Can you define Critic? Try it before you read further.
You might be thinking about a person who criticizes something is a critic. I used to think until I get in a discussion with a critic which later turned into a debate. He used to criticize everything without even considering that what can be the positive side of an issue. People still listen due to various reason which I don’t want to mention but personally, I think if you’re strongly criticizing something, you should come with resources and more importantly with a better solution to tackle the issue. Believe me, this is not even near the definition of a critic for which people who I am talking about.
According to Wikipedia (Read it to the end because every word of it means something, specially underlined) the definition of a critic is
A critic is a professional who communicates an assessment and an opinion of various forms of creative works such as art, literature, music, cinema, theatre, fashion, architecture, and food. Critics may also take as their subject social or government policy. Critical judgments, whether derived from critical thinking or not, weigh up a range of factors, including an assessment of the extent to which the item under review achieves its purpose and its creator’s intention and a knowledge of its context. They may also include a positive or negative personal response.
Now the question is why I just shifted to fictional writing to nearly social or something like an opinion. Let me tell you the whole story.
I have a friend, he is a good friend actually, who considers himself a critic. The other day we got into a conversation that only Brahmins are there in the temples and no other caste are allowed to be a Worshipper/Pujari in a temple. I didn’t have enough knowledge so I agreed that this is true. I said even if they were allowed I don’t think that anyone would take the risk to be a Pandit, because one has to read Sanskrit.
Those were exactly my words and I think one could understand if he wanted to. But my critic friend said, “You mean only Brahmins can take that kind of risk and no other caste have the balls to do it.” I declined. What I meant was “Why in the modern world one would go for an insecure job when he can get a secured job with the better government policies. Why one would go and read Sanskrit which has a comparatively lesser scope and lesser opportunity.”
I thought he could understand it but he couldn’t. Here he started to debate because in his opinion I was saying that It is right to not allow the people of another caste to be a Pujari and with this, I was called biased towards Brahmins because I’m a Brahmin. I never let it occur in behavior that there is any kind of superiority or inferiority among any of us. It depends on the kind of place you’ve grown up. My family or people near me never talked about the caste creed unless we faced reservation. Do you get it? I didn’t know about how reservation works and how much it is beneficial to some of the people just because of their caste and not considering any financial factors. I’m not opposing the reservation, You’d see that I was just telling what I knew about it and circumstances in which I grew up.
The point is whether or not any people from any other caste can be a Pujari or Pandit. The answer is yes. ANYONE can be a Pujari, without considering is caste or creed. It is just a title of your job which you can earn by studying in a particular type of Sanskrit school. I don’t know whether all Sanskrit schools give that kind of education.
There are many South Indian temples which are completely run by a particular caste and that cast is considered lower. In the older times, famous Rishi’s in hindu mythology Rishi Valmiki, who wrote Ramayana, and Lord Krishna, both of them were not Brahmins. They earned it. Like them there were many of them who earned their Brahman title with their penance.
The same is with Brahman. In the ancient times whether or not you have to earn your Brahman title with your penance. If you are born in Brahmin family that means you are more likely to adapt your father’s field like people do it today too. It was at the highest level in ancient time. Because it was considered safe and kids used to learn from their fathers at an early age.
Same is with the girls. They knew what their father need on daily basis and the girls used to learn from their mothers. That is why a farmer’s daughter used to be married to another farmer and a Brahmins daughter to a Brahmin. Because they knew the daily routine of that business. As it was a male-dominated society girl had to follow what their father/husband tells them.
Don’t ask me why it was a male-dominated because men used to go in search for food, hunt and other works which were not easily possible for girls to do due to their different natural body. They were physically weak and that automatically let men rule the society.
This is the totally different topic but yes, we saw discrimination their too. But I see a logic for the same business and daily word. What I think is that society was first divided on the basis of work and then on the basis of their work they were given caste. Most of our ancient book is destroyed so we can not know what was the truth. The thing is if you get a reason to hate me or my caste then you’ll find a hundred reasons to hate me more and justify it. Don’t do that.
Later when I told him that anyone can be a Pujari and people who are adopting it is because their father used to the same thing and most of them don’t earn much to go to other field. Those who are capable of and are not earning much are moving out of this. He said no Pujari is dying hungry, that’s why they are doing it. I did not have any answer so I remained silent. Later, a minute or two later I realized, That’s what people want. They want to Pujaries to die hungry. Because earlier he wanted to know why a person form other than Brahmin can not be a Pujari and when I told him anyone can be. Then next thing came up, no Pujari dies hungry. That’s how he approach things, and now I did, but I never said this to him.
Then the other day we get into a discussion with another topic on voting and I said, People who are going for “NOTA” have no right to criticize the government. He opposed the right point which I partially agree. Why partially because of the person who goes for “NOTA” does not contribute to the formation either the government or opposition.
When Election Commission said in its official statement that even if NOTA gets the highest no of votes, the candidate next to NOTA will win the seat. Do you think it severs the purpose for a change? It doesn’t. When it came to discussion, the critic friend did not tell me if there were any benefits of this. All he said “EC is not foolish to introduce it which we may not know”. That was his defense for the topic.
He later claimed that I was wrong for my statement in which I said: “People who go for NOTA have no right to criticize the government”. I agreed, Okay I said something which should not be said. But tell me something, Why do you vote? The answer is “We vote for a change”. When NOTA is bringing no change then what is the purpose of it.
It is similar to the person who doesn’t vote because he is fed up with the all the political leaders and doesn’t believe that anyone can do some good for him. A person who goes for NOTA is neither forming the ruling government nor the opposition. On the basis of the current political situation, we know that how much important it is to have a good opposition. But at the end of the discussion without answering my questions my critic friend said you were wrong with your statement.
There are two major political parties in the countries. One is worse and other is lesser worse. One which you support is lesser worse and the one you oppose is worse. Keep in mind that It’s a dirty game and no one here is playing is fair. You have to chose one of “worse” and “lesser worse”. You have to chose one to make a difference. If you chose NOTA then remember that those who are supporting the “worse” are not going to do the same. They will vote who they support and that’s how “lesser worse” is going to loose and Country will be at stake again.
There were two more discussions, one about the mob lynching and other about the Rupee falling against the dollar. I tried to get to the reason “WHY” the lynching is occurring but I was looked as if I was defending them. It was like this situation.
Situation 1
A person steals something from a hut of man. It is of no importance. The owner of the hut kills the thief.
Now tell me Why did he kill the man?
Your answer: because he stole something from him and he killed himself.
Now, What could he steal which cost him his life?
You: It can be gold or anything which is precious to the owner of the hut.
Situtation 2
Q: why people are becoming terrorist in Pakistan and in middle east countries?
You: they are radicalized by some people and they are doing it.
Q: How can they be radicalized when they have better educational opportunity and money, jobs and everything which is required for one to live peacefully.
You: They love their religion, nothing wrong in that, but they are misinformed and turned into terrorist, by misusing their faith, to save it from imaginary threats.
What if One says that you’re supporting the owner of the hut or some terrorist and that they did the right thing. No, you just gave the possible reason for the murder of the thief, ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE. That’s what happened to the lynching debate and then I knew that this man is not open to the ideas. To keep him happy you just criticize everyone with no basis, without any sources or data. He would not call you biased.
Why did I say data because when a BJP minister said Rupee is falling due to the external factors and he told me that. I said It can be true. He said You are biased towards BJP. I tried to explain to him that ” maybe dollar is getting stronger. He did not agree to it, only he knows why.
A day after or two I told him that Rupee is falling against Dollar because Dollar is getting stronger. Now I told him that Indian Rupee is getting stronger with these countries Russia, Brazil, UK, Australia, EU and many more. If it is falling then how it getting strong against these many currencies. He raised a good point that it may also be possible that these currencies are falling with respect to dollar faster than rupee and dollar has maintained its position with respect to all of them.
I didn’t counter it because I don’t know much how these things work. An Economist can explain these things in a better manner. But I think this possibility considers a hell lot of variables and dollar also depends on many other economies. Trump’s policies (which we are not aware of) might be working and the dollar has gained strength with respect to all the other competitor economies after all Donald Trump is a businessman. In terms of business, he can run the country better than any previous Presidents of his or possibly any other country around the world.
In the end, we kind of agree on the point that external factors may be affecting the rupee. There was one more point that countries keep their currency low to increase export and to reduce the import. However, this is not good in the long term. If the currency is kept high it can cost more losses of jobs. These things can be explained with adequate knowledge of economics which I lack, So I will not be able to explain them well.
Now the point is why am I writing this? To defame or to criticize my friend? No. Just because I’m not quick as he is. He reads the newspaper a lot. So I can not shut him up at the moment unless I know about something. I do my research, I read things wherever I can, I find the answers to the question he or anyone else raise/ can raise in next discussion or I myself have doubt of. For me, the point of discussion is to never win. It is to get to know the things.
I have great respect for the people who introduce to new things, no matter what they are. He does introduce me to many things and I learnt to oppose in a new way. I can debate in a better manner. If it were a year ago I could not tackle him. Now like someone said “Don’t raise your voice, Improve your argument”, This man made me realized to what limit one can go if we neutrally want to do some research.
Now, Why am I writing about it?
The other day, after all this was over, it had been around 3-4 days, there was no discussion about these things. I asked him to buy a purse or a handbag for his mom when he goes home next time. He said I don’t do formalities. I insisted. He said “You know that I live in a village, but you don’t know a thing about the village. You even don’t know that people are discriminated against on the basis of caste for the entry in the temple.” I said “Wait a minute. How can you take the Purse thing to temple. I know they are being discriminated against on the basis of their caste but what can I do. I can say it wrong. I know it is. Adding the three or four points, which I as well as you and everyone else out there know, is not gonna change anything. To make the change we have to adapt things in our behavior.
I never told anyone but when during a discussion I told him that some people of a particular caste in the village are like a family to us which is considered lower caste in the caste system, He kind of ignored and gave a look like I was lying. I am referring lower caste because some people enjoy and being lower caste and in our country, people are fighting to become backwards rather go forward.
Yesterday I was talking to a family member and asked about the person who is a partner in a shop, I never saw him so I asked about who he was. I was told who he was. Later I found out that he was of the same backward caste. He was living in our home upstairs, eating with us and most importantly IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ANY OF THE FAMILY MEMBER THAT WHICH CASTE HE IS FROM. You read it right, Now think if you can digest it.
Point is why am I telling you this? Am I showing off? No. I told you this because if I would say that I and my family are open and don’t discriminate people on their caste, you won’t believe me. I have to tell you all the shit to make you believe. How do I know I won’t believe? I don’t know about you but my critic friend won’t. He did not believe that man can also be sexually abused, later I told him something which I think made him believe this. He said this when he/I read something about a man posting with the trending hashtag “Me Too” on Twitter.
I wrote all this because I was made feel like I discriminate to these people because I’m a Brahmin. I don’t. I never did.
The critic thinks he knows more about me or my then I myself do.
Actually, He doesn’t.
How can I say that?
Do I need to answer that ?
PS: Thanks for reading. I’m open to discussion for anything but please come up with logical or something informative. New information will be appreciated and shitty accusations will be left for people to know you.
If you want try to make the discussion a debate, then remember what Harvey said.
Thanks for Reading.
Comments
Post a Comment