Self-worth

I was watching songs, clips, interviews of and on Marilyn Monroe today, and it took me back to when I first saw her on screen. I must have been seven or eight when I watched the unveiling of her statue in her iconic pose in The Seven Year Itch, mesmerised by that iconic moment—the white dress billowing around her, the radiant smile on her face. Back then, she seemed like a goddess, the epitome of beauty and joy. But as I grew older and learned more about her life, I realised how much that single image had cost her in reality.

That made me think about how much we, as individuals, shrink ourselves, twist ourselves, and dim our own light to fit the expectations of others. Earlier this week, a friend of mine—who once directed me in a stage musical—told me about a party he attended. There were Millennials and Gen Z boys raving about me, reminiscing about my performance in that play. The way I looked, the way I carried myself, the way I commanded the stage—those were the things they remembered most vividly. And it struck me, because I have never seen myself the way others apparently do.

For so long, I have felt like I wasn’t enough—not tall enough, not sexy enough, not thin enough, not thick enough. Always not enough. I have spent years looking in the mirror and seeing only what I lacked, never what I had. And I know this feeling has seeped into my relationships as well. I have always felt like the subordinate one, placing my lovers on a pedestal, convinced they were cooler, more desirable, more worthy than I was. My love for them made them grander in my eyes, while I shrank in my own.

Watching Marilyn’s documentary, I wondered how much of our self-perception is shaped by the expectations and judgments of others. She was adored, desired, envied—yet also ridiculed, diminished, and underestimated. Her beauty, her sensuality, the effortless way she captivated a room—she owned it, yet was punished for it. Even in 1962, when she filmed a nude scene for Something’s Got to Give, it was considered scandalous. And yet, decades later, it still holds power, still exudes that intoxicating mix of vulnerability and confidence.

In some ways, I see myself in her. I came out at 16, unapologetic about who I was. I have always flaunted my truth, never hiding my relationships, never pretending to be someone I’m not. I have loved openly, fiercely, without shame. And now, in a polyamorous relationship, I continue to live my life on my own terms. And yet—yet—that old, lingering feeling of inferiority remains. That quiet, insidious whisper that I am still not enough.

So I ask myself: How much of me have I given up to meet the expectations of others? How often have I dimmed my own brilliance to make others comfortable? How many times have I tried to fit into spaces and relationships that were never designed for me in the first place? And more importantly—why?

Marilyn was a woman who lit up the world, even as it tried to break her. And maybe that is the lesson here. That no matter how much the world tries to shape us into something smaller, something quieter, something more palatable—we have to fight to be ourselves. We have to own our space, our beauty, our chaos, our truth.

Because if we don’t—if we keep cutting ourselves down to fit inside someone else’s frame—what will be left of us in the end?

The Paradox of Belief

As a child, religion was joy. It was something to be celebrated, something woven into my life through festivals, rituals, and shared experiences. I had Christmas at school, Eid with friends, Diwali with family, Navroz from my mother’s side, and Gurpurab from my father’s. Each festival felt like an invitation to something bigger—a collective celebration of faith, culture, and belonging. Ganpati and Krishna were my favourites, deities I connected with through dance and devotion. Religion, in those days, felt vibrant, inclusive, and full of life.

Then, in 2013, I lost my faith. It had been unraveling for years, but that was the moment I could no longer hold on to it. I had believed in the ideal of God, in the idea that faith encouraged kindness, humility, and service. But as I looked around, I saw how rarely people lived by those principles. The more I questioned, the more I realised that religion—at least in the way it was practised—was not about morality, but control. It was about rules, about dictating who was accepted and who was condemned.

I still love the festivals; I still appreciate the philosophies embedded in different traditions. But I no longer believe in God. Instead, I have come to see atheism as its own paradox—a rejection of faith that, ironically, requires belief in the absence of divinity. In some ways, atheism becomes a religion, too.

One of the things that has always troubled me is how religion, once a search for meaning, has become a rigid structure—a system of laws that offers certainty to those who seek it. Structure is comforting; it provides uniformity, allowing people to live without questioning too deeply. But should faith be imposed? Should we be forced to follow beliefs that we do not hold in our hearts?

In Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita says:

“Karmanye vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshu kadachana.”

“You have the right to perform your duty, but never to the fruits of your actions.”

This suggests that faith is not about rules, but about action—about doing what is right without attachment to reward or punishment. It is a personal journey, not a rigid doctrine.

Yet, for many, religion has become an obligation. It demands conformity, punishes dissent, and divides people into “believers” and “others.” I have seen it firsthand—in the hostility between Hindus and Muslims, in the weaponisation of faith in politics, in the way people are judged based on their religious identity rather than their character.

Even in my personal life, I have encountered this prejudice. Friends have questioned why I am in love with a Muslim man. Family and friends have warned me against involving myself with a Muslim household, insisting that “they” will never accept me. I am quite certain they are right and that I won’t be accepted. So, hatred is not exclusive to one group—I have seen the same prejudice mirrored in the Muslim world. It is exhausting, this endless cycle of division.

I often think of a scene from Anne of Green Gables. In it, Marilla tells Anne to kneel and pray. But Anne, with all her youthful sincerity, asks:

“Why must I kneel? Why can’t I go into an open field, look at the sky, and feel a prayer instead?”

That, I think, is the crux of what I believe. Faith—if it exists—should be personal. It should be something we define for ourselves, not something imposed upon us.

But the world does not see it that way. We live in a time when faith is rigid, where people demand uniformity, where questioning is met with hostility. And I find myself deeply disturbed by what this means for the future.

Still, the world will survive. It always does. And in the time I have left, I can only hope that humanity finds a way to embrace both reason and faith—not as weapons, but as paths to something greater than hate. But I doubt that will happen…

Adolescence

When I watched Adolescence, I couldn’t stop thinking about the themes that run through the show—bullying, toxic masculinity, social media radicalization, and the collapse of authority in today’s world. But what unsettled me the most was how difficult it is to pinpoint Jamie’s true motive.

Jamie isn’t just an aggressor—he’s also a boy who’s humiliated, rejected, and stripped of his dignity online. Katie turns him down, but that alone isn’t what breaks him—it’s what follows. She and her friends publicly emasculate him, using coded digital language that adults wouldn’t even recognize as bullying. They flood his Instagram with:

    •    “📉” (chart decreasing) → Suggesting he’s losing status, becoming irrelevant.

    •    “🌽” (corn emoji) → A veiled insult implying he’s pathetic or embarrassing.

    •    “🪑” (chair emoji) → Originally a meme, now used to call someone a loser.

    •    “🤡” (clown emoji) → Mocking him as a joke, a failure.

    •    ”#4473” → A number code in the show that essentially brands him as an incel.

This isn’t just name-calling—it’s a calculated digital assault, designed to socially destroy someone without leaving direct proof of bullying. Gen Alpha doesn’t need slurs anymore; they weaponize the very structure of the internet to erase someone’s worth. And Jamie? He internalizes it. But does this alone explain his descent into violence?

So is Jamie a Budding Psychopath or a Product of His Environment? I struggled with this question, just like the detective in the show. I was bullied too. I know what it’s like to be humiliated, to feel powerless. But I didn’t turn into a psychopath. Maybe that’s because, despite everything, I had a loving family to balance out the pain. Jamie had his mother. He had Eddie, his father, who—though strict and temperamental—never abused him, never stopped loving him. So what went wrong?

Psychologically, Jamie displays classic traits of conduct disorder and early psychopathy:

    •    Lack of empathy – He doesn’t react to the suffering of others.

    •    Emotional detachment – Even in high-stress situations, his expressions remain eerily controlled.

    •    Manipulative tendencies – He learns to adapt, charm, and deceive when needed.

    •    Entitlement and resentment – His frustration at rejection doesn’t lead to self-reflection but rather a belief that he must regain control.

But Adolescence refuses to give us an easy answer. Maybe Jamie was always inclined toward violence, and the bullying only accelerated what was already there. Maybe he was looking for an excuse. Or maybe he’s what happens when a system allows boys like him to slip through the cracks until it’s too late.

A key theme in Adolescence is the failure of authority figures—parents, teachers, even psychologists—to intervene before things spiral out of control. One of the most striking moments is when the psychologist in Episode 3 is visibly afraid of Jamie. This isn’t just a child with anger issues—this is a boy who understands the power he holds over others and enjoys wielding it.

There’s also a generational shift at play. In Episode 2, we see students openly mocking and disrespecting their teacher without consequence. It’s not just about kids lacking fear—it’s about the absence of structure, discipline, and moral guidance. When you combine this with unregulated access to toxic online figures, the result is kids shaping their worldviews based on whoever speaks the loudest.

And this is where the show forces us to confront something deeply uncomfortable. Jamie’s radicalization isn’t just a personal failure—it’s a collective one.

Beyond its themes, Adolescence is a technical masterpiece. Each episode is filmed in one continuous shot, meaning there are no visible cuts—just an unrelenting, immersive experience that traps you in the characters’ world. The sheer amount of planning and execution that must have gone into this is mind-blowing.

Owen Cooper (Jamie) is phenomenal. His ability to shift between vulnerability and cold detachment is chilling, and watching his transformation feels disturbingly real. Stephen Graham (Jamie’s father, Eddie) delivers a gut-wrenching performance, portraying a man who knows he failed his son but doesn’t know how to fix it. The psychologist in Episode 3 is also haunting—seeing an adult woman visibly shaken by a 13-year-old boy speaks volumes about how dangerous Jamie has become.

Adolescence isn’t just about one boy’s descent into violence—it’s about what happens when we ignore the warning signs. It’s about how social media radicalizes young men, how modern bullying has evolved into something almost undetectable, and how the collapse of authority leaves kids to raise themselves in digital echo chambers.

Was Jamie always destined for this path? Or was he a product of his environment? That’s the disturbing question the show leaves us with.

One thing is certain—Adolescence is not an easy watch. But maybe that’s exactly why it needs to be seen.