Eulogy and calumny are the two exact features that we Indians covet and have endearingly  mastered. Eulogy is high praise. Calumny is its antonym. There is nothing unusual about this, one may say, citing this to be the global culture . What is worth decrying is not the reaction in its extremes, but the absence of rational justification for such collective responses that defy reasoning. An unreasoned reality must be fake despite being sheathed as real.
There are umpteen historical instances of aberrations inherent in false praises or uncalled for condemnations that man kind hurled on the belatedly accepted and acknowledged epitome a of creativity. Wasn't Christ crucified. What did we do to Gallalio, Socrates, Mansoor, and many more whose accounts are buried in anonymity?
Now coming to the point at hand, it is neither a Gandhi, nor a Nehru, nor an Indira, nor , in the present scenario, a Modi, nor a Mulayam, Lalu, Nitish, Mayawati, Mamta, JayLalita or whatever that warrants mention, much less either eulogisation or criticism. What actually deserves mention is the human properties or deficiencies each might be credited or discredited with. Facts are sacred, opinions are free. Where a fact is presented, there may arise analogies about its veracity, but when an opinion is expressed, there are no fetters, like kids clap in excitement when a Tusker stalks in its gait, but what do dogs do? The latter bark. None may be discarded as wrong, both being justified in respective right of each.
So when an opinion is expressed, bereft of and contrary to socially acknowledged rationale, the one opining involuntarily identifies himself with that barking species, but when it is other way around, human virtues of admirable standards are reflected.
My friend Mukutdhari Agrawal , for instance, expressed his reservations about Baba Ramdeo who, on the one hand declined a national honour, but on the other reps mum when a ministerial status is conferred on him by the state of Haryana.
My point is simple. Mukutdhariji or the likes of him, are intellectuals of the category of opinion makers in the society. When commenting about a baba, a Bokhari or a swami, or a spiritualist turned parliamentarian, what definition of the role under reference is conceived by a commentator? A spiritualist is cooling his heels on charges of rape, another for culpable homicide and yet another for many more things. So? Why not analyse, instead of sitting in judgment about the whole class to which each claim as belonging?
Better discuss instead of taking a peripheral view, embracing that which unlettered masses ordinarily do. That makes me feel that illiteracy is taking roots among the literates. That is of course deplorable.