The article argues that the piece’s objective is not to malign or defame Mr. Paramavaisnava, but rather to subject his public role to democratic scrutiny. It positions critique as a civic duty aligned with Gandhian principles of non‑violence and civil disobedience, drawing a line between legitimate democratic dissent and defamatory intent
onceinabluemoon2021.in
. The author contends that vigilant public discourse is essential in holding influential individuals accountable—especially when their philanthropic gestures or public image are intertwined with questions of power, privilege, and socio-economic inequities.

In situating dissent within the framework of constitutional democratic rights, the piece foregrounds the importance of freedom of expression while cautioning against opportunistic defamation laws that may stifle critical voices. Overall, the article frames its critique as part of a broader tradition of civil restraint and moral resistance, underscoring the need for transparency and debate in robust democracies.