When Did I Stop “Loving”?

The other day, in the middle of yet another argument, my mother said something that stayed with me long after the noise had settled.

“You were so loving once upon a time. You’ve changed.”

There it was. A sentence loaded with nostalgia, accusation, and control—wrapped up as concern.

And something in me snapped.

Because what she calls “loving” was, in truth, obedience. It was a version of me that survived by bending, by yielding, by staying quiet in a house where silence was safer than expression. It was the child who had dreams, who thought romantically about life, who believed that love could fix things. But that child also lived in fear, in trauma, and in a system that demanded submission.

So yes, I have changed.

And I refuse to apologise for it.

I grew up in a household shaped by control, fear, and violence. My father was abusive—physically so—and my mother, while present, was not protective in the ways that mattered.

She provided the basics: food, clothing, a roof over our heads. And for that, I acknowledge her effort. But parenting is not a checklist of survival needs. It is also about safety, emotional protection, and standing up for your child when they are in danger.

That did not happen.

It took my father nearly killing me—for her to finally separate from him. By then, the damage had already been done. Years of fear had carved themselves into my psyche. The child she remembers as “loving” was also a child who had learned to shrink, to endure, and to survive.

So when she says I’ve changed, I want to ask her:

Changed from what? From fear to awareness? From silence to voice?

If my childhood shaped me, 2014 broke something fundamental within me.

That was the year my mother and my sister chose to support a political ideology that directly threatened everything I am. As a gay man, this wasn’t abstract politics. This wasn’t a debate over policy or governance. This was about identity, dignity, and survival.

People often say, “Don’t let politics divide families.”

But what they fail to understand is this: when politics targets your identity, it is no longer politics. It is personal.

My mother and sister became a unit—aligned in their beliefs—while I stood alone on the other side. Over time, the few family members who understood me, who supported me, passed away. And I found myself in a house where I no longer felt seen, understood, or safe in a deeper, emotional sense.

The fracture wasn’t loud. It didn’t happen overnight. It was slow, silent, and irreversible.

What hurt wasn’t just disagreement—it was betrayal.

To support something that invalidates your own child’s identity is not a neutral act. It is a choice. And choices have consequences.

Even years later, when perspectives seemed to shift, when there appeared to be some realisation of what had unfolded in the country, it felt too late. Because the damage had already been internalised.

If you stand by something harmful long enough, you cannot simply step away from it and expect everything to return to what it was.

Some things, once broken, do not reset.

Then came 2021.

The year the world collapsed in ways we were not prepared for.

I lost my aunt—one of the few people who had been in my corner—to COVID during the devastating Delta wave in India. She died waiting for a hospital bed. Waiting for oxygen. Waiting in a system that had failed its people.

There are no words for that kind of loss. Only silence and anger.

My sister and I both came dangerously close to death during that time. It was a moment that should have brought clarity, compassion, and unity.

But even then, I saw things that I could not reconcile with. The disconnect between reality and belief persisted.

And something in me finally gave way.

The turning point wasn’t just the loss. It was the decision to leave.

I walked out of the house.

Because I realised I could not continue living in a space where my existence, my identity, and my beliefs were constantly in quiet conflict with those around me.

Only after I left did something begin to shift.

Perhaps it was fear of losing me. Perhaps it was a genuine change of heart. Perhaps it was a delayed recognition of reality.

But by then, I had already crossed a threshold within myself.

I had chosen myself.

What I see now, more clearly than ever, is the deeply co-dependent relationship between my mother and my sister.

It is suffocating. Restrictive. Built on control and need rather than freedom and growth.

My mother does not allow her daughter to be fully independent. And my sister, in turn, has grown into that dependency. It is a cycle that feeds itself.

And I stand outside of it, unable—and now, quite unwilling—to participate.

Over the years, I have changed.

Therapy has forced me to confront my past. To revisit wounds I had buried. To understand the patterns that shaped me.

I have become more aware. More articulate. More grounded in my own truth.

But also, perhaps, more cynical.

Where I once saw possibility, I now often see limitation. Where I once dreamed, I now assess. There is a quiet nihilism that has settled in—a sense that the world, fundamentally, does not change as easily as we hope.

And yet, even in that, there is strength.

Because I no longer live in illusion.

So, Am I Less Loing?

When my mother says I am no longer “loving,” what she is really saying is this:

I am no longer compliant.

I no longer accept things without question.

I no longer stay silent to keep the peace.

I no longer prioritise comfort over truth.

And if that is what she means, then yes—I have changed.

But I would argue that I have not become less loving.

I have simply stopped abandoning myself in the name of love.

My mother did what she could. I can acknowledge that.

But doing what you can does not erase what was not done.

And love, real love, is not about preserving a version of someone that was easier to manage. It is about accepting who they have become—even when that person is no longer convenient.

I am no longer the child she remembers.

I am the man who survived that childhood.

That difference changes everything.

And that is all that should matter. 

Project Hail Mary

There are films you watch, and then there are films that meet you exactly where you are.

I walked into Project Hail Mary carrying grief — missing Zack and Xena, already undone before the lights dimmed. And somehow, this film didn’t distract me from that emotional state; it held it, reframed it, and quietly gave it meaning.

Directed with clarity and emotional restraint by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, and adapted from Andy Weir’s novel, the film balances hard science with deeply human vulnerability. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is expansive yet intimate — vast cosmic emptiness contrasted with the fragile interiority of one man’s fear, doubt, and eventual courage.

At its centre is Ryan Gosling, who delivers a performance filled with quiet tremors. There is something strikingly vulnerable about him here — a softness, an openness — that makes you believe every hesitation, every flicker of resistance. He feels less like a conventional hero and more like an ordinary man dragged into extraordinary responsibility. At times, I found myself thinking of him as a kind of Hollywood Ranbir Kapoor — not in style, but in that emotional accessibility.

The Story & Its Emotional Core

The premise is deceptively simple: a microorganism — Astrophage — is draining energy from the sun, threatening life on Earth. Governments assemble a desperate scientific mission. Three astronauts are sent across the stars towards Tau Ceti, humanity’s last hope.

But what elevates the story is not the science — though it is fascinating — but the moral weight placed on an unwilling participant. Gosling’s Ryland Grace is not a man eager to sacrifice himself. He is a biology teacher, a reluctant participant, someone who cannot instinctively subscribe to the idea of “the greater good”.

And that tension — between obligation and personal truth — runs quietly beneath everything.

The Visuals & Special Effects

The special effects are nothing short of breathtaking.

The Tau Ceti sequences, particularly when Astrophage is released onto the planet to observe its behaviour, are mesmerising. There is a sense of scientific wonder rendered with almost poetic beauty — light, texture, and motion working together to create something both alien and believable.

But the most astonishing achievement is Rocky.

Rocky — an alien who, at first glance, resembles nothing more than a living rock — becomes one of the most expressive characters in the film. Through voice modulation, rhythmic sound patterns, and physical gestures, he communicates emotion, humour, loyalty, and intelligence. The voice work and sound design behind Rocky are extraordinary; they transform the unfamiliar into something deeply intimate.

Rocky: The Heart of the Film

Rocky is not a side character. He is the soul of the film.

Their friendship — built without a shared language, without shared biology — becomes a testament to connection beyond form. Rocky speaks of a partner of 186 years, and in that detail lies something profound: a quiet reflection on love, companionship, and endurance that transcends human frameworks.

There is no need to impose labels on it. It simply is love — steady, enduring, and unquestioned.

(Spoiler Alert: Ending Discussed Below)

What stayed with me even after the film ended was how its thematic core differs subtly from Project Hail Mary itself. Andy Weir’s writing has always leaned heavily into science as process — the joy of problem-solving, of intellect battling extinction, much like in The Martian. The novel is rooted in logic, in method, in the slow satisfaction of answers earned through persistence. Even Rocky, in the book, is as much a collaborator as a companion — a scientific equal with whom Grace builds trust through shared curiosity rather than emotional dependence. The idea of survival is intellectual, almost procedural.

The film, however, shifts that axis gently but decisively. It is less interested in how we solve the universe and more in why we choose to. The science remains, but it takes a back seat to something more fragile — connection. Rocky here becomes more than a collaborator; he becomes an emotional anchor, almost a quiet rebuttal to the chaos and cruelty we associate with humanity. And that is where the film resonated deeply with me. Where the novel asks whether intelligence and cooperation can save us, the film dares to ask whether love — even if it is for just one being — is reason enough to try.

The film’s most powerful turn lies in its moral reversal.

We learn that Grace did not heroically volunteer — he was coerced. Forced into the mission for the sake of humanity. And when faced again with a choice — to return to Earth as its saviour or to turn back and save Rocky — he chooses Rocky.

Not the abstract idea of billions.

Not the “greater good”.

But a singular, tangible bond.

And in that moment, the film quietly dismantles a long-standing cinematic myth — that heroism must always be self-sacrifice for humanity at large.

Instead, it suggests something far more intimate: that love, loyalty, and connection — even with one being — are enough.

Rocky, in turn, saves him. Builds him a home. Gives him a life.

And that reciprocity — that mutual choosing — feels like the truest form of humanity the film offers.

Final Thoughts

If I’m being critical, the script isn’t always tight. There are stretches where pacing wavers, and certain transitions feel less precise than they could be. But somehow, it doesn’t matter.

Because the film lands where it needs to.

Emotionally, it resonates.

And perhaps that is why it stayed with me.

Walking in, I felt a kind of exhaustion with humanity — with its violence, its cruelty, its endless justifications. And strangely, the film doesn’t argue against that feeling. It doesn’t glorify humanity blindly.

Instead, it finds redemption in something smaller.

More honest.

One bond. One choice. One act of love.

And for me, that is enough.

The Weight Of Memory

I am preparing to move again.

Not just homes — but histories.

The new place at Yari Road sits with a strange tension in my mind. On the surface, it promises something better: more people with pets, more visible dog lovers, perhaps a more forgiving outdoor space. And yet, even before arriving, I can feel the resistance.

There are already rules. Pets cannot use the main lift. They must use the service lift.

I understand where this comes from. I have seen this mindset all my life — where certain bodies, both human and animal, are quietly assigned lesser spaces. Where presence itself becomes something to be managed, controlled, redirected.

And so I know this will not be a peaceful adjustment. It will be daily negotiations. Small confrontations. The quiet exhaustion of having to assert that my dogs belong — not just in my home, but in the world outside it.

Zuri is used to a garden. To open play. To a kind of freedom that roads cannot offer. Roads frighten her. And I cannot explain to her why her world must shrink, or change shape, or become something she must learn to endure.

I already feel the edge of that future. It sets my teeth on edge.

And yet, strangely, Yari Road also holds a past. A different one.

My dogs were once raised there. There is memory in those streets too. A sense — perhaps imagined — that they belonged there in a way they never quite did here.

So I stand between two uncertainties:
A past that holds love, and a future that threatens resistance.

And then there are the homes I have already left behind.

Amruttara — where I lost Bonzo, Rolfe, Diana. That space no longer exists. It has been erased, replaced by a tower. And now I return to that same ground, as if grief has been built over, but not removed.

Raj Mahal — where I lost Zoe. A home I will never step into again. Some spaces become sacred only after they are lost.

And here, in Savera, I lost Zach. And now Xena.

Perhaps they never truly settled here. Perhaps they carried another memory within them — of Yari Road, of a different beginning. I don’t know. I only know that this place holds their absence now, and it echoes.

And in the middle of all this is Zuri.

My living child.

I am taking her back to a place that once held life, but may now hold conflict. I ask myself: will this be good for her? Will she find ease, or will she inherit my unease?

And then, quietly, another thought presses in.

I want to bring home another puppy.

But where do I raise her?
In a place I am about to leave?
Or in a place I am not yet sure will accept her?

There is so much love in me. It does not diminish. It does not quieten. It simply waits — looking for somewhere to go.

And alongside it, there is something else. Not quite fear. Not quite anger.

But the knowledge that love, when it steps into the world, is often met with resistance.

This move is not just about space.

It is about whether love will be allowed to breathe there.