Before going any further, let us all for a moment watch this incredible scene from the movie ratatouille.
To quote Ego, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so"
Such an insightful quote from an equally insightful movie. In a way most of us or at least I am sure of myself , belong to the category that is worse than a piece of junk than the junk itself. I find it incredibly easy to say a solution is wrong. Its the easiest thing to do. But when it comes to the finding the solution, the whole brain thingi goes to the drain. While being a critic comes to us naturally, listening to one does not. Being a toastmaster, giving feedback is an integral part of the educational program. While giving feedback it is always asked to sandwich a negative feedback between positive things. This is a something toastmasters as an organization has learnt over the years.
So why am I writing about things that seem so random and out of context. Recently I read this article from the guardian "Guardian article about negative comments". With the advent of the digital revolution we have access to plethora of information. This is a great power, and of course with this great power comes great responsibility. There is an unusual surge in the right wing, rather extreme thoughts through out the world.
Over the past year or so there are loads of issues creeping up in and around me, particularly from india that has made me and many of us take a stand. Ofcourse each of us have a right to take a stand as much as the other person. Let me start with things close to my heart. The whole intolerance debates. Amir Khan or Shah rukh khan who said that there is a growing sense of intolerance around us. They might be right or they might be wrong, one thing that we must respect is their right to speech. Without going into the merits of their statements what is completely unacceptable, is the reaction of the people who are both for and against their stand. What followed was an incredible name calling and swear exchanges, where terms like presstitudes, AAPtards, bakhts etc etc. Why have we become so sensitive to criticism and why do we get hurt so easily.
Historically there have been many such debates where personalities more than idealogies have dominated. Closer to home, the debates Ambedkar vs Gandhi, Bose vs Gandhi are definitely the top picks. In the social media we can always find people sharing how the country would have been different if the other had been in charge. For example, let us take the Bose vs Gandhi debate for instance. Both wanted complete freedom for India. How it would be achieved is where the difference rose. While Bose wanted an Indian version of fascism (Without the racism bit), Gandhi was in favour of step changes, with Indians slowly taking control rather than going for immediate complete independence (Source : From the book "Bose in Nazi Germany", Bose had lived in Germany for about 2 years trying to persuade the Axis powers to invade India). Both the ideologies have their merits, and Gandhi being a better tactician and people's person, had persuaded the majority to follow his ideology.
Does this mean the two lost their mutual respect! When INA officers were arrested in 1945, Gandhi went on a fast seeking their release. Nehru was the chief defendant for the INA officers. The term, Father of Nation was bestowed upon Gandhi by Bose himself, while Gandhi called him the "Prince among the patriots". Source [Bose's address to MK Gandhi from Rangoon]. We cannot get back in time and verify if these statements are true. But what is clear was a clear mutual respect and accepting to agree to disagree. Researching for this article, I came across these 2 letters,
Bose to Gandhi
Gandhi to Bose
This shows a clear mutual respect and admiration.
There is a beauty in having a difference of opinion. Time and again it is nice to have our beliefs shattered. Thats how we grow up. But once we grow we somehow forget what helped us grow in the first place. We have over the years lost our ability to listen, be tolerant and question our on beliefs. I really hope there is a more mature interaction, where different ideas can coexist. India in particular has had unity in diversity in her DNA through out the history. Our first prime minister was an atheist, who was a protege of a staunch believer, and had a law minister who hated both their ideologies, home minister who was more right than liberal. I wish we could learn from that and have constructive respectful conversations. And yes, I am dreaming.
To quote Ego, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so"
Such an insightful quote from an equally insightful movie. In a way most of us or at least I am sure of myself , belong to the category that is worse than a piece of junk than the junk itself. I find it incredibly easy to say a solution is wrong. Its the easiest thing to do. But when it comes to the finding the solution, the whole brain thingi goes to the drain. While being a critic comes to us naturally, listening to one does not. Being a toastmaster, giving feedback is an integral part of the educational program. While giving feedback it is always asked to sandwich a negative feedback between positive things. This is a something toastmasters as an organization has learnt over the years.
So why am I writing about things that seem so random and out of context. Recently I read this article from the guardian "Guardian article about negative comments". With the advent of the digital revolution we have access to plethora of information. This is a great power, and of course with this great power comes great responsibility. There is an unusual surge in the right wing, rather extreme thoughts through out the world.
Over the past year or so there are loads of issues creeping up in and around me, particularly from india that has made me and many of us take a stand. Ofcourse each of us have a right to take a stand as much as the other person. Let me start with things close to my heart. The whole intolerance debates. Amir Khan or Shah rukh khan who said that there is a growing sense of intolerance around us. They might be right or they might be wrong, one thing that we must respect is their right to speech. Without going into the merits of their statements what is completely unacceptable, is the reaction of the people who are both for and against their stand. What followed was an incredible name calling and swear exchanges, where terms like presstitudes, AAPtards, bakhts etc etc. Why have we become so sensitive to criticism and why do we get hurt so easily.
Historically there have been many such debates where personalities more than idealogies have dominated. Closer to home, the debates Ambedkar vs Gandhi, Bose vs Gandhi are definitely the top picks. In the social media we can always find people sharing how the country would have been different if the other had been in charge. For example, let us take the Bose vs Gandhi debate for instance. Both wanted complete freedom for India. How it would be achieved is where the difference rose. While Bose wanted an Indian version of fascism (Without the racism bit), Gandhi was in favour of step changes, with Indians slowly taking control rather than going for immediate complete independence (Source : From the book "Bose in Nazi Germany", Bose had lived in Germany for about 2 years trying to persuade the Axis powers to invade India). Both the ideologies have their merits, and Gandhi being a better tactician and people's person, had persuaded the majority to follow his ideology.
Does this mean the two lost their mutual respect! When INA officers were arrested in 1945, Gandhi went on a fast seeking their release. Nehru was the chief defendant for the INA officers. The term, Father of Nation was bestowed upon Gandhi by Bose himself, while Gandhi called him the "Prince among the patriots". Source [Bose's address to MK Gandhi from Rangoon]. We cannot get back in time and verify if these statements are true. But what is clear was a clear mutual respect and accepting to agree to disagree. Researching for this article, I came across these 2 letters,
Bose to Gandhi
Gandhi to Bose
This shows a clear mutual respect and admiration.
There is a beauty in having a difference of opinion. Time and again it is nice to have our beliefs shattered. Thats how we grow up. But once we grow we somehow forget what helped us grow in the first place. We have over the years lost our ability to listen, be tolerant and question our on beliefs. I really hope there is a more mature interaction, where different ideas can coexist. India in particular has had unity in diversity in her DNA through out the history. Our first prime minister was an atheist, who was a protege of a staunch believer, and had a law minister who hated both their ideologies, home minister who was more right than liberal. I wish we could learn from that and have constructive respectful conversations. And yes, I am dreaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment