The Cockroaches Have Spoken How an insult from the Supreme Court birthed India’s strangest youth movement India wakes up every few months to a new outrage. A statement. A slogan. A clip ripped out of… More
Why I Do Not Travel
There are people whose souls awaken at airports.
People who feel restless unless they are planning a trip, booking tickets, standing in immigration queues with headphones on and a passport in hand, convinced that somewhere else — another city, another country, another landscape — life will briefly become more meaningful than the one they currently inhabit.
I have never been one of them.
And for a long time, I wondered if there was something wrong with me because of it.
People around me speak of travel with almost religious intensity. The guys, my mother, my cousin, well, my family, I would say, has that unmistakable “keeda” of travel in them — that hunger to move, to see, to constantly experience new places. I admire it in them. Sometimes I even envy it. I wish I possessed that same excitement at the thought of boarding a plane and disappearing into another country for ten days.
But I don’t.
And I think I finally understand why.
The truth is, I travelled extensively long before I ever considered physically travelling anywhere.
I was a child who read compulsively. History, geography, mythology, politics, anthropology, climate, architecture, literature — I consumed the world through books before social media turned travel into curated montages and aesthetic performances.
I did not merely learn where places existed.
I absorbed their emotional texture.
I read about ancient civilisations, wars, migrations, cathedrals, droughts, changing coastlines, empires collapsing under their own arrogance, cities reshaped by climate and greed. I read about the loneliness of industrial Europe, the silence of old libraries, the smell of rain on African soil, glaciers disappearing, forests burning, rivers shifting course.
I learnt about places not merely as tourist destinations, but as living things shaped by history, violence, weather, memory and human failure.
And perhaps because of that, I never developed the overwhelming urge to “tick off” landmarks from a bucket list.
The Statue of Liberty does not call out to me.
Neither does the Louvre.
Nor the Sistine Chapel.
Of course, there is something profound about standing where Michelangelo once stood. About touching marble another human being shaped centuries ago and whispering quietly to yourself:
“I was here too.”
But he is gone.
The moment is gone.
And strangely, that has always mattered more to me than the monument itself.
I also think my relationship with people complicates travel.
I do not hate humanity. Human beings have also given me poetry, music, cinema, friendship, love and tenderness. I write because of people. I paint because of people. I speak because of people. I care because of people.
And yet people exhaust me.
Their arrogance.
Their prejudices.
Their casual cruelty.
Their certainty about things they barely understand.
Even I irritate myself sometimes.
I can spend hours quietly creating something meaningful — writing, painting, photographing, dancing, caring for animals — and still one unnecessarily rude interaction can poison an entire experience for me.
The other day at the gym, a man was rude for absolutely no reason. I became angry and upset. I could have caused a scene. Perhaps he deserved one. But then the entire space would have become emotionally contaminated for me. It would stop feeling peaceful.
That is what people often do to places.
Online trolls ruin platforms.
Bigotry ruins cities.
Racism ruins entire countries.
One ugly interaction stains what could otherwise have been a beautiful memory.
And travel demands people.
You must coordinate with them, negotiate with them, tolerate them, trust them, explain yourself to them. Airports, hotels, immigration counters, tourists screaming into phones while standing before thousand-year-old monuments, strangers carrying their entitlement into every corner of the earth.
Perhaps I am too sensitive for modern travel.
Or perhaps I simply no longer romanticise movement the way the world expects us to.
The irony is that I did once have a great travel dream.
Africa.
Since childhood, I have dreamt of witnessing the wildebeest migration across the Serengeti and Maasai Mara. That ancient dark river of bodies moving across the earth as they have for thousands of years before human borders existed.
Animals have always moved me more deeply than monuments ever could.
But even that dream now rests quietly in the background of my life instead of burning brightly inside me.
And then there are my children.
The impossible ache of leaving them behind.
People say, “They’ll be fine.”
But they do not understand what love begins to look like after years of routine, grief, healing and attachment.
Zoe and Xena would wait by the door. Like Zoe, Zuri stops eating when her routine changes. Her stomach reacts if I am absent during her walks or feeding times. Their emotional lives are intertwined with mine, and mine with theirs.
I cannot casually hand them over to someone else and fly across the world pretending my heart has remained peaceful.
People speak of freedom as movement.
But love roots you.
And perhaps that is what happened to me.
I built a life where meaning did not exist somewhere else.
It exists here.
In my dogs sleeping beside me.
In old films.
In books.
In late-night conversations.
In rain against the window.
In creativity.
In survival.
In memory.
In familiar streets I know how to emotionally navigate.
And maybe that is the real reason I was never bitten by the travel bug.
I do not feel the desperate need to escape my life.
Vacations, for many people, are temporary relief from lives that feel emotionally lacking, repetitive or disconnected. But my life — with all its flaws, griefs, anxieties and imperfections — has never felt empty to me.
It has felt full.
Deep rather than wide.
And I know that is enough.
When understanding scares me
I watched a disturbing video yesterday involving an animal activist who had allegedly just learned that a rescued dog she cared about had died after being brutally assaulted. The injuries described were horrific — a broken spine, shattered legs, a helpless animal beaten so severely that it did not survive. Standing near what appeared to be a police station, she confronted the man accused of the act and physically lashed out.
And what frightened me was not the activist’s anger.
What frightened me was understanding it.
Because there was a time when people believed institutions would intervene before human beings reached emotional breaking points. There was a time when the law felt like an authority citizens could turn towards rather than a maze they had to emotionally and socially exhaust themselves navigating.
But what happens when people lose faith in that protection?
What happens when acts of cruelty towards animals are repeatedly trivialised? When FIRs become uphill battles? When enforcement feels inconsistent, delayed, indifferent, or absent altogether? When ordinary citizens begin to feel that vulnerable beings have no meaningful protection unless someone physically stands between them and violence?
That is the point at which societies become dangerous.
Not because activists are angry, but because institutional trust has eroded so deeply that anger begins replacing faith in due process.
And perhaps the most demoralising part is this: I already know what will happen next.
The activist will be dissected more thoroughly than the cruelty itself.
People will analyse her rage frame by frame. They will call her unstable, hysterical, uncivilised, aggressive, emotional. Endless debates will emerge about whether she “went too far,” while far less energy will be spent confronting the suffering that triggered the reaction in the first place.
That is the pattern now.
The person who breaks emotionally under the weight of repeated brutality becomes easier to scrutinise than the brutality itself.
Because outrage against cruelty demands moral participation. Outrage against the activist is safer. Cleaner. More socially comfortable.
Anyone involved in rescue work in India already knows this emotional fatigue intimately. Feeders and rescuers are constantly told to “follow the law,” yet often find themselves struggling simply to have cruelty acknowledged with seriousness. Meanwhile, street animals continue suffering through beatings, illegal relocation, starvation, dehydration, and neglect while much of society either looks away or actively resents the people trying to help them.
And perhaps that resentment reveals something deeply broken in us.
Because no one carrying food and water through burning summer nights for thirsty animals is doing it for power or profit. They are responding to visible suffering. They are filling a moral vacuum left behind by public apathy and institutional weakness.
Yet increasingly, compassion itself is treated as provocation.
People complain about feeders while ignoring the conditions that create suffering in the first place. Cities expand without ecological thought. Heat intensifies. Concrete replaces shade. Human beings create brutal urban environments and then grow irritated at the sight of animals trying to survive within them.
What disturbs me most is not isolated cruelty, but the emotional climate surrounding it. The normalisation. The numbness. The speed with which empathy is dismissed as impractical sentimentality.
I used to believe very deeply in patience, dialogue, and peaceful civic engagement. And I still believe societies cannot survive if citizens abandon law altogether. But I now understand how dangerous it becomes when people feel the law has already abandoned the vulnerable.
Because once citizens stop believing institutions care, they stop emotionally investing in institutions at all.
That is the real warning sign.
Not one activist losing control in grief and rage, but an entire culture steadily losing confidence that justice, compassion, and accountability still function in any meaningful way.
And if that trust collapses completely, we will not merely have failed animals.
We will have failed the very idea of civilisation itself.
Falling Apart
There is a peculiar pattern I have begun to notice in my life. It doesn’t arrive loudly or announce itself, but it repeats—quietly, predictably, almost ritualistically. Two people meet through me, they like each other, and they begin to spend time together—often without telling me, which, to be fair, is completely fine. Then something else happens. They get close, sometimes too quickly. They collapse the distance that usually takes time to build. They borrow familiarity—from me, from my space, from the comfort I have created—and convert it into intimacy. For a while, it feels effortless. Until it doesn’t. Because just as quickly as they come together, they begin to fall apart. And that is when I re-enter the story, not as a friend, not as someone they care about in that moment, but as a witness, a sounding board, a recipient of screenshots, accusations, name-calling, emotional debris. It is almost fascinating. When they were meeting, laughing, sharing time together, I was not required. But the moment things fracture, I become necessary. There is something deeply inconsistent about this behaviour. Joy is private, conflict is public. Connection is theirs, but consequence becomes mine. And I find myself wondering, quietly and without drama, what exactly my role is meant to be. If I am not needed in the making of the bond, why am I expected to hold its breaking? This is not about exclusion—I do not need to be invited into every interaction my friends have with each other, that would be absurd. But inclusion only in conflict is not friendship, it is convenience.
When people meet through a common friend, something subtle happens. They trust faster than they should, open up quicker than they normally would, feel safe not because of what they have built together but because of the environment they have stepped into. The intimacy is not entirely theirs, it is borrowed, and borrowed things often come with fragile foundations. So when disagreements arise—and they always do—there isn’t enough structure to hold them. The fall becomes inevitable. But instead of recognising the fragility of what they built, they reach for the one constant that existed before them, the person who introduced them, the person who in their minds must now mediate, interpret, absorb. What I am being asked to do, without ever being asked, is simple and impossible at the same time: take sides without appearing to, listen without reacting, validate without encouraging, care without becoming involved. Neutrality, in such situations, is rarely perceived as neutrality; it is often mistaken for betrayal. And so, slowly, something shifts. The space I created for connection begins to feel like a space of tension. My friendships begin to feel conditional, dependent on who is currently getting along with whom, and I, quite unintentionally, become collateral damage in relationships that were never mine to begin with.
There was a time I believed I could prevent this. I even had a rule—don’t hook up with people you meet in my space—because more often than not, it is that added layer, sexual or romantic, that accelerates everything: the bonding, the intensity, the eventual rupture. It seemed logical, almost protective. But rules like these do not hold. People will do what they want, connections will form where they are not meant to, and boundaries, unless they are internal, are rarely respected. So I let that rule go, not out of resignation but out of clarity. What I cannot control is who meets whom, and what I cannot prevent is what they choose to do with that meeting. But what I can decide, very clearly, is this: I will not be part of the aftermath. Not the screenshots, not the commentary, not the subtle attempts to recruit me into a narrative. If a relationship is built independently of me, then its conflicts must also be resolved independently of me. This is not indifference, it is discipline.
There is a certain kind of person who brings people together, who creates warmth, who allows others to feel comfortable enough to connect. It is a beautiful quality, but it comes with an unspoken cost. People begin to see you not just as a friend, but as a space, and spaces, unlike people, are expected to hold everything—joy, conflict, mess, resolution—without fatigue, without resistance. Perhaps the shift I need to make is not dramatic or loud, but precise. To move quietly from being the centre of these interactions to being simply a part of them. To remind people, without hostility, that I am not a mediator, not a judge, not a repository for unresolved emotions, just a friend. And like all friendships, this too must have boundaries. Because connection, when it is real, does not require a third person to sustain it, and conflict, when it is honest, does not need an audience to validate it. Everything else is noise.






You must be logged in to post a comment.