The critics are coming out in force, from Channel 4 to the Guardian to Financial Times. There is Dr Mulilika Bannerji of the London School of Economics, then there is Dr Audrey Truschke and Hannah Ellis-Petersen of the Guardian. Edward Luce of the Financial Times went ‘full shrill’ with “Will this be India’s last democratic election?”. OMG is the kids on social media who use clickbait so well say. He didn’t say it, but maybe he means that the Constitution will be changed (needing a 2/3rd majority in the Lok Sabha ie 363 seats) which the BJP will achieve.
The criticism seems rich when you consider changing the UK constitution eg Brexit, you only need a simple majority of over 50%! But India by requiring a super majority is less democratic?
Of course then there are the Professors. The academics from America and UK. They’re all correct, except, every time I look more closely at their arguments I find these tiny problems with their criticisms:
1. Lack of Originality: The video does not contribute new knowledge or insights to the field; it merely replicates previous views without adding substantive new findings.
2. Methodological Flaws: The methods used to gather and analyze data are inappropriate and not robust enough, leading to unreliable results. This includes poor design, inadequate sample size, and improper statistical techniques.
3. Weak Theoretical Framework: The views lack a strong theoretical foundation and fail to connect clearly to existing theories and literature.
4. Inadequate Literature Review: Lack of review of existing literature suggests that the professor is not fully aware of the current state of research in the area.
5. Unconvincing Arguments: The conclusions drawn are not well-supported by the data and analysis presented. This includes over-generalizations and assertions that go beyond what the data can support.
6. Lack of Clarity: The views are poorly expressed, making it difficult to follow the argument or understand key points.
7. Ethical Issues: The views exhibit ethical shortcomings, including biases that were not adequately addressed.
8. Data Issues: Problems related to the data itself, such as missing data, data inconsistency, and lack of transparency about data sources and their limitations.
9. Poor Presentation of Results: The results are not presented clearly or effectively. Including a lack of necessary detail to understand the findings, and missing information that is critical for interpreting the data.
10. Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives: The views do not sufficiently consider alternative interpretations of the data, nor does it critically evaluate the limitations of the study’s approach and findings.
Alpesh B Patel OBE
