Truth Through Innuendos and Assertions

My good friend CJ is a contrarian. Being contrarian perhaps explains why we are friends in the first place. My conversations with CJ usually give me a different perspective. Today we were on the phone and we ended up talking about my favourite Indian politician, Shri Narendra Modi. Narendrabhai, I told CJ, is the only principled Indian political leader of any standing in Indian politics.

CJ’s replied, “You may be right, if one were to judge him by what they say about him.”

“If by ‘they’ you mean the popular English press in India, I don’t think they say much that is complimentary about Narendrabhai. Usually it is innuendoes and unsupported assertions of guilt,” I said.

“Yes, I mean them. Their opposition to Modi adds credibility to the claim that Modi is seriously competent and good. It is what separates Modi from the crooked and the corrupt in India politics. When a confederacy of dunces consistently gets on someone’s case, it usually is a sign that the person is doing something good and the whole rotten applecart is in danger of being knocked over,” said CJ.

“They are not all dunces, though. Sometimes, not too frequently though,” I said, “Sometimes reasonable people write what appear to be balanced and insightful articles about Modi.”

I pointed him to Ashok Malik’s article in The Asian Age, “The Modi Business.”

“Malik is a clever man. It’s an interesting piece,” agreed CJ. “It appears to be balanced but uses a very clever device to damn him while appearing to be balanced.”

“Go on. I am listening,” I said.

“Stop me if you’ve heard this before. Someone asks you, ‘Spell yoke, as in to hitch two things.’ You reply, ‘y-o-k-e.’ Then he says, ‘Spell folk, as in people.’ You reply, ‘f-o-l-k.’ Then he says, ‘Spell the white of an egg.’ And you say, ‘y-o-l-k.’ He then points out, ‘You idiot, that’s the yellow of an egg, not the white.’ That’s cute, isn’t it?” said CJ.

“Yes. So?” I asked.

“It’s a neat little trick that uses a cognitive failing of the human mind. Our minds can be primed to go along a familiar route. We fill in details that are missing and assume things that are not necessarily true. It has survival value and usually serves us well. We don’t examine all the evidence carefully because it is cognitively costly. But sometimes that failing can be used deliberately to misdirect and mislead.

“Juxtapose two cases, however tenuously related they may be, and some of the features of one case can bleed into the other. Use the same brush for two different colors and you cannot avoid mixing them up on the canvass.

“Malik starts off with the case of an American politician who was rabidly segregationist. George Wallace (1919-1998) was well-known for his loathsome racist views, and his utterances and actions are in the public record. Later he had a change of heart and disavowed his earlier convictions. So the facts are that, one, the US south was segregated into two distinct social groups, the whites and the non-whites; two, Wallace was a controversial and charismatic politician; three, Wallace was a racist who had a change of heart; four, Wallace became a successful politician.

“George Wallace is naturally enough an unknown person to most Indian readers. So all this is new information to them. Novelty leads to cognitive load but also makes the person more suggestible. So the reader is sensitized and open to hearing more about evil minded racists who have had a change of heart.

“Malik follows up the Wallace case with Narendra Modi’s case. Why do that? Clearly to draw a parallel. The facts are, one, the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in India; two, Modi is a controversial and charismatic politician; three, . . . Well, actually that’s the missing part. Fact three in Wallace’s case was a racist’s change of heart. No evidence is presented about Modi being a racist or harbouring any ill-will towards any group of people. No evidence is presented that Modi had a change of heart. Instead, the reader is relied upon to fill in the gaps.

“The post-Godhra riots in which both Hindus and Muslims were killed have become, through repeated assertion, associated in the popular mind with Modi. The media has broadly followed the agenda set by the Congress and asserted on flimsy grounds that Modi is somehow responsible for the riots and that he masterminded the horror because he bears ill will towards Muslims. If you accept that lie about Modi, then it gives rise to two disjoint possibilities — either he has a change of heart and repents for his sins, or he continues to be a bad guy. There is no third possibility: that Modi never had any animosity towards Muslims and therefore does not have to have a change of heart on that matter.

“But first presenting the story about the racist Wallace who did have a change of heart and then following it up with Modi’s case makes you wonder. The technique is effective and therefore often used. Truth though innuendos and assertions. Opinions expressed repeatedly morph into “facts” in the average mind. Assert something without proof, and repeat the assertion often enough that it spread through contagion and becomes general knowledge. Then rely on that general knowledge to provide the fillers needed for making one’s case.

“Malik correctly reports that Wallace had a change of heart. And then the attention shifts to Modi, the SIT, and Modi’s detractors. Modi may be undergoing a convenient change of heart. Or maybe he’s not. Or maybe Modi is just too clever. Maybe this or maybe that. All that is up for grabs. But by introducing Wallace, Malik essentially poisons the well and whatever you draw from it, you cannot get away from the suspicion that Modi is hostile toward Muslims, maybe perhaps something like Wallace was toward blacks,” CJ said.

“I was puzzled why Malik had to drag in Wallace at the start of the piece,” I said.

“Innuendos and unsupported assertion works wonders in the popular mind,” CJ said. “And it works all the time. It is used to dress up charlatans as paragons of virtue, and it is used to needlessly demonize perfectly ordinary people. Mother Teresa was demonstrably a terrible person but got painted as a saint. Modi gets the exact opposite treatment. The media has its own agenda and people are generally too busy or too lazy to think a bit about what’s being reported.”

“You know, CJ,” I said, “I came across an interesting example of a politician showing up the bias of a media person. It was a Barney Frank interview, the US Congressman. Here’s how it goes:

Interviewer: You’ve long argued for the decriminalization of marijuana. Do you smoke weed?
Barney Frank: No.
Interviewer: Why not?
Barney Frank: Why do you ask a question, then act surprised when I give an answer? Do you think I lie to people?
Interviewer: I thought you might explain why you support decriminalizing it but don’t smoke it.
Barney Frank: Do you think I’ve ever had an abortion?

“That’s a nice example of how with just a few words, Frank exposed the interviewer’s illogic and bias,” I said.

“Reading about Narendra Modi in the popular English media brings to mind Thomas Jefferson’s words, although he was talking about Christian religion-inspired cruelty. He said it makes one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. In India, it should be said that this distinction cannot be made since broadly the English media and its consumers are guilty of foolishness and hypocrisy simultaneously,” CJ said.

“Alright, CJ. Good talking to you. Now I should let you go since I have stuff to write. I am writing a long series on why stealing lies at the foundation of India’s failure to develop. You should read it.”

“OK, will do. Bye,” said CJ and thus ended our conversation.

Author: Atanu Dey


10 thoughts on “Truth Through Innuendos and Assertions”

  1. Honesty, hats off!!

    A brilliant description of how the English media makes fools of us…

    Wonder if more of these tricks and deceptive ways could be exposed for all to clear their lenses (and ears) while gettting ‘enilightened’ by our pillar of democracy… Would be a big big service



  2. There is one thing I never fail to point out to the Modi bashers: That the riots are referred to as the post Godhra riots for a reason.

    That the riots were provoked by the barbecue of a railway coach load of (obviously) Hindu kar sevaks, by a Muslim mob.

    Whoever had the bright idea to do this was of course aware of the retributions that would result against innocent Muslims all over the state and possibly the country.

    Yet, all the prime accused have been let off scot free, and to this day nobody in the press or Parliament asks the critical question: Who was the mastermind behind the train burning?

    To hear the press speak, it sounds as though Modi did a Jagdish Tytler and personally led the mobs on their attacks, and that all the Hindus involved suddenly, spontaneously, decided to go on a massacre one morning.


  3. I met one of my college friends after many years. He’s some shot in a MNC semiconductor / solar wafer company which has operation in India. He told me that his company is very upright and such in case of corruption. So when the Business Development team wanted to expand in Indian states thru local governments, they did not find a single state government whose ‘high rank officials’ didn’t ask bribe – except yes EXCEPT Gujarat. The deal went thru so smoothly that they couldn’t believe they were in India and not a single paisa was bribed anywhere.


  4. Got to agree with MangoMan. Friend’s dad has a few small industries, wanted to move back to Karnataka to be back with his family during his later years. It took him nearly a year to even get the permits for the land, and he was hitting roadblocks everywhere after that, even after parting with large sums of cash in bribes. They eventually never even bought the land. He went from Pune to Gujarat, things were settled in a matter of weeks and they are now operational. The contrast couldn’t be more obvious.

    What’s so terrible about supporting Modi? It’s the polar opposite of supporting a life-sucking coterie like the ones running the country today, or the ones in most other states.


  5. Ashok Malik has realized in advance, much, more in advance that Modi will win 2012 Gujarat election with huge margin with the support of Muslim votes. Its a face saving exercise.

    Gujarat was not the saffron laboratory. It was KHAM (Kshatriya+Harijan+Adivasi+Muslim) laboratory developed by Ahmad Patel (Indira Gandhi’s now Sonia’s political adviser) in 1980’s. Their experiment worked till late 80’s and then failed miserably after the arrive of BJP. Politically Congress can not kill Modi that’s why its trying to kill him legally, again failed. See TOI’s Kinshuk Nag, another loser, partial columnist’s article, he too is now changing tone just like Ashok Malik.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: