Reservations - II

Caution - This can be read as a Pro-reservation blog so please don't get agitated. Just listen out and think what the other side has to say.

I got hold of the Mandal commission report's analysis by a pro-reservation person. I read it on a website and, though I am not convinced, I will try to put the other point across. BP Mandal, after doing a thorough analysis of societal structure, observed that casteism is still pretty much alive in India (esp Northern India). Therefore, he thought it just to recommend a way to make sure that the oppressed are brought on the same plane as the so called upper classes.
According to 2001 census, around 72% of Indian population lived in Rural areas. Considering this fact, and that around 50% of the Indian population is North of MP, we can imagine that this situation is not totally false. So what went awry?
Implementation...

Imagine this, if only Mandal commission's report was taken in a better way than just drawing lines between castes or classes, things would be lot different. Who is oppressed? A person who is denied the basic human rights. So why do we want to still maintain that difference?

I still maintain that a better implementation is to identify such people NOT on the basis of their caste, but on the basis of the fact that irrespective of being upper or lower class, they are oppressed.

I'd end with this - Mandal commission recommended a 27% reservation for backward classes that constitute 75% of the Indian population. Is this asking more or less for the oppressed?