After
going through the article of Justice
Markandey katju in his blog , the present chairman of the Press council of India, on development of
Gujrat and controversial role of Narendra Modi, I could not stop myself to express my views. This article of Justice katju
is in fact a sample of harsh criticism on development of Gujrat and role of its
chief minister. Before making any discussion on his article, or coming to any
conclusion, let me elucidate what the criticism is all about and what are its
purposes. Let me also throw some light on the journey of changing meanings of
criticism since its appearance in 14th century to the 21st century, so that it
may become easier for us to construe the intention of Justice katju in writing
the article and judging its implications.
The
origin of the English word criticism is the French word 'critique' which dates
back to at least 14th century. This French word 'critique' has its root in
Latin word 'criticus' meaning a judger, decider, or critique.
In
early 17th century to be critical, meant, positively, informed judgment
about matters of culture. In 19th century, it gained a philosophical meaning of
" a critical examination of faculty of knowledge". In 20th century,
the positive meaning of criticism continued but it also acquired the more
general connotation of "voicing an objection." From the 1990s
onwards , the popular meanings of the word criticism have started to evolve
more strongly towards "having an objection", "expressing
dissent", "stating a dislike", "wanting to dissociate",
from something or rejecting something, this is the historical meaning of the
word' criticism'
Now, in order to understand the implications
of this article written by Justice
Katju, it is also mandatory to have some knowledge about purpose of 'criticism'. The purpose of criticism is not
a "malicious accusation" rather it makes effort to improve the
condition of the problems for which somebody or something is being criticized.
It should have positive intentions, not
mala fide. There is a very popular and basic rule about criticism known as
"rule-of-thumb" which usually psychologists recommend for 'critics'
while criticizing. According to this rule, "Respect the individual, focus
the criticism on the behavior that needs changing - on what people actually do or actually
say." The basic principle behind this rule is that if individuals are
attacked for their personal characteristics (for "who they are") they
can't do much with that , except to fight it off , which in fact , is happening
in this case that is Modi and his supporters or well-wishers are reacting
strongly on Katju's such comments. What
a personal attack is likely to achieve, is that the individuals feel rejected;
not accepted or liked; unfairly treated; degraded; dishonored; or humiliated.
Therefore they are much less likely to consider the criticism seriously either,
or do something about it, simply and only because they feel mistreated by the
'critic'.
So,
the crux of the above rule is that as soon as there is an attack on personal
characteristics of an individual, the whole purpose of the 'criticism' vanishes
at that very point of time. The same thing has happened in case of Justice Katju's criticism about Narendra Modi. Inversely, if
an individual is respected with a bit of humour , and due credit is given to
his/her positive intentions as human beings, it is vastly more likely that the
criticism will be understood, and taken seriously. Unfortunately, this is the
point where "critique" of Justice Katju is lagging behind.
A
good criticism is an attempt to improve the condition or to find a pragmatic
solution of the problems by evaluating the ability of an individual, its hidden
potential, action, or idea. A good critic should present alternative
perspective or suggestions about the problem he/she is discussing, both of
which facilitate improvement. But, the criticism of Justice Katju doesn't put
forth any idea, any alternative perspective, or any pragmatic solution of the
problems he has talked about. Being seated on a quasi-judicial post what
Justice Katju has stated may only be considered "Old wine in new
bottle" or a different narrator of the same story.
In
last Para of his article, he has appealed to Indian people, not to make the
same mistake as Germans made in 1933 which indirectly means not to prefer
Narendra Modi as the next prime minister of India. But, what should people do? whom they should elect? who is
perfect?, these are some questions which
remained unanswered in his article. He ended his article, leaving common masses
in a state of dilemma or a situation of be wilderness. People know adequately
the things he has repeated. What he was supposed to do was to come with the solution
of this problem that is about the issue of
leading the nation which was the chief agenda of his article but instead
of that he too has come with the problem itself, making people mourn about the pathetic condition of
the country again, who are already witnessing the worst condition of the
country due to "Dirty Politics".
Thus
the final conclusion is that, the article of Justice Katju was not a "Good
Criticism" , as it mentioned only
about the problems and didn't give any explanatory remarks about its solution,
due to which it seems to be only a "Sort of accusation" rather than a good standard
of criticism.
By:- ROHIT KUMAR
(B.A.LL.B 2nd year student)
KIIT LAW SCHOOL, KIITUNIVERSITY,
BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA,( INDIA)
PIN - 751024
(Email Id) :- rohitsingh3280@gmail.com
Mob. No.:- 08093324260
No comments:
Post a Comment