Praful Bidwai pitches in with lots of acid against Buddhadeb and Left goons in this interesting center-page article in the Slimes. Whereas his criticism of the Left is blistering, his article as a whole is immeasurably clever. Offstumped digs up a similar (earlier) denouncement from Bidwai and correctly observes that the criticism is
…a masterpiece in the art of political correctness. With carefully crafted language that distinguishes the “benign leadership”from the “anti-social cadre”, the letter strangely demands neither penal action nor judicial accountability. In fact it completely glosses over justice to the people of Nandigram while rapping the CPI-M on its knuckles with a school head-masterly reprimand that this should not be repeated.
In the Slimes article, Bidwai betters his previous performance. He is upset that Nandigram has become the only black spot in the Indian Left’s unblemished political record.
The latest episode represents one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Indian Left. It has tarnished the Left’s, particularly the CPM’s, image as one of the few principled components of our political spectrum guided by an ideology and programme, which upholds constitutional values, public decency, and negotiated resolution of conflicts, represents the poor, and is an asset to democracy.
Bidwai’s genius glitters us blind. The Mitrokhin Archives alone should suffice to set the Left’s record right. Just to add a little "balance," Bidwai alerts us–warns the CPM actually–to other dangers:
Any defence of such actions greatly weakens the liberal-secular-democratic argument against the communal Right, articulated ably by the Left too, that interference by political parties and their affiliates (e.g. the RSS)…
The brand of secularist democracy Bidwai espouses has been ripped by the CPM goons when they targetted Muslims. So there’s nothing really, left to defend this brand. These are mere specifics of Bidwai’s stock-in-trade arguments amounting to nothing.
What is really wrong about this article is that it adds a but after condemning evil.
Tags: Commentary, General, Indian Politics, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, War on Communism, Weblogs
On 11.21.07 nevermind says:
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.
On 11.21.07 Palahalli says:
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.
On 11.21.07 Eye For India says:
Now we know how the left has been winning elections all these years. Hopefully, their party will be over soon.
On 11.21.07 Kumar says:
Maybe Economist could in future label Mohd. Atta, Osama, Zawahiri et al as ‘rebels’, ‘disenchnated citizens’, ‘misguided youths’ etc too. Isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Or was it the other way around?
But by your coin, the Afrikaaners would have been completely right in their assertion that Mandela was a ‘terrorist’ rather than a freedom fighter
Better analogy would be Brits perception of Mahatma Gandhi as a terrorist.
They do science, you see. 99% of the time.
Yeah..the new transparency announced last week will helps up evaluate it, wouldn’t it? Wonder why for over 50 years they felt a need to keep the “science” all hush-hush.
Never mind the fact that Godse was a past member of the RSS, current member of the Hindu Mahasabha
Godse was member of INC too. Nevermind.
Current member of Hindu Mahasabha!!! Current?? Neither Godse is current nor is Hindu Mahasabha. Nevermind.
R. Guha’s magisterial ‘India after Gandhi’ (the social historian’s perspective).
Err… Guha and historian. Nevermind. Though it’s good to see where your idealogical anchors are moored.
Question: Does ‘nevermind’ mean person with no mind?
On 11.21.07 Anonymous says:
This is the list of holidays the Indian consulate in Chicago observes
http://chicago.indianconsulate.com/Countime.htm
I presume these are national holidays too.
There are 2 “Hindu” holidays and 4 “Muslim” national holidays.
So much for “muslims having first right to resources”. Never knew this included major chunk of public holidays as well…
On 11.22.07 socal says:
@nevermind:
Informed and a rather candid corrective is what I was hoping for; a corrective to your intial ad hominem that is. Though I am not surprised that you are still hung up on “small things.” Nevermind of course.
Looking at smaller of the small things, Conrad Black is found guilty alright but not sentenced yet, rendering the conviction incomplete as of yet. The choicest adjectives will have to wait tell early next month, apparently, when he will be sentenced.
Any way, the issue was whether Conrad Black’s association is enough to discredit any and everything of the newspapers that he was part of. But I guess you insist on mass indictment, which doesn’t jive with the laurels lent to Nehru later. NYSun is a highbrow newspaper, nothing close to the schmaltzy tabloids published by Zuckerman and Murdoch. It seems to me that its centre-right position is the only criterion that has warranted its dismissal as serious paper. If so I have no complaints, but do insist that that is a formulation that serious people can disagree upon.
Regarding the opinion polls and Kashmiri terrorists: The opinion polls are wrong most of the time, something widely observed in regard to Indian polls atleast. And borrowing the marketing jargon is hardly going to correct the perception that is as close to reality as it can get. Ask 10 people around you and confirm it rather than arguing for the sake of it. There’s a reason we find the likes of Yogendra Yadav hard at spin every so often. You might console by getting hung up on the 99% figure, but then perception is reality; and one might as well accept it.
Now, the so-called militants have been butchering innocent unarmed civilians with sophisticated weapons. Is that not an effort to influence public policy through terrorizing unarmed populace? Should that not incur the terrorist label then? If not that what else do they need to do?
Though I didn’t have the luxury of sipping tea with the dozen or so Kashmiris that I know, my experience differs from yours in that not one of that motley crew calls these people terrorists. But since that’s not large enough a sample I would refrain from judging the Kashmiris largely. Anyway, proof lies in the pudding. For all their faith in Kashmiriyat, how many secularists would advocate a plebiscite there? That in itself tells on the militant-terrorist dichotomy in the so-called “emic” mind, except that a significant portion of those emics are now etics languising in dilapitated camps outside New Delhi.
I won’t add to the questions already raised about your incorrect assertions regarding Godse and Savarkar except mention that Savarkar was not religious - he advocated meat eating, shunning cow worship etc, and RSS, chiefly Hedgewar and later Golwalkar, differed with him. Savarkar was hardly a poster-boy of RSS; in fact he was anything but.
Nehru was close pals with dictators like Tito and Nasser. His singular contribution to democracy can also be witnessed by the feudalistic dynasty that still reigns supreme over his party. For all his democratic protestations Nehru died a sorry dictator, humiliated by “Our Chairman” no less. Of course such indictment won’t be enough unlike the case of Conrad Black rubbing on NY Sun.
Lastly, as impressive as is the furnished list of authors(missed poor Amartya?), they remain a pint-size group of fellow travellers, with a concurrent perspective. You might as well quote the court historians, Schlesinger, Bugliosi and Galbraith (economist), on the dark side of Camelot. Guha, btw, is environmental scientist by training (check his published books: Environmentalism, Varities of Envi., Ecology and Equity, to name a few) and not a social scientist. He has also been called, separately, a court historian and a cricket historian( by Arundhati and Dalrymple I guess).
I hope to see more substance and less verbal firework. For the sake of tautology: Nevermind.
On 11.22.07 kaangeya says:
Sandeep,
Firstly to clear away some nonsense
…they do, as I (having worked among them and drunk their tea) can testify/ never mind looks like you have licked their boots as well. Grow a spine.
Now about Prafool the profound fool. He’s a Trotskyite, so strictly speaking, he is against the Indian fifth columnists - aka the commie crook groups or chinichaddis. This gos back to the early post-Leninist tussle between Trotsky and Stalin - actually a power struggle. Stalin it is said wanted to establish socialism in one country while Trotsky wanted to remain true to the cause of communism - total global revolution. This is all moonshine, because it is nothing but a way to apply a veneer to violent, thuggish, idealistic, autocracy. Think Reign of Terror (Robespierre), and Caliphatism, Martin Lutherism, Maosim, Nazism, etc. It is all the same. But Prafool finds something to identify with in the Indian commie crooks’ ideology - which rejects Indian national interest (in favor of Chinese/world social interest) and that is to his liking.
Fascism is, though odious, a different creature from Nazism. It has to do with ordered imposition of revolutionary change, and draws much from methods of Ancient pre-Cesar Rome. Nazism is Hitler’s gloss on Fascism. Commies hate to use the word Nazism, because, as you rightly guessed, it is a shortened form of National Socialism. And you can’t possibly criticise Socialism. Can you? The world has generally been tolerant of Fascism. Franco around the end of 2nd WW adroitly repackaged himself into an anti-communist leader (much as Hitler had done some years earlier) and lived in peace (sheltering Nazis) for decades. Our commie crooks too don’t mind fascism - see how eager hacks like Sid Varadarajan, and Sukumar Muralidharan are, to lick the boots of a fascist thug like Hugo Chavez.
The Western liberal/leftconservative/right spectrum is not the right way to analyse any polity outside the West.
On 11.22.07 kaangeya says:
sandeep,
I am reposting this
Firstly to clear away some nonsense from no mind - OK never mind
…they do, as I (having worked among them and drunk their tea) can testify/ never mind looks like you have licked their boots as well. Grow a spine.
Now about Prafool the profound fool.
He’s a Trotskyite, so strictly speaking, he is against the Indian fifth columnists - aka the commie crook groups or chinichaddis. This gos back to the early post-Leninist tussle between Trotsky and Stalin - actually a power struggle. Stalin it is said wanted to establish socialism in one country while Trotsky wanted to remain true to the cause of communism - total global revolution. This is all moonshine, because it is nothing but a way to apply a veneer to violent, thuggish, idealistic, autocracy. Think Reign of Terror (Robespierre), and Caliphatism, Martin Lutherism, Maosim, Nazism, etc. It is all the same. But Prafool finds something to identify with in the Indian commie crooks’ ideology - which rejects Indian national interest (in favor of Chinese/world social interest) and that is to his liking.
Fascism is, though odious, a different creature from Nazism. It has to do with ordered imposition of revolutionary change, and draws much from methods of Ancient pre-Cesar Rome. Nazism is Hitler’s gloss on Fascism. Commies hate to use the word Nazism, because, as you rightly guessed, it is a shortened form of National Socialism. And you can’t possibly criticise Socialism. Can you? The world has generally been tolerant of Fascism. Franco around the end of 2nd WW adroitly repackaged himself into an anti-communist leader (much as Hitler had done some years earlier) and lived in peace (sheltering Nazis) for decades. Our commie crooks too don’t mind fascism - see how eager hacks like Sid Varadarajan, and Sukumar Muralidharan are, to lick the boots of a fascist thug like Hugo Chavez.
The Western liberal/leftconservative/right spectrum is not the right way to analyse any polity outside the West.
On 11.23.07 Archee says:
Good point kaangeya.
Indian psecs support Chavez because they simply follow the trends fashionable in the left-liberal circles of the West. They are not capable of independent thought. Since Chavez the “da man” of the moment for the western left-libs, they are following their masters and cheering him on.
On 11.23.07 Archee says:
[i]
to minimizing bias, [b]skew[/b],
[/i]
Minimizing skew (I assume you mean skewnes), that is interesting. How do they do that, minimize the skew?
On 11.23.07 Chakravarty says:
[i]
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.
[/i]
Dear Bimbo: As an alumni of the noble institute, I humbly request you not to take the name of ISI in the same breath as that of trash institutions like the CSDS. ISI is a great place, it is where the genius of R.C Bose and C.R. Rao and D. Basu flourished, while CSDS is a sty where idiots like Yogendra Yadav are parked. I am sure you will agree that hard sciences should never be equated with glorified pseudo science aka soft sciences aka social studies, political (ha ha) “science”
Yogendra BS Yadav has 0 background in statistics, his knowledge of survey sampling is 0, he just talks general bullcrap.