Any such policy at a California company run by white people is either spearheaded by white progressives, or adopted to appease them, and reflects what they consider acceptable versus unacceptable discrimination.
Ordinarily, discrimination by and between minorities is swept under the rug in such circles. So a policy that views Indians as capable of being oppressors is a significant.
Just so I'm clear here, your argument is that any policy a California tech company adopts to prohibit discrimination based on caste must either have been spearheaded by progressives --- a political ideology you have contempt for --- or adopted to appease them?
His statement is more specific than that. He said white progressives. So if an Indian progressive worked on the policy they did it to appease some other person, not because they believe in its progressive value.
Ordinarily, discrimination by and between minorities is swept under the rug in such circles. So a policy that views Indians as capable of being oppressors is a significant.