The biased truth

Is a biased collection of statements necessarily untruthful?

Deliberate hiding of facts to present only one part of the story, only half-truth, is bias. It is this bias that I refer to when I talked of articles on Wikipedia.

An unbiased article should attempt to prevent and unprejudiced consideration of a question.

Consider the three paragraphs on Gujarat violence here.

The first paragraph says :

"In February 2002, when Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, violence broke out across the state claiming around a thousand lives. While some consider the violence to have been sporadic communal riots, others allege that the violence was directed against Muslim communities. An official estimate states that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed, with 223 more missing.[5] The riots followed the Godhra Train Burning incident, where 58 Hindus were burnt alive on a train carriage, which was believed to have been set on fire by a Muslim mob[6][7]. A panel set up two and a half years after the incident claimed that the train burning was an accident. However, the panel was declared illegal by the Gujarat High Court[8][9][10]."


What do you infer?

1) It is not necessarily true that there was violence directed against the muslims after the Godhra train burning incident.

2) A central question is whether the train carriage was set to fire by a muslim mob. It is unanswered, but the answer is widely believed to be in affirmative.

The second paragraph:


"Subsequent reports from several human rights organisations and political opponents have claimed that Modi and his ministers instructed Gujarat's police officers not to obstruct the attacking mobs. The National Human Rights Commission criticised the government, pointing to "a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government of Gujarat to control persistent violations of rights".[11]. In turn, several of these human rights groups have been criticized for biased reporting against Hindus and overt generalizations regarding the complex situation[12][13]."

Inferences:

1) Several human rights organizations believe that the ensuing violence was under Modi's directions.

2) They may not be right.

The third paragraph:

These claims have also been rejected by Modi, and the BJP and its supporters have attacked the reports as being politically motivated, due to the fact they came out at the time of an election. A judicial commission constituted to examine allegations of Gujarat state administration's involvement in the riots of 2002 has twice so far said that there was no evidence "as yet" to implicate either Modi or his administration in the riots. However, recently the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jaafri filed a court case against Modi and his government[14][15] As an aftermath to the riots, there were calls for Modi to resign as chief minister of Gujarat. The opposition parties stalled the national parliament over the issue. Even allies of the BJP like DMK and TDP were asking for Modi's resignation[16]. Modi submitted his resignation to the Governor, Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari, only after three months and recommended the dissolution of the 10th Gujarat Legislative Assembly[17]. In the subsequent elections, the BJP, led by Modi, won the elections by a huge margin.

1) So far no evidence of Modi's involvement.

2) In the aftermath of the riots, some parties demanded Modi's resignation. He resigned.

3) Modi led BJP to a resounding victory in the ensuing elections.


I admit that as far as I know, every statement in this section is correct.

Questions I raise on this particular section of the article:

1) Does Modi's winning the subsequent elections deserve a place in the section titled "Gujarat riots"? Doesn't this end the article on a triumphant note for Modi, creating an impression that the people made a judgement on the contention of government's involvement in the riots?

2) Why (as pointed out by Vivek) are the unofficial death-tolls not quoted?

3) Why is there no mention of the fact that there were elements within the BJP who believed Modi orchestrated the riots? Or the majority of the media?

4) Observe the ending of each paragraph. Contrast it with what is inside. Consider the fact that last sentence lingers in the mind longer.



Some questions on the rest of the article:

On "One of the most significant achievements of his government has been successful raising of the height of the Narmada Dam from 95 to 110.64 metres, which resulted in increased irrigation, water supplies and hydroelectric power [5]."

5) Why does Narmada Bachao Andolan deserve no mention? Why do the thousands displaced deserve no mention? Maybe they are not important, and maybe the advantages of the dam are more important than the disadvantages. But surely, the disadvantages deserve a mention, don't they?




"Apart from the controversy that he always generated due to his staunch support of Hindutva, he is also regarded as one of the best political administrator that India has ever seen"

6) Who regards him as one of the best political administrators? What community? Where is a citation?



On "Position on Terrorism"

On July 18, 2006, Modi delivered a speech criticizing Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislations" such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the Centre to empower states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the blasts in Mumbai[26][27].Quoting Modi:
“ Terrorism is worse than a war. A terrorist has no rules. A terrorist decides when, how, where and whom to kill. India has lost more people in terror attacks than in its wars[26][27]. ”

He was criticized by Communist Party leaders after making the speech[26][27].

7. Criticized for what? For this statement against terrorism?

8. [26][27] have NO mention of communist parties. How do they form valid citations?

9. Look at the ending of "Visa controversy" article. Consider my Q.4. In fact, check the last sentence of each paragraph of the article.

That's my case.