Bihar’s electoral field is keeping almost every top politician busy in the business. Their primary job appears to be jumping from one platform to another to execute target-hunting — pick a target and try to hunt it with choicest of adjectives. The purpose of the game is to enchant voters with phrases that can crush the spirit of any poor soul. But for battle-hardened and sharptongued craftsmen, the pitch of criticism looks like child’s play if words are lobbed from the Opposition camp.

The moment critical voices rise from the stable, even entrenched and experienced players lose poise and start fumbling like a neophyte. But why? Why should criticism rattle someone to such an extent? After all, criticism is of the people, by the people, for the people! It’s priceless, easily and freely available, widely and evenly spread, and, importantly, it puts no burden on the giver. The more it’s given, the more one feels relieved.

The burden is on the receiver. How, when, where and what s/he re ceives. If the feedback is reviewed and analysed with wisdom, the inheritor can gain additional insight into the situation. Just look at Zohran Mamdani. With time, he learnt, evolved and tweaked his strategies, and all of that became possible because his brain was receptive to ideas seeping in — whether from streets or from closed-door interactions.

Among all forms of critics, inhouse faultfinders are the best because of their grasp on nearly everything within the group. Therefore, any evaluation of merits and faults by such people should be overvalued. If possible, critics should find pride of place in every household. For round-the-clock refinement, every courtyard should have a nest for critics as their precise words are more penetrative than the sharpest known sword, if any.

Only when reproval turns personal, criticism loses its appeal. Hence, it’s important to keep one’s judgement limited to issues so that the value of the art isn’t lost in the din.