Sat - A Jaundiced Ethnic Leader
Writing in another place recently, Sat(narayan) Maharaj, Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Secretary General, called for publication of all the A level marks in this year's exams and the criteria by which national scholarships are awarded to students so that we could all see whether the distribution is fair, that is, ethnically unbiased.
He claims that 'deserving children with As have been denied scholarships' and that he is interested in transparency, ethnic neutrality, and a system based only on merit. More specifically, he claims that '[t]his year the pattern [of distribution of scholarships] has DRASTICALLY CHANGED.' (Emphasis added here and in subsequent quotations.) Sat is up to his old distasteful and irresponsible tricks again!
I applaud his apparent interest in transparency and fairplay, but I totally deplore the quality of his argumentation and, in particular, his technique of projecting himself as fair-minded while at the same time pushing a thinly-veiled hegemonic ethnic agenda.
In case you have not read his latest views or have read them uncritically, let me reproduce them here in his own words, not mine, with some commentary. Without adducing the evidence, he talks of the pattern of distribution changing drastically this year and then asks the following rhetorical questions, ostensibly to clinch the non-argument: 'Is this statistically probable, or is an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROJECT now in place? Is the Government denying deserving students national scholarships to PROMOTE STUDENTS WHO HAVE NOT EARNED THE HIGHEST MARKS, to serve a NEW SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROJECT?' He goes on to charge the Ministry of Education with 'an INORDINATELY LONG DELAY' in the release of the scholarship winners.
So without giving us supporting figures, this religious leader, through the device of the rhetorical question, accuses the Afro-dominated PNM government of giving undeserving Afros scholarships in preference to deserving Indos who scored higher marks. (It is only this he can mean by his unsubtle talk of affirmative action and social engineering!) And he plainly says, again without giving us the necessary dates, that this (Afrocentric) government took much too long to release the list of national scholars, with the unambiguous implication that they were cooking the list in favour of Afros.
Now, I do not mind the charge per se; if the government has indeed done this thing, it ought to be revealed, condemned, and corrected. But I do mind the lack of supporting evidence; indeed, I find it reprehensible and hypocritical, especially coming from a national religious leader. Here is an ethnic Indo leader calling for ethnic fairness in the award of scholarships in one breath, and in another making a charge of anti-Indo bias without giving the supporting facts. If this isn't national mischief, what is?
What are the facts, Sat? Let me give you a few of them. One, at least 13 out of this year's 18 open scholarships (or 72%) went to Indos. Two, at least 27 out of this year's 40 additional scholarships (or 67.5%) went to Indos. Three, at least 96 out of this year's 142 further additional scholarships (or 67.6%) went to Indos. Four, overall, at least 136 out of the 200 scholarships (or 68%) went to Indos. I say 'at least', for the calculation is based on the surnames, and it is well known that there are some Indos who bear 'Christian' names and that Afros do not bear Indo names.
A fifth fact: In 2000, the full list of scholarships was published in the newspaper Sat writes in on September 30 - at least three weeks later than this year!
I do not have the figures for previous years at hand to compare this year's with, so I cannot empirically say that the pattern of distribution has 'drastically changed'. But I have a memory that says it has not. And in any case, the facts above also strongly suggest that it has not. But if the pattern had changed this year to yield the kind of heavy disproportions that still end up favouring Indos, shouldn't Sat be happy that both the A level results and the consequent distribution of scholarships are more reflective of the ethnic composition of the population? Eh? Shouldn't he? The man seems irrevocably jaundiced in his outlook and agenda. How can he sustain this ethnic hostility in a plural society such as ours?
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
