There are still some BRAVEHEARTS like
Hartosh Singh Bal left in our Highly Commercialised Society who CONTINUE to
believe and have faith in "Satya Meva Jayate" and HENCE, don’t Mince
their WORDS while CALLING a ‘SPADE a SPADE’!
Redefining a riot: Panagariya, Bhagwati write to
The Economist
The Economist
www.firstpost.com
The eminent economists from Columbia University
are not just playing with numbers to diminish the seriousness of what
transpired in Gujarat, they are also deliberately distorting the facts.
are not just playing with numbers to diminish the seriousness of what
transpired in Gujarat, they are also deliberately distorting the facts.
Redefining
a riot: Panagariya, Bhagwati write to The Economist by Hartosh Singh Bal Jan
12, 2014
a riot: Panagariya, Bhagwati write to The Economist by Hartosh Singh Bal Jan
12, 2014
How many lies does it take to defend Modi?
Economists bring the pretence of expertise to politics. As Manmohan Singh, the
latest in a long line, has once again demonstrated, this pretence needs
political patronage to survive. Thus it should come as no surprise that even
before we have had a change of regime in Delhi, other practitioners of this
impractical art are padding up their CV in ways that would look good to the new
administration.
Economists bring the pretence of expertise to politics. As Manmohan Singh, the
latest in a long line, has once again demonstrated, this pretence needs
political patronage to survive. Thus it should come as no surprise that even
before we have had a change of regime in Delhi, other practitioners of this
impractical art are padding up their CV in ways that would look good to the new
administration.
In a review I have stated that Jagdish
Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya’s recent book India’s Tryst with Destiny is a
pitch for the Modi growth model, and does so by wishing away contrary evidence.
Now the esteemed gentlemen have entered an area where even notionally their
expertise amounts to nothing and their prejudice for everything, an attempt to
diminish the seriousness of what transpired in Gujarat in 2002. In a letter to
The Economist, responding to an article which despite its note of admiration
did not wholeheartedly endorse Modi, the two wrote, "You said that Mr Modi
refuses to atone for a “pogrom” against Muslims in Gujarat, where he is chief
minister. But what you call a pogrom was in fact a “communal riot” in 2002 in
which a quarter of the people killed were Hindus—170 of them from bullets fired
by the police.’’ These two sentences from the letter take us to the heart of
the matter – of how these eminent economists from Columbia University are not
just playing with numbers to diminish the seriousness of what transpired in
Gujarat, they are also deliberately distorting the facts in convenient fashion
to hide the actual criminality of the Modi administration. First the actual
numbers, according to a reply in Parliament 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were
killed in the post-Godhra riots. This includes those killed in police firing, a
number that according to the state government stands at 170. On the face of it
these numbers seem to match what Bhagwati and Co have stated in their letter
where they have sought to highlight the fact that Hindus were also killed in
the rioting and the police did act to prevent the violence. Except that they
omitted one critical fact – of the 170 killed in police firing 93 were Muslims
and 77 Hindus. Unless they are guilty of bad grammar, they seem to imply that
170 Hindus were killed in police firing. But this amounts to a deliberate and
serious distortion of the truth. Take away those killed in the police firing,
and the numbers killed in the actual violence stands at 697 Muslims and 177
Hindus. This means that 80 per cent of those killed were Muslims. In a state
where the Muslim population amounts to just 9 per cent of the total population,
the numbers portray a sickening story of one-sided killings. According to the
Encyclopedia Britannica a pogrom is a "a mob attack, either approved or
condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious,
racial, or national minority’’. The break up of those killed in police firing
bears testimony to something significant. In a situation where 80 per cent of
those killed in the violence were Muslims, how did police firing manage to kill
more Muslims than Hindus? Even those who claim the violence was spontaneous
concede what eyewitnesses have borne out, that the vast majority of the mobs
that murdered and raped were made up of Hindus. The only answer that fits the
facts is that the police deliberately chose their targets. And if they did so
deliberately, they did so under directions. Bhagwati and Co seem to believe
that the death of some Hindus in the violence is evidence to suggest that this
was not a pogrom. But if 80 per cent of those killed in the violence were Muslims
and the violence was spread over large parts of the state, with the police
either condoning, or worse still participating in the violence, it does amount
to an organised massacre. Do Bhagwati and Panagariya shy away from the word
because it comes far too close to describing the truth? The question of who
organised the massacre inevitably leads us to an answer that makes it
imperative that any Indian with some respect for justice challenges the
possibility of Modi becoming Prime Minister. And those, such as Bhagwati and
Panagariya, who diminish or wish away the seriousness of the violence remain
guilty of suppressing the truth about a serious communal crime.
(HartoshBhagwati and Arvind Panagariya’s recent book India’s Tryst with Destiny is a
pitch for the Modi growth model, and does so by wishing away contrary evidence.
Now the esteemed gentlemen have entered an area where even notionally their
expertise amounts to nothing and their prejudice for everything, an attempt to
diminish the seriousness of what transpired in Gujarat in 2002. In a letter to
The Economist, responding to an article which despite its note of admiration
did not wholeheartedly endorse Modi, the two wrote, "You said that Mr Modi
refuses to atone for a “pogrom” against Muslims in Gujarat, where he is chief
minister. But what you call a pogrom was in fact a “communal riot” in 2002 in
which a quarter of the people killed were Hindus—170 of them from bullets fired
by the police.’’ These two sentences from the letter take us to the heart of
the matter – of how these eminent economists from Columbia University are not
just playing with numbers to diminish the seriousness of what transpired in
Gujarat, they are also deliberately distorting the facts in convenient fashion
to hide the actual criminality of the Modi administration. First the actual
numbers, according to a reply in Parliament 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were
killed in the post-Godhra riots. This includes those killed in police firing, a
number that according to the state government stands at 170. On the face of it
these numbers seem to match what Bhagwati and Co have stated in their letter
where they have sought to highlight the fact that Hindus were also killed in
the rioting and the police did act to prevent the violence. Except that they
omitted one critical fact – of the 170 killed in police firing 93 were Muslims
and 77 Hindus. Unless they are guilty of bad grammar, they seem to imply that
170 Hindus were killed in police firing. But this amounts to a deliberate and
serious distortion of the truth. Take away those killed in the police firing,
and the numbers killed in the actual violence stands at 697 Muslims and 177
Hindus. This means that 80 per cent of those killed were Muslims. In a state
where the Muslim population amounts to just 9 per cent of the total population,
the numbers portray a sickening story of one-sided killings. According to the
Encyclopedia Britannica a pogrom is a "a mob attack, either approved or
condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious,
racial, or national minority’’. The break up of those killed in police firing
bears testimony to something significant. In a situation where 80 per cent of
those killed in the violence were Muslims, how did police firing manage to kill
more Muslims than Hindus? Even those who claim the violence was spontaneous
concede what eyewitnesses have borne out, that the vast majority of the mobs
that murdered and raped were made up of Hindus. The only answer that fits the
facts is that the police deliberately chose their targets. And if they did so
deliberately, they did so under directions. Bhagwati and Co seem to believe
that the death of some Hindus in the violence is evidence to suggest that this
was not a pogrom. But if 80 per cent of those killed in the violence were Muslims
and the violence was spread over large parts of the state, with the police
either condoning, or worse still participating in the violence, it does amount
to an organised massacre. Do Bhagwati and Panagariya shy away from the word
because it comes far too close to describing the truth? The question of who
organised the massacre inevitably leads us to an answer that makes it
imperative that any Indian with some respect for justice challenges the
possibility of Modi becoming Prime Minister. And those, such as Bhagwati and
Panagariya, who diminish or wish away the seriousness of the violence remain
guilty of suppressing the truth about a serious communal crime.
Singh Bal is a consulting editor at Firstpost.)
No comments:
Post a Comment