‘Whataboutism’: The dangerously absurd rhetorical structure that helps evade vital issues.

We are humans, the self-proclaimed, most important species in the world, or perhaps the universe sometimes. But one thing that the most advanced species in the world cannot take is criticism. Passing on the blame, denying and ‘Whataboutism’ are the human ways of disregarding the legitimacy of the issue at hand.

What is ‘Whataboutism’?

‘Whataboutism’ or ‘Whataboutery’ is a technique used to discredit or disregard the issue raised by an opponent by using hypocrisy, without directly refusing or discarding the accusation or the argument.

In simpler words, when a child is asked about his homework, instead of accepting the fact that he did not complete the homework, points his finger on a classmate who hasn’t done the homework either.

What about the fact that he hasn’t done the homework?

True, he hasn’t completed the given work either, but were you concerned about it until you were asked about your homework? It isn’t the genuine concern regarding the other person doing something wrong, but rather diverting the issue towards someone or something else so you can get out of the crosshairs.

What about the Origin, Etymology, and a brief History of ‘Whataboutism’?

Whataboutery and Whataboutism are synonymous and were coined during the Cold War in the 1970s. It is a portmanteau of the words ‘What’ and ‘About’ and means to put the critic under criticism.

The usage of this rhetorical structure to dodge criticism and turn the attention to a different and most of the times less relevant issues started in Soviet Russia during the Cold War for the first time.

The term was first coined in response to a 1974 letter written by Sean O’Conaill to the Editor of The Irish Times on 30th January 1974. The letter read,

“I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?”. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: “What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?”. Neither is the Church immune: “The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?”

— Sean O’Conaill, “Letter to Editor”, The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

John Healy, an Irish Journalist, in his response to this letter coined the term ‘Whataboutery’-

“As a correspondent noted in a recent letter to this paper, we are very big on Whatabout Morality, matching one historic injustice with another justified injustice. We have a bellyfull of Whataboutery in these killing days and the one clear fact to emerge is that people, Orange and Green, are dying as a result of it. It is producing the rounds of death for like men in a bar, one round calls for another, one Green bullet calls for a responding Orange bullet, one Green grave for a matching Orange grave.”

The use of Whataboutism became a ‘Russian Tradition’ because of their constant usage of the technique to dodge the criticisms of the Western world. Soviets would counter the allegations of human rights violations with “What about the lynching of Negros in America?” Incidents like ‘Chernobyl’ were justified showing an equal or worse tragedy that occurred in the west.

What about ‘Whataboutism’ in Feminism?

Feminism and Feminists have been a very integral part of modern society in making sure that women, whose rights weren’t recognized until the late 1940s are treated equally and are given the similar opportunities and privileges available to men.

But every good thing is bound to be questioned by the already existing privileged class, isn’t it? For every point raised for women, a question is asked about men.

“Don’t women deserve to have equal rights as men?” is followed by “But what about women getting reservations whereas men don’t?”

The first question has only one answer and that is yes, they deserve equal rights. Instead of acknowledging this, the argument raised is that men don’t get a reservation. Dodging the real question with an irrelevant question and thus derailing the credibility of the question asked in the first place is ‘Whataboutism’.

‘Whataboutism’ also normalizes heinous crimes by making them sound normal. Crimes like rape, sexual abuse, etc are and discussions regarding women being the victim in these crimes majority of the time are derailed and normalized by counter-arguments like ‘Men get raped too’. If the only time you remember about men getting raped is when a woman’s safety is being talked about, then you don’t care about men or the crime, it is simply ‘Whataboutism’.

What about ‘Whataboutism’ in the Indian political scenario?

Because ‘Whataboutism’ was used to spread propaganda in Soviet Russia, it so happened that sooner or later every political party in the world that had propaganda to spread used it. Every country has seen this rhetorical structure being used to divert the attention from one massacre that directly affects the people to another which either happened 7000 miles east/west or the one that happened centuries back, either way, to escape accountability.

The usage of ‘Whataboutism’ has constantly risen in India post-2014. Every criticism of the present government is answered with “What about the previous government? Where were you when they did it?” The answer is simple, we voted the previous government out and brought you into power to ensure that those things didn’t go wrong. Every piece of criticism or a question is meted out in the same manner, either by the established IT Cell of the political parties or by the members of the political parties or sometimes by the Ministers themselves.

Questions regarding unemployment, failing economy, farmer crisis, etc are met with the response, “What about the previous government, during whose time these issues persisted?” It does not take superior intelligence to understand this dirty loop. Even debates on riots or extra-judicial murders are dealt with in the same way. If you are asking about the Kashmiris in 2020, you’ll be asked about the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989. If you question people losing their lives as a result of Government policies, you’ll be asked “What about our soldiers who lose their lives every day?” The problem with this being none of the issues are solved and none of the questions are answered.

‘Whataboutism’ helps politicians evade questions thereby deny the accountability they owe the people. The next time you see a question being answered with a question, call the ‘Whataboutery’ out.

‘Whatboutism’ is used by all the political parties equally, be it the right or the left, be it in India or the rest of the world. Politicians hate to be held accountable.

To Conclude-

“Whataboutism’ is the most dangerous tool used to derail and downgrade important and vital issues. The leaders of countries around the world are indulged in ‘Whataboutism’ when asked about the way they are handling the Covid-19 crisis. ‘Whataboutism’ is a product of guilt, knowing that one has done something wrong or it is a product of being ‘in denial’. Imagine being at a funeral where the husband of the demised woman says, “She was very special to me” and another man responds to it with, “What about our wives, aren’t they special to us?” Yes, that’s how absurd yet dangerous ‘Whataboutism’ is.