Why did Justice Sachar, political leaders and self-proclaimed secularists purposely deny scholarships to financially poor Hindu students ?

Currently, ‘secularists’ are protesting against the ‘Citizenship (Amendment) Act’ (CAA), ‘National Register of Citizens’ (NRC) and ‘National Population Register’ (NPR), which have been enacted by the Central Government for the betterment of the Nation. A gravely distorted picture that these decisions of the Central Government are not only anti-Muslim but also against the Constitution of India is being painted. These individuals who have so-called sympathy for Muslims conveniently keep silent when it comes to the Sachar Committee Report, which treats the majority population of India unfairly. We are publishing this article for our readers to expose this prejudice.

It is revealed from the analysis of the comparative coefficient of the world’s 5 recognised ‘Human Development Indices’ that in the 4 indices – Infant Mortality rate, child deaths, urbanisation and life expectancy, Indian Hindus are lagging behind when compared with the Muslims. Hindus are lagging behind when compared with all the minority communities in India, including Christians, Buddhists, Parsis and Sikhs who have been showered with enormous amounts of money in the form of scholarships, business and educational loans at low interest rates.

It has been proven through various research studies independently conducted by many scholars of various organisations that there is a very negligible difference between the financial and educational state of the Hindus and Muslims.

Then, why did Justice Rajinder Sachar, who was appointed as the Chairman of a high-level committee by former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, ignore the large amount of authentic documentation while preparing the Committee’s report ? This is a political and communal mystery. Why did he wilfully deny a single scholarship or even one Rupee to poor Hindu students while showering low interest educational and business loans worth crores of Rupees on 5 minorities ?

Justice Sachar, former Foreign Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, former Minister of Minority Affairs and members of the National Advisory Council owe an explanation of these faulty decisions to the people of India !

16 questions that Justice Sachar, Salman Khurshid and special members of the National Advisory Council must answer !

1. Why did Justice Sachar ignore the documented truth ?

Why did Justice Sachar ignore the documented truth mentioned in the ‘National Family Health Survey – 2’ (NFHS -2) report prepared in 1998-1999, which clearly states – ‘The condition of Muslims in the 4 important indices of infant mortality rate, child-deaths, level of urbanisation, and life expectancy at the birth is much higher than Hindus’ ? During 1998-1999, the average rate of deaths of infants and children among the Muslim population was less than the Hindu population. About 15 years ago, the average life span of Muslims was more than that of Hindus. This proves that Muslims are well-nourished.

2. Why was the report about Muslims being in a far better condition than Hindus ignored ?

In 1998-1999, the average life span of Muslims was more by 1 year 2 months than that of Hindus. The average life span of these two communities indicated that the average life span of Hindus was 61 years and 4 months; whereas, the average life span of Muslims was 62 years and 6 months. According to the ‘National Family Health Survey – 3’ (NFHS-3, 2005-06), during the 7 years, the expected life span of Muslims increased by 5 years and 4 months, which means it became 68 whereas Hindus increased by just 3 years and 6 months (that is, from 61 years and four months to 65 years). How did this happen ? From this factual data it became obvious that during this time, Muslims received better nutrition than Hindus. Despite publicly available information that ‘Muslims are in much better condition than Hindus’, why did Justice Sachar and Salman Khurshid ignore these reports ? They should explain their reasoning in purposely depriving the poorest of the poor people of the majority population from receiving scholarships worth 20 crore Rupees.

3. Why did Justice Sachar omit an important truth based on the survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) ?

Why did Justice Sachar conveniently ignore the conclusions of the research paper ‘Socio Economic status of Indian Muslims and popular understanding’ by Prof. Dr. Sanjay Kumar ? Justice Sachar owes an explanation. It has been proven from the research paper presented by Dr. Sanjay Kumar of Delhi based CSDS in a seminar on 2nd September 2006 at the Institute of Public Administration that, ‘There is nominal difference between the financial and educational status of Hindus and Muslims’. He presented this well-studied fact through a research paper based on the survey in front of all the attending scholars. Why did the retired Chief Justice of Delhi High Court omit from the report this crucial detail which was based on the survey conducted by CSDS ?

4. Why did Justice Sachar ignore the conclusion that ‘The proportion of the extremely poor Hindu people is more than that of Muslims’ ?

Another important conclusion of Dr. Sanjay Kumar’s research was – ‘The proportion of extremely poor people among Hindus is more than that of Muslims’. Why did Justice Sachar ignore this conclusion ? Why did Justice Sachar relate the Muslim ways of better childhood upbringing to the truth despite acknowledging it in his report’s Pages 37 and 38 ?

5. Why did Justice Sachar and Salman Khurshid ignore the fact that the life expectancy of Muslims has increased when compared with Hindus ?

In October 2010, a shocking fact came to light in the National Family Health Survey -3 (NFHS-3, 2005-06), that from 1998 to 2005, in just 7 years, the life expectancy of Muslims increased significantly when compared with Hindus. Why did Justice Sachar and Salman Khurshid ignore it even after the high-level committee’s conclusions were refuted convincingly by this accurate information ? According to the NFHS-3, the life expectancy of Muslims increased by a staggering 5 years and 4 months. An explanation is needed as to what led Justice Sachar to create an illusory portrayal of ‘deprived Muslims’ in his detailed report ? How come Justice Sachar did not realise that his phantom inventions will provide oxygen to the jihadi ideologists and encourage the Muslim-inciters, Pak-sponsored terrorists ?

6. Why was a theory invented that ‘Muslims are not well-nourished’ ?

It was accepted in Human Development Indices that infant mortality rate, child-deaths and life expectancy at the birth, Muslims are in a better position than Hindus. Then, why did Justice Sachar invent the theory that Muslims are not well-nourished ? He could have easily accepted the facts approved by the international economists and the World Health Organization (WHO).

7. Why were the conclusions from the research paper of Mr. Rajesh Shukla ignored ?

It has been proven from the survey conducted by researcher Mr. Rajesh Shukla of National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) that there is not much disparity between the financial status of Hindus and Muslims. One more refutation of the so-called deprivation of Muslims was published in April 2007. Why did Justice Sachar, Salman Khurshid and National Advisory Council ignore the conclusions of Mr. Shukla’s research paper on the same topic which was published in most newspapers including ‘Economic times’ ?

8. Why are Hindus being consistently and systematically given step-motherly treatment ?

Once again the false propaganda of Sachar Committee was strongly refuted on 24-25 October 2011. In a seminar jointly organised by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Indian Planning Commission, Mr. Sukhadev Thorat and Mr. Amaresh Pandey, students of Jawaharlal Nehru University, presented their research papers. It supported the conclusion of the NFHS-3 (2005-06) report – there is an increase in life expectancy of Muslims. Even after the conclusion of this report became public, why did the trend of denying scholarships and low-interest loans to poor Hindus and treating them with a step-motherly attitude by various means continue to grow ? It’s about time Justice Sachar and the rich members of the National Advisory Council give an explanation !

9. Why were poor Hindus banned from receiving scholarships and low interest loans despite higher literacy rate of Muslims in 13 States ?

Justice Sachar has accepted in his report that as per the 2001 census, the total literacy rate of Muslims is more than that of Hindus in 13 States and Union Territories including Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

Yet, Muslims in these States were allotted lakhs of Rupees worth of scholarships and low-interest loans; however, not a single poor Hindu in these States was given a scholarship or low-interest educational loan. What are the reasons for Salman Khurshid and National Advisory Council prohibiting poor Hindus in these 13 States and Union Territories from receiving scholarships and low interest loans ?

10. Why was the scholarship or low interest loan not given to any Hindu girl in these 13 States ?

When the literacy rate of Hindu women is lower than that of Muslim women in these 13 States and Union Territories, why was not a single Hindu girl given a scholar-ship or low interest educational loan ? In the total literacy data of the population, comparative information on male and female literacy is provided in the religion-based report of the 2001 census.

11. On what basis did Justice Sachar approve the puzzling conclusion that ‘Muslim community is the poorest and the most deprived community in India’ ?

On 24^th February 2011, while answering a question in the Lok Sabha, Vincent H Pala, Union Minister of State, Minority Affairs, accepted the fact that the Central Government has not maintained any documentation regarding the population below the poverty line based on religion. If in February 2011 the Government did not have any such information, then 4 years before, that is, in 2007, on what basis did the Minority Welfare Minister and National Advisory Council headed by Justice Sachar accept the puzzling conclusion that ‘Muslim community is the poorest and the most deprived community in India’ ?

12. Under which Article of the Constitution of India, the poor from the minority community are allotted a share of the scholarship ?

Salman Khurshid and National Advisory Council must explain – ‘Which Article of the Constitution of India approves the distribution of scholarships worth Rs. 20 crore Rupees only among 5 minority communities, but excludes poor Hindus ?’?

13. Why were poor Hindu female students omitted from getting a free bicycle ?

In the 2012 budget presented by then Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Rs. 4,50,00,000 were allotted to providing free bicycles to female students in 9th and higher grades from 5 minority communities as per the recommendation of the Minority Affairs Ministry and National Advisory Council. Salman Khurshid must answer – ‘Why were poor female students from only one community, that is, from the Hindu community omitted from getting a free bicycle ?’

14. Why is there a discrimination in the interest rates on loans given to Hindu students who want to go abroad for education ?

A special scheme to allot funding with a lower interest rate on loans given to students from the 5 minority communities receiving education abroad as per the recommendation of the National Advisory Council was presented; however, not a single Hindu student is made eligible for this special scheme. Why were only Hindu students desiring to study abroad subjected to this extreme discrimination ? National Advisory Council and Minority Affairs Minister must answer this question.

15. Why women from the Hindu community were omitted from the benefits of ‘Proposed Leadership Training’ ?

According to an advertisement on 6th June 2013 in the newspaper ‘The Pioneer’ from New Delhi, a new scheme titled ‘Nayi Roshni’ was undertaken by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. According to the scheme, women from the 5 minority communities were eligible for ‘Scheme for Leadership Development of minority women’ at the Government’s expense. Will the Ministry of Minority Affairs and National Advisory Council answer – ‘Why only one community, that is, women from the Hindu community were omitted from availing the benefit of this scheme ?’

16. Why extremely poor Hindus were denied the equal ‘Right to Education’ ?

Finally, which Article in the Constitution of India says that even though the ‘Human Development Indices’ of the components of the minority community are far better than the components of the extremely poor majority community, still, the minorities will be considered as ‘Deprived and backward class’ ?

All concerned officers including Justice Sachar, Salman Khurshid, and National Advisory Council must explain the reason for denying extremely poor Hindus their equal ‘Right to Education’ by abusing their authority. Why even a single Hindu student from poor Brahman, Kshatriya, Yadav, poor Jat or Jatav girl or a Lingayat community was not considered eligible for this free scholarship with massive Rs. 20 crore budget ? This money was splurged only on girls and boys from the 5 minority communities – only on the 20% of Indian population.

Hindus must put such questions and counter-questions to political leaders, social activists and self-proclaimed secularists about this injustice and take them to task.

People who have sympathy for ‘minority’ are silent when it comes to the Sachar Committee Report, which treats ‘majority’ of India unfairly !