The Lies We Live By

We are told that everything happens for a reason, that time heals all wounds and that people always get what they deserve. These words are not wisdom but they are escape routes. We repeat them because the truth is far more disturbing.

When life collapses without warning, some say it happened for a reason. People find it easier to believe that every tragedy happens for a reason rather than accepting that some tragedies have no meaning at all. A sudden death, a betrayal, or a disaster does not always teach a lesson or lead to something better. Some events do not lead to growth or redemption. They just leave scars that has no purpose.

Time heals all wounds is another lie people cling to. Time moves forward, but pain does not obey the ticking of a clock. Some wounds do not close, no matter how many years pass. People do not wake up one morning and find themselves healed. They only learn to carry the pain in ways no one else can see.

Then comes the illusion that people always get what they deserve. It is easier to believe in justice than to admit that the world does not play fair. Kind people are not always rewarded, and cruel people do not always pay. Some of the worst walk free while the best are left struggling, unheard and forgotten.

So why do we believe these lies? Because they help us sleep at night. Because they keep us sane. Because the truth, that life is unfair, that pain lingers and that some things will never make sense is harder to live with.

But maybe instead of clinging to false assurances, we should learn to accept the discomfort of uncertainty. Maybe the strength is not in believing that everything happens for a reason, but in making peace with the fact that sometimes, Things just happen.

Sympathetic but Not Empathetic

I have always felt a deep sadness when I see someone in pain. When people share their struggles, I feel bad for them and sometimes even overwhelmed by their sorrow. But no matter how much I wish, I could never really understand what they are going through, I never truly do. I sympathize but I do not empathize.  

I recognize suffering and I genuinely want people to feel better but I do not absorb their emotions the way an empathetic person does. When someone cries, I feel bad but I do not feel the same lump in my throat. When someone grieves, I offer comfort but I do not feel the burden of their loss. It is not that I do not care. I do. But there is always a distance between their pain and my emotions.  

This makes me question whether kindness is enough without emotional connection. People Sometimes assume that caring means feeling exactly what someone else feels, but maybe that is not always possible. I feel emotions strongly, but I still do not experience them the way they do. My concern is real and my intentions are honest but something in me stays detached.  

Maybe that is what separates sympathy from empathy. I care but with a certain distance. I feel for people but I do not feel with them. If emotions do not truly connect, does it change what my care is worth?

The Patriarchal Bias in Indian Cricket

The difference in naming between men’s and women’s cricket leagues recently caught my attention. The men’s league is called the IPL (Indian Premier League), while the women’s is called the Women’s Premier League (WPL). If the women’s league is called WPL, then why is the men’s league called IPL and not MPL (Men’s Premier League)? The fact that it is named IPL points to a deeper issue, which is the assumption that "Indian" automatically refers to men.

This distinction reveals a broader bias. The IPL does not need a gender label because it is automatically assumed to represent men. This pattern is also evident with the national teams where the men’s team is called the Indian National Cricket Team and the women’s team is called the Indian Women’s Cricket Team. This subtle difference implies that men are the true representatives of the nation, while women are seen as outsiders, even though both teams represent the same Nation.

Men’s cricket has long dominated, with revenue often cited as the reason for its prominence. But should that history define the future? Women’s cricket is growing, and they should no longer be kept in the shadows of their male counterparts. Women representing the same nation with equal passion deserve to be recognized as icons of national success.

This goes beyond cricket. It is also about how we define national pride and whose achievements are truly celebrated. While men’s cricket may generate more revenue, shouldn’t it be the talent and dedication of athletes regardless of gender defines success?, Why allow outdated views to determine who is worthy of representing the nation?

A Valentine's Day

Two friends, Arjun and Kayal sit at a beach on Valentine’s Day, watching couples around them exchange gifts and take pictures.  

Arjun: Look at them. All smiles, all perfect. Makes you wonder if they are really that happy or just putting on a show.

Kayal: It is Valentine’s Day. Isn’t that the point? You are supposed to make it look magical.

Arjun: Yeah, but magical for who? Them or everyone watching?

Kayal pauses, glancing at a couple posing for the perfect photo. The girl’s smile drops as soon as the camera clicks and her expression shifts to irritation as she scrolls through the pictures, desperate to find one good click to post.

Kayal: You know, last year I did the same thing. I spent hours trying to make everything look perfect. But we fought the whole time. The photos were beautiful, but the day wasn’t.

Arjun: Exactly. Valentine’s Day shows you the trending reel, but never the full story. It is like love is only valid if it looks a certain way.

Kayal: Funny how one day can make people feel on top of the world or completely alone. All because of an idea of what love should look like.

Arjun: Maybe that is the problem. It is not about love but about living up to an image. And the more we chase that image, the less real it becomes.

Kayal looks around, a thoughtful expression on her face.  

Kayal: So, why do we keep doing it?

Arjun: Maybe because it is easier to play along than to admit that the fantasy is not real. But I wonder… would love feel different if we stopped trying to make it look perfect?

A quiet breeze passes. They sit in silence with the staged moments continuing around them, And for a moment the illusion feels heartbreakingly real.

The Mystery Behind Prakash in Vidamuyarchi

Spoiler Alert: This blog discusses key plot points from "Vidamuyarchi" If you have not watched the film or wish to avoid spoilers, please skip this blog.

Recent film "Vidamuyarchi" has created a debate among viewers. The controversy is about the character of Prakash, who is mentioned but never seen. In the film, Kayal, played by Trisha, confesses to Arjun (Ajith Kumar) that she cheated on him with Prakash. But Prakash never makes an appearance. There are no flashbacks, no photographs, not even a voiceover. He exists only through Kayal’s words.  

This narrative choice has left audiences divided. Some viewers feel cheated by the lack of clarity. They believe that leaving Prakash unexplored makes the story incomplete. The criticism grew after the film’s release. They accused director Magizh of using ambiguity as an excuse for lazy writing.

However, Magizh addressed this criticism in post release interviews. He explained that Prakash’s absence was intentional. He wanted to leave it open ended so that viewers could interpret the story in their own way. According to him, the point was not to reveal who Prakash was but to show how Arjun reacts to Kayal’s confession. Magizh believed that this would make the audience question their own views about forgiveness and betrayal. His aim was to create debate and reveal how different mindsets interpret the same situation.  

While watching the film, I found myself questioning Prakash’s existence. Many people assumed that Kayal’s confession was true, believing that she really cheated on Arjun with Prakash. They saw Arjun’s acceptance of her as an act of maturity and emotional strength. But my thoughts went in a different direction. I wondered if Prakash was even real. What if Kayal invented him to push Arjun away?  

Because, Kayal knows that Arjun is a good person who would want to work through their issues. She also knows he would not leave her without a strong reason. By creating a fictional affair, she gives him a reason to walk away. If this is true, then Kayal’s character becomes far more complex. She is not merely a cheater seeking forgiveness but someone dealing with inner conflicts that led her to create this story.

After listening to Magizh’s explanation and reading online debates, I realized that my interpretation was not common. Most viewers took Kayal’s words at face value. But isn’t this exactly what Magizh wanted? By leaving Prakash’s existence ambiguous, he let the audience project their own biases onto the story. Your belief of Prakash depends on your perspective on love, trust, and betrayal.  

This is not about finding the “correct” interpretation, but about understanding what influences our beliefs. Magizh succeeded in crafting a story that challenges the audience to think critically, questioning not just the film, but their own perspectives.

The Interstellar Delusion

The sudden craze for "Interstellar" in India feels anything but organic. It is not about Nolan’s storytelling or love for cinema. It is about social media trends dictating what people should watch. Everyone wants to experience it in IMAX, even those who never cared for cinema before. The hype is not about appreciation but about being part of something and feeling superior.

What is worse is how little people understand what they are watching. "Interstellar" was shot with IMAX 70mm film camera, but most IMAX theaters in India use digital projectors that crop the actual aspect ratio. So the very people bragging about the "ultimate experience" are not even watching the film as it was meant to be seen. It is just blind participation in a trend.  

This is not just about "Interstellar". Every so called “must watch” experience is engineered through social media. People are not forming opinions instead they are just consuming whatever is labeled as elite. There is no curiosity, no understanding, just a rush to be part of the trend. That is why some even go as far as saying anyone who has not watched "Interstellar" is not a real movie fan, when their own Nolan exposure is limited to "Interstellar" and "The Dark Knight".  

The worst part? This cycle will repeat. Another movie will get re-released, another wave of fake hype will rise, and people will once again claim to be die hard fans overnight. It is not cinema culture. It is just another fake internet trend.

Ask yourself before booking "Interstellar" tickets, are you watching for the film or the hype?