Shouldn't the managers and decision makers be aware of the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage? You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training?
Yes. Ethnic discrimination is absolutely unacceptable in any American workplace, full stop. There is no room for cultural relativism here. To imply otherwise (e.g. “it would be inappropriate for a non-Indian manager to tell off their subordinate for being caste-ist”) is itself extremely racist.
Again, how is that determined? Do you assume that a caste angle might be at play every time the manager is upper caste and the employee's of lower caste? Do you wait for the manager to be stupid enough to outright utter a casteist slur at the workplace?
Maybe I have a different view on that, we German's are quite sensitive when it comes to anti-semitism. And as woth caste, if religion is never openly discussed, I have no idea how to spot a jewish co-worker. If that jewish co-worker would complain about about being discriminated, it's more than reasonable to follow up. Same goes for caste. It is up to the employer to create an environment where employees can raise those kinds of concerns openly, most fail. Honestly trying so actually goes along way.
You are just saying that it is the job of the super-manager to find out why without answering how the job is supposed to be carried out. The manager says he is acting against the employee because of their lack of performance or insubordination. The employee says the manager is discriminating against them based on caste. You're the super-manager, what do you do?
Not sure what a "super-manager" is supposed to be. Everyone reports to someone, even the CEO reports to the board. And the board reports to the shareholders. If a company cannot figure out cases of discrimination it is already screwed.
In real life, so, the disriminated party either gets a transfer or a generous severance package. Even if the discriminating manager gets fired. Nobody likes people that make waves.
Google is a US company. In the US, the "local custom and employment law" is that companies don't accept caste based discrimination. (It's also technically illegal in India). I think not only is it appropriate for a white American manager to lecture Indian subordinates about stopping caste based discrimination, it's an obligation to do so and fire the subordinates if they continue.
If he/she sees a clear violation of discrimination laws/policies, then yes! Although "lecture" wouldn't be the best start. Asking questions to the alleged discriminator would be a better way forward. Find out what happened and why, and ask multiple people for their input. Start by assuming innocence and let evidence prove otherwise, not the other way around.
The truth about a given situation is not completely inaccessible to people without "lived experience". That's why words are so powerful - when used truthfully and in good faith, they enable to bridge gaps where we lack that personal experience, and make accurate judgments.
That's why learning to express ourselves well, and listen well (including empathetically) is so important to a functioning society.
As a society, we need a restored faith in the power of words to communicate any truth (including truths people erroneously say are "inaccessible apart from lived experience") and be understood by those who will listen well.
The problem isn't that truth is unknowable or incommunicable, the problem is that not enough people are speaking it, and of those who are, many don't speak intelligently and/or intelligibly. And not enough of those who listen do so carefully, thoughtfully, and empathetically.
This article concerns caste discrimination in the United States.
When you have an a-priori assumption that every difference in outcome is due to oppression of some sort, the argument is over -- you've already allowed that discrimination on any basis is OK, as long as it's against whoever you've labeled the "oppressor" group.
As a final coup de grace, you can label anyone who disagrees as an "oppressor" (or at least "fragile") without engaging their argument -- it's all circular reasoning supported by an ad-hominem fallacy.
What you said, on the other hand, is a bunch of familiar, well-worn complaints dating back to the 1990s from privileged white people who think they're being oppressed, even though that's not even the subject.