CRITICS AND CRITICISM

 

       CRITICS and CRITICISM

      Surprisingly what comes off unsolicited and in abundance is criticism. Tendering critical inputs leading to refining or redefining specific developmental processes is most welcome, when it abides by the stated goal of refining a process. Does it obtain in reality?  The question looms large if one patiently evaluates the merits of such criticism. The above observation of mine emerges from the on-going activity in Indian media in the name of debate or brainstorming sessions on most events.

     What is wrong in debating an issue of contemporary relevance?

      Contemporary items should figure in intellectual discussions or discourses. To be of intellectual value, the participants should legitimately be authentically qualified to spell out remedies or redress to an impasse. Without prejudice, one can notice that on most occasions, the participants reel off views driven by the ideology of their political slants. An in-built deficit in this arrangement is the constitution of the team formulated for the purpose.  Even items of judicial importance are viewed in the light of the ‘avowed’ philosophy of each member. Space research –related projects or medically significant decisions of any arrangement is debated upon by persons who are true laymen for such high profile technicalities. There is some degree of clarity in National media in opting for a balanced panel of persons with proven proficiency in the domain chosen for deliberation on a given day.  Yet, the desire to tender serious objection to any new proposal as of being ‘anti-people’ is a ready tool with some critics keen to cause a flutter among the gullible viewers. It has turned out to be a routine to project an image that the country is through diabolic straits. Perhaps these narratives liberally dent our image in other countries ready to buy such detraction. 

      The scenario is simultaneously complex and confusing in the varied media outlets in Tamil Nadu. I am baffled to note that several moderators lack moderation themselves, in that they try building a narrative bordering on skewed ideology than on sticking to truth. Instead of bringing out varied viewpoints, they ensure presenting a distorted version to portray the ‘political opponent’ in bad light. Their strategy is to curb the expression of details or data that would disarm their avowed stance; this is done by creating or permitting a plethora   of voices –all at the same time causing din and disarray to frustrate effective rebuttal.

      It is never my attempt look down upon the merits of the persons on such discussion panels. What eludes my comprehension is “how is it that nearly the same set of people appear in debates relating to Indian constitution, civil supplies , sanitation-related intricacies in urban planning and the efficacy of defence armour like high-profile combat aircrafts, consequences of  Brexit on Indian economy - to name a few. 

      Our observations about the regional news channels are further strengthened by a flip-flop stand taken by these panelists on varied themes. It necessitates and fortifies the impression that such panelists oblige some master or the other who orchestrates a narrative ideal for his/her political prospects. Even more perplexing is- that the same panelist chooses to project diametrically opposed preferences as [s]he appears in different channels.

      When India came out with an indigenous vaccine against Covid, without batting an eyelid, critics dispelled the efficacy of the vaccine [were they medicalexperts?Biomedicalformulators?Biotechnologists?Virologists?Immun-oglobulin designers?  Stereo-chemists? Polymer chemists ?]  triggering a sense of fear among people that the vaccine may cause harm to them.

      With the pandemic making a rapid sweep of its ‘second wave’ the shameless critics accused the administration of not providing vaccine-safeguard to people. When comfortable, the critics would say that containment of Covid spread can be achieved only by lockdown. They would later flip flop saying that our economy needs to survive and that lockdowns are no solution to pandemic. 

       In plain terms there is a grand mental pandemic among critics ready to flare-up hostilities instead of mellowing emotions and avoiding the billowing of smoke of suspicions. People try to thrive on the fear in the minds of citizens. The game would never end unless, fielding of such orchestrated discussions stop forthwith.    If such skewed presentations keep appearing in channels it would not be long before viewers choose to mercilessly boycott those programmes.                                                                                                                                                  Prof. K. Raman