When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

 

When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

Unpacking the Double Standards of Caste Privilege in India

In India, the conversation around social mobility often reveals a stark hypocrisy. For those in the “general category” — a polite euphemism for upper castes — opportunities handed down through family ties, alumni networks, or social circles are celebrated as savvy “networking.” It’s seen as a natural extension of merit, hard work, and personal connections. But when lower castes, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), access affirmative action through reservations or quotas, it’s frequently demonized as unfair favoritism, a handout that undermines true achievement. This double standard isn’t just rhetoric; it’s rooted in centuries of systemic inequality that continues to shape Indian society today.

This article delves into how upper castes justify their privileges as legitimate networking while vilifying quotas for others. We’ll trace the historical factors that built these upper-caste networks from ancient times and explore why lower castes have been systematically denied the same advantages. Drawing from historical context and contemporary analyses, the goal is to highlight how caste operates as an invisible force, often unacknowledged by those who benefit from it most.

The Myth of Merit: How Upper Castes Frame Privilege as “Networking”

Upper castes in India have long positioned their advantages as the fruits of individual effort and strategic connections, rather than inherited privilege. For instance, in professional fields like tech, finance, and academia, upper-caste individuals often leverage family legacies, elite school alumni groups, and informal referrals to secure jobs or promotions. This is praised as “networking” — a skill anyone can supposedly learn. Yet, as discussions on platforms like Reddit point out, these networks are rarely accessible to outsiders, and they’re built on generations of exclusivity.

A key justification is the narrative of “meritocracy.” Upper castes argue that their success stems from superior education and skills, ignoring how caste has historically monopolized access to these resources. In the tech industry, for example, upper-caste dominance in Silicon Valley and Indian IT firms is often attributed to talent, but research shows it’s largely due to early migration waves favoring those with pre-existing privileges like English education and urban connections.

This framing allows privilege to hide in plain sight: when a Brahmin or Kshatriya gets a leg up from a relative in a high position, it’s “using connections wisely.” Meanwhile, quotas are labeled as “reverse discrimination,” eroding standards.

This hypocrisy extends to everyday discourse. Upper-caste individuals might dismiss caste as irrelevant in modern India, claiming society is now “casteless” for the privileged. But as one analysis notes, this invisibility is itself a privilege — upper castes don’t “see” caste because it works in their favor, maintaining homogeneity in elite spaces like universities and corporations.

Studies from higher education institutions reveal that upper-caste students often view their advantages as earned, while perceiving lower-caste peers as undeserving beneficiaries of quotas.

Demonizing Quotas: The Backlash Against Lower-Caste Support

On the flip side, affirmative action programs — designed to counteract centuries of exclusion — are routinely attacked as unjust. The 10% quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) among upper castes, introduced in 2019 and upheld in 2022, sparked outrage from activists who argued it further entrenches privilege by benefiting those already advantaged, while diluting reservations for historically oppressed groups. Critics from lower castes see this as a “violation” of constitutional equity, yet upper castes frame it as a fair extension of economic aid.

The demonization often boils down to resentment: quotas are portrayed as “stealing” opportunities from the “meritorious.” In media and social commentary, lower-caste success via reservations is dismissed as tokenism, ignoring the barriers they overcome. For example, in science and academia, upper castes dominate due to inherited networks, but quotas for lower castes are blamed for any perceived drop in quality.

This narrative conveniently overlooks how upper-caste “networking” functions as an unofficial quota system, reserving spots through referrals and social capital.

In essence, when lower castes get institutional help, it’s seen as charity at the expense of others. But upper-caste networking? That’s just business as usual.

From Ancient Roots: The Historical Foundations of Upper-Caste Networking

The origins of this disparity trace back to India’s ancient caste system, formalized in texts like the Manusmriti around 200 BCE to 200 CE. This varna system divided society into four hierarchical groups: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (laborers), with Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) outside it entirely. Upper castes, particularly Brahmins, were granted exclusive rights to education, land ownership, and religious authority, creating early networks of power.

Over centuries, these structures evolved under various rulers, from medieval kingdoms to British colonialism. Upper castes adapted by aligning with colonial administrators, gaining access to English education and civil service roles. This built intergenerational wealth and connections: families passed down knowledge, property, and social ties, forming closed networks in bureaucracy, business, and academia.

In the modern economy, these networks persist. In Mumbai’s industrial era, upper castes used caste-based associations to secure jobs in mills and factories. Today, in global migration, upper castes dominate tech and professional diasporas because historical privileges like better schooling and urban access enabled them to capitalize on opportunities first. Economic studies show Brahmins enjoy higher education, income, and social connections, reinforcing their networks.

Caste-based segregation in cities further cements this, with upper castes clustering in affluent areas for mutual benefit.

These factors — rooted in ancient hierarchies and amplified through history — have created a self-perpetuating system where upper castes “network” effortlessly, often without recognizing it as privilege.

Barriers to Entry: Why Lower Castes Don’t Have the Same “Networking” Privileges

Lower castes have been systematically excluded from building similar networks due to entrenched discrimination and resource deprivation. Historically, they were barred from education, property ownership, and social mixing, enforced through untouchability and violence. This legacy persists: lower castes face poorer schools, underfunded institutions, and exclusion from elite networks.

Economically, caste restricts access to finance and entrepreneurship. Dalits and OBCs encounter discrimination in hiring, loans, and business partnerships, limiting their ability to form robust networks. In rural areas, landlessness and manual labor trap generations in poverty, while urban migration favors those with prior advantages — often upper castes.

Socially, caste homogeneity in elite spaces makes integration difficult. Lower castes report invisibility or outright bias, with upper castes refusing to collaborate or mentor. During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, lower castes suffered disproportionately due to lack of safety nets and networks. Macroeconomic analyses estimate that caste discrimination reduces entrepreneurial potential and overall growth, as lower castes are denied the capital and connections upper castes take for granted.

In short, lower castes aren’t just starting from behind; the system is rigged to keep them there, without the “networking” luxuries afforded to others.

Toward a More Equitable Future

Recognizing this double standard is the first step toward dismantling it. While quotas provide essential redress, true equity requires addressing the invisible networks that perpetuate upper-caste dominance. As India evolves, conversations around caste must move beyond denial to acknowledgment — only then can networking become a tool for all, not just the privileged few.By examining these dynamics, we see that privilege isn’t always overt; it’s often woven into the fabric of society. For a nation aspiring to meritocracy, confronting caste head-on is non-negotiable.

The Bystander Apathy in India: When Human Suffering Turns into Entertainment

In the bustling streets of India, where chaos reigns supreme and traffic moves like a lawless river, a chilling reality unfolds all too often. Imagine this: a pedestrian is struck by a speeding SUV — a Thar, perhaps — careening through the crowd. The victim lies on the footpath, bleeding profusely, screaming in agony, their cries piercing the humid air. Passersby glance momentarily, then avert their eyes and continue on their way, as if the scene is just another pothole to sidestep. If a crowd does form, it’s not to render aid but to gawk at the “tamasha” — the spectacle. Phones emerge not to dial emergency services but to capture videos and photos, turning a life-or-death moment into viral fodder for social media groups. This isn’t fiction; it’s a grim snapshot of societal indifference that plagues the nation, where empathy seems extinct and human lives are reduced to entertainment value.

This barbaric behavior raises profound questions about the state of humanity in India. Why do people ignore the pleas of the injured? Why does suffering amuse rather than alarm? Drawing from numerous reports and studies, it’s clear this isn’t isolated but a widespread phenomenon rooted in psychological, legal, and cultural factors. A 2013 survey by the SaveLife Foundation revealed that 74% of Indians are unlikely to help an accident victim, even when alone or with others. This apathy, often termed the “bystander effect,” explains how individuals in a group assume someone else will step in, diffusing responsibility until no one acts.

Real-Life Horror Stories: From Ignorance to Exploitation

Tragic incidents abound that illustrate this heartless detachment. In 2017, a man in Delhi was run over multiple times by vehicles while lying injured on the road; motorists and pedestrians alike ignored him, leading to his death. Similarly, in 2021, a man stabbed his wife to death on a crowded Delhi street, with bystanders filming the assault rather than intervening. These aren’t anomalies — in fact, research shows that in India, bystanders are far less likely to help strangers compared to protecting loved ones, amplifying the isolation of victims.

The crowd’s role often exacerbates the problem. Instead of calling an ambulance or police, spectators pull out smartphones to record the gore. Why? For the thrill of sharing “shocking” content among friends or on platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram. This voyeurism turns personal tragedy into public entertainment, a disgusting twist where a person’s final moments become memes or group chat fodder. As one report notes, urban desensitization has made us immune to violence and accidents, treating them as background noise in our chaotic lives. In a country where road accidents claim over 150,000 lives annually, this behavior isn’t just negligent — it’s complicit in preventable deaths.

The Roots of Indifference: Fear, Psychology, and a Broken System

At the heart of this issue lies the bystander effect, a psychological principle where the presence of others discourages individual action. In India, it’s compounded by practical fears: 88% of people believe good samaritans face harassment from police or hospitals, including endless questioning, legal entanglements, or demands for payment. A national study on impediments to bystander care highlights how attitudes from law enforcement deter help, with many fearing they’ll be blamed or dragged into court.

Cultural and societal elements play a role too. In fast-paced cities like Delhi or Mumbai, life’s hardships breed a survivalist mentality — why risk your own stability for a stranger? Some argue that India’s dense population and constant exposure to poverty and accidents normalize suffering, turning empathy into exhaustion. Yet, this doesn’t excuse the glee in spectating; it’s a sign of deeper moral decay. As the user aptly puts it, these individuals’ lives seem so devoid of meaning that watching someone bleed out provides a perverse form of entertainment. It’s barbaric, stripping away the humanity that should bind us.

Even youth, often seen as agents of change, show reluctance. A study on predicting intentions to help accident victims found that perceived behavioral control and attitudes influence action, but barriers like fear persist. And while the Supreme Court introduced the Good Samaritan Law in 2016 to protect helpers from legal hassles — offering anonymity and no liability — awareness remains low, with 77% still hesitant due to police fears.

A Nation Not for the Faint-Hearted — or Anyone?

They say India is not for beginners, but perhaps it’s not for anyone at all. In a land of ancient philosophies preaching compassion — like ahimsa — modern reality paints a picture of monsters masquerading as men. When suffering is entertainment and sympathy is scarce, what does that say about us? Victims don’t just bleed from wounds; they bleed from the collective indifference that lets them die alone amid a sea of faces.

Change is possible, but it demands education, stricter enforcement of protective laws, and a cultural shift toward empathy. Until then, the next time you see a Thar-rammed pedestrian crying on the sidewalk, remember: ignoring them doesn’t make you neutral — it makes you part of the problem. India deserves better than this spectacle of savagery.

The Name We Discard: How Indian Immigrants Adapt in the US

 

---

The Name We Discard: How Indian Immigrants Adapt in the US

Rajesh becomes Ray. Priya becomes Pree. Arun becomes “Aron” because, well, it’s easier. These aren’t just spelling variations — they’re microcosms of a larger asymmetry in how immigrant identity works in America

Walk into any American tech office, startup, or corporate floor. You’ll find Indians with anglicized names filling their professional lives while keeping their “real” names for family WhatsApp groups. The pattern is so routine it feels natural, almost inevitable. Yet the opposite rarely happens: when Americans move to India or anywhere else in Asia, they rarely feel compelled to change their names. This asymmetry reveals something uncomfortable about how power, discrimination, and assimilation work.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: How Common Are These Changes?

The practice is widespread but often invisible because it happens gradually. My older brother, Nirmalkumar, became Norm. My sister, Savita, became Sammy. These aren’t dramatic rebrandings — they’re accommodations, convenience, survival tactics in a system not built for them.

The examples are endless and mundane:

• Shrinivasan → Shri or Steve
• Priya → Pree or even just “P”
• Deepak → Dave
• Anjali → AJ
• Vikram → Vik or Victor

Some Indians officially change their names on resumes, LinkedIn, and job applications. Others switch between contexts — their legal name in one setting, an anglicized version in another. This code-switching becomes second nature, so normalized that it barely registers as a choice anymore

Why This Happens: The Machinery of Discrimination

The reasons are deceptively simple but rooted in real harm:

1. Hiring Bias Is Measurable

Harvard research demonstrated that resumes with Indian names receive callback rates 26–50% lower than identical resumes with “white-sounding” names. This isn’t anecdotal — it’s statistical. When a hiring manager sees “Priya Gupta” versus “Priya Gardner,” the outcomes differ meaningfully. Discrimination is real, quantifiable, and immediate

2. Pronunciation Becomes a Burden

There’s a subtle cruelty in workplaces where your name requires explanation every time you introduce yourself. Hiring managers stumble over it. Colleagues butcher it repeatedly. In meetings, you’re constantly correcting people — a micro-aggression that drains energy while signaling that you don’t quite belong. Changing your name removes this daily friction.

3. Professional Advancement

Indians quickly learn that their ethnic identity can be a ceiling, not a bridge. Names become a calculus: Is keeping my identity worth limiting my career? For many, the pragmatic answer is no. Changing your name isn’t about preference — it’s about survival in a system that penalizes difference

4. Social Integration

Beyond careers, there’s a social dimension. Getting hired is one thing; actually fitting in is another. An anglicized name makes social interaction frictionless. Americans don’t have to feel uncomfortable around difference. Indians don’t have to be the foreign one. Everyone is more comfortable.

The Hypocrisy Is Structural

Here’s where your original critique hits hardest: Americans almost never do this in reverse.

When Americans move to India, the UK, Australia, or anywhere else, they keep their names intact. A “Mike” remains Mike. A “Jennifer” doesn’t become “Jaya.” They face no equivalent pressure, no hiring discrimination tied to their names, no systematic barrier that rewards assimilation.

This isn’t because Americans are individually more principled. It’s because they carry institutional power with them. American names aren’t foreign in most of the world — they’re prestigious. They suggest education, wealth, reliability. An American’s name is assumed to be correct; an Indian’s is assumed to be difficult.

The asymmetry reveals the truth: name-changing isn’t a choice born from respect for local culture. It’s a symptom of power imbalance. Indians adapt because they have to. Americans don’t adapt because they don’t have to.

The Trap of Individual Solutions to Systemic Problems

This is where the hypocrisy becomes philosophical. By normalizing name changes, we’re essentially telling Indian immigrants: “The system discriminates against you, so change yourself to fit it.”

This approach has consequences:

• It makes discrimination invisible. If discrimination isn’t obvious because everyone has adapted to it, it becomes self-inflicted rather than systemic.
• It shifts responsibility. Instead of asking “Why does American society penalize different names?” we ask “Why don’t you just change yours?”
• It surrenders identity. Each name change is a small surrender of cultural identity on the altar of professional acceptance.

Researchers themselves have pushed back: “We do not suggest immigrants to Anglicise their ethnic names in order to avoid discrimination,” warns Harvard research, because “this puts the onus on immigrants to promote equity

The Growing Resistance

Not everyone accepts this bargain anymore. Some Indian immigrants and their children are consciously resisting, keeping their names despite the friction, treating it as “a symbol of successful resistance to assimilation.”​

Activists are pushing systemic solutions instead. California passed a historic ban on caste discrimination. Recruiters are learning to value diversity rather than demanding homogeneity. Some companies now anonymize resumes to remove racial bias.

But these changes move at glacial speed. Meanwhile, individuals still face rent to pay and careers to build.

What This Reveals About Assimilation

The name-change phenomenon exposes how assimilation really works in America. It’s not a free exchange of cultures — it’s a hierarchy where the dominant culture’s comfort is prioritized over minority identity. It’s a system that says: “You’re welcome here, but only if you make us comfortable by becoming more like us.”

Meanwhile, Americans anywhere in the world remain comfortable as they are. No one asks them to change. No one makes it worth their while. They don’t have to choose between their name and their career.

That asymmetry is the hypocrisy. Not that Indians change names — that’s rational survival. But that we’ve normalized it so completely that it feels like personal preference rather than what it actually is: adaptive response to discrimination masked as cultural assimilation.

---

The real question isn’t whether Indians should change their names. It’s why, in a diverse nation built by immigrants, we still make it necessary.

The Shadow of Karma: How an Ancient Doctrine Cemented Centuries of Suffering for India’s Untouchables

 

The Shadow of Karma: How an Ancient Doctrine Cemented Centuries of Suffering for India’s Untouchables

In the labyrinth of India’s social history, few concepts have wielded as much power — and inflicted as much pain — as the theory of karma. For millennia, this philosophical pillar of Hinduism has been invoked to explain, and often justify, the rigid hierarchies of the caste system. At the bottom of this pyramid lay the “untouchables,” now known as Dalits, whose lives of destitution, discrimination, and dehumanizing labor were framed not as societal failures, but as cosmic consequences. Imagine being told that your poverty, your exclusion from temples, and even the violence inflicted upon you are all deserved — payments for sins committed in a life you can’t remember. This is the insidious logic that karma imposed on millions, turning oppression into divine decree.

But how did this happen? How did a idea meant to encourage moral living become a tool for perpetuating inequality? In this exploration, we’ll unpack the historical and philosophical threads that wove karma into the fabric of untouchability, revealing a system so entrenched that even its victims often accepted it as fate.

The Foundations: Caste and Karma in Ancient India

India’s caste system, one of the world’s oldest forms of social stratification, traces its roots back to the Vedic period around 1500 BCE. Described in the Rig Veda, society was initially divided into four varnas (classes): Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers). Outside these varnas were the outcastes, or untouchables — groups deemed so impure that contact with them was believed to pollute higher castes. These untouchables, often indigenous tribes or defeated communities, were relegated to the fringes of society, performing the most menial and degrading tasks, like cleaning sewers, handling dead bodies, or manual scavenging.

Enter karma, a core tenet of Hindu philosophy derived from the Upanishads (circa 800–200 BCE). Karma posits that every action — good or bad — generates consequences that carry over into future lives through reincarnation (samsara). The cycle of birth, death, and rebirth continues until one achieves moksha (liberation), breaking free from this wheel.

In theory, it’s a system of cosmic justice: live righteously, and you’ll reap rewards in the next life.But in practice, karma was twisted to reinforce birth-based hierarchies. Texts like the Chandogya and Kaushitaki Upanishads linked one’s rebirth to past deeds, suggesting that good karma led to birth in higher varnas, while bad karma resulted in lower ones — or worse, as an untouchable. 

The Manusmriti, an influential legal text from around 200 BCE to 200 CE, codified this by prescribing harsher punishments for lower castes and restricting their access to education, property, and rituals. Thus, an untouchable’s suffering in this life wasn’t random; it was penance for sins in a previous existence.

Justifying the Unjust: Suffering as Deserved Fate

This linkage created a powerful narrative: If you’re born an untouchable, it’s because of your own past misdeeds. Your current hardships — poverty, social isolation, and backbreaking labor — are not the fault of the upper castes or the system, but a direct result of your soul’s history. Upper castes, conversely, enjoyed their privileges as rewards for prior virtue, giving them a moral license to maintain the status quo.

The doctrine went further by tying karma to dharma (duty). For untouchables, salvation lay in faithfully performing their assigned roles — no matter how degrading. Manual scavenging, for instance, was seen as their dharma; by enduring it without complaint, they could accumulate good karma, potentially earning a higher birth in the next life and eventual moksha. The Bhagavad Gita reinforces this in verses like 18:47, stating that it’s better to perform one’s own dharma imperfectly than another’s well, implying that straying from caste duties invites more bad karma.

This framework didn’t just justify exploitation; it sanctified it. Untouchables were barred from entering temples, drawing water from common wells, or even casting shadows on higher castes, all under the guise of preserving ritual purity. Violence against them, including beatings or killings for “transgressions,” was rationalized as upholding cosmic order. For thousands of years, from the Vedic era through medieval times and into colonial India, this ideology held sway, ensuring social stability at the expense of human dignity.

The Tragic Acceptance: Internalization and Brainwashing

Perhaps the most heartbreaking aspect is how untouchables themselves internalized this belief. Through generations of religious indoctrination, many came to view their plight as self-inflicted, a form of radicalization that turned victims into unwitting enforcers of their own oppression. System Justification Theory in psychology explains this: Believing in karma provides a sense of certainty and security, making unbearable suffering feel meaningful rather than arbitrary. It fosters low self-esteem and diminished aspirations, perpetuating the cycle without needing overt coercion.

This brainwashing was amplified by religious leaders and texts. Shankaracharya of Puri, a prominent Hindu figure, emphasized that caste (jati) is determined by birth alone, not actions, to preserve “pure” lineages. Untouchables were taught that rebellion would only worsen their karma, dooming them to even lower rebirths. Even today, echoes of this persist in rural India, where Dalits sometimes accept discrimination as fate, despite constitutional protections.

Breaking the Cycle: Lessons for Today

The story of karma and untouchability is a cautionary tale about how philosophies can be co-opted to serve power. It reminds us that true justice requires questioning inherited beliefs, not accepting them as destiny. As India evolves, shedding these shadows could pave the way for a society where birth doesn’t dictate worth — and where karma inspires personal growth, not perpetual chains.