- 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”?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

….

Here we are now
Entertain us

- Nirvana (track - Smells like teen spirit, fromNeverMind )

LOL