For decades an unsubstantiated myth has been propagated across the country that economically Muslims are more disadvantaged than the Hindus. And this falsehood is being unabashedly used by the UPA (read pro-Muslim lobby) to provide unmerited benefits and concessions to the Muslim community in pursuance of the divisive vote bank politics, enunciated in Prime Minister'sfamously notorious ?Muslims First? proclamation of December 2006.
The UPA government has recently decided to allocate 15 per cent of the total development funds during 11th Five Year Plan exclusively for the projects located in Muslim dominated areas – though the term officially used is ?minority areas?. In flagrant violation of the Right To Equality enshrined in the Constitution this community-specific concession is being bestowed on Muslims on the ground that they are economically more disadvantaged than Hindus. The convoluted findings contained in Sachar Committee Report, a document full of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, is being cited in support of the decision.
The incidence of Infant and Child Mortality per 1000 births is substantially higher among Hindus than the Muslims, the overall differential being of the order of 29 to 30 per cent in favour of the Muslims. The term ?Infant Mortality? connotes the number of deaths per 1000 among children below one year, while ?Child Mortality? indicates the incidence of deaths per 1000 among children aged between one year and five years. Muslims are better placed than Hindus in both these globally recognised human development indicators. According to the data compiled by the well known demographer, S. Irudaya Rajan, from District Fertility Estimates, in the year 1998-99 for the country as a whole, there were 77 cases of Infant Mortality (per 1000) among Hindus as against only 59 cases among Muslims which revealed a huge difference of 30 per cent higher incidence of Infant Mortality among Hindus. Similarly according to National Family Health Survey-2 (held in 1998-99) there were 107 cases of Child Mortality per 1000 births among Hindus compared to a meagre 83 such cases among Muslims which indicated an adverse differential of 29 per cent against Hindus vis a vis Muslims. It is a universally recognised truth that higher incidence of Infant and Child Mortality is a direct consequence of poor nutritional intake caused by acute poverty and inadequate access to medical care.
The degree of urbanisation, or the proportion of a community'spopulation living in urban areas is another important globally recognised human development indicator. According to Census 2001, barely 26 per cent Hindus live in urban areas (i.e., only 21,63,15,573 out of a total of 82,75,78,868 Hindus), while the Muslim percentage of city-dwellers is much higher at 36 per cent, i.e. nearly 10 percent higher than Hindus. Among Muslims there are 4,93,93,496 urban dwellers out of a total population of 13,81,88,240 showing that only 64 per cent Muslims are agriculture dependant, as against 74 per cent Hindus. As emphasised by Goldman Sachs, a reputed group of economists, in their Global Economics Paper No. 152 (titled ?India'sRising Growth Potential?) urbanisation is the most important driver of rapid economic development. The Paper points out that ?the movement of surplus labour from low-productivity agriculture to high productivity industry and services contributes about 1 percentage point to annual GDP growth?, because in India productivity in industry and services is more than 4 times that in agriculture which employs nearly 60 per cent of the labour force?. Highlighting the strong correlation between urbanisation and economic prosperity, the Goldman Sachs report points out that South Korea has high urban population of 81 per cent, Malayasia 67 per cent, China 43 per cent, while India is way behind at a meagre 29 per cent. It is a matter of simple commonsense that the Muslims with a higher proportion of 36 per cent urbanised population are economically far better placed than Hindus who are trailing far behind with only 26 per cent urbanisation. The Muslim percentage of urbanisation is barely seven percentage points short of China having 43 per cent urbanisation, while Hindus are 17 percentage points behind China in this most important human development indicator. In the coming decades, too, Muslims will continue to do better than Hindus in prosperity and economic development by sheer pull of higher concentration in urban areas where productivity is 4 times higher than the rural areas, as highlighted in Goldman Sachs Economics Paper No. 152. In sharp contrast, nearly 74 per cent of total Hindu population is trapped in the terminally ill agricultural sector where productivity is one fourth of the urban areas, as against only 64 per cent Muslims.
No wonder more than 25,000 farmers, mostly Hindus, have committed suicides in recent years! Dr. Abu Saleh Sharrif, Member Secretary of Sachar Committee, being the Chief Economist of N.C.A.E.R, was surely aware of these facts. But he deviously concealed the Importance of this human development indicator in a bid to mislead the gullible Hindu intelligentsia and bluffing the voluble media into believing that economically the Muslims are more disadvantaged. It is a pity that a professional economist took blatant recourse to suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. The fact that there is hardly any difference in the economic status of the Hindus and Muslims was further corroborated by the results of a survey conducted by Rajesh Shukla, a Senior Fellow of the NCAER, published in Economic Times, New Delhi, on April 5, 2007. It was based on the inputs collected from 63,000 house-holds spread over 1,976 villages, 250 districts and 2,255 urban wards located in 342 towns. Incidentally both Abu Saleh Sharrif and Rajesh Shukla, who blew the lid off Dr. Sharrif'sbluff, belong to the same organisation, namely the National Council of Applied Economic Research ! That should be a matter of concern to the top brass of NCAER.
The average life expectancy at birth is yet another globally recognised development indicator of socio-economic status of a community. In this, too, the Muslims are much better off than Hindus. According to the calculations made by two reputed demographers, Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier [published in Economics & Political Weekly of January 29, 2005, page 390] the average life expectancy at birth for Muslims is 1.2 years higher than that of the Hindus?the respective averages being 62.6 per cent for Muslims and 61.4 per cent for Hindus.
There is only a marginal difference in the level of literacy of Muslims and Hindus, the percentages being 65.1 for Hindus (barely 0.3 per cent higher than the national average of 64.8) and 59.1 for Muslims which is lower than national average by 5.7 per cent. According to Statement 8 of Census 2001 (Religion Data Report) there are at least 13 States and Union Territories in which Muslims are better placed than Hindus in literacy. Even in the matter of female literacy the Muslims are better placed than Hindus in an equal number of States and U.Ts.
It is often argued that the per capita income of Muslims is lower than that of Hindus. There are, however, the following 2 critical differences in the comparable socio-economic parameters of the two communities which, too, have been concealed by Sachar Committee.
a) N.S.S. data reveals that Muslims, as a rule, have bigger families than Hindus and Christians which increases the dependency burden on the breadwinners. Census 2001 reveals that on an average every Muslim woman is giving birth to one more child than her Hindu and Christian counterpart. The main reason is the strong opposition to the small family norm due to the diktats of Muslim clergy. It increases the number of dependents because more mouths have to be fed in Muslim households.
b) The second reason, again based on Census 2001, is the abysmally low work participation by Muslim women which is nearly 50 per cent lower than that of Hindus and Christians?the respective percentages being 14.1 per cent for Muslim women, 27.5 per cent for Hindu women and 28 per cent for Christian women. The reason again is the scriptural taboo and diktats of Mullahs and community leaders.
The impact of these two crucial factors can be best demonstrated by an example of 2 families, one Hindu couple, i.e., Shri and Smt. Menon, and a Muslim couple, Mr. and Mrs. Abdul, living in the same neighbourhood. In the Hindu household, both Shri and Smt. Menon work and they have 2 children so that the dependency ratio is 1 : 1. In the Muslim household only Mr. Abdul works and they have 3 children (i.e., one more child than their Hindu counterpart, as revealed by Census 2001) and Mrs. Abdul does not go out to work as per diktats of Islamic clergy. So the dependency ratio is 1 : 4. Now the Abduls want that they should have the same economic status as Menons – but without reducing their family size and allowing their womenfolk to go out for work. Instead of telling this simple home truth of opting for small family norm and allowing women to go to work to the Muslim community, our Prime Minister, Justice Sachar and Dr. Sharrif want to bestow the unmerited largesse of 15 per cent of the 11th Five Year Plan funds to promote divisive politics.
It should be a matter of shame for the UPA government that these important facts, along with advantageous position of Muslims in 4 globally recognized human development indicators, namely, infant mortality, child mortality, degree of urbanisation and life expectancy at birth have been cleverly concealed in Sachar Report.
An analytical Paper presented by Shri Sanjay Kumar (Fellow, Centre for Study of Developing Studies) in a Seminar held on September 2, 2006, at the prestigious Indian Institute of Public Adminstration, New Delhi, highlighted the fact that a survey of the National Election Study, conducted by CSDS after interviewing 27,000 respondents, revealed that ?there is hardly any difference among the level of educational attainments among Hindus and Muslims?. It further asserted that ?contrary to the common belief that Muslims are poorer compared to Hindus, the findings of the NES revealed hardly any difference in the level of economic prosperity?. More importantly, it highlighted the fact that at the national level the proportion of those ?who would fall in the ?very poor? class is more among the Hindus compared to the Muslims?. Interestingly Shri Sanjay Kumar'sSeminar Paper was co-authored by the well-known ?secular psyphologist? Prof. Yogendra Yadav who heads the Centre for Study of Developing Societies.
Frankly speaking, there is no rational case for allocating 15% Plan funds for development of Muslim dominated areas. The decision is manifestly violative of the Right To Equality guaranteed Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. If the decision is challenged in the Supreme Court, it is bound to be set aside. Sachar Report could be easily rated as the biggest fraud on the Indian people.
(The author is a retired IPS officer presently associated with a Delhi-based Thinktank, Patriots? Forum. He retired as Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh.)
Comments