Last few days the print and voice media were all flooded with the reports about the cricket star Yuvraj Singh’s illness. There were parts mentioning the criticality of his illness and chances of his recovery. These parts were loaded with emotions showing the interviews of his parents. Then there was mention of concern from his colleagues and fans for his speedy and complete recovery soon. All this seemed a routine saga of care and concern in times of suffering and need. But the smooth scene was screeched by the news that highlighted the concerns from the government to help the player financially. This created a spur in the media and people started discussing the need and necessity of this act of the government. The argument’s stated that as the player is in a good financial status, there is no doubt that he can very well manage his medical expenses and hence the government should divert its funds to some other needed part of the society.
For all sane minds this argument is well placed. This said and done should have rested here but the coming days in media have reports related to the apathy caused to the players who needed government help in past. These players did not get the needed help and hence have suffered to the irrevocable extents. The reports have the mention of sympathy for the players and the anger for government’s act of irresponsibility. This report when read created the same emotions in the reader’s mind too and hence more criticism and sympathy. But one point that rose in my mind among all these emotions is that where was this media when this injustice was being delivered? Agreed that the government is partial and is not doing justice but why could not they fight for the players and become crusaders for them. Media is seen as the torch bearer to highlight the shortcomings of the legislature, government, bureaucracy and the judiciary in the democracy. But does the role of media ends with the act of criticizing only?
Said this I am not saying what government did was good or what the media is reporting now is wrong, but it is just the method and timing that stands questioned.
Criticism is something that we all love to indulge into as it gives us a chance to take a dig into someone else’s act. If we check the meaning of criticism in dictionary it says “the practice of analyzing, interpreting and evaluating some act or work”. Now this analysis and evaluation can have both positive and negative sides. But somehow we link criticism to the act of finding faults only.
At the first point it is not always necessary that we evaluate something. We can just observe it also. It happens that most of the time we lose the chance to enjoy the life, because we are too busy to evaluate it rather than just observe it and enjoy it. Observation alone without any thoughts is bliss and if we can achieve it we can feel blessed. Most of our energy is seeped out in our act of evaluating someone/s act or assets. There are many places where in the evaluation is meaningless for example commenting on the natural things, why not to just see and ignore. If we can check on our evaluating habit it will help us to stay in peace and be more productive in positive ways. Even if it is required to evaluate something let our evaluation be designed in a way to help the person evaluated in positive way. There is always a positive way to even say the most negative thing in the world.
So let us pledge to be a observer more than a critic.
