What Do You Think?

I was going to write about my Kashmir trip this time , but I decided to narrate\type\tell this story because I just made it and it is fresh in my mind. :p
It's a story about two men and their families ( not families mostly, but they play a passive role). At the end of the story, I want to know from you, what you think of the characters and their actions and whether they were justified. For the sake of not insulting anyone by using names, let us refer to them as Mr. A and Mr. B.
Land prices today are as high the buildings they are making these days, aren't they? This story happened before that.
There was a patch of land located in the forest, which wasn't really habitable because of the surrounding wilderness. Mr. A was hard working and strong, but he wasn't much smart in business. He lived on a hand to mouth existence. Didn't save much but one thing good was his father had some influence. He got his son the permission to live on that patch of land. Now this Mr. A respected nature and instead of razing the trees, he made his home without harming the trees or other flora and fauna. In other words, he accepted the nature around him as a part of his life. He married and had kids and all that comes with married life (yawn!). He lived a pretty isolated life. He didn't talk to other people that much, but he loved his family and was fiercely protective of them. His IQ may have been as low as the railing of that new bridge they built on the Western Express Highway near the domestic airport, but he was pretty strong and could hold his own in a brawl at the pub and stuff like that. Provocate him, he'll tolerate you for a while and then give it back to you, all of it and more.
Enter Mr. B in the picture. ( or in this case, story-on-the-blog ). Now Mr. B was not so strong but was smart. And he had influence too, so he acquired permission to live on the aforementioned-unhabitable-but-inhabited-by Mr. A land too. Whoa, so our Mr. A had a neighbour in his isolation now. Mr. B was a social animal. He went to parties, had parties at his home and stuff. He even made friends with A and his family. Now, A accepted B and his family as his neighbours but sometimes he would get wary of the fact that B was much smarter than him. B here expanded his business ventures and made huge profits. He brought his business home. Set up a manufacturing plant right next to his home. All that disturbed his peace life but , he made compromises. But he started taking advantage of A's lack of intellect. He would use A's sons for labour at a rate much cheaper than was dictated by the government. He even got rid of the trees surrounding their land and of which A was very fond of. So you see, B was this shrewd fellow, who in the name of ' for the greater good of all', did everything he could for his own benefit. He would set his own rules and didn't care much about other people's rules but he broke them in such a way that the other person feels, B is actually helping them out.

Some people did raise a voice against B's antics but he managed to convince most of them that what he was doing was just another way of doing what was good for all. And those who saw through the honeyed-talk were silenced thorugh his influence.

One day he went too far. He expanded his house by demolishing A's house. Now A was homeless. He hadn't realised he and his family were being abused. He hadn't paid much attention to the people fighting for him against B , because to him they were just 'smart people' like B; not trustworthy. Since he was homeless, A had no choice but to roam about what had been his property, his home till the day before. But B showed his nasty side to him and threw A out of the house and accused him of trespassing. A became really frustrated now. He was homeless, Not smart enough to find work at his old age, and his influential father was dead. His family depended on him for support. One time one of his sons wandered into B's property and stole some food. B was a bit drink or he wouldn't have reacted the way he did. He killed A's son.

A had enough of it now. He was done tolerating B's nonsense and he was done being pushed about in the name of good. Screw all and screw all their well - wishes. When things came to his family, he forgot the rest. He went to B's place in a towering rage and beat him to a pulp. Vandalised the place in general and went away.

Unfortunately or fortunately, B survived and lodged a complaint against A. He declared that A was deranged and so was not safe to have around. As a result A was arrested. A didn't try to defend himself. He didn't care! People were of mixed opinions. Some people agreed that B had it coming to him after what he did to A's son. Some said, A was a brute and should be hanged, while some thought, B should be made to pay but A's method had not been right.

Politicians started including A and B in their speeaches. Several Save A's life organistaions and petitions came up. The debate is still going on as to whether A should live or not. It's been more or less decided that he should live, but the decision has not yet been implemented. People depending on others to implement that. People moved on. While A's life has been stuck in a rut since that. Once or twice a month, he has to go to court to see lawyers battling out his fate. But he seems aloof from all of it now. Like he is just outside looking in through the wall . or perhaps he's just numb and indifferent to it.

Now think about what A did . And what B did. In my opinion all of us are B in some small way at least. And the animal kingdom is A. This analogy just came to it. Think about it.

Ps : in teh previous post, i forgot to mention, there was this one news channel who had claimed that Steve was good with crocodiles because he used to sodomise them. :(( faggots