I am writing this article in response to an attitude, a frighteningly widespread attitude of ambitious criticism. By that I mean a type of criticism that adds little value to the subject under discussion and serves only the critic by catapulting his name towards his indiscriminating readers.
The occasional cause that prompted me to write this is this article from www.outlookindia.com. I will talk about this article per se later on in this post.
In any piece of writing, fundamentally, there are two aspects- 1. form, and 2. content. The form is the body of the essay that contains the content, the soul, of an essay.
An idea, if not embodied properly, doesnt remain presentable any more. It loses its appeal to the reader. However, it doesnt lose its intrinsic value. A good idea embodied in a bad word or sentence is like an idea in hibernation. It sleeps. It doesnt die. Sooner or later it reincarnates in a better frame and gets conveyed.
But the other way round doesnt exist. A form has little value in isolation. For a few moments it might amaze or amuse you by its words or wits but the effect is essentially ephemeral. It ends with the pages. It dies. A form without a content is like a body without a soul. It is like a dead body. It hardly matters how beautiful it is. Infact the more beautiful it is, the more sorry you feel about it.
Having an intrinsic value is very important for me. I have no taste for anything that lacks it. There are things that are very different or very difficult but these thing never charm me. One might spit 10 meters far or piss 100 meters high and claim a place in the books of records. Fair enough. But for me and people like me, these things have no value.
Oflate I have read a few articles about Indian economy. I have made a curious observation after going through these essays. I feel that most of these essays attempt to disseminate the (political) agenda of the writer rather than reflect his understanding of the subject. This trend is prevalent and pronounced in the field of economics more than anywhere else. Read this too. As a beginner I hardly welcome this disobliging skepticism but I cannt ignore the facts that I myself have noticed.
Rhetorics is also an element of form. It is a tool that helps the writer to create an effect in the mind of a reader. It is like the needle of the injection, it penetrates the skin but it is just a means to achieve an ends. It facilitates the ejaculation of both medicine or poison inside the body. What is actually injected depends upon whether the injection is in the hands of a doctor or a killer. The effect of the needle alone dies with the twinge but the effect of medicine or poison is more enduring and far more significant.
In a nutshell, how a thing is said is important only till what is said is important.
Coming back to the article (the link is given above) I feel that the writer must appreciate the difference between responsible criticism and ambitious criticism. The former involves adding value to the subject before demanding value for the writer. The latter involves omission of the first step.
A criticism is complete only when it suggests an alternative. Every system has flaws and anti-incumbency sentiments attached to it. It is easy to fan the fury of discontented people but it doesnt make any valuable contribution to the society. Deconstruction can be genius but it is never great. Only construction can be great. Only an irresponsible, power-seeking man indulges himself in subversive activities without having any idea of the alternative system. All he gives to the society is anarchy.
In this article the writer is not wrong when he says that GDP is neither the means nor the ends of our economic pursuits. But he goes on to say that it is not even a good indicator of economic development. I agree that GDP doesnt incorporate household activities and thus doesnt give us an accurate picture of the economic health. But we have no other better indicator with us. What if not GDP? How do we take decisions? The writer offers no suggestions from his side. Rather he repeats what many have already said.
Having an agenda is not objectionable as it contains a sense of purpose. But it must be supported by a sound understanding of the world around us. It is sad that young people fall for sides and slogans without proper study. One book of Ayn Rand can make us capitalist and the other one makes us a hardcore capitalist. This is ridiculous. A belief is discredited not by its detractors but by the frailty of its followers. It is bourgeois to accept or reject anything before understanding it. We must try to understand before making an opinion.
In this article the writer accuses finacial markets and IT industry for naxalism. He fails to see that naxalism is an endemic that is found only in the areas that are away from the reach of BSE and IT industry. The victims of the naxalite aggression are not IT professionals or BPO executives but the local land owners. The cause of violence is not poverty but hopelessness and injustice. True, the government has failed to control the growing economic disparity but in the same breath he says that IT and BPO industry has not provided any employment for the less privileged people. Nothing could be farther from truth. Whenever an industry thrives, other supporting industries also flourish. Apart from jobs that are directly created, many small hotels, restaurants, tea-stalls and other shops of small and big scale get opened. Many people earn and many people live. Just look around.
BPO and IT industry has given HOPE to Indian youth. It has provided empowerment to women. It has made India a force to reckon with on the international arena. Its contribution can hardly be negated without being incorrect. I hope this cloud to go to places where people are deprived of rains. I am waiting for this sun to rise in east.
No comments:
Post a Comment