[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the malicious claim!

Sat Nov 8 21:43:09 UTC 2003

libertarian wrote:

>On one page of Wikipedia, it says:
>Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi 
>
>Kolkata (capital of Communist ruled West Bengal) based Statesman made
>the same claim and later apologised when asked for proof in a court
>of law. 
>http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?date=2003-10-11&usrsess=1&clid=1&id=53203
>
>
>Full text of the apology:
>
>An apology
>
>In an editorial entitled Double Standard  Not Illegal but Stupid (The Statesman, 29-30 May 2000), we had described the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh as the organisation that killed Gandhi. This was incorrect, and unsupported by both facts and the record. We express regrets for the publication and apologise unconditionally for the anguish and mental torture caused to members of the organisation. This apology follows in the case Darshan Lal Jain vs CR Irani and others in the court of Mr Atul Marya, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jagadhri (Haryana) in which the complainant was being represented by Mr Pardeep Garg, Advocate. 
>
Sometimes a small variation in wording can make all the difference in 
meaning.

Thus

    organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi

and

    the organisation that killed Gandhi

do not say the same thing.  The apology by "The Statesman" was for the later phrase which the original text of the apology put in quotation marks.  The former puts the blame squarely on one individual who happened to be a member of the organization; the latter suggests a direct responsibility on the part of the organization.  In the context of the United States one cannot validly discredit the legacy of Abraham Lincoln solely on the basis of his membership in the same party as George W. Bush.

I do not have adequate background in the matter to take a position about which is correct, but I can be sensitive to the wording change.

The gratuitous references to communists and Marxists do not help anyone to understand the complex and highly distressing events in Gujarat.  The Communists of India are not a unified group.  Communist has become a collective term for several splinter parties... so which of them is relevant here?  When you mention "communist" in relation to Indian events to people who are totally unfamiliar with Indian politics, you will find yourself appealing to prejudices that have more to do with communism as it has developed in other countries.

The reference to communists is a straw man argument.  It is based on the presumption that others will see anything associated with communists as necessarily bad.  If the reader can be made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything associated with that faction is also bad.  This is a very dishonest way of debating.

Those of us outside of India who take the trouble to somewhat inform ourselves about India, will feel cheated if we need to plough through endless streams of biased propaganda from either side.  Let statements be evaluated on the basis of what is said rather than who said it.  The senseless violence in Gujarat needs to be explained in terms of Gujarati events, and not by reference to a newspaper from West Bengal or a politician from Kerala.

Ec