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.

The RSS on Wikipedia

It disappoints me everytime see the articles on the Rashtriya Swayamsevi Sangh (RSS), its cadres, and political parties which share their ideology with RSS, on Wikipedia. The bias is evident.

Quoting from the article on BJP :
"The BJP has often been accused of participation in religious violence and using religiously sensitive issues for political advantage. These accusations, largely a political smear campaign by opposition parties, have tarnished the image of BJP in the eyes of many Indians, particularly Muslims."

The article on Gujrat riots on page on Narendra Modi almost gives him a clean chit. Rajnath Singh is praised no end.

A five-hunderd line article on the RSS has thirty-odd lines on its criticism. The rest of the article is as biased as any of the above.

The previous article for Rajnath Singh was actually copied from his biography released by the BJP! I got it deleted long time back, but the new article is not much better.

Considering that searching name of _any_ politician invariably yields his/her Wikipedia entry as the first one, its a sad state of affairs. Imagine an impressionable mind searching details of Gujarat riots on the web!

Just another instance of a vocal, vociferous minority imposing its views, posing as representatives of the majority. Or in this case, as unbiased writers. This is a major problem for an 'encyclopedia' like Wikipedia.

Its hard for any one person to change it. So are people reading this interested in removing the bias? Its not hard, just time consuming. But satisfying. And important.

For a start, read the articles on Modi and the BJP.

Protest, protest, protest!

Jaswant Singh visited Berkeley about a month back. This is what happened. Find some pics here.

In recent times, Jaswant is the only Indian politician to be on the receiving end of such a humiliating protest. I was pleasantly surprised that this happened in my backyard. Surprised, and proud. Nevertheless, it bothered me that a senior Indian politician was insulted in this manner, outside his homeland. I was not sure if such a forceful and violent protest was in need.

Was a more restrained protest called for? What is the boundary which a protest shouldn't cross? What factors determine this boundary?

Gandhi once noted that it is important to register your protest even in the face of obvious loss. That registering a protest makes the authority feel that their move hasn't gone down as well accepted. He would have stood against the BJP, but not in this way.


There are different ways to protest. The contrast, however, is nowhere as stark as in India's freedom struggle. The two ways were those of the revolutionaries and Gandhi. Both set their boundaries. Both seeked to achieve some aim. In Gandhi's case, however, the aim determined the methods. As he himself put it, an India ruled by a few Indians is no better than an India ruled by a few Englishmen. The power had to come from the people themselves, and not a small fraction of the population.

Therefore, the methods are not arbitrary. The aim classifies the methods as legitimate and illegitimate. So, were the means used in Berkeley legitimate? Or, were they merely justified?

Two of a kind

There are not many people who have the confidence to go against the consensus of a whole nation. I thought I knew of only one, who lived a long time back, decades before I was born. Who did not care of opinion of anyone, not even his closest ones. When he decided to call off mass movements he himself started. When all around him opposed him. When he would himself have thought that his act would go down in history as accepting defeat in face of victory.

Until, that is, Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma.

Why would anybody want to defend Manu.

Why? Ram 'loses' no matter what happens to the case. The public/media have made the decision already. No body, except the close friends of Manu Sharma would admire his intent to defend Manu.

Why? In Counterpoint , Vir Sanghvi suggests he's getting a fat paycheck. I rule that out, mostly for my own whimsical reasons, but also because the man is too old to drool for a few rupees more.

Why? I am sure even he doesn't believe Manu Sharma is innocent.

The only plausible reason is his disillusionment with the route the law took. He is a lawyer, and he believes in integrity of justice, of the process of attaining justice. Of evidence, of proof. And he believes that this integrity is being stripped away by the way the media and the public opinion have influenced the judges' decision. He believes this case is setting up a precedent for public trial, a trial by votes, a trial by public opinion. And considering the media influence on the vocal and visible section of the society, this case is a precedent for trial by media. Certainly not the way the law is supposed to function.

Do I support his stand? No. I don't personally know what evidence is there against Manu. I know very little of the claims of fabrication of evidence. The articles that I have come across generate no sympathy for Manu. I dearly hope that Ram would back-off once he has made his point. But I fear that the only way for him to make his point is by proving lack of sufficient evidence against Manu.

Yes, Manu may be wrong. But he can't be punished if the evidence is not there. If the witnessess backed off, our society must learn to be bold to stand for statements. If evidence was fabricated, India has to have police officers who perform their duty with honesty. But if Manu is punished today, without sufficient evidence, then some innocent would be punished tomorrow.


Consider this. In the fading years of his life, the man has the courage to go against opinion of each person in the country he has lived in all along. Knowing that all it would bring to him is infamy. That most would not even understand the point he is underlining.

It is not the first time for him. He voiced his opinions against Rajiv Gandhi, and single-handedly got him out of power. He defended Indira Gandhi's assassins (albeit, without much success). He was once the vice-president of BJP, the same party whom he contested against in the recent elections, by standing as an independent candidate against Vajpayee. He stood for Geelani, who was to be hanged. And he continues his crusade against wrong. Against what ever he believes is wrong.

However, even for this seasoned rebel, it is the first time when no one, absolutely no one, stands with him. Even his family members have distanced themselves from him. And he is not oblivious of this obvious displeasure. He knows it all. But he also knows he is right.

Probably its not a coincidence that he is a lawyer, too. Probably another lawyer, a long time back, when I wasn't even born, would have nodded in admiration.


Addendum (18th Dec): Yesterday, Manu was held guilty by the court. I found that Jethmalani came up with flawed, fabricated theories in support of Manu. In that light, I withdraw my case in the article above.