Leaps in logic and hoary propaganda techniques

The Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist, now to be found on the frontlines of the Middle East, covering himself covering himself with glory, wrote this piece yesterday, titled “Unfit for Democracy” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/opinion/27kristof.html), challenging the almost-racist (according to none other than the Eton-educated Prime Minister of the UK) view that Arabs, Chinese, Africans et al (i.e. presumably anyone who has been wallowing in tyranny for a while) are unfit for democracy.

Long live freedom, but we have learnt that the ends do not necessarily justify the means and let us not let our intellectuals get away with breaking the norms of argumentation only because we live in tumultuous times.

The first line, in this article exploring readiness for democracy, is:

> Is the Arab world unready for freedom?

A lumping together of democracy and freedom, two terms that often hobnob at the watering hole but are by no means the same. Unready is a pleasant choice, though – so, top marks as far as literary style is concerned. It is generally fifty times rarer than “not ready”, if one may go by hits on google.co.uk.

But this grouping together is no slip of the pen.

> I’ve been humbled by the lionhearted men and women I’ve seen defying

> tear gas or bullets for freedom that we take for granted. How can we say

> that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?

Again, the journalist juxtaposes “freedom” and “democracy”, implying that they are the same. (boldfacing not in the original text)

Not only that, the article has numerous references to the courage of “ordinary” humans; people defying torture, the threat of rape and death etc..

> I watched a column of men and women march unarmed toward

> security forces when, a day earlier, the troops had opened fire with

> live ammunition. Anyone dare say that such people are too immature

> to handle democracy?

The virtue of courage (personal and that of a massed group) is translated, apparently, into political maturity.

Courage, we are informed by Philip Mason in his “A Matter of Honour” is always worthy of admiration, and is independent of any analysis of causes for which men suppose they are fighting for. This would mean that the courage of a mob, of a suicide bomber, of Oliver Twist and of Horatious are all good things. But courageous or not, possessed of excellent dental hygiene or not, skilled in the pleasanter arts of the Kamasutra or not – none of these things necessarily have any influence on political maturity.

These brave men and women deserve freedom, certainly. Whether or not they will want to, or can, replace tyranny with a liberal democracy (in the manner of the West, say) cannot be extrapolated from how they behaved under stress when massed together in a public square.

> I’m awed by the courage I see, and it’s condescending and foolish to suggest that people dying for democracy aren’t ready for it.

Agreed. But that does not imply that the converse is true, that people dying for democracy are ready for it.

And let us not forget that a democracy is not automatically liberal. Freedom is worth striving for; a slighter different form of bureaucracy is probably not worth dying for. So let us treat freedom and democracy as distinct terms and socio-political features, and insist upon freedom as the inalienable right of all those currently fighting against dictatorships in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Freedom equates easily into overthrowing of the current tyrant. Whether the revolution leads to greater personal liberties, perhaps via democracy, is not a logical consequence of said revolution. It may, or may not, take place. Therefore, those fighting against old tyrants and helping to bring down unjust regimes are certainly being lead by Freedom (as Delacroix so beautifully put it) but are not necessarily fighting for democracy.

The return of the Economist

A blog on the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/02/decline_pakistan) does not even make a pretence at being objective or following the rules of debate.

"So, on a first visit to Islamabad and Lahore in nearly five years, my initial response was to think how the relentless tide of such reporting obscures another truth about the country: how pleasant it can be;"

Why is the truth of Islamabad and Lahore extrapolated to the whole country?

"The economy is lurching along on IMF-provided crutches, just a few months from the next crisis. Most people also agree about some of the basic reforms needed—in particular a broadening of the tax base. But the political parties want to make sure that it is the other parties whose voters’ pockets will suffer from the broadening. So reform is deadlocked."

Ah, the ability to accurately predict economic crises. Surely our journalist is needed at our banks and financial institutions!

Incidentally, is this a vieled attack on democracy? Especially nefarious when a journalist accuses all political parties, the entire polity of a country, of being selfish and short-sighted, even to the detriment of the people who elected them. Especially without revealing any substance to the accusation and without being more specific. Especially in a country with a history of dictatorships, with limits on basic human rights following martial law. How does the journalist know this truth? People he met in Islamabad and Lahore? Why not then attribute it to a source or a study? Or assert that this is what the journalist himself or herself has thought through.

A fascinating study in modern-day colonialism

I read with increasing distaste the outpourings of the esteemed Mr. Kristof of the New York Times. He has travelled all the way to Egypt, because he scorns anyone who dares hold an opinion on a subject without physically being within a radius of (say) 3 km from the epicentre of the, er, subject. ("I also deeply believe in opinions grounded in on-the-ground reporting not just in armchair pontificating." --Mr. Kristof on his Facebook site, 05 Feb 2011) Of course, by this logic, someone who is 71 years old must have a better insight into the first world war than someone who is only 65. And someone who has never been to South Korea cannot possibly know as much about the IMF/Korean crisis of 1997 as a journalist who took a champagne-class flight to Seoul and actually spent three whole weeks in a hotel, walking and talking with the common folk, the bureaucracy and even a couple of old ladies.

Now, the latest from Mr. Kristof is a piece on Mr. Mubarak's much awaited speech where he reiterates a commitment to hand over power to the winner of free and transparent elections in September (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/the-pharaoh-refuses-to-go/).

The title itself is not a little tacky: "The Pharaoh Refuses To Go".

The Pharaoh? I can conceive of a segment of the population who think of Egypt as a quaint old land, where they haggle over the prices of carpets, where camels are traded during weddings, where it is considered unacceptable for women to have opinions and whose economy is based on tourists giving the natives baksheesh when shown around the pyramids. But surely, journalists who work at the New York Times have access to Wikipedia and probably a university education behind them?

Compare this to the Civilized World, i.e., the West. Would the obstinacy or, if one is for the President, steadfastness, of Mr. Obama on a given issue be referred to as Chief Conquering Bear digging his heels in? (Reference to Native American history, exactly as the Pharaoh is a reference to Egyptian history) Another cheap trick is to refer to Mr. Putin as a Tsar (97,100 hits on Google, as compared to 507,000 for Mubarak Pharaoh). It recalls to mind a backward Russia, say of the 19th century, and is soothing for lots of people who feel most comfortable with accounts of foreign cultures being inferior and, for good measure, godless. Pandering to the mob is often advantageous.

A form of the ad hominem attack, then, projecting the negative associations of a modern-day pharoah onto Mr. Mubarak.

> This is of course manifestly unacceptable to the Egyptian people.

Rather fetching, how Mr. Kristof feels incumbent upon himself to speak for the Egyptian people. Or does he mean the people with whom he's had an extended conversation on the current political state in Egypt? This must necessarily be a fraction of the masses of people in Tahrir Square in Cairo, which location Mr. Kristof and camera-crew grace with their presence. That, in turn, must be a fraction of the people of Egypt. The claim is manifestly incredible.

> An Arab friend of mine who has met Mubarak many, many times
> describes him as “a stubborn old man,"....

Mr. Kristof has a friend who is an Arab - this open-to-different-cultures thing must be catching on, then. Wonder if this particular friendship predates the current Egyptian crisis. Wonder if the Arab is a non-Egyptian. If a non-Egyptian, then it is akin to referring to "my Catholic White Friend" when discussing a situation in Spain, even if said CWF is from Dublin. And if an Egyptian, then interesting that his (or her) ethnicity should be insisted upon, given that the events unfolding in Egypt are primarily of a political nature.

Someone who has met Mr. Mubarak "many, many times"? Now, Mr. Kristof did not use quote marks, so the "many, many" bit is not a direct quote. And if a direct quote, the one expects an insightful journalist to post the subtle follow-up question, "Er, how many, then? Thrice, eight, eighteen times, every three months for eight years?". Especially questionable as the Arabs do have a system of numbering superior to the stereotypical troll system of "one, two, many".

Again, an ad hominem attack - a stubborn old man, a man who is ga-ga, closed to new ideas, bitter and twisted, desperately hanging on to power because it is the only aphrodisiac.

> Suleiman just spoke as well, praising Mubarak
> and asking the youth of Egypt to go home and
> stop watching satellite television. Only possible
> conclusion: he’s delusional, too.

Mr. Kristof states - with an air of utter conviction - that the President and Vice President of Egypt are both delusional. Where from comes this arrogance? Did he date *all* the girls in his high-school class? Does his gardener back in the US hold a PhD from Moscow University? Do President Obama and the Pope have him on their speed-dials? The ancient Sanskrit proverb, "Vidhya dadati Vinayam" suggests that with wisdom comes humility, so it can't be that.

> It was interesting that Mubarak tried to push
> the nationalism button and blame outside forces
> (meaning the United States) for trying to push him out.

The phrase "Push the nationalism button" appears to suggest that our writer is contemptuous of classical patriotism, as befits a thinker of our age. Yet, the writer, in previous posts has glorified
those ready to die for their country. A little opportunistic, then.

And the extrapolation from "outside forces" to "the United States" suggests that Mr. Kristof's Arab friend is Mr. Mubarak's speech writer. He had probably written "outside forces, i.e. the United States", but Mr. Mubarak didn't know what "i.e." meant, and just skipped that bit.

Long live liberty. And the respectful handling of our ideological opponents.

Pity the truth

Let us stand up for liberty, and firmly deal with brutality, that all the children of the earth may celebrate the seasons in their own proud fashions.

But the ends do not justify the means, do they? So let us not sully the truth in this fashion nor engage in artifices of cheap propaganda.

Mr. Kristof, the influential New York Times reporter posted today on his Facebook page:

"Some people don't understand why Egyptian demonstrators remain so determined to keep on protesting. Take a look at this video, apparently showing the police shooting a lone, unarmed demonstrator in cold blood. That's the kind of brutality that the protesters want uprooted from their state, and I think they have a point. Don't you?"

Let us dissect the journalist’s message here: “….apparently showing the police…..”.

Apparently? So it is not confirmed? But then, if it’s not confirmed, then surely, one may not use it to talk about the brutality of the regime?

But that is precisely what our journalist does.

“This may not be true, but if it is, it’s pretty awful. Things that are awful are, well, awful, and we really can’t tolerate them. Long live the demonstrators”

All this without clicking on the link for the video.

Let us do that now (http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2011/02/07/7525/video-egypt-police-shoot-unarmed-demonstrator-in-cold-blood/).

The text reads:

“A video from Alexandria reportedly shows Mubarak’s police force shoot an unarmed pro-democracy demonstrator in cold blood.”

Again, the key word is “reportedly”, used early on, and then quietly ignored.

“Mubarak’s police force”? A force directly under the control of Mr. Mubarak? Or is it because Mr. Mubarak is the President of Egypt and must therefore take responsibility for all actions (and inactions) of the police forces in all the towns of Egypt? If that’s the case, then it’s also Mubarak’s army which is not shooting at the protestors? And Mubarak’s hospitals which are treated the wounded?

“Pro-democracy”? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Maybe it’s someone who’s kid brother was molested by a police officer. Maybe it’s someone who has had a couple of bottles of whisky (or distilled coconut juice) and has his nerves turned into those of the Nemean lion. Maybe it’s someone who can’t stand Mr. Mubarak. Maybe it’s someone who has been brought up in a public school imagining that it is noble and glorious to die for the fatherland. Maybe it’s someone who has been threatened with violence to his lover, in case of non-compliance. Maybe it’s someone who has no prospects, but finds the notion of the cameras of the community pointed at him as he walks forward, with the chants of the crowd behind him, to be a rather engaging one.

Anyone who has attended a football match in a football loving land knows what the screams of the mob can mean, to what they can lead.

Unarmed demonstrator? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Did the young man just walk through an international airport? What does “armed” mean? Having a rifle or a pistol or, at any rate, a largish, very visible, sinister-looking knife? What about all those suicide bombers who strap things to their waists, or to their ankles? Things which go “boom”? If an Afghan-looking man walks up to a US military post in Afghanistan, with lots of people standing behind him, cheering him on, with obvious anger towards the regime to which the military openly owe allegiance, there is a good chance that the man will be shot, if he does not stop his advance towards the post, perhaps after a warning shot.

“Cold blood”? This term is also used by Mr. Kristof. How is this cold blood? In the video can be heard a lot of confused shouting and be seen a burning tire. All this in a context of violence and hatred over the past weeks, much of it directed against state actors. At what point would the policeman have fired and the shot not considered being in “cold blood”? When the lone man walks up to them within suicide bomber range? Knifing range? Throttling range?

“The video clearly shows the man shot by the police, without any violent provocation whatsoever.”

Note, of course, that the video does NOT “clearly” show police, or even people dressed up in some sort of uniform, shooting anyone. It shows people with guns, it shows a man lying on the concrete, probably shot, but not who did the shooting.

“Rights groups and anti-government activists are saying the video is now clear evidence for all the world to see that the Mubarak regime has held onto power by the use of lethal violence and totalitarian measures.”

Which rights groups, which anti-government activists? And what of us who do not see this as “clear evidence” for the 30 years of Mubarak’s regime having being one steeped in lethal violence? Are we to have the mob march against us?

“Tonight The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof reported to CNN that watchdog groups have talled at least 297 deaths so far resulting from the regime’s violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators”

So Mr. Kristof of the NYT told CNN (so he’s working for the NYT and CNN? Are they not competitors? Or do they have shared financial interests? Does not say much for an independent media, unfortunately) that certain watchdog groups (unnamed here, for reasons……for reasons not stated here) have etc.etc..

Talled? What does that mean? Noted, maybe, from the context?

297 deaths from violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators? So, in each case, they checked that the deaths were caused by the regime and that the demonstrators were unarmed? Somehow, this sort of rigorous data analysis is not something one associates with “Mr K told CNN that some unnamed groups said that…”.

And the fact that Mr. Kristof links to a page which in turn refers to Mr. Kristof suggests that the independent-lines-of-evidence paradigm is not in play here.

Freedom for all?


A stirring article titled "We are all Egyptians" by Mr. Kristof in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1) brooks closer examination. It is ostensibly about liberty, dear to all of us, but some points appear to go in the opposite direction.

> It turned out that Amr had lost his legs many
> years ago in a train accident, but he rolled his
> wheelchair into Tahrir Square to show support
> for democracy, hurling rocks back at the mobs
> that President Hosni Mubarak apparently sent to
> besiege the square.

Overcoming adversity is praiseworthy.

Hurling of rocks not so praiseworthy.

For democracy is generally good, but how, precisely, is this "for democracy"?

One assumes that by democracy, one refers to a liberal democracy, with certain fundamental rights, uniform civil law, accountability etc.

But how can we certain that Amr and the rest of the mass of people in Tahrir Square and Alexandria desire this sort of state? Is it not more a case of anger *against* something - against Mr. Mubarak, against his regime, against the last three decades - that now seeks a victim. It seeks to destroy (which may be a very good thing; valid social theory, anyway) but not necessarily to *build* liberal-democratic institutions (this is what we hope for, right?).

Or is democracy in this context just the rule of the mob?

Is the world media cheering them on merely because it's happening oh so far away anyway, and we really need something exciting. No bunch of terrorists have been blowing things up, recently,
have they now?. Except in Iraq and Pakistan but that's not *news*.

Note that the official (royal!) statement from Saudi Arabia is quite different.

"No Arab or Muslim can tolerate any meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt by those who infiltrated the people in the name of freedom of expression, exploiting it to inject their destructive hatred."

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12316019)


The Israelis aren't too keen on change either, with the possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a suspension of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the loss of the only Arab ally Israel had in the region, no more holidaying in Sinai etc..

> As I arrived near the square in the morning, I
> encountered a line of Mr. Mubarak’s goons
> carrying wooden clubs with nails embedded in them.

Well, this begs the question. How did Mr. Kristof know that the goons were the goons of Mubarak? Because he recognized them from former goon parties? Because he asked them for identification?

But the description does conjure up quite a picture - wooden clubs with nails. Sort of confirms the stereotype of a really backward country, for those who have such stereotypes about foreign places, especially in The Middle East.


> “If I die,” he added, “this is for my country.”

Oh, the old sweet-and-honourable-it-is. But that passed out of fashion during the wars of the first half of the twentieth century, did it not? The old lie, our soldier of WW1 called it. But no, here it is, resurrected, ready to claim more lives, made glorious again by no less than the New York Times.

What next?

Dying for the Word of God?

Believing in these outdated concepts is a sign of intellectual and cultural underdevelopment.
Propagating these concepts, whilst remaining safely outside the social situation, is despicable.

> There’s a small jail in Tahrir Square
> for pro-Mubarak thugs who are captured,
> and their I.D. cards indicate that many
> are working for the police or the ruling party.

Jail? Thugs? Captured? What is the nature of this jail? Is it part of a system that involves
prisoners being charged, informed about rights, not being tortured, being brought up before a
member of the judiciary, access to counsel, a fair trial etc. etc.?

Because, if it doesn't, then it's just a room with walls made of concrete where people unfortunate
enough to be in the wrong place have been brought in by the mob and will probably be attacked and murdered, if the violence in the square is anything to go by.

How do we know that they are thugs? How do we know the manner of their capture and whether it wasn't staged? The picture in the article titled "Weapons and ids taken from policemen in plain clothes" would have made Kafka proud. It displays unreadable ID cards, with a piece of paper lying next to them. On this piece of paper is written, in block letters, "These weapons and IDs were taken from police, in plain clothes, attacking protesters".

> The lion-hearted Egyptians I met on
> Tahrir Square are risking their lives to
> stand up for democracy and liberty, and
> they deserve our strongest support —and
> frankly, they should inspire us as well.

Standing up for democracy and liberty is commendable.

But here's the rub - are we sure they are standing up for liberty?

Is this liberty as it is understood in the West? Personal freedom, freedom of religion (even to be a jew or an adherent of a non-Abrahamic religion), freedom of expression (even to hold that God does not exist) etc. etc.?

Or is a limited version good enough? Say, the freedoms of Saudi Arabia?

> Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen!
> Today, we are all Egyptians!

This is beautiful and touching. And superbly colonial.

A most unwelcome brand of journalism

The Economist, in an article on Indian politics, titled "A most unwelcome tricolour" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/indian_nationalism_kashmir?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/mc/unwelcometricolour), offers an interesting insight into shabby journalism.

> ....the number of soldiers deployed in Kashmir (it is unclear how many are there in the first place, but activists tend to put the number at a gobsmacking 500,000).

This is most irresponsible. Who is an activist? Anyone who writes letters to newspapes, displaying an interest in the fate of her fellow-man? Then some letters to the editor refer to "millions of Indian soldiers" in Kashmir. I assume that there are no official "I am an activist" T-shirts handed out by the UN, so this definition is as valid as any.

In any case, is it not a journalist's job to attempt to ascertain facts? Our author does not even bother to try. No references as to who these "activists" are, and no reason as to why these particular ones are chosen. Because they were ex-Boy Scouts and crossed their fingers?

But, let us say, that the Indian Army does not feel comfortable giving details of numbers and locations of its personnel away to the public, in an area rife with militants, and with parts occupied by three countries with nuclear weapons. This would not be unusual behaviour on the Indian Army's part, one imagines.

However, the journalist can display some thinking here. How many soldiers are there in the Indian army? How many of them belong to fighting arms (infantry, artillery etc.) as opposed to the Service Corps, Medical Corps etc.? How many engagements does the army currently have - within India, and abroad (with the UN)? And India has fought wars with two of its neighbours in recent decades, and with lots of others in the centuries gone by - this tends to make for a fair case for having a large army (even if it is one which does not have a correspondingly high attack potential). Especially in a country with high unemployment. Which formations are officially located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir? Some more thinking along these lines should help with a much better figure.

Gobsmacking, the journalist calls the figure of 500,000. Even more gobsmacking is the figure of 1 billion + Indians. Ridiculously overpopulated little country, isn't it? (Ca. 9 times more than the US, adjusting for the superior size of the latter)

But a figure alone is hardly relevant. Given that China, with the world's largest army, has occupied (according to the Indians) a part of J & K. Ditto Pakistan (ditto), and this is a country with regular military dictatorships , lots of connections with Islamic terrorists, and one of the world's largest armies.


> A few nights before Republic Day, a trainload of 2,000 of the party’s activists, which had been chugging north from Karnataka state towards Kashmir, was quietly turned around by officials as it passed through Maharashtra state, and sent south again.

This does conjure up a vision of a long journey interrupted mid-way, or even, just before their final destination. Perhaps it would not have been so exciting if the author had noted that Maharashtra state _borders_ Karnataka state, and that Srinagar is around a thousand miles away.

> In 2010, stone-throwing youths launched mass protests in Srinagar, and separatist leaders called strikes, earning a violent response from ill-trained police. Over 110 Kashmiris were killed.

This is, of course, deplorable. But are the police in the rest of India better trained? We are discussing a third-world country here and to say, for example, that after 60 years of Indian democracy, poverty abounds in Kashmir (and hence imply that this form of government is not a particularly sound one), is not entirely fair - for destitution is to be found across India.

I wonder what, in the opinion of the author, will be the reaction of the police in Bihar state, if college students started throwing stones at them.

If they were really small stones, I guess it would be all right. But big ones, sharp ones, ones that can destroy the vision of a human or, indeed, kill him, must be treated as violent (the throwing of). Yet, only on one side of the equation is the world "violent" used.


> The answer—as even the most nationalist provocateur knows—is that Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslim, have long disputed India’s right to rule over the territory.

Interesting juxtaposition of "majority Muslims" and "long disputed". How long is long? 60 years? 2000 years? How ancient are the kingdoms of India? Did Islam originate in Kashmir, or was there a far older way of life there, and in India? How came it to be? Long-distance mail catalogues or ruthless warriors with pointy swords? Astonishingly, these old-fashioned arguments still hold valid - in the Holy Land, for instance, etc. etc.. But we modern ones are more concerned about whether everyone has personal liberties, irrespective of the nature and size of the state.

> But the BJP’s move looks cynical and may make it harder to avoid another round of protests and killings in 2011.

Another journalist who does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "cynical". It is not the BJP being cynical, but the author, in implying that the stated aims of the BJP are but a subterfuge, and the real purpose is something else. Political parties in democracies tend to indulge in vote-grubbing activities. This is the only way to get elected.

Another substandard internet petition page

The organization Avaaz.org calls upon good people everywhere to stop "corrective rape" in South Africa (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/).

I found the platform more interesting than the issue. The "About" page on Avaaz.org does not mention who founded it, nor where it was founded. The obligatory disclosure of financial information bit states that it is "currently" incorporated... in the state of Delaware, USA. This anonymity in an organization with not a very reassuring privacy policy is suspect. Also, the etymology is not straightforward either: "Avaaz—meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—". Which several European languages, I wonder.

And now let's examine the petition itself. It talks about a "crisis" in South Africa, yet refers to only one, single case. Anyone who signs this petition without external knowledge has not grasped the basic norms of democracy. Avaaz, in enc...ouraging such behaviour, deserves to be condemned. And the demand itself is dodgy. Criminalize hate crimes? Rape is not currently a criminal act? Given the sceptre of AIDS and the other problems that a developing country has, I imagine that this one form of hate crime might take a back seat for a while.

The case of Dr. Sen is a sad and alarming one. However, this Outlook article (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?269922) is a substandard analysis.

> The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen
> suggests India is waging war against its own people.

This appears to be hyperbole, unless by "India" is meant the Central Government of that country acting in concert with the local state government of Chhattisgarh. That would further imply that the Congress (I) (in power at the Centre, and in the Opposition in the province) and the BJP (in power in the province, and in the Opposition at the Centre) are acting in tandem.

Neither the central nor the state government, furthermore, is responsible for sentencing. That prerogative rests with the courts, from the local to the Apex.

And, of course, unless the case of Dr. Sen is shown to be typical, it has hard to see how extrapolation to the entire state machinery and the entire citizenry is a valid one.


> That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such
> immoderate punishment, when his calling is the relief
> of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints at the
> insecurity of those who know how fragile the trumpeted
> economic success of India is, how promiscuously
> distributed its rewards, and how estranged large
> segments of the population remain from the
> international hyperbole.

Excellent use of the English language, a pleasure to read. Except, of course, for the leap in logic which seems to suggest that all doctors, artists, firemen and bringers-of-food-packs-to-those-stricken-by-floods etc. are to be absolved of any crimes as long as they bring relief to those at the bottom of the pyramid, during their day jobs. Am happy to agree that there is economic inequality and varied access to education and health-care in India. That, however, in this particular context, is irrelevant. Very relevant and pressing in other contexts, of course.

> So India today is represented, not by its excluded and
> impoverished majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a
> middle class which fills the malls and hypermarkets of
> the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology
> of its own creation.

Fascinating. But, one may ask, "represented" where? In Parliament? In the Polo Club? In the slums of Calcutta? In the malls? Yes, the middle class which fills the malls is certainly represented in the malls. One wonders whether journalism ought not just to be about learning the language but also a basic grounding in the norms of debate and the basics of logical reasoning.


> It is a great pity that government should have believed
> the blandishments of all the new East
> India Companies,which have come in such smart modern
> garb, sharp suits and battalions of security personnel
> with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more
> advanced trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of
> India out of whatever they can be persuaded to part with.

This appears to have been written by an adolescent. The good-prose part of the article is over. Advanced trinkets for whatever they part with - sounds like a bargain.

> Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the
> gods, at least of imperialists who behaved like gods.

The writer appears to be unaware of the irony of writing in the language of the imperialists. Of something else too - that parliamentary democracy did not exactly thrive in India for the thousands of years before John Bull (this is presumably how the writer would describe the British, perhaps wearing fashionable sunglasses, though) showed up. And that the Indian parliament has lots of democratically elected Indians in it, empowered to change the Word of God.

A more intelligent critique of the case is to be found at http://leagueofindia.com/article/critique-raipur-session-courts-judgement-binayak-sen

Deceit in black and white

The Pakistani daily, The News, tends not to impress, as far as its quality of journalism is concerned - misleading headlines, inane opinion-pieces etc.. Here, however, is an example where the editorial had a bare-faced lie within it.

It had to do with Germany's Angela Merkel who stated, on 11 Dec 2010, that terrorism cannot be used to solve political problems.

The News, in its editorial "Merkel’s hard line" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=20331&Cat=8) reported this and offered its own interpretation.

> Now, we have Chancellor Merkel of Germany being
> uncharacteristically forthright - whilst on a
> visit to India - and saying to us that ‘...terror
> cannot be a means to solve political problems’. The
> implication, unstated but there in the subtext, is
> that we (Pakistan) are for whatever reason a state that
> sponsors or supports terrorism, and there can be no other
> interpretation of Merkel’s statement.


This logic is strange, of course, but a journalist is free to choose to propagate his or her own opinion.

And again:

> The Merkel visit to India is only tangentially
> about delivering a smack round the head to ourselves
> - what it is mostly about is trade.


Except, of course, that Angela Merkel was not in India - these remarks were made in Berlin.

Some other which confirm this are:

1. The German foreign office website announcing the Indian Prime Minister's upcoming meeting with Ms. Merkel in Berlin

http://www.new-delhi.diplo.de/Vertretung/newdelhi/en/03/News/Singh__Merkel__Meet-1.html

2. The official German website, containing the full text of Ms. Merkel's speech (in German)

http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2010/12/2010-12-11-pressestatement-merkel-singh.html

3. An Indian newspaper, The Hindu, reporting on the meeting

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/12/stories/2010121266061200.htm


This then is the quality of the editorial in The News - unfortunately, anything written with plenty of praise of the fatherland and its wronged sons and corresponding contempt for the traditional enemy will be lapped up by the masses.

The truth in the border areas

An article on the front page of the (online edition of the) Pakistani newspaper Dawn had the headline, "US drone strike kills 20 militants in North Waziristan". (http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/16/us-drone-strike-kills-seven-in-north-waziristan.html) The accompanying picture was that of a drone, not the one that apparently did the killing described in the article, but a "file photo" of some other drone. Possibly from some other conflict, in some other place. But, hey, we need a photo, any photo.

Given that drone strikes take place on an almost bi-weekly basis, they don't always make it to the top of the news stack in Pakistan. This is but natural, for if it occurs regularly, and promises to go on, then it is not always "news", and so one is forgiven for not noticing the details of the account.

But let us examine this article. The headline, alert reader, suggested that twenty militants had been killed.

The sub-headline, however, is a tad more circumspect:

> A US missile strike destroyed a home and a speeding
> vehicle carrying insurgents near the Afghan border early
> Tuesday, killing at least 20 alleged militants, Pakistani
> intelligence officials said.

So now the victims are only "alleged" to have been militants. Quite a difference, is it not, and so quite shabby journalism.


> They spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the
> policy of the intelligence agency.

This is ridiculous. The Pakistani intelligence agency has a defined policy of speaking to the press anonymously? If a prosperous liberal democracy is what the press is aiming for, then this state of affairs deserves more attention and debate than a drone strike. Again, journalism fails to meet its brief.


Note also that the US military does not confirm drone attacks. This bit is not stated anywhere in the article, yet the attack is clearly labelled as originating from a drone and attributed to the US. Where from this insight? The anonymous officials at the intelligence agency? What is the name of this agency? The article does not name the journalist who wrote this story. The only attribution is "Agencies". Which agencies? For-profit press agencies? Ostensibly not-for-profit government agencies?


> The identity of the dead was not known, and agents were trying
> to get more details, said the officials.

The identity was not known - but the dead were militants, at least alleged militants? Is the contradiction not visible to the journalist who wrote this?

Hope for improved journalism

A recent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11kristof.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211), excellent in its portrayal of hope, by Mr. Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, described the success of private schooling in Pakistan.

This blog, however, is more interested in the rules of logic and debate, rather than the nature of opinons expressed, and even this positive article appeared to have some flaws.

> One reason Pakistan is sometimes called the most dangerous country in the world is this:
> a kindergarten child in this country has only a 1 percent chance of reaching the 12th grade
> , according to the Pakistan Education Task Force, an official panel.


This appears to be misleading. A country is "dangerous" only if the growing child is killed, enslaved, starved etc. - if the child's guardians opt to remove her or him from the formal education system (for social, economic, religious, political, gender-based etc., i.e., self-willed reasons - many of which are commonplace in Pakistani/Eastern society), then the country is scarcely dangerous. The implication of the author's statistic is that children die (because of landmines, virulent outbreaks of communicable disease or terrorist attacks?) before they reach the age of around seventeen.


> We’ve propped up generals but not the lawyers’ movement for democracy.

Suggestive juxtaposition, as if the one involves violent generalissimos (the choice of word if one wishes to be disparaging), unloved of the people, and the other has to do with erudite and composed, except when called to the fore, gentlemen. The Pakistani army has often been disrespectful of its people, but this does not seem to be resented by most, curiously enough. Indeed, some non-staged dancing in the streets seems to have greeted every military usurpation of power. The agitation called the "Lawyers' Movement" also involved, especially in its extensions, bits that were brutal and undemocratic (i.e. without any respect for debate and consensus building).

> They (the Pak. middle class, members of) are enraged at the terrorists who have been
> tearing apart their country, they’re appalled by corruption and illiteracy, and they want
> peace so that their children can become educated and live a better life. Their obsession
> is college, not Kashmir.

Much of English language print media and Urdu language electronic media appear to contradict this. "This" appears to be reasonable and straightforward, indeed a banality ("Of course, one choses a loaf of bread to a Kalashnikov!") - but, as with all things cultural, it is obvious only given a certain cultural prejudice. If one truly (madly?) believed in a certain religion then the destruction of certain edifices (held by some to be valuable) or the killing of people (held by some to obstruct the march of righteousness on this planet) is perfectly justified. Most members of the middle class, if one is to believe the talk-show hosts and the journalists, do appear to be obsessed with Kashmir - but even more so with national politics (i.e. President Zardari, mostly), religion (i.e. Islam), geopolitics (i.e. the oppressed Islamic communities in Palestine and within the West; US dependence upon Pakistan), governance theories (i.e. should the Army take over power again; when? etc.) and cricket (i.e. the conspiracies to discredit the national team, with allegations of match-fixing, death threats etc.).

> So Zahida is now is a star in the 11th grade — speaking to me comfortably in English.

This bit was obviously not proofread by Zahida, who would probably have removed one of the instances of the word "is" from the sentence.

Hidden poets at the Economist

Well, lovers of poetry, anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have managed the Brooke reference in the title "Some corner of a foreign field" in this article (http://www.economist.com/node/17312300?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/foreignfield). Unfortunately, these educated ones appear to be rather nasty.

> Like many Anglo-Indians, members of a Eurasian community
> spawned during the Raj,

Spawned? Thank you, dear Economist, for reminding us that we are discussing half-castes here and not real human beings.

(In case anyone misses the point, most dictionaries note that the usage of "spawn" in this context is derogatory and contemptuous)

Orcs, for instance, are spawned.

> The Anglo-Indian population fell from perhaps 500,000 in 1947
> to fewer than 150,000 today.

This is fascinating. "Perhaps 500,000"? What are the author's reasons for quoting this figure? May we take it as being close to 500,000? Why not "circa 500,000", then? Or is it a number that the author decided as being probable? Not that the author favours us with a source for the "fewer than 150,000 today" figure either. This sort of of shoddy homework ought to be unacceptable in a professional journalist. Of course, perhaps the professional journalist was too busy looking up the Brooke reference (Paraphrased - If I should fall, Think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field, That is for ever England) and got the security desk to write the rest of the article.


> Yet many are also thriving, thanks to rising demand
> for Anglophones from India’s booming services firms.

This is plainly misleading. All Anglo-Indians might well be Anglophones, but not all Anglophones must speak excellent English (indeed, not even all of those brought up speaking no language other than English speak it very well), and, in any case, there are plenty of non-Anglo-Indians in India who speak English (and who may or may not be Anglophones). Indeed, post-colonial, post-market-reform India is more pro-American than Anglophone.

On Poles and Lithuanians

Yet another shoddy, arrogant article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/10/poland_and_lithuania&fsrc=nwl) appeared in the incorrectly defined Eastern approaches secton of the Economist.

> This has the potential to be a really nasty and
> damaging row, not least because it will make all
> the post-communist countries look like petty-minded nitwits.

Indeed? *All* post-communist countries? Like the erstwhile DDR (East Germany)? A more reasonable point of view is that the above assertion makes the writer of the Economist article look like an arrogant megalomaniac, petty-minded at that.

> (NB to Lithuanian MFA: please use spellcheck)

This is a little ironic. The first sentence of this Economist article is grammatically incorrect. "print edition carries a short sharp take on the " - comma missing between short and sharp. The second sentence uses the abbreviations for "et cetera" and "id est" without the required periods, i.e. as "ie" and not "i.e.", etc..


> As someone who knows and likes both countries
> (and as one of a handful of western observers with
> a working grasp of both languages) I find all this depressing.

This would evoke ridicule if it were not slighty pitiful. "Western"? Where is the author from? Portugal? Eileen Limerick O'Reilly from Ireland? Are there any Africans, Chinese or Mexicans who happen to speak both languages? None such? What of Russians, Poles or Lithuanians who speak both languages, along with English, and have lived in a city in the blessed West? Would their opinion as "observers" (of man? of our times?) count? What is a "working grasp"? Enough to write semi-literate articles in the equivalents of the Economist in Poland and Lithuania? Or enough to thank Svetlana for her services and to condescendingly instruct a waiter to keep the change, whilst tipping much more than what the natives would?

One regrets, and one is probably joined by all Poles, that our writer is subject to this bout of depression. Incidentally, that's not the only insight into his or her mental state that the author allows us ("I have a gloomy feeling that we may be heading for something similar"). Depression and gloom. Perhaps the Economist ought to organize neck-massage teams in their work-places. And some vodka. Ah, no, that's the stuff people in the East drink. Not for us Westerners, thank you very much.


> Both sides prefer myths to facts.

And the West (not to mention the Chinese, the Indians and the rest of mankind, throughout all ages) does not? All humans work with and revere myths. The author ought to stay away from metaphysics (the nature of truth). Especially when (see above) in his or her current state of mind.

> The issue is ripe for outside mediation.

Outside? Perhaps the author means "Western"? Or is the rest of humanity now allowed in too? Shall we let the Africans have a go?

Journalism and instant soup

The Economist carried an article titled "Islam-baiting in America" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/jihad_and_soup)

> There is now a ludicrous and hateful campaign to boycott
> Campbell's for having the temerity to issue a halal line of soups.

> As for the tea-party movement, with its supposed veneration
> for the values entrenched in the constitution........

The cheap-appeal-to-patriotism "values entrenched in the constitution" argument is absurd - the campaigners are boycotting, and not burning cars or killing people (which response is not entirely unknown in certain parts of the world.......). Entirely constitutional, and in the best traditions of free speech. This writer needs to get over labelling as ludicrous, hateful, infantile and shaming opinions that differ from his or her own. Or should we all have one single Economist-approved opinion, one political stance, one can of Campbell's a day?

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?

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.

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.