The sinister reality

Before you read this post, I want you to know that I say this not as a sadist or a person contemplating the reason behind the creation of humanity, I say this as a commoner, as a person who has been wronged, as a person who once was.

That's the point of this world, everyone despises people who are sinister but embrace evil when it comes upon them. When they experience pain, they feel the urge to become sudden sadists and out of the blue, being evil and sinister is justified. It sucks that the world is so shallow, it sucks that nothing can be done about it, you know what sucks harder? The fact that not a single person is willing to accept how sinister they truly are and how miserable their lives are.The grim reality that peace is there only when you have found pain soothing, is hidden from the innocent little minds of the commons. What starts off as a simple thought always turns to something so huge and full of hate that it makes everyone question your existence.  It makes you question your own existence. Sometimes, its too late to apologize. Too less for the damage that was done. It will never be enough.

We as the 'future of the world', the 'generation where things went wrong' are often ask to express our views, to be outspoken even in the most uncertain times and be ourselves. Yet for some vivid reason, societal conditioning imparted to those before us force us to be moulded into people who are shadows of those before them. There isn't a day when I don't imagine being able to see a parallel universe where maybe, just maybe, people stick to what they say, a world where texts and speeches are carved in stone, a place where promises and words mean something. It's not a lot asking for a world where you can ask for what you want and be given it when it comes down to peace and a day when millions don't die, rather than seeing the fear on the face of your parents when you leave for college when they are unsure of your safe return, irrespetive of your gender. It isn't a lot hoping that the people we've made gods are actually worth the title and those termed as "Devil's double" are actually bad.

I have been blogging about thise for well over 2 and a half years, but my question remains unanswered. "What is bad in actual terms and who decides who is bad?" Is smoking bad because it kills you? Then why is it legal? Is war bad? Then why isn't political terrorism bad when it kills millions for a handful of people to retain power and execute their hate for a particular religion? Is consumption of alchohol bad? Then why is it served in places where people pray? Is not expressing views bad? Then why is it that when you try to express views you're shutdown by 'others in a better position to speak about it'?

That's why a lot of us have resorted to facing and embracing sadism. It spares you of societal mockery, let's you be you and you learn that maybe the world isn't ready for nice people yet.

The sinister reality stays, you can do what you want, whenever you want, how you want to, but you can't.

What's in a name?

“Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.” - Pierre T

A few weeks ago, I came across this quote whilst attempting ot help a friend going through a relationship problem. It got me pondering over the implications of the repurcussions of the next step they took. A break-up would have a ripple effect with an initial disequilibrium and then stability while the more ethical choice which is to sort out problems would be equivalent to compressing a spirng - the more you press, the higher is the recoil. The adults speak of "this generation" as though it is a taboo to expect a future from them because we differ in indeologies and need to learn the difference between infatuation and love. Perhaps they are right, but think about this logically, if you were in my friend's situation, would you go for the long-term stability and ending things with mutual consent on a happy note or a painful dramatic break-up. While answering this, keep in mind that all attempts to work on this relationship have failed and there is nothing more you can do. If you choose to continue, it'll be on the basis of your infatuation and not on the basis of trust, love and peace. This dilemma is why anonymity is needed.

A random act of kindness as it is widely referred to, can definitely change a lot of things. Sometimes all one needs is a kind gesture without ulterior motives. A geniune, sincere "Hey, you'll be okay, I have faith in you" can do wonders. Anonymity has its perks. No name is a blessing for those who are gravely misunderstood by their fellow peers and are actually despised, but have a lot to say. Humans have a weird tendency to not just look at a name but also all that comes with the names- the rumors, the history and all other things heard and made-up. Making a friend has become like developing a file now. You need the source code, break the firewall and deal with a hundred other hurdles, then you becomes somewhat close to people who acknowledge each other's existence. Anonymity keeps that in place. Rather funny, don't you think? A message saying "hey, I just hope you're okay. Stay strong, weakness is a myth instilled by haters." can make anyone smile but it has mixed reactions. Without a name signed at the bottom, you get an "Aww, I wish I knew you" and the same message to the same person with your name signed gets no reply because it isn't socially desirable.

Shakespeare said "What's in a name?" Humans today have just about managed to find the perfect answer for it. A name says everything there is to know about a person. Sounds silly right? I know it does but guess what, unknowingly you've been a part of this. You've judged a person based on the what you've heard about him/her. You have lost upon a great friend because your social standing would weaken if you both were spotted together. I'm not saying all socially rejected people are amazing people. I'm just saying that there are some who genuinely are while others are the reason the 'some' suffer. You long for a person who is there for you, who is there on the emotional front for the pain and not only for the parties and the crazy experiences and yet you push them away or look past them on purpose to oblige social convention. That's why I stay anonymous, to spare you the social drama, your friends the chuckle and me the ethical conundrum of contemplation, standing up for myself and helping a person I saw was in need.

The other side of yesterday

2^nd October is known as Gandhi Jayanti or the birth of the father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi. To many of us, it is a day of taking pride in the great man that he was, to many of us, it a mourning for the assassination of him, while for the rest of us, it is another Dry-day where we must bootleg alcohol to survive, while the majority of us see it as a 5 day long weekend to have a little getaway with family. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the man who got India his freedom was assassinated by a man called Nathuram Godse, a man hated by every Indian ever. Like Judas kissing Jesus’ hand before turning him to the Jews, Nathuram took Gandhiji’s blessings, apologized and then shot him.

It is said, “There are two sides to every coin” and when it comes to assassination of great leaders such as Abraham Lincoln or Mahatma Gandhi, we only see the assassin as an enemy, without taking into consideration their motives. Nathuram Godse was not a bad person, he was just  a victim of circumstances, who did what he did out of dedication and admiration for his country and its people. In his final address to the court, he elaborated on his reason behind the assassination of Gandhiji. His statement made the judge reconsider his judgment, but was still granted a death sentence. He said that, since 1920, Gandhiji’s control over Congress has been supreme and he has disregarded Sivaji, Rana Pratap and every other leader who resorted to violence in any form, for any reason, as misguided. He alone became the ultimate judge of right and wrong and his judgment was imposed on everyone else without any reconsideration. His pro-Muslim actions upset us Hindus and his faith and love for the national language of India, which is Hindi. From pro-Hindi he went to Hindustani ( a dialect which isn’t written – a cross breed between Hindi and Urdu) as he found out that the Muslims were against it. Even with Hindu blood flowing due to the Muslim League’s army, Gandhiji still tried harder to negotiate with the Muslim League. His intentions were pure, his ways were wrong. To promote Hindu-Muslim unity, he supported Muslims and chose them over Hindus even if they were wrong. It had become a necessity to bring an end to his tyranny. He is called ‘Father of the nation’ but failed as a father the moment he agreed to a partition. He said, “I knew that killing Gandhiji would lead me to lose my honor, one thing I value more than life itself. But politics will be much more practical and powerful with armed forces without Gandhiji.”.

This is what Nathuram Godse said. We can consider his point of view where he was completely justified or Gandhiji’s point of view who was also not entirely wrong. It is solely up to you on whose ideologies will you base your life. Gandhiji’s policies of non-violence or ahimsa are still preached worldwide whereas his Pro-Pakistan attitude still makes Indians shudder. He was a great leader, just chose the wrong side. Nathuram Godse was an innocent man forced by the love of his country to make a choice between seeing his country fall before his eyes or killing Gandhiji to ensure better growth. The final answer to “was Nathuram Godse right?” will forever remain a mystery. Was Nathuram Godse right? Was he speaking the truth? Was Gandhiji actually a partial leader favoring Muslims in every matter? If so, why is this never told, why is this side of him never brought out when he is worshipped? The answers to these questions shall forever remain a mystery.