The Tale of Melon City

The Tale of Melon City

                         By Vikram Seth

Analysis :

The poem 'The Tale of Melon City' is composed by Vikram Seth, a well known Indian novelist and poet. This poem is compiled in his book ‘Folk Tales from India’.

The poem is a satire on directionless and purposeless leadership. The king ironically called himself lawful and just but he made a joke of justice.

The poem narrates an interesting and humorous story about a kingdom run by a foolish king and his equally foolish ministers, and the kingdom. The king takes pride in being called ‘a just and placid king’. That’s why he stretches justice too far. Due to this quality of his character, he got himself hanged at the end.

This is the story of a king who agrees to everyone like a 'yes man'. The ministers also are a group of fools who decide an odd way to choose the next king. An idiot announces that a melon should be the king and people crown melon as the king without giving it a second thought. People of the kingdom also do not even bother who their king is as long as they are in peace and enjoy their freedom.

The story highlights that if leaders are not wise, they will only lead to destruction. The foolish king who made a joke of justice was punished by the destiny.

 

Line by Line Explanation

Lines 1-10

In the city of which I sing

There was a just and placid King.

The King proclaimed an arch should be

Constructed, that triumphally

Would span the major thoroughfare

To edify spectators there.

The workmen went and built the thing.

They did so since he was the King.

The King rode down the thoroughfare

To edify spectators there.

Explanation:

The narrator told a story about a city and its king who was lawful and gentle. He loved to call himself ‘a just and placid king’. The king ordered that an arch (curved structure with pillars across the way) should be built at the city gate, which would become a symbol of his triumphs and accomplishments. He wanted that the arch would be constructed on the main road and it would inspire and please the people who would pass, see it and admire the king. As per the orders of the king, the arch was built. The king rode on his horse down the main road to greet the people of his kingdom.

 

Lines 11-20

Under the arch he lost his crown.

The arch was built too low. A frown

Appeared upon his placid face.

The King said, ‘This is a disgrace.

The chief of builders will be hanged.’

The rope and gallows were arranged.

The chief of builders was led out.

He passed the King. He gave a shout,

‘O King, it was the workmen’s fault’

‘Oh!’ said the King, and called a halt

Explanation:

When the king rode through the arch, his crown hit the top of the arch and it fell from his head. In fact, the arch was built too low. As it was a disgrace for the king, he lost his temper instantly. He felt insulted and became angry. He ordered the chief of builders must be called and be hanged for this mistake promptly. The arrangements were made for the hanging (execution). The chief of builders was called for hanging. As he was being taken to the spot, he shouted and pleaded that it was not his mistake; it was rather the workmen's fault. So, the king stopped the hanging of the chief builder then and there only.

 

Lines 21-30

To the proceedings. Being just

(And placider now) he said, ‘I must

Have all the workmen hanged instead.’

The workmen looked surprised, and said,

‘O King, you do not realise

The bricks were made of the wrong size.’

‘Summon the masons!’ said the King.

The masons stood there quivering.

‘It was the architect...’, they said,

The architect was summoned.

Explanation:

Then, the blame game began. But, being a just king, he thought that someone has to be punished to do justice. He ordered that all the workmen must be hanged as it was their fault and king got insulted due to very low arch that they built. The workmen were surprised at the order. They claimed that the bricks used to build the arch were of smaller size and thus, the arch was built low. So, it was found out to be the mistake of the masons. They were called by the king. They were trembling due to fear. The masons in order to save themselves blamed the architect for a wrong design. Finally, the architect was called for punishment.

 

Lines 31-40

‘Well, architect,’ said His Majesty.

‘I do ordain that you shall be

Hanged.’ Said the architect, ‘O King,

You have forgotten one small thing.

You made certain amendments to

The plans when I showed them to you.’

The King heard this. The King saw red.

In fact he nearly lost his head;

But being a just and placid King

He said, ‘This is a tricky thing.

Explanation :

The king called the architect and ordered that he must be hanged. The architect was smart. He told that the king forgot that he himself had made some changes in original design of the arch when they were shown to him sometime back. When the king heard this, he became shocked and clueless. The king realised that he had brought all this crisis onto himself. He said that this is a tricky situation and he needed a wise man to help him come out of such a tricky situation.

 

Lines 41-50

I need some counsel. Bring to me

The wisest man in this country.’

The wisest man was found and brought,

Nay, carried, to the Royal Court.

He could not walk and could not see,

So old (and therefore wise) was he —

But in a quavering1 voice he said,

‘The culprit must be punished.

Truly, the arch it was that banged

The crown off, and it must be hanged’.

Explanation:

The king said that he needed some advice from the wisest man in the country to solve this tricky situation. So, they brought a very old man presuming him to be the wisest man. But, he was so old that he could not walk nor he could see properly. He was carried with the help of people to the court. The wise man could not speak properly so in a shaky voice he said that the culprit must be punished in any case. But, in his opinion, the king was not guilty. He considered the arch to be guilty as the arch made the king’s crown fall and insulted him. So, the arch should be hanged as per the advice of the wisest man.

 

Lines 51-62

To the scaffold the arch was led

When suddenly a Councillor said —

‘How can we hang so shamefully

What touched your head, Your Majesty?’

‘True,’ mused the King. By now the crowd,

Restless, was muttering aloud.

The King perceived their mood and trembled

And said to all who were assembled —

‘Let us postpone consideration

Of finer points like guilt. The nation

Wants a hanging. Hanged must be

Someone, and that immediately.’

Explanation :

The councillors and people of the kingdom were equally foolish. While the arch was being taken to be hanged, the councillor remarked that the arch touched the king's crown respectfully, so it should not be hanged. He thought that it would be shameful to hang a thing which touched the king’s crown. He meant to say that after touching king's head, it became a thing of royal importance. The king agreed to him. But, the nation wanted a hanging and that’s why people became restless. They started talking and accusing that justice was not being done and was delayed by the king. So, the king became anxious to see the restlessness of the crowd. He said that they won’t think about the sophisticated things like guilt and they would only think about hanging. He ensured that someone has to be hanged and that will be done without any delay.

Lines 63 - 74

The noose was set up somewhat high.

Each man was measured by and by.

But only one man was so tall

He fitted. One man. That was all.

He was the King. His Majesty

Was therefore hanged by Royal Decree.

Thank Goodness we found someone,’ said

The Ministers, ‘for if instead

We had not, the unruly town

Might well have turned against the Crown.’

‘Long live the King!’ the Ministers said.

‘Long live the King! The King is dead.’

Explanation:

The king ordered that the loop of rope used for the hanging should be set high and anyone whose head reached it would be hanged. One by one all the people in the kingdom were measured but nobody reached its height. Only one person was so tall and could reach the noose, he was the king himself. So, as per the royal order, the king was hanged in order to do justice. Ironically, the ministers were happy as they found someone to be hanged otherwise, the people would have turned against the king. Ironically, the ministers wished long life to the king who was dead.

 

Lines 75-92

They pondered the dilemma; then,

Being practical-minded men,

Sent out the heralds to proclaim

(In His [former] Majesty’s name):

‘The next to pass the City Gate

Will choose the ruler of our state,

As is our custom. This will be

Enforced with due ceremony.’

A man passed by the City Gate.

An idiot. The guards cried, ‘Wait!

Who is to be the King? Decide!’

‘A melon,’ the idiot replied.

This was his standard answer to

All questions. (He liked melons.) ‘You

Are now our King,’ the Ministers said,

Crowning a melon. Then they led

(Carried) the Melon to the throne

And reverently set it down.

Explanation:

Now, a new crisis arose - who would be the king. The ministers thought about the question and being practical men they decided that the next man who passed the city gate would choose the king. It was the custom of their country. Then, they sent out the messengers to tell everyone about this. They sent this order in the name of their dead king.

First of all, an idiot, who was very fond of melons, happened to pass the gate. The guards asked him about who should be the king and he answered, 'a melon'. It was his standard answer to all the questions as he liked melons. he didn't mean anything but his answer was taken as command. So, a melon was crowned as the next king by the ministers in a proper ceremony. They took the melon to the throne and set it there with lot of respect and crowned it as the king.

 

Lines 93-104

This happened years and years ago.

When now you ask the people, ‘So —

Your King appears to be a melon.

How did this happen?’, they say, ‘Well, on

Account of customary choice.

If His Majesty rejoice

In being a melon, that’s OK

With us, for who are we to say

What he should be as long as he

Leaves us in Peace and Liberty?’

The principles of laissez faire

Seem to be well-established there.

Explanation:

This is a very old story and it happened long ago. Whenever the people are asked about the reason behind choosing melon as their king, they always answered that as per the custom of their country melon was decided as their king. The people didn’t also mind to have a melon as their king as long as it let them live in peace and give them liberty. They were happy to have melon as their king as it didn’t restrict their freedom and there was peace in the kingdom.

Message

The poem satirically established that only wise and fitting people should rule or administer a kingdom or state. this message is vital in today's world and in all the times. The story teaches us not to be 'yes man' and use our prudence to decide a thing. 

An ideal leader should not be like the king who agrees to everyone like 'a yes man' and claims to do justice without using his prudence and sense of judgement. 

Vikram Seth seems to tell us that if the king can't use his wisdom and practical sense of judgement to pacify people, it is better to have a melon as the king; at least it will not make foolish decisions and people will use their wit and live in peace.

 RTC (Reference to the Context)

 'Well, architect,' said his majesty. 

'I do ordain that you shall be

Hanged.' Said the architect, 'O King, 

You have forgotten one small thing. 

You made certain amendments to 

The plans when I showed them to you.' 

(i) Select the option that mentions the person whom the architect blamed for the mistake. 

(a) The brick-maker

(b) The ministers

(c) The people

(d) The king

(ii) Why was the king blamed?

(a) Because he had asked them to build it 

(b) Because he had hired inefficient people 

(c) Because he had made adjustments to it 

(d) Because he had asked it to be made low 

(iii) Complete the sentence appropriately, with reference to the extract.

The word 'ordain' in the given extract means ................

(iv) Who put the blame on the architect?

(v) How did the architect smartly shifted the blame on the king himself?

Answers :

(i) (d) The king

(ii) (c) Because he made adjustments to it

(iii) order or command

(iv) The masons, when summoned, put the blame on the architect.

(v) The architect used his brain and memory and very smartly shifted the blame on the king. He recollected that the design of the arch was finally amended by the king himself so if there is a mistake in the design, the blame goes on the king.

 

 

The Adventure

The Adventure
                                 By Jayant Narlikar

Analysis :

The story ‘The Adventure’ is written by Jayant Narlikar who is an Indian astrophysicist and emeritus professor at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics.

This chapter is an extract from the story ‘The Adventure’. It is the later part of the story.

It is a science fiction which uses two theories – Catastrophe Theory and Lack of Determinism in Quantum Theory to explain a set of events happening in the life of the protagonist, Mr. Gaitonde.

It is the account of a History professor, Mr. Gangadharpant Gaitonde who happens to be transported to another world where history took a different turn after the third Battle of Panipat.

The story narrates small incidents and historical events and characters that invite the readers to do comparative study of the events and characters in two different worlds in the same time frame.

The story conveys the message that we can pass into another world which is same yet completely different in terms of history, polity and traditions. As in Physics, there is also a lack of determinism in our life.

 

First Part of the Story (Earlier Part)

In the earlier part of the story, Professor Gangadharpant Gaitonde was an eminent historian and a leading public figure in Pune. He was much in demand for presiding over public functions. He had completed his 999th occasion for presiding at a function. He had decided that his thousandth lecture on the stage would be about the consequences of Third battle of Panipat. That occasion was to come two weeks later at a seminar devoted to the Third Battle of Panipat.

While he was thinking about his lecture and walking home, a truck on the road hit him. He lost consciousness. He was in comma in the hospital for two days. When he regained consciousness, after getting discharged from the hospital, he headed towards his home but could not find his home anywhere. He tried to ask the people who responded that such address and a person with such name don't exist there. He realised that he had been transited to a parallel world. He decided to go to Bombay because his son was working in a British company in Bombay. He went to Pune Railway station and took a train, Jijamata Express to Bombay.

Summary (Later Part)

When Professor Gangadharpant Gaitonde had decided to visit Bombay to get the answers of his questions, he took a train to visit Bombay. He got to know that Bombay was still a British territory while the rest of India was independent. On the journey in a first class compartment of the Jijamata Express, he sat beside Khan Sahib, who was going to Peshawar from Delhi. Then, he realised that there had been no partition of India in this parallel world and Britishers still had their colony in Bombay but on friendly terms not as rulers. On the route, the train stopped only at Lonavala, Karjat and the border town of Sarhad where the permits were checked. It did not stop at Kalyan but finally terminated at Victoria Terminus in Bombay. While going through Bombay's suburbs, he observed that the carriages of the local trains had the British flag painted on them, it indicated that they were passing through British territory.

Mr. Gaitonde decided that he will go to meet his son in his office and then go to a big library to solve the mystery of his transition by checking history books. When Gaitonde came out of the railway station, he saw 'East India House' written on a big building, which indicated that the East India Company still existed in Bombay and that history had taken a different turn after 1857. Further, he found various British companies and buildings on the road. He visited his son's office in Forbes building to meet him, but found that person with the name, Vinay Gaitonde, worked there or any other branch, although the company was the same. This made Gaitonde realise the truth of what Rajendra Deshpande had told him earlier about the Catastrophe Theory. He had really made the transition to a parallel world.

He found the library of the Asiatic Society in Town Hall. He went in the library and found five books on Indian history which he had written. First four volumes mentioned the same historical event. But, on going through the fifth volume, after the death of Aurangzeb he found the history took a different turn history and the result of the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 was different from what he knew. It said that the Marathas had won the battle handsomely, whereas in his reality they had lost it. From here onwards, the history of India changed and he could not believe whether he had written the book but it bore his writing style.

He found confirmation in a Marathi journal, 'Bhausahebanchi Bakhar' about detailed account of the battle. It stated that a bullet fired by the Afghans in the battle just brushed the ear of the Maratha leader, Vishwasrao who escaped death. Though Gaitonde had written in his fifth volume that Vishwasrao had been killed by a bullet in the battle and the Marathas lost their morale and the battle subsequently. In the parallel world, Vishwasrao survived, which boosted the morale of his troops and Marathas won this battle. The East India Company, was watching these developments from sidelines, hence shelved its expansionist programme.

The remaining history of India, as recounted in the fifth volume by Gaitonde tells that India never went under British rule. The Marathas did not allow the East India Company to expand its influence in India. In fact, its influence was limited to a few places like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. India gradually adopted democracy but allowed the British to carry on in Bombay on a lease for commercial reasons and other benefits, and technological advancements happening in Europe. Later, India saw democratic governments and rulers and Delhi Sultanate remained alive for the name sake and to approve the recommendations of the central government.

Prof. Gaitonde had to leave the library as it was closing time. Along with his notes, absent-mindedly, he also shoved the Bakhar into his left pocket. After taking super, he went for a stroll. He noticed that a crowd was entering a pandal in Azad Maiden, perhaps, a lecture was going on in Azad Maidan. When Gaitonde saw a vacant presidential chair on the stage, he went and sat on it, thinking that it was for him, because in the real world he had been invited for such a seminar. The audience reacted by strongly protesting against Gaitonde for sitting on the presidential chair as in this world, the people had become sick of hearing long introductions, vote of thanks and remarks from the presiding guests. They had abolished the custom of having a chair person long ago. The chair was only symbolic. Gaitonde got up and started speaking, but the audience pelted him with tomatoes, eggs and other objects and swarmed on to the stage to remove him.

During the commotion, Gaitonde disappeared. Actually, he had suffered another catastrophe by being knocked unconscious by the mob and returned to the real world. He found himself on the Azad Maidan the next morning with his clothes torn. He had no idea what had happened and so, he returned to Pune.

On returning to the real world, Gaitonde narrated his adventure to his friend, Rajendra Deshpande, a scientific mathematical and expert. When Rajendra felt that Gaitonde had imagined about things because he was thinking about the third battle of Panipat at the time the truck hit him, Gaitonde showed Rajendra the torn-off of Marathi journal from the other world, the page about Vishwasrao escaping death. Now, Rajendra was amused and tried to explain the events through the Catastrophe Theory and the lack of determinism in Quantum theory by applying them to his adventure.  

At first, Rajendra was perplexed by this new evidence. But, after further discussion with Gaitonde, Rajendra Deshpande explained that there could be many 'different worlds existing at different points of time' or even the same time. They could all have a different history. Explaining the lack of determinism theory, he told that if he fired an electron from a source, he won’t be able to tell where it would go. If he fired a bullet from a gun in a given direction at a given speed, he might be able to tell where it will be at a later time. But he can't make any such an assertion for the electron. It may be here, there, anywhere. He told that Professor Gaitonde had been to a parallel world. The time was the present but its history was quite different.

When Rajendra suggested that Gaitonde could recount his adventure at the thousandth seminar he was presiding over after a few days, Gaitonde told him that he had already declined the invitation, as he did not want to chair any more seminars. Probably, he remembered the treatment he had received from the audience in the parallel world when he tried to chair the seminar.

Important Question Answers

Q1. Briefly Explain the following statements from the chapter:

1. “You have passed through a fantastic experience: or more correctly, a catastrophic experience.”                                                                                              Ans: This statement was given by Rajendra Deshpande to Professor Gaitonde. When he was hit by the truck, he was thinking about Catastrophe theory and its implications in the Battle of Panipat. He was unconscious in the hospital for the next two days but he was in a parallel world having a real life experience of many things which were different in the real world where he actually lives. So, he had passed through a catastrophic experience as after a severe accident in his real life he went through overwhelming, disturbing and confusing experience both in terms of his life and history.

2. “The Lack of Determinism in Quantum Theory!”
Ans: Rajendra Deshpande explained 'The Lack of Determinism in Quantum Theory' to Gaitonde in order to explain the reason behind his transition to the parallel world. It means the inability of the scientist to know where the electron would move. Quantum theory means in physics, it can be measured how the energy is produced and in what direction electrons may move. This happened when Professor witnesses different history in parallel world in the case of the third Battle of Panipat where the Marathas had won the war while in reality, they had lost the battle.

3. “You need some interaction to cause a transition.”
Ans: Professor Gaitonde before the collision with the truck was thinking about catastrophe theory and its implications in the Battle of Panipat. He was wondering what might happen if the result was different in the Battle of Panipat. When he was hit by the truck, the neurons in his brain made the transition. This was explained by Rajendra to the professor when he failed to understand why only he made the transition. He made this transition because his mind was busy thinking about the battle and its different consequence.

Father to Son

Father to Son

                                     By Elizabeth Jennings

Analysis :

·      The poem ‘Father to Son’ composed by Elizabeth Jennings is a beautiful poem on the tussles and misunderstanding between a father and his son.

·      The poem is about a father who is in pain as he doesn’t have a good relationship with his son who is now grown up and is busy in his life.

·      The poem helps the readers learn their mistakes and develop the sensitivity, sensibility and understanding among the family members especially the parents and children. The poem beautifully and impactfully teaches the family members imbibe the values like concern, empathy, compassion, understanding and mutual respect for one another.

·      The tone of the poem is reflective and sad as a father feels helpless about the generation gap between his son and himself and it deals with helpless feeling of separation.

·      The story explores the theme of generation gap and need to develop mutual respect, tolerance, patience and understanding among the family members.

·      The story conveys the message that all family members should come on the same plane and without expectation try to understand other person's needs and thoughts.

Line by Line Explanation

 

Stanza 1
I do not understand this child
Though we have lived together now
In the same house for years. I know
Nothing of him, so try to build
Up a relationship from how
He was when small.

Explanation – In the above stanza, the poet shares his bitterness and his helplessness about growing distance between himself and his son. He wonders,  although they both have lived together in the same house for many years, he doesn’t understand him. He doesn’t know anything about his son, his likes and dislikes. He tried to build up a strong and healthy relationship with his son taking a clue from his childhood. When his son was a kid, he was expressive enough hence, easy to understand. Father could understand what his son needs and what he wants to say, in his childhood. His son changed after he grew up.

 

Stanza 2

Yet have I killed                                                                                                                      The seed I spent or sown it where
The land is his and none of mine?
We speak like strangers, there’s no sign
Of understanding in the air.
This child is built to my design
Yet what he loves I cannot share.

Explanation – The father reflects and gets sad to acknowledge his own role or mistake in creating distance between them. He feels that he himself has snapped the link between them as if he himself killed the seed he has grown in the ground. Here, he compares his son to a seed which he has sown in the ground. He concludes that either he himself killed the seed he had sown or the seed was sown in a foreign ground which doesn't belong to him. He also wonders whether the child is his own because now the son has become completely different and he is unable to understand him. He tries to communicate that despite all efforts, his son has gone to live in another world that he cannot access. They talk to each other like strangers as if they live in two different worlds and talk in two different languages or foreign tongue. There is no sign of understanding between them. His child used to look like him as he has inherited his genes, yet now, he didn’t know anything about his son such as his likes, dislikes, needs, desires, etc.

 

Stanza 3

Silence surrounds us. I would have
Him prodigal, returning to
His father’s house, the home he knew,
Rather than see him make and move
His world. I would forgive him too,
Shaping from sorrow a new love.                                                                                          Father and son, we both must live
On the same globe and the same land,

Explanation – There is deep silence between the father and the son and this silence arises from lack of understanding and inability to communicate or express. They both behave like strangers or foreigners who speak different language that’s why there is silence around both of them and it creates distance. The father wishes his son being generous to forgive him and come back to him, his own house. He didn’t want his son to move around and make his own world separate from his father’s. He is ready to forgive him and wants his son to do the same. He wants that after all the sorrows they both had faced, there must be only love around them. There has been lot of sorrow in their hearts due to distance and separation but now, he wishes his son to forgive him and come back to him so that there is only love between them. He longs that a beautiful loving relation must tie them together as they live together in the same world; same house.

 

Stanza 4

He speaks: I cannot understand
Myself, why anger grows from grief.
We each put out an empty hand,
Longing for something to forgive.

Explanation – Towards the end, the son speaks, for the first time. He fails to understand the reason behind this distance and misunderstanding between them. He fails to understand what he feels. He also feels sad about the distance between them. He doesn’t understand why sometimes, anger arises out of sadness. They both are sad and due to this sorrow they become angry and go apart. On both the sides there lies the same frustration about the generation gap in their relationship. Now, they both want to forgive each other and stretch out an empty hand. It means that they long to forgive and understand each other yet they find it difficult. They have love but not understanding, there is umpteen trust but they are never on same plane when it comes to understand each other. The threat of generation gap hangs over their relation.

Poetic Devices

I do not understand this child - Consonance
In the same house for years. I know – Consonance, Assonance
Nothing of him, so try to build - Irony
Up a relationship from how - Consonance

The seed I spent or sown it where – Consonance, Alliteration, Metaphor, Anaphora

The land is his and none of mine? – Consonance, Assonance, Anaphora

We speak like strangers, there’s no sign – Alliteration, Irony

This child is built to my design – Assonance, Consonance, Irony

Yet what he loves I cannot share. – Consonance, Irony

Silence surrounds us. I would have – Consonance, Alliteration, Pathos
His father’s house, the home he knew, - Alliteration
Rather than see him make and move – Alliteration, Pathos
His world. I would forgive him too, - Consonance, Alliteration
Shaping from sorrow a new love. - Alliteration

On the same globe and the same land, - Consonance, Repetition, Symbolism, Assonance

Myself, why anger grows from grief. – Consonance, Alliteration

We each put out an empty hand, - Consonance, Assonance

Childhood

Childhood

                           By Markus Natten

Analysis:

·      The poem ‘Childhood’ is composed by Marcus Natten, a Norwegian poet. His poetry is known for its introspective and contemplative nature.

·      The poet is sad over his lost childhood. He wonders about the moment when he lost his innocence. He realised that the world is not the same as it appeared in his childhood.

·      The poem discusses the hypocrisy of the people as they grow and lose their childhood.

·      The tone of the poem is reflective and pensive (sad).

·      The poem emphasises that we need to preserve the childlike nature in us. It focuses that we should grow in our thoughts but remain childlike and innocent in nature.

 

Line by Line Explanation

 

Stanza 1

When did my childhood go?
Was it the day I ceased to be eleven,
Was it the time I realised that Hell and Heaven,
Could not be found in Geography,
And therefore could not be,
Was that the day!

Explanation : In the opening lines, the poet wonders about when and how his childhood came to an end. He tries to think and recall the day when his childhood ended. He thinks perhaps it ended when he was no longer eleven years old or when he grew to be 12 years old. May be, he lost his childhood when he was able to realis that hell and heaven did not exist in geographical locations or on the map. He could realise that hell and heaven are imaginary places that actually do not exist in this world. This realisation brings about maturity and rationality in the poet who could differentiate between realistic and fictional things.

 

 Stanza 2

When did my childhood go?
Was it the time I realised that adults were not
all they seemed to be,
They talked of love and preached of love,
But did not act so lovingly,
Was that the day!

Explanation : Here, the poet again analyses another possibility about when his childhood ceased to exist. There was a time when the poet started seeing the world with a new perception that adults are hypocrites and are not how they seem or act to be. The adults who talk of love and preach of love, yet never behave so lovingly all the time. They are double faced in reality. He tries to recall the day when his thoughts matured and he could understand the hypocrisy of his elders and the people around him.

 

Stanza 3

When did my childhood go?
Was it when I found my mind was really mine,
To use whichever way I choose,
Producing thoughts that were not those of other people
But my own, and mine alone
Was that the day!

Explanation :  In this stanza, the poet talks about another possibility of when and how he lost his childhood. He asked himself about possibilities. He wonders about the day when his mind was his own and could use his mind the way he wants. There was a day when he could produce his own thoughts which were not guided or prompted by anyone. It was the day when he sensed his own individuality and that he has a definite personality. Perhaps, that day he lost his childhood.

 

Stanza 4

Where did my childhood go?
It went to some forgotten place,
That’s hidden in an infant’s face,
That’s all I know.

Explanation : Towards the end, the poet tries to decide the place where his lost childhood disappeared. He concludes that his childhood had gone to some place which he doesn't remember or possibly doesn't know. Now he realises that it will never come back. He cherished his innocence which vanished and is resting in the face of an infant. He also realises that he can only find his childhood in a baby’s face. He also conveyed that the innocence of childhood stays till the time one is an infant by nature and heat. He finally concludes that his childhood went to some forgotten or unknown place and it is hidden in the face of an innocent infant. it establishes the idea that we must retain childlike nature in us and keep a child alive in us however old we grow.

Poetic Devices

When did my childhood go? – Refrain, Consonance
Was it the day I ceased to be eleven, - Anaphora
Was it the time I realised that Hell and Heaven –Anaphora, Allusion, Alliteration, Consonance
Could not be found in Geography, - Consonance
And therefore could not be, - Consonance
Was that the day! – Refrain, Alliteration

When did my childhood go? – Refrain, Consonance
Was it the time I realised that adults were not – Enjambment, Alliteration, Consonance
all they seemed to be, - Enjambment
They talked of love and preached of love, - Repetition, Consonance
But did not act so lovingly, - Contrast, Consonance
Was that the day! – Refrain, Alliteration

When did my childhood go? – Refrain, Consonance
Was it when I found my mind was really mine, - Alliteration, Consonance 
To use whichever way I choose, - Consonance
Producing thoughts that were not those of other people – Alliteration, Consonance, Assonance
But my own, and mine alone – Alliteration, Consonance
Was that the day! – Refrain, Alliteration

Where did my childhood go? – Refrain, Consonance
It went to some forgotten place, - Consonance
That’s hidden in an infant’s face, - Symbolism, Consonance

 Important Question Answers :

Q. Identify the stanza that talks of each of the following:
Individuality, Rationalism, Hypocrisy
Ans. The following stanzas highlight the above mentioned traits:

• Rationalism: First stanza talks about Rationalism because there the poet starts thinking rationally and questions the existence of hell and heaven which he can’t find on geographical locations and even on maps.
• Hypocrisy: Second stanza discusses the hypocrisy of people as they grow. The poet thinks that elders become manipulative in their talks and dealings in the real world.
• Individuality: Third stanza highlights that in the process of growing up the poet gains individuality. He starts thinking on his own and using his own mind without getting influenced by others’ thoughts.

Q. What according to the poem, is involved in the process of growing up?
Ans. According to the poem, the loss of childhood is involved in the process of growing up. Each loss is compensated by some gain which we come across in our life. In the age of adolescence we grow in understanding, power of rationality as well as sense of individuality and self-confidence but in this process we lose our childhood.

Q. Which, do you think are the most poetic lines? Why?
Ans. The following lines in the poem are most poetic:

"It went to some forgotten place

That’s hidden in an infant’s face,

That’s all I know."

These lines beautifully sum up the process of growth and the disappearance of childhood. These lines have a figurative and symbolic meaning. The infant’s innocent face is presented as symbol for childhood. Here, the poet tells that the childhood lies hidden and buried deep inside a child’s innocence. It strongly conveys the message that we want to cherish our childhood we need to retain innocence of a child.

RTC ( Reference to the Context )

When did my childhood go?

Was it when I found my mind was really mine, To use whichever way I choose,

Producing thoughts that were not those of .

other people, But my own, and mine alone Was that the day!”

 Q 1. Explain “my mind was really mine”.

(a) It means that his mind was influenced by others

(b) It means that his mind was not influenced by others

(c) It means that his mind was influenced by his parents

(d) It means that he was not confused

Answer:

(b) It means that his mind was not influenced by others

 

Q2. What did the poet realise?

(a) He realised that his mind belonged to his parents

(b) He realised that his mind was controlled by his friends

(c) He realised that his mind was controlled by his teachers

(d) He realised that his mind was his, and he had his own individuality

Answer

(d) He realised that his mind was his, and he had his own individuality

 

Q 3. The poet ……….. find an answer to his question.

(a) did

(b) did not

(c) can

(d) may

Answer: did

 

RTC 2

Where did my childhood go?

It went to some forgotten place,

That’s hidden in an infant’s face,

That’s all I know.

 

Q 1. Where did the poet’s childhood go?

(a) It went to an unknown place

(b) It went to some forgotten or unknown place

(c) It went to a known place

(d) It went to the poet’s native place

Answer:

(b) It went to some forgotten or unknown place

 

Q 2. Where does the poet think that his childhood is hidden?

(a) He thinks that it is hidden in a cat’s face

(b) He thinks that it is hidden in a boy’s face

(b) He thinks that it is hidden in a boy’s face

(c) He thinks that it is hidden in an infant’s face

(d) He thinks that it is hidden beneath his face

Answer:

(c) He thinks that it is hidden in an infant’s face

 

Q 3. The present tense of 'forgotton’is ………

(a) forgot

(b) forgets

(c) forget

(d) forgets

Answer:

(c) forget