The Writing's on the Wall

Since Day 1, the lady who was acclaimed by the whole world set the tone for a revolutionary tenure in office. Being ambitious (which is commendable, mind you), she had long-term personal goals and the State House was only a stepping stone to the international arena. Along the way, she struggled to be different from her predecessors (all males) – for being the first female doll in those gardens came along with higher expectations and wider scrutiny. While some (men) criticized her private activities, others (men) called her naïve. Yes, naïve she has been. For believing that politicians (men) were proud of her achievements and appointed her based on a successful career.

With this in mind, she travelled from Plaine Magnien to Reduit. During her stay in that mansion, she tried to address a sensible issue – unity - through some interfaith dialogue. But she had better things to check on her list than meeting ‘religious’ (men) regularly. Oh come on! Anybody with an exemplary CV, the best title, rich friends and a Platinum Card would not have stayed around, making sure that the trees she planted are blooming.  Especially not someone who did not want to be a flower vase. Naïve, Madam. For daring to think that our 50 year-old Constitution would allow you to be something else.

Two years and 40 missions later, her friends (the men who did not miss a single opportunity to praise her) suddenly realized that her activities are frowned upon. The doll has become too ambitious and not (enough) careful about who she roams around with. Some say that her new friend met the old ones and had lunch together before but when politics takes over; these details don’t really matter, do they? Another detail, for those who want to be reminded: Her old friends used to give VIP treatment to the now too ‘controversial’ friend. That was then. Now, politics makes survival a priority. And calls for the doll/flower vase to be replaced. Meanwhile, her friends (men) stay put.


We are not immoral

It's been a hectic task going through all these lecture-type comments since Friday last. While some made sense, given their honest style and content, most of them were not justified, at all. I would like to point, right from the start that I do not commend sensationalism, neither disrespect for privacy. As rightly pointed out by some of my respected colleagues, I am pleased to be part of this debate, thus claiming for the reinvention of the local media, keeping in mind the constraints we, journalists, face on a hourly basis. 

To those who are suddenly outraged by such a sensational cover, I have classified you into clusters.

1. Against my principles. Yes, it was against mine too. I was never taught to  cross such a line and to disrespect my 'subjects'. I had the same reaction when I saw the words. 

2. The 'golden' ones. I am fed up hearing the same thing over and over again: "The era we lived as reporters where we concentrated on 'real' issues, where there was no Internet, etc." With all due respect, this golden age is over. My generation of reporters has different challenges and shorter deadlines (not to be misunderstood as unprofessionalism).

3. The forbidden but delicious. There's a whole bunch of them who love sensational news. Can even read every single word of such a story. Won't ever complete a double-page spread on environmental issues. The first to deny having an interest in the sensational. 

4. The choosy and moody. I understand it's all about politics. The same newspapers which are the favorite of those in power today, will be criticized by those same people the day after. Critics of sensational in this category are those who, not so long ago, were the center of same.

What happened is incorrect. I take this opportunity to introspect.

Disclaimer: This is not an arrogant post. 


Growing and Glowing

A year changes you. A lot.
2016 has been a different year. Very different. I am still trying to figure out if this is a positive different or a negative one.

On my own. Often I hear people say that one should always rely on oneself. I have lived this reality during this year. If at the start I felt scared to face life alone, I have realized that it is not as bad as it seemed. Embracing being alone while being surrounded by many is definitely a boost to one’s self-esteem and inner strength. In my case, it’s a choice I made. And I hope it’s one that pays off.

Selfish. Living with oneself in a crowd of hundreds (un)fortunately ends up in excessive self love. Once the choice has been made, you stop caring about others, at all levels. It sure helps bring inner peace and avoids incessant worrying. On the other hand, dismissing people’s thoughts and feelings becomes easy, frequent and too much of a habit. But, when one’s focus is selfishness, why care about who says what.

Ticking Bomb. Can one think alone, act alone and live alone for long? I mean, is it healthy – not for oneself, but for humanity – as in, can the world survive the explosion which is meant to happen, eventually? Jokes aside, repressing anger and opinions should not be part of this introspection. One can live by oneself while participating, now and then, in social spheres. All along, one should keep in mind that selfishness shall prevail.

The coming year, should I pick one of my missions; I choose to keep on finding peace with exactly who and what I am. Most importantly, to take pride in my thoughts, my appearance, my flaws, and never to bother altering who and what I am. 

The most important thing that I’ve done this year: I survived.