Can I change my caste?

[Tadpolesinponds]

I've just come across this interesting piece of legal advice on whether it's possible for someone in India to change their caste. There are apparently "caste certificates", and the authorities carry out stringent checks when issuing a certificate. They don't accept self-declaration. There is nothing you can do to change your caste. Being a member of a disadvantaged caste can give you access to government aid, for instance, and for this reason lying about your caste or falsifying a caste certificate can lead to dismissal and even prosecution. But apparently in the UK we can't manage to have a single document which accurately says what sex someone is.
Can I Change My Caste?

Neither. It is obvious to me that OP is contrasting two different governments' approaches to legally recognising subordinated classes of people.

The Indian government's Caste system enforces inescapable subjugation on women and lower Castes.

What is the contrast with the UK government?

You have mistaken de jure equality with de facto equality. For the last time:

• The Indian govt merely recognises the caste labels, and does so for the purposes of affirmative action. It is the whole of Indian society that imposes the caste labels and associated abuses. Evidence to support this includes:

1. The caste system predating British occupation of India, and hence predating the current Indian state.
2. The caste system and associated abuses existing in the Indian diaspora, outwith the Indian govt's jurisdiction.

• The Indian govt neither endorses nor commits rapes and other abuses of the Dalits. A police officer raping someone in violation of law and policy doesn't equate to the govt doing it.
• The Indian constitution outlaws treating any caste as "untouchable".
• The Indian constitution outlaws caste discrimination and permits affirmative action to uplift the oppressed castes.
• The Indian govt legislates affirmative action to benefit the Dalits.

The Dalits have de jure equality. This hasn't translated into de facto equality, as you correctly point out. Not one poster has claimed that it does.

What the Indian govt does isn't even close to enough to give the Dalits de facto equality. In a society like India in which caste is baked in, I don't know how any govt could ensure Dalit de facto equality; it looks to me like an impossible task. But, the Indian govt tries with affirmative action to make things a bit better, and the certificates are part of that, to stop members of other castes from stealing Dalit affirmative action opportunities by pretending to be something they are not.

If the Indian govt can say to the Brahmins "no, you don't get to pretend to be a Dalit to take that Dalit-only scholarship", the British govt can say to men "no, you don't get to identify as a woman and apply for that women-only job". The Indian govt's ability to keep non-Dalits out of Dalit affirmative action measures proves that the British govt's failure to keep men out of women's services and opportunities is a deliberate and purely political decision.

‘In an effort not to be seen as batshit “terfs” hold up the caste system as an example of how things should be done.’
Yeh, not sure this is a good idea.

The caste system isn't the Indian govt's. It has existed for centuries, predating both the single Indian state and the European occupation. This is why the caste system exists in the Indian diaspora, outwith the Indian govt's reach.

You have mistaken State recognition of a social phenomenon for State imposition of a social phenomenon. The British govt recognises race, for the purposes of outlawing racial discrimination. Does that mean that the British created race, or imposes race? Of course not!

Another who lacks reading comprehension skills, I see.

Maybe if you get a step stool you can catch the point. It seems to have gone over your head

It happens in the USA as well.

Seattle becomes first U.S. city to ban caste discrimination | AP News

Where the culture goes the culture norms go too.

Lol. @jen337 and @TooBigForMyBoots see the point but prefer to fabricate offense.

You want to believe the OP is saying the UK should adopt oppressive safe guards. That honestly says a lot about your ability to look away when bad things are happening in front of you. You reduce an argument to its side quest then find a bad name for that dog and kill it.

The other reduction you so valiantly want to ignore and misname -
Wherever there is a will there is a way. If governments wanted to enforce recognition of sex without recognising the stereotypes, they could and with much less faff than some of the other boundaries they enforce.

But well done for all the effort in showing how language was lost to the fetishists through well meaning people. It's very hard to explain how we got this far. Much easier to demonstrate.

Agree @NextRinny

As @QwertyAtThirty points out, the genetic/ethnic difference are almost certainly due to marriage within castes,

“There are genetic differences between e.g. Brahmins and Dalits (though I realise these are probably due to centuries of marrying within ones own caste).”

This would happen anywhere if segregation and was practiced. If we declared blue eyed people to be superior and only allowed marriage between blue eyed couples, you’d see genetic differences between the two groups. This doesn’t mean it’s right to segregate.

Caste is a made up hierarchy, if we took babies from all castes and raised them in a society that didn’t segregate they wouldn’t automatically settle into their castes. Just like if we raised girls and boys the same, without moulding them into gender stereotypes, gender would cease to exist as a concept, despite the genetic differences between males & females.

You can have all the reading comprehension you want, if you have an understanding of the caste system you can clearly see this is false equivalence.

It's not about the caste system, the equivalence was about how one government can tackle a thorny problem, and another can't. 🤯

You’re deluded if you think that. Look, even OPs rowed back in her subsequent posts, so it was clearly a poor comparison.

I think you've missed the point.

Thank you.

If the posters here think the legal declaration of unchangable Caste protects lower castes they are delusional. I'm also not sure what the enforcement of made up nonsense like the Caste system has to do with the reality of biological sex.

You can't see the point because you don't want to.
That's a "you" problem - Yours to solve.

Governments on the other hand are demonstrating their ability to define and deal with competing rights often which is what is being highlighted here.

From your first post to your last you have misunderstood the purpose of the thread.

No poster has said that the legal declaration protects the lower castes, the government of India do, the thread isn't about whether the government of India a right or wrong. It's about the fact that the government in India are capable of taking steps to ensure that nobody can declare themselves to be something they are not, and compared that to our governments lack of ability when it comes to single sex spaces because our bunch think it's 'too complicated'.

I know. My first post actually said I don't understand the point being made. What part of the extreme identity politics of the Caste system.does the OP think the UK should be emulating?

Do you think that abolishing that legal caste certification would protect the Dalits better? Do you think that removing the part of the Constitution that acknowledges caste by outlawing untouchability and caste-based discrimination would protect the Dalits better? Do you think that allowing the other castes to self-identify as Dalits and take Dalit affirmative action places would protect the Dalits better?

The Dalits themselves think that a State refusal to acknowledge caste makes things worse for them. British Dalits are campaigning for caste to be acknowledged by the State through adding it to the Equality Act protected characteristics.

There's a saying, "if you don't see race, you can't see racism". This applies to sex and caste too.

We have seen white people self-identify as racial minority to steal university places and funds and conference places reserved for Black and brown people. We have seen men self-identify as women to steal sporting team places and medals, industry awards, and to use female services.

The Indian govt has created the caste certificates to prevent non-Dalits from pretending to be Dalits, to stop the Brahmin equivalent of Benjamin Butterworth or William "Lia" Thomas from stealing Dalit affirmative action places. The Indian govt has set up a robust verification system to govern the issue of such a certificate.

By contrast, the British govt continues to issue falsified ID to men who pretend to be women. It is this failure of the British govt to tell the truth about the sex of British citizens, standing in stark contrast to the Indian govt's refusal to lie about caste even though proving caste is harder, that the OP wished to talk about. This is clear to all posters on this thread bar two.

None of it, bar possibly adding caste to the Equality Act to protect British Dalits.

lIt's very clear that the OP is saying "the Indian govt manages to issue accurate certificates about something much harder to prove than sex and refuses to lie about it, so what's the British govt's excuse for lying on passports and birth certificates about sex?"

The Indian govt has created the caste certificates to prevent non-Dalits from pretending to be Dalits, to stop the Brahmin equivalent of Benjamin Butterworth or William "Lia" Thomas from stealing Dalit affirmative action places.

No it hasn't. No one tries to identify into Dalit when they commit a crime, unlike here.

The Caste system exists to keep people down. One of Ghandi's biggest mistakes was not pushing ahead with its abolishion as he had originally wanted. It is a huge factor in enslavement and "Honour" killings. It exists to trap people. Not to protect scholarships.

As an aside: Despite stealing a Black conference place at an NUS LGBT conference whilst at LSE, Benjamin Butterworth has a healthy career as a columnist, with bylines all over the place. If behaving in a racist fashion was actually taken seriously in this country, he'd have faded into obscurity.

Apparently having a Black stepmother makes him Black.

You can't just abolish by fiat something that is baked into a society's structures. All that happens if you try is that you lose the ability to measure it and counter it.

Imagine if the British govt tried to abolish race by fiat, or Northern Irish sectarianism. What do you think would actually happen?

If there were dedicated Dalit prisons, that were less crowded and nicer than the prisons for the other castes, you can bet the other castes would try to become trans-Dalit upon arrest.

Trying to compare two totally different things in two very different countries, what's the point? Do you want to change your gender? Or your caste? Are you in the UK or India?