> I can assure you that the vast majority of upper-caste people here don't use a caste-based surname anymore.
Oh, I don't need assuring for this, this was the point I was making! Basically, some south Indian upper castes use their father's first name as their surname. And this in itself is a strong signifier that the person is from the upper caste!
And yes, some surnames like Bulsara are linked to a place, some are neutral like Kumar, or some are rare enough to not signify caste unless you really know. So what? Even now, a large chunk of the Indian population uses caste-linked surnames, and it is one way they get discriminated. This is the point he makes when he says "Typically, one's surname (last name) is a giveaway".
> RTI responses will only tell you the number of candidates who were hired through caste-based reservation.
No, the RTI responses that he has linked is for the "breakdown of faculty members in the respective category of reservation..." (see the linked pdf for IITD, for example), not if they were hired through caste-based reservation. The category of reservation being information that every Indian citizen is asked to provide in government forms.
This will be my last comment in this chain since this is going nowhere. Patronymics and matronymics are used by some south Indians, who are at the most 20% of the population. The simple point made in the OP is essentially that caste-based surnames are typical in India, and
which you have not refuted.
No, you don't have to fill your caste but you are typically expected to tick one of the SC/ST/OBC/General boxes (these being the categories of reservation), and then provide a proof if required. The sentence you quote refers to this, and not on how they were hired, which is what you are saying. RTI queries can absolutely answer things of this kind, please just read the question the OP asks in the linked pdfs.
