Recently, I came across excerpts and news reports of writer Jeyamohan’s scathing critique of the “Manjummel Boys.” In a democracy, everyone should have the right to critique art and express their opinions. However, Jeyamohan’s critique seems to cross the line from constructive criticism to airing personal grievances.
I have always admired Mr. Jeyamohan’s work. Reading his novel “Nooru Simhasanagal” into the early hours, I felt immense respect for his stand against discrimination and his portrayal of the voices and emotions of the oppressed.
However, his recent take on the “Manjummel Boys” leaves much to be desired. While he raises several “concerns,” the manner in which they are presented makes it difficult to empathize or support his viewpoint.
To clarify, concerns about environmental conservation or uncivilized behavior at tourist spots or during weddings are undoubtedly valid. Actions that infringe upon others’ freedoms or disrupt peaceful living deserve condemnation and strict regulation.
Yet, is it appropriate for a writer of his stature to generalize behaviors and collectively criticize an entire community? The problem with his blog post is its broad generalizations aimed at a specific group. Misconduct should be condemned irrespective of the perpetrator’s ethnicity, and it is unreasonable to expect everyone to adhere to one’s moral standards.
As I mentioned earlier, constructive criticism is essential for cultural growth, but it must remain respectful. Mr. Jeyamohan’s repeated use of the term “pokkiris” throughout his post suggests a deliberate choice of language rather than a lack of vocabulary.
Moreover, I am dismayed by the passive-aggressive calls for violence in his writings, suggesting that such individuals only understand the “language of beatings.” It’s shocking to see a writer who has championed the rights of the oppressed resorting to the rhetoric of oppressors.
Responsible citizens should back their accusations with concrete evidence. Jeyamohan claims that the Malayalam film industry is riddled with drug addiction. While drug use has undoubtedly increased in various societal sectors, it is unfair to single out one industry.
I believe any art that glorifies drugs, alcohol, stalking, or unruly behavior should be condemned. However, if a narrative or character requires the depiction of substance use, it should be portrayed responsibly, respecting the integrity of the art form.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of his critique is his wish for the so-called “pokkiris” to fall into an abyss and perish. It’s distressing to hear such vitriol from a writer who has been a steadfast advocate for the oppressed. Art should foster compassion, yet these words seem to come from someone who has lost faith in humanity and descended into bitterness.