Taking a leak with 'wikileak'

The pun in the heading was intended! Don't bother if you didn't get it.

Anyways, it has been interesting to read the different aspects of wikileak stories, no pun or sarcasm intended here. I have been keenly following the wikileak stories just like most people, not taking anything seriously. Because not every information is worth demand attention.

Before starting out. Let me make it very clear. I am not trying to defend, accuse etc here. To the best of my ability its just an exercise of information classification or lets say understanding the value of information in the so called 'information age'. (Yeah, I know its three information in a single sentence but move on).

One needs to understand the importance along with the difference between Views, Truth & Facts. 

Although nearly everyone reading this will say they know it but its better that I state it in clear terms because I want to, and this is my blog so I will do it.

A "fact" is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. For example, fire is hot, and it can burn your skin, now you can think or believe what ever you like, but if you pan to dispute with this, then go visit a doctor.

"Truth" is usually derived from a fact, but primarily it is a matter of believe. For example, Bush is an idiot, now most would find this statement as the truth, but definitely many would say its not true. Same goes with the argument God exists! Many will find it as a statement telling us the truth and many won't.

Ah! now cometh the word "Opinion" or let us say view, it is usually an inference that we would have either derived or formed for some reason or perhaps no reason. A smart person justifies their opinion and then there are those who do not do so. Either way don't bother much about it.

Now coming back to business of wikileaks, the only part which I find (an opinion) important are facts, the rest of the parts which would come under truth or opinion is only good for some clarity but not worth unnecessary commotion.

Now the beauty of the leaked diplomatic cables from India is they all fall in the category of views or sometimes as truth.

Horse trading, not the literal one, buying votes for cash, is not new I guess we all have heard our share of the stories. The only proven case to my knowledge is of PV Narasimha Rao, that he had bribed MPs in 1990s to prove his majority on floor of the house. But in recent years its been a common trend that MLAs in states have been put up in expensive hotels with guards to ensure that no horse trading affects the floor voting pattern for the parties. The only way around it is to make sure that we choose better MPs in our elections and hope that they have the backbone that defines a leader. There is no amount of policy that can replace the individuals' who eventually take decisions and implement it through actions.

In India lobbying is not official. That doesn't mean it has not taken place in the past or does not take place at present and will not happen in the place. Its among the oldest tricks in the book at different points of time. Diplomats have always functioned as 'emissaries' and for ages they have also been involved in propaganda. 

So far the recent wikileaks have not have had anything that are startling revelations, most of them are mere truths and some are views of diplomats to the superiors. Something quite common and expected. So, I would prefer if a journalist or the media at large puts up some effort to dig for a startling information, a fact, rather than giving importance to frivolous information under the bizarre claims of new revelation of truth.