In support of “What-About-ism”
“Jalikattu is cruel for the bulls. It must be banned.”
“Weren’t you the one organising beef festivals?”
“Artists, writers and movie makers must have absolute creative freedom”
“You didn’t say so when “El Sari Rojo” or movies on Nehru, Indira and Sonia were muzzled?”
“Use peaceful, legal means to protest distortion of history”
“Didn’t you mock and humiliate Dinanath Batra for doing exactly the same?”
“Creative people are being hounded by fringe”
“You remained quiet when Vivek Agnihotri was hounded by your friends?”
“Whats wrong with an alternate creative view of history of Padamavati & Allaudin Khilji.”
“What was wrong when AR Rahman was hounded for this movie?”
“India is becoming fascist…! We cannot breathe freely in India anymore!”
“What were you smoking during Emergency?”
“Did you hear about DeGanga, Dhulagarh, Azad Maidan, Malda, Kerala?”
“Demonetisation is spoiling India’s image”
“Really? And CWG, 2G, Adarsh, Antrix, CopperGate, Coalgate made you proud?”
“Oh! Stop all this. This is WhatAboutism!”
Dear Adarsh Liberals,
Yes, it is WhatAboutism, and WhatAboutism is perfectly valid tool in a political debate. Over last few years, we have had several such conversations and every time you used this “but this is WhatAboutism” clause to escape.
What is the ‘holier than thou’ issue with ‘WhatAboutism’ anyways?
For decades, your cabal has controlled the debate, my way or highway. You chose the topic, you defined the code, you gave selective access, you debated and you judged. Not anymore.
What is wrong with it, if someone is asking you a counter question and demanding you justify your argument?
When you object to WhatAboutism, you are saying ‘I will argue only with examples that suit my taste and fit my argument. My rules. My way’. Unless you prove that, the counter example is out of context and irrelevant to the case – you are just running away from the argument by shouting ‘WhatAboutism’.
If you are not fair and equitable in each scenario- if you are cherry picking, you are a hypocrite. WhatAboutism is just a mirror to tell you that.
When you look down upon WhatAboutism as invalid argument, you are being dismissive of basic jurisprudence and the way even Indian (and most world) judicial systems work. WhatAboutism is merely basic “law of precedence” being used by the common man against you. So buckle up!
Your aversion to WhatAboutism exposes the fact that you have controlled the narrative too long. Now, when social media empowered the other side to rebut and question you, the table have turned. Your high pedestal Opeds are not immune to critique anymore. Anyone can show a mirror to your duplicity and hypocrisy. So, do not chicken out and take refuge behind the “Oh! That is WhatAboutism” fig-leaf.
Sorry! Level playing means either you answer it all & play fair or just shut up.
A Soul in Exile. A Kashmiri Pandit Refugee in India.
Tech wage slave in Bangalore. News freak in general.