Friday, September 19, 2008

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


Alok said...

If you ask me, A and B are animals themselves, fighting for their survival and their rights. Each has his own method to do so. While B manipulates and uses his brain, A uses his raw strength. In the end, they end up fighting for the things they care about.

So in the first place, it's all about animal instincts and the sheer desire to survive and to rule. Emotion doesn't come into the picture at all. A could have stopped B a long time ago, if he wanted to.

But now, in the second picture, since we are all animals, nature is our creator and nature is beautiful precisely because of that. An animal (including a human being) would appreciate this beauty of nature and accept that nature's solutions are better (a thousand times more efficient) than the ones devised by us. So if it's survival we want, we must respect and preserve nature's beauty.

P.S. Well written!

"as low as the railing of that new bridge they built on the Western Express Highway near the domestic airport" ROTFL

spicymist said...

yeah in short B is a schemer and A is sort of more brawns than d brains. So B is probably an evolved form of animals ( humans) and is still primitive. what makes A an animal is that he didnt know he could stop B and what makes B a human is the fact that in his fear of A he tries to evoke hatred against A in the community. :p similar to what had happened to the cheetah who had come visitint the city after escaping from national park

Nirmal said...

hey this one is very large post///will read it later..

by the way do wanna get tagged???

Eric S. said...

first off, disregarding your analogy at the end, It never fails that those with intelligence, money and power (B) seem to always take advantage of those with out (A). It has always been aggravating to me, the way the poor and undeserving get walked on.

(B) should have been stopped long before the situation produced the inevitable result.

Now lets put your ending analogy back into the picture. I believe we do sometimes tread where we shouldn't, causing harm to those undeserving of it. Obviously there have been way to many abuses of the animal kingdom and the forests. At the same time there are many out there working to support them and help.

Now don't take the next part the wrong way Please. I'm just putting it out there for discussion.

The question then becomes how to achieve a happy balance. I am fond of the outdoors, and do take part in such activities as hunting and fishing. However I am, in my eyes, a responsible hunter who believes part of the process is conservation. I have seen stories of areas where hunting is not allowed, and overpopulation becomes a serious issue putting a strain on the food sources and causing widespread starvation. How should we deal with the suffering of those animals.

Having said all that, I hope you don't hate me now.

spicymist said...

why would i hate you? its just that when we start thinking only about our welfare, i mean human welfare in general, we forget who others we mite be harming. some support groups are pretty honest and dedicated to what they are doing but a majority of them are for publicity and asking csw to pose nude for their arbit petitions. at least we can defend ourselves, animals on the other hand cant use their mouth or brain as much as we can to xpress how we are feeling. when they do have enough of the torture they strike back and we rais e acry that that particular animal is harmful to society et al.even a convict is given a chance 2 defend himself n when he has no money, the public defender defends him. same way, since the animal cant defend self, dont we have 2 defend thm?n protect them?

Eric S. said...

I get upset over all the Pit Bull fuss. People keep blaming the breed, instead of the owners. Same thing as what your saying.

Yes we should defend them, by trying to get society to understand them. Same with wild animals, we encroach on their homes, then are surprised when they show up at ours looking for food.

Glad your not mad, wasn't sure how you would feel about hunters.

Anonymous said...

Leaving aside your analogy and thinking in my own perspective, I think A was being the way India is currently and the B is China..*Yes, i know loads of eyes I wont say much on this*

On in terms of the analogy you have given, I completely agree..We, instead of using the superior intellect given to us for the benefit of all the people/animals/things on earth, we just think of us..Forget animals/other things on earth, we dont even think of fellow human beings..We think of just OURSELVES... Selfish, absolutely selfish, I say!