> full of either Brahmins or SC/ST These are contradictory. I think you need to pick one and make up your mind on who to blame. By "full of brahmins" you are

> full of either Brahmins or SC/ST These are contradictory. I think you need to pick one and make up your mind on who to blame. By "full of brahmins" you are implying the that the forward class controls the power, has a strangle hold keeping down the lower castes. But if that were the case the SC/STs - the lowest of the low per the caste system - wouldn't be there. The presence of SC/STs implies that the system of reservation (whether you agree with it or not) is working and the forward class doesn't have a strangle hold (esp considering that OBCs also have reservations). By "full of SC/ST" you are insinuating that the place is full of people who are there because of reservation (ie affirmative action) who don't really deserve to be there. But the presence of brahmins would imply that some people are actually getting in because of merit because the brahmins don't have any reservation whatsoever anywhere. So again, the system, albeit flawed, seems to be working. If these places were somehow oscillating between power hungry brahmins trying to keep everybody else down and undeserving SC/STs I doubt that they would be a cohesive group doing good work which they seem to be. Maybe you are just missing people of your background/religion/caste/language/area? I presume you are neither a Brahmin nor a SC/ST? You also mentioned in your follow up post that these institution are in the south and casteism is always a problem there as if in comparison to the rest of the country. Casteism is a problem all over India and the following is not to justify it in any sense. But if anything I would say the south is probably better off than the rest of the country. The population of forward castes is below average overall so the lower castes have a much bigger voice democratically. This is also why TN had till very recently a 69% reservation and anti-reservation riots are a bigger deal in the North (remember the Mandal protests?) than in the south. Communal polarization too is in general higher in the North. Bangalore is usually considered a very cosmopolitan/diverse city and having lived there (and not being a native) I agree. From a comparison of the different regions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_rankings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_rankings ) the south overall seems to be doing better than the rest of India. The southern states are doing above average (and in many cases close to the top) economically, in literacy, infrastructure etc. The three top "technological centres" of India that one hears about mostly - Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderdabad - are also in the south. This inspite of the fact that India has mostly has Prime Ministers from the North (except for two - one of whom - P. V Narasimha Rao - is considered instrumental for our economic liberalization along with our current PM who was then the finance minister). So seems like these states have managed to have better governance. None of these are direct indications of casteism rates and I'm not trying to say that things are just fine in the south and there is no casteism. In general, it seems to me that economic growth/quality of life/good governance etc are indicators of reduced polarization. I don't have numbers to back that up, just an impression. My general impression is that while casteism definitely exists in the south, things are probably better there.