Even though the caste system was outlawed nearly fifty years ago, it still finds a role in today’s Indian society. Socially, caste is a thing of the past. It’s not acknowledged in casual situations, but that does not mean it has disappeared completely. Two factors major factors are still keeping the caste system relevant in society: human nature to associate with a group and the modern democratic system’s emphasis on group representation. As individuals, we find strength in numbers. Additionally, by surrounding ourselves with others who have similar experiences, beliefs, morals, and mannerisms, we begin to feel a sense of belonging. It is a natural human tendency to associate with a group. In modern society, there is a push to reduce social
…show more content…
While caste is not brought up in casual conversation and was outlawed in the past fifty years, it is easy to assume someone’s caste from their last name. In business and life, introducing oneself could carry a negative impact. A last name could mean the difference between closing a deal or not, and a business retaining customers. Division by caste can also be seen in the affirmative action policies India prides itself on. To make up for the injustices the lower caste was historically subjected too, an affirmative action-esque quota was put in place to give social mobility to the new generation of lower caste citizens. Many Indian of the newer generation come from families who are not wealthy, did not have access to education, and many modern amenities, making it difficult to escape poverty and the stereotypes of their caste. This quota gives lower castes access to seats in universities, which develop India’s business professionals, and government jobs. Policies like these quotas has strong negative social effects as well. In a society that has “sworn off castes”, a policy still exists that to remind people of this supposedly forgotten system, keeping it relevant. Additionally, the new generations that did not participate in the discrimination of the past are feeling discriminated themselves. Even with significantly higher marks, they struggle to earn some of the limited spots available once the quota …show more content…
The first example of unfairness came when each of the employees received a Diwali gift for Rs 600, which was higher than previous years of Rs 400 and Rs 500. The workers claimed that since the company was financial successful, they deserved a larger percentage of the profits as a gift for Diwali. Disapproval grew further when the workers caught news that a competitor of HMSI, Hero-Honda, was giving their employees a refrigerator for a Diwali gift. The company would not budge on the amount offered to employees. Management attempted to remedy the situation by offering a coupon for gifts, but the workers still felt it was not enough. Finally, management just decided to transfer Rs 600 into the bank accounts of each of the workers, completely disregarding their concerns. On top of the Diwali controversy, workers were forced to sign a piece of paper every time they needed to use the restroom. If a worker needed time off, it was nearly impossible to convince the managers to grant the request, change shifts, or question management authority at all. Workers were often threatened with termination if they stepped too far out of line. Partiality was also shown by management, favoring workers for advancement that management liked and followed orders. Mainly, the workers felt that management was marginalizing them, and blatantly treating the workers unfairly. The workers
While caste is not brought up in casual conversation and was outlawed in the past fifty years, it is easy to assume someone’s caste from their last name. In business and life, introducing oneself could carry a negative impact. A last name could mean the difference between closing a deal or not, and a business retaining customers. Division by caste can also be seen in the affirmative action policies India prides itself on. To make up for the injustices the lower caste was historically subjected too, an affirmative action-esque quota was put in place to give social mobility to the new generation of lower caste citizens. Many Indian of the newer generation come from families who are not wealthy, did not have access to education, and many modern amenities, making it difficult to escape poverty and the stereotypes of their caste. This quota gives lower castes access to seats in universities, which develop India’s business professionals, and government jobs. Policies like these quotas has strong negative social effects as well. In a society that has “sworn off castes”, a policy still exists that to remind people of this supposedly forgotten system, keeping it relevant. Additionally, the new generations that did not participate in the discrimination of the past are feeling discriminated themselves. Even with significantly higher marks, they struggle to earn some of the limited spots available once the quota …show more content…
The first example of unfairness came when each of the employees received a Diwali gift for Rs 600, which was higher than previous years of Rs 400 and Rs 500. The workers claimed that since the company was financial successful, they deserved a larger percentage of the profits as a gift for Diwali. Disapproval grew further when the workers caught news that a competitor of HMSI, Hero-Honda, was giving their employees a refrigerator for a Diwali gift. The company would not budge on the amount offered to employees. Management attempted to remedy the situation by offering a coupon for gifts, but the workers still felt it was not enough. Finally, management just decided to transfer Rs 600 into the bank accounts of each of the workers, completely disregarding their concerns. On top of the Diwali controversy, workers were forced to sign a piece of paper every time they needed to use the restroom. If a worker needed time off, it was nearly impossible to convince the managers to grant the request, change shifts, or question management authority at all. Workers were often threatened with termination if they stepped too far out of line. Partiality was also shown by management, favoring workers for advancement that management liked and followed orders. Mainly, the workers felt that management was marginalizing them, and blatantly treating the workers unfairly. The workers