A caterpillar saw a beautiful butterfly and wanted to cohabit with her. The butterfly knew that the caterpillar would one day evolve into a dormant pupa before it would become a butterfly. The doubt of the butterfly was whether the caterpillar would remember his caterpillar days after a long dormancy as a pupa, this was further compounded by the butterfly’s own insecurity as to whether she’d be youthful enough to cheerfully spend her days with the newly evolved he-butterfly! The she butterfly had to decide or show patience with a hope which could turn out to be like sip at a wine of hoary vintage or shrivel up with despair because of having entertained a uncertain hope. The butterfly waited and chose a hopeful future with the caterpillar. Now the pupa is in its shard and the butterfly visits the pupa to see the first cracks to appear on the shard of the pupa!
Originally posted on Movid's Weblog:
The title relates to the Biblical characters who find a place in the Book of Genesis and Judges respectively. The point that is the focus of my blog is the relationship that Joseph and Samson had with their respective women.
Joseph was a slave in Egypt, because his brothers (especially Judah, who had the bright idea that what would the brothers benefit if they killed him, so more as a matter of greed they agree with Judah and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites) had sold him and he winds up in the Pharoah’s Chief of Guards house and becomes a steward there. The Chief of the Guards is one Potiphar, who has a wife who eyes Joseph and openly and shamelessly makes a declaration of her lust to Joseph and says, “LIE WITH ME.” The story goes that one day when Joseph was alone, Potiphar’s wife…
View original 1,643 more words
Which piece of cloth? as it is preceded by the definite article! The garment which was shown by Potiphar’s wife to Potiphar, as a symbol for Joseph having attempted to outrage the modesty of Potiphar’s wife.
The same garment which was actually the proof of Joseph having fled from his youthful lust (that is, if you believe what is mentioned in Genesis Ch.39 ) became a PROOF of the allegation of Joseph’s attempted, shall we call it RAPE? There is no such thing as “attempt of rape”, at least to the best of my knowledge in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Either it should have been committed for it to be called thus or it isn’t! Rest of all unwelcome tactile sexual advances could be called only an “outrage” of the modesty of a woman. Another fault is that the “outrage the modesty of a woman” presupposes universal modesty in woman – am i sure? Nay.
So the case was decided in favour of the complainant, who had a proof in the garment of Joseph in her hands. THE BIBLE says: POTIPHAR’S WRATH WAS KINDLED! Even assuming that Potiphar had asked for an explanation from Joseph, let us ask ourselves IF JOSEPH COULD HAVE NARRATED THE TRUTH? Had he, then that would have shown his master as an ‘ATTEMPTED CUCKOLD’ and in the eyes of the master and his mistress he would have instead of explaining his innocence would have to ACCUSE his mistress as History’s FIRST ATTEMPTER OF RAPING A MALE, well how can a woman rape a male without him having an erection? So let us call Potiphar’s wife’s offence as ATTEMPT TO DOCK A MALE. That would have had direr consequences – Potiphar would have wanted to “silence” him of the secrets of his wife, who probably had descended to the level of a slave, because of the constant assault on her senses arising out of proximity.
In any case, Potiphar jailed Joseph and ensured that Joseph was sequestered from the wanton ways of his wife. At verse 16 it says: AND SHE LAID UP HIS GARMENT BY HER, UNTIL HIS LORD CAME HOME! King James Version English is amazing! LAID UP instead of ‘kept’ or ‘hid’ the garment – Potiphar’s wife seems to have quite exhilarated about having been at least with the shards of Joseph for a while, instead of having been disgusted with a slave’s garment! Further, it is HIS LORD and not HER HUSBAND or HER LORD!
Thus the piece of cloth served as a proof in her hands not as a remnant of the failed attempt of a faithless wife, but to exonerate herself and to also wreak vengeance ‘on a sow which refused to respect the pearls offered to it in private’.
The problem is that this is an episode narrated in the Bible and as a Christian I have to believe in everything said in the Bible, but when we reconstruct the same episode scene by scene like a script writer of an historical episode, there are different weightages to be apportioned to each piece of evidence, otherwise we would be placing emphasis on where it is not due. But who is to decide on the correctness of ascription of weightage? So that is where LIBERTY comes in and God in his wisdom has given the balance to weigh according to the moral fibre of the man who weighs.
So if we go scene by scene would we have decided in favour of Potiphar’s wife, had we been Potiphar?
Even if Joseph had told the whole truth, as only 3 persons knew the TRUTH, one was Joseph, second Potiphar’s wife and as always, God. Now God cannot be a witness, except when he chooses to be one, in insignificant human disputes! And in this case, the winner who had written this part, was on Joseph’s side, but at that point, it was a wife’s word against a slave’s word. To compound, Potiphar had to rise to defend his honour in which , if Potiphar were to have believed Joseph’s version, that would have been a hara-kiri on his manhood. Naturally Potiphar went with his wife!
PITY, was what was evoked in our hearts, and like as in Job’s case, had the end not compensated for the calamities in the middle, it would have never found a place in the scriptures as a superb morale booster to the endurance in sufferings of the present.
It all boils down to whether the ‘piece of cloth’ serves that day’s POLITICAL PURPOSE. TRUTH dawns much later. Have we taken sides yet? Better not, we have heard only one side of the story – Moses’ recounting of a history which was at least 400 years old. As some wisely say: ANYTHING COULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Compassion and Mercy are not interchangeable , although to a tyro these might be synonyms, the import of usage of Compassion and Mercy as interchangeable synonyms would be like equating the Grace obtained by the robber on the side of the crucified Jesus and the grace obtained by the blind man, who was attempted to be made the centre of debate of sinfulness by the Pharisees, to have been in receipt of the same exoneration !
For the convicted , any grace shown by an authority for remitting or commuting his sentence would be Mercy. But, when a person is bailed out of his pathetic condition without reference to his crime or sin or wrong would be Compassion.
When Jesus was asked a question, which presupposed sinfulness of either the blind man or his parents, Jesus says that his blindness was because of neither but for the manifestation of the Glory of God!
Every Christian by believing on the Divinity of Jesus has to believe in his omniscience, so Jesus knew the reasons for his blindness, if any, but tells every reader of the passage that STOP JUDGING, and DO SOMETHING !
That is COMPASSION – no reference to a man’s PAST!
I am constrained to write this as Pastor Francis of Andrew Kirk Presbyterian church at Chennai, failed to make this divine distinction in his sermon this morning to my deep chagrin. The pastor is erudite, sensitive and pious and I couldn’t stomach his interchangeable usage of the words!
Same citation – different consequences for the same person, in two different fora!
Originally posted on Movid's Weblog:
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
If we ever get to understand this statement of Nietzsche, we would be able to understand the FUNCTION of the Courts.
Let us look at it this way, in the USA the Supreme Court judges are known by their party affiliations, which are well known. So if the bench consists of more Democrats than Republican, their judgments , observed from the point of view of their affiliations would, engender a DEMOCRATIC bent.
If we analyze their “reasoning”, it may sound extremely logical, reasonable and fair. Are these logicality, reasonableness and fairness, which have been the bed rock of their “reasoning”, merely the hidden TOOLS in the hands of the “POWERFUL”?
MAY BE NIETZSCHE is, was and will be RIGHT ALWAYS!
Article 161 of the Constitution of India
161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases:
The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
It is no news that the conviction and the sentence were pronounced by the Sessions Judge in Bangalore on a sitting Chief Minister of one of the major states of the country. The sentence was to have been pronounced by the court earlier on a day which was not followed by a public holiday, however for reasons best known to the Honourable judge the verdict was postponed to a day which was to be followed by a court holiday! This may not have been the intention of the Sessions Judge to pronounce the judgment on a day prior to a court’s CLOSED HOLIDAY , but it has so happened – the effect of which was that an appeal could not be filed before the higher court competent to grant relief to the convict.
My question is very ELEMENTARY – if the offence was committed in the state of Tamil Nadu and the prosecution of the offence was followed by the Tamil Nadu police and their prosecutors, does the GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA have the right to exercise the powers vested in him in terms of Article 161 of the Constitution of India?
Assuming that the Governor of Karnataka were to be vested with the powers of Art.161, does the Governor of Karnataka have the power to say that the conviction and sentence on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu relates to “any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State (Karnataka) extends”? I think not. It would be the power of the Governor of Tamil Nadu who would have the power – simply because, if the Governor of Tamil Nadu did not have the power to pardon/commute the sentence of the convicts in the RAJIV GANDHI MURDER CASE, which was prosecuted by the CBI, merely because the TRIAL PROCEEDINGS were ordered to be conducted in a neighbouring state, the Karnataka state’s Governor would not be able to assume such powers which do not belong to his executive jurisdiction.
The reason for vesting with such powers was to grant the higher power of MERCY to the government over JUSTICE, as MERCY is a higher jurisdiction, as there is every possibility of miscarriage of justice, “reasons of state”, and also as a a protection against laws which are strictly imposed for legal reasons which may not be very reasonable, and may affect the very fabric of the state (cf. Nanavati’s case)! It is time we defined “reasons of state”!
I do not for a moment say that there has been a miscarriage of justice, neither am I authorized to say so, but when a person under oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the head of the Government were to be pushed to the predicament of having to face the verdict of her past action, the verdict could put THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU at loggerheads with THE SENTENCE of the VERDICT! Indeed in this case, the CM of Tamil Nadu has been sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years.
In the instant case, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU has been downgraded unceremoniously without an opportunity of exercising respite from /suspension of the sentence, by the Governor of the state, where the offences were committed. She was straight taken to the gaol! When a constitutional provision is available for such rare occurrences, is it a must that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code should be followed so meticulously? I think not.
The head of the Government of the state of Tamil Nadu was unfortunately tried in a state, which had some serious outstanding issues like the Cauvery Water dispute, in which the then CM of TN (OPS being the present incumbent) had taken a very strident position against the state of Karnataka. That takes one to the next question – If the trial couldn’t have been fair in TN, would the trial in KA been IMPARTIAL, especially in the light of the fact that KA is ruled by a political party which has celebrated the conviction and sentence of the CM of TN?
After all, we should all remember that a Sessions Judge is under the control of the state government in which he is employed and does not have the IMMUNITIES which are enshrined & reserved in the Constitution for the High Court and Supreme Court Justices only! If the Hon’ble Supreme Court was convinced that a FAIR TRIAL was not possible in the state of TN, based on a partisan petition filed by a rival politician, was the point as to whether the trial in KA would be IMPARTIAL, also considered? I wonder if the SC considered the point!
A democratically elected CM of a state needn’t have to be cornered on a Saturday with no option for approaching a higher judicial forum where the Justices are vested with immunities against the government of the day! Even Henry VIII, whose major profession was to accuse his queens of treachery, treason and infidelity and have them executed, sent for the Hangman from Calais, who was known to MERCIFULLY use a fine sword instead of an axe, when Anne Boleyn’s time came for her neck to be laid on the block!
I would like to narrate an episode from the Bible to illustrate my point: the first king of Israel, SAUL was defeated by the Philistines and to circumvent the ignominy of being dragged in the mud and then being killed painfully and ignominiously, Saul planted a spear and leaned on it and he is supposed to have died (I Samuel Ch. 31) but from the account narrated by an Amalekite to David (who became the Second king of Israel), Saul was still alive and that the Amalekite was requested by the moribund Saul, to kill him and the Amalekite claimed to David that he indeed killed Saul and had brought Saul’s Crown and Saul’s bracelet for David. David asks him one withering question at 2 Samuel Ch.1 v. 14 : HOW WAST THOU NOT AFRAID TO STRETCH FORTH THINE HAND TO DESTROY THE LORD’S ANOINTED?
I don’t for a minute say that a Chief Minister of a State is an “anointed” person, much less when NO POLITICAL CHIEF, (which means the prime minister or any of the Chief Ministers) has been included in Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides immunity to the President of India and all Governors of the states against institution or continuation of criminal proceedings during the term of their office! Yet the Chief Minister who had won an election in her own name and might and had very recently mopped up 37 Members of Parliament seat out of the total 39 of the state of Tamil Nadu deserved at least a bleak chance at the judicial and executive remedies available in the Constitution of India!
Therefore, our judicial system should not be following AMBUSH JUSTICE of first instance, where all options for judicial remedy and executive remedy are foreclosed and the convicted CHIEF MINISTER is forced to languish and labour under the verdict of a court of first instance, located in a HOSTILE CONTIGUOUS state.
MERCY is above JUSTICE and let us make NO mistake of it.
Guitar and Veena are as much stringed & plucked instruments, but human speed in finger movement cannot bridge the distance between notes as a mandolin did, by shortening the stem. But through shortening, the notes came so closer to each other that the highest level of accuracy was essential to get it right with increase in speed, this was bridged through the SKILL, EFFORT and TALENT of MANDOLIN SRINIVAS!
The first time i participated in his rendition of Carnatic classical songs of Thiyagarajar, Muthusamy Dikshitar and Purandara Dasar was at the cultural festival of IIT , Chennai. First time in my life i had seen a GENIUS face to face, in life and blood. I FELT inferior, it did not trigger aspiration or retaliation of God’s partiality in having endowed a person with so much talent so early! It ‘hierarchified’ me! I felt that i was a part of a system with me somewhere in the middle and many unseen men and women standing with great talent above me and much above me! Mandolin Srinivas restored to me pristine sanity.
A violin is said to be one of the sweetest instruments, but one has to listen to Mandolin Srinivas to make us realize that the Queen of instruments had met her dominating spouse! All the mellifluousness of the bowing does not measure up to the PLUCKING of a mandolin in the hands of a MANDOLIN SRINIVAS. Bowing is less human as there is no human ‘touch’ at the time of fibrillating the string. In a pluck a plectrum could be used primarily for not damaging or callousing one’s index finger , yet mostly the strings are plucked with fingers and makes one directly deal with the instrument, it is that superiority which has been demonstrated by Mandolin Srinivas.
What a genius! yet when i read the judgement of the Madras High Court:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:26.09.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.Nos.1656 and 1657 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 U.Sree ... Appellant in both CMAs Vs. U.Srinivas ... Respondent in both CMAs Prayer: Appeals filed against the Common Order dated 22.12.2009 made in F.C.O.P.No.568 of 1997 and F.C.O.P.No.805 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. I feel that a genius fell into the hands of a person who couldn't appreciate the attitude or the mental workings of a genius! What a pity! One of the errors which an older person falls into, is that he is going to depart before the younger person does! Yet MANDOLIN SRINIVAS is no more - "WAS" younger to me!