Add to basic principles: Annihilation of Caste

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?