Skip to main content

Not similar, therefore not equal

 


If two things are not similar, they cannot be equal. This is true in mathematics, and mathematics doesn’t lie. No two men are similar, and no two women are similar either. It is plain to see that if they are not even similar, they cannot be equal. Given the large number of people (all different from each other), the governors in the system are faced with a tangled ball of wool that refuses to show its loose end from where they can begin. Understandably, for purposes of governance, administrations categorize a large number of unequal individuals into sets that can then be addressed to en masse.  

Most real-world situations have hundreds and thousands of variables and intangibles. Models are constructed so that complex situations can be given a shape and form that is amenable to analysis and policy formulation. The challenge in constructing a model is that on one hand the model has to be a simplified version of the complex reality, and on the other its oversimplification would perhaps not be a true representation. In this process, one invariably makes certain assumptions. Thereafter while planning at the macroeconomic level the process would, in effect, evolve plans based on a host of ridiculous generalizations. How sensible does it appear, for instance, when it may be inherent in the government’s dispensation that all men between 18 and 25 belonging to a certain region and a certain income group think alike?  

In socioeconomic modeling, we assume that all men are equal. Not only that, in the name of egalitarian dispensation, we zealously go on assuming men as equal to women. It is unfortunately the most unrealistic assumption, which we go on living with. This leads to skewed policy formulations, which eventually reflect in aggrieved masses.

Granted that placing people in different groups helps selective elimination, which, in turn, narrows the band of alternate choices to a manageable size. However, caution is the key in such an exercise. These classifications should remain tools for administrations rather than badges on the foreheads of our people.

That said, it is necessary that equality we try for must essentially be equality in opportunities provided to our people. These should be lower school and college fees, uniform and book allowances, free mid-career refresher courses, and many other possible supports. A whole group tagged by its religious beliefs, tribe or sex should not be provided safe havens where they would ensconce themselves without delivering what that position demands.

Nothing should be reserved for any set of individuals, no matter what tag they bear on their chests. For instance, men and women alike would go through the selection process our armed forces have designed. Many men fail to pass muster and some women fail too. The selection is based on the yardsticks that are cogent with the needs of the armed forces.      

Airlines worldwide started out with a “women only” norm in their in-flight service for they thought it was their business need. They changed that at some point in time, for we now see many men serving as stewards and pursers.

Coming to the workplace, this equality thing manifests itself in several ways. One of them is the idea of seamless office space where glass cabins and wood partitions are torn down to make the CEO look equal to the manager and the intern who joined the other day. Some offices continue with the ethos, while most quickly relinquish it. Reason: it simply is not very smart to have your business conversations disturbed by your colleague sitting next to you. This and other such steps are misadventures emanating from incapacity to distinguish between equality of opportunity and apparent equality that shall not add any value.   

Merit, defined in terms of number of certificates and diplomas, does not have universal appeal. There are situations where athletic build would be a merit, and there are situations where nimble fingers are desirable. Jobs can obviously not be reserved for people who may consider themselves meritorious on any one particular measure they fancy.

Equality can only be a qualifier for opportunity, not for people.

Pradeep Goorha

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Life Experiences

Like all my friends, I too was once a 17-year old awkward looking human in that shaded area when you are considered a naïve boy in certain estimations and a grown up man in the other situations. It leaves you so confused that you behave as neither of those. And I have also used the adjective ‘awkward’. It is because, at that age, facial hair appear to the extent that you are unsure whether to shave or not.    In those good old days nobody asked you, “Son, what do you want to be when you grow up?” You generally were preached to from the pulpit. Unsure about what future held, I had to sit through sessions where three, mostly idle, older cousins and uncles ruled the roost. The agenda invariably was what I should be doing with my life. My Dad, an engineer himself and rather a busy man, didn’t have time for idle chatter. He gave all of two minutes to the first of those meetings and announced that I should go for an engineering career at Roorkee. He walked away and chose not to part...
3 comments
Read more

An immigrant’s America: two chapters and a long interlude

Back in mid-1960s, I loved everything American. This mindset developed after reading whatever American material I could lay my hands on—that included ‘Old Man and the Sea’ on one end and dozens of Earl Stanley Gardner mysteries on the other. Sunday morning shows of Hollywood movies of all genre couldn’t be missed. The menagerie included Ben Hur, Roman Holiday, Who is afraid of Virginia Wolf, Guns of Navarone, The Great Escape, and a lot many other classics.    To me, America was synonymous with modernity, spirit of inquiry, technological development and the ultimate destination for those who had a reasonable chance to get there. After my engineering degree, getting into a US Graduate School was the extent to which I allowed myself to look into future. Nothing else mattered. It happened. I was accepted at a great college in America’s southeast—cloud nine and all that. After a month of orientation with the new environs, I ventured out a bit. On a blind date, sought by me, I drew...
2 comments
Read more

Privatisation: Let’s learn from Tanzania

I wonder what this for-and-against ballyhoo is on privatisation of PSUs in India. It is simple; Government has no business running businesses. Other than the inevitable reduction in unnecessary manpower and therefrom creating some unemployment, there is generally no downside to privatisation. Is it then a debate on efficiency versus spurious employment? Tanzania — much smaller economy – privatised over 400 public companies within 10 years. They knew the manpower complements were 3 to 10 times bigger than what the work called for.  The country chose to bite the bullet and directed their attention to finding gainful employment opportunities thus making a positive contribution to the economy.    In India, PSUs showing reasonable gross profit are only in the oil and gas space, and in power and its distribution. These are areas the government is in a comfort zone because they fix the product prices. Coal India—not in the two above mentioned business areas—is perhaps the only n...
2 comments
Read more