In which I reply in kind to the touching love letter I’ve received, which was triggered by the Economist post of mine. Joy.
16 November, 2007
Bangalore
My Dearest Never Mind,
I’m well, thank you.
I’m glad you appreciate my excellent job, and I heartily accept your congratulations. It is readers like you who fuel my blog.
I applaud the time you have taken out to list your favourite sections of my thoroughly enjoyable post. You’ll spoil me with such superlatives. Now, let me partake in your joy.
1. Where you cite an earlier point-of-view post by yourself (rich in opinion and erm…, a bit sparse in facts): I see you haven’t fully read the cited earlier, what you term POV. It was supported by facts. Example from that post:
Economist saith: According to a survey in early September by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, the UPA would increase its seats from the 222 it won in May 2004 to 267. Meanwhile, the BJP-led coalition, the National Democratic Alliance, would win 133 seats, compared to 189 in 2004. The Left parties’ number of seats in the national parliament would fall to,down from 59.
I reply: …the Economist relies on questionable opinion poll data that have a notorious record for being wrong 99% of the time.
Just to clarify your understanding about the scene in India, every media house/public and/or private organization conducts these polls routinely and write editorials/articles based on these polls. You might want to begin with Outlook’s pre-poll surveys and compare them with what happened thereafter. One sentence springs to mind: change those lenses before they cause irreparable colour blindness.
2. I’m glad you value my clever use of English. But let’s see how you got to that conclusion. Since you say it, let me replace Sometimes and borders on being incorrect with your suggestions…wait, on second thoughts, Mostly and factually incorrect are totally apt for the Economist’s India section. Of course, I need to return your love for facts. This factual article on Indian political forces says:
A member of the RSS assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, and the group is seen by its critics as sinister and anti-Muslim.
Nathuram Godse assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, a fact that you probably know. Now, Godse was not a member of the RSS when he assassinated Gandhi. He quit the RSS in 1932, a full 16 years prior to the assassination. Can we now term that Economist piece as factually incorrect? Another example, which qualifies for–since you love word play sooo much–omission.
In the India-controlled half, some 80,000 people have died as a result of a long-running insurgency.
Like you, the Economist is fond of word play. Terrorism becomes insurgency. Second, the magazine does not mention the systematic killing and driving-out of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir. Another sentence springs to mind: trying to look for twists on a straight road makes one’s head spin.
3. Now, I’m returning your love in kind and I don’t want to be rude. Much as I hate to say this, you’ve exposed your ignorance about Nehru. Quick recap about Nehru’s achievements since he took over power. A staunch defender of democracy, he had no qualms of dismissing a democratically-elected government in Kerala. A visionary statesman, he authored the singular Himalyan blunder. His economic policies shackled the country for four decades. The said links and articles and blogs by sociologists and historians elaborate on these precise points supported by your favourite: facts.
Now I felt bad writing this: so I’ll help you with finding facts that lend credibility to what those authors and I have said: on the China blunder, you might want to read the Himalayan Blunder. On the legacy of his economic policies, read India Unbound. On his cluelessness about Indian heritage, read his own admission in Discovery of India.
Or maybe we’ll just have to accept your word for it. And that word is of course scientifically valid and reliable, unlike that of the Economist. Absolutely. I’m glad you woke up to the fact at #3. But if that was your attempt at sarcasm, maybe you want to read Mcflecknoe to brush up your skills.
4. So far, so good. Point taken. Thank you. Now, I’m honoured. But you must really take it slow on comprehension. Let me explain the meaning of each sentence of what Nitin said.
It’s surprising how many things The Economist’s correspondent doesn’t know and yet goes on to make rather bold conclusions.
Meaning: The Economist’s correspondent makes bold conclusions based on incomplete information and/or ignorance. Ties in well with what I said in my own piece, at the beginning, doesn’t it?
Despite the near certainty of local Muslims being involved in the blasts,
Meaning: Local Muslims=Muslims based in Hyderabad, where the blasts occurred.
[Part 2 of the previous sentence] to extend this and suggest that India’s or even Hyderabad’s Muslims “probably” played a “supporting role” is absurd”.
Meaning: Hyderabadi Muslims had a role in these blasts. But the Economist article adds an element of suspicion–conveyed by the word, probably–which is what Nitin finds an issue with. In other words, the Economist does give room for absolving the role of Hyderabadi Muslims in the blasts.
Semantics over. Let’s see how I "had to go on."
It makes little difference where Indian Muslims have been indoctrinated: whether within India (within, Hyderabad if you will) or in Pakistan/Bangladesh/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan. The point is they carried out terror attacks because somebody convinced them that they have to wage Jihad against India. And the more crucial point is these Indians waged war against their own country. Does that makes sense?
One last sentence: do not confuse the parts of your anatomy.
Now, I could work my way down your post systematically, but life is short, you see.
If you have gotten this far, you should have gone that extra mile. I always need all the love I can get.
…the next time you undertake a so called ‘factual critique’, I suggest filling the first floor with some furniture.
Like I said above, you really need to remove those glasses and look around to see all the furniture you want.
And hope that some bored scientist (of the qualified variety) doesn’t stumble on your post.
Ah, Scientific love! I like that. I’ve had a brief visit in the past.
While we are on validity and reliability, please do read up something equally valid and reliable on India.
Thanks.
Yours seriously,
Sandeep.
12 Comments
Was this really needed? You, Sandeep, committed the ultimate sin of violating, what seem to be, Mr. Nevermind’s inviolable commandments, namely:
Thou shall not quote yourself — even at the expense of redundancy.
Thou shall not quote NewYork Sun because it is associated with the reviled capitalist Conrad Black, hence guilty by association, and worth of disrepute, as is generally accepted, among those considered honorable by Mr. Nm
Thou shall not quote Rajeev because, again, Mr. Nm doesn’t approve him .
Thus poor Sandeep restricted himself to only three sources (we conveniently disregard Himalayan Blunder by certain John Dalvi) while Mr. Nm, “reliably” and “validly” (certified by his “qualified scientific” pedigree no less) circled around his own.
Several words, rather fruits, come to my mind too. Notably: Apples, Oranges, and sour Grapes. But…..nevermind.
Hehehe…good one Sandeep.
It’s a good sign when jiahdi supporters respond to your posts. Signs that your posts make them squirm in their pants..or should i say “RED” chaddis…
lol..
nevermind…
One word comes to mind for nevermind.
Never mind
LOL
And I forget
Just what it takes
And yet I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard
Its hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind
….
Here we are now
Entertain us
- Nirvana (track - Smells like teen spirit, fromNeverMind
)
I do agree with NeverMind overall. Bias is most effectively established by showing that its conclusions run contrary to facts. Sandeep countered one set of opinions, the prejudiced and even imbecilic ones — the one on “Vedatna Hindus” being supporters of Congress justifies relabeling the mag as The Jerkonomist — with another set of opinions. This may at best be a valid critique of bias, but does not amount to an “expose” of it.
Having said that, I must say that NeverMind is not doing all that bad in the pot-and-kettle department either. Given the sniggering tone of his references to The New York Sun and Rajeev Srinivasan, I’d expect that he/she is particularly scrupulous in his choice of sources
of information. But alas that inference seems to be ill-founded. You’ll find listed, on his blog, a few newspapers that he presumably likes and recommends; all of them of left-wing persuasion. Included among them is Comrade N Ram’s The Hindu, right now busy erecting a smokescreen on the massacres at Nandigram; rationalizing the killings by left-wing goons when not pretending that these massacres did not happen.
I see much has been ado in my absence apropos your earlier post. An informed response is what I had expected. But, oh, never mind.
The small stuff first.
@ socal: I believe the currently appropriate adjective for Conrad Black is ‘convicted felon’. Rather than ‘capitalist’.
Now, @sandeep:
1) The howler next (in the interest of science).
‘questionable opinion poll data that has a record of being wrong 99% of the time’.
99%!!
For the sake of argument, let’s forget the fact that you have absolutely no valid citation for this figure apart from your own bold assertion that It Is So.
Even if some delirious scientist does that, the figure betrays a breathtaking ignorance of the basic principles of statistics. Cross-sectional survey instruments (and particularly those used by bodies as scientifically credible as CSDS, ISI, CDE etc.) are piloted and validated w. r . to minimizing bias, skew, deviation, end aversion, representative sampling etc. before they are used on the field. They are usually standardized as to get rates with 95 % confidence intervals. This doesn’t mean that they don’t generate errors, but an error in excess of say, 50 % (and I am being very kind here) is a statistical impossibility. That’s science, kiddo, whether you like it or not.
But then you wouldn’t know any of the above, since all of it is obviously Greek to you. And the august CSDS is just ‘an organization’. Unlike Mr. Seriously 99%.
2) Now, let’s move onto your tentatively revised assertion that the Economist is ‘mostly factually incorrect’. You quote ONE partial Nathuram Godse error to ‘prove’ this ‘general factual incorrectness’. Never mind the fact that Godse was a past member of the RSS, current member of the Hindu Mahasabha and protege of the poster-boy of the RSS- Savarkar. But yes, it is a partial error, notwithstanding the broad consensus that Godse was a representative of the Hindu fundamentalist right, whatever its specific name.
As for your assertion that the Kashmiri militants should be called ‘terrorists’, that, you realize, is merely representative of your particular perspective. It is reasonable to assume that many of the people of Kashmir (they live there, after all, unlike you) would prefer ‘freedom fighters’ (the ‘emic’ perspective) to ‘terrorism’. In fact, unfortunately for strategically minded Indians and ‘Hindutva’ minded (like yourself) Indians, they do, as I (having worked among them and drunk their tea) can testify. In a rational debate, surely the perspective of the people at the centre of things is at least as relevant that someone sitting in front of a PC a few thousand miles away. The Economist, as impartial as a journal as it should be, calls it neither ‘terrorism’ nor ‘freedom struggle’; it chooses the neutral ‘insurgency’ (the ‘etic’ perspective). But by your coin, the Afrikaaners would have been completely right in their assertion that Mandela was a ‘terrorist’ rather than a freedom fighter, and the Brits that the First War of Independence a ‘mutiny’ rather than a freedom struggle. But, oh, never mind.
And completely contrary to your ignorant (or blinkered) assertion, the Economist has repeatedly drawn attention to the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits e.g. in its February 2004 Special Report of Kashmir. But, the tinted glasses, of course, belong on my nose. I rather like them, you know, tinted glasses, especially while riding. Particularly roughshod.
3) Regarding Nehru and ‘India Unbound’ ….., oh never mind, you’ve fallen out of love with Gurcharan Singh, haven’t you? Tsk tsk. A careful reading of his book and subsequent interviews (where he quotes Tocqueville on commerce to clarify his particular position) would reveal that he is open about the fact that the book is merely his perspective as a businessman and entrepreneur. And that he specifically credits Nehru for establishing democracy and good governance. He makes no claims to be a historical/economic/political/social scientist. And, btw, his chapters on caste and modernity makes it clear what he thinks of the BJP. Read up.
For scientific disciplinary perspectives on Nehru, democracy, governance, defence and the Mahalanobis model, read Khilnani’s ‘Idea of India’ (the socio-political perspective), the interviews with I. G. Patel, J. Bhagwati, A.N. Khusro etc. in V.N Balasubramanyam’s ‘Conversations with Indian Economists’, Edward Luce’s (another economist, btw) ‘In spite of the Gods’ and R. Guha’s magisterial ‘India after Gandhi’ (the social historian’s perspective).
So here’s your reading list-
High School statistics
Emic and Etic research, and the concept of neutrality in the social sciences
The differences between mere opinion, polemic, and research evidence.
And there’s a reason while Ben Bernanke unveils his latest policy decisions at academic gatherings rather than the Association of Outer Ring Road bloggers. They do science, you see. 99% of the time.
Seriously. But like I said, never mind.
I guess, my post should belong in this thread.
Sandeep - Please delete my post from “Praful Bidwai on Nandigram”
Nevermind;
“But by your coin, the Afrikaaners would have been completely right in their assertion that Mandela was a ‘terrorist’ rather than a freedom fighter, and the Brits that the First War of Independence a ‘mutiny’ rather than a freedom struggle. But, oh, never mind.”
- These analogies are problematic, I feel. Would you explain please?
On Godse, you are more correct but not entirely. He was a past member of the RSS…AND fell out with it. He found Savarkar to be more suited to his temperment. In fact, the RSS and Savarkar did not get along well at all. These are all documented facts.
That the RSS “accepted” Savarkar later on…without really accepting him, is another story alltogether. However, that still does not prove Godse was intellectual kin to the RSS…much less, the RSS was his sponsor.
Thank you.
Nevermind:
I do agree with most of what you said, but did you really mean to say that all Kasmiri militant groups (supported by Pak) are ‘freedom fighters’? I can understand the common man’s (in Kashmir) take on freedom for Kashmir, but can never agree with groups like JeM being ‘freedom fighters’. They are as bad to this country as the Hindutva terrorist organizations that you mentioned over here.
>>For scientific disciplinary perspectives..
How are these “scientific”?
Once upon a time there was this school of thought that claimed that Marxism was “scientific”. It now remains abandoned, of course, by all but the most superstitious of Marxist fundamentalists. I hope that’s not where we’re coming from.
I know for certain that this Edward Luce guy cannot have a scientific bent of mind. When, a few years ago, a UK-based Marxist-Islamist alliance called “Awaaz” tried to raise a stink against Hindu charities, Luce was one of the resources they tapped into. He did a neat hatchet job on
the said charities in Financial Times, and succeeded in forcing a government probe of the charities. He carefully avoided reporting the probe result though, because it debunked his wild conspiracy theories. Ergo, there is reason to believe that he is as well-versed in science
as bushmen are in Shakespeare.
Jo - “Hindutva terrorist organizations”
- I get kicked around a lot because of my rather tough take on H-Vadi orgs…but I still cannot reconcile with what you stated above. Can you explain further..and maybe, convince “me”?
To me, the folks at Bajrang Dal/RSS/VHP are the same as any other terrorist groups, hence that line. The recent reason being the Tehelka sting. (I know I will get kicked around for this).
Jo,
Are you labelling a couple of organizations as terrorist organizations based on a sting when gujrat polls are around the corner by tehelka (whose credentials in reporting un-biased news and their political affiliations are well known )? I would prefer empirical evidence over that, but then.. following that logic, we will end up calling vatican and its sister organizations terrorist organizations..