Anupama Rao's Casteist Cretinism

Anupama Rao, a lecturer at Columbia educated in America, writes in Scroll-

In what is likely to be a precedent-setting case, California regulators filed a suit in the federal court on June 30 against Cisco Systems Inc, alleging that the company failed to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation against a Dalit engineer, anonymised as “John Doe” in the filing.

The Californian DFEH claims that Dalits are different to non Dalit Indian by reason of darker color. Thus racial discrimination has occurred.

Interestingly DFEH had previously given a 'right to sue' letter to a Kapu Naidu engineer who had been terminated by a Kamma Naidu boss. It seems any Indian can claim Caste discrimination with respect to any other Indian even if they appear to be of the same Caste because there are minute variations within such groupings. In the UK, an 'Arain' chef lost a Tribunal case because his 'higher caste' boss was found to be 'Arain' himself. Both were Muslim Pakistanis. God alone knows what would have happened if the Boss had been a Jat!

The Cisco case bears the burden of making anti-Dalit prejudice legible to American civil rights law as an extreme form of social disability attached to those formerly classified as “Untouchable.”

Sadly, the Law is unconcerned with 'extreme forms of social disability'. It would be irrational and unfair to stigmatize a person because their mother was a prostitute or because their father is in jail for fraud. But such 'social disability' is not currently 'a protected class'.

 Thus the only question here is whether Dalits are or are not a different race from non-Dalit Indians. If the Court decides that Dalits are indeed a different race, then Cisco has been negligent and permitted discriminatory conduct. If not, Cisco gets off scott free. It appears that their legal counsel is confident that Dalits are not of a distinct race or religion from non Dalit Indians. It is not illegal for a supervisor to take a dislike to an employee and to treat him shabbily. It is illegal if this is done because of race, religion, gender or age.

This does not mean that an employee who has been treated unfairly has no recourse in law to secure damages. However, they would have to pay a lawyer to take the case to court. The DFEH has no remit.

However, if the Court finds Dalits are a separate race, then they become a protected class on their own.

Herein lies its key legal significance. The suit implicitly compares two systems of descent-based discrimination – caste and race – and translates between them to find points of convergence or family resemblance.

No. The suit is lost in advance if it makes such an 'implicit comparison'. Suppose the Partners of a Law Firm discover that the new hire is not, as they thought, an heiress. Actually her mother is a domestic servant. The girl got ahead on her own merits. If this girl is unfairly discriminated against on the grounds that her people were 'white trash', then this is not covered by the type of law under consideration. This is unfair and there may be other remedies but the DFEH can't get involved.

The charge of caste discrimination also challenges the myth of the South Asian diaspora as a monolithic community and a model minority, the “other one percent”.

Sadly, this is not the case. It merely shows that some Indians are considered greatly superior to others- Dalits in particular- in their own country. This creates 'High Caste Privilege'. It increases the incentive for Dalits to conceal their identity. Consider Tom Wolfe's essay 'Mid-Atlantic Man' about a working class Englishman who is treated as an equal by plutocrats on the other side of the pond. So he develops a 'Mid-Atlantic' persona. Wolfe, whose own persona was that of an aristocratic Southern Gentleman, thought the 'Mid Atlantic Man' would be squeezed out when Newport plutocrats met their social equals in England. As a matter of fact, after 'Big Bang', when a lot of American Merchant Banks set up in London, 'Mid-Atlantic Man' did fine. A Liverpudlian or Geordie accent was as 'posh' as an Etonian drawl.

I don't really think American Dalits- who have done well on merit- will want to hide their identity. In any case, they can say 'I'm the same caste as the Indian President'. That ends the matter.

What of the 'model minority' tag? Will this be damaged? Of course not. All that matters is that these guys keep earning well and stay out of jail.

The case makes caste internationally visible as the practice of social exclusion that is materially consequential.

No. Nobody believes that Cisco gives a damn about what type of benighted dot Indian you are. The only thing they are concerned with is your work product. Still, it would be cool if there were another 'protected class'. Why should the Irish not gain such status? How about the Poles and the Italians and so forth?

A little historical background will assist in the comparative work of discerning the consequences of untouchability in a context geared to findings about the very different category of race.

Anupama Rao is described as a Historian. Thus any historical background she presents will be utterly false.

Reservations are a unique form of civil rights law that defines caste as a system of historical discrimination resulting in enduring group disadvantage, or social and economic “backwardness”. Until recently, reservations were organised around a commitment to “equality of outcome” and not merely “equality of opportunity”, as is the case in the United States.

Rao is writing for an Indian audience. They know very well that powerful castes can gain Reservations. They also know that the benefits of reservations for Dalits are monopolized by the traditionally higher status, better educated and wealthier Dalit sub-castes.
Talk of 'equality' is a joke in a country where only a tiny minority can gain Government employment.

Reservations in Southern and Western India date to the late colonial period, and predate the better-known system that followed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States by nearly a century.

This is nonsense. What 'Reservation' was there in 1880? What about 1890? The fact is Mahars lost employment in the Army in 1885 despite their valour and loyalty. Kohlapur did introduce reservations in its tiny territory about 1900. The Justice Party in the Twenties did something similar in the 1920s.

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution separately abolishes untouchability and prescribes a system of compensatory discrimination for its victims and their descendants, including an unusual and robust set of criminal law provisions – such as the Prevention of Atrocities Act – that were instituted to protect these communities from violence by dominant upper-castes.

India is a poor country. It preferred to pass nice sounding laws rather than attempt to enforce them.

Constitutional commitments to social and economic advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the governing template for extending reservations to other castes.

Thus, there is no bar for supposedly economically backward high prestige castes gaining Quotas.

What is more, Indian law courts have understood the commitment to remediation as absolute.

Nonsense! No court holds any law to be other than defeasible. Indian law courts only hold the 'Basic Structure of the Constitution' to be inviolable. But what that Basic Structure is, nobody can say.

So much so that interpretive leeway has turned on the question of eligibility, on defining the rightful beneficiaries of preferential treatment.

This is not true. If it were 'social and economic disadvantage' which is absent in the Dalit 'creamy layer', just as it is absent in the OBC 'creamy layer', would militate for withdrawal of 'preferential treatment'.

In contrast, courts in the United States work through judicial scrutiny to balance equal protection – read “non-discrimination” – against commitments to affirmative action.

Only a small proportion of Indians have access to the Courts. In America this is not the case. One result is that American laws reflect reality to some degree. Indian laws are pure pie in the sky.

However, it must be understood that 'protected classes' in the US are not subject to any test re. socio-economic advantage. This means a high status woman is still protected by reason of gender. A white man may be protected by reason of being White, though no disability attaches to Whiteness. One result of having a clear and 'uni-dimensional', not 'instersectional', criteria for protection is that the Law actually works though, no doubt, enforcement Agencies lack resources to ensure the vast majority of the discriminated against gain any effective protection.

Ironically, affirmative action policies that are remedial in their conception are now criticised, whether in India or the United States, for introducing exception and inequality in the domain of liberal equality.

How is this ironic? It is natural to criticize programs which don't benefit you personally. Rao should say, 'Because people are selfish, it is understandable- not ironic- that they protest against progressive measures from which they don't see themselves personally benefiting'. It would be worth adding 'This is short sighted. Removing wage, price, and service provision discrimination is allocatively and dynamically efficient. There is less dead weight loss to Society. Growth is faster. In the long run, everybody gains.'

It is true that there is a very wide gap between progressive legislation and equitable outcome in case law.

I don't understand this statement. Is she saying the Courts don't decide cases on the basis of legislation? The problem here is that Courts alone have the authority to interpret the law. The opinion of some 'historian' is not germane. Equity is a separate source of law. An equitable remedy may be applied, in certain jurisdictions, where the Law falls short by reason of its generality.

However, this is not the reason why the state is actively rolling back civil rights legislation, both in India and in the United States.

This is a paranoid assertion wholly unfounded in fact. Does this cretin really believe India is reinstituting untouchability? What about America? Does Rao get shunted to the back of the bus because only white people are allowed to sit in the front? Has Jim Crow really come back?

In the process and as a consequence, those who suffer the disability of caste or race are now viewed as the undeserving beneficiaries of affirmative action policy, while the true beneficiaries of inherited privilege redefine their privilege as “merit”.

Viewed by whom? Presumably the author- what a nasty person she must be!

Let us take a brief look at the details of the suit with the foregoing in mind.

But 'the foregoing' has no bearing at all on the case. It is ignorant, paranoid, nonsense.

The federal suit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing follows on two inconclusive internal reviews conducted by Cisco. The complaint describes a hostile work environment that resulted in “John Doe” receiving less pay, fewer opportunities for advancement, and otherwise suffering inferior terms and conditions of employment.

That is not germane. The suit says Iyer 'outed' Doe as Dalit. Furthermore Dalits are darker than non-Dalits and thus constitute a different race. Thus the 'outing' of Doe was similar to what would happen if a light complected African American was 'outed' as Black according to the Jim Crow 'one drop' rule. However, the fact is, Indians know that a lot of people enter on OBC and other quotas. Thus, firstly, not being 'general category' does not mean you are necessarily Dalit. You may be the son of a Minister from a dominant caste and have gotten in on the Sports quota. You may be of very high caste but may have paid a bribe to get a S.C certificate. 

Secondly, Dalits aren't really darker complected than non Dalits. In Tamil Nadu, one Dalit Caste is of North Indian origin and thus has lighter skin. In Punjab, some Brahmins are darker than some Dalits.

Incidentally, if Romanis are protected under US laws than Indian Doms are protected because they are the stem race of the Romanis. But this protection would not extend to other Dalits unless the Court finds they too are a separate race. But on what basis could they do so? Current scientific opinion is that there was much inter-marriage 3000 years ago. Endogamy may be traced back only 2000 years. But if this is enough to constitute racial difference then every Indian jati is a protected class. Iyer can say Sharma or Seth or even Namboodri discriminated against him. This would be super cool. As I have explained elsewhere, I could sue my Daddy and my Mummy and my Sister and my Son and even myself for discrimination!

The suit names Cisco and two employees, Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella, who served in a supervisory capacity over John Doe at varying times. Of eight charges in all, Cisco is charged with multiple counts of “Retaliation,” “Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination, Harrassment, and Retaliation,” and “Discrimination on the Basis of Religion, Ancestry, National Origin/Ethnicity, and Race/Color.” All three defendants are charged with “Harassment on the Basis of Religion, Ancestry, National Origin/Ethnicity, and Race/Color.”

The problem is, Iyer knew Doe from College and hired him. Then, a year later, Doe accused him of outing him as Dalit. Iyer's attitude to him changed. Was this dislike- which is legal- or was it discrimination- which isn't? Cisco thinks it was dislike. A boss can victimize his employee who then has a choice whether to pursue a remedy under the law of contract, or simply quit and find a nicer employer.

DFEH is claiming Dalits are a Race. If they are right, then so are Iyers. If Smith, the M.D of the Company promotes Namboodri, not Iyer, Iyer can go to DFEH alleging racial discrimination. Smith may not know the difference between Iyers and Namboodris but, in law, they are now separate races. Smith had a duty to listen to Iyer whine about how Namboodris (save monks) can't accept cooked food from Iyers. We are untouchables. Boo hoo!

The social circumstances leading up to the suit are equally revealing. John Doe is an IIT graduate, like the defendants.

He was a batchmate of the guy who hired him.

He worked on a team of entirely Indian, largely upper-caste employees. 

This is irrelevant. Either he belonged to a different race from them or he did not. If he did not, his position is similar to a person of stigmatized descent- e.g. his mother was a prostitute, his father was a jail-bird- being unfairly harassed by people of the same race as himself. 

It is possible that snobby, 'legacy' Ivy League alumni in the Workplace create a hostile environment for a chap who went to Night School and rose up by his own efforts. This is repugnant, but it isn't illegal because social class does not give rise to 'protected' status.     

He was subject to a series of discriminatory incidents that escalated in severity starting with public exposure of his caste identity in late 2016 by Sundar Iyer.

No. The complaint says that discriminatory incidents arose after he confronted Iyer about 'outing' him as a 'quota' student. Iyer may have been retaliating for what he perceived as insubordination. Or he may simply have taken an irrational dislike to the fellow. That is repugnant but not illegal.

During Cisco’s first review, Iyer is alleged to have told John Doe’s colleagues that he was not from the “main list”, thus publicising Doe’s identity as someone who has derived the benefit of reservations. No action was taken, however, and the Office of Employee Relations is alleged to have noted that “caste discrimination was not unlawful.”

Because caste is not race. It is not illegal for a blue blooded European Aristocrat to discriminate against a fellow European of plebeian origin. Nor is it illegal for 'Boston Brahmins' to discriminate against 'Trailer Trash'. There may be a breach of contract or other legal remedy. But it wouldn't be something the FCEH could get involved in.

During the second review, witnesses testified that Iyer sidelined Doe from a project and questioned his competence. Doe was isolated from the group, rejected a raise, and denied the chance to apply for a position that would have entailed a raise and a promotion. However, Cisco’s second review also found no grounds to support claims of caste-based and related discrimination, or evidence of retaliation against Doe.

Caste-based discrimination would not have been actionable. Retaliation for rudeness- e.g. confronting a boss in a manner he does not like- is not per se illegal. Thus, unless the Court finds Dalits are a different race- which is good news for Iyers and Chettiars and Namboodris because they can all start accusing each other of Racism and demanding H.R take action- Employers are off the hook.

The case will now be decided in the court of law. However, it is worth noting that debates about caste privilege, anger against the “underserving” beneficiaries of reservation, and anxiety about the introduction of the caste question into the diaspora are rife within the upper caste discussions I am privy to. Why so?

Because you are talking to people as stupid and ignorant as yourself. Either each endogamous jati is a Race or none are. They belong to a common stock. There may be hierarchical differences between them. But hierarchical differences are not racial differences. They don't constitute a 'protected group'. It may be that 'trailer trash' should be a protected group if it is true that the upper class Whites look down on them. It may also be that having a Dad in prison for fraud should give you protected class status. Imagine yourself working for a White Shoe Law firm. Everybody loves you because your Dad is the billionaire Bernie Madoff. Then he goes to jail for fraud. Everybody suddenly hates you. There is a hostile work environment. You are 'constructively dismissed' in an unfair manner. The State can't help you because there is no discrimination against a protected group. You could get damages if you had a good lawyer. But how will you pay her fee? You may end up flipping burgers.

The Cisco case addresses caste as inherited privilege, one that upper-castes carry with them and make use of to derive material benefit in the United States even as they deny that caste matters.

No. The Cisco trial is about whether Dalits are or are not a separate race. This is important for South Asians. Every endogamous jati would gain protected status. Remember, Rich White Men are a protected class in so far as they are White and they are Men. If Poor Black Women create a hostile workplace for him and he complains to H.R, they have to take action. Any 'retaliation' by Poor Black Women adds to the offense. So the Rich White Dude can, in theory at least, get Government lawyers to secure him a payout which may be very large because his emoluments are very high. This may seem unfair. But this is the law. It is always a double edged sword.

Instead, John Doe is presented as suffering the burden of caste. The fact of his being a Dalit and thus, the beneficiary of affirmative action policy in India might confirm the view that his work is not up to par.

Rao is perpetuating a myth. All IIT graduates pass the same exams. In any case the guy was an industry veteran. If his work product was sub-par why did Iyer hire him?

Rao seems prejudiced against Dalits. It is unfortunate that Scroll has published this rubbish. But then its readership is 'upper caste'. Under the guise of being a 'Justice Warrior' Rao is perpetuating stereotypes.

Though non-Indian coworkers might remain unaware, the caste name – and caste identity, more generally – continue to operate as secret knowledge that can be “outed” at will to stigmatise Dalit-Bahujans.

Look at Rao's mindset! She thinks people who can see your work product will change their opinion on the basis of the fact that you father was poor. There is something wrong with this 'Historian's' brain.

Their social reverberations extend to membership in regional, and oftentimes caste-specific, cultural organisations, commitments to exclusivity in food and marriage, and most important of all, the denial of caste as an operative factor in contexts where merit is supposed to prevail.

No 'social reverberations' arise in the manner suggested. Some Caste Associations will flourish, others will fall by the wayside. This cretin may be able to virtue signal on this issue to her equally cretinous students but those students won't get well paid jobs. They will be flipping burgers while waiting for the Revolution.

By charging Cisco with responsibility for creating a hostile environment where a historically-discriminated minority is again excluded on the basis of religious identity – caste is here seen as an integral element of Hindu religion – national origin/ethnicity and race, the federal suit implicates a globally-renowned, private corporation, Cisco, with duty to equal protection and diversity.

But nobody except some 'woke' nutcases with nothing better to do will bother with this issue. Cisco is going to have to change its business model any way because America does not want any more South Asians.

Rao may be able to make a little money lecturing on caste. But her students won't make any money at all. After paying off their Student Loans, they will find they are worse off than if they had taken a course in Basket Weaving instead.

In the United States, policies of affirmative action are related to but distinct from a commitment to multicultural diversity.

There is no commitment to multicultural diversity as opposed to guarantees of different types of liberty.

Equal protection of diversity/difference, such as religious differences, must be distinguished from inequality that arises through historic relations of domination, subordination, and hierarchy.

But historic relations of dominations are stochastically disrupted. In an Advanced Capitalist Economy most inequality is the result of educational, career, and portfolio choice decisions.

This case poses the question of how respect for Hindu religion might coexist with recognising socio-economic inequality justified in the name of religion.

The answer to this question is that respect for religion can coexist with anything at all if you believe it will get you to Heaven where you'll be united with Mummy and Daddy and the neighbor's cat you liked to stroke.

Rao's writing about this case poses the question of how respect for her and the Department where she teaches can coexist with recognizing that she and it are as stupid as shit.

Though far-reaching in conception and intent, reservations in India have been stymied by their focus on fast-vanishing public sector employment. They have steered clear of legislating equality in the private sector. The petition against Cisco provides a model, one that will need to translated back to suit Indian conditions.

This is nonsense. India has at last realized that even if a few thousand get good jobs, the country as a whole will suffer unless girls in rural areas are shifted into giant factory dormitories. India has to go the way of China or forget about a 'middle income trap', it will be a Malthusian shithole.

A senior Indian engineer in the United States whom I know, on reading the suit, remarked that it should be essential reading for every Human Relations department in this country, to alert them that there could be minorities within minorities, and that Indians are far from being a uniform or homogeneous group.

H.R departments have to keep abreast of changes in the law. If Dalits are declared a separate race, then- as this engineer points out- any endogamous jati is a separate race.  That way madness lies. There will be a test case decided in a Superior Court or else there will be legislation to rollback this stupidity.

Alternatively, the law will be circumvented by outsourcing. That's probably what's going to happen anyway.

Indians today constitute the highest earning and best-educated ethnic group, including Whites.

This will change as they abandon STEM subjects for cozy gigs in Grievance Studies.

Not surprisingly, they are overwhelmingly from well-educated and upper caste backgrounds.

Why? Because the US did its best to keep out the poor and ill-educated. Still, unless immigration rules re. family reunification are changed, Indian-Americans will revert to the mean quickly enough.

Despite their inherited privilege, they have fashioned an American success story for themselves,

No. Because of some inherited qualities they succeeded to some extent.  One of those inherited qualities was being as poor as shit and thus wanting to work hard in boring jobs so as to earn dollars and buy nice shiny things.

of struggling against the odds to achieve their status.

'against the odds'? No! People migrated to the US because the odds were in favour of their being much better off than if they stayed in India. This woman is a cretin.

This case suggests that a healthy dose of skepticism is required.

Why? A guy who doesn't get promoted goes to HR and then gets the Government to sue his employer for him. This shows he is smart. There is no reason to be skeptical about him.

As for Rao and her ilk, we may once have been skeptical about their intelligence. We aren't skeptical now. It is obvious they are ignorant, careerist, cretins whose virtue signalling can only harm America or India or any other country which listens to them.

Post Script- 

California dropped the case against Cisco. It turned out Iyer was a nice guy who shared his bonuses with his underlings. The message here is 'don't hire a guy who might accuse of sexual molestation or caste discrimination or some such thing. Also don't share your bonuses. Just make your underlings work hard so as to generate profits for the company.'