Thinking Critically for a Balanced Intellectual Reasoning

Thinking Critically for a Balanced Intellectual Reasoning

My short sojourn in India has been interesting in many ways, not least in the very intellectual articles I have come across in the English daily newspaper, The Hindu. I have had the privilege of being thrown into the controversies of the moment, both global as well as Indian. Hence, for the next two or three weeks, I am going to dwell on these interesting intellectual stimulants I found during my daily newspaper readings.

The first article is going to centre on the possibility of misinterpreting statements, either through a quick read without a deeper reflection of the ideas contained therein or because one's interpretation becomes clouded by one's own inner perceptions, that may be the outcomes of festering grieves, sense of social ills and injustices and/or intellectual biases. The next two will be related to the varied interpretations of freedom of expression; yes, contrary to what some may believe, there can be different interpretations and there need not be a one size fits all scenario.

In an opinion piece in The Hindu on January 3, 2015, Professor Peter Ronald de Souza from the Centre for The Study of Developing Societies commented on selected statements made by Professor Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, in an interview conducted by Express Adda and posted, as reported in the article, on the web on December 22, 2014. The statements that Professor de Souza took exception to, and which he says he is quoting, are as follows:

"One of the things Mr Modi did do is to give people a sense of faith that things can happen.  It may not have been exactly the things that I would have liked but I think this is an achievement. This wouldn't make my differences with Mr Modi on issues like secularism go away but, on the other hand, if we don't recognise it, we're missing out on something very important." (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/the-biggest-issue-with-this-government-is-social-cohesion/3/)

Professor de Souza then goes on to lament that

"There was no mention of the controversies, on "Ghar Vapsi" (reconversion movement of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism) that have drawn headlines over the last few weeks, or of the ordinance on "land acquisition" and its implications for tribal communities, or on communal violence as an electoral strategy such as in Trilokpuri, or on declaring December 25 as `Good Governance' day."

He goes on to mention that

"One feels let down by this brevity since a public intellectual, of global standing such as Prof. Sen, must use the occasion to speak truth to power. The dissenting tradition in India needs such leadership... When an eminent public intellectual speaks, the legitimacy of the government stands either diminished or enhanced. When he criticises policies, he initiates a new public discussion which lesser commentators, such as us, can draw upon and develop. When a moral philosopher of high standing awards a certificate of achievement to a government, opposing voices lose courage."

He concludes thus:

There are times in the life of a society when moral philosophers are called upon to speak, not in brief, not by ignoring crucial issues, but forthrightly by identifying the issues that define our times. They help the critical voices within society to speak because they carry so much moral and philosophical authority.

(http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/speaking-truth-to-power/article6750265.ece)

Is Professor de Souza correct in assuming that in not mentioning the abovementioned issues, but in complimenting the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on one aspect, Professor Sen has gone soft on his opposition to Mr Modi's social policies, that he has failed to lead, to become a guiding force for a society's intellectual and moral compass? Are there, however, other possible interpretations?

Read through both articles in The Indian Express and The Hindu. Look out for my blog on Wednesday, 28/1/2015, where I will present another possible way of interpreting Prof. Sen's observation and I will go on to argue that, perhaps, Prof. Sen has not reneged on his position that the Indian Prime Minister and his party are seriously harming social cohesion in India.

Another important aspect is that there are two versions of the quote ascribed to Professor Sen in The Indian Express. Consider the implications of having two different versions. The quote in the article above is actually from a later, December 26th, updated version. The second, which was posted on December 22nd, is given below:

“I am critical of Mr Modi but I have to say he has given a sense of faith to people that things can happen. It may not be in exactly the same way that I would have liked to have happened… I think it is quite an achievement. It is a compliment, but our differences on secularism and other things don’t go away,” Sen said.

(See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/modi-has-brought-hope-that-things-can-happen/#sthash.FHvRlRAy.dpuf)

Why are there two different quotes from the same person taken from the same Q&A session? What are the implications of this? How does this hamper the facilitation of critical thinking in the readers? Visit this blog site on 29/1/2015 for my take on the challenges faced in such a case and simple rules that MUST be followed in reporting so as to be accurate, trust-worthy and useful.