Validity and soundness of a view can only be acknowledged if it seems to be valid and sound. Those who believe relative merit can be ascertained between two people who have received very different opportunities in life, or that one set of people in this country still do not receive appalling treatment on multiple fronts simply because of their birth, or even that only because some people from the latter group become financially better, they do not have to deal with discrimination on other fronts - all such beliefs and corollaries thereof do not seem either valid or sound to those who choose not to deny reality.

Lol, whatever.

Rawls is one of the most flawed philosophers and the idiocy of his construct has been suitably dealt with. Look, you can subscribe to whatever notions you want (it's a free world), but if you genuinely cannot acknowledge the validity and soundness of views that differ from your own (and that appears to be the case here), then, you have a much bigger problem than what you realize. That's okay - I'm not the one who is outraged and constantly resentful here (I'm not saying you necessarily are though the tone and substance of your exchanges so far would suggest that you have a chip on your shoulder - not something that I'm trying to say to be pejorative, but as a general observation).

I'm sure you're a nice person IRL - friendly piece of advise: in my experience at least, some of the most enriching experiences and character development that you can have, will arise from friendly interactions that you have with people who disagree with you entirely. It would be very good for any person to have the humility and maturity to recognize that our way isn't the only way.

Peace.

Coherent English mein same same casteism, ableism and elitism. Yes, I'm an SJW, thank you, I quite like having empathy.

People who scream merit merit, pls do the veil of ignorance thought experiment sometime honestly. If you still don't see the problem, I have no words.

What people don't understand is,

Race and Caste are different. In the west, you can easily figure our which race a person is from (Black, White, Biracial etc) Because they look different.

But in India color, Body build and appearance doesn't change caste wise. There are darker brahmins and fairer members of SC/ST Communities. There are people with caste neutral names.

There are excellent lawyers from the SC/ST Community - even the current Indian President is from the same community.

But in a law firm, your caste (whatever it is) is not exactly written on your forehead. So even if there are partners from SC/ST communities they won't probably write it on thier CV or website.

Stop asking for people's castes.

The question of reservation in private sector aside, can someone please share any instance of an SC or ST lawyer making partner in a Top Tier firm? When almost a third of the population is completely shunted out of one sphere of commercial life, clearly something is wrong, even if we may disagree over the purported solutions.

I'd recommend you read what I said.

It's not about being born with the knowledge on how to execute a DD. It's about having a de minimus level of intelligence, perceptiveness and attention to detail. You'd be surprised how many people miss things that should not be missed even in a DD. Also, even as an A0, if the only work one is getting is DD, then, either that person is stuck in a really bad team, or not being trusted with more work.

But getting back to the point: being intelligent has nothing to do with caste, at least as far as I know, at least causally. Nothing against people of any particular background: but what my point really boils down to is this: being of a lower caste shouldn't preclude one from getting through the door if the person is meritorious (per whatever definition of merit is being used) and being from a higher caste shouldn't compensate for the lack of such merit either. You are either good enough or you're not: there may be a million reasons for why you are the way you are (and the experiences that you might have had to deal with very well may have contributed to them) but that isn't justification enough for affirmative action - especially enforced by the state.

Some people disagree; that's ok. I'm not someone who feels an obsessive compulsion that people agree with me. But it's my hope that people can disagree without being disagreeable (my own condescension was retaliatory to the moronic comment above mine).

Pehli baat toh kisi ne aapse CLAT rank puchi nahi, aap honge Bohot badhiya student, koi do rai nahi. Par Yaha pe CLAT rank ghusane ka logic samajh nhi aaya Kuch.
Dusri aapko question samajhne m thodi nasamjhi hui hai, OP puch rha Hai "whether state intervention is required to warrant this lacunae". Agar aap aisi hi interpretation skills se clients ko advice krte hai, CLAT m double digit rank lagaye hai, toh phir bhagwaan aapki raksha kare, aapko aapki job m hmesha tarraki de.
Sincerely
Law Student
(Private Law College)
Rank (four digit rank)

That's alright. We reject you too. And that is informed rejection. As for your RPC comment, no recruiter in my NLU has actually asked for CLAT ranks, and they won't be provided it either if they do. So stew in your privilege. If a person is good enough, then they won't have to work under bigots, hopefully.

"Are you willing to work for 12 to 14 hours day and still put up a smile "
"on Sunday too"
"happy face and work hard even on thier worst days"
"I am also a bit sadistic"
"expect you to sit in the office till the lights are off"
"willing to work like a dog"
"work like a dog and is content"

I sure as shit hope you're not a real Partner at a real law firm. You need help. Please get it.

Appreciate the invective. Mistakes often occur when one types from one's phone, but the fact that your mind jumped to ascribing ignorance on that account, speaks volumes.

If your suggestion is that people are blank canvasses and "privilege" determines all of the material attributes that have a bearing on their performance, then, you're mistaken. Nature and nurture (which is where privilege comes in) have a role to play; abilities are inherent to a good extent. No matter how much privilege a skinny 5'5" guy has, he can't be an NBA player.

There are brilliant and [stupid] people across demographic lines (and caste is no exception). And idc, if you're offended by my use of retarded - go ahead, throw another sound byte ("oppressive," "x-phobic" etc., what have you).

AFAIAC, if a person is good enough, his/her caste doesn't matter. But if a person isn't good enough (and the reason isn't relevant for me, and especially not in the context of law firm recruitment etc.), then, that person doesn't belong. You believe that representation for the sake of representation is a good thing; that's your prerogative. I don't, as is mine.

Contrary to your beliefs, I'm aware of all the arguments that support affirmative action; I reject them - so it's not ignorance but informed rejection. If you would be so kind as to retrieve your head from places where the sun doesn't shine (where casually virtue signaling and throwing words like oppressor may have a role) and acknowledge that the whole world doesn't have to agree with you and that there may be sensible grounds for the existence of such disagreements (regardless of whether you morally approve of the opposing viewpoints in question), you'll do a lot better for yourself.

Have a nice day.

If it is indeed about merit, then why bother about the information of CLAT rank rather than relying on the CGPA? Like, what is the point of that information if you are objective and are judging on merit?

You do realise that by bringing in external factors (like a measly two hour exam that happened four years ago), you are diluting your own judgment through your prejudices. When a candidate would be selected through a blind procedure, you ensure that they are not because of the caste information that you receive.

You, sir/ma'am, are the opposite of a merit warrior: you stand up for oppression and injustice by going out of your way to ensure so. Good for you.

Whether you are SC/ST/General/OBC/woman/men doesn't matter.

What matters is -

Are you willing to work for 12 to 14 hours day and still put up a smile - men/woman?

Are you willing to go the extra mile work on Saturdays and if there is an emergency - on Sunday too.

Honesty I don't care about caste or religion of the junior, I just care whether they can put a happy face and work hard even on thier worst days.

I don't even care if they are having any work-life balance or living thier lives well. My life itself is in trouble, myself can't handle the pressure. Have a hard time getting big business. How would I empathise with them when my life is *** I am also a bit sadistic, I expect you to sit in the office till the lights are off.

No law firm actually cares about your caste. We only demand a few things, are you willing to work like a dog? Will you be able to withstand the pressure? Will you be able to give deliverables to sa ON TIME?

Have seen more woman lawyers (A0 - 3 level) who are capable of working long hours-with attention to every single detail than men. Men tend to be frustrated working long hours. That's why a lot of Law firms incoming associates are majority women. They are willing to put in more hours without the same displeasure and anger men show. They are just better workers.

Caste - I myself would get some rest/ vacation with my family (yes it's a long time) rather than figuring out your caste and discriminating you.

Even if you leave in a few years, it's okay as we have seen it all.

There will be trolls telling 'we don't hire people from xyz caste'. That's not how it works. We hire everyone and anyone who is willing to work like a dog and is content.

You wish. The way RCCs bend over backwards to placate recruiters (who hold all the power in this case), no chance. They know they want jobs and no one is jeopardising that for some virtue signalling. That's why every NLU I've been to recruit, they've given all this without a second's hesitation.

Please understand the question. It is not asking for reservation. So if you are an upper caste person jumping to conclusions and saying "No reservation. Merit only" it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the question.

The question is very much like asking "How many women are there?" Would you jump and say "Merit only matters. Gender doesn't?" No, right? Because you understand that it is a diversity based question. That's it. You recognise that it is asking whether structurally there are more barriers for women to rise to the top and are understanding it by data. How is it any diff now?

Foreign law firms including magic circle law firms are actively recognising that being a white male bastion is not good and are actively encouraging non-white people, women etc to rise to top positions. It's not reservation but a form of correcting an imbalance.

But people here just go... "No no no. We don't want Dalits!" . Almost like they wish they were part of the gang they go outside Vandana Katariya's house.

I say this all as a Brahmin with a two digit rank in Clat and working in a top 6 law firm. I used to share your views. Luckily my learning didn't stop and end at what is relevant for my law firm job but I actually read Ambedkar and a lot of racism in US. The analysis applies here squarely.

*It's all on privilege and not on caste.

There, fixed it for you (as well as your grammar; it is it's not its; its is possessive).

If you think merit is the apple that fell on Newton's head (read: NLUs, good schooling, not having to worry about finances, and not having to fight systemic oppression), good for you. It is because of you that the myth of meritocracy obscures historic violence and injustice. There is no 'merit' without equality of opportunity.

For when one would win the first hat-trick in the Olympics, people would still chastise them for not being good enough as the 'meritorious' upper caste: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/casteist-slurs-abuses-thrown-at-oly-star-vandana-katariyas-family/articleshow/85047817.cms
Let that sink in: a hat-trick in the Olympics did not make their existence in society easier.

You, sir or madam, are the poster child of oppression by spurious objectivity and obscurity.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's uninformed. You're welcome to subscribe to whatever briefs you want - but please don't put down perfectly valid beliefs or assume ignorance based on disagreement. It's possible (surprise surprise) for one to have read whatever you've suggested and still oppose caste based reservation.

Please step outside your echo chamber.

Hope you're done with the virtue signalling. Now on to my point, I only look towards merit. It could be possible that an SC/ST candidate has a top CLAT rank/top CGPA. I would look at them as favourably as a general candidate. Equally I would judge a general candidate with a low rank that got in through NRI quota. So it's not about caste, but about merit.

Forget about SC/ST even vast majority of vernacular background Upper Castes will not find a place in Tier 1 Law firms easily. It is what it is. I do not think the State has the duty to crash these highly elite spaces. The State's duty is to ensure free and equal access to basic needs (food, education, healthcare, employment). Employment with a Tier-1 Law Firm is hardly a basic need.

Given that you are recruiting people as lawyers and not high school graduates, your seeking that information amounts to pre-judgment and bias on your part. The fact that you cannot understand that despite being a qualified lawyer makes one wonder about the 'merit' that you possess.

Also there needs to be reservation in private jobs and there will be a huge movement for that ✊🏻 The current reservation in educational institutions is not enough. 20% dalits, 9% STs and 41% OBC which makes 70% of Indian population. Reservation for these communities should also be 70% for an equitable representation.

Laal salaam

As a recruiter, I did notice that people from a certain section are not as meritorious as others and hence not eligible to be recruited. This is because the inherent illiteracy and ignorance of the community. You can give them reservations but if you do not educate them but merely provide a seat in a premier university, it’s not gonna work and they are going to struggle with academics and their peers who have been well educated. The focus should be on education of the community rather than blatantly providing reservation. At some point it will be understood that it was all counterproductive.

Please understand there is no shortcut to education. None. Fast tracking and facilitating enrolment in a Tier 1 university is not going to solve the problem as well. Learn from Europe and establish more educational infrastructure. Educate them. Education along with reservation would help them. But reservations gets the votes, education won’t so no one would do that. But I simply can not recruit a candidate who is clearly not as good as his counterparts. Even if I recruit someone, they won’t be able to survive the law firm culture and struggles they faced in law school would persist in law firms as well. As I said, there is no shortcut to education.

Whenever I go to any NLU for recruitment, I ask those applying to my firm to list their CLAT ranks, along with CGPA. Independently, I get a hold of that batch's NLU allotment list. I do not pre-judge any candidate on their caste status, but I ensure that I have the full information. I did not do this earlier, till an IB friend on mine said he does this whenever he goes to recruit in the IITs. Now know which 5000 ranked person got into NALSAR and wants to apply to tier 1 firms.