October has barely begun, and I had hoped — rather optimistically, perhaps — that it would be kinder to me this year. It wasn’t. On the second day of October, I came down with allergic… More
Forgiveness Does Not Mean Going Back
I have been thinking a lot about forgiveness lately, and about how easily people confuse forgiveness with reconciliation.
We are often taught that if you forgive someone, you should also let them back in. That once the anger has gone, the relationship should return to where it was. That forgiveness somehow creates an obligation to restore the closeness that existed before.
I don’t believe that anymore.
I can forgive someone and still recognise that something between us has changed.
I can let go of anger without pretending that nothing happened. I can stop carrying resentment without erasing what the experience taught me. I can forgive without forgetting the things I learned about a person, about a relationship, and about myself.
Forgiveness does not delete the data.
It simply means I no longer want to spend my life being controlled by what that data revealed.
And that distinction has become incredibly important to me.
There are relationships in which I have loved deeply, given repeatedly, compromised endlessly and tried to make things work because they mattered to me. But there comes a point when protecting a relationship begins to mean sacrificing yourself.
That is not what I want anymore.
I don’t want to live anticipating the next argument. I don’t want to constantly wonder when something I say will be interpreted as an attack. I don’t want to spend my life managing somebody else’s perception of me while simultaneously questioning my own reality.
And I don’t want another person to live that way around me either.
I don’t want relationships built on fear, guilt, emotional accounting or the constant possibility of another explosion.
That doesn’t mean I don’t love.
It means I have finally understood that love and proximity are not the same thing.
Forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing either.
Reconciliation requires something more than forgiveness. It requires change. It requires accountability. It requires both people to acknowledge what happened and to be willing to create something different from what existed before.
Otherwise, reconciliation is simply a return to the same circumstances with the expectation that somehow the outcome will be different.
And I cannot do that anymore.
If I forgive someone, it is because I don’t want anger to own me. I don’t want resentment taking up space in my head. I don’t want to spend years replaying conversations, keeping score or waiting for someone to finally understand what they did to me.
I want peace.
But wanting peace does not mean I have to give unlimited access to the person from whom I needed peace in the first place.
I can forgive you and still not trust you.
I can love you and still need distance.
I can wish you well and still decide that certain boundaries are necessary.
I can stop being angry with you without becoming comfortable with the behaviour that hurt me.
None of those things are contradictions.
They are boundaries.
And perhaps the hardest thing for people to understand is that forgiveness is not a contract promising future access.
Forgiveness is something I do for myself.
Access is something that has to be earned.
If someone wants to return to a place of closeness in my life, that cannot happen simply because I have stopped being angry. It has to happen because something has genuinely changed.
There has to be accountability.
There has to be a willingness to listen.
There has to be an acceptance that the relationship cannot simply return to exactly what it was before the rupture.
Because I am not the same person I was before I experienced what I experienced.
I have learned something.
And I am allowed to remember what I learned.
Sometimes people hear a boundary and call it bitterness. They hear distance and call it punishment. They hear someone saying, “I have forgiven you, but I don’t want to go back to the way things were,” and assume that forgiveness was never genuine.
I disagree.
Sometimes the most genuine form of forgiveness is precisely the one that does not demand a reunion.
I don’t have to hate you to stay away from you.
I don’t have to punish you to protect myself.
I don’t have to carry anger in order to maintain a boundary.
And I certainly don’t have to perform a reconciliation that I don’t genuinely feel simply to make everyone else comfortable.
There is a difference between closing a door in anger and closing a door peacefully.
One says, “I want you to suffer.”
The other says, “I have accepted what happened, and I have decided what I need in order to live peacefully.”
That is where I am trying to get to.
Not revenge.
Not punishment.
Not bitterness.
Peace.
And if that peace requires a different kind of relationship, then perhaps that is what the relationship needs to become.
Because forgiveness should free me from the past.
It should not imprison me in the same circumstances that created the pain.
I can forgive.
I can love.
I can remember.
I can wish someone well.
And I can still decide that my peace matters enough to have boundaries around who gets access to me, how they get that access, and what has to change before I open the door again.
Forgiveness does not come with a key.
And perhaps that is the part we need to understand.
Sometimes forgiveness means letting go of the anger.
Reconciliation means rebuilding the relationship.
They are two different choices.
And I am allowed to make them separately.
Go
As I grow older,
The heart grows colder:
The friends from my past
Did not really last.
The flames of youth
Are rendered moot.
Against bitter time,
I do not whine.
If as I grow,
I get to know
Everything dies,
I harbour no lies.
Death chips my heart,
Part by stony part;
And each sharp blow
Teaches to let go.
I have learnt well,
Walking through Hell,
That heaven is the same
With a different name.
And as grief goes,
With each smile,
I must let anger go
In the same style.
Ohh My Dog (2026)
A Good Film That Could Have Been Great
Ohh My Dog tells two parallel stories that mirror each other in beautiful ways.
The first follows a young boy in Assam searching for his beloved dog, Oppu, after he is swept into the brutal illegal dog meat trade that supplies parts of the Northeast, including Nagaland. Guiding him is his schoolteacher, who repeatedly frames their journey through the Mahabharata. The boy is Arjun; the teacher is Krishna, not fighting a war with weapons but with compassion, determination and moral conviction. It is one of the film’s strongest ideas, and Amit Rai deserves credit for weaving mythology into a contemporary social thriller without making it feel forced. (Bollywood Hungama)
Running alongside it is the story of Prince, an underage construction worker in Patna, illegally employed and invisible to society. When Prince is abducted by an organ trafficking racket, it is his dog Oscar who refuses to give up on him and he is helped by another teacher played by Pankaj Tripathi. The symmetry between the two stories is what makes the film work: one boy saves his dog, one dog saves his boy.
What binds both narratives together isn’t merely love between humans and animals. It is institutional failure.
Whether it is the dog meat trade, child labour, organ trafficking or police indifference, every system appears compromised. Corruption isn’t portrayed as a handful of bad apples but as something structural, something ordinary. The frustration the film evokes comes from watching decent people repeatedly collide with institutions that simply don’t care. Only towards the end do we find a flicker of hope through the teacher’s uncle, a police officer who chooses to do the right thing. That small act of integrity becomes powerful precisely because the film spends so much time showing how rare it is.
Where the film falters, however, is in its portrayal of animal cruelty.
Having spent years working for animal welfare, I couldn’t help feeling that the film pulls its punches. The villains are repeatedly shown being wary of Oppu, almost intimidated by him. In reality, a dog caught uncovering an illegal transplant chain would almost certainly be beaten or killed the moment it showed resistance. The horror of what these animals actually endure is softened. I understand why—the film is aimed at families—but I still wish it had trusted audiences with a harsher truth.
I also wanted the film to spend more time inside the mind of the dogs themselves. Their loyalty is obvious, but their fear, confusion and longing remain largely interpreted through human eyes. A little more of the dogs’ perspective would have made the emotional impact even stronger. It tries valiantly (with the budget constraints I am sure it faced) with the Doggo, Oscar.
Some scenes, however, stayed with me long after the credits rolled.
Oppu chasing the ball, completely unaware that those innocent few seconds will separate him from the child he loves, is devastating because it feels so ordinary. That is exactly how people lose dogs every day.
The discovery of the truck packed with terrified animals is another unforgettable sequence. It doesn’t need melodrama. The images speak for themselves.
But the scene that hit me hardest had nothing to do with dogs.
When Pankaj Tripathi’s character tells Prince’s father that his son will probably lose a kidney, the frightened, uneducated father asks only one question:
“Will he die?”
When he’s told no, the father quietly replies,
“Then it’s okay.”
The look on Pankaj Tripathi’s face says everything.
It isn’t judgement. It isn’t anger. It’s the crushing realisation that poverty leaves people negotiating with suffering itself. If your child is alive, even after losing an organ, you count yourself fortunate. Few recent Hindi films have captured that quiet tragedy so effectively.
Performance-wise, Geeta Agrawal Sharma is outstanding. Every moment she appears feels completely lived-in, never performed. As always, Pankaj Tripathi brings warmth, empathy and gravitas with almost effortless ease. My only complaint is that he feels underused. An actor of his calibre could have carried even more of the emotional weight had the screenplay allowed it. (IMDb)
And then there’s Oscar.
Forget the human cast.
Oscar steals the film.
His determination, intelligence and unwavering loyalty become the emotional heartbeat of the Patna story. The makers promoted Oscar and Oppo as the canine stars of the film, and it’s easy to see why. Oscar commands the screen without uttering a single word. (The Times of India)
Technically, the film is also stronger than many family dramas. The cinematography captures both Assam and Bihar with authenticity rather than postcard beauty, while the score quietly supports the emotion without becoming manipulative. The decision to use over 250 dogs across the production gives the film a sense of scale rarely seen in Indian cinema. (IMDb)
In light of the recent Supreme Court debate surrounding stray dogs, Ohh My Dog feels particularly relevant. It doesn’t argue that everyone must love dogs. Its final message is far simpler, and perhaps more important:
If we cannot be kind to animals, the very least we can do is not harm them.
I only wish the film had gone further. It had the ingredients to become one of the most important animal rights films India has ever made. Instead, it settles for being a very good film when it could have been a great one.
Still, I left the theatre holding on to one simple thought.
One boy saves his dog. One dog saves his boy.
If only the real world worked like that more often.






You must be logged in to post a comment.