Hacker News Reader

I think he might be implying some issues related to the caste system. It’s been discussed on HN before about how some members of the upper caste may not treat other team members from a lower caste appropriately. Despite no longer being in India, and despite that behavior not being acceptable in the host country.

From personal experience, I've heard plenty of caste-based insults when I was there a decade or so ago, as well as other forms of prejudice. This manifests most explicitly when it comes to marriages I think, but it would be naïve to assume nepotism, and by extension caste-based discrimination, doesn't proliferate to other aspects of life.

> It’s been discussed on HN before...

Yes, it has been used on HN as a bludgeon but the reality is a little different!

Yes, the ancient caste system still exists in India. But today it is only relevant when it comes to politics and marriage. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...

The fact you believe it to only be relevant in marriage and politics goes to show the naivety of your understanding of how prevalent this 2000+ year caste system is. I'd go as far as calling it the oldest system of systemic slavery in the world. The fact it plays such a level to this day in the modern lives of individuals shows how the Indians have normalized it in their society and often directly bring it into our own. It even goes as far as impacting children, and starts from their. Who they know. Who they can interact with. Where they're accepted. At every step impacting and controlling their lives. To claim what you have said to trivialize it is kind of shocking to me.

A lot of false claims in this thread are being made by people who see these immigrants as a competitive threat.

India works on a caste system, said caste system being very discriminatory.

What the other poster meant is that you'll end up hiring out of the upper castes and they'll display a lot of bias towards other castes.

It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in.

That is a very far fetched statement. I am an Indian and technically from Other backward class (OBC) as classified in the system. I have never had a problem in my city. Off course that doesn't mean that India is not a huge and complex country with 100s if not thousands of groups differentiated based on region, class , caste etc. You are colouring a very complicated and nuanced issue with your personal biases.

About a month ago I watched an Indian man absolutely go off on another Indian man after hearing his name (this was over zoom). The Indian Man being accosted just took it, and yes, the disagreement was about the name.

I've both read about it and seen it first hand. You don't typically see it expressed so publicly as the above anecdote, most of the time it comes across as an odd sort of subservience. Almost the way you would expect a mail room worker to act towards the CEO.

No one said all Indian's are like this, but it has to do with the Paradox of Intolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

All it takes is for 1 or 2 individuals to have this attitude and it will eventually take over.

No one ever said it was everyone, but the issue exists.

What bias is it you think I have?

The only comment here that actually spoke the Facts as it is. Another commenter even said there is "systemic slavery" in India. Don't know whether to laugh or cry at the naivety of this individual. To think that 1.4 billion people, of which 80% belong to the so called "lower caste" strata, and that the rest 20% are enslaving the 80% is not only laughable but downright insane proposition. I wanted to respond but I know it is not worth spending my time and energy on such individuals.

Just goes to show how bias clouds reason and logic. Propaganda in full swing!

Thank you for speaking facts.

I said nothing about slavery, what are you talking about?

Did I say it was you? I said "another commenter". If I wanted to say it was you, I would have said it was you.

you lumped me in with them, implying an attitude I don't have.

And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother. The English language has implicature.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

I lumped you in with propagandists. Some spread propaganda of there being "systemic slavery" while others say "What the other poster meant is that you'll end up hiring out of the upper castes and they'll display a lot of bias towards other castes".

Both are not borne out of facts but malicious propaganda.

"It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in."

You are implying this in a negative manner. The reason people don't talk about caste is because we have progressed a lot in the past century. No one gives a damn about caste in their day-to-day life. It only props up in political rallies where talking about caste based discrimination is a precursor to lay the stage for either increased reservation or introducing new reservation in the already prevalent discriminatory quota system that exists in India (which should have been done away with in 10 years after our Independence as envisaged by Ambedkar himself but nevertheless continues to exist 70+ years after Independence corroding our society further).

> And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother

I don't have to. You are a propagandist. I stand by that.

right, you lumped me in with someone talking about slavery.

That might have been the first indication you were being unfair.

The poster I responded to thought they were talking about money, the poster was talking about castes.

Leave your religious wars at the door please.

I mean, legally they are not in a caste, right? Does the Indian state recognize caste?

Yes Indian state recognizes all castes. That is the core problem. For the system to be dismantled you need the Indian state to stop recognizing castes and implement US style Affirmative Action and only provide Reservation opportunities to those from low income groups.

But the first ones to fight against this reform would be the "lower caste" strata of the population. Who would give up freebies, Government jobs as well as an education in Prestigious Universities where you can guaranteed to get it based on your birth caste and not on merit? No one would. If I am born in any of the "lower caste" groups I can easily get a Government job, free/subsidized education in any Prestigious University irrespective of my scores/performance. Now there is talk of reservation/quotas in land distribution as well (comments by a politician in a recent speech to his base). Idea is that if you want to purchase land some section of the land is reserved if you belong to a particular caste (and will probably be available for lower than market rate as well). However ridiculous it might sound.

Affirmative Action in US doesn't have a quota system or reservation. It instead focuses on equal opportunity (no denial of opportunity to anyone based on their race/creed/color/sex/religion etc). This is different from India's Caste based reservation system where you are guaranteed of a job/education if you belong to lower caste. Doesn't matter if you are merited or not. Doesn't matter if you are rich or not. Even seats in the Parliament of India have reservations/quotas for lower castes.

It is ridiculous to talk about dismantling caste system while in the same breath prop up structures that actively promotes this same caste system on the Government level. And the Politicians do not want to dismantle said system because it helps with their vote bank.

Maybe you should dust off your reading compression skills, his paragraph is pretty self explanatory. He is saying that those who speak English usually come from wealthy families and those whealty families have been raised to treat people from lower caste poorly.

> Maybe you should dust off your reading compression skills, his paragraph is pretty self explanatory

Thank you for your suggestion :-) Can you show where this specific point: "...and those whealty families have been raised to treat people from lower caste poorly" is made in his (we are assuming it's a he, aren't we? how bad of us) comment?

It's used to be the case that, high caste people (Brahmins mostly) are the ones who can afford higher education and in turn they can speak English fluently compared to others in India. They were also the first to emigrate and likely hold high level positions in many companies.

Fortunately, this situation is changing rapidly. I don't see any caste discrimination in my line of work (urban IT companies). Nearly none of my coworkers know my caste, they don't care, neither am I.

It does happen in rural villages, specially inter caste marriages are still frowned upon. But it getting less effective over time. Determined people go make money and caste is not a hinder in many cases.

I assume that he meant they are well educated, skilled and thusly won’t be working for dirt cheap as they’d have better options.

He said the problem isn’t with hiring Indians, it is with cheap labor.

The sentence referred to here:

> All good so far. But then you say that it is a problem, and this is where I am lost.

…Is not referring to a problem that has, at that point in the story, been revealed. It is being evocative in a sort of dog-whistle technique - before jumping into the generalisations that follow.