Lies, Statistics and The Damned

I’m not usually one to write politically, yet I have been thinking about two sets of figures I have been made aware of, which although are not directly related, still seem to create a disparity in my mind. In an attempt to avoid being shrugged off with sentiments similar to Disraeli’s quote about “three kinds of lies” I shall simply offer the two figures:

·         Deaths in the US on September 11th 2001 due to terrorism  – 2999

 

·         Deaths on Indian Railways in 2007 of an accidental nature – 3997

In actual fact the two figures in terms of conventional comparison are nearly irrelevant, they differ in terms of cause and time period, but I have been trying to consider people in terms of units; units of life, units of life ended prematurely, destructive units, and units of peace.

The cause of the deaths in the US were of a terrorist nature, attributed to people of murderous intent and I would think it safe to assume each person labelled a terrorist, as a destructive unit, and also I would imagine it safe to assume that behind the scenes there must have been a considerably larger number of destructive units to plan such events. Deaths on Indian railways were caused either by accident, and some without doubt can be partly attributed to negligence, poor infrastructure and poverty.

Having stated that I am not comparing the two figures conventionally, I should explain the disparity which I speak of. It is one attributed to the publicity, sensationalism and predominantly the resultant destructive reaction. I think it is rational to feel strongly about a death attributed to murder, and it is part of human nature to do so, perhaps it evokes stronger feelings on moral or emotive grounds than an accidental death or one due to negligence; however, despite a death which falls under the category of cause attributed to murder seeming to have a greater emotional weight attached to it than one which is accidental, adopting the thought process of a unit of death being simply a unit of death, is it rational or truly moral to react by increasing the number of destructive units of your own in response? In a certain sense the deaths carry the same weight. A person dies, be it in a tower block, on a plane, or on a railway track; and still a life is no more, a friend or relative is lost, a family grieve and so forth.

This is where I adjudge that the largest part of the disparity is and where I make my comparison. Destructive units (i.e. combative troops fighting in the name of a war on terror) have increased as a reaction to the terrorist attacks in the US. Should the deaths attributed to accident, infrastructure, or even negligence on the Indian Railway be met with a destructive reactionary force on a similar scale to that which has been set out to rid the world of terrorism? One might reasonably say that they shouldn’t, but those deaths still equate to the same loss of life, so no matter the cause, should one death be met with another as a preventative measure? Something which cannot be argued is that in being a unit of peace, one is not a destructive unit.

I am not under the illusion of discovering the notion, it has been uttered before by many, and under far greater duress, famously in the form of Gandhi’s “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. Many would contradict it by saying it is a theoretical model where in acting as a unit of peace one is leaving themself open to attack. I would remind them that the current political infrastructure is also only a model, a pseudo creation which we are led to believe mirrors life, encompasses right and wrong, and morality. One where the words democracy and peace at times seem inseparable, and yet destructive acts are committed under their guise and labelled under that same morality. Perhaps that very human nature I spoke of means that we are destined to continue fighting and killing for all eternity, but I don’t feel the other truly peaceful option has been fully tested. War is contageous, but perhaps peace is too, and the other side of an “eye for eye” is still after all, that one day we may all see.