One of the many paradoxes of life is that opinions are stronger in proportion to one’s ignorance of the facts of the matter. Facts have a way of making matters that seemed black-and white (when one was blissfully unaware of the facts) look a lot greyer in comparison. This is especially the case in political/historical matters, although is by no means confined to them.
The inimitable Shafiq-ur-Rehman expressed it best. In his characteristic way, he makes one of his fictitious characters to boast that he can speak for hours on end on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about. As one increases in knowledge of one’s subject, it become that much more difficult to make simplistic, grand and sweeping statements; and one becomes that much more careful and cautious before venturing an opinion. Political and historical issues especially call for a nuanced analysis, usually leading to subtle conclusions.
Take any such controversy at random. The chances are that those among your acquaintances and friends who could not be more vocal and whose minds could not be more made-up on the issue would also be the most ignorant of the history and the facts of the matter. But they make up for this deficiency of knowledge on their part by a dazzling surplus of passion and emotion. The next time you see a man who is sermonizing on the basic structure the constitution; just ask him what the first constitutional amendment is. The chances are that you will draw an equally spectacular blank.
The same can be said of the folks who are the noisiest on say, the separation of East Pakistan or the Kashmir dispute. To take the last one as an example, it is a safe bet that the most passionate proponent of a particular solution to the problem would not know the answer to any of the following questions: How many princely states were there at the time of the Independence? How many of those decided to join Pakistan or India? What was the Muslim League’s position regarding the principle according to which a state was supposed to go one way or the other, or to remain as a part of a confederation? What was Congress’s position on the whole princely states issue? Also, this man will likely have very little idea (if any) about the 3-point terms of ceasefire of the 1947-48 war, Operations Gibraltar, Grand Slam and Desert Hawk, and the Tashkent Declaration. He would hardly be so certain about the validity of his opinion (even if its bottom line remains the same as before) if he had some familiarity with facts.
Not that the typical individual across the border would be any better. He is likely to be equally indoctrinated, equally convinced of the ‘correctness’ of his opinion, and equally unwilling to listen to anything that even suggests otherwise. What each side needs to do is focus on forming opinions based on facts; what each side does instead is keep complaining that the other side continuously fails to do that.
Knowing the relevant facts before forming one’s opinion has at least two benefits: First: one’s opinion is an informed one; and second: appreciating that a differing view is at least possible, one is likely to be less rigid and uncompromising about it and, as a result, markedly less upset with people not agreeing with it. It is for this second merit that Bertrand Russell argued that pleading a cause that one disagreed with must be made an integral part of every educational program. It is for the same reason why it is imperative to state the opposing view in the most compelling and honest way possible before one proceeds to criticise it.
This article does not aim to put the historical record straight on the Kashir issue, much less to propose a solution to it. Instead, the point is to highlight man’s tendency to judge himself qualified to speak on subjects he has yet to acquire the requisite competence in. Not only does he do this with impunity, but is so convinced about the soundness of his opinions that he is exasperated when somebody fails to see eye to eye with him. That somebody, who is typically equally incompetent when it comes to the issue at hand, experiences an equal amount of frustration on the former holding such foolish views. This can be quite funny from an objective point of view; but there is much bad blood that ensues, which does nothing to make the average mortal look at the human species with any degree of fondness.
It is the simpletons that are usually thought to be guilty of overvaluing their opinions about everything. And for very good reasons. But accomplished and otherwise intelligent types are by no means immune to it either. In fact, men who are experts of one subject area are extremely susceptible to the temptation of overestimating their eligibility to opine on subjects they are very far from competent in.
Human beings will do one another an immense favour by realizing that there is no shame whatsoever in not being knowledgeable about everything under the sun. What is certainly beneath the dignity of any self-respecting man however is to hold a passionate opinion on an issue without having bothered to read up on the fundamental facts concerning the issue.
Unlike facts, opinions are not correct or incorrect – they are well-founded or otherwise. Even when the superstructure (reasoning) beneath them is impeccably constructed (the argument is valid), if the foundation (facts) on which they are supposed to be based happens to be faulty or (worse) non-existent, then the finish (conclusion) is expected to be shaky at best.
