Over the last two weeks, I have seen on my Facebook wall some friends posting “what about the USA's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…?” “What about Yugoslavia and Kosovo?” One friend wrote: “If you criticize Putin’s actions in your articles, what about NATO’s actions?” (I want you to understand I am using the word ‘friends’ very loosely).
This whataboutism technique was cultivated in Soviet times. Whenever Americans criticized the human rights violations in the USSR, the Soviets would use the stock phrase: And you are lynching negroes. (Indeed, until as late as 1968, there were cases of lynching of Blacks in America).
Russia uses whataboutism most, but other countries are catching up. India’s PM Narendra Modi was accused of enabling the 2002 Gujarat riots that may have killed over 1,000 Muslims. His supporters defended him: ‘What about the thousands of Sikhs killed on Rajiv Gandhi’s watch in 1984 – immediately after Indira Gandhi’s assassination?’
In 2020, I wrote a newspaper article criticizing India’s proposed anti-Muslim legislation. One angry reader wrote to me: ‘How can you write something to defend Muslims? Don’t you know they practice FGM (female genital mutilation) in Africa?’
*****
In this piece, I will try to give whataboutism a scientific shape.
A judge sentences a murderer for 15 years in jail. He looks at the judge, bewildered, and says: ‘Your honour, but you had sentenced so and so for only seven years. He was also charged with murder.’
All murders are horrible, but they are not equal. In the same jurisdiction, sentences can vary widely. A premeditated murder is more ghastly than an impulsive murder. If the murderer tries to destroy the body and other evidence, he will spend many more years behind bars. An Indian woman murdering her sadist husband and in-laws will get a reduced sentence. A murderer showing remorse and admitting guilt immediately will get a cut in sentence. Motive, mitigating factors and the overall context decide how harsh the judge should be.
*****
Yes, all wars are deplorable. On 15 February 2003, I was in London, walking with over a million anti-war protestors. This was the largest demonstration ever held in London. Despite that Bush and Blair managed to override public sentiment, and went ahead to wreck Iraq. Not surprisingly, no weapons of mass destruction were found.
And yet, Bush and Blair, the two war criminals, are now leading a retired luxurious life. Why?
Because USA and UK operate in a democratic framework. There is absolute freedom of speech. Media can be biased, but not state controlled. Judges are appointed by politicians, but verdicts are their own. Richard Nixon, perhaps the nastiest American president in the last century, had to resign under public pressure. Trump was replaced before he could inflict more harm.
In democratic nations, the public can fearlessly voice opinion. Wrong decisions, even terrible decisions like the Bush-Blair Iraq invasion, are sometimes taken. After all, in democracies, we choose our leaders and give them access to the most lethal weapons. Those decisions, however, are subject to scrutiny, in televised debates in parliaments, can be challenged in courts, criticized in media, protested on the streets. That significantly reduces the probability of a single madman starting a war based on fantasies and fiction. We know the US-led wars of the last few years. We don’t know how many wars didn’t happen thanks to the system’s checks and balances.
*****
Like murders, wars have different contexts. I will classify wars into four categories.
Democratic country/countries attacking a dictatorship. (e.g. NATO wars)
Democratic country attacking another democratic country. (Rare, maybe the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus).
Dictatorship attacking another dictatorship. (Hitler vs Stalin)
Dictatorship attacking a democracy. (Russian invasion of Ukraine)
The last is the worst category because a single person or a small group of people who have already muzzled the voices of their own people go on the rampage to butcher the freedom of another people. The current invasion is the most horrible instance of this category (a) because the attacking side has nuclear weapons, the other side doesn’t (b) Russia is 28 times bigger than Ukraine (c) other than a dictator’s paranoia, there was no provocation.
*****
In philosophy as well as logic, whataboutism is classified as a fallacy. The ‘you also’ technique is usually used by people who are guilty or support the guilty.
If you were to meet a Ukrainian woman who has lost her husband and children in the relentless Russian bombing, would you tell her: “You know, Iraqi women also lost their families when NATO bombed them”?
Using whataboutism in the time of war is a sign of low intelligence and profound insensitivity. Decent people should not use it. No violence of any type can be defended by pointing to another violence.
Ravi
indeed, two wrongs don't make one right. thanks for you writing. As always, well written and spot on analysis.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to meet an Iraqi woman who has lost her husband and children in the relentless British bombing, would you tell her: “You know, Bush and Blair are democratically removed from office and that should give you consolation".
ReplyDeleteYour neighbour comes around and gives you a lecture on what you are not allowed to do but what he has just done. You,inspired by denying whataboutism, say, i will certainly obey and do as you say.
I'd love to see that scene in person.
Good analysis and thoughtful. Thank you
ReplyDelete