Semi-Rational Criticism and a Chalice of Malice

We seem to have come way ahead of the historical definitions pertaining to topics of polity. In fact, history in itself is replete with instances of change—evolution is the term that sounds more suitable. The classic definition about the edifice of democracy resting on three pillars of legislature, executive and judiciary seems to have undergone a partial metamorphosis into five pillars now—the newer ones being ‘media’ (the fourth pillar) and ‘civil society’ (the fifth pillar). In a Westphalian model of democracy, wherein the real executive (and not the nominal one) is formed out of a subset of legislature, the importance of the two newer pillars, provided they are fair & impartial, seems all the more pertinent. Thus, in this new era having five pillars of manifested power of the dēmos, popular control over the executive might be exercised in a much better way. Hark! Did I hear someone yelling ‘vested interests’? Let us examine a case in point…

A few days back, the life of a promising young actor from the Hindustani film industry (it seems to be a more encompassing term to me than Bollywood) was cut short by Fate. It was a matter of concern for me and my college-peers in this regard, because the actor had been a college senior to me. And even though I had not even personally seen the individual during our college days, let alone having interacted with him, I could feel a sense of loss in that someone from an alma mater had met an ill fate. A WhatsApp Group comprising of college friends had posts containing multimedia from the past being shared as a token of remembrance for the departed. Reactions such as this one seemed quite normal to me, given that all had a sense of belongingness deep within.

However, a few days later I started observing the peculiar behaviour of ‘civil society’ which was using its tool of instantaneously attention-grabbing social media platforms. It was exacerbated more so by the fact that the ongoing COVID-19 crisis has forced people to prefer staying indoors, and hence all expressions/voices containing condiments of annoyance-belligerence-concomitance-defiance were finding their way in the “global common” of social media. One particular public figure vocally raised some parallel issue, resultantly created a so-called online storm, and then a lot of others joined in in chorus. What seemed ridiculous to a far lesser intellectual like me was the way the loss caused by departure of someone was subsequently used as an occasion to communicate/express statements, many of which otherwise seemed logically disconnected, even to the point of callousness towards many other public figures who had chosen to remain silent on the matter. Many, from amongst the online ‘follower’ component in the civil society sans the public figure, were happy to indulge in a debate which was triggered off by the public figure. To a crippled-intellect like me, what seemed like a conclusion was that most of such people who have no stake in a particular issue are still Social Media Warriors. If the Corona Warriors are contributing to the medical well-being of society, well, why shouldn’t Social Media Warriors contribute to the intellectual well-being of the civil society?

Suggesting someone directly to mind one’s own business so as not to talk without facts as bases on matters under investigation, sub judice matters, etc., is perceived as stifling of healthy criticism in a flourishing democracy in which civil society seems to have all rights of taking suo moto cognizance of matters ranging from articulated to adjudicated, investigative to interplanetary.

But my first question is – what about commenting on ‘Semi-rational Criticism’? Readers can be the better judge.

And my second question is – shouldn’t there be an ethical line self-drawn by public figures, who have a greater social responsibility due to their online/offline ‘followers’, to spare the envenoming and prevent any possible Chalice of Malice from spilling?

I don’t know why I’m recalling an idiom here which was taught to us by our Hindi teacher during our school days – ‘Behti Ganga mein haath dhona’!

Façade might have a potential of fomenting ‘fasaad’

Even now, as I see vocal social-media proclamations from the ‘civil society’ about how beautifully the departed actor has acted in his last movie, I personally feel that my college senior had displayed superior acting skills even in other productions before. Right now, the public reaction seems akin more to ‘The Dark Knight effect’, as I would like to call it (for those who are contextually unaware, please read about Heath Ledger from the internet).

I loosely believe in the theory of Karma – 'what goes around, comes around'. What I want to make home as a point is that we as a civil society need to be rational in our criticisms. The idiomatic ‘adh jal gagri’ (loosely translated in English meaning to the idiomatic ‘empty vessel’) adds confusion to an informed discourse. And the chalice of malice needs to be cast away on an ethical consideration. Else, whether the phrases ‘civil society’ and ‘civilized society’ deserve, or not, to continue to be used interchangeably – I shall leave here for the readers to decide.