Narendra Modi is in the news again. And once more, there’s a debate on whether he’s a good leader or not. The two sides are:
- Modi supported and abetted the massacre after the Godhra incident
- Modi has brought development to Gujarat
Here is a typical comment from a Modi supporter:
Whatever people say…i have never heard a Hindu say Modiji is not a good leader…He has always focussed on development and has dedicated his entire life for betterment of people on India..People who want to see a developed India will always be with Modiji…Those politians who have made Politics there family business see Modiji a threat to their throne..After Godhra train carnage whatever happened was not Modiji wish but wish of more than 1 billon Hindus in India and worldwide
The most glaring fallacy here is the argumentum ad populum or “Appeal to the people.” It refers to an argument which says that something must be true because large numbers of people believe in it. The sentence “whatever happened was not Modiji wish but wish of more than 1 billon Hindus in India and worldwide” commits this fallacy. It’s not even true – the number of hindus who want their muslim neighbors to be slaughtered must be dismally low.
But even if it was true (which again I say it isn’t), this doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. We’re a democracy and not a mobocracy. We have the rule of law. Not the rule of the mob. We tend to hear the “Appeal to the people” fallacy quite a lot these days.
The other problem I have with this argument is that it implies development is all that matters. Even genocide is acceptable if the economy improves. Taken to the logical conclusion, we must agree that Hitler was a great leader! When he was in power, he halted Germany’s hyperinflation, got rid of unemployment, and improved the German economy tremendously.
Moreover, we must then accept that we should never have achieved independence. After all, everyone agrees the Britishers were excellent administrators. Even now they’re praised for their buildings, rail network and infrastructure. If all this was so bloody important, why did we fight to throw them out? Did all our freedom fighters die in vain?
We’re so enamored of the west and its lifestyle, that we wish to fast forward to it at any cost. We’re not willing to spend the time necessary for our nation to mature like they did. This also explains our fascination with China who’s going at a breakneck speed of development and doesn’t care about human rights.
We must never forget that the government is for the people. The government is the servant of the people and not its master. How can a state serve its people by killing them? Those who excuse Modi’s involvement in the Godhra riots by pointing to the “development” of Gujarat are committing the terrible blunder of forgetting history and ignoring the purpose of government.
Good one…I wish Modi supporters would understand this…
//We must never forget that the government is for the people. The government is the servant of the people and not its master. How can a state serve its people by killing them? // Brilliant.
When I was new to blogging I was horrified to find people supporting Modi with all kinds of ridiculous arguments including the ones you have quoted. They also bring in the plight of Kashmiri Pandits and the 1984 Sikh Massacre not as crimes against people but as justification for what Modi allowed.
Love this series.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I'm surprised to see the hatred some people have towards others of a community when no one has ever even harmed them! Their sense of group association is so strong that they feel that any harm to any member of their group is as bad as a harm to them.
They also feel that revenge against an innocent member of that group is equal to revenge against the group who was supposed to have "harmed" them in the first place…
I have often heard the justification that the Muslims bring out their fatwas and talwars at every imagined slight and it is a good lesson that they learnt at Godhra. Clearly, anarchy seems a remedy. And any leader supporting anarchy is good press in India – Laloo, Muthalik, Modi… The list goes on.
In reply to Careless Chronicles
So many people are giving justifications for their violent behavior. It'll just take time for us to become more mature…
Could you point me to a post of yours in your archive where you've stood up for the Sikhs demanding justice for the 1984 genocide and took the Congress Party to task for its denial of justice to this day? How about the riots in Meerut and Hashimpura? Do you know that riots used to happen in Gujarat much before Modi and BJP came to power? Guess which party was in the CM's chair? Looks like you need to learn your history.
And the reason 1984 and Kashmiri Pundits are mentioned not to justify Godhra riots, but to point out the hypocrisy of people like you and IHM, who indulge in selective outrage. Learn to recognize the logical fallacies in your own arguments, instead of rationalizing them away.
In reply to Kaffir
So let's assume what you're saying is correct. Sikhs were massacred by the Congress party. (I'm not saying it is true, but let me go along with you):
How on earth does that change anything? Did I say anything about killing sikhs being correct? The reason I don't talk about it is because I was only 2 years old when it happened and I don't know anything about it. The same goes for the other riots you mentioned.
One can only deal with a certain number of things at a time. I can't look at the whole world's injustices at one shot. I look at the most glaring injustice in front of me and tackle that. If you want to fight for other injustices, I'll be very happy.
But don't say that one injustice makes another ok.
All outrage is selective. There are millions of wrongs in this world and one can't cry over everything. I'm sure you don't go on a crusade for every injustice you see. So why hold me to that standard?
==
"So let’s assume what you’re saying is correct. Sikhs were massacred by the Congress party. (I’m not saying it is true, but let me go along with you)"
==
Um, what's there to assume about it? There you go again with your double-standards!! Modi is a murderer, but when it comes to Congress party, let's assume.
And all these issues are current issues when it comes to justice and India – do some research – people are still awaiting justice. Why wouldn't you be concerned about them? Do you not care about Kashmiris and Sikhs – your fellow Indians? Or are the victims of Godhra extra special? Why select Modi? Because the media dictates that to you? In that case, you're no better than a sheep. And didn't you mention something about all lives being valuable? Apparently, some lives are more valuable to you than others.
And your comment validates what I said in my earlier comment – you don't know your history. Perhaps you could do some homework and read up on it.
==
"But don’t say that one injustice makes another ok."
==
I never wrote that. What gave you the idea??? I specifically wrote that Kashmir exodus and Sikh pogrom are mentioned NOT to justify Godhra, but to show up the hypocrisy of people like you. Please read that one more time, or as many times as it'll take you to get what I wrote, instead of ascribing words to me.
In reply to Kaffir
I repeat again. Godhra happened recently. I was aware of it when it happened. For me, the 1984 sikh massacres don't have the same urgency. It's not my time. I admire you for seeking justice for sikh victims. I expect the same respect from you regarding those seeking to address the Godhra violence.
I have faced the exact same logic (Logic?) whenever I have discussed Godhra on my blog.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
What to do? I'm unable to get anyone to understand that separate incidents of violence should be kept separate. If one wants to focus on a particular incident, other incidents shouldn't be brought into the discussion.
No one is stopping a discussion of other incidents of violence. But at a given time, we can only talk about one.
Bhagwad,
I totally agree that those who excuse Modi because of the development he 'facilitated' (not even caused) in Gujarat are totally misguided. But on the other hand, I am also not comfortable with this a priori assumption: "Modi supported and abetted the massacre after the Godhra incident". In my view (and also knowledge), the starting point of this ('this' in the sense, not on your blog, but anywhere it takes place) debate itself is wrong. Would it make any sense to argue whether "God is good or evil" till the existence of God is established? Likewise, would it make any sense to argue whether "Modi was justified in supporting and abetting the masaccre after the Godhra incident because he facilitated development" till the first assertion is established as truth?
And no, I am not even making here a generic argument to the effect of "'innocent till proved guilty', so let the courts decide". You would be surprised how little the major news channels have covered the number of people killed in police firing (over 170) and arrested (over 30,000). Moreover, you will almost never hear about over 200 Hindus, which is excluding those killed in the train burning (compared to around 800 Muslims) that were also killed in the ensuing riots. This figure itself pokes major holes in two insinuations: that the riots were state-sponsored (in which case so many Hindus dying wouldn't make sense) and that there was government inaction (killing 170 people of either religion [~95 Muslims; ~75 Hindus] with police bullets and arresting over 25,000 Hindus hardly amount to 'inaction'). Look carefully at the figures (around 850 killed in rioting v/s 170 killed in police action), had the government been any more stricter, perhaps, the number of people killed in police action would have started approaching those killed directly by rioting. And again, the government would have come under criticism for ruling with "an iron hand". I say this because in Kashmir, over 60 people who have been killed over a period of few months have caused widespread criticism of the government's approach. Whereas, the above number of people killed was over a period of days/weeks. Of course, in Kashmir there is no active rioting, but I hope I could explain that any stricter approach would also have come under criticism….
…Also, there are no figures as to how many policemen were killed/injured! I again could not find reliable data on the internet, but, on a Wikipedia article I was directed to the thesis by an American student, who had written that around 200 policemen had died (it was a PDF document)! Her PhD topic had something to do with religious polarization in the subcontinent (including Bangladesh and Pakistan). She was a Christian, and I thought most of the things she had written were unbiased. So provisionally assuming that what she stated was true, then, this would again largely make the argument untenable that the Gujarat government was a passive witness to the rioting.
Now of course, one could argue that the figures like 170 killed in police action could be cooked up. But the figure which cannot be cooked up is of death of over 200 Hindus! Because birth and death registers are part of 'vital statistics' which are linked with census data and also accessed by important bodies like the WHO and the UN. Also these statistics are based on autopsies and other minor investigations. Compared to that, it is much easier to come up with offhand statements like "over 2000 Muslims were butchered by the Sangh Parivar". What is saddening is that the legal and forensic protocol have been relinquished in their reliability in favor of the latter kind of rhetoric by those who assert that 'Modi was responsible for pogrom against Muslims'. So, I choose to believe the former much more than the latter. Because I have no reason to believe that any journalist, however wise or resourceful can within days of rioting (and also while rioting was going on) could state with any reliability that "'X' number of people belonging to the 'Y' religion had been killed by people of the 'Z' religion". If this figure were restricted to a small town, then these reports would still have some kind of reliability, but when they are about a state with population of over 500 million, then one has to be highly skeptical of such claims. If you would want to know the source of above statistics (except death of 200 policemen), it was in some BBC article, which was reporting the reply of a Gujarat BJP MP to the pertinent questions in the Lok Sabha….
…As I finish typing the above review of statistics, I would like to point out that around 250 people were reported as missing during riots and after seven years they have been declared as dead. This takes the total number of dead to ~ 1200. I of course, do not know the religion based break-down of those 250 people, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that it must have 1:3 or 1:4 Hindus:Muslims (like the ratio prior to this).
The reason why more Muslims were killed is not difficult to make out, there were more Hindus (80% of population) fighting against fewer Muslims (I hope, this simple statistic would not be construed as my defending the killings of those Muslims). And that ratio almost corresponds with the number of Muslims to Hindus killed [since this was case of communal violence, community with fewer members to defend itself suffered more].
The most plausible reason for so many deaths was the lack of resources – both human and material. Indian police is in shoddy shape (including Gujarat's). A few years later I had read that despite occurrence of riots, there was a shortage of 27,000 policemen in Gujarat! But the thing is, this is not unique to Gujarat, entire India suffers from low ratio of government employees:civilians because recruitment is always put on hold as that would strain the government treasury and later also add to the burden of pension schemes and health-benefits, etc. This people cynically point out is because corrupt politicians want all that money for themselves, but even that is not true! India is so incredibly poor that for all those 27,000 policemen that might have been recruited, perhaps thousands of teachers and doctors would have been rendered unemployed. The prioritization is between having a police force that can contain all kinds of sporadic violence that occur occasionally, or between letting more people die/suffer on daily basis because of lack of doctors or alternatively not focusing on primary education and higher education….