Was Gandhi an Intellectual Stalwart?

What's it about?

Read "Far more than ‘honest’ or ‘secular’ leaders, we need intelligent and competent ones" by Ghazala Wahab in the Times of India dated Mar 25, 2014

It was followed a couple of days later by "5 Indians in the running for top world thinkers " by Kounteya Sinha Times of India dated ,Mar 28, 2014.

The two set me thinking about "intellectual stalwarts" and great thinkers

 Ms Ghazala Wahab refers to "India's big fortune of having intellectual stalwarts like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad ".Really ? Was she just being flippant ?(as appears to be the general style at times of India) I will primarily take a look at who deserve to be called  "Intellectual stalwarts" and secondarily at the thesis "if you have these qualities, you will in any case be on a plane higher than thieves and thugs."(referring to intelligence and creativity)

Does the noun phrase make sense?

The adjective intellectual has three meanings (Merriam webster)
1.of or relating to the ability to think in a logical way
2.: involving serious study and thought
3.of a person : smart and enjoying serious study and thought

Stalwart used as a noun (Head of the noun phrase) should mean "marked by outstanding strength and vigor of body, mind, or spirit "(Merriam webster). Other usages of stalwart such : a loyal supporter or an unwavering partisan would make the noun phrase an oxymoron.(e.g a loyal supporter is typically not an intellectual)  The only way it can make sense is a person having outstanding intellectual strength and ability as opposed to physical strength or courage. In one word the phrase "Intellectual Stalwart" probably should mean a great thinker or genius. The phrase is non standard(no entry in dictionary and googling does not help)

Who qualifies?

As the second article referred to points out some among the five can be considered 'intellectual stalwart' e.g. Prof Amartya sen. 
The noun phrase equals "a great thinker" or "an intellectual giant" or simply a genius.
The typical criteria used would include
-acceptance of the intellectual ouput by peers
-citation index
-The mark of a true genius is timelessness. She is not a fad. No one can ignore the contributions of ancient 'panini' or the philosophers like kant or hegel, economist adam smith not to talk of popular figure like Einstein.

When viewed in this light it is obvious that both Nehru and Gandhi cannot be referred to as "intellectual stalwarts".The intellectual output of both has been junked. Nobody takes them seriously other than use their names to further partisan ends

Other things

Being intelligent and competent is absolutely no guarantee of being honest ("be on a plane higher than thieves and thugs") as great lawyers(laiars as some would say) defend known rogues and criminals. There are many judges actually accused of corruption and other misdeeds.


Ms wahab's other theme that critical thinking is lacking in our educational system may be true but the arguments facts adduced to support the claim are hardly paradigms of critical thinking. Looks like she is  a poster boy/girl of our educational system.

Dynamic Aggregation of disparate Entities

Now if the mouthful "Dynamic Aggregation of disparate Entities" feels like a misfit into my blogs , you can't be faulted , but hopefully if you take a better look you will realize that it really is a cornerstone of my ravings and rantings about the media.
I wrote in my earlier blogs that there is a need for correct methods of analysis and presentation. I quite realize that media mostly wants to fill up their programming time or paper space as the case may be and well before the deadlines. Having said that I must add that incorrect analysis or presentation is a disservice to the public and in a way mislead them. No sir this is not niggling or nit pricking but an attempt to correct the conceptual framework. More on this at the end.
Dynamic Aggregation
By this Dynamic I am referring to the fact that the Aggregate (or Aggregate behaviour) under consideration changes with time. By Aggregation I mean that a measure or sum or summary is being talked about. To make it a little concrete Aggregate = people's preference for black, people's opinion about Mr Obama, Mr X's opinion about the American Dream , A companies performance, A nations economic performance.....
Disparate Entities
means that we are really trying to say something about a whole lot of different people or different situations or different causes etc. The word Entity is a place holder for people, situations, causes etc.
Examples and consequences of botch up

• Shobha De claimed young men are irreverent and further an interlocutor claimed that she was a society watcher. Clearly there are too many young men and all having different attitudes, levels of capability.... Assuming that the article was read by a youngster who probably regards her as a style icon or icon of some sort. He or she is likely to conclude that being irreverent is in. Yet others may conclude that they are out with the 'in' crowd. Of course she is more of rabble rouser than an academic. But why misrepresent ? Can't she simply say that this is what I feel. If the interlocutor simply said that this is what Behenji feels that is o.k But it is not o.k for the status of society watcher.
• According to Mr Shashi Tharoor one facet of USA is that of the Aggressor in Iraq another that of the land of opportunity. Clearly there are many more facets than he cared to list e.g as a land of technical excellence. In the context of prognosis for Obama regime from a former U.N official this is inadequate and highly superficial. Clearly this also involves aggregating either the facets , issues or problems. How can the solution (the prognosis ) be right when the steps in the problem identification/aggregation are wrong?
• David Miliband wrote “Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms.” As is obvious by now this is aggregating over causes of the extremists calls to arms. Whether he or his aides were aware of what they were doing is besides the point. That they have ruffled feathers is indisputable. If they didn't see that they were into Aggregation of causes so much the worse for them.
• Sagarika Ghose claimed that Indians preferred fair brides. Which Indians ? Bengalis? What measure?Some dark girls who took it literally or seriously might actually develop low self worth.

What to do

Not to recognise Aggregation problem is in my opinion akin to not being able to do a simple sum. And If somebody fails to see the problem in bimt-poyt response mode I think he or she is semi-literate at best. There doesn't seem to be a dearth of this species.

• Recognise the nature of the argument when you see it.
• Reuse Aggregate measures which are well known wherever possible e.g GDP, opinion polls for what they are worth, Surveys , pie charts...
• Talk to some one who knows better on aggregating for the domain under consideration. May be an Anthropologist, Economist..
• If nothing better is known be fair and suitably qualify your Aggregation

Thinking correctly implies following certain rules of the game. One cannot organise the thinking without paradigms much like one cannot think of money without the paradigm of addition. In my opinion Aggregation over Entities is a paradigm

why The President fumbled-Grammar?

This has reference to "Flubbing his lines" by Steven Pinker in the Times of India dated 23rd Jan 2009.
I know nothing of the U.S constitution. However since Mr. Pinker writes"(Roberts)unilaterally amended the constitution by moving the adverb “faithfully” away from the verb." I surmise that the constitution probably uses the form "will faithfully execute...".
Now Mr. Obama is a trained lawyer and it is extremely unlikely that he would not know the wording of the oath. And besides it is quite likely that he has probably done a dress rehearsal with the oath in the "will faithfully execute...". format. He was probably surprised at the unexpected wording change and this has little to do with "Freudian slips" or the "unconscious" on the President's part. Mr Pinker is bang on Target.
Some in the media Rajdeep Sardesai included announced gleefully that it is not just the Reporters but also presidents who fumble.But In this case it probably was not the president's fault.
It is worthwhile noting that according to syntactic theory Adverbs or Adverb phrases are 'adjuncts' and there fore moved to other positions in the sentence. What this means is that from a syntactic view point "faithfully" is not essential and therefore can occur before or after the verb phrase .It is indifferent between "will execute....faithfully" and " will faithfully execute...". The only exception that I can think of is the adverb "not". The wording is more a matter of style and Mr. Roberts is entitled to his style but probably not on the matter of an agreed oath of office.
The question of correct grammar is also tied to whether Normative Grammar or Empirical Grammar is meant. This in turn needs a view on the existence of a "Universal Grammar" propounded by Noam Chomsky.
I personally believe people don't go around with either a Normative grammar book or a hard wired "Universal Grammar" in the head. People I think can make sense of both of the constructs above and similar ones without the faintest notion of an adverb. And I think they will invariably associate "faithfully" with "execute" irrespective of position. Language is more a matter of convention and these keep changing. Yesterday's noun can become today's verb e.g google to googling. Besides people can make sense of ungrammatical constructs in context.

Indian Obama?

Mr Omar Abdullah is chief minister candidate from the NC side. I sincerely hope that Congress gives him a chance to lead J&K right away in greater national interest.
Among all the current younger politicians, I rate him the best. From some of the TV interviews that I have watched and of course his famous speech in parliament, I feel he has got what it takes to lead people.
I feel the Indian media has missed out a potential Indian Obama. They have played up the 'Prince' but in my opinion the prince is no match for Omar. If we ignore the dynasty bit, He can be considered the real "Indian Obama" in the sense that he can bring in the right changes to lead J&K and India .Here is my prayer to god.
The prayer

• May god help you fulfill the aspirations of the people of J&K
• May god help you solve all problems of the people of J&K
• May god help you balance the conflicting interests.
• May god help you put peoples interest first
• May god help you become the best CM of J&K
• May god help you become the best Indian Leader and lead the nation
• May god help you become the best leader in the neighbouring countries
• May god help you become the greatest International Leader and usher in the 'Kingdom of god'

Obama and the Kingdom of God

These are some of the observations after Watching one of the TV channels prognosis for 2009, Obama and Shashi Tharoor's interludes.
Kingdom of God
There seems to be a quest among non christian countries for the kingdom of god . Vatican of course wants it, but the majority of the christian countries seem to regard their existing kingdoms as god's very own. The BJP in India wants RamRajjya . The Jehadi's all over the world want to bring in their god's kingdom. The sikhs wanted Khalistan meaning " Land of the Pure". Pakistan means the land of pure(land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean) or the Kingdom of God. Even officially atheist china seems to be wanting to find it's roots in the teachings of Confucius. Iran already has semi kingdom of god.
Poor God must surely be in a dilemma because one man's God seems to be another's terrorist.You might ask what has Obama got to do with the Kingdom of God ?Answer is that large sections of the world want it and He might as well give it a whirl.
Tharoor and the two faces of USA
According to Mr Tharoor one facet of USA is that of the Aggressor in Iraq another that of the land of opportunity. Mr Tharoor as an Ex-UN official should have known better than to refer to the two faces.A school boy might be a lousy student but a great footballer. The face used by person depends on the context and the observer. If Mr Tharoor wanted to balance one against the other or appear balanced that's o.k. But in the context of prognosis for 2009, Obama and Change It is about as relevant as a statement like "US has the best blonde's in the world." ( never mind the truth or falsity of the statement)From the point of people at large worldwide land of opportunity face or image is relevant to only a micro mini segment. If everyone lands up in the land of opportunity no opportunities will be left for anyone.
Will Obama usher in the Kingdom of God
This immediately begs the question whose god? Chances are that it will be the American God( Whatever that might mean). He may as well end up portraying all his acts ( Whatever they might be) as acts of god.
What's the hitch
There are no Universally accepted ethics. Otherwise we wouldn't be needing an advisory by the U.K authorities "Don't indulge in extra marital affairs in Islamic countries etc.."If there were accepted norms some troubles might be averted.God is inaccessible to the majority. might as well go for the next best thing of Universally accepted ethics.
As I said earlier one needs an acceptable code at least on major issue contexts to approximate the Kingdom of God. In the context of leaders this implies an ability to put societal interests above personal interests and for international leaders to put the world interests above "self interest" ( -of the nation .people and experts call it "real politic")
It is anybody's guess whose interests Mr Obama will espouse. Of course guesses could be wrong. Wait and watch.
Experts etc..
Are people well up on current orthodoxy.
Change is the only certainty other than death. Today's innovator may well become part of tomorrows orthodoxy

Irresponsible Media

Last time I wondered whether Media was following an undeclared war time reporting code.I happened to see Barkha Dutt's so called Debate and Rajdeep Sardesai's interview of Mr Antulay. Both of these shared the same sentiments and also shared the same with other media.
Whose views are these anyway?
It appears the entire media has one interest( whose?) and is determined to thopo(thrust) their views on everyone.They seem to be determined to manufacture news to suit the war.Further they read statements to suit their convenience and imagine they are the people or perhaps they are above the people and of course the politicians.So much so that I wonder who the handlers of the media are.
One can claim that these are the results of agreement on common shared values or principles. But when elementary logic is given short shrift you have to either think they are dumb or that they have some other agenda.
As far as I can tell people are collectively supreme, followed by the parliamentarians( or politicians if you like), followed by the judiciary. The so called fourth estate should stick to neutral ground on matters of opinion.
Mr Antulay said that he neither wants to deny nor confirm his resignation. This was interpreted by media to mean that He has resigned. Why can't it be interpreted as his reluctance to talk about it.
When one participant in Barkha's view asked to be given more time she let the cat out of the bag by declaring that The editorial policy was different and so she would rather reflect their ( the NDTV) view than that of the participants. Why have a farcical debate when you have made up your mind and don't want to listen.
Similar observations apply to Rajdeep sardesai's interview. If you don't wish to listen to what the other guy has to say for god's sake stop the farce. If that is part of the so called pressure tactics to force the other guy to "confess" I am afraid that's not on. Mr Antulay was patient .Some one like me would probably told him ...you know what.

I am at a loss to understand why the media is keen to have the so called surgical strikes and manufacture public opinion and or News. A war only raises costs to ordinary folks like me without any assurances on betterment of life or security.

Sum
It is best if the media ploys are seen by the public for what they are and not be swayed by their so called expertise.

Whither Liberal Democracy or RamRajjya ?

I happened to watch the parliamentary proceedings yesterday on the 17Th Dec 2008 in parts and also watched TimesNow TV News/panel discussion at night on Antulay's remarks. I also have in front of me "Antulay's remark over martyr sparks row " on TimesNow website as I give vent to my feelings on the issue.
Advaniji
I watched only in parts the parliamentary debate.A text of the proceedings is unfortunately not available either on the parliament website or elsewhere.So I could be a little lax. During the half an hour or so that I happened to listen to Advaniji 90% time was dedicated to "we told you so" or why the tougher laws were not brought in when BJP asked for them.One would have thought that the parliament's time is precious and that the "we told you so" bit was restricted to 10% so that substantive matters could be debated.I strongly suspect that there was little of "substantive matter".May be there ought to be a debating framework.Perhaps there is.I will come back at a later date.Or perhaps the speaker should have restricted he "we told you so" bit.
Does Mr Advani look up to only the US of A for a role model. what about the about 200 countries where there were no terrorist attacks ever happened in the first place.
whither "White Paper on Terrorism" ?
As far as my knowledge of the reactions in India to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks goes no soul searching has been done.As far back as Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 , Andhra Pradesh State Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Bandaru Dattatreya has demanded a white paper on terrorist activities, particularly in Telangana and the Hyderabad city. Nothing ever came out and it is a pity that Advaniji has not asked for "White Paper on Terrorism".
Complex problems need multi pronged solutions not just a few tinkering here and there. I wrote last time about the need for common people to make a fishbone diagram. Let alone common people the people who should know better seem to know no better.
Antulay's remark
This title is borrowed from the TimesNow website article.Whether it was a remark, a cry of anguish or plain dramebazee as we say out here I don't know. I tried to look up Mr Antulay's site. pity he doesn't have one.Surely He could afford to have maintained a site. As mentioned earlier transcripts of the debate are not available.
I start by analyzing the possibilities
case1: Antulay made an off the cuff remark Looks very unlikely because he is a mature politician and could not have made a potentially damaging remark.
case2: a cry of anguish Nobody knows who all were part of the team giving inputs to the Home minister. If indeed Mr Antulay was part of the team or was in the know of things Mr Chidambaram could have intervened to say so.To my knowledge such an intervention did not take place. The only interventions I know of are the ones which all but said said that He was a 'Pakistani agent'. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
case3: "dramebazee"cannot be ruled out. But neither can it be claimed that he was "playing politics"(what are politicians supposed to do anyway?)

TimesNow news/panel discussion
The main reporter was seething with rage at the supposed "misdemeanour" of Mr Antulay and the subsequent discussion was colored by this undercurrent. For starters I make the "No war / No Censor Assumption"
No war / No Censor Assumption
Under this assumption I expect any media person to to remain neutral, objective and rational. If there is a war/censorship I expect the media to acknowledge and say sorry gentlemen we can't be objective.
Antulay's remark supports the Pakistani media/Government
The substance of the discussion implies Antulay's remark is a disgrace to the nation and therefore should be condemned. Mr Singhvi, the congress spokesman washed off his hands and left the resignation thing to the honorable prime minister. Dileep Padgaonkar made an ad-hominem attack and claimed that Mr Antulay was a loose cannon. The shiv sena MP wanted 'the sack for Mr Antulay'. Another senior journalist was more balanced and said that a sack is not required because such an action would actually help the Pakistani Establishment and / or the media.
I expect media person's to be objective in their views and / or discussions and not get swayed by so called patriotism the way the shiv sainiks and all are prone to. Neither should they believe that problems will vanish by lighting candles or talking to movie stars.
If Pakistani media is right (I personally doubt this) what is the problem? Give it a whirl. Show them that they are wrong. Do I need to add that you are supposed to critique ideas, not people.
Jug Suraiya claimed in one of his recent articles that the Pakistani media is far too establishment biased.In yet another article Mr Suraiya also advocated/remarked that a potential reunification of the subcontinent is a potential solution. I am personally inclined to believe in this potential solution/Utopia(depending on how you look at it). Any Engagement with our 'Subeh ka bhulaahs' or prodigal sons should be fair. If they are right so be it. If they are wrong please do tell them why that is so rather than saying that 'we don't trust the Pakistani press' and that Everything they say is 'Bakwas'. Please do consider issues on merits of the case. case by case rather than lump the good, the bad and the ugly into one heap of scrap.
Mr Karkare and the Martyrdom
As I have said earlier the late Mr Karkare was probably a fine officer and that my personal sympathies lie with his family. Having said that We should bear in mind that we lost three officers in one go and that too ill prepared for the task. The Bombay Police chief's claim that they reached the spot within 10 minutes and wanted to save more lives is simply incredible.
The Indian movie goer is used to seeing all and sundry Heroes and villains brandishing their AK-47s . Is the Mumbai police so blissfully ignorant of these movies and the reality? Do they run their affairs in such a lackadaisical fashion bordering on the unprofessional?
Either the Mumbai police is incompetent ( I don't want to join the candle brigade. Let's not forget that there is rampant corruption and inefficiency) or they are doing a cover up job. Every one doing his or her job cannot claim Martyrdom. If we use this as a definition we will end up with too long a list of Martyrs.Besides Martyrdom is no excuse with which to gag the doubts raised by people.
People certainly want to know the answers to many questions that the events have raised in their minds. It is a pity that the media considers 'Asking questions' as Anti Patriotic Pro Pakistani etc. If Mr Anulay asked questions for which he didn't get the answers ( as far as can be figured out) he is well within his rights, at the risk of sounding Unpatriotic, to raise the question in an inappropriate way.(And of course take the credit or the blame).
Back To Media
Pakistani media is supposed to be part of the "civil society". Should we rubbish them lock stock and barrel?No Sir, give the issue a fair trial, review and critique the views as they come. That the question or comment or remark came from Pakistan is no bar to it's fair trial or critique.
I don't have answers to the questions I have on the circumstances leading to Mr Karkare's death.( I am by no means implying that he was gunned down by Hindu Fundamentalists.).Perhaps as a member of the laity, I am not entitled to have my questions answered in "National Interest".
To the extent that it sets to rest Any questions or doubts raised either by the Pakistani media or by laity , Mr Anulay's request for a probe is justified especially because Mr Antulay is no ordinary Mortal. He is a cabinet minister and no less. To say that he is "playing politics" is absurd. What else do you expect him to play? Cricket? If he voiced either his or a section of his constituency's voice that is as it should be not as it should not be.
All the media commentators claimed that his questions had no basis as they were his views. A section of the Hindi channels called it "Shahadat par Sawal"- Questions on Martyrdom. Tears, candles, patriotism .. etc need not veil basic flaws in thinking and Critiquing events. Whether or not the conclusion follows from a hypothesis is established in this sort of cases is by recourse to empirical facts. Which in this case means a neutral probe. one eminent journalist claimed that he had similar circumstantial questions and doubts but that this did not entitle him to conclusion. Fair enough at face value , But not so when you realize that it is Mr Antulay's basic job and not the journalists to answer these questions on behalf of people.
What are parliamentarians supposed to do? Put their rubber stamp and move on? To my knowledge there has been no parliamentary debate on the general terrorism perspective. Yesterday was the only occasion when Mr Antulay could have raised the issue. Mr Chidambaram's speech on 11th dec cannot be counted as an initiation of debate.
As far as I am concerned people like me too have a right to have their questions answered except in rare cases of national security. To cry foul to each and every thing as "national security" is to cry wolf.
To deny Mr Antulay the right to know is to deny the people their right to know because Mr Antulay represents them.
RamRajya and Caesar's wife must be above suspicion
Ramayan tells us that Lord Ram asked SitaMata to undergo the acid test based on a dhobi's allegation. To me the Lord was establishing the principle of heeding the Minority view. If that is a part of the tradition that Indians carry why didn't the BJP, Shiv Sena combine respect the minority view?Let the truth come out "Satyameva jayate".Let there be an enquiry or probe.
In Brief

• Mr Karkare's death needs to be probed to on the grounds of not squandering precious officers .
• Exposing the real truth behind Mr Karkare's apparently foolhardy behaviour.
• The principle of fairness and objectivity.
• Last but not the least to set at rest any doubts or questions some among the Muslim community might share with their coreligionists across the border.