Thoughts on economics and liberty

Tag: ‘Race’ and racism

Dr Bindeshwar Pathak, a hero for Modern India

I came by Daniel Lak's book, India Express recently through a second hand shop. Browsing through it today I chanced across a passage that deserves wide dissemination, for the wonderful message it brings.

Dr. Pathak, whose work I've seen develop (as a general citizen – I don't know him personally) from its early days into an impressive reform movement today that is changing the mindset and expectations of Indians, proves even a single person can make a huge difference. All that is needed is a vision and unwavering determination.

In relation to toilets, there are clearly some attitudinal issues in India. For instance, the bosses don't clean toilets. The heads of household don't clean toilets. And so on. But let me assure you that even the Brahmin (whatever that means) head of household has to clean his own toilet abroad. There are no servants. You either clean up or suffer the consequences! I am almost certain that it is a routine phenomenon for Prime Minsters in the West to clean their own toilets. It is such a routine thing that no one even thinks it is worth writing about.

So what's the issue here? Why are we so foolish on such an important matter as personal hygiene?

On the other hand, in Japan, clean toilets are a sign of pride. I was reading somewhere that even CEOs of companies clean their toilets, to ensure outstanding hygiene standards. On a passing flight via Tokyo a few years ago I was super-impressed at the high quality of toilets at the airport. Surely that is the standard we must aspire for in India. Not the third rate culture of dirty toilets, and not cleaning one's own toilet. 

This is not just about clean toilets but about the horribly flawed, racist caste system. I believe that the problems in this area along with many others will be resolved through a radically different policy (such as those I advocate in BFN). To the extent social practices are embedded in the Indian psyche and won't be resolved through education, these may need to be changed through social reformers (not government). It won't be enough, to eliminate the obnoxious racist caste system, to build Sulabh sauchalayas. Pathak will have to make all the 'Dalits' into 'Brahmins' in a public ceremony. Or, as I recommend – the  'Dalits' should abandon Hinduism lock, stock, and barrel, and take on – well, nothing! Just become human, please. There is no need for spiritual crutches. We can all reach God ourselves with our own effort (assuming 'He' exists). No middleman is needed, no priest, no pujari.

Anyway, the caste issue is a more complex matter. Now read on about Dr Pathak. 


Driving away from New Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport, I noticed a gray, single-story building. It sat in a landscaped gar­den of shrubs and trimmed grass. Groomed gravel paths led through the grounds to two doors at either end of the building, with the uni­versally recognized pictorial symbols for men and women mounted on the doors. There was not a stray bit of litter in sight. The whole thing gleamed. A blue sign with white painted letters on top of the building proclaimed “Sulabh International Public Toilet” in both Eng­lish and Hindi. I stopped my car to investigate the place. There were, I discovered, toilets, as the sign said, and they were spotless. I also found bathing facilities for both men and women, and attendants to look after them. Those who could afford to pay were charged a nom­inal fee, equivalent to a few cents; for those who couldn't, access was free. A young man showed me around. He took pains to take me into the open tracts of land nearby, pointing at the ground to show me that no one had been going to the toilet there. “No shit, no shit,” he kept saying, and I agreed.

In Sanskrit, sulabh is the word for “easy.” The name of the organization, and the thinking behind it, are the work of its founder, Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak. Pathak is an upright, handsome man in his sixties who looks far younger. Persuading all Indians to make proper use of toilets, he believes, will resolve many of the country's health and social challenges. It's that easy, he repeats, many times during our conversation. His goal is nothing less than safe, hygienic sanitation for all of India's billion-plus population and liberation for the remaining 250,000 sweepers.
“A toilet in every home, and ample public toilets for travelers and the homeless, would make everything easier,” he said. We were sitting in an office decorated with photos of him with popes, the Dalai Lama, UN agency chiefs, European and Asian leaders and a succession of Indian cabinet ministers. “This would, of course, end waterborne dis­ease. Dysentery and diarrhea cannot exist without human waste to spread them, and if [the waste is] put in a toilet and a sewer, not on the ground or in public, then where's the disease? Do you have any dysentery in America? In Europe? Of course you don't.
“We would eliminate the need for scavengers, the people who still collect the waste in this country in defiance of our laws. There are hundreds of thousands of them still, pulling wooden carts and pick­ing up our waste. This is barbaric, the worst work imaginable, and people who do it are beyond untouchability. No one wants to know them. They are doomed and their children are doomed to illiteracy, alienation, outcast status.”
Pathak prefers the word scavenger to sweeper. He's fond of point­ing out that India's great successes, its self-sufficiency in food, its nu­clear weapons, its space program and information technology companies, all exist alongside a quarter million men, women and chil­dren who work as collectors of human waste. It was their plight, he says, that drew him into the promotion of public toilets and sanita­tion—not some obsession with cleanliness, but concern for a group of people who are perhaps the worst-off in the country. He is a Brah­min, born in the caste-ridden eastern state of Bihar, and he shocked his rather orthodox family when he chose to do research that plumbed the most disgusting depths of the caste system. He lived with sweepers. He went out with them on their rounds and helped them in their odiferous work. He got to know all too intimately the chal­lenges and daily humiliations that come their way. His PhD thesis, now published as a report by Sulabh, is a scathing indictment of an Indian society that could have afforded another system of waste dis­posal but chose to continue with sweepers and scavengers, with all its foul effects. “We [Hindus] have this idea that if we throw our garbage over the wall of our compound, it no longer exists. Similarly, if we move our bowels and the product is taken away by a scavenger, we have done nothing wrong. We have done, in effect, nothing at all. This is in gross defiance of the texts and scriptures of our faith,” he says. Pathak is a devout Hindu, and he takes great umbrage at those within the creed who defend caste-based practices such as scavenging. “It's wrong, it's false, it's blasphemous to say there is any religious justifi­cation for this sort of behavior.” In fact, he says, Hindu scripture specifically prohibits the handling of human waste by other humans.
Pathak also believes that human feces are wasted in India. They could be used as fertilizer or in the generation of electricity or the production of fuel for cooking. The challenge, he says, is to overcome the natural aversion people have to excreta. There are dozens of projects in India and around South Asia to turn human waste into cooking gas. Sulabh backs several of them. Waste is deposited into a sealed concrete container with a valve on top. As the waste mater degrades, it produces methane gas that can be pressurized and burnt as fuel. Although it burns cleanly and without odor, biogas, as it's known, is a hard sell in many communities. People remain dubious, not convinced that it won't contaminate food or their homes.
Sulabh encourages people to build toilets appropriate to their surroundings and using available materials. In arid climates, where water is at a premium, this might be a drop toilet, where the feces are allowed to dry on a platform well below the seat, to minimize odor. Where the climate is damper, the organization encourages people to dig septic fields and make use of plants to help process and purify waste water. Britain's Prince Charles has a natural sewage-procesing pond on his estate in Dorset that uses common bulrushes to cleanse waste water. The prince is one of many well-known supporters of Suthlabh's work. Some environments are more suitable for pit toilets. Others need running water and a connection to sewer pipes. Those who are willing can connect their toilets to a biogas generator. There are few kinds of loo that Sulabh doesn't design and build.
The organization also has a toilet museum, which includes a working model of the first flush mechanism, designed by the English engineer Thomas Crapper in the nineteenth century. But what’s most impressive about Pathak is how, like Veer Badra Mishra, he remains a devout Hindu while acknowledging that his faith enables horrible forms of discrimination and unacceptable behavior. It is true that there is no scriptural justification for scavenging, but because it is a social practice that dates from ancient times, there is a belief in India that Hindu tradition condones it. Pathak rejects this. He urges fellow Brahmins and other members of higher castes to adopt scavenger families and oversee their education and development. He puts the touchables and untouchables in touch, if you will, and stresses how this is true Hindu practice. Some fifty thousand scavengers, he says proudly, are no longer collecting human waste, thanks to his efforts. They work in offices, factories and at Sulabh itself, spreading the word about toilets. Their children attend an English medium school to learn about Shakespeare and sewing machines and, once they graduate, they need never take on the task undertaken by their parents and grandparents.
Continue Reading

It seems that some Indians don’t leave their caste behind even after leaving India

Very rarely does one get positive coverage about India or Indians in Western newspapers, and I don't think it is because of any bias against India. (Of course, most Indians do the right thing, but perhaps only problems make it to the news? This is perhaps a universal phenomenon.)

On a single day – for instance, today – the following FOUR news items about India or Indians stood out prominently in Australian newspapers:

a) one – about the Indian government's injustice in refusing to pay Australians for the work they did for the Commonwealth Games

b) two – about an Indian "tycoon" (thief?) Pankaj Oswal who appears to have looted a lot of money in Australia and has now fled to India, leaving a great mess behind him;

c) three – about a new Indian migrant who killed an Indian child in a fit of extreme foolishness and has now been jailed for five years, and

d) four – about an Indian Australian who, on the grounds of caste, forced his daughter to marry someone she didn't want to marry – in India

The first story is about the corruption found inside the Indian government, but the other three are related to private Indians. That is surely a matter of grave concern. The case (d) is so unfortunate that I'm posting it in full below.

Is any of this covered in Indian newspapers and TV? I don't know. All I know is that the Indian media (and many top-notch writers) made big fools of themselves through grossly inflated claims about Australian racism in 2009. It was later proven that most Indians killed or burnt in Australia were harmed by other Indians – so finally the Indian media shut its mouth – but not before it caused severe harm to India-Australia relations. Perhaps one way for it to redeem itself is to cover the crimes and misdeeds of Indians abroad. 

As a result of the incessant flow of bad news about India and Indians, the average image of India (and Indians) is very poor. One reason for that is that we no longer have leaders of the calibre of Mahatma Gandhi: even our leaders are renowned only for their corruption. It is surely time to change things. FTI is determined to shift the situation for the better.

The inhuman racist claims of 'Hindu' casteism that Indians bring even to Australia
Arranged marriage ruled invalid

(The Australian, 3 February 2011)

THE Family Court has refused to recognise the arranged marriage of a young Melbourne woman to a man she had never previously met, saying the union could not be valid under Australian law because the girl had not been truly free to consent.

The case, known as Kreet and Sampir, involved a girl who was tricked into travelling to India to marry a man chosen for her by her father.

Judge Paul Cronin, sitting in Melbourne, said the marriage could not be legal because the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had agreed to go through with the ceremony only because she was afraid of her parents.

According to court documents, the girl was born in Australia to Indian-born parents who "remained closely connected to their former country's culture (and) strongly against much of Australian culture". She was "not allowed to cut her hair or wear skirts or dresses unless they were part of her school uniform".

In a quiet act of rebellion, the girl met a boy, known only as Mr U, on the internet in July 2007, when she was about 16. She kept the relationship secret (Mr U lived in Melbourne, while she was then living in Sydney) until June 2008, when she told her parents she wanted to marry Mr U.

Her parents "demanded she cease the relationship" because they objected to Mr U's caste. She was kept home from school, and her telephone and internet access were cut off, but she found ways to stay in touch with Mr U.

In October 2008, the girl's father told her she would be going to India as soon as she turned 18, to find "an appropriate husband". The girl fled to Melbourne, to be with Mr U.

Her father threatened to "kidnap and rape" Mr U's mother and sisters; he assaulted the girl by slapping her face, and then apologised profusely. She eventually went home with him, but only after he agreed to let her marry Mr U in a ceremony in India.

The girl flew out of Australia in 2009, expecting to marry Mr U but, when she got to India, her parents took her passport and introduced her to a man "who was to become her husband".

The girl's father again told her he would have Mr U's mother and sisters raped.

"I accept that (the girl) begged her parents not to force her to go through with the marriage and her father's response was to continue to threaten harm to Mr U's family," Judge Cronin said.

The girl was not required to speak at any time during the ceremony, "but simply to walk four times around the altar".

After the wedding, she went to her new husband's house (he lived with his parents) and "refused attempts at physical intimacy which culminated in assaults".

She later agreed to sign documents for a visa application for him, and flew home to Australia, where she immediately went to Melbourne to live with Mr U (she has withdrawn her support for her husband's visa application).

Judge Cronin said the marriage would be void if the girl could show that she gave her consent only because "some overbearing force was operating".

He said "the parents adopted a position based on a cultural practice" but the law to be applied "is that of Australia". "I am satisfied that the wife's physical state at the time of the ceremony was such that she was physically and mentally overborne. Her consent was not real because it was obtained by duress," he said.

Continue Reading

Ayn Rand the sworn enemy of racism, which is a form of collectivism

Ayn Rand's 1963 essay on Racism in the Virtue of Selfishness (VOS) is enormously powerful and speaks wonderfully of her sense of justice and freedom. I strongly encourage you to read it for it sets out clearly why racism is wrong: the very idea of generalising about a person's capabilities based only on the chemicals in his body is the ultimate insult to humanity (this, by the way, is also a powerful indictment of Indian casteism which is clearly a form of stereotyping, closely related to racism. This is also why reservations are wrong, including for women.).

[Note: Ayn Rand's bold and clear arguments was published closely on the heels of Martin Luther King's August 29, 1963 speech: "I have a dream". It was almost certainly written before Martin Luther King's speech. It is, in my view, worthy of being read on par with Luther King]



Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.  It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.  Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another)—the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third-cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another)—the parents who search genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law—the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history—all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly-emerging nations.”

Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.  There are only individual minds and individual achievements—and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.  It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as inferior because his race has “produced” some brutes—or the claim of a German brute to the status of a superior because his race has “produced” Goethe, Schiller and Brahms.

These are not two different claims, of course, but two applications of the same basic premise.  The question of whether one alleges the superiority or the inferiority of any given race is irrelevant; racism has only one psychological root: the racist’s sense of his own inferiority.

To ascribe one’s virtues to one’s racial origin, is to confess that one has no knowledge of the process by which virtues are acquired and, most often, that one has failed to acquire them.  The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a “tribal self-esteem” by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe. Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

It is not a man’s ancestors or relatives or genes or body chemistry that count in a free market, but only one human attribute: productive ability.  It is by his own individual ability and ambition that capitalism judges a man and rewards him accordingly.

It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life.  It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade.  It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world.  It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States.

Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever.  It is such alleged champions of capitalism who are helping to discredit and destroy it.

The “liberals” are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form.  They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule—yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities.  But the smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.


This accumulation of contradictions, of short-sighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders.

Instead of fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced.  Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas.  Instead of fighting for “color-blindness” in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that “color-blindness” is evil and that “color” should be made a primary consideration.  Instead of fighting for equal rights, they are demanding special race privileges.

They are demanding that racial quotas be established in regard to employment and that jobs be distributed on a racial basis, in proportion to the percentage of a given race among the local population.  For instance, since Negroes constitute 25 per cent of the population of New York City, they demand 25 per cent of the jobs in a given establishment.

“The white leadership must be honest enough to grant that throughout our history there has existed a special privileged class of citizens who received preferred treatment.  That class [36] was white.  Now we’re saying this: If two men, one Negro and one white, are equally qualified for a job, hire the Negro.”

Consider the implications of this statement.  It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds—it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors.  It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination.  But perhaps his grandfather had not practiced it.  Or perhaps his grandfather had not even lived in this country.  Since these questions are not to be considered, it means that that white laborer is to be charged with collective racial guilt, the guilt consisting merely of the color of his skin.

No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man.  A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him.  


Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine—but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.  Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to the use and disposal of his own property.  Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.

In conclusion, I shall quote from an astonishing editorial in The N. Y. Times of August 4 [1963]—astonishing because ideas of this nature are not typical of our age:

“But the question must be not whether a group recognizable in color, features or culture has its rights as a group.  No, the question is whether any American individual, regardless of color, features or culture, is deprived of his rights as an American.  If the individual has all the rights and privileges due him under the laws and the Constitution, we need not worry about groups and masses—those do not, in fact, exist, except as figures of speech.”

Continue Reading

If you think that “race” is a real concept, then you are an ass

How Europeans evolved white skin – Ann Gibbons Apr. 2, 2015


What I think as common knowledge about skin colour is perhaps not yet commonly known. In my draft manuscript, DOF, I wrote thus:


We have all descended from dark skinned African forbears that were adapted to intense equatorial sunlight. However, as humans moved to the higher latitudes they found less sunlight there, which makes it hard for those with a darker skin to produce vitamin D, so vital for bones and general health. In these higher latitudes, children with a natural mutation that helped them produce less melanin (i.e. those with a lighter skin) had better odds of survival than their darker skinned siblings. Over time, the so called ‘white race’ evolved as a local environmental adaptation. Being a function of random chance, evolution does not lead to exactly the same outcome everywhere.[1]

[1] E.g. Johan Moan, of the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, said in a research paper: “In England, from 5500-5200 years ago the food changed rapidly away from fish as an important food source. This led to a rapid development of … light skin.” The Australian, 31 August 2009. [,,26004285-26040,00.html. ]
I’m not sure if everyone in the world knows about this and understand what it means for their conceptions about race-based “superiority”.
It therefore pleased me to recently learn about Nina Jablonski’s work in this area. I spent a few minutes listening to her lecture (below). In a few days, time permitting, I’ll watch her documentary, Skin Deep.
I encourage you to watch this short 15 minute talk, below. More importantly, I would like to urge Indians (and others) who still harbour racist thoughts to learn about the science of human evolution and stop their slavish obsession with skin colour. In particular, the Indian caste system is strongly associated with racism and should be repudiated outright. The Vedas had a merit based system in any case. Let there by multiple “castes” within the same family subject to their individual merit (although why should we have caste at all? – throw away such false ideas entirely).
The idea the skin colour determines a man’s competence is the most ridiculous thought ever created in human history. If you think that “race” is a real concept, I think you are an ass. Sorry (!) I don’t use strong personal words very often – and I’m sure that none of my blog readers think in this manner – but I think we ought to be pretty brutal with those who continue to harbour deeply flawed ideas. How long does mankind have to suffer from the disease of ignorance? Let’s bury the concept of “race” once and for all.

Some asses


H G Wells (1901): “The swarms of black and brown and dirty-white and yellow people have to go. It is their portion to die out and disappear.”

D H Lawrence (1921): “Three cheers for the inventors of poison gas.”

George Bernard Shaw (1933): “Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and thoroughly … if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.”

Continue Reading
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial