Abhorrent Discrimination: A Letter to Dr. Manmohan Singh

November 03, 2006
Atanu Dey

A Letter to Dr Manmohan Singh

If there is one thing that makes me see red, it is senseless discrimination in general and unfair treatment of people. But when it comes to discrimination based on a person's religion, I abhor it with every fiber of my being. It disgusts me and I feel nothing but contempt for people who discriminate based on religion (or lack of religion, in some cases.) One of the distinguishing features of a civilized society is that it does not treat people differently based on their belief systems. Those societies that do discriminate based on belief systems are retrograde, regressive, backward, ignorant, bigoted, intellectually bankrupt, and generally deserve the derogatory label "third world country."

Indian polity discriminating among its citizens based on belief places India squarely among a tribe of nations that has no place in a modern civilized world. India, with all its cell phones and back offices, belongs to 7th century Arabia.

It was in 7th century Arabia that the best and the most enduring example of discrimination based on belief was created. Its founder, Mohammed, declared that the world is divided eternally on the basis of belief: those who believe in his prophet-hood and the one true moon god he called Allah are the good, and those who do not are bad. And it is the holy obligation of the good to make an offer to the bad which simply says, "Believe as we do and you don't have to pay a tax; if you don't convert to our belief, and also refuse to pay the tax, you will be killed."

That 7th century creed was simple and direct. You are either with us in our belief or against us. Convert, or pay the tax, or die. Mind you, there was no compulsion - you are free to choose.

When I first learned of that principle of Islam, I was disgusted and revolted. Its violent intolerance of any other belief system is insanely inhuman and goes against every humanist and rationalist tradition that has ever been developed by humankind. That intolerant faith has migrated around the world with devastating consequence. Hard to believe, but when you are forced to dump your half-ounce tube of toothpaste into the garbage bin at the security check at the airport, you are suffering the consequence of that insane xenophobia - "hate those who don't believe in the exact same supernatural being and don't obey our wishes" - given voice 14 centuries ago.

I don't find anything even remotely useful in Islamic theology or philosophy. At best it is childish and ignorant. But what I find abhorrent and distasteful is its insistence that based on a person's non-belief in Islam, the person can be killed. I must stress this point so as to remove all chances of misunderstanding. I don't want the pseudo-seculars calling for a fatwa on my head. I have no problem with any useless, childish, ignorant ideology; my concern is only that I am against any ideology which actively discriminates against people who do not subscribe to that ideology. So it is not Islam's moronic theology that bothers me; it is Islam's discrimination against what they call the "infidels" that I find sickening and revolting.

I have used Islam merely to epitomize what I consider to be a cardinal sin (if you pardon the expression) of discriminating against people based on beliefs. In a civilized society, there is no justification for belief-based policy. Any country that discriminates against people based on their belief is a theocratic dictatorship that its citizens should be ashamed of. India, to my extreme shame and utter disgust, is a third world country that discriminates based on a person's beliefs.

The Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, is calling for discrimination based on a person's belief system. Basically, the argument goes thus:

(1) Overall, x percentage of people in the nation profess X belief
(2) But in organization A, only y percentage (less than x) of X believers are present
(3) So, to increase y to x, active measures need to be taken

In the above, "A" is every school, college, place of employment (both public and private), army, judiciary, police, and so on.

Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Or is it? Let's reason for a bit.

Why, one wonders, is it important that every institution, profession, or organization should have proportionate representation of various faith systems? I can understand it if it were a "parliament of religions" or something. But why is faith important when it comes to say a car factory or an institution of higher education? I know that it is one of the basic principles of pseudo-seculars but we non-pseudo-seculars have a right to know what the reasoning is behind this basic assumption. What bearing does the profession of a particular belief have on the nature and functioning of the institution or the organization that all faiths have to be proportionately represented?

Here is a thought experiment for Dr Manmohan Singh. (I realize that my writings will never reach the good Dr Singh, but perhaps someone in the mainstream media would like to bring this point up one of these days.)

Imagine, Dr Singh, that everyone in India magically by the grace of Allah embraces Islam at the stroke of midnight Nov 3rd 2006 (my birthday, as it happens). Nothing else changes: on Nov 4th, all people go to the same job as before, attend the same school, have the same income, live in the same houses as before, etc. Every economic parameter remains the same. Clearly, then Muslims will be 100 percent in every organization and institution (private, public, or otherwise) and no belief-based reservations can be implemented. Note however, that the poor among the population will continue to be poor, those who did not have access to jobs or to education will continue to have no access to jobs or to education.

The number of people who are poor and deprived will be no different on Nov 4th from Nov 3rd. Those, who for whatever reasons, were poor and illiterate will still be poor and illiterate. Moreover, not just their present stations, their future prospects will be no different also: if they were unable to secure a job before, they will continue to be unable to secure a job. Do you see that the personal religious belief of a person does not matter and should not be the basis for national policy? If public policy had to be made, it would have to be made based on some criterion other than religion. Do you see, Dr Singh, that then you will have to address the actual problem which has nothing to do with a person's religion? I will not abuse your intelligence by pointing out that those policy instruments are available to you now — even before 100 percent conversion — and there is no reason that you should not promote those policies now.

Dr Singh, if you are paying attention, you may have figured out that what I am getting at is this: it is not the faith of a person that should concern the government of a nation that puts on airs about being a superpower, but rather about the economic status of a person. And if you are really concerned about improving the economic status of a person, then you should try to give the person an equal opportunity to the person to succeed. I stress equal opportunity because I wish to distinguish it from equal outcome. The government can at most ensure equality of opportunity but cannot — and should not — ensure equality of outcome. You must understand the distinction and I am going to attempt to do precisely that.

Equality of opportunity matters.

Another thought experiment. Suppose group A (group defined under any criterion, religious or otherwise) children have the same opportunity to become pilots as the members of group B, but refuse to do so. So the outcome is that among the airlines, you find that qualified people from group B are pilots and none from group A. The outcome is clearly different although the opportunity is the same. And a follow up question: would you, Dr Manmohan Singh, fly on a plane that is flown by a pilot from group A who was hired for government mandated proportionate representation reasons and who does not know how to fly a plane?

I know, policy makers are exempt from the ill-effects of the policy they make. You, for instance, will only fly in planes flown by qualified pilots, irrespective of how many caste-based reservations you introduce into the nation's commercial airlines; and you will be treated by the most qualified doctors, without regard to their caste or their religion. But still, it is an interesting question you may wish to contemplate when you have a free moment. Think equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Dr Singh, it is conceivable that despite equal opportunity, the outcome is different for reasons that range from personal preferences to innate abilities. Enforcing equality of outcome is silly and misguided. My parents cared for their children and provided equal opportunity to us. We ended up at quite different stations in life, however. I see nothing wrong in the outcome as long as I recognize that we all had the same opportunities. I imagine it would have been silly of my parents to insist that all their children should weigh the same, or even end up earning the same income.

Anyway, getting back to what I call your "minority equality" policy: why should the government deny a person an opportunity based on the person's faith? I do suppose you realize that positively promoting Peter based on his faith is the same as discriminating against Paul for his different faith? Here is a thought experiment: assume that I, an infidel, should get the job but the employer is forced to hire Mohammed Islam because of your government mandated minority hiring policy. Do you note that I am being denied a job based on my religion? Do you see shades of 7th century Arabia policy?

What if I am desperate enough - my aging parents are depending on my getting that job - would I be better off converting to that "minority" religion? So what your policy is doing is in effect taxing me for being a non-Muslim in one sense, and in another sense, is giving an incentive for me to convert to Islam.

Dr Singh, I am sorry but I have to ask you this: why is the government of India in the business of promoting what you call a "minority" religion? I have a great deal of respect and regard for educated people. I expect educated people to be decent and thoughtful. People who have attended the best institutions of learning around the world, like you have, must be intelligent and decent. Unlike most other generally untutored politicians, you have a PhD in economics - a subject I know to be not for the intellectually challenged. So it pains me to see you stoop so low, even more than it pains me to see mullahs calling for the murder of innocents. At least the mullahs are blood-thirsty brainwashed ignoramuses and have not had a decent thought in their heads ever. What is your reason for this abject divorce from reason and fairness?

I am not done. I have attempted to show that your policy is morally repugnant. The next time it will be my unfortunate job to explain why the policy of "equal minority representation" is economically stupid.

Atanu Dey currently hangs his hat in Pune, and works in Mumbai, but his heart is in Berkeley. An economist by profession, he scribbles occasionally on India's Development.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Abhorrent Discrimination: A Letter to Dr. Manmohan Singh


Author: Atanu Dey


Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

November 4, 2006
06:28 AM

Excellent analysis! All governments need to learn that their business is just to create equal opportunities for all, including Harijans and neo-buddhists, converts of all kinds and leave it there. It is up to the individuals to make the most of them. Each person comes up in life by the dint of one's own intelligence and not by lowering standards and benchmarks. You cannot force efficiency or scholarship into someone's brain. It is said that you can take a horse to water, but 200 persons cannot make it drink. People are not horses, may be it is easier than that in the case of people, but the point is still valid to a lesser extent though.

And then there is the easy "chalta hai" approach of Khushwant Singh. He writes in the Hindustan Times (if I remember right) that upper caste persons should marry people from the lower castes! But people have preferences. Some want the morally upright, some prefer blondes, some Ph.D.s, some love money and the dowry, some love pretty girls. But the scholarly old man wants us all to marry "low-caste persons". Justification? Well, some some morally deprived persons don't mind sleeping with low-caste girls!
Please think and talk, definitely no Talking or writing under influence like Borat!

nasrin faruqi-das
April 2, 2007
07:22 AM

Please allow me to put forward my point of view about the enforcement of quotas in a country. I have studied in economics that quotas are a necessary option, when there is more demand than supply. Like for example, when some commodity is not available to meet the demand of its people, a quota system is set up to ensure equal supply of that particular item, so as to ensure that each person gets his equal and rightful share of that commodity.

Now, in regard to quota enforcement one can subsitute different fields of education, job opportunities and higher educational perspective for the commodity, that is short in supply or availability to meet the demand or need of the Indian people. What has been taking place on regular basis is that influencial people(leave aside the expression, higher caste)have been successful in occupying the available capacity in the fields mentioned above. And this went on over a couple of hundreds of years, resulting into a chaotic situation for the indian socio/economic status. The govt. had to find ways to be fair, and this could, in shortest possible term, be achieved by quota based distribution and guarantee of equal chances for every citizen. Whatīs so wrong about it? If one argues about " merit basis", which means only those should get a chance, who deserve it. Sounds very reasonable, but how on earth does an under-privileged caste or community, whch was at disadvantage through the ages, get an opportunity to qualify in order to put its merit to be testified???

The Indian govt. long, very long seems to have neglected this aspect, and now in the international competion of world super- power -image, wants to cut the time of achievement as short as possible.
Ther seems to be no other short cut to the solution of this urgent most national catastrophe than what the govt. has decided. And if we go by the law of economics.itīs has to be balanced by the rule of supply and demand.

April 2, 2007
07:48 AM

I dont understand why you spared missionary nuts propagating christianity?

Look at the christian missionary nuts in India, they refuse to accept that there can be any other religion other than christianity.

I believe that the greatest threat to the nation are the missionary activities supported by Ms. Gandhi's congress party, Mr. Samuel Rajashekhar Reddy in AP and multiple other congress Chief ministers. Our obsession with rabid anti-islam must end as the cancer called missionary induced conversions is eating away Hindu society completely.


Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/3474)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.

Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!