So what did he really say?

This article by a journalist (Fatima Bhutto; incidentally a relative of the assassinated ex-PM of Pakistan) underlines the perils of picking up quotes from anthologies, as opposed to coming by them within the context of the main work. (titled 'And then they came for me')

[URL: http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=47306]

> Martin Niemoeller, a German theologian and anti-war
> activist, was made famous by a poem he wrote during
> the Nazi takeover of Europe: "First they came for
> the socialists, and I didn't speak up, because I
> wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade
> unionists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a
> trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
> didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they
> came for me, and there was no one left to speak up
> for me".

There are a couple of issues here.

Firstly, there is no such poem, written by Niemöller (or anyone else).

Here's what the Martin Niemöller Foundation has to say about it (text in German; Niemöller himself refutes the quote): http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a46_print

And here's another article on it, written in English, by a professor of German history: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

Incidentally, what must strike any thinking person, is the fact that it is evidently significant to (other) thinking persons:

a) which communities, ethnic groups or political movements he spoke of about when first Niemöller did (in the famous, "Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist. usw.", quote) .
b) the order in which he listed them.
c) whether he actually said or wrote those exact words, and when he did so.

Granted that what is of importance (to quite an extent) is the idea, not who stated it, or when, in which language, or in which context, or whether it was supposed to be a joke etc. etc.; that notwithstanding, a journalist must remain true to as much of the truth as possible.

Secondly, in any case, this is a curious train of thought. "Let us defend the Jews/Communists/Trade Unionists et al, for otherwise, we will be killed."

This sort of neighbourly love is especially contemptible. As Nietzsche might say, "Dergleichen kann man nicht genug verachten.". (One cannot have too much contempt for this sort of thing.)

The journalist is not the only one who can quote a German theologian.

The press on the press

A journalist in an article titled "Whither the Indian press?" (URL: http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/15/op.htm#1) bemoans the loss of a fellow journalist's employment.



> ....who owned the Deccan Chronicle, a money-spinning
> publication centred in the south Indian city of Hyderabad.

Wonder what "money-spinning" means? That it generates revenue? But that is also the case of other newspapers referred to in the article, like the Times of India, Hindustan Times and even, the Asian Age. This juvenile attempt at bad-mouthing the opponent should be spotted by any fair thinker.

> Was Reddy told that the Congress Party would support him
> for a Rajya Sabha seat, provided he got rid of Akbar?
> That is the speculation and it will be confirmed if
> such a scenario actually comes to pass.

No, it will not. And here our journalist reveals a complete and mind-boggling lack of logical thinking. Or is this a deliberate attempt at misleading the reader? It is a valid speculation, certainly. However, if the Congress Party does support Mr. Reddy, it may be because they believe him the right man for the job, or because he gives really good dinners, or plays the tabla with a virtuosity that would bring every khadi-wearer to tears or indeed deserves a quid pro quo for services rendered. But there is no reason to accord, on the basis of the information shared by the journalist, one of these reasons supremacy over another, as the journalist has unashamedly tried to do.

> Indian newspapers have become brands and products
>, not agents of change and enlightenment.
> This trivialisation of what is one of the
> main pillars of democracy should disturb all
> thinking Indians.

And if it does not, does it prove that the undisturbed one is not a thinking Indian? A newspaper is not end-in-itself, and this is what the journalist seems unable to grasp. Neither, and this will probably further shock the journalist, is democracy. What about television, or the Internet, or radio, or magazines - are newspapers somehow more useful to democracy than these?

And, in any case, I fail to see why a foreign-language publication should pretend to be the main pillar of Indian democracy.

The journalist may bewail the loss of the job (though the fired one, as mentioned in the article, was the owner of a significant share of a newspaper) of an ex-colleague of his father's (also mentioned in the article), but surely he will be glad that the law has been upheld, that the owner of a publication has had the right to exercise his prerogative. Or will he defend every dismissal? Or only that of journalists? Or those of journalists who were acquainted with his father?