Something struck me with the violence of a serial killer wielding a jackhammer as I read Mallu's blog a few minutes back. His post about drawing ever shrinking chalk circles around ourselves struck a chord and reminded me of circles of a different kind, yet no less sinister. Ever expanding circles. Without end. And without god.
Here's that thought. The one I was reminded of. Neatly encapsulated in one of the most poignant poems I've ever read. Perhaps its casual, almost conversational tone renders it all the more poignant. You decide-
The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters
and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,
with four dead and eleven wounded.
And around these, in a larger circle
of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered
and one graveyard. But the young woman
who was buried in the city she came from,
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers,
enlarges the circle considerably,
and the solitary man mourning her death
at the distant shores of a country far across the sea
includes the entire world in the circle.
And I won’t even mention the crying of orphans
that reaches up to the throne of God and
beyond, making
a circle with no end and no God.
- Yehuda Amichai
Posted by
Sahil
at
9:34 PM
Labels:
human nature,
life,
LTUAE,
poem,
reflective conversation,
violence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
ure right of course, saahilbhai...
"no less sinister..."
an ever-enlarging circle of sorrow and effect that afflicts persons who have no clue as to the cause...
how does a murderer ensure that he is aware of the full impact of his deed?
how do our pebbles, thrown lazily into the calm water, keep their ripples from not rocking the frog spawn instead?
how indeed?
and wat does this mean for the future of terrorism? has it degenerated into mindless dishoom-dishoom where there is plenty of gore and gristle and pretty much fuck-all purported impact?
how does a murderer ensure that he is aware of the full impact of his deed?
how do any of us ensure that we are aware of the full impact of our deeds? any deed. we cant. life, in its vast complexity, doesn't give us that room to maneuver.
so does that stop us from doing the things we do? or do we just forge ahead, regardless? working things out to the limit of our understanding and foresight, and leaving the rest to chance, and blind luck and, certainly, fate?
there's a part of me that agrees with what you say- about mindless dishoom-dishoom. there's another part of me that begs to see the other side of the coin. was bhagat singh a freedom fighter? or a terrorist? weren't innocent people killed by his gross act of violence in the parliament? does that stop us from putting him on a pedestal today?
life, as i said, is vastly complex. right and wrong often depend on the frame of reference you choose to judge it.
i wish, though, some things in life were simpler...
sigh
bhagat singh was a terrorist. period. by today's narrow definition, he checks all the boxes, all done, khattam-shud.
does his end justify the means?
no. why shud it?
wat was his end, anyway? to fight for the freedom of a people who were "rightfully" conquered by another.
from kashmir to kwazulu nadal, thats an old and familiar story.
wat makes us give him the moral high ground? our partisan, pro-india education? our gung-ho macho-ism that feels good when we hear the story of some country bumpkin jatt yahoo who whipped some white ass, and twirled his moustache in impossible bravado?
or our own bloodthirstiness, secretly disappointed by india's anemic freedom struggle under mohandas?
by today's narrow definition, he checks all the boxes
perhaps, then, we need to have a few more boxes to check? or, perhaps, we need to take a look at another definition that's not quite so narrow...
why should a people not want to be free? to live life on their terms? to fail miserably at everything they do and then claim that failure, proudly, as their own?
if a caged tiger bites off the hand of a miserable human who happened to be in the same cage- would that be terrorism as well? there's something very carnal about the need to be ruled by one's own 'type', i think...
and why does mohandas' anemic attempt get the legitimacy of a freedom struggle? wasn't that terrorism too, albeit of a different kind? you dont think its scary to be confronted by a mob that sits there and just takes everything you dish out for them? that never retaliates? there's terror in that too...
how do we define sovereignty? what happens if a people do not recognise another peoples' right to rule them? what of law and order then? or the justice system?
to be perfectly honest- your argument resonates with me and my views. the colonialists, as you say, took over quite rightfully. from kashmir to kwazulu natal. the end certainly doesn't justify the means.
but, by and large, people rarely act in a mindless fashion. that has been my experience. well, if you discount the serially deranged. every act, regardless of how mindless it appears to onlookers, is based on a rationale in the mind of the actor. is it such a bad idea to probe the causes rather than denouncing the symptoms? should we try and eradicate the disease or amputate the infected limb?
or is that a completely senseless question to ask?
Post a Comment