In every democracy, criticism of those in power is natural and necessary. Leadership must remain open to scrutiny because public accountability forms the backbone of democratic governance. Citizens, journalists, and political opponents all have the right to question policies, decisions, and administrative actions. When criticism is grounded in facts and focuses on governance, it strengthens institutions and encourages better leadership. However, there is an important distinction between responsible criticism and deliberate attempts to damage the character of an individual. In recent years that line has increasingly become blurred.

Political debate should ideally revolve around ideas, policies, and the direction in which a nation is moving but when public discourse begins to move away from these subjects and shifts toward personal allegations and speculative narratives, the nature of debate changes. Instead of evaluating a leader’s work, attention turns toward questioning the individual’s character, motives, or personal intentions.

This raises a fundamental question why should anyone resort to character assassination unless they are absolutely certain of the truth behind their accusations? In a democracy, reputations are not trivial matters. Public figures carry immense responsibility, but those who speak about them also carry a responsibility to ensure that their claims are backed by credible evidence. Words spoken in public spaces, whether through articles, speeches, television debates, or digital platforms, have the power to influence millions. When accusations are made without certainty or proof, they do not simply harm an individual they weaken the credibility of public discourse itself. Another dimension that deserves attention is the role of personal expectations and interests in shaping public narratives. In political and intellectual circles, many individuals aspire to be........

© Greater Kashmir