NOT AGAIN

Serial bomb blasts. Check.
Innocent lives lost. Check.
Spirit of Mumbai applauded. CHECK.

This time there isn't even an itch to know who the culprits are, and what their agenda is. It sounds trivial to hear our politicians' take on it. Nothing shown or said by the media matters. There's nothing anybody is saying now that they haven't already said before.

But it's time they stopped using that pathetic cliche about the "Spirit of Mumbai". When we continued with life after the first blast, we were naive. After the second, we erroneously thought that it would be the last. And for every subsequent blast, it's just been a force of habit. Random acts of terrorism are so frequent now, it's become mundane. We take it as a given. We are so conditioned by it, we almost forget it's not meant to be a part of our routine.

We have roughly 20 lakh families residing in our city. Yesterday, 21 citizens were killed and another 150 were injured. So out of 20,00,000 families, a maximum of 200 families were severely affected, and only those many are grieving today. They are the only ones thinking about critical care units or funeral arrangements. That's a small ratio. And that is precisely the reason you supposedly see life back to normal. That's the reason you see people on the streets as though nothing has happened. Indeed, nothing did happen to their immediate families.

We don't step out on the streets to symbolize our strength and unity. We step out due to a lack of empathy. We step out because our neighbour's loss is not our loss. Life doesn't go 'back' to normal. It had remained normal to begin with for somebody who was no where near the blast sites. There's not a lack of fear in the city, there's a lack of feeling. We are not calm, just cold.

So don't tell me we are fighting gallantly, when we are in fact succumbing silently. We are NOT a city surging forward with "Spirit". We are just a city seeped in apathy.

Arbor Vitae

A Stain of Ink befalls the night
Washed away with the morning light.
The Golden Orb with all it's might
But a humble cloud can block it's light.

Summer flowers that Blossom Pink
Only to fade away within a blink.
Amber leaves that shed and shrink
And back into the earth they sink.

Carefree Winds blow a tiny Seed
The Rains Nurture it's every need.
And alongside there grows a weed
Unwanted it is, but pays no heed.

The Rising Sun from the Brilliant Blue
And setting each day in a different hue.
Into a Mighty Oak, the little seed grew
Serpentine roots cutting the earth through.

This time the breeze a Fury flew
Rains Lashed and WhirlWinds blew.
After the storm, the trees stood but few
Fallen trunks mingled with morning dew.

The mighty oak, it's last breath drew
But beside it, the Weed still grew.
Laws of Nature though seem Askew
The Circle of Life will start Anew.

PRINTING MISTAKES

The pen, they say, is mightier than the sword. And even as we grapple with literacy issues, there's no denying the impact of the mass media. The morning newspaper and evening news is a compulsive ritual for most of us. We like to be appraised of all events - recent, remote and distant. And while the media meticulously reports nearly everything under the sun, it takes the annoying liberty of sensationalizing.

Case in point is the suicide of an ex-supermodel. The media worked itself into a frenzy churning out graphic details of the incident, not to mention the sordid attempt at painting the classic love triangle. And to display some mediocre journalism, the chain of events leading to the suicide were constructed and reconstructed after some harrowing micro-analysis. It was somewhat tedious to read the same piece of news for nearly a week. The supermodel's suicide story featured on the front page for 3 consecutive days. On the 4th day, the funeral pictures were splashed all over page 2. By day 5, she was back on page 1. And each time, the media dished out different pictures of the deceased dressed saucily. All in all, it felt crass.

Interestingly, on the day of the said supermodel's funeral, there was another suicide case reported in a measly column on the 9th page of the same newspaper. The deceased in question was a middle-aged woman, a humble cop's wife, who presumably ended her life due to the financial and emotional strain of the last of her 3 kids being mentally challenged. Just why didn't this piece of news stir a media storm? The underlying issue is after all just as socially relevant. But it was not the classic case of a doomed celebrity, which is why it didn't grab eyeballs. A beautiful model with the world at her feet, but longing for amorous love and eventually committing suicide is way more compelling than the drab house-wife trying to cope with her domestic routine and a mentally challenged son. The dilemma of the house-wife neither evokes our sympathy nor holds our attention. But talk about a patho in a celebrity, and we're all ears. Not to mention, sensitivity personified. So we're heart broken over the ravishing model who chose to end her life, but we refuse to be appalled by the average woman in agony committing suicide. 

While the press and celebs go hand in hand, it doesn't justify reducing meaningful journalism to a mere oxymoron. The media needs to make a conscious effort to avoid undue sensationalism and it ought to display some semblance of professionalism. It is unacceptable to discriminate so blatantly between the deaths of two individuals - practically turning a blind eye to one, while dedicating a week long tribute to the other. Being a celebrity sure has it's perks, and media attention may top the list. But the media should refrain from exhibiting such gross favouritism amongst the dead.

For if not in life, in death at least, we all lie equal.
Or so, us commoners would like to believe.

QUiRKY

"Love thy neighbour" is what we are always preached. So why does the neighbour get so offended if we extend the love to his wife?

Ever wondered if the statement "Failure is the stepping stone to success" is an incomplete one, with the original concluding as "for your rival" !

If money can't buy happiness, why are the rich always happier than the poor? And why the hell is dowry exchange so rampant?

No comments on steady, but "slow" never wins any race. The only reason the tortoise won is because the hare was awfully stupid, and err... sleepy!

When vegetarians make such a fuss about ingesting embryos [read eggs], why don't they fuss equally over consuming live organisms [read vaccines] ?

Believe it or faint, but it was the fox who originally gave us the Theory of Relativity - When you don't get the grapes, they are ALWAYS sour. And when you do get the grapes, you NEVER find them sour!

If what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger, what is so wrong about violence and substance abuse?

It takes a supremely sadist and narcissistic personality to come up with an autobiography. How else do you explain the audacity to grieve somebody with a detailed account of your personal trash and then charge them for it?!

Love, they say, makes the world go round. Sex on the other hand, releases endorphins that make us happy. Why do people prefer round over happy?!!

Redemption

Set NOT small Goals..
They have NOT the Spark to Fuel our Quest.

Take NOT small Risks..
They have NOT the Courage to Bolt our Fears.

Kindle NOT small Desires..
They have NOT the Charm to Slake our Lust.

Nurture NOT small Dreams..
They have NOT the Passion to Stir our Blood.

Surrender NOT to small Failures..
They have NOT the Power to Cheat our Destiny.

TELL ME WHY???

Almost anybody who visits a temple at a place like Shirdi, will generously shell out money for the beggars there. But if the same beggar were to approach us at a signal elsewhere, he will get shooed away without a second glance. Is this our definition of being "God-fearing"?

Charity practically never begins at home. And most people who donate like to make it known publicly. Does it negate our generosity if we seek publicity for it? And are we really being generous if our sole intention is to gain publicity by the gesture? What is it that really counts here - the thought, or the act?

Nowadays, there's an emerging trend of adopting kids. People claim they want to make a difference, and yet they won't consider sponsoring their maid's kids' education. They supposedly want to touch a child's life, but they won't hesitate calling out to "chhotu" and placing their lunch orders, asking "chhotu" to run around for office errands, ordering "chhotu" to lift memsab's bags, and so on. How can you justify robbing one child of his childhood when you dream of bestowing it upon anonther?

We click pictures to capture our happy moments. But when a celebrity visits a blind-school or a school for the mentally challenged, claims that he/she was moved to tears, and then poses for pictures smiling from ear-to-ear, what does that convey? Which obnoxious person in their right mind smiles gleefully standing next to a kid with cerebral palsy? Whose brain is really damaged here?

We have animal right activists and socialists fighting tooth and nail against cruelty to animals - endangered, abandoned, or otherwise. Kind as their act is, should we not first cry out against cruelty to those of our own species? Does a limping puppy actually evoke more compassion than a cachexic kid? Or is it just more convenient to look out for a street dog than a street kid?