If definition of religion necessitates belief in a supernatural entity who created us, aka god, then humans can live without religion as many humans don't believe in god.

The statement need more clarification as this is a sensitive issue that may overlap with articles under right to freedom of religion and cultural and educational rights (art 25,26,29,30) of constitution of India.

As it being right of an individual to practice their caste and religion, plainly stating "annihilation" or "breaking up" of caste will be interpreted as intrusion of personal liberty and rights. If the intention of statement is to completely dismantle caste system, it should discuss the above mentioned violations and if the scope of interpretation of the statement includes only the anti social practices that are part of caste system, then that should be clearly stated to avoid ambiguity.

What do you think should get preference when one's religious beliefs are in conflicts with human rights or rights guaranteed under the constitution?

The hypothetical condition you mentioned is too vague. I think in specific cases, the courts must be the final voice. In either way, suggesting "annihilation" or "breaking up" caste system entirely is different from dealing with intrusion of religious practices into someone's liberty.

Are you saying the caste system does not intrude into someone's liberty and it is just pure personal belief?

Well, the forms of caste is debatable, for some its their culture and traditions related to it and then there is oppression in the name of it. Also the forms of rituals and practices changes with time too. So if you ask does caste system intrude someone's liberty, my answer will be, some forms of it does. But considering the forms of beliefs that don't involves intrusion of one's liberty, it don't.

So you think someone is considered untouchable or inferior is not violation of one's liberty?

Its a violation of liberty as well as law. The proposal is not about caste IMO but a specific form of words which happens in my view to be both inaccurate and unhelpful. Kannan's basic draft already does better, we can probably refine that.

@Kannan V M what would be your position on caste, if you were to draft it?

We should be saying "We recognize the caste based discrimination as a deadly disease our nation is facing and we recognize it is of import that we eliminate it before it spreads further into the hearts of our people, especially to our young. We recognize the systemic oppression and the opportunities denied and we will work towards to compensate through reservations and other policies. We believe making laws are not enough to bring justice to the oppressed classes and we will work together on ground to secure justice, liberty and equality to the oppressed and under represented communities"

But it is not enough, this is just a statement and we should be a discussing about what the above statement doesn't talk about, the social change, what are our expectations about social change and how to bring them. It will be an interdisciplinary topic, which includes discussions on history, present social scenario, politics and economics.

But no matter what we do, we shouldn't interfere with one's liberty or even give an impression that we might be thinking that way. That is why I had to block the proposal.

NB: I am not going to propose the above quoted statement now as it seriously lack any point on social change and I believe the intention of this proposal is social change, so instead proposing I believe we can have a discussion on our expectations on social change and how we can bring it.

A disease is a natural phenomena. So you think caste is not human creation and it just came naturally? We don't really need to look why it came? or who brought it? or who benefits from it? We can eliminate a disease by treating its symptoms and not understanding its reasons? We should shy away from talking about the reason for caste?

> So you think caste is not human creation and it just came naturally?

Disease as in, something that is undesirable and destructive.

The point is, we need to discuss about caste, its existence, its ill effects. I am not saying we shouldn't talk about caste or its ill effects. What I wanted to point out is, when we just say caste or caste system, its ambiguous. Caste is not just hierarchy and discrimination, so "annihilation of caste" here means to ignore a bunch of people's customs and beliefs too (which is not involving hierarchy and discrimination).

we shouldn't interfere with one's liberty or even give an impression that we might be thinking that way

well, those who make use of hate speech can argue that it should be considered as legal under the right to free speech. one could block our code of conduct for this same reason.

if the concern is about abolishing religion, no, i think that was never the intention. in order to avoid ambiguity, it can be explicitly stated that Indian Pirates are not against the right to religion as long as it respects human rights. would that address your concern @Kannan V M?

>Indian Pirates are not against the right to religion as long as it respects human rights.

I wouldn't say this is right choice of words, we shouldn't give an impression that we have to explicitly state such statements. Also caste and religion are identifications of some people's customs, culture, so its not just religion, caste too should be identified as diversity. But the inequality, discrimination, oppression based on caste system should be called by its name and all practices that supports and promote should be identified and discarded.

We can support inter-caste marriages, but we shouldn't be against intra-caste marriages. But we don't have to use the same logic for child marriages of non consensual marriages.

we shouldn't give an impression that we have to explicitly state such statements

@Kannan V M what does "such" statements here actually mean? why you think they should not be used? is it because they have some sort of "negative" meaning because of the terms like annihilation/against? if not, then what exactly is it?

see, i think following a purely rational approach here is no different than being insensitive to the oppressed ones.

caste too should be identified as diversity

this statement can also be read as "caste system should be preserved as such, no matter even if it is against equality, because it represents a diverse set of customs and culture". how do you explain that's not the case? how do you explain this to someone who lives their whole life as a victim of caste-based discrimination in their day-to-day life? people are forced to accept the caste they were born in to without having a choice to get out of it even if they wanted to. the untouchability here is in people's minds, because caste represents a hierarchical system which considers some people above some other people. i don't think it is a right thing to defend a system of inequality in the name of diversity, i strongly oppose it.

I think the whole discussion here lies around how "caste" is defined. I am of the view that caste should be considered as similar to religion as castes have their own existence apart from religion and are not just internal divisions in a religion. Many take caste as their identity too. So caste should be treated similar to religion when we use the noun caste in statements too.

caste too should be identified as diversity.

Those wordings, even in the form which is not taken out of context should not be used in a statement. A statement should be unambiguous.

I do not think anyone in this discussion is defending a system of inequality. I think what is being discussed is what's the best strategy to make the system right. Praveen described this as the concept of doing what is right vs doing what is doable. Praveen has also mentioned in the past that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. I realized that one of the things that we need to do is promotion of scientific temper and rational thinking and created a thread about that. It is clear to me that the question is about whether Indian Pirates will choose a position which rejects religion, caste, etc as a whole or whether Indian Pirates will choose a position which goes soft on rejecting religion and caste in their entirety and will only reject the "bad" practices.

I see no way that religion can exist without the "bad" practices. Religion is a patriarchal institution that is based on privilege and oppression. But at the same time I also don't see a very bright future for rationalism or atheism because humans are born irrational and continue to be so for a long long time. So I'm utterly confused about how to proceed here. But I do believe that in moments of such confusion, working with the system in a participatory way is bound to produce better results.

For example, let us take Sabarimala issue. Going by my rule of thumb, the Supreme Court verdict and enforcement of equality by force is not sustainable and what is sustainable would have been participatory discussion with religious groups with clarity of intention and graded/step-by-step opening up of Sabarimala. But then, there is a view that law is transformative in that although it might require force and violence to start, later on the change will be normalized by the society. Both of them could be right. Perhaps a hybrid approach would be possible too. Like Supreme Court could have said that in the next 15 years there should be a step-by-step opening up of Sabarimala for women and then government could have used a participatory approach to make that happen. I don't know.

@Kannan V M you believe caste can (or does) exist as an identity or just a set of customs/culture without it being hierarchical in nature?

Many take caste as their identity too

are you talking about the rights of the upper caste people who take pride in the caste suffix in their name? no, i'm serious because i'm not sure whose rights you're trying to defend here! you consider one's right to take pride in the name of their privileged identity equally important as the the rights of the people who are considered as of lower caste to live a life of dignity without being discriminated?

you believe caste can (or does) exist as an identity or just a set of customs/culture without it being hierarchical in nature?

My belief or not, it should be studied before making a statement on it considering the seriousness and vastness of the topic. Also I do believe caste do exist apart from its hierarchical nature, but this should not be generalized to say caste had no contribution to hierarchical discrimination, that should disrespectful and insensitive to those who had to and still having to suffer caste based oppression and discrimination.
Denouncing caste or religion should be the person's choice, we should focus on enabling them to denounce their caste without losing their rights to seek relief from the systematic oppression they had to suffer over the time though multiple generations.

It is clear to me that the question is about whether Indian Pirates will choose a position which rejects religion, caste, etc as a whole or whether Indian Pirates will choose a position which goes soft on rejecting religion and caste in their entirety and will only reject the "bad" practices.

@Akshay imo, Indian Pirates should be soft on religion but not on caste because caste is hierarchical and oppressors can take significantly more advantage of keeping the system as such than the oppressed ones.

I see no way that religion can exist without the "bad" practices.

@Kannan V M like @Akshay said here, i don't think caste can exist without caste-based discrimination. we can keep studying whether that's the case, but for how long? let me get back to the example of hate speech, it is made illegal because its consequences can be easily seen and understood. it's of course a violation of free speech, but still we accepted it as an unavoidable trade-off. but in case of caste system, it cannot be? because its consequences are not visible enough or inhumane enough?

I just came across an event organized by Aneka India in which they're working with faith leaders (pastors, acharyas) to make inclusion of LGBTIQ+ a reality within the framework of religion by relying on progressive trends within religion.

I think this is exactly the approach that works

Would you agree if you have to educate people bullying you or discriminating you personally instead of the rights guaranteed to you by law? For example if you re forced to work 14 hours a day in a software company and you are in a difficult position to find another job, would you want us to go and educate your employer that they should not do this? Like argue with them that for productivity over work is harmful for their profits itself etc? and ask you to continue to suffer if we fail to convince? So if the religious people refuse, the community has to accept discrimination? I don't think this approach can replace the guarantee of rights. They may be doing this as compromise and not the best choice. They may be doing this along with their fight for legal rights, not replacing the legal fights. There is a difference between what we really want and what we can achieve right now. Some struggles are there not because we can win, but simply because that is the right thing to do even if we fail to achieve it. The question here is not what we can achieve, but what we think is the right thing (also this is basic principles, not manifesto).

For decades atheists have struggled to unequivocally state that human beings can act morally if religion is destroyed. Knowing human beings, I (as an atheist) am also unsure if human beings can act morally without the framework of religion. I do not believe that most human beings are capable of behaving rationally. The question then becomes, do you wait for the long and risky process of replacing religions that might last generations and not produce any result. Or do you work with them to eliminate the suffering as soon as possible.

Are you saying it is binary choice here? Either religion is acceptes as such or it has to be destroyed? There is no place for rejecting religious notions that affects people's rights?

There is indeed that space. I'm all in favor of accepting religions as unavoidable human tendency and working to make religions better.

But law should not interfere to uphold rights?

Yes and I think the right thing here to do is work with progressives and use language that is accurate and sufficiently descriptive of the nuances that exist. It's taken you multiple paragraphs to state the case, the single sentence in the proposal, for me, is woefully inadequate as a statement to align with.

Law needs to be one of the tools in an array of tools.

Isn't the real method of breaking up the caste system to properly enforce the laws that make caste discrimination illegal? If the legislation is inadequate then we can enhance it and make it more punative. There are many practical steps that we can take time to define, simply copy pasting this broad statement falls way short of the mark of where we should aspire to be on the topic of caste.

i believe we have a common ground that we all oppose inequality and discrimination. so let's try to reach a consensus. would you be fine with the following proposal?

We recognize caste based discrimination as a deadly disease our nation is still facing and hence are obliged to work towards eliminating the same by means of promoting necessary education and social awareness along with establishing and enforcing anti-discriminatory laws.

i'll wait for a couple of days before starting a new proposal in order to make it open for suggestions. please note that the proposal is to add this to the basic principles and not manifesto, which means it is more about what we believe in and what direction we're heading to.

I would support that addition

@Pirate Bady I think we should also mention that we recognize and will work to reduce the existing opportunity gap resulted from systemic oppression over the past hundreds of years and still being continued.

@Kannan V M added your suggestion

@Pirate Bady can you add this translation in the proposal? (Review it too) ജാതി അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലുള്ള വിവേചനം നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യം നേരിടുന്ന മാരകരോഗമാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ട് തന്നെ ഞങ്ങൾ സാമൂഹിക അവബോധവും വിദ്യാഭ്യാസവും വഴിയും കൂടെ വിവേചനത്തിന് എതിരായുള്ള നിയമങ്ങൾ ശക്തമായി നടപ്പിലാക്കിയും ഇത് ഇല്ലാതാക്കാനുള്ള പ്രയത്നം ചെയ്യും. നൂറുകണക്കിന് വർഷങ്ങളിലുടെ ഇപ്പോഴും തുടരുന്ന വ്യവസ്ഥാപിത അടിച്ചമർത്തൽ കാരണം വന്ന അവസര വിടവ് ഞങ്ങൾ മനസ്സിലാക്കുകയും അത് കുറക്കാൻ ഞങ്ങൾ പ്രയത്നിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യും.

ജാതി അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലുള്ള വിവേചനം നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യം ഇപ്പോഴും നേരിട്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരു മാരകരോഗമാണ്. ആയതിനാല്‍ അത്തരം വിവേചനം ഇല്ലാതാക്കുന്നതിനായി തക്കതായ സാമൂഹിക അവബോധവും വിദ്യാഭ്യാസവും ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുന്നതിനും ഒപ്പം തന്നെ വിവേചനത്തിന് എതിരായുള്ള നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ശക്തമായി നടപ്പിലാക്കുന്നതിനും ഞങ്ങള്‍ പ്രതിജ്ഞാബദ്ധരാണ്. നൂറുകണക്കിന് വർഷങ്ങളായി തുടര്‍ന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന വ്യവസ്ഥാപിത അടിച്ചമർത്തൽ മൂലം ഉണ്ടായ അവസരവിടവ് ഞങ്ങള്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കുകയും അത് കുറയ്ക്കുന്നതിനായി പ്രയത്നിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യും.

കുറച്ചു മാറ്റങ്ങള്‍ വരുത്തി, ഇപ്പോള്‍ എങ്ങനെയുണ്ട്? ഇങ്ങനെ മതിയോ?

Looks good.

added it to the proposal

@Kannan V M do you think caste evolved naturally and there is no religious basis for caste? Do you think there is no definition of caste in any religious books? @Pirate Vik it is very likely British modified Manusmriti for their divide and rule policy, but do you think caste was invented by Brirish and there was no discrimination or untouchability before British rule in those scattered kingdoms now part of India ?

This is happening today https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/west-bengal-dom-cremate-covid-19-victims-casteist-mentality

@Pirate Praveen before British Rule it was the Mughal Empire and their rules. Prior to that there was still discrimination, untouchability and of course slavery. My disagreement with the statement is that the language is inadequate as the topic is complex.

"The existence of caste and untouchability, have throughout the ages been recorded by people who were traveling into the subcontinent and people who have been resisting the structure. Fa Xian, the Chinese monk, in 4th century C.E details the prevalence of caste and untouchability as a subcontinental reality. Al-Beruni, the middle eastern historian, in the 11th century C.E compiled comprehensive sociology, Tarikh-al-Hind, that includes extensive descriptions of varna-jāti systems. The Bhakthi saints of the 11th-15th centuries C.E; Sant Guru Ravidass, Kabir, Tukaram, Peero Premam, Chokamela, Soyrabai; were all Dalit-Bahujan anti-caste revolutionaries who wrote extensive literature of the existence of caste and how to fight it. A whole religion of Sikhism was even founded on Guru Nanak’s proclamation of revolution against caste and untouchability." Just adding this here for reference https://medium.com/@Bahujan_Power/the-dalit-bahujan-guide-to-understanding-caste-in-hindu-scripture-417db027fce6

@Pirate Praveen extremely compelling, i'm almost there with you. I would support this with one modification. Where you say "A whole religion of Sikhism was even founded on Guru Nanak’s proclamation of revolution against caste and untouchability." would you be prepared to change that too "A whole religion of Sikhism was even founded on Guru Nanak’s proclamation of revolution against caste and untouchability and even then, Sikhs subsequently adopted and practice caste"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs#Castes

I made that change.

@Kannan V M what do you think about the current proposal?