One Nation, Three Killings
Three Ways of Killing, One Nation: A Reader’s First Response
This blog has been prepared in response to an academic assignment given by Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad sir . The exercise invited us to approach poetry through the critical framework of I.A. Richards, with a focused engagement on figurative language and its effects. For this purpose, Dr. Barad provided a reference platform titled “Just Poems”, from which each student selected a poem based on their roll number. The present write-up explores the poem Bidesia Rang by closely applying Richards’ practice of careful textual analysis. Through this approach, the blog aims to cultivate interpretative insight, encourage reader-centered responses, and support meaningful discussion in an academic classroom setting.
Here is a brief Video overview of my blog....
Poem...
पहला मारने से पहले
अंतिम इच्छा जरूर पूछता है
क्योंकि वह
एक संविधान से बंधा है
दूसरा
पहले जात पूछता है
धर्म पूछता है
फिर मारता है
क्योंकि वह
एक महान संस्कृति का अनुयायी है
तीसरा
कुछ भी नहीं पूछता
बस मार डालता है
क्योंकि वह
जाति, धर्म, संविधान कुछ भी नहीं मानता
और जब हम
इन तीनों के हमले का प्रतिकार करते हैं
राष्ट्र की आंतरिक सुरक्षा के लिए
खतरा बन जाते हैं
Introduction
I am consciously avoiding any finalized or authoritative interpretation. Instead, I record my immediate reactions, confusions, misunderstandings, emotional responses, and points of difficulty, exactly as they occurred when I read the poem for the first time. The purpose is not to explain what the poet intends, but to reflect what I, as a first-time reader, understood and failed to understand.
Alongside this raw response, I attempt a preliminary analysis using the method and attitude of I. A. Richards, especially his focus on figurative language, ambiguity, emotional response, and reader–text interaction.
The Poem (Translated Sense-Based Reference)
The poem presents three figures:
1. One who asks for a final wish before killing, because he is bound by the Constitution.
2. Another who first asks about caste and religion, then kills, because he follows a “great culture.”
3. A third who asks nothing and simply kills, because he believes in nothing—neither caste, religion, nor Constitution.
Finally, when we resist the attacks of all three, we are declared a threat to the nation’s internal security.
First Reading: What I Immediately Understood
On my first reading, the poem struck me as angry, political, and disturbing. I immediately sensed violence, power, and injustice. The repeated word “kills” shocked me, but what confused me was that each killer seems to justify himself morally. I initially thought the poem was about different kinds of criminals, but very quickly I realized they might represent systems or ideologies rather than individuals.
The ending disturbed me the most. I understood that even resistance or self-defense is framed as a crime. This made me uncomfortable, but I could not fully explain why at first.
Where I Fumbled and Misunderstood
1. Confusion about the “First” Figure
At first, I misunderstood the first killer as someone humane because he asks for a final wish. I even felt a strange, uncomfortable sympathy. Only later did I realize how dangerous this misunderstanding was. Asking a final wish does not make killing moral, yet the poem tempted me to think so. This confusion happened because the language uses legal and ethical vocabulary like “Constitution,” which made violence seem organized and legitimate.
2. Irony I Missed Initially
I failed to immediately recognize the irony in phrases like “great culture.” On first reading, I took it literally and thought the poet might be referring to tradition. Only after rereading did I realize that the poem is exposing hypocrisy—how culture is used to justify violence.
3. The Third Figure Felt Too Sudden
The third killer confused me because he rejects everything—religion, caste, Constitution. I initially thought he represented chaos or terrorism alone. Later, I realized that this figure might symbolize pure power without ideology, which frightened me even more.
Where and Why the Poem Felt Difficult
The poem was difficult because:
It refuses to guide the reader emotionally.
There is no clear hero or moral anchor.
The speaker does not explain or defend “us.”
I struggled especially with the final lines, where resistance is labelled a threat to national security. I could not immediately understand who decides this or why. The poem intentionally withholds clarity, which made me uncomfortable and uncertain.
Failure to “Open” the Poem on First Reading
On first reading, I failed to see the poem as a critique of power structures. I read it too literally—as a story of killers. Only gradually did I realize that the poem is not about murderers but about systems of violence disguised as law, culture, and lawlessness.
This failure happened because the poem uses simple language but carries complex ideological weight.
Analysis Through I. A. Richards’ Approach to Figurative Language
According to I. A. Richards, meaning in poetry arises from the interaction between words and reader response, not from fixed definitions.
1. Ambiguity
The poem is deliberately ambiguous. Words like Constitution, culture, and security usually carry positive meanings. Here, they are associated with killing. This creates what Richards calls tension between sense and feeling.
2. Figurative Use of “Three Killers”
The three figures are not literal individuals but figures of speech—each representing a different ideological justification for violence. Richards would argue that their power lies in how they evoke emotional conflict rather than logical clarity.
3. Emotional Response as Meaning
My discomfort, confusion, and moral hesitation are not weaknesses of reading; they are the meaning itself. Richards emphasizes that poetry educates our emotions, and this poem forces the reader to question their own instinctive reactions.
4. Irony and Contextual Meaning
The phrase “threat to internal security” gains meaning only through its context. Figuratively, it exposes how language is used to criminalize dissent. This aligns with Richards’ idea that words change meaning depending on their emotional and situational context.
An infographic explaining what my blog stands for....
Conclusion
Reading this poem for the first time was an unsettling experience. I misunderstood, hesitated, and even momentarily sympathized where I should not have. These failures were not accidental; they were produced by the poem itself. Through ambiguity, irony, and figurative language, the poem traps the reader into confronting their own assumptions.
Using I. A. Richards’ approach helped me realize that my confusion was not a lack of understanding but a necessary stage of meaning-making. The poem does not offer comfort or clarity; instead, it exposes how violence hides behind respectable language—and how easily a reader can be misled.
Reference
