Core Viewpoint - The academic recruitment process in India perpetuates caste biases and social capital disparities, particularly affecting marginalized groups, despite discussions on discrimination in academia [1][2]. Group 1: Recommendation Letter Challenges - The requirement for multiple recommendation letters, now often exceeding three and reaching up to six, poses a significant barrier for applicants from marginalized backgrounds [2]. - The recommendation letter system serves to reinforce existing social hierarchies, making it difficult for individuals without established networks to secure academic positions [2][3]. Group 2: Academic Performance and Caste System - Academic performance and rankings are critical in determining access to academic positions, with many institutions immediately disqualifying applicants who do not hold a "first class" degree [3]. - This practice mirrors the caste system, where individuals are often limited by their social background, and the factors influencing academic performance are overlooked [3]. Group 3: Illusion of Inclusivity - Initiatives claiming to promote inclusivity and special recruitment plans often fail to address the root issues, as the recommendation letter system primarily serves to maintain Brahmin control over academic institutions [4]. - The focus should shift from the number of endorsements to evaluating research output and the ability to engage with diverse student backgrounds, rather than perpetuating superficial diversity initiatives [4].

【环球时报综合报道】印度内政部近期宣布将在2027年3月前完成新一轮全国人口普查，并同步进行种姓普查，此举引发印度社会的广泛关注。印度上一次 成功进行种姓普查，还是在1931年的英印统治时期。种姓普查是指在广泛的普查活动中收集和统计基于种姓的数据，旨在提供基于种姓划分的人口详细统计 数字，以解决歧视问题并制定相关政策。但在印度，人们对种姓分类标准、统计的科学性等方面仍存在重大争议，从1872年印度首次进行人口普查以来，种 姓普查一直是印度社会的"敏感点"，不少种姓群体因为种姓问题掀起社会运动，甚至在普查员到来时"闭门谢客"。 英属印度当局的统治工具 印度历史上曾进行过几次大规模种姓普查。19世纪中叶后，维系殖民秩序成为英属印度当局的核心关切。1857年反英大起义的冲击，不仅加剧了殖民当局的 统治焦虑，更推动其转变认知，开始系统性构建印度社会知识谱系，要进行人口普查，为其行政决策提供支撑。为提升普查科学性，英国引入"专业化治 理"，任命多位人类学家担任普查总监，将学科知识与统计实践相结合。 在行政管理方面，英国将种姓制度转化为治理工具。因种姓与印度人的社会地位、资源分配、职业类型等紧密关联，殖民当局便以此分类人 ...

Core Viewpoint - The historical context of India's industrial development compared to China's reveals a significant shift in economic power, with China now leading in industrial capabilities and GDP, despite India's initial advantages post-independence [1][3][6]. Historical Context - In 1949, China's steel production was only 15,800 tons, insufficient for large-scale construction, while India's was 1,347,000 tons, 8.5 times higher [1]. - India's industrial infrastructure was well-established due to British colonial investments, making it one of the world's eight major industrial nations by 1928 [1]. - The lack of a unified central government in India historically hindered its industrial growth, contrasting with China's more centralized governance [3][6]. Political Structure - India's political system is characterized by a federal structure with significant autonomy for states, leading to a weak central authority and persistent feudal land ownership [7][8]. - The division of India into 16 states at independence has now expanded to 28 states and 7 union territories, further complicating governance and economic development [8]. Economic Development - India's industrial sector contributes around 22% to its GDP, while China's industrial contribution is significantly higher at 33% [8]. - Despite receiving technological support from developed nations, India's military manufacturing has struggled, with projects like the LCA fighter jet and Arjun tank failing to meet quality standards [10][16]. Social Structure - The caste system in India has perpetuated social stratification, affecting education and workforce participation, with a significant portion of the population remaining illiterate [10][14]. - The disparity in educational resources leads to a shortage of skilled labor, which is critical for industrial advancement [14][16]. Manufacturing Challenges - Quality control issues plague India's manufacturing sector, with low production quality affecting both military and civilian products [16]. - The inability to produce high-quality goods has resulted in foreign brands dominating the market, limiting India's manufacturing profitability [16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical context and implications of unusual tax policies in India, particularly focusing on the "breast tax" and its impact on marginalized communities during British colonial rule [1][3][9]. Historical Context - The "breast tax" was introduced in the mid-18th century when India was under British colonial rule, targeting low-caste women and reflecting the oppressive taxation practices of the time [3][4]. - This tax required low-caste women to expose their bodies, with the tax amount based on breast size, highlighting the severe exploitation and humiliation faced by these women [3][4]. Social Impact - The tax created a stark divide between high-caste and low-caste women, where high-caste women faced less burden and lived relatively dignified lives, while low-caste women struggled to pay the tax [4][8]. - The tragic story of a woman named Nagari, who protested against the tax and ultimately died from her injuries, sparked outrage and resistance among the low-caste community, leading to the eventual abolition of the tax [5][8]. Caste System Influence - The article explains how the rigid caste system in India contributed to the establishment of such humiliating tax policies, with the highest caste (Brahmins) holding power and the lowest caste (Shudras) facing extreme poverty and oppression [9][11]. Comparison with Other Historical Tax Policies - The article draws parallels with other bizarre tax policies in history, such as the "urine tax" in ancient Rome and high property taxes in ancient Egypt, illustrating a pattern of exploitative taxation by rulers [11][15]. Conclusion - The emergence of such unusual taxes reflects the ruthless nature of rulers prioritizing profit over the welfare of the populace, emphasizing the need for governance that considers the demands and rights of the people [15].