Poorly thought out verdicts

BY Darius Nakhoonwala| IN Opinion | 15/09/2013

The Hindu's editorials are more often than not garnished with self-evident truths. Many are vapid and show which way the paper leans,

says an uncharitable DARIUS NAKHOONWALA. The Hoot~s new column on editorials papers write.

You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala

The Hindu writes editorials on a huge array of subjects. But more often than not these are garnished with self-evident truths. Many are vapid and show which way the paper leans, replete with needless adjectives that reflect the prejudices of the writer. All too often they are added with half-facts. That, at any rate, is the overall impression the long suffering Darius gets when he reads them. Not from all of them, of course, but enough to make you wonder: who writes these things?

Given below are some samples of paucity of depth and analysis in this highly opinionated paper's opinions.

Writing on the Lok Sabha by-elections last month in Karnataka, the paper started off with this gem: "A united opposition is not necessarily a stronger opposition." The point it was making was that despite the coming together of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal (Secular), it was the Congress that won the seats. Why? Because "opportunistic alliances of the kind struck by the BJP and the JD(S) inspire no confidence in voters." Any intelligent reader knows that. For a paper that sells more than a lakh copies in Bangalore and is trying to sell double that, a deeper, constituency analysis was needed. Instead, the reader got these vapid generalities.

Then there was the edit on the VHP being stopped by the UP Government from carrying out some event. This is what the paper wrote: "It is a pattern with bullies that they back off when challenged." I see. How informative. The paper then praised the Government for arresting the leaders. It then went on to give what it said was the real story, namely, that the VHP had tried to make political capital out of a routine ritual. In support, though, it relied only on its reports. Citing some others would have made the edit much better.

The edit on the financial markets (and their thumbs-down to the Food Security Bill) the next day was not much better. This is what the paper said: "…big institutional investors have an inherent bias against welfare expenditure. Psychologically, market players seem to assume that any welfare scheme is bad for capital. This is a flawed assumption because the history of the market economy in the West clearly shows that a strong welfare framework has played an integral part in the expansion of capitalism." Oh dear! Which ignoramus wrote this and why was it allowed to go if not prejudice? I mean, what was the edit saying?

On August 31, the paper turned to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and said it was major improvement. That it is in many ways. But does it not have any weaknesses? It does. Several. But the only one that the paper could find was the one about land being acquired for building infrastructure in PPP projects. "Instead of insisting that companies take responsibility for acquiring the land they need for their projects - at whatever price the market demands - just as they do other factors of production, the government will continue to wield its power of eminent domain on their behalf." Clearly, the writer has never heard of economic benefits as opposed to merely commercial ones.

On the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the paper wrote a long edit which did not mention the victims at all, and in that sense was a truly one-sided edit. It had this to say: "the Sessions Court's decision to hang all four adult accused to death marks a step back - since it will have the effect of substituting the need for greater social, legal and even political efforts to tackle the epidemic of crimes against women with the false comfort of retribution." Who said it was false? Why not ask the families of the victims? "Death to sexual offenders is not the answer. Appellate courts must now swiftly intervene, reverse the trial court's judgment and sentence all four convicts in the case to an actual lifetime in prison." Must? Really?

One final word, on the edit on Narendra Modi's becoming the BJP's saviour. The paper could find no fault with the decision except to say that "for the existing party leadership, the biggest concern is its own future under Mr Modi, who has so far shown himself to be unaccommodating of the smallest dissent." Just like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi no?