The Oxford dictionary defines ‘Anonymous’ as “Having no outstanding, individual, or unusual features; unremarkable or impersonal”.
The scenario is this: Several kind, humble and individually great people are a part of two camps which are at longer heads from a long time. There is difference of not just opinions but of ideologies and animosity in their hearts. Each camp clan vouching for its truth. Each warrior proving an abstract claim. Assessors by themselves, all claim to be right and accuse the other of citing superfluous information.
A constant trail seems to be happening with the warring camps justifying their claims. One camp blaming the ‘accused’ and the other defending him. Every time the case reopens, with either camps dusting and opening the Pandora’s box. The repetitive claims and intangible ‘facts’ follow. The judge closely examines the two contradicting stories neither of which is conclusive, the trail drags on hopelessly. Tired of arguing, the clans decide to take a sabbatical. The judge has no choice but to drop the case and move on.
Years pass by, a harmless nudge or a casual deja vu incident provokes the clans again. They rekindle the already quenched flame; work on it till it blazes. Armored with renewed spirit but age-old claims, each clan arrives for another face off. The judge is called again. He has to now look into the virtual evidences provided by the two camps, accept the intangible ‘facts’ and pass a judgement-either acquit him or accuse…
And the cycle repeats.
The irony of the situation is that the ‘accused’, whose trial is our concern, is absent. His counsels have been fighting for him, his identity and his dignity from the beginning of time. But there’s no effort from his side to defend himself. How does the judge, judge someone who isn’t willing to fight his case? Should the case be closed with a random acceptance of any one clan’s claim??? Would that be fair? Well, do we have any other option? Of course! The ‘accused’ needs to appear before the judge and either prove his innocence or accept the charges refuted against him.
The fact is that the ‘accused’ is the ‘Anonymous’ father and the judge is his daughter. The clans are the maternals and paternals. Parents legally divorced several years ago but, she still awaits for this trail to end at least now…after 25 years. Acquitted or charged, he’s the father. Every child deserves to know who their parents really are…it’s not sufficient to know just their names. Children are no judges to decide their parents’ vices or virtues. In either case, it doesn’t really matter. To a child, his father is his hero-no matter how weak he may be.
Death is an inevitable fact and time would make us accept and adapt to the absence. But, when still alive, there exists an insatiable hope of meeting again. All a child would want from their parents is unconditional love, no confrontation or explanation needed…