Desicritics Comments on Barack Obama in the Indian Context

Comment by Ruvy

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:27:58 EST

Waiter! I'll have that pizza with mushrooms, no bacon, and only one nationality, please. Thank you.

Comment by smallsquirrel

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:55:05 EST

che cazzo!

Comment by temporal

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:42:29 EST

chandra: quanti paesi nel mondo contengono una nazione soltanto? una maggioranza dei paesi contiene le comunit� delle nazioni. gli non � stato pensato duro da calcolare. spiacente se fossi errato

Comment by Chandra

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:12:12 EST

T cosa stai dicendo o chiedendo?

Comment by temporal

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:20:08 EST

chandra: nation?

Comment by Chandra

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:03:36 EST

Thanks for correcting! Too much of cricket leads to mixing up of names. In India, the President is largely chosen for what they represent and not necessarily what they have accomplished. So KRN, ZH or the current president became Presidents because they belong to 'weaker sections' (Congress language). Having said that, it is easier in India for somebody from 'weaker section' to become PM or President after 60 years of Independence than it was in 1835 in the United States. Not a fair comparison but comparison nevertheless. I am quite confident that in 2180 AD, India would have many 'weaker section' PMs and Presidents. Lastly, we are not a secular nation. A secular nation does not provide financial assistance to one members of religion and not to the others. Nor does it support primitive laws for one community because it is supposed to/...

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:03:21 EST

Suresh: ""Yes Bihari, you left an impression, once again on expected lines."" Touche Suresh! (as if the impression you left was unexpected)

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:00:10 EST

suresh naig: ""Fortunate for Obama, that he was not caught on the vicious circle of reservation. Obama, Ambedkar, KRN or any person who puts in efforts do not require reservations. (is Bihari listening?)"' this is not even silly. well, as personal opinion, it does reflect the thinking of a majority of upper middle class folks (will i get sued by some thekedaar of the middle class now), but has no grounding in reality, nor does it refer to zillions of studies that, Bihari rightly contends, and as ANY social scientist knows, show just the opposite. It is all well for beneficiaries of affirmative action to claim they made it all on their own. and yes, who, by the way would be Dr. Zaheer Hussain? Are you predicting the future or talking about the past?

Comment by Chandra

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:22:46 EST

Who is Zaheer Hussain? Zaheer Khan's brother?

Comment by temporal

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:21:45 EST

...Similarly when Dr.Zaheer Hussein was elected as the president of India... for those who claim i slept through history class ;)

Comment by Bihari

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:00:39 EST

Incidentally, this is from an article in the Economic and Political Weekly of this month: the proportion of people below the poverty line among scheduled castes and tribes (SC/STS) is about 50% higher than those among the general population. Access to a reasonable quality of education is far from universal and differs by caste. The fraction of the population that belongs to the SC/STS shrinks as one moves up educational attainment classes. For example, in urban India in 1999-2000, persons belonging to the SC/STS constituted 18.3 percent of those in the 17-25 age group, but only 11.3 percent of them passed high schools. Their proportion among college graduates was only 7.4 percent (Sundaram 2006).... Further more: It is only recently, however, the social scientists have systematically studied discrimination against lower castes in the labour market. Madheswaran and Attewell (2007) using National Sample Survey (NSS) data, found that employees from SC/STS in urban salaried jobs in 1999-2000 received wages that were about 30 percent lower than those of other castes

Comment by Bihari

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:40:10 EST

Did I say all upper caste people are rich and all low caste people poor? I can think not. I would have expected you to at least admit that rich people use donations to get their kids admitted as not being fair actions and therefore if reservations should be done away with so should these kinds of transactions be stopped. I have also given an opposing viewpoint regarding the other premises of your article which you have conveniently refused to answer. Instead you took refuge in sarcasm which is the clutch of a weak man. If you think you have the right to bring up my name in an article at least have the decency to respond properly and not get uppity and upset. I certainly expected more from a man of your stature but it seems its a wasted effort. I think we don't have much left to say to each other since it seems you can dish it out but cannot take responsive jabs.

Comment by suresh.naig

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:21:55 EST

Yes Bihari, you left an impression, once again on expected lines. Rich and middle class pay for their brats, to get admitted in educational institutions, concluding all the forward caste people are rich and all backward castes are poor. Again you have left an impression.

Comment by Bihari

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:28:16 EST

Much to my surprise I found myself referred to on an article on Desicritics. Did I leave an impression? Being the first black president does not mean racism will disappear in America. Ambedkar's rise in the political circles did not bring an end to caste system. A Muslim president in India did not mean India gained communal harmony. Reservation for the backward is an act which the author believes turns a person lazy and makes their actions lacking in effortless. Similar argument can be applied for the rich and the middle class who use donations to get their pampered brats to private institutions. Are those rich brats also lazy and do they believe that thanks to daddy's money they needn't put in effort? Ambedkar's father was already a sepoy in the British Army and believed education alone would break the shackles of caste system. His father was already part of the system and had the listening ear of his superiors. Despite the hardships that he faced growing up he did have the advantage of being part of the 'Raj' family. Obama's mother is white. He does not represent the Black community alone. And his legacy is yet to be proven Abdul Kalam again was part of the government machinery and an important one at that. He was not chosen by the masses but a product of political mechanisms. None of these people truly represent the realities of the people they supposedly speak for. More and more people even amongst the upper castes who protested against the Mandal commission are now stating that they are pro-reservation with the stipulation that it cannot be re-used by the second generation. Mr Naig it serves well to remember that when secularism is not reflected in society mere words in the constitution serve little purpose.