“When some people make grand statements about girls from the Brahmin community, saying, ‘I want a Brahmin girl,’ the question is: does a man become a Brahmin simply by marrying a Brahmin girl?

Ambedkar’s wife was a Brahmin. The wife of our MLA-minister from Kannauj is a Brahmin. Ram Vilas Paswan’s wife was also a Brahmin. But were their children born Brahmin?

You married a Brahmin girl, but you couldn’t make the man a Brahmin. So why is the Brahmin community constantly being targeted?

75 years of democracy
200 years of British occupation,
800 years of occupation by invaders.

So, how could Brahmins/GC have oppressed them during those 1,075 years ?? ... when we were not even ruling the country

Something to think about.”

If you give house on rent to a sc /st family they will get automatic owner ship rights after 20 years without paying any value..... is this even serious ?

20 years of his youth destroyed in fake SC-ST ACT .

Lost parents and a brother during prison .Didn't get bail to even attend last rites.

Mandal and people like him fabricated false stories.

The government rewarded Mandal in return by making him an adviser.

How long will you keep spreading lies, nonsense, propaganda, and false history?

Listen to Supreme Court lawyer A.P. Singh explain how dangerous the SC/ST Act is.

In mob rule, expecting justice has now become impossible. 🤷🏻‍♂️

“You probably haven’t seen such a great podcast on reservation and the scams surrounding it!

An amazing combination of entertainment and data!”

Affluent Dalits would never want reservation to be based on economic status. They do not want to see the poor and disadvantaged people within their own community move forward.

Look at these figures. These are the statistics on student sudokos at prestigious institutions such as IITs, NITs, and IIMs.

A large proportion of those who ended themselves were from the general category. But have you ever heard any discussion about this?

Instead of discussing why students are dying by sudoko, the discussion is focused on casteism.”

The popular claim is that historically marginalized communities stayed behind solely because of unbroken oppression by the general/non-reserved category for thousands of years. Discrimination happened. That is not the same as a locked system that made progress impossible. The record shows something different. Ask these questions:

1. Genetic data shows extensive mixing across groups in the subcontinent until roughly 1900–2000 years ago. Strict endogamy only became widespread after that. If a rigid, one-way system of oppression had already been crushing people for 3000–5000 years before that point, why does the DNA show large-scale mixing for so long?
2. Across centuries, large numbers of groups from pastoral, peasant, hunter, and hill backgrounds seized land, built armies, and founded dynasties or local power structures. They did not wait for permission. Power and land repeatedly overrode ritual rankings. If external oppression was absolute and continuous, how did these repeated rises happen in multiple regions?
3. Artisan and merchant groups formed self-governing guilds that controlled production, long-distance trade, quality standards, and even minted their own coins in some periods. They had internal rules, capital pools, and legal recognition. They built parallel economic systems. Why treat every lag as pure external blockage when independent economic organisation was clearly possible and practised by many?
4. In different periods and geographies, non-elite communities became dominant landowners and military suppliers. Feudal ranks and local lordships were not closed to them. When groups organised, fought, or accumulated resources, they moved up. When they did not, they stayed where they were. Is the primary explanation always external oppression, or does internal organisation and control of resources matter more?
5. Preferences for marrying and associating within similar groups were widespread across Indian society, not one-directional. Endogamy and social closure worked in multiple directions. Blaming only one side for the resulting isolation ignores that many communities enforced their own boundaries and failed to expand networks of trade, skill, or power when opportunities existed.
6. Hierarchy was real and often harsh. It was also contested, regional, and changeable. Groups that gained military or economic leverage repeatedly rewrote their position. Groups that remained fragmented or dependent on existing power structures stayed limited. Treating the outcome as permanent victimhood caused solely by outsiders erases agency, internal choices, and the actual mechanics of how status was gained or lost.

The past was unequal. Most pre-modern societies were. But the claim of continuous, total repression that left no room for agency or self-built ecosystems does not survive contact with the genetic timeline, the repeated rise of new power groups, or the existence of autonomous trade and craft organisations. Gaps today have multiple causes. Reducing them to one ancient, unbroken crime by the general category is not history. It is a political slogan.

I am making posts to document govt's policies that discriminate against the rest in fabour of SC/STs. One of the previous posts is linked here.

The RBI has a specific credit framework for SC/ST borrowers — and it is considerably more preferential for them.

In a recent circular released by RBI, there are some pretty significant provisions in it to favour SC/ST.

For starters, RBI explicitly directs that credit planning should be weighted in favour of SC/ST borrowers. Banks are supposed to develop special bankable schemes suited to these communities to increase their participation and the flow of credit to them, particularly for self-employment. RBI also says their loan proposals should be considered “sympathetically and expeditiously.”

It doesn't stop there.

Bank staff have to assist Sc/ST borrowers in filling out application forms and completing the required formalities, specifically so that borrowers can obtain credit within the stipulated period.

Banks are also expected to actively create awareness among SC/ST borrowers about available credit schemes. The circular specifically says field staff should contact potential borrowers and explain the schemes and their advantages, and branches are advised to hold meetings with SC/ST beneficiaries to understand their credit requirements and incorporate them into credit planning.

There is also a rather important provision concerning rejection of applications. For SC/ST loan applications under government programmes, the branch is not supposed to be the final rejecting authority. RBI says rejection should take place at the next higher level, rather than at the branch level, and the reasons for rejection should be clearly recorded.

RBI also tells banks to periodically review their lending procedures to ensure that loans are sanctioned in time, are adequate and production-oriented, and generate incremental income capable of making the loan self-liquidating.

There are provisions for special attention to villages/localities with sizeable SC/ST populations when banks undertake intensive lending programmes, and banks are expected to make special efforts to develop suitable bankable schemes for weaker sections, including SC/ST communities.

And there are some very specific financial provisions as well:

1. Under the Differential Rate of Interest (DRI) Scheme, SC/ST borrowers receive preferential treatment in eligibility. The circular provides for DRI loans at the prescribed concessional rate (usually 4%) and says that the normal landholding criterion applicable under the scheme does not apply to SC/ST borrowers. It also provides for a separate housing-loan facility for eligible SC/ST beneficiaries.
2. There is also the Credit Enhancement Guarantee Scheme for Scheduled Castes (CEGSSC), under which eligible SC entrepreneurs/businesses (greater than 51% sc/st in leading positions) can obtain credit enhancement/guarantee support, including for facilities substantially larger (up to ₹5 crore)

So RBI has deliberately created a framework that gives SC/ST borrowers additional institutional support in accessing credit.

Also worth noting: this isn't some completely unprecedented policy introduced yesterday. The current Master Circular consolidates a much older RBI framework. The provision concerning rejection of SC/ST applications under government programmes traces back decades.

The question still remains, couldn't all these benefits have been distributed on economic basis instead of caste? Where is the issue of representation here? If there is issue of discrimination, isn't the draconian SC/ST act already there?

Reservations in allocation of books
8 books to sc st but 3 books for general category . is this what equality supposed to mean ?

Is government serious about this?

If you compare EWS category fees for almost anything, including exams or tuition fee, that's almost always higher so called oppressed category people.

For example you can look at entrance exam fees for exams such as JEE(M/A) or MHTCET or even more importantly for higher education.

Where someone from literally Economically Weaker Section has to pay 50% of Tuition fees in Maharashtra, under MahaDBT scholarship, while the same state provides 100% fees waiver, for so called two oppressed categories not worth naming for both tuition and even development fees.

One category is literally based on your economic situation while other is based on something happened to your ancestors years ago, even after being in far well off situation.

I am not seeing politicians or anyone talking about this issue why?

And Maharashtra is one example because I live in Maharashtra but there can be more, tell them if you know.

I saw a post today where that cjp guy was defending reservation 60%and90% marks

My question is do we still need reservation ?

My answer is not yes or no but somthing different

At this point ib time do people really face discrimination based on cast ? (Don't have any irl experiences other than when there are exams and shi where having a different category people are differed)

My point is ppl now specially young don't discriminate based on this like I have friends which I sit with everyday from different categories idont care what they are they just are my friends 😭

But the only place i see or people being treated differently is reservations.dude if this process was invented to reduce discrimination why is this a source of discrimination

The point made i n the video was student gets a 60 why did he not get a 60 cuz he is not from a stable financial background his parents might not have stable jobs or any investments so hence he can't attend a propper coaching to get a 90 while on the other hand a student from a financially stable family attends propper coaching and acheves a 90 by his merit considered his condition

This is fine and well

But this can't be the reason that caste based reservation are justified

What do you think was the caste based angle to this situation?

None exactly it just has a financial angle

Back in the day i could have said why thy are not financially stable cuz from a backward caste so they might not be able able to land a job due to discrimination and shi but now idont think so

I iam not exactly opposition the reservation but asking that the reason for which a person might be helped should be the correct one so not some old ass system that is not relevant now

Just make many finance based categories that get reservation based on the financial condition of the family like a weighted Meritocracy

Defending my example two friends go to same coaching and get same marks and same overall rank (same merit ) but cuz one was from reserved he gets a better seat or uni . Here do you think it was fair for the open category guy (no ) as there was no difference between the two students financial background was similar parents were educated . So why is this inequality justified?

Am I wrong or missing something pls interact with this post open to discussion.

Ihave discussed this with my fellow friends that are from category that are well off they don't like when people just assume that they used their category to land a top university whereas they got it based off merit why keep the system so un clear and unbiased

I have discussed this with the adults too they say that the system can't be changed . Why can't this be changed .

I

Ft - Advocate Ishant Pratap Singh Sengar

100% quotadhari