We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
To begin with, discrimination against certain communities doesn't just happen because of their lack of money or decent jobs, it happens in any case. There are multiple cases of people in decent position from sc/st communities also getting discriminated against. The concept of reservation is to give them opportunities that were denied to the for years so that there is representation at the top. But that's not the case even now, there is no department where there is any significant representation from the Sc Sc community.
Sc has hardly 3 judges, there are less than 3 professors in IIMs, there is less than 5% representation in media houses, etc.
The seats reserved for sc st already go vacant, if there's a concept of creamy layer, a lot more seats will remain vacant and the process of uplifting will just become slow.
Also, today there are thousands of SC government officers and private sector employees, including alumni of IITs, IIMs and NLUs. Why should their children be treated the same as children of SC/STs whose parents Mike be drivers and maids?
The creamy layer concept is defined by one word: LOGIC.
Now, there is another concept of intersectionality, there are layers of discrimination, one a clear one being of poverty, but affirmative action is not the solution for that, there are other poverty alleviation schemes by the government from which the rich Dalits could easily be exempted. But the scheme which is made for removing discrimination cannot have income as a determining factor
Nowadays, people think it's cool to pretend to be someone else without having any idea about their real conditions and privileges.
Now you would think that if they're not able to crack the exams then they don't deserve it, but that's not the case. Most of them are the first generation to even get formal education to this date, they are amongst the poorest in the country, the lack of resources in all terms is way high.just because all of us know that one rich sc st person doesn't mean the entire community is rich. You can literally just look at the govt data and see the percentage od people even able to get proper education.
Now the point about the president's son, the thing we need to understand is that a Sc/ST person doesn't get discriminated only because they don't have the money or the resources, they get discriminated even after having all of that because the oppressor communities don't care about how much money you have in your bank account, they hardcore believe that they are smaller than them and this deserve less.
Simple Google search will take you to multiple articles showing Dalits in power being openly oppressed by the uc communities. A dalit sarpanch was paraded naked by the uc people in the village just because of her caste identity, it didn't matter to them that she was a woman in power and she had decent money as well.