I am surprised that the Hindustan Times and the Mumbai Mirror
recently chose to publish statistics from an unknown poll, targeted at an ambiguously
defined respondent population, and conducted by an anonymous group with a
spokesperson who identifies herself only by her first name. (Hindustan Times: “Ordinary voices: Findings
from a Bohra online poll,” September 12, 2014 by Manoj Nair and Mumbai Mirror: “Disquiet
among Bohras,” September 12, 2014 by Jyoti Punwani.)
Due diligence would have quickly verified
that the poll results are absurd at best and insidious at worst. Combine that with the fact that the articles
do not give voice to the Dawoodi Bohra head office in Mumbai and one would be
forgiven for wondering whether the poll is part of a deliberate effort to defame
the head of the Dawoodi Bohras, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.
Be that as it may, it is worthwhile
to dissect the reported results and let facts emerge.
Incongruence among poll
statistics
Given that both newspapers are
covering the same poll, a first glance shows some glaring dissimilarities in
the results across the two newspapers.
Consider these wildly different statistics:
Respondents who:
|
Hindustan
Times
|
Mumbai
Mirror
|
Have given oath freely to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin
|
~ 75%
|
38%
|
Believe Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin is the successor
|
~ 20%
|
32%
|
Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin is the successor
|
<
20%
|
46%
|
Stay in community out of fear
|
~ 12%
|
77%
|
Even if we are to ignore the disparity
of results between the two articles, there is cause to question the validity of
the responses as stated within each newspaper.
According to the Hindustan Times, the
vast majority of the participants, approximately 75%, have freely given their
oath to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin but only 20% appear to actually believe in
him as the rightful successor. This
implies that 55% of the respondents freely gave their oath to someone who they
do not believe to be their leader, a result that is obviously erroneous.
Similarly, the Mumbai Mirror
reports that 77% of respondents stay in the community out of fear implying that
23% are doing so out of free will. Yet
at the same time the newspaper reports that 38% have given their oath freely to
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. This leaves
us with 15% of the respondents who were inconsistent by choosing both fear and
free will as a reason for their oath implying that the survey language did not
make the tradeoff clear enough.
The discrepancies between the two
newspapers and among the statistics reported within each newspaper article are
indicative of polling issues that can plague the best-intentioned of polls,
never mind those that appear to have an ostensible agenda. A robust approach has unfortunately been
shown the door for the sake of expediency.
Lack of a scientific approach in
the poll
The first thing a statistician will
tell you about polls is that their results are completely dependent on the
randomness of the sample, the sample size, and the phrasing of the
questions. This particular poll fails to
deliver on all of those accounts.
The pollsters confess that because
the poll was posted online it reflects the views of only the “educated and the
computer literate.” But the confession
does not go far enough because no details are provided on how the respondents
were actually selected. Was there a
random selection from a current community mailing list? Was it done via social media? Or was it based on the pollsters’ own
networks?
Given that several of the polled
were “former Bohras who left the community” it is clear that the respondents
were not selected from a current community mailing list which would by definition
not contain former Bohras. Can
one then truly check the pulse of a community by polling those who do not
belong to it?
Additionally, the Mumbai Mirror
asserts there were 659 responses of which 69 were disqualified and 195 did not
complete the survey yielding as many as 399 responses. No explanation is given as to why the 69
respondents were disqualified and why the 195 individuals may not have answered
all questions. Given the 395 respondents
who were qualified and completed the poll, using 399 responses opens the door
to the possibility of pollsters cherry picking among the responses to support
their cause. For all we know these 264
respondents did not agree with the pollsters and therefore chose to not
participate or drop out after beginning the poll. Put another way, the pollsters ignore a
likely self-selection bias in their poll.
Another characteristic that jumps
out is the lack of information that makes a statistic meaningful (or in
technical terms provides insights on the statistical significance of the
quoted numbers). Say I were to tell you
that a poll shows that 50% of all people believe there is life outside
earth. What scenario would be more
compelling: a poll of 2 persons or one of 2,000? Surely you would agree that the poll with
2,000 respondents is more likely to be accurate (i.e., have a low margin of
error).
Thus, it goes without saying that a
well-executed, scientific poll must state for each statistic: (1) the actual
number of respondents, and (2) the resulting margin of error. Neither of these metrics has been provided by
either newspaper leaving the reader no basis by which to interpret the numbers.
As for survey phrasing, how the
questions were worded is anyone’s guess.
My requests to both the Hindustan Times and the Mumbai Mirror for the questionnaire
and the raw data—since the responses were anonymous there should be no issues
with public disclosure—remain unanswered.
That said, Farida, the single-named
spokesperson for the polling group, reflects their obvious bias: according to
her the poll was in response to the “turmoil and unease after the split in the
leadership. People were talking, but only to friends and family. We wanted to
capture that.”
In other words, instead of beginning
with an unbiased hypothesis such as “to what extent is there turmoil and unease?”
the pollsters chose to begin with the belief that there already was
turmoil and unease that needed to be captured by a poll. No surprise then that the pollsters found
themselves in an echo chamber.
Poll results are not upheld by
reality
Let us for a moment assume the
poll results to be true. According to
the Mumbai Mirror, close to two thirds (62%) of respondents are “reluctantly”
tied to the leadership of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin out of “fear” whereas close
to half (46%) support the claimant Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Yet these numbers are not in sync with past reports
published in both the Mumbai Mirror and the Hindustan Times.
Mumbai Mirror’s article on January
18, 2014 “We’ve lost our father today” reported on the hundreds of thousands of
Dawoodi Bohras who filled up Mumbai’s streets from Malabar Hill to Bhendi Bazar
to attend Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s funeral and to express their
condolences to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.
The Hindustan Times in its coverage
of the event published the following photograph on January 19, 2014 with the
caption “More than one lakh [100,000] people were part of the funeral procession that
started from Saifee Mahal at 9 am and ended at Saifee Masjid in Bhendi Bazar
around noon.”
The funeral, let us be reminded,
was led by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and the only noteworthy no-show in the sea
of grievers was Khuzaima Qutbuddin. If
there was a gathering of an equal or larger magnitude at Qutbuddin’s residence
in Thane to mourn the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, neither the
Hindustan Times nor the Mumbai Mirror deemed it important enough to cover it.
It is also illogical to think that
an overwhelming majority (77%) of the Dawoodi Bohra population continues to
remain in the fold because of “family, cultural identity, and fear” and “most
are suffering in their private corners, fearful of what’s going to happen to them.” Any Dawoodi Bohra will tell you that the
cultural identity of the community is defined by the incumbent head. Does it not seem ironic that so many respondents
would have an affinity for the cultural identity created by a leader who they
do not accept?
Also, is it really credible to
think that such a large majority should have to fear social boycott from a
minority? United by its common fears and
suffering, one would expect this allegedly oppressed majority to quickly come
out of its private corners and regroup and create an independent social and
cultural order its constituents so covet.
Furthermore, newspaper coverage of
Dawoodi Bohra events shows that Dawoodi Bohras have only continued to increase
their attendance counts in community events after June 2011 when Syedna
Mohammed Burhanuddin publicly declared Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin as his
successor in Raudat Tahera in Mumbai. It
should be remembered that after this declaration, all events presided over by Syedna
Mohammed Burhanuddin had sermons delivered by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.
In fact, in its
last year’s report on the annual event of Moharram the Hindustan Times stated
on November 14, 2013: 70,000 Dawoodi
Bohras came to Mumbai from other countries such as North America and Australia,
while about 30,000 Dawoodi Bohras have come in from across the country. The
rest [100,000] are Mumbaiites [who are attending] the discourses by the
Syedna’s heir apparent Syedi Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin at Saifi Masjid in
Bhendi Bazaar.
A year later covering the annual event, on October 27, 2014, the Times of India (owned by The Times group that also owns the Mumbai Mirror) reported: 2.5 lakh Dawoodi Bohras from across the country and abroad have descended
on [Surat, Gujarat] to attend the ‘vaiz’ (religious sermon) to be delivered for
nine continuous days by [the] 53rd [Dai al-Mutlaq] Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin.
It would be difficult to argue that
the ever-growing crowds congregating to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin year after
year from all over India and the world are doing so out of coercion or fear. If we are to resort to statistics to back an
argument or a person, the strength of attendance counts quoted by the very newspapers
in question only confirm Dawoodi Bohras’ unwavering commitment to Syedna
Mohammed Burhanuddin and their unshakable belief in and support for his chosen successor Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin.
Capturing reality
If the Hindustan Times and Mumbai
Mirror are serious about understanding the truth about Dawoodi Bohras I urge
them to resist the temptation to rely on mysterious and sensational polls and
instead visit Dawoodi Bohra neighborhoods in Mumbai, be they in Bhendi Bazar,
Mazgaon, Fort, or Malabar Hill.
There they will be hard pressed to
find any disquiet, turmoil, or unease. If anything they will find exactly the
opposite. Our peace of heart and mind
comes from knowing that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin chose Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin
as his successor in a ceremony that is engraved in our collective memory. Every single Dawoodi Bohra man, woman, and
child witnessed it either in person or via video relay on that fateful day on June
20, 2011.
