May
1
individualism
On April 30th (yesterday), House of Lords ruled in favor of overseas doctors against British Government, suggesting that the discrimination against foreign employee in health services of UK is wrong and should be curbed out.
In 2006, British government ordered the hospital trusts whole round UK to employ non-EU medical practitioners “only if” no candidate from EU is vacant.
Obviously, the rule was derogatory to the standards of freedom of the employer.
The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) challenged against it in court and the House of Lords favored the Indian employees.
It is expected that now, UK government will treat the foreign origin doctors, specially the Indians on fair and equal terms on the foundation of skills and merit for the jobs at National Health services of UK.
As a matter of fact, discrimination on any grounds for jobs is illegal and immoral and is against the freedom of the employer and the immigrant in the quest for employment.
Let us consider a scenario in India. There is a job for which there are two contenders and you have to employ one of them.
One of them is a hard-working, brilliant and motivated. He has endeavored allot to acquire high education and skills which are requisite of the job. His mark sheets are excellent with top grades; his previous record shows that he is honest and trustworthy worker with high admirations from his previous employers. Above all that, he came to India from a far nation (say Nigeria, or Kuwait, or Bangladesh, or say Pakistan to set-up in a new culture risking allot just to pursue a career he wishes to work for and gain a better life.
Other person has mainly no skills for the job and he expects training for it, he is not a good learner his mark sheets show it. He is just an average worker with no knowledge about the work you are going to offer.
Which candidate would you appoint for the job?
Howard Roark
I would employ the first one because he will be more fruitful for me. It would be a decision of justice, a deserving incentive for the one who has worked hard to gain proficiency and improvement.
There won’t come any discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnicity or religion, there should not be.
Now, if the Indian government says that you cannot appoint the first employee because he is not Indian and no matters the second employee is lacking skills and ability, he must be appointed because he is Indian, won’t it be injustice against you?
Injustice because it will be against your right of freedom to chose the best worker for your benefits. You do not do business for the nation; you do business for your own profits and improvement. It would be Injustice against that employee too who clearly deserves the job.
Being an Indian doesn’t make him any better nor provides any right for the job which he simply cannot do better.
Now, some will say, being the employer, I must train the Indian employee who is skill less so that he may also become fruitful, but I should not employ the first one just because of the duties towards the nation.
The question is, why should I waste my efforts, energy, resources and money to train an unskillful person while I denounce the skillful person who will surely be much more profitable for me?
On the same grounds of argument, The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) won against the UK Government and got the decision of House of Lords in their favor.
Each individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this country or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an Indian, but by virtue of being human.
There is no immorality if a person come far away from his home to work here in India, nor there any wrong if does an employer appoint him for the job on the basis of his skills and honesty.
There can be no good in any policy which discriminates a person from other on any grounds like religion or ethnicity or caste or region or nationality or gender etc.
A person gets the right for a job not by virtue of his birth in a particular area or nation or family, but by virtue of his skills, he earns that right.
So, none of such discriminatory laws can be justified.
Obviously, the win of BAPIO against the UK government is a moment of enjoyment for the victory of Individualism and Objective premises of living.
But, in our own country, in our own land, how much objective and justified we are?
Anti-Reservation
We discriminates, we discriminates and opposes others earned rights on the grounds of caste, religion, region and language.
We are suffering from ills of quotas and reservation on grounds of caste and religion. We attack each other on grounds of regional discriminations. It is Injustice against Individual liberty of the employers and the skillful employee. And it is wrong. There can be no justified ground for any sort of discrimination on grounds of caste, religion, region, language, color, gender, nation…
The reservation policies of government are corrupt and injustice against the Individual liberty and must be culled, because we don’t work for nation, we work for our own life.
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.
Ayn Rand
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “The Objectivistic victory of British Doctors of Indian Origin”
Leave a Reply
GHOST RIDER Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 8:21 pmtrue..our country is crippled due to quotas…
ArUn raFi Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pmyeah ..i agree with u on this one..dont know where the SC/STs and the other reservations are gona end up as..doesnt seem to bright anyways..yes indeed ,the victory for the foreign doctors in england was a moment of celebration..wonder what lesson the indian govt wud learn from tht action..
cheers
Arun Kumar Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pmgreat message for todays politicians…
quota systems are attenuating india’s development…Gandhi or Nehru or any of india’s architects would definitely not have wanted this…
anyways…its jus a coincidence that the judgement came on worker’s day…
Viraj Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pmnice post…these politicians talk to competing with china and at the same time kill merit by imposing quotas. even if the number of seats for general category studens is kept the same, the quality of education is affected. imagine the scenario when in iit jee 2004, general category students got a particular branch whne they had a score of 94 and the SC/STs got d same branch at 54 marks. and thn they r nt able to cope up wid other meritorious students but still manage to get jobs coz PSUs r thre for thm. some times PSUs dont hav seats for general category stuydents but hav seats for othrs.and thn they say tht most of the students frm elite instis dont want to work for indian companies and their only concern is money. lolz
Overweight? You may loose your job! | Reason for Liberty Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm[…] girls for a job based on weight? Actually, there is nothing wrong with the decision. This is the freedom of the employer to employ that worker which will provide maximum profits and will suit for the development of […]