A case for data, rather than rhetoric

I am going to sink myself into a once in a bluemoon rant about brf. Berating brf here is neither productive nor constructive nor fun, but I have to take the liberty to rant this one time. So please indulge me, I promise to not indulge in this task for a looong time.

It is on the issue of data, statistics, facts, numbers, etc. The problem that typifies not only the pakistan thread, but also most other threads is a clear lack of data-points with which one can decipher trends and trade-offs for themselves rather than let experts spoon-feed these for them. A battle-cry for data comes when someone goes past the initial stage of rhetoric and wants to establish facts on a crystal-clear basis such that even a nay-sayer would find it hard to deny pithy maxims, whether they be on pakistan or India. That is the precise methodology with which one can win fencesitters to your side and put ostriches to shame. Data also helps one establish clear trends, the true turning points, the cataclysms, the strategic stalemates, the "Orange alerts" that produce a heightened sense of awareness without causing much damage on the ground, etc.

Specifically, questions on India bother me. How many "below the poverty line" people are there in India? Noone has been able to give a precise answer to this question -- with numbers varying from 30% to 90%, depending on who speaks and what axe that person has to grind. How many Muslims are there in India? Numbers go all the way from ~16% (official estimates) to 25% (if you ask the RSS folks). To top this, even the current census exercise is checkered with organizational issues such as lack of manpower, disturbed areas, lack of access to all the gullies and mohallas with only the phrase "unorganized chaos" coming close to capturing the mayhem in the madness. Similarly, how many Backward Castes people are there in India? Without knowing how many there are, we have a 50% cap on reservations. One glance at the "Know Your India" thread that started off as a repository of such information shows how a thread can and will get lost in the wilderness when rhetoric overwhelms data.

In the midst of all this accounting mess, if and when data-collection exercises get made, they are either hidden from the common man in the form of "Confidential" or "Top Secret" classifications even for the most useless trivia. Much of the data that is collected is hidden under the garb of OSA somuchso that even a simple access to mundane lists can get people into immense trouble. I can understand the political logic behind why easy access to data can be painful to certain vested interests, but why does brf have to be apathetic to scouring for data? Why focus on rhetoric instead? Needless to say, not all of the qualities of a subject can be expressed in the form of numbers and I am quite aware of this when it comes to citation indices and their liberal misuse in academe. But to stymie a call for data by using technicalities or diversions only muddies the waters rather than clarifies it, only grows the agyaan tree rather than prune it, only typifies the ostrich rather than the cheetah.