Monday, July 19, 2010

Whatever happened to fair speech?

In a recent article in the Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Loonies-running-about-in-the-BJP-park/H1-Article1-573856.aspx), an influential Indian journalist displayed, once again, non-exemplary writing, combined with an obvious acquaintance with the language, it not with the norms of debate.

> ...it would be surprising if there were no terrorists
> at all within the (Hindu) community. In a nation of
> over a billion Hindus it is hardly cause for shock and
> horror if 0.01 per cent of the community
> turns to violence.

The consecutiveness of the two statements suggests that the journalist finds it acceptable for a community to have one terrorist for every ten thousand citizens. That equates to around ten terrorists at a large cricket stadium. How this is not cause for shock, indicates perhaps how inured the journalist is to violence. Or is this acceptable as long as the victims are other people, with journalists all dry and safe, probably because they are having a drink in the press lounge, to continue the analogy.


> Prem ("clearly a fascist of some description") got
> to be an MP twice

The "got to be" bit implies privilege. But the gentleman our journalist suggests is "clearly a fascist" was elected to Parliament by voters. Twice. Obviously, his fascism was either not as clear as suggested, or the electorate did not find it objectionable. Perhaps the journalist would that such people be not allowed to stand for election. Or that such people not be allowed to vote (that right perhaps to be given only to those who agree with the journalist). Who here is a fascist, again?


> We know that in the early days of the Sangh,
> many of its leaders supported such fascists
> as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

This appears to be a mean little propaganda trick, argument by association. Subash Chandra Bose, one of modern India's most celebrated sons, actively courted Hitler. The latter was, after all, happy to fight an Empire who had occupied the land which was the origin of the Sangh. The Sangh, which incidentally has more than a hint of nationalism in its name, was founded in 1925. Hitler was appeased, by statesmen and intellectuals around the world, before they got around to fighting him. The author does not inform us when exactly these "early days" were. Notice also that Hitler, a Nazi official of the first rank, is labelled a "fascist". The word Nazi is not, however, long neglected - in the very next sentence, however, the Sangh is advised to remove Nazis from its extended family, if it wished to discard the legacy of "those days".

> An angry mob (numbering anywhere from 500 to 4000,
> depending on whom you believe) stormed the offices

Whom should we believe? What is the choice that is ostensibly being presented to the audience? The journalist might as well have said, "a mob, armed with anything between stones and rocket launchers, depending upon whom you believe", or "numbering between eight and twenty three thousand"? Does the journalist himself or herself have a smaller range of numbers? Was this the best estimate that could be gathered? Notice that the journalist refers to police stopping the mob from entering the building - how many police personnel were on duty? Notice also that the journalist refers to video footage of the mob - was it not possible to use this footage to obtain a better estimate? Or does the journalist deliberately choose to avoid doing so?


> The basic defence (of the RSS) was that terrorist
> acts were the work of individuals and did not
> reflect on the organisation. The RSS is
> rigidly disciplined. It does not believe in violence.

Then comes the bit about the angry mob (between 500 and 4000, or perhaps even more).

> The mob shouted pro-RSS slogans and its members
> made it clear that they were protesting against
> Thursday evening’s story.

Notice that the journalist does not state that the mob was made up of (between 500 and 4000, or somewhere in that general range) RSS members.

But then comes a clear suggestion to the effect:

> If the RSS is so disciplined, then why is it
> being represented by rampaging goondas?

So was the mob an action of the RSS or not?

If not, then the journalist's self-satisfied (if only because preceded by "Oh dear, I said to myself") conclusion that the previously stated three defences of the RSS "crumbled at a stroke" may not be allowed.

If, however, the mob was directed by the RSS, then that should be grounds for a very strong legal case for the law appears to have been broken. But, if the latter, why is the journalist not clearer in his or her accusation? Why not louder? Or is it that this is conjecture on the journalist's part? Is the footage being examined by the public prosecutor's office? Is the journalist interested in that? In seeing justice done, freedom defended? Or was the article enough, an end in itself?

> Not one BJP person spoke up for freedom of the press.

This sort of statement, of course, is incredible. Did the journalist assemble all members of the BJP (or all BJP MPs? or all BJP office holders from around the country)? Give them all a chance to do so (i.e., were they aware of the context, that the freedom of the press was under threat?)?

And shameless. What about freedom of the zoo officials? And of the students? Of prostitutes, chess players, dancers, Dalits and of everyone else, especially those who are not members of the Fourth Estate, by no means diminished in power since Burke's day?

Friday, July 16, 2010

Not quite modern


An ambitious article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn (http://blog.dawn.com/2010/07/15/reform-now/) attempts to summarize recent socio-political movements and suggests the way forward for a modern state in the Islamic context.

It is surprising that none of the readers who commented pointed out the various misused words (words spelt correctly but meaningless in the context). That notwithstanding, read on for a review of some of the main points.

> This created dictatorships which were always venerable
> to becoming myopic and elitist at the first sign of economic
> and political failure.

Vulnerable, perhaps, and not venerable.

> Purpose of Islamic legislation regarding punishments
> should be to reform people and not to exact revenge.

This is an oversimplification of one of mankind's most involved philosophical questions, surely! To reform and not to exact revenge? Why not? If A kills B, and the entire population, including A & B's admirers, solemnly affirm that they won't go kill, should A be let off?

> One cannot force someone to become a believer.

But one can! Various forms of torture, propaganda and brainwashing have been developed towards this end.

The point one expects of a tolerant, modern and free thinker is that one _should_ not force anyone to become a believer.

> No religious principal should be imposed by force,
> because Islam has declared that there is no compulsion in faith.

Principle, perhaps, and not principal. Although principal too makes sense, in the case of a religious dictator thrust upon a people.

> All administrative and political matters are
> human affairs and hence, not subject to religious rules.

This statement is banal at best and a shallow trivialization, at worst. Administrative and political matters are human, but religion is not? If religious rules do not involve humans, then there would have been no need to write this article.

> Religious extremism should be condemned

Why? As long as the extremism does not harm humans, animals and the environment, why should anyone be bothered if someone refuses to eat onions, or pigs, or insists on not working on Sundays (when planned in advance). The author probably means violence caused by religious extremism.

> Jihad is a means, not an end. It does not permit self-destruction
> and it does not legitimise killing civilians.

This is dangerous and surprising in someone who ostensibly advocates tolerance, justice and peace. Back in the day, it might have been easy to distinguish between a civilian and a soldier. Given today's informal militias and involved value chains, this is no longer possible. What about a retired infantryman, or one on leave, or in a military prison; or a hospital attendant wearing a military uniform, or a nurse, or an 85-year old Field Marshal, or someone who delivers office materials to a country's army headquarters, civil servants and politicians in the War Ministry, building maintenance in a munitions' factory? "Does not legitimise killing civilians" implies that it is acceptable and legitimate to kill human beings as long as they don't fall into the category of "civilians" (and, by the way, that latter definiton will be supplied in a separate letter).


> Preachers are spiritual guides, not judges (and vice-versa).

The vice-versa bit is puzzling. What does it suggest? That spiritual guides are preachers, not judges? All? Some? That judges are neither spiritual guides not preachers?


> Islam and Islamic law should be understood and implied
> by each generation according to its own conditions.

Implemented, perhaps, and not implied.

> It (Sharia) is man-made

Of course, it is! As is every other system of law. But the author's statement (along with "We should define Islam in such a way that it does not undermine its global standing.") appears to be blasphemous (from the point of view of an orthodox Muslim) - this is curious, as most of the discussion appears to accept the existence and uniqueness of the Koranic God.

Monday, July 12, 2010

A quote to a journalist

In the opinion piece "Forgotten lessons of history" published on 21 October 2009 in the Pakistani newspaper The News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=204213),

Roedad Khan writes:

> These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them.
> But as George Bernard Shaw said:
> "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

The same author, in the same publication (27 January 2009, i.e. circa ninth months previously), had written in another opinion piece "There can't be two suns in the sky" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=159208),


> Why not learn from history?
> But as Hegel said long ago,
> "Man learns nothing from history except that man learns nothing from history."

So, our journalist, attributes the same quote (itself correct in essentials but not in details), to both Hegel and Shaw!

Incidentally, Hegel writes this:

"Man verweist Regenten, Staatsmänner, Völker vornehmlich an die Belehrung durch die Erfahrung der Geschichte. Was die Erfahrung aber und die Geschichte lehren, ist dieses, daß Völker und Regierungen niemals etwas aus der Geschichte gelernt und nach Lehren, die aus derselben zu ziehen gewesen wären, gehandelt haben." (http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=5&xid=5144&kapitel=1#gb_found)

translated as:

"Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this, - that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
(http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm#II.)

in "Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte" (Lectures on the Philosophy of History), first published in 1837.

Mr. Bernard Shaw, who, incidentally, wrote a "History of Philosophy" (getting some facts wrong, most notably those to do with Nietzsche), was born years after the publication of "Philosophy of History", in 1856.


Now, it doesn't really matter who actually spoke (or wrote) certain words, assuming that the quote is used in keeping with the norms of debate. This blog has stressed this point before, when a journalist tried to incorrectly attribute a quote to Martin Niemöller (http://orthojournalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-what-did-he-really-say-this-article.html).

So, if it doesn't matter, why are we discussing it?

Well, because, in a journalist, this sort of false attribution shows intellectual laziness in looking up a quote, checking multiple sources, examining translations, understanding the relation of the quote to its context) and, which is worse, intellectual snobbiness (appeal to reputation: look, the Right Honourable Blaise Archibald Witherladle said "Black cats might not fly", so who are we to say that they might?). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority for an example sans attempt at wit).

And this particular journalist goes to town with his / her quotes!

For example, the journalist's most recent article "Lessons from a revolution" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=249067) quotes John Adams, the Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, Frederick Douglass, some unnamed (why?) person or persons ("Asylum for mankind", "birth of a new world", "begin the world over again"), Paul Johnston, Toynbee and George Washington.

The second most recent article quotes Dostoevsky, an unnamed (why?) 19th century Russian, Lenin, Oriana Fallaci and Willy Brandt. And some unacknowledged quotes (i.e., without quotation marks around them - "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", "moment of truth" etc..

Quotations can make for interesting reading, but, improperly used, they can render a piece redundant, at best, and turn it into a travesty, at worst, becoming an attempt at displaying erudition.