questions of caste on 19(1)(A), on ug students, and through his committee. I know several people who thought his activism was shrill, and unnecessary because caste was not an issue that affected NLS.”
4. Not surprised when quota students fail courses
Comments on merit by the student body indicate that those among them who got in through quotas are not capable enough to survive in the law school environment.
“[…] on several occasions, I have witnessed certain classmates emanate a “what else do you expect?” schadenfreude-like attitude when people who got in on the quotas have failed courses, lost years. As if, that is what happens when you don’t deserve to be here. That never happened when somebody who from the general category fell behind or failed courses.
5. Caste is basically the reason why everything is wrong with everything?
Other vox pop cited in the blog:
“A junior, who was unaware of my caste status, once vociferously told me once that the best way to reign in NLS’ falling standards was to abolish the quota system, those people are bringing us down, that’s why our India Today ranking was in jeopardy.”
“Another junior tried to explain to his classmates how we should advocate positive eugenics because let’s face it certain castes were just more intelligent and capable than others.”
“An extremely successful senior told people over the mess table how she would “never date somebody who was an SC.”
Quirk is a magazine run by NLSIU students, and its objective is “to capture the essence of the Law School experience”, Quirk told Legally India today.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
And the AILET doesn't require cramming, or only rejects go?
If you knew anything about these places and NLS, you'd know that, even post CLAT, the kids getting in to NLS are socially aware, sensitive, and intelligent.
Can't say the same about NALSAR
" I agree that lack of opportunity due to dearth of funds from your primary schooling immediately excludes you from access to higher education and a chance to better your economic prospects. However, reducing it to this discussion assumes that one can buy themselves out of caste. That might be a gift of a capitalist economy which cares about your output and contribution to the economy over your lineage. However, the manner in which caste pervades our personal lives, the people who we make friends with, the people we marry, the people we idolise or give recognition to. Much of our lean-in feminism focusing on climbing the corporate ladder, does so while standing on the shoulders of domestic help from lower castes, perpetuating the same system of oppression with no attempts at reconciling these contradictions."
YOU YOURSELF HAPPEN TO BE CASTEIST AND HAVE NOT GROWN OUT OF IT
I was going to think thank the author for writing this and highlighting an important issue plaguing our society.. but i am afraid he has done so while standing on the shoulders of the people who dug the trenches, laid the internet cables, set up his system, cleared his sewers of filth and a million other things, thereby perpetuating the same system of oppression...
Face it.. most (if not all) of us are repulsed by the idea of the divisions that permeate our society on caste/gender/communal lines.. how many of us do anything tangible about it? maybe its time we, as a country, decide what our future is going to be? if its going to be casteless... lets make sure its casteless IN EVERY WAY... not make politically rousing speeches in the lunch room but then be content to utilize whichever quota we have the benefit of utilizing when it could have benefited someone in real need (irrespective of what caste they belong to)!
Do you really see this article as Legally India picking on NLS? Do you seriously believe that no other law school in the country - nay, every university in the country - doesn't faces the same problems highlighted here?
I think it's a sign of a healthy student body that these kinds of things are being written in an institution, and that the students aren't scared of raising these issues.
In my opinion, this is the greatest strength of colleges like NLS, that they have developed a culture where there's a willingness and ability of students to question and criticise what they see around them, rather than a misplaced sense of unquestioning pride of their law school that gives them blinders.
Finally, if you can't see beyond that and really think that this or NUJS-RCC is about us getting kicks out of playing 'cheap tricks against law schools', then I think my entire comment was possibly wasted on you.
Would be helpful for you to realise why you are getting so much flak
It's due to the shoddy levels of journalism on display. You have distorted a piece with nuance to sensationalise an issue in addition to misrepresenting what you intended to do with the piece to the Quirk team. It may get you the clicks. But you certainly won't get the respect. Poor poor journalism and basic lack of decency shown by the LI team, the Arnab Goswamis of legal news (by no means should you construe this as a complement, although given your attitude I wouldn't be surprised if Arnab is your role model)
I read the piece before it was on legally India. I then read the article here, and it isn't even close to the original in terms of messaging. It's entirely fair that people are calling you out for that, and it's also fine that they're framing it in the offensive language that they are (good on you for not censoring that)
I read your stories often, and some of the Mint articles are genuinely excellent. I also agree with your coverage of the NUJS RCC, so probably won't go as far as calling you Arnab, but this story deserves the criticism it's getting. It is ToI level sensationalism, but more crucially, it misses the point of the Quirk piece, and that's a point that could have done with a platform like yours.
But I don't think that the criticism is entirely fair.
1. The original article is well written and heartfelt personal account, that raises interesting issues.
2. Ours is very obviously a very different take on that (as newspapers, websites, magazines, etc etc are entitled to do).
3. We clearly linked to the original article (and have added a disclaimer, for the avoidance of doubt, that both articles are different). If you think the original article is better than this one, qualitatively, that's absolutely fine and you're entirely entitled to that opinion and we don't begrudge you that.
4. But is anything we have written offensive or insensitive of the issues raised or the author? The original might be more nuanced and framed differently and we might have indulged in slight reductionism, but as far as I can see, there is nothing inherently deserving of the bile that a few readers are heaping on us.
5. Shock horror, yes, we've condensed the original article into a listicle format and added a cliched listicle-and-question headline. Well, it's because we want this kind of issue to also get a lot of attention, and not just from the liberal intellectual 'elite' who are anyway aware of the issues.
The unfortunate reality - as also hinted at in the article - is that a lot of people don't have the interest to read about caste issues because they feel it doesn't concern them. If we choose to 'package' an honest article about caste into a more bitesize and perhaps slightly dumbed-down format, hoping that more people who are not already aware of and into caste issues will read it (and perhaps even read the original), then what's wrong with that (especially since caste is such a complex issue that no single article can ever fully capture it in its entirety)?
6. You may hate Upworthy and Buzzfeed headlines (and I certainly do in part), but you can't deny that Upworthy's headlines, in particular, drive attention and traffic to causes and important discussions.
So, let me ask you again - is the hate really deserved?
1. Why shouldn't the piece be reworded to get more clicks? Don't you want more people to read this?
2. We get it. Please give your fellow lawyers some credit. You look at Kian's version and see a monstrosity, I read it and it still makes me think about caste based prejudices and discriminatory behaviour I've seen in law college and life in general.
3. I find your comment more embarrassing and attention seeking tbh. If I were you, I'd have probably posted the link and said "Hey guys, read this for the full story, but please let the focus stay on the issue." You, instead, went the Arnab Goswami way. Ah, the irony.
Don't stifle discourse.
“A junior, who was unaware of my caste status, once vociferously told me once that the best way to reign in NLS’ falling standards was to abolish the quota system, those people are bringing us down, that’s why our India Today ranking was in jeopardy.”
Do you mean to tell me that NLSIU students actually believe in India Today Rankings????!!!!
As for the other negative comments, they are probably by the Bar & Bench editors. So ignore.
1. People are upset that we did not do justice to the original article or author's intention in posting the article, and dumbed it down into a listicle about caste issues. That's a fair enough criticism and I have sympathy, though I don't think it is a very grave criticism, for the reasons I pointed out above.
2. The second, and an altogether different issue I feel, is that some are upset that we're wilfully and maliciously trying to denigrate NLS as an institution.
Like you, to be honest, I'm afraid I have very little patience for such complaints anymore, nor do I frankly care whether readers think whether we particularly love or hate one law school or other from one week to the next.
Furthermore, I would applaud and support any student who is brave enough to confront their admin, whether that's in a blog or via other forms of protest, so if Quirk has been doing what you say they have been (I've been unaware so far), I think it's great.
- Skhi.
www.firstpost.com/india/nls-prof-slut-shaming-student-in-shorts-is-not-surprising-it-shows-how-indias-premier-law-school-behaves-like-a-khap-panchayat-2720450.html
[...]
Also, let us not forget another type of discrimination at NLS: Kannadigas and South Indians versus the rest. The difference in treatment meted out to Sid Chauhan and Nagaraj illustrate this.
P.S. Since people like being anal Nazis and lawyers need to be meticulously accurate, the "original" article refers to Article "19(1)(A)" instead of "19(1)(a)", not to mention the grammatical errors. Oh, the joys of spotting errors of this kind and making an issue out of nothing.
I think by customising the piece for popular consumption, you've done exactly what you sought to avoid - which is sidetrack the discussion. The comments above all attest to this.
I have to admit that I have not spent much time reading about caste and reservation issues, and for me personally this article (as well as Prachi's coverage of it) has been a welcome opportunity for me to engage with and think about the issues more.
The spirit of the quotas is to help those currently disadvantaged due to low caste. If the writer despite having parents who are successful (kudos to them for that) and having attended prestigious schools chooses to still take advantage of an affirmative action scheme that she is not morally entitled to anymore than she deserves all the heartache she cribs about.
That's the real story behind the casteism in the NLUs. Most of the quota seats go to kids who are in far better situations than the average non-quota admitted student. These quota kids are generally children of high ranking civil servants or judges (who themselves are where they are thanks to quotas, and good for them). The common student feels disillusioned when he/she sees this kind of abuse of the quota system.
A small fraction of the quota students are genuine beneficiaries and AFAIK they never faced any "discrimination".
The fact that the author made it to the general list is immaterial. Despite having well-to-do parents and the benefit of a good school education she still registered under the SC quota.
That's abominable. That's gaming the system. That's a slap on the face of every student who competes without the benefit of a quota.
And then the same student turns around and tries to feel sorry for herself by writing how "casteist" NLS has become. Instead she should introspect on how and why she tried to take advantage of the quota system despite not being an intended beneficiary.
My take on this is simple. Very few people have an objection to affirmative action in principle. The root cause for all the casteism (if that is what it is) is the abuse of the quota system by kids of high-income / high-status parents. (...) After all misuse of a quota is no different from theft.
(...)
The only thing a reserved category candidate if they don't want to take advantage of the reservation is not to not declare the category at all, and that, for a 17 year old sitting one of the most competitive exams in the country and having no idea how well they perform (or possibly how the quota system even fully works), would be an unfair expectation, I think.
The author may have gone to a good school and performed well, but may have also been able to do so because of quotas, or because of scholarships, etc. We don't know the precise financial situation.
That said, I agree that reservations and affirmative action should be means tested.
Nobody forces a candidate to register for a quota. I know two SC classmates who refused to take advantage of the quota and did not register for its benefit. They made it on their own steam and good for them that they chose to do it this way when they could easily have submitted proof of their SC eligibility and gotten in as SC students.
I have read the original Quirk story. The writer reveals several bits of information on the basis of which I draw my conclusions. Some snippets
"I went to an Anglican Christian school for three years which is among the top 5 in the country"
"was born to two highly educated parents"
"have never faced economic hardship in my life"
Yet she (and her parents) have no problems registering her as an SC quota candidate.
That's a display of a complete lack of morals and disregard for the purposes of these quotas. When students with such backgrounds (which I can assure you are within the elite of the elite) get admission on the basis of quotas what else do you expect others to say?
I for one see nothing objectionable in the perception of such students as free-riders and am happy the author has understood how others feel about it. Maybe when the time comes she will ensure her children do not use a quota.
Your other point is ridiculous
"The only thing a reserved category candidate if they don't want to take advantage of the reservation is not to not declare the category at all, and that, for a 17 year old sitting one of the most competitive exams in the country and having no idea how well they perform (or possibly how the quota system even fully works), would be an unfair expectation, I think."
So in effect you're justifying well-heeled candidates with no disadvantages using any means necessary to get a place?? You're as bad as the Quirk author's parents methinks. Time for you also to do some introspection.
Also, remember that you're speaking about a real person here - albeit anonymous - whom you probably don't know very much about.
Take issue with the law, by all means, but all I'm asking is that you should be careful before launching attacks on the basis you are doing, because it can easily become another form of discrimination: i.e., if scheduled castes eventually make it into the 'middle claste', often despite all the odds stacked against them, then they are suddenly held to a higher standard than every other caste that has been practising jugaad and nepotism and rule-bending for thousands of years without the slightest hint of criticism.
Caste discrimination and disadvantage is not an issue that simply goes away in one generation of good schooling, and you stopping those you perceive to not deserve reservations any more means you're imposing a glass ceiling on them or saying.
Who are you to judge because two anonymous parents are educated and now well off, that they and offspring haven't at all been disadvantaged in the educational system, society, CLAT, etc? Sure, you can always find someone more 'deserving', but the reality is that it often takes a whole generation or more for some castes to even get to the stage where taking the CLAT is even considered (look at IDIA's efforts on that front).
Maybe if caste wasn't an issue, the parents of the author would be rich like the Ambanis? How can we judge in this case (or many others) whether they don't deserve any caste 'privileges' or 'labels' anymore, that they have 'risen' the 'ranks' enough for our liking?
I agree that ideally the quota system should be means tested at some level to discount Ambani-types from getting reservation government jobs, but I think putting blame on a 17-year old and their parents for making such a choice is also morally dubious.
Doing what the author did is entirely legal and I would wager that most other people, irrespective of cast, would make a similar decision in those circumstances if push came to shove.
E.g., say you're rich and privileged and a Brahmin but not 100% sure that you'll top the CLAT, then you find out that a nice college nearby has a state resident quota or NRI quota or sports quota of some sort that you can qualify on. Would you object to taking advantage of this out of principle, even if it might deprive some genuinely destitute from getting into college?
It's all well and good and easy to point fingers, but it's a competitive world out there and most people will validly take their own self-interest into consideration when making life decisions.
But I will answer your replies to humour you since I think you deserve the benefit of doubt, being an outsider to India.
1. I have no problem with people gaming the system and taking advantage of legal means. That's what the author of the Quirk story has done. Since the law is what it is, legally there is no issue. My issue is rather with the author then writing this sorry-for-herself story and evoking sentiment based on a perceived caste attack. My reply was very simple: People who take advantage of the law despite having no moral wicket to stand on should be careful in crying out about shoddy treatment. The same applies to your other example. Students who misuse a domicile quota (like Kiran Bedi's daughters) are justifiable targets for others who criticise their lack of scruples.
2. On the topic of domicile quota, your analogy is a very bad one. A domicile quota is intended to benefit locals irrespective of economic criteria. Rather it seeks to ensure that state resources benefit state domiciles only. To that extent there is nothing immoral about taking advantage of a domicile quota provided a student is indeed a domicile (and not like Kiran Bedi's daughters). The same for the sportsman quota; it is intended to facilitate entry of sportsmen so there is no reason to cast aspersion on someone who is a sportsman and qualifies (unless someone were to claim entry on the basis of a non-existent but legally recognised sport in which case I would have the same view towards them as the Quirk author)
3. The author is quite unequivocal in asserting that growing up she never faced any hardship. On the contrary she takes pains to identify how she is no different from any other 'general' candidate. The apparent cause for her being upset is being the subject of snide remarks despite being otherwise equal to a non-quota candidate. So that puts to rest your attempt to muddy the waters by raising the spectre of her suffering due to discrimination in "educational system, society, CLAT"
4. Please remember that this is not a discussion on legality so you can put your lawyer hat away and stop with remarks like "Doing what the author did is entirely legal". This is a discussion on the morality of gaming the system and them complaining about it.
Lastly, you will be surprised to learn that many SC ST OBC families do indeed give up using caste quotas simply to escape the trap the Quirk author finds herself in. Either go by the general rules and then have a ground to complain of discrimination. Or use a quota and suck it up. No having the best of both worlds.
Your argument is a very black-and-white view, and essentially combins whataboutism, ad hominem and strawman rhetoric.
You are basically saying, how dare the author criticise caste-ism - what about him/her, he/she misused the caste quota, we don't have to listen to those arguments (and that's why your talk of morality with respect to quotas is troubling, because your argument can only affect the disadvantaged castes, and you could never use the same argument to undercut a Brahmin author, for instance). If you're an SC/ST, there can be a case of you're damned if you don't (have economic means) and damned if you do (manage to rise out of poverty).
Second of all, I certainly don't know enough about the author, and neither do you, merely from what's been written, to make a judgment, or to condemn the merit of the entire article or the author's experience on the basis of your perceived violation of morality.
In my view, quotas aren't just about helping those immediately in dire need, they are also about making reparations for often-centuries of injustice and allowing those from traditionally.
I agree, there should be a certain economic line at which quotas should not be available anymore, but we don't have enough information to assess whether the author is an edge case or a case of egregious abuse of the process, etc.
But it's not black and white. If all quotas are doing is lifting the poorest of the poor out of poverty, and then let them fend for themselves in some government job, I'm not sure the point of the reservation system is entirely served.
I would think at least in part, the reservation system should also assist in uplifting voices from the better-educated traditionally-disadvantaged castes, so they can also contribute to public discourse more.
And none of your arguments change the experience of the author or make the instances raised any less valid as the author's experience.
"Your argument is a very black-and-white view, and essentially combins whataboutism, ad hominem and strawman rhetoric."
Sorry but this is a disingenuous reply. The author of the Quirk piece had no hesitation in making ad hominum generalisations so why should others be prevented. I do not know what whataboutism is, maybe it's something LI is proficient at?
"You are basically saying, how dare the author criticise caste-ism - what about him/her, he/she misused the caste quota, we don't have to listen to those arguments (and that's why your talk of morality with respect to quotas is troubling, because your argument can only affect the disadvantaged castes, and you could never use the same argument to undercut a Brahmin author, for instance). If you're an SC/ST, there can be a case of you're damned if you don't (have economic means) and damned if you do (manage to rise out of poverty)."
You have either not understood my point or the Quirk story. Please read it again. The author on one hand is hurt by a perception that SC candidates are somehow inferior to general candidates. At first glance this seems a fair criticism of casteism in law schools. But the author's premise is different. She deliberately brings up her family history and asserts her 'merit' (through the use of the CLAT score) to assert that despite being no different on any maker (economic, status or academic) she still faces discrimination. I think this is hypocrisy because she had no hesitation using the SC card when it suited her (for CLAT purposes) but then plays the merit card to suggest outrage that she is still viewed as inferior despite her merit. I take objection to this opportunistic usage of caste markers to play the victim card.
"Second of all, I certainly don't know enough about the author, and neither do you, merely from what's been written, to make a judgment, or to condemn the merit of the entire article or the author's experience on the basis of your perceived violation of morality."
The author has put forth a set of facts that I have already listed. Based on these and some other facts supplied she has drawn some assumptions. If she expects to receive merit based on this she must be prepared to receive criticism based on this. It cannot be that an author expects recognition based on a set of facts but a counter needs to produce more facts. Sorry, that's a disingenuous argument as well.
"In my view, quotas aren't just about helping those immediately in dire need, they are also about making reparations for often-centuries of injustice and allowing those from traditionally."
Tsk Tsk Tsk. Reparations was never the basis of caste quotas. Please read the BP Mandal Commission report (in particular the first 20 pages) before making such foolish statements.
"I agree, there should be a certain economic line at which quotas should not be available anymore, but we don't have enough information to assess whether the author is an edge case or a case of egregious abuse of the process, etc. "
The author has herself tomtommed her background, affluence and academic prowess. I do not recall seeing anything that suggested she was disadvantaged in any manner. If anything the author tries to prove how she's as good as any other student. If that's what she thinks or means to portray than her usage of the quota is an abuse of the system (though not unlawful as I have noted) and I have no sympathy for such opportunists.
"And none of your arguments change the experience of the author or make the instances raised any less valid as the author's experience."
On the contrary my arguments go to show that someone who games the system to obtain a benefit under the pretext of being a socially/economically disadvantaged SC/ST cannot later turn around and claim that despite being equal to others in every way they get shabby treatment.
I have genuine sympathy for SC/ST students who do indeed come from disadvantaged backgrounds (and there are a few of them), use the quota, do well in law school but are still prejudiced against. But I have zero tolerance for well-to-do kids who have no real need for a quota (nor for the like of whom the quotas were implemented) using such a quota and then cribbing about apparent prejudice.
Are only the poorest and most disadvantaged allowed to claim they experience discrimination? If you speak fluent English and are middle class, should you leave behind any identification of caste and take such comments on the chin?
The author's point seems to be that even without any apparent markers, in terms of language or academic performance, casteist comments are still being made casually, which is unfortunate.
Does anyone who points out such serious issues become a 'cribber' to you because they may not be Mother Theresa in your eyes?
By all means, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with what the author has done in your eyes, but my point stands - there are many possible reasons for having taken advantage of the reservation and most 17 year olds would do the same, and this doesn't take away from the author's experience any more than a woman wearing a short skit exonerates a sexual harasser.
This issue is clearly a very emotive one to you, but all I ask for is moderation in your views and acceptance that you're anonymously sniping at a semi-anonymous person whose motives are probably more complex and nuanced than you will know from where you're sitting behind a screen.
1. Proportionate reserved seats. There is one SC for every 1000 regular students? Then that needs a 0.1% reservation. Anything else is literally unfair.
2. If reservations are being given since the paper might be too hard for them, and they might lack the knowledge to attempt it, just give them a different, easier, exam. And then choose the top from there.
It's not casteism that's going on right now, it's just anger. They toiled for one or more years, to get a rank in the top 100, and then this person swoops in with his 4000+ rank, just because of what his last name is? If they really deserved the seat, they'd be able to get in without the reservation. The law exam isn't something you need a lot of books to study for anyway. It isn't JEE. It's more of an application of your brain, than knowing stuff. BITS has the right idea.
Most of the students using reservation, especially in such law schools, are economically strong, have had excellent education in some of the best schools in their city/state. Yet their ranks were much lower compared to a student from general category.
The reservation system is in place because of caste system and students gettingg admissions through quota are able to exploit the system because of the issue of caste. Yet they also expect caste to not be brought up once they use it to get admission. (Not just UG but PG and even promotions) When you don’t mind the caste discrimination when it favours you, you can’t complain that it’s brought up in discussions and it doesn’t favour you.
Not to mention, while there are definitely exceptions, the performance of the students under quota is more often than not below the standards of performance of a ‘general category’ student.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first