**(scroll down for new update on November 21, 2013)**

NO- as Malini Parthasarathy, formerly (

*update: now editor*) of the renowned communist newspaper, The Hindu, tweeted today,

**but wait**...

On the other hand, given that there are very few Indian communists in this universe who agree with Narendra Modi (NaMo), the following implication holds true.

**Theorem**

Prob (disagree with Modi | person is commie ) > Prob (any person disagrees with Modi)

⇒ Prob (person is a commie | disagree with Modi ) > Prob (person is commie ).

In simple language, the theorem states:

Since a person is more likely to hate Modi if it known that he/she is a commie, this in turn implies that

**the probability that any random Indian is a commie increases if it is additionally known that he/she disagrees with Modi**.

In fact, if given additional information that the person also worked for a reputed communist newspaper, this probability goes up even more. On the other hand, if you try to flip this around to say "You are more likely to be a Hindutva-vaadi if you agree with Modi", this theorem won't support you much. There are a huge number of Hindutva-vaadis who do not agree, and who agree with NaMo, since support for NaMo is issue-based and cuts across sectarian barriers.

**Update November 21, 2013:**

**After the Tehelka and AAP fiascos in the last 24 hours, we now have a**

**Corollary to main result**

Prob (pSecular | person is big fraud) > Prob (person is pSecular)

⇒ Prob (person is big fraud | pSecular ) > Prob (person is a big fraud)

in other words, the corollary states:

Given that we are observing with increasing frequency that the

__biggest__frauds of Indian origin being exposed are pSecular cheerleaders, this in turn implies that

**the probability that a random person of Indian-origin you meet is a big fraud increases if it is additionally known that he/she is a pSecular**.

Hence the phrase "pseudo-secular fraud" is kinda becoming redundant, since being one increases the probability of being the other.

__This is not opinion, but a mathematically provable, data-driven result that serves as a warning for gullible Indians.__Here's a short proof from the Endeavor blog:

## No comments:

## Post a Comment