HYpoCRisY

 Let’s talk about Dhurandhar.

 I watched this panel on NDTV, a mix of political representatives, film critics, and a few public figures. And honestly, the problem wasn’t disagreement, disagreement is healthy. The problem was the level of conversation. It felt like a lot of noise, very little clarity. Every second line was the same word, propaganda, repeated like a reflex, not like a thought. And when a discussion starts sounding like repetition instead of reasoning, you know something is off.

 Let’s start with something basic, something people keep ignoring, choice. If you don’t like a film, don’t watch it. It’s that simple. You’re not being forced. You have agency. But instead of using that, people jump straight into outrage. And outrage without understanding is just performance. Now coming to the uncomfortable part. When we talk about figures like Atiq Ahmed, let’s not pretend this is some abstract debate. There is a documented history of crime, fear, and power structures around such individuals. People who have lived in those areas know what that reality looks like. You can’t just erase that because it doesn’t fit your narrative. But at the same time, and this is important, you also cannot start justifying violence casually. That’s where things get dangerous. There is a thin line between recognising a harsh reality and normalising it. And once that line is crossed, you’re no longer thinking ethically, you’re reacting emotionally. 

 The bigger issue, in my opinion, is selective outrage. The same action gets different reactions depending on who is involved. If one side does something, it’s condemned loudly. If another side does something similar, suddenly there’s silence, or justification. That’s not ethics. That’s convenience. And once you operate like that, your argument loses weight, no matter how loudly you present it.

 There’s also another layer which people don’t handle well. Conversations around extremism and national security are messy, and they should be handled carefully. Yes, extremist mindsets do exist. In different forms, in different groups. That’s a fact. But the moment you stretch that into broad generalisations about entire communities, the argument collapses. You stop analysing and start stereotyping. And that is both intellectually weak and ethically flawed.

 This is where a lot of these panel discussions fail. People come in with confidence, with fixed opinions, but without depth. There’s very little intellectual discipline. And when you combine limited understanding with strong opinions, you don’t get a debate, you get chaos dressed as discussion. If you are sitting on a public platform, at least come prepared. You don’t need to know everything, no one does. But at least know the basics. And more importantly, know what not to say. That awareness alone can make you better than most people in that room. 

 “Know thyself” sounds philosophical, but here it’s practical "LOL". Know what you know, and be honest about what you don’t. There’s a difference between having an opinion and having a well thought out position. In the end, say whatever you want. Disagree, criticise, support, that’s all part of a healthy society. But let it come from facts, some level of ethical consistency, and a bit of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, it’s just another loud debate where everyone speaks, and nothing really gets said.

VVU.