Movies, Memory, Magic

I was just browsing through some old eighties films—yes, even the cheeky ones—when a name suddenly flashed across my mind: Sheena. It’s funny how a single flicker of memory can transport you across decades, straight into the heart of your childhood. I found myself right back where I used to be at nine years old, sprawled in front of the television, eyes wide with wonder. Was that a female version of Tarzan, riding a zebra? Of course, it wasn’t a zebra, as I grew to find out. It was a horse painted with stripes. Poor thing, I think now, but back then – a whole different sense of wonder.

It was around that time I saw Anne of Green Gables for the first time—a story that nestled itself quietly but firmly into my imagination.

Those moments, those films, stayed with me. They’re not just entertainment; they are time capsules, gentle reminders of who I once was, and perhaps still am. Some people say memories make you look back in regret. I wouldn’t know—because without mine, I wouldn’t know who I am.

They shaped me. Moulded the values I still carry.

As a child, I believed in good things. Honour. Love. Trust. The quiet power of being a good human being. And sometimes, just sometimes, I wish I had never grown up. There was a kind of clarity in those days—a sense of wonder that made even the most ludicrous films feel profound. Looking back, I realise that even the silliest movies taught me something. They helped me connect with myself, define my likes and dislikes, and understand what moved me.

Growing up didn’t take that away. If anything, it deepened the meaning. But I often look over my shoulder at the younger me with a quiet smile—grateful for the dreams, the stories, and the belief that goodness mattered.

Because it still does.

Cancel Culture

“Cancel culture” is a term tossed around with reckless ease. It is at once a source of panic for the powerful and a tool of resistance for the marginalised. It is weaponised, misunderstood, over-applied, and under-theorised. But for me, it is something quieter. A deeply personal act. Not a call to arms, but a call to account. I don’t cancel at random, nor do I cancel to trend. I cancel to think. To feel. To stay true.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe in dehumanising those who think differently. I don’t believe in violence—verbal or physical—as a way of enforcing ideological alignment. And yet, I live in a country where the state has weaponised cancel culture far more violently and effectively than any hashtag ever could.

In today’s political landscape, democracy has been reduced to a theatre of obedience. Speak out, and you’re branded anti-national. Question power, and masked goons appear to “correct” your thinking—with lathis, with bulldozers, with threats to livelihood and safety. Institutions once meant to uphold democracy now police dissent. Universities, artists, journalists, and even schoolchildren are not spared. The State has adopted cancel culture—but its version is not moral disengagement. It is erasure. Brutal, literal, and often irreversible.

So then the question arises: What is cancel culture really? Is it this authoritarian intolerance of critique? Or is it something else entirely?

Sociologist Max Weber spoke of the “monopoly on legitimate violence” that the State holds—yet in today’s climate, we must ask: what legitimises that violence when it is used not to protect the people but to silence them? Antonio Gramsci would point to hegemony: how dominant ideas are normalised through cultural institutions, making the dissenting voice seem irrational, even dangerous. And Michel Foucault, ever prescient, would remind us that power doesn’t merely punish; it produces knowledge, truth, and identity. In such a scenario, calling out a public figure or institution becomes less about cancellation and more about survival.

We must be able to distinguish between public accountability and State-sanctioned suppression. Cancel culture, in its most honest form, is a civilian tool. It allows individuals to reject systems, figures, or works that no longer align with their ethics. It is non-violent. It is reflective. It is—at best—an expression of democratic choice.

So when I withdraw my support from someone like J.K. Rowling, it is not a call for her destruction. It is an act of disengagement. I find her views on trans people reprehensible, even though her books shaped generations. The contradiction doesn’t escape me. Nor does the discomfort of reading Neil Gaiman now, knowing the sexual abuse allegations surrounding him. I don’t cancel from hate—I cancel from heartbreak.

And yet, I know the world isn’t black and white. The MeToo movement exposed thousands of valid stories, but it also caught up innocent people—collateral damage in a much-needed revolution. Gandhi boycotted foreign goods to build self-reliance and defiance, but even that choice was not free of complications. These were symbolic acts, deeply political but also deeply personal.

The irony is that while critics decry the “intolerant left” for cancelling, the right has mastered the art of cancellation through brute force. They demolish homes, censor films, break stages, imprison poets, and ban books. Their version of cancel culture wears a boot and carries a stick. But violence is not cancellation—it is suppression. And suppression, unlike cancellation, leaves no room for return, reformation, or redemption.

So here’s my dilemma: If we don’t think through our cancellations, we become the mirror image of the oppressor. But if we never cancel—if we always “separate art from the artist,” if we forever “agree to disagree”—then at what point does silence become complicity?

Sociological theory suggests that no act is free from the power structures around it. But the more we think, the more valid our choices become. Thoughtfulness is the soul of ethical cancellation. It doesn’t always come with clarity. Sometimes it comes with conflict, with sour tastes in the mouth, with the slow erosion of childhood heroes. But that is the burden of having a conscience.

So no, I do not cancel to destroy. I cancel to define. Not others—but myself.

And if thinking makes that act more valid, then I will keep thinking. Loudly, privately, messily. Until it makes sense. Or until I must act again.

Change

It started with me observing my father. He was an alcoholic. No matter what anyone told him—his mother, his sisters, his wife (my mother)—he just wouldn’t let go of the drink. He would promise us he’d quit, and for a week or two we would believe him. And then he’d start again. The disappointment would settle in all over again, and everyone’s heart would quietly break.

As I grew up, I came to a painful realisation: people don’t really change. What we call change is often just a layer of polish applied to the same underlying self. We are social animals, and in order to survive in society, we pretend to adapt, to evolve. We pretend for jobs, for families, for relationships. But at the core, the essence of who we are remains untouched.

People often say things like, “You’ve changed,” or even the opposite, “You’ve not changed at all.” They might be talking about your physical appearance, your personality, or the way you react to the world. Personally, I feel I haven’t changed much at all. My beliefs, my sensitivities, my emotional responses—they’re more or less what they were when I was a teenager.

What has changed is not me, but how I cope. Life has toughened me. Society has handed me situations that have demanded survival and response. I’ve learned to better manage my emotions, to recognise patterns, to pre-empt reactions. But the wound still hurts.

For example, when I was teased in school or college, it devastated me. I would carry those words home and let them sit like shame on my shoulders. Even today, if someone says something cruel, it cuts me. The difference is, I’ve learned how to respond. I don’t lash out. I try to understand where the other person is coming from—their insecurities, their unresolved pain. This has helped me understand others better, but more importantly, it’s helped me understand myself.

But that doesn’t mean I’ve changed. It just means I’m more prepared for the inevitable blows. I still feel the sting—I’ve just learned how to wear armour.

A friend of mine once said, “Change is the only constant. If you don’t change, you can’t grow.” But I find myself wondering—what is growth, really? Are we talking about the physical changes in our body, the slow disintegration of the flesh as wrinkles deepen, as the eyes dull and the heart grows heavier? Or are we talking about spiritual or emotional maturity, and if so, how much of that is truly transformation and not just better performance?

Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” But what if we keep making ourselves from the same mould, over and over again, just dressing it differently each time?

There’s a strange sort of permanence to us. Statues carved millennia ago have worn down over time, but they still stand. The ideas behind them still stand. The people they represent may be long gone, but their essence—what they symbolised—still survives. And I believe that’s true for people too.

So why do we expect people to change?

If your partner has lied to you once, chances are, he’ll lie to you again. And we know that. Yet we hold on to the hope that “this time” will be different—because we want to believe that love changes people, that commitment and loyalty make them better. But the truth is, if we truly love them, we may also have to learn to love them with their flaws.

Of course, there are limits. There are lines that must not be crossed. And those lines are different for each of us. That, too, is part of who we are. So if I choose to forgive a liar, that’s because of who I am. And if I choose not to, that’s also because of who I am.

Our choices, our tolerances, our reactions—they don’t show how much we’ve changed. They show how well we know ourselves.

So how do we break this cycle? How do we stop spinning the same wheel? Maybe we don’t. Maybe all we can do is try to be better—not necessarily different, just better. Try not to hurt others, even if we end up hurting ourselves. That kind of self-restraint is difficult. It’s a discipline.

But perhaps the real point is this: you have to accept who you are. You don’t need to constantly reinvent yourself just to meet someone else’s idea of growth. It’s enough to live in your own skin—even as it fades, wrinkles, and grows weary.

Your DNA doesn’t change. No amount of therapy or cosmetic surgery or self-help books can replace that essential code of being.

As Albert Camus said, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.”

And maybe that’s the problem. We refuse to accept ourselves. We glorify change and call it growth, but what if we’re simply resisting the truth of who we are? Maybe real growth isn’t about becoming someone else—it’s about finally becoming okay with being yourself.

So no, people don’t change. Not really.

The trick is to just learn how to live with one’s self.