The statement ‘I support my country, whether right or wrong’ may express loyalty to the country, but it may also raise the question of whether citizens should criticize the unjust actions of their government. Therefore, patriotism is not only about supporting the party, but also about correcting it when it sees a mistake. Similarly, saying ‘I support the government of my party whether it is right or wrong’ is also harmful to democracy. Such a tendency weakens the basis of the recognition of truth, the practice of justice, and moral responsibility. Therefore, citizen autonomy and free thought are indispensable for the security and progress of any country.

Various thinkers have been critically analyzing the tendency to praise power or the powerful for personal gain for centuries. Plato (in ‘The Republic’) has concluded that when flattery prevails over conscience in a society, the possibility of governance falling into the hands of the wrong and incompetent increases. Similarly, Machiavelli (in ‘The Prince’) has analyzed the practical use of political power and exposed the realistic side of how immoral fabricated images are used to maintain power. Plato and Machiavelli’s analysis are still relevant today.

In modern analysis, George Orwell (in ‘Politics and the English Language’ and ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’) has pointed out the danger of the misuse of political language and ideology making injustice and lies normal and acceptable. Similarly, Edward Said (in ‘Representations of the Intellectuals’) has emphasized that intellectuals should stand independently for truth and justice without being influenced by any power or institution.

Overall, the common message of these notable thinkers is that praising power for selfish reasons weakens critical thinking, truth, and accountability in society, which leads to the proliferation of misinformation, injustice, and incompetent leadership, and the erosion of social progress and democratic values, which is happening all over the world today.

This article also attempts to present a critique of critics. That is, it emphasizes that for the development and progress of knowledge, not only power or rulers but also intellectuals, ideologies, and knowledge systems should be the subject of criticism. Because, if any intellectual or idea is placed above criticism, errors, prejudices, and wrong conclusions can become institutionalized over time. In addition, the development of empirical knowledge occurs through a process of continuous questioning, testing, and reevaluation. Therefore, criticism of intellectuals is not an attack on individuals, but a public examination of their ideas, arguments, evidence, and conclusions. This process strengthens a culture of intellectual humility, responsibility, and continuous improvement, which helps build a society of free-thinking citizens.

Characteristics of the independent critic

Ontologically, each person is unique, while epistemologically, each person can understand the world differently. This is why diversity of thought is natural. But the characteristic of the independent critic is that he evaluates contradictory arguments by the same epistemological standards. He prioritizes evidence over prejudice and is ready to revise his conclusions when new facts become available (i.e., stability of thought and flexibility of interpretation).

Intellectual autonomy is very important for the critic. The instrumental-intellectual may have used power-praise as a means for personal gain. A pure-minded intellectual does not surrender his conscience to the interests of the university, media organization, or any employer where he works. In any situation and circumstance, it is inevitable for him to maintain his intellectual or personal autonomy. If an intellectual cannot protect his autonomy and surrenders to power, it is difficult to call him an independent thinker. A real intellectual rises above his institutional or personal interests and maintains intellectual autonomy.

A civil servant must remain loyal to the constitution, law, and public interest to maintain his personal autonomy, and must not become a blind devotee of any leader or political party. He must be able to think independently, give honest and professional suggestions, fulfill legal responsibilities responsibly, and raise his voice through appropriate channels if there is a moral or legal problem. A good civil servant serves the government but never gives up his conscience and critical thinking.

Op-eds by experts based on speculation rather than facts can reinforce conspiracy theories. Therefore, an independent critic should be judged not on the basis of the conclusions he draws, but on how fair, transparent, and evidence-based the process is in reaching those conclusions. He should also consider evidence that contradicts his own beliefs and be prepared to change his mind if sufficient evidence becomes available.

In an empirical perspective, truth is not determined by a person's reputation, authority, or strong convictions. The closest to truth is achieved by claims that are supported by evidence, logical coherence, and independently verifiable facts. Therefore, intellectual humility, self-criticism, and openness to alternative perspectives are fundamental conditions for the pursuit of knowledge.

'Supernatural' and 'mundane' knowledge

The roots of most social and political conflicts in the world often stem from the mixing of two different and contradictory subjects of knowledge. Scientific thinking is also essential to distinguish between 'supernatural' and 'mundane' knowledge. That is, balancing religion, culture, and science in public policy means using science for facts and evidence, and respecting religion and culture for values ​​and identity. Without a balance between science, religion, and culture, public life can be distorted by ignorance, division, or lack of common meaning.

Statements like ‘I am the ultimate truth, surrender completely to me’ can make sense in a spiritual context. In the ‘supernatural’ world of faith, Shri Krishna is accepted as the omniscient and supreme guiding Guru. But from an empirical and temporal perspective, there is not enough evidence to consider any person as completely omniscient or infallible. In a society based on free thought, critical thinking, and evidence, no claim is considered the ultimate truth simply on the basis of authority or prestige. It is evaluated on the basis of reason, evidence, and experience.

Before the European ‘Enlightenment’, the validity of knowledge was determined primarily by religious injunctions (the Ten Commandments). The European Enlightenment established reason, scientific inquiry, and individual conscience as the main foundations of knowledge. It contributed to the development of a critical view of tradition and religious authority. However, its impact was seen differently in different societies.

It is said that Gautama Buddha attained ‘Buddhahood’ (enlightenment) by fully confronting the testing and reevaluation of knowledge ‘Mara’ (also known as the self-shadow), remaining steadfast and undeviated from it. ‘Mara’ may be the ultimate means of testing one’s own ideas in social science, but not everyone can be Gautama Buddha. ‘Bodhi’ in the Buddhist tradition and the European ‘Enlightenment’ are different historical and philosophical concepts. The former emphasizes understanding reality through introspection and deep experience of consciousness, while the latter prioritizes scientific inquiry and reason.

In Buddhist literature, ‘Mara’ can be understood as a symbol of human mental and emotional obstacles. Mental states can be important for modern social and psychological studies. In this context, the importance of intellectual self-criticism is seen. Self-criticism is the systematic examination of one's beliefs, reasoning, and conclusions. It helps one to identify one's own errors, biases, and weaknesses. This is also the essence of the scientific method, which is to not automatically accept any claim as true, but to continuously evaluate (test) it through evidence and experimentation. It may not be possible for a modern intellectual to use a test of the Mara type. But untested knowledge, intellectual flattery, and betrayal should not be acceptable.

Betrayal of the Intellectual and Control of Power

Discussing intellectual betrayal, Julian Benda (in 'The Betrayal of the Intellectuals') argues that intellectuals deviate from their responsibilities by becoming servants of political power instead of standing up for truth and universal moral values. Benda says – the betrayal of intellectuals occurs when they prioritize ideology, power or group loyalty over truth and impartial thinking. For example – some supported fascism, some ignored or justified Soviet oppression and Stalinism, and some gave legitimacy to false theories that supported racial discrimination and colonialism. In all these cases, intellectual knowledge was used not for the search for truth, but rather for power and ideology. Benda has criticized such tendencies as the betrayal of intellectuals, which is still relevant today.

Regarding the control of power over citizens, Michel Foucault (in ‘Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison’) has argued that power is not limited to the government but is also present in schools, hospitals, prisons and other social institutions. According to him, power influences daily life and thinking, so it is necessary to critically examine it. Political power can be dangerous without control and public scrutiny. This is why many thinkers have considered criticism of power to be an essential element of a democratic society.

The main role of intellectuals is to critically examine power. They can expose the wrong decisions, lies, injustice and abuse of power of governments, leaders or institutions. Criticism should be based on facts, responsible and aware of the public interest. A good leader is evaluated not by praise, but by his actions. Therefore, leaders should not suppress criticism, but respond to it through their actions. Similarly, responsible citizens should not blindly support leaders and express their views on both the good and bad sides of them.

If a situation is created where artists, writers or filmmakers achieve success only by praising the ruler, then art and literature can become a means of propaganda rather than a means of free expression. History has shown that real art and literature survive even in adverse circumstances. In a democratic system, the government and public institutions must present their decisions to the public with evidence. Intellectuals, journalists, courts, and citizens then hold the government accountable by reviewing and criticizing those decisions.

Humanism and Democratic Criticism

Edward Said (in ‘Humanism and Democratic Criticism’) defined ‘humanism and democratic criticism’ as an open, inclusive, and independent critical practice. According to him, the responsibility of intellectuals is to question authority, injustice, and established norms and to encourage free public debate. He presented humanism not only as the study of knowledge, but also as the practice of moral responsibility and critical thinking. True humanism teaches us to look critically not only at others but also at ourselves. Therefore, self-criticism is an essential quality for individuals, societies, nations, and intellectual communities.

Said warned that narrow nationalism, rigid identity politics, and institutional superstitions undermine independent thought. सइद भन्छन्– बौद्धिकहरूले शक्तिशाली विचार र स्थापित कथनहरूलाई प्रश्न गर्नुपर्छ र असहज परिस्थितिमा पनि सत्य बोल्ने साहस राख्नुपर्छ । सइदका अनुसार लोकतन्त्र संवाद, आत्मालोचना र विविध विचारप्रतिको सम्मानमा आधारित हुन्छ । आफ्ना विश्वास, परम्परा र अभ्यासहरूको आलोचनात्मक समीक्षा नगरी तथा अन्य विचार र संस्कृतिसँग संवाद नगरी वास्तविक आत्मज्ञान सम्भव हुँदैन । आलोचना लोकतन्त्रको आधारभूत अभ्यास हो, जसले कट्टरता, जडता र शक्ति दुरुपयोगलाई चुनौती दिन्छ ।

जयपृथ्वीबहादुर सिंहको विचारसँग मिल्दोजुल्दो रूपमा सइदले मानवतावादलाई ‘अरूमा आफूलाई देख्ने क्षमता’ का रूपमा यसरी व्याख्या गरेका छन्– ‘आफ्नो भन्ने साँघुरो घेराभन्दा बाहिर निस्केर अरूको वास्तविक अवस्था, अनुभव र भावनालाई सहानुभूतिपूर्वक तथा विपरीतार्थक रूपमा, सँगसँगै राखेर बुझ्ने प्रयास गर्नु कठिन हुन सक्छ तर त्यो बढी सन्तोषजनक हुन्छ । यसको अर्थ अरूमाथि प्रभुत्व जमाउने, उनीहरूलाई वर्गीकरण गर्ने वा श्रेणी क्रममा राख्ने होइन, न त आफ्नो देश वा संस्कृतिलाई निरन्तर सर्वश्रेष्ठ ठहर्‍याइरहनु नै हो । बरु, भिन्नता र विविधतालाई सम्मान गर्दै अनेक दृष्टिकोणलाई एकसाथ बुझ्न सक्नु नै साँचो विवेक र बौद्धिक परिपक्वताको चिह्न हो ।’ विदेशीप्रति बढ्दो अविश्वास र शत्रुता (जेनोफोबिया) को वर्तमान संसारमा आलोचनात्मक चिन्तकहरूका लागि यो गहिरो सन्देश हो ।

आलोचनाको सीमा

लोकतान्त्रिक समाजमा सरकार, नेता, कम्पनी वा धार्मिक संस्थामाथि खुला आलोचना गर्न पाउनु अभिव्यक्ति स्वतन्त्रताको आधार हो । तर आलोचनाको स्वतन्त्रता असीमित हुँदैन । हिंसाको उक्साहट, प्रत्यक्ष धम्की, जानाजानी फैलाइने झूटा आरोप, मानहानि वा अमानवीय अपमानलाई आलोचनाका नाममा वैध ठहर गर्न सकिँदैन । तर पनि नीति, निर्णय र शक्तिको प्रयोगमाथि प्रश्न उठाउनु र केवल व्यक्तिगत अपमान गर्नुबीच स्पष्ट भिन्नता हुन्छ ।

आलोचना मानव विचार, विज्ञान, राजनीति र व्यक्तिगत विकासको महत्त्वपूर्ण साधन हो, यसका केही सीमा यस प्रकारका हुन्छन्– पहिलो, आलोचना तथ्य, प्रमाण र सन्दर्भमा आधारित हुनुपर्छ । गलत सूचना वा अतिरञ्जनामा आधारित आलोचनाले आफ्नो विश्वसनीयता गुमाउँछ । दोस्रो, आलोचनाको उद्देश्य सुधार, समझदारी र उत्तरदायित्व हुनुपर्छ । केवल अपमान, घृणा वा क्षति पुर्‍याउने उद्देश्यले गरिएको आलोचनाले संवादलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ । तेस्रो, मानव ज्ञान सीमित हुन्छ । पर्याप्त जानकारीबिना गरिएको आलोचना सतही वा अन्यायपूर्ण हुन सक्छ । चौथो, आलोचनाको मनोवैज्ञानिक प्रभावलाई पनि ध्यान दिनुपर्छ । अत्यधिक कठोर वा असन्तुलित आलोचनाले आत्मविश्वास र सिर्जनशीलतालाई कमजोर बनाउन सक्छ । पाँचौं, सामाजिक र नैतिक दृष्टिले धम्की, गालीगलौज, मानहानि वा अमानवीय व्यवहारलाई धेरैजसो समाजले अपराधका रूपमा लिन्छ (आलोचनात्मक सोच भन्न मिल्दैन) ।