A friend of
mine from the IITD faculty asked me to analyse and comment on the above article.
I went through this article line by line. Here are my observations on the article and otherwise. I hope this will enlighten you.
Probable Objectives of Such Articles.
1) Sometimes the objective
of such articles is to create political noise, and sometimes, the still deeper
objective is to create civilizational aberrations. One should keep in mind the
objective of these articles while judging them.
2) It is quite
possible that the author has a particular inclination and, being uncomfortable
with a certain turn of events, may have genuinely raised the issue. But the reader
should be careful to separate facts from opinions and find out if the article
is sharing facts or promoting opinions.
3) Sometimes, these
articles are not written for critical thinkers, or for the people who are
already convinced otherwise, but the hidden objective of the article is to
retain people in its folds, if possible, to pull some of the fence-sitters to
its folds, or to create doubt in the minds of the people belonging to the
opposite camp. This is done to preserve or promote a vote bank, which ultimately
determines the direction and fate of democracies.
4) The world is always
engaged in civilizational or economic wars, and such articles are part of
psychological warfare that is deployed during peacetime as well as wars.
5) Nevertheless, such
articles may also be a genuine attempt to bring up the problems in the system
before the people.
The Nature of Such Articles:
1) This is not a
scientific article and, like any non-scientific article, it is highly
opinionated. Many statements made in
this article are the opinion of the author, which he has considered as true and
conveniently skipped to substantiate with data or analysis.
2) Since non-scientific
articles are based on opinions, it is always possible to reach an opposite
conclusion by using selective examples and by assigning an opposite opinion to
them. For example, while integrating the traditional knowledge with current
knowledge, the author may opine that it is backward and a waste of time or say that
it will strengthen the knowledge system and make it comprehensive without substantiating
it.
3) Unlike scientific
problems, human systems are a mix of good and bad. It is possible to twist the
same article to an opposite conclusion by being selective and highlighting only
one side of the issue.
A similar article with an opposite conclusion can be written on the
same topic. It depends on which way the money is flowing.
Credibility and Competence of the Author:
1) While reviewing
this article, we also need to investigate the Credibility and Competence of the
author. Is Vasudevan conversant with IKS, the IIT system, and the scientific
temperament of the IIT faculty and competent to comment on them? It is possible
that he has written an unbiased article as per his conscience. Maybe the author
is compelled by his ideological orientation or attraction to money to reach a
particular conclusion.
2) The reader must
know the history of the author to evaluate his article. As this is a non-scientific
article, its tone and conclusions depend heavily on the inclinations and
motives of the author.
Credibility of the Media - The Hindu:
1) Of all the
newspapers, ‘The Hindu’ is not an objective paper. It is a highly polarised and
anti-Hindu paper. It is well known that ‘The Hindu’ paper is driven by agenda,
ideology, and perhaps monetary considerations as well. To expect objectivity
and rationality from ‘The Hindu’ is asking for too much. All that ‘The Hindu’
writes must be verified critically. Therefore, the first objection to this
article is that the credibility of the newspaper which has published this paper
is seriously in doubt.
We can’t expect truth from a politically driven newspaper.
Comments on the Contents of the Article:
1) Coming to the text
of the article, the author only briefly supports the idea of IKS (Col.-1,
Para-1), just to show his unbiasedness, but soon follows an ideological path.
2) Col.-1 Para-2: He
is suggesting that “IKS might focus on linguistics of Panini, the Nyaya school
of logic, the Kerala school of mathematics, the development of Wootz steel, and
so on.”
a) He is missing many domains of IKS, such as Veda, Upanishad, Gita,
Puranas, Architecture, Astrology, Astronomy, Ayurveda, Nritya Shastra, Music,
etc. We need to explore all these fields and accept whatever suits us.
b) Is the author competent to suggest what shall be part of IKS or not?
We don’t know. But in one statement, he has rejected the IKS system currently
being followed, which is still developing.
3) Use of words like
myth and pseudoscience:
a) Whatever he calls a
myth is his personal opinion. Many people do not believe so; for them, the
so-called myths are a record of the history of the nation. Can he prove the
myths are ‘myths’? If not, is he not succinctly imposing his personal and
negative opinion on the readers?
b) What is a
pseudoscience? Is science perfect in itself? Is science the touchstone to judge
everything? Aren’t there forces and phenomenon which defy science? Should we
reject them because they don’t conform to science? Einstein’s Relativity and
Quantum physics defy classical physics and common sense. Haven’t we changed our
science to accommodate new observations? Our objective shall be, if a thing is
useful for mankind, we shouldn’t be bogged down by terms such as science or
pseudoscience. Is he not again succinctly imposing his personal and negative
opinion on the readers by terming something as pseudoscience since the word
carries a negative connotation? Does the author know about the methodology and
limitations of science? Is he assuming that the faculty of IIT is not competent
to segregate sense from nonsense, that they don’t know the methodology and
limitations of science and that they can’t investigate truthfully so-called
pseudoscience?
c) Thus, using words
like ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘myth’, which have a connotation of something
unscientific and unreal, respectively, he has already decided what he wants to
conclude from the article.
4) Col.-1, Para-4: He
has used the names of great scientists like Jagdish Chandra Bose and Prafull
Chandra Rai, just to add value to his article. He has tried to use their name
to give value to the word pseudoscience he is using liberally. I don't think
these scientists ever said anything about pseudoscience and decolonisation. He
is, without any basis, saying that “they proved that decolonisation does not
have to open the door to pseudoscience.” Did they ever say so? If yes, he
should have quoted them here; if not, then isn’t he using their names to push
his own narrative?
5) Col.-1, Para-4:
“The IKS centres intend to embed myth-based inquiries in the framework of the
IITs”. Isn’t the author showing disbelief in the competence of the IIT Faculty
and the IIT system? Having spent a number of years in IIT as a student and about
30 years in academics elsewhere, I think IITs know better what they are doing,
and if something goes wrong during a new and evolving system, they have the
means of correcting it. Although IITs have many problems, it is a living and
conscious system which has grown continuously despite many challenges.
6) Col.-2, 3: He is
also assigning motives to the introduction of IKS in IITs and other institutes,
which is quite premature. It is only his ideological orientations which make
him conclude like this. In any system, intent is very important, and it is not
known until that system matures. Therefore, before a system matures, concluding
that the system is going to bring politico-religious dogma into scientific
institutions is just a fear or hypothesis.
7) Col.-3, Para-2:
“the participating IITs have signalled their willingness to trade their
academic credentials for theological dogma.” Is the author not casting
aspersions on IITs’ faculty? Does he have anything in support of his allegations, or is he doing so to steer
the article to a particular conclusion? Is he not casting aspersion on the
intent of the IITs faculty even before the system has matured?
8) Col.-3 Para-4:
"the 'researchers' are fundamentally creating the very stimuli they claim
to be 'discovering'”. Is he not questioning the scientific temperament of IITs’
Faculty? Is he competent to do so? Is he not aware that all research work
before being accepted goes through peer review?
9) Col.-4, Para-2:
Forceful approach – “it seems the Hindutva programme has finished shifting its
strategy to an inside-out approach with top-down force. Doctoral students were
required to attend the "special session". Nothing unusual about it.
Almost in all organisations, when a program is organised, the biggest problem
for the organisers is the audience. Everywhere, the audience is attracted in
different ways; IITs are no different. But that doesn’t mean people accept an
ideology due to ‘force’. At least in India, the ‘force’ doesn’t remain for
long. Even if some people come to the fold of any philosophy due to a temporary
‘force’ or attractions, those who remain with any philosophy, almost do it
voluntarily, and there is nothing wrong with it.
10) Col.-4, Para-2: “The lITs' administrators know they are compromising
the institutions' reputation, but they are willing to risk that because their
goal is not scientific leadership. It is domestic ideological consolidation.”
What is the basis for this statement? The author seems to know too much about the
IIT system, the faculty, and their hidden intentions. Or is it simply to reach
a particular conclusion, which is the hidden objective of the author?
11) Col-4, Para-3. “The spreading rot of pseudoscience at the IITs will
encourage top-tier Indian talent to move to universities abroad.” It seems the author
doesn’t know why a researcher moves to a different university in India or
abroad. A researcher is guided by opportunities and remuneration in his field
of specialisation. The institute’s character doesn’t affect his decision unless
that becomes overwhelming and detrimental to his personal growth.
12) Col-4, Para-3. “Good international scientists are beginning to look down on IIT’s degrees because of these 'special sessions'”. Does the author have any material in support of this statement, or is it just a statement thrown to reach a particular conclusion?
Conclusion:
1. Despite commenting adversely on the article, I
must agree that a person with a different allegiance may write a similar
article in a different way, imposing his opinion on it and concluding a
entirely different conclusion. That is, a similar article with the opposite
conclusion may also be opianated and may face similar criticism.
2. If the author's objective was to highlight a problem in the system, he should have considered the unbiased views of the faculty and students involved in the system and presented his results in the article. Instead of giving his opinion freely, he should have shared the experiences of the faculty and the students involved in it.
Suggestions:
1. Such articles also serve an ulterior purpose in
a democracy. The objective of such articles is to hold on to the people who believe
in a particular narrative, to create confusion in the minds of the people who
are sitting on the fence, and, if possible, to bring them over to this side.
These articles create narratives and vote banks and are quite useful in
democracies to change the course of a nation. Therefore, such articles are
either promoted by political parties or unfriendly nations that wish to interfere
in a democratic country.
2. If such is the case, what is the safeguard for
us? First, we need to differentiate between a scientific and a non-scientific
article. In a non-scientific article, we need to differentiate between
information, opinions and analysis. We need to critically examine the opinions
and not be swayed by them. We need to understand the motive and credibility of
the author and the media that promotes it. Lastly, we must fit in such articles
in the historical, social, local and geo-political, and industrial framework and
pick the trend rather than being swayed by a single article. This is an era of
psychological warfare when the true objective of any action is hidden much
below the surface. While examining an article, we shall also relate it to the underlying
trend, which will expose the real purpose of the article.
3. Nowadays, people rarely work for society, the nation, or humanity. Instead, they are working for sheer selfish motives. Like
advertisements, creating narratives brings a lot of money. Therefore, to evaluate
a non-scientific article, we must also investigate the character of the author,
the media, and be aware of social, political, and commercial objectives and
narratives being played.
Then only we may understand if the
article is highlighting something important before us, or it is creating a narrative
to serve its political or commercial objectives.
The article:
A Trojan horse has breached the IITs
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-trojan-horse-has-breached-the-iits/article71134594.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment