5 ms·

It is already in US and is being defended by Hindu organizations with reason like - ‘Caste discrimination is a Hindu right that should go unchallenged’ https:/

by iamshs 6y ago

It is already in US and is being defended by Hindu organizations with reason like - ‘Caste discrimination is a Hindu right that should go unchallenged’ https://twitter.com/YashicaDutt/status/1369314943061856261 https://twitter.com/YashicaDutt/status/1369314943061856261

ashneo76 6y ago
As a Hindu, I am ashamed. I am glad to not be part of any such orgs. This is despicable. US cannot afford to continue this.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The tweet does not substantiate its claims, at least not that I can see due to the source being paywalled.
naravara 6y ago
That sounds like an uncharitable interpretation of what HAF said, but I can't verify because they never link to the source statement and the article she points at is behind a paywall. Come to think of it this "Attribute quotes to people and then say 'read the (paywalled) article' when someone asks for context" strategy seems like a pretty good way to spread misinformation. Edit: Okay did some googling and found the source statement. That tweet is definitely a very bad faith misreading of HAF's statement which says: > In its complaint, California argues that Cisco failed to address discrimination against one of its engineers by co-workers on the basis of his presumed caste. California goes on to state that caste is “a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy” and therefore an integral part of Hindu teachings and practices. Framing its argument in this way, California is attempting to do what the Constitution clearly says it cannot, HAF said: defining Hindu religious doctrine for Hindus. In other words, HAF isn't saying discrimination is a Hindu right. They're saying it's inappropriate for US Courts to define what constitutes "Hindu belief systems." This sounds appropriate since setting precedent in a court that defines anyone who professes belief in Hinduism as being casteist a priori would basically be opening the door to religious discrimination.
- iamshs 6y ago
  HAF is saying exactly that. The case wants to make sure caste discrimination gets explicitly mentioned, but HAF is bringing in Hinduism angle and saying don't define Hinduism for us. You see the obfuscation here, they are doing? They are trying to defend casteism in a round about way. HAF is founded by Upper Caste Hindus hence they are invested in this matter to make sure the case does not set a precedent for them.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  I see, thanks for digging. This would be like a court saying "violent conquest, and religious discrimination in the tax system, are inherent parts of Islam enshrined in the Quran", or "theocratic Zionism and the killing of gentiles are core parts of Judaism that are sanctioned in the Torah". In both cases, with a fundamentalist reading, you'd be right, but it's really up to Muslims and to Jews to interpret their own religions (and to interpret their way away from bad parts of their texts), not for the legal system to do. And it's kind of anti-Hindu to choose the most unsympathetic (to an American) reading of Hinduism to be the "official" one. It would be like saying that right-wing "Christian nationalism" is the "true" Christianity. The only people who would agree would be people outside Christianity who hate it, and the right wingers themselves. And in the case of "Hinduism" this is extra complicated, because there is no central authority, and barely even a core "religion" in the manner of monotheisms. "Hinduism" barely exists (some people say it's just a word invented by the Britishers); it's a loose confederation of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc; it's amorphous. It's hard to say what is and isn't a "core belief". Whenever you try to grasp it, it will slip out of your hand.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
To defend the "bad guy" for a second: In fairness to the HAF here, that "quote" is not a quote at all, but an uncharitable paraphrasing. If you're going to quote that "summary", it'd be best to also include a direct quote from the HAF along with it, so you appear fairer. Otherwise people will feel tricked and dismiss your argument.
- iamshs 6y ago
  Only if you had read the article where it is addressed in detail. Your colored language notwithstanding ("uncharitable paraphrasing"), the statement is actually an accurate summary by a well respected researcher on Dalit issues, of what HAF is doing here. https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-silicon-valley-ambedkar-organisations https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-sil... Here is another good article which says the same and the dubious role HAF is playing in order to advance Hindu Upper Caste's systemic oppression. Please note, HAF is run by all Hindu Upper Caste people, and they are invested in this case so as to not set a precedent.
  - FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
    But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protected category, and whether discrimination actually occurred at Cisco. HAF isn't really talking about that at all! Instead, they're just trying to make sure that court documents don't describe the caste system as "part of Hinduism". On the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad. Now, I do see that some people view this as a diversionary tactic by the HAF, and that it should not to be taken at face value: > According to Anil Wagde of the Ambedkar International Center, HAF’s intervention is an attempt to obfuscate the matter and confuse the court. It seems you also do not take HAF's objections at face value? But on the surface, their demands are -- a little distracting, but basically orthogonal. It feels like the solution to this is to say, "fine, we'll change the language used here (i.e., the description of Hinduism), and then get on with dealing with the core issue (i.e., the discrimination)".

by iamshs 6y ago

ashneo76 6y ago

As a Hindu, I am ashamed. I am glad to not be part of any such orgs. This is despicable. US cannot afford to continue this.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
The tweet does not substantiate its claims, at least not that I can see due to the source being paywalled.

naravara 6y ago

That sounds like an uncharitable interpretation of what HAF said, but I can't verify because they never link to the source statement and the article she points at is behind a paywall. Come to think of it this "Attribute quotes to people and then say 'read the (paywalled) article' when someone asks for context" strategy seems like a pretty good way to spread misinformation. Edit: Okay did some googling and found the source statement. That tweet is definitely a very bad faith misreading of HAF's statement which says: > In its complaint, California argues that Cisco failed to address discrimination against one of its engineers by co-workers on the basis of his presumed caste. California goes on to state that caste is “a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy” and therefore an integral part of Hindu teachings and practices. Framing its argument in this way, California is attempting to do what the Constitution clearly says it cannot, HAF said: defining Hindu religious doctrine for Hindus. In other words, HAF isn't saying discrimination is a Hindu right. They're saying it's inappropriate for US Courts to define what constitutes "Hindu belief systems." This sounds appropriate since setting precedent in a court that defines anyone who professes belief in Hinduism as being casteist a priori would basically be opening the door to religious discrimination.

iamshs 6y ago
HAF is saying exactly that. The case wants to make sure caste discrimination gets explicitly mentioned, but HAF is bringing in Hinduism angle and saying don't define Hinduism for us. You see the obfuscation here, they are doing? They are trying to defend casteism in a round about way. HAF is founded by Upper Caste Hindus hence they are invested in this matter to make sure the case does not set a precedent for them.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
I see, thanks for digging. This would be like a court saying "violent conquest, and religious discrimination in the tax system, are inherent parts of Islam enshrined in the Quran", or "theocratic Zionism and the killing of gentiles are core parts of Judaism that are sanctioned in the Torah". In both cases, with a fundamentalist reading, you'd be right, but it's really up to Muslims and to Jews to interpret their own religions (and to interpret their way away from bad parts of their texts), not for the legal system to do. And it's kind of anti-Hindu to choose the most unsympathetic (to an American) reading of Hinduism to be the "official" one. It would be like saying that right-wing "Christian nationalism" is the "true" Christianity. The only people who would agree would be people outside Christianity who hate it, and the right wingers themselves. And in the case of "Hinduism" this is extra complicated, because there is no central authority, and barely even a core "religion" in the manner of monotheisms. "Hinduism" barely exists (some people say it's just a word invented by the Britishers); it's a loose confederation of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc; it's amorphous. It's hard to say what is and isn't a "core belief". Whenever you try to grasp it, it will slip out of your hand.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

To defend the "bad guy" for a second: In fairness to the HAF here, that "quote" is not a quote at all, but an uncharitable paraphrasing. If you're going to quote that "summary", it'd be best to also include a direct quote from the HAF along with it, so you appear fairer. Otherwise people will feel tricked and dismiss your argument.

iamshs 6y ago
Only if you had read the article where it is addressed in detail. Your colored language notwithstanding ("uncharitable paraphrasing"), the statement is actually an accurate summary by a well respected researcher on Dalit issues, of what HAF is doing here. https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-silicon-valley-ambedkar-organisations https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-sil... Here is another good article which says the same and the dubious role HAF is playing in order to advance Hindu Upper Caste's systemic oppression. Please note, HAF is run by all Hindu Upper Caste people, and they are invested in this case so as to not set a precedent.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protected category, and whether discrimination actually occurred at Cisco. HAF isn't really talking about that at all! Instead, they're just trying to make sure that court documents don't describe the caste system as "part of Hinduism". On the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad. Now, I do see that some people view this as a diversionary tactic by the HAF, and that it should not to be taken at face value: > According to Anil Wagde of the Ambedkar International Center, HAF’s intervention is an attempt to obfuscate the matter and confuse the court. It seems you also do not take HAF's objections at face value? But on the surface, their demands are -- a little distracting, but basically orthogonal. It feels like the solution to this is to say, "fine, we'll change the language used here (i.e., the description of Hinduism), and then get on with dealing with the core issue (i.e., the discrimination)".