The Wheel Turns

For the last few days, I have been asking the tarot about a little brindle Boxer puppy named Malaika.

Not because I believe cards can predict life with scientific certainty, but because sometimes symbolism becomes a language for emotions too large to hold plainly. Sometimes the cards do not tell the future so much as reveal the shape of the heart standing before it.

And perhaps that is why the readings around Malaika have felt so strangely coherent — as though they are not speaking about fate alone, but about love, grief, memory, fear, and the terrifying courage of beginning again.

The first cards that emerged were the King of Pentacles, the Queen of Wands, and the King of Wands.

Two kings surrounding a queen.

The energy was not chaotic or ominous. It felt protective. Grounded. Warm. The King of Pentacles spoke of stability, guardianship, home, and long-term commitment — the kind of energy that says an animal is not entering a temporary space but becoming family. The Queen of Wands felt unmistakably like Malaika herself: spirited, magnetic, fiery, affectionate, impossible to ignore. And then came the King of Wands — passion, movement, decisive action, the moment emotion becomes reality.

The cards did not feel like they were asking whether she would come. They felt like they were describing a household already emotionally preparing for her arrival.

Then I asked when she would come home.

The Wheel of Fortune appeared. Twice.

The Wheel is not a card of stillness. It is movement, transition, alignment, journeys, shifting circumstances, destiny turning upon its axis. And suddenly the practical reality mirrored the symbolism uncannily. Malaika would not arrive by train after all. She would fly to Pune and then travel onward by road to Mumbai. A literal wheel turning. A journey in motion. Logistics aligning. One life travelling toward another.

Atif would return home by seven to drive me to collect her.

And that was the moment the adoption stopped feeling hypothetical.

Then came my fear for Zuri.

Any person who truly loves animals knows the guilt that accompanies bringing a new one home. Love is never mathematical, but the heart still fears imbalance. I asked how Zuri would react to Malaika and received the Five of Wands, the Seven of Swords, and the The Hanged Man.

Not hatred. Not doom. Adjustment.

The Five of Wands felt like the chaos of puppy energy colliding with established routines. The Seven of Swords suggested caution, observation, emotional strategy. Zuri watching carefully before surrendering trust. And the Hanged Man whispered patience — the reminder that relationships are not always born instantly but sometimes grow quietly over time through shared space, routine, and acceptance.

Then I asked simply:
Will Zuri be okay?

The Justice appeared.

At first I panicked. But Justice is not punishment. Justice is balance. It is the card that says transitions must be handled consciously and fairly. It reminded me that bringing home a new puppy does not mean replacing old love. It means making room for another soul without abandoning the ones already entrusted to your care.

And perhaps that is what this entire emotional journey has really been about.

Because underneath all of this lies Zach. Xena. Grief. Memory. Fear. The unbearable anxiety that loving again somehow betrays those we have loved before.

So I asked the tarot if Malaika was somehow being sent by Zach and Xena.

The Two of Cups emerged.

No dramatic prophecy. No thunderbolt. Just love.

Connection. Continuity. The joining of hearts.

And then, as if the universe had decided symbolism had not yet been heavy-handed enough, my literature society notification appeared on my phone with Eugene Field’s poem Little Boy Blue.

A poem about a little toy dog waiting faithfully through years of absence and dust.

A poem written by a grieving father after the death of his child.

A poem about love remaining behind in objects, spaces, and memory long after someone is gone.

“Oh, the years are many, the years are long,
But the little toy friends are true!”

I sat staring at those lines with tears in my eyes because they captured something I have always known instinctively about animals and about love itself.

Love does not vanish because life changes shape.

The dogs we lose do not become erased simply because another paw enters the house. Memory does not die to make room for joy. Grief and hope coexist. The old love remains standing faithfully in the corner of the heart while new love comes bounding clumsily through the front door with oversized paws and bright eyes.

Finally, I asked what the day of Malaika’s arrival would feel like.

The The Fool came out.

Of course it did.

The Fool is not foolishness. It is innocence. The beginning of the journey. The leap taken despite uncertainty. The willingness to love again without guarantees.

And perhaps that is where I stand now.

Not at the end of grief.

Not beyond fear.

But at the edge of a new beginning, waiting for a little Boxer girl named Malaika to come home.

Marianne Dashwood

Sense and Sensibility is often interpreted as a battle between reason and emotion, with Elinor positioned as the moral victor. Generations of readers have been taught to admire restraint, composure, and emotional discipline while quietly mocking Marianne’s intensity. Even in the celebrated film adaptation starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, audiences frequently emerge calling Marianne dramatic, irrational, or immature.

But what if Marianne is not the cautionary tale?

What if she is the soul of the novel?

The tragedy of Marianne Dashwood is not that she feels too much. The tragedy is that the world around her lacks the courage to feel with the same honesty.

When Marianne quotes Shakespeare’s “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments,” she is not being naïve. She is articulating an ideal of love that refuses compromise, calculation, and emotional bargaining. William Shakespeare understood something Austen herself perhaps struggled against: love is rarely logical. It is disruptive by nature. Even Elinor, the embodiment of “sense,” cannot reason herself out of loving Edward Ferrars. Logic never prevented attachment. It only controlled its expression.

And that distinction matters enormously.

Elinor suffers silently and is rewarded largely through circumstance. Had Edward married Lucy Steele as intended, Elinor’s restraint would not have magically transformed her pain into happiness. Her silence would simply have become permanent heartbreak. Austen’s ending depends not upon the superiority of sense, but upon fortune intervening at the right moment.

Marianne, meanwhile, is punished not because she loves wrongly, but because she loves visibly.

That is what society condemns in her.

People are often comfortable with emotion as long as it remains private, tidy, and non-disruptive. Elinor’s feelings are socially acceptable because they are hidden. Marianne’s feelings become embarrassing because they demand acknowledgement. She speaks. She weeps. She longs openly. She refuses to reduce love to etiquette.

And that openness is frequently mistaken for weakness.

But emotional transparency is not weakness. In many ways, it is the highest form of courage.

To love openly is to relinquish control.
To communicate honestly is to risk humiliation.
To say “this hurt me” or “I need you” requires far more vulnerability than silence ever does.

Modern psychology and therapy culture understand this far better than Austen’s society could. Today we recognise that repression is not inherently virtuous. Communication sustains relationships. Speaking fears aloud prevents emotional rot. Processing feelings openly is healthier than burying them beneath civility until they calcify into loneliness.

Marianne’s emotional fluency, viewed through a contemporary lens, becomes not childishness but radical honesty.

The irony is that many people who idolise Elinor in fiction would find her exhausting in real life. Relationships cannot survive indefinitely on restraint and implication. One person constantly communicating while the other withholds creates emotional asymmetry. Love cannot thrive where vulnerability flows only one way.

And this is perhaps why Marianne resonates so profoundly with people who feel deeply. She represents those who refuse emotional minimalism. Those who would rather risk heartbreak than become numb. Those who understand that life without intensity may be safer, but it is also dimmer.

Without people like Marianne, the world becomes emotionally efficient but spiritually barren.

Art would not exist without Marianne souls.
Poetry would not exist.
Music would not exist.
Great love stories would not exist.

Compassion itself depends upon sensibility — upon the ability to feel another person’s suffering intensely enough to respond to it.

Pure logic builds systems.
Sensibility preserves humanity within them.

Even Colonel Brandon’s love for Marianne is rooted in sensibility, not sense. He loves her because she reminds him of emotional truth — of passion, sincerity, vitality. Marianne awakens feeling in everyone around her. She changes the emotional temperature of the novel merely by existing within it.

And perhaps Austen knew this too, even if she ultimately retreated toward social conservatism in the ending.

Because despite the novel’s title, readers remember Marianne most vividly.

Not because she is perfect.
But because she is alive.

Her tears, her impulsiveness, her idealism, her inability to perform emotional moderation — all of it makes her unforgettable in a way composure rarely is. Elinor may represent survival within society, but Marianne represents the part of the human spirit that refuses to become smaller merely to be safer.

And perhaps that is why so many sensitive people see themselves in her.

Not because they are weak.
But because they have chosen feeling over emotional self-erasure.

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.