Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Bathsheba’s first son, before being named, had died. The death of the child was because of the crimes of his ‘father’ David, which God attributed to be sinful – rather sin unto death, which even according to the Mosaic law was punishable with death.

The child’s mother was not merely complicit but an active participant. Bathsheba had no option but to inform David of the unwanted pregnancy, as that would show up in time and she may have to use much imagination to not only explain her pregnancy but also name the adulterer. So she informed David, David thereafter tried to legitimise the child to pass it off as Uriah caused pregnancy – though there might have been a full term baby again passed off as a premature one.

David causes not only the mistake of wanting to get Uriah killed in the battle – which is against all norms of brotherhood- but gives instructions in writing to Joab. The carrier of the letter is Uriah Himself. What a heartless blackguard, Adultery had made out of David. A death warrant is delivered for execution through the hands of the person who is to be executed. And Uriah is still unaware of the happenings in the capital, while he was busy besieging the Ammonite frontiers in all sincerity and innocence. The Hittite had married a woman, who was not merely beautiful but a sharp one too.

The wretch refuses to go to his house to share the conjugal bed, who would have otherwise been welcomed to his conjugal bed with another man’s child already there in the same bed! The reason for his refusal is noble, though incredible. David probably for the first time in his life wanted a woman, with whom he had had a relationship, to sleep with his full consent. In fact David was eager that the sojourning nuptials took place, worse still he was disappointed that it didn’t happen.

David’s name would be revealed if Bathsheba’s pregnancy came to light, what were the options before David?

David could have got Bathsheba eliminated, Could have tried to eliminate the child or could have eliminated Uriah. Thank God that David didn’t Report to the first option!

The next question is, even if Uriah died in the battle, How would Bathsheba explain the pregnancy without exposing herself and her seducer/paramour to the charges of adultery. Death of Uriah cannot cause the pregnancy, and tongues would wag. But why didn’t they wag- when the child was born?

I am at loss to understand that. But David had played the role of a defender of Israel for so long that people would have connived at the sacrifice of a Hittite in the altar of David’s adultery! Probably! After all when God promised the land of the Hittites to the Israelites, David along with the other Israelites must have imagined that Hittite women went along with their lands!

That the first child of Bathsheba could not have been Uriah’s must have been a fact. A fact which came to the ears of Nathan the prophet, who confronted David. Thereafter it is through the same Nathan that the commutation of the sentence is conveyed – in which one of the commuted sentence was the most convenient one. Their symbol of adultery would die! Never was a choice of sentence so convenient!

I think David made a great show to impress Bathsheba inside the palace, but was relieved that the child of adultery had died . Even his natural reaction was beautifully romanticised – “i can go to him but he cannot come to me”. I wish David has shown this understanding when Absalom died.

But there the purpose was different, he had to show the people that Absalom’s death was because of the highhandedness and disobedience of Joab, which made David attractive to the people so that he could be welcomed back.

The nameless child was dead. Bathsheba legitimately produces another son and named him Solomon. Solomon’s uterine Elder Brother had exited in haste, all because Prophet Nathan told David: you shall not die, but the child shall.

Now we all know from the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus that there was a possibility of communication between Abraham’s blossom and hell.

So let us for a minute imagine that David, Uriah, Bathsheba, and their first son had identified each other from whichever part of the hell or heaven these four were..

Let me stop here and take a guess as to who might have been where?

Uriah the dutiful cuckold, would have been granted Abraham’s bosom as a compensation for all the ignominy suffered at the hands of David and Bathsheba!
David, though had committed sins into death, as he had regularly sought God’s forgiveness and Grace, as a pardoned sinner might have to be, as he himself had prayed, granted at least a doorkeeper’s place in the Lord’s house.
The innocent child who paid for the crimes and sins of his father and mother has to be in Abraham’s bosom.

That leaves us with Bathsheba, i am yet to discover s single reason for her to gain paradise. But as we know from the parable, they all can see each other, recognise each other, and remember their relationships back in the earth.

Applying that formula, if David had met Uriah, what would have been Uriah’s reaction?

Uriah would have probably said, My Lord why didn’t you order me to go to my home and stay that night. And the second night when you got me drunk you could have me force-lifted and dropped me in my house- but why did you get me killed by the Ammonites?

I wonder what answer David could have made, especially if Bathsheba has been within the earshot of their conversation!

What would have been the conversation between Bathsheba and Uriah?

Probably Bathsheba would have told him: when you were happy even taking orders from David’s servant Joab, why would i not be happy serving the King?

Uriah could have retorted: when you had no qualms to go to the King’s house, why didn’t you come to the Kings courtyard and intimate me that you had built a bond with the King, in my absence, and that you were laden with the consequences thereof in your womb?

Bathsheba’s silence must have been deafening or Bathsheba would have said, in the last count i was David’s wife and I had seen more life with David and you have no right to take up the past which was the last for you, but for me that was just the beginning of Life! See there, he was my son Solomon, whom i made him the king. I was bestowed by God to bear princes and Kings, and i used it. You were merely a person who had to build a house close to the palace so that when i bathed, the King could see me from his palace top. You did your job and departed, when you had to.

David was amused.

The innocent child asked Bathsheba: Mom would i have been made the King had i survived?

Bathsheba said, i don’t know, but had you lived long enough to be there at the time of the death of David, i would have played as sharp as i had played for Solomon. In all probability you would have been the King instead of Solomon. But i should warn you that Joab, though a dedicated servant of your father David, would have played dirty, as i believe he had preserved that letter which David had written to get my then husband Uriah killed.

Peter came and saw them all and told them: I have told you all never to meet up as that would destroy the history which had been propagated. You people have created the biggest scandal in the history of Israel. I don’t want to see any two of you together again.

Shun these meetings of review of history, let history remain the way it has been written.

Get back to your respective mansion and be happy.

Absalom had been killed a few years back, who was, like Solomon, a son of David. Absalom was handsome, son of a princess Maacah, who was one of the wives of David. Yet with all those desirable background and personal capabilities, and with most of the people on his side, in an internal fight with his father, he did not succeed. He did not have an army, he had a band of followers – who gave Absalom numbers but not the strength and fire power.

Absalom was Solomon’s Elder Brother and had failed to wrest the kingdom out of the hands of his father David. Now that David was in a moribund stage, Solomon had anxieties.

The prime example before Solomon, exemplifying failure, was Absalom – a man with better pedigree and capability than Solomon Himself. Solomon had to exceed at least in some of the areas where Absalom had shown inadequacy. Primarily that must have been towards the undying loyalty of the army and its commanders. Capturing power was precursor to all sanctification of that power!

Unfortunately for Solomon, Joab the Chief Commander of David’s army was with Adonijah. The second most important person was the Priest, The then Priest Abiathar had also thrown his lot with Adonijah. So two of the most powerful institutions of the kingdom were with Adonijah.

It is at this point that Adonijah committed the cardinal error of NOT including the services of his mother Haggith, one of the wives of David, to gain access to the moribund King David. Adonijah probably assumed that the institutional heads of the army and the clergy were with him and therefore could afford to declare himself the King – though the King was still alive. Adonijah, had a sense of entitlement, he thought he was the eldest surviving son of David and naturally had a right to become the next King.

But the vacancy had not arisen, and any proclamation by even these institutional heads could be construed as usurpation.

This is where Bathsheba and Solomon move in.

Bathsheba must have had a deep fear, about her future in the absence of David, of being stamped as an adulteress and with the kingship in the hands of Adonijah that power could be quickly used for that purpose.

Joab was the commander to whom David had written the letter to set up Uriah, the Hittite, as if to appear as a victim in the battle. Nobody could have known about the whereabouts of that letter written by David now. If Joab were to produce any proof of that letter, even a forged one, the authority would be with Adonijah to decide the veracity and to sanctify the writer’s identity and the content.

Nathan, The Prophet who brought the linkage of the death of Uriah with the intent of murder by David, and published it to David was now in the camp of Solomon. If Adonijah would become the King, then to direct the Priest Abiathar to declare the sentence of death on an adulteress would have definitely been within the realm of a certainty.

Bathsheba had every reason to be afraid and anxious. It was a question of survival. Either make Solomon the King and ensure that Joab is killed or she and her son Solomon would be.

A predicament, which how a mother could have shared with her son – to think, sets my teeth on edge.

But Bathsheba, to my understanding was a consummate crook. Look at it this way – Uriah refused to go to his house when his commander was toiling in the battlefront, but what prevented Bathsheba, who had earlier been emboldened to go to the palace of King David, to make a visit to the same courtyard to see her husband? Was it the guilt of Adultery – which was forced by David? Or was it a pre existing conspiracy with King David, which prevented her from at least visiting her husband Uriah for enquiring his well being, during his refusal to go to his own home for noble reasons?

David, instead of coaxing Uriah to go to his house to legitimise the pregnancy of Bathsheba could have easily planned to coax Bathsheba into seducing her husband, during his short visit, and legitimise the unwanted pregnancy of Bathsheba! But David was not inclined to encourage any more of the conjugal rights of Uriah over Bathsheba.

Power teaches a man the art of obtaining his objectives without asking. The adulteress Bathsheba did not want to antagonise – rather wanted to be more loyal to the adulterer than her husband. With all this in the back drop, it would be my inescapable conclusion that she was a woman who would do what has to be done, and not indulging in vain time consuming moral assessments.

So in this scenario, when Adonijah jumped the gun thoughtlessly, Bathsheba entered the chamber of the dying King David and claimed that she had gotten a promise from David. Bathsheba, backed by the army commander Benaiah and the prophet Nathan made a declaration from the palace. The palace is the place for such announcements and not the market place.

The people Trust proclamations and not mere announcements. The proclamation that Solomon was appointed with the approval of King David would definitely please the people, the sepoys and the army and the prayerful novices of the seminary make up the backbone of the commanders and priests. They form the mass – that’s how, my friend Solomon got rid of his anxieties and with the help of his shrewd mother became the King of Israel.

That Wisdom was granted to him was a later feature, that should not be linked to Solomon, the son of Bathsheba!

Not for nothing is it mentioned in Proverbs 24 thus:

3 Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established:

4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

But fortunately, there is no mention of what is required for ACQUISITION.

Solomon acquired the Kingdom through the guile and chicanery of Bathsheba.

The best part and the worst part of Power is that, a person with Power can make Assertions without having the burden to prove his assertions in limne.

It is the Challenger who has to disprove that the assertions were erroneous and false. But the person with Power could take his assertions to nuanced meanings, in a language, which only he knows and controls.

But these assertions would finally be settled only through Science – science which empowers sees, the falsity of such assertions and deploys its destructive counter-power to destroy that power which had propped and supported the wilful falsehood.

But no idea, however perverted can be decimated as there would be an element of Truth, which gives it the power to survive dormantly and revive itself in conducive environment.

When the conducive environment arrives, these dormant wilful ideas creep out like snails, with its antennae up, testing the grounds again for spreading its slime. The moment it finds a challenge, these ideas curl up into their shells ruminating on a glorious Past with a Hope for an even more glorious Future.

So it came to pass after the death of King David that Solomon set about eliminating his perceived enemies; and those whom he claimed had been directed by his father David to be brought to the grave ‘peaceless’.

Benaiah had taken the side of Solomon, in the succession battles, which took place while the King was still under the care of Abishaag! Benaiah, Nathan and Bathsheba were on the side of Solomon; whereas Joab, the Chief Commander of David’s forces, and Abiathar, the Priest, were with Adonijah.

The camp of Adonijah is supposed to have proclaimed Adonijah as the King and the news was brought to King David – it is told. So Bathsheba rushes to the side of King David and extracts the reward for the unspecified promise – which David was supposed to have made soon after her Hittite husband was decimated and she was made to join the string of widows, virgins and adulteresses who adorned the conjugal bed of David- to make her son Solomon the King of Israel.

The moribund David would not have been in any position to have given advice to Solomon to decimate Joab.

The problem was the Letter. A letter has been written by David and sent through a courier in which David has written that Uriah, the Hittite, has to be dispatched to the hottest part of the battle and left supportless, so that Uriah might die. Uriah was a mini commander himself and was named as one among the Thirty Valiant men of the army of David. This letter had reached the hands of Joab and Joab was the intended recipient of that letter too.

After years, David had forgotten about that letter, but Bathsheba wouldn’t. How could she? Having committed adultery with David, and having become pregnant with David’s love child, David saw no other way but to get Uriah out of his way and legitimise his relationship with Bathsheba. Now, after more than the decades, the whereabouts of the letter written by David was not traceable.

Joab’s protests that he had destroyed the letter of David, still left a possibility of Joab keeping the letter for use against Bathsheba, in a future date. That would be a great blot on the Queen Mother.

So how to sort this issue? The writer of the letter was no more. The deed has been committed, the messenger did not know the contents of the letter. The recipient of the letter says that it has been destroyed. What would happen if Joab were to be in possession of the letter and release it and thereby denigrate, the manufactured history of Bathsheba?

Moreover, Joab had moved over to the opposite camp and cannot be counted to conceal such damning matters to favour Solomon or his mother.

So Solomon orders that Joab be brought to him, one last time to hand over that letter.

Joab naturally couldn’t produce that letter, but Solomon and Bathsheba were very clear, the letter or the Life off Joab.

When the efforts to retrieve the letter were fruitless, Solomon accuses Joab for all the bloodletting that Joab had done for his own reasons. Solomon gives the reasons as to why his father David wanted Joab to be decimated.

The relevant verses are as follows:

I Kings Chapter 2:

5 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.

6 Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.


When Joab heard that, Joab sarcastically asked Solomon: Did not King David tell you that my hoary head should not come to the grave in peace because i killed Absalom, though the king had commanded me to be kind to the lad Absalom?

Oh, said Solomon, my father King David didn’t instruct me on that!

Said Joab, “Naturally, had Absalom been alive, you would never have been in the reckoning at all. Queen Maacah would have ensured that you and your mother had ended your days much before this day!”

Solomon composed himself and said: Where is the letter?

Joab answered: Which letter?

Whereupon King Solomon told Benaiah, Would you suffer such effrontery by an old dog to his sovereign?

No sooner had those words proceeded out of the lips of King Solomon, than Benaiah fell on Joab and Joab died.

But that’s not the way the history is written – after all the winner writes history (knock knock Winston)

Power has pretexts, it looks for Justification, however tenuous those pretexts may be. Thankfully Solomon Ruled for another Four decades, so those early histories stayed to survive till date.

Strange as it may seem but true, that the palace had for its guard a few weak Pomeranians with even fewer Dobermans to support those Pomeranians.

The Dobermans had been fascinated by the fluffy white coat of the Pomeranians and had put themselves at the service of their master, who interacted with the Dobermans only through the Pomeranians. The Pomeranians were the Lapdogs but the Dobermans were guard dogs. Therefore the Pomeranians were used as a go between the Royalty, which occupied the inner sanctum of the palace, and the Dobermans.

These Dobermans were true to their salt but not true to their nature, they had aligned with the Pomeranians to serve the interests of the Royalty through these fluffy white coated Pomeranians.

The master was pleased with the arrangement as the Dobermans could guard their campus like any guard dog, but they don’t have to be fed or treated as a Doberman, as they had been emasculated of their pugnacity and belligerence by the suaveness of the Pomeranians.

The Dobermans had neither been fed with proteins, which they were used to, nor were they allowed to interfere in any disputes that arose among the Pomeranians. Even in the fights that arose among the Dobermans the arbitrators were the Pomeranians. Thus these Pomeranians has lost their muscle and their power of judgement.

The prospects of food security had led these Dobermans to serve not only the docile and cunning Pomeranians, but had lost their connectivity with their genes which has been isolated and purified by the Germans over a period of Time. Alas! The Dobermans have no master whose call they heed, but listen to the intermediary Pomeranians and do their bidding and wag their tail-less behinds.

The milk and other vegetarian foods consumed over a period of time have ensured that these Dobermans secrete less acids in their gastric juices and have become a breed, that has the coat of a Doberman, but the cunning and docile brains of the Pomeranians.

The Pomeranians, in their exclusive enclaves, gloat over the transformation that they had brought about in the mordant Dobermans and how these few Dobermans are used in keeping away the true Dobermans which roam the streets around the villages, towns and cities of their country.

The true blue Dobermans are watching the Dobermans which have sold their birthright like Esau, to the cunning and Jacobean Pomeranians, though hirsute!

The Greeks have entered the Trojan horse, it is to be seen if the the horse would be dragged into the city and left for plunder and pillage by the foolish Trojans. Beware the gifts of the Greek.

We have all noticed that some Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly had switched over loyalties to other parties or other political faiths, while they still continue to hold on to the primary membership of the party through which they had got themselves elected.

Funnier still is the culture of smaller parties in certain States (their parents parties being major parties in other states) merging themselves with another major party in the State and bolstering the numbers of the elected representatives of the party in which that smaller party merged in the Assembly.

The second is funny as the provisions of the Anti Defection Law would not have any impact on this merger, as any merger would be seen as not violating the provisions of the X Schedule of the Constitution of India in view of the following provisions in the X Schedule.

Paragraph 4:

2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the merger of the original political party of a member of a House shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.

So when MPs and MLAs move over to other parties or faiths, during the life of a legislature, without resigning or vacating their seats, they hide under various underground tunnels specially constructed for them by the expensive imaginative lawyers to escape from the clutches of the provisions of the Anti Defection laws and still retain their seats.

In effect the electorate doesn’t know for sure whether their representative represents the manifesto, with which the successful MP or MLA sought their votes, or has he moved on.

This according to me is political Adultery. As the benefits of the earlier marriage subsist, the person is having a good time with the poaching parties, which promise probably better perks and pelf, in the uncertain future.

Political fornication is when such an arrangement is resorted to without the person being an MP or an MLA. The enticing party can entertain hopes of marriage and get candidates into their philosophy or fold, but once the electorate has chosen a candidate the sanctity is like that of a marriage. Any deviation from the stamp of the electorate ought to be only with the consent of the electorate- but like Adultery, the hidden is more important than the apparent.

I am reminded of the anecdote relating to Winston Churchill after he lost the General Elections as a Conservative to the Liberal Attlee in 1945.

Since Churchill was an avowed apostles of the Empire, despite his loss at the hustings (personally he won the Woodford constituency but the Tories lost), the then king George VI offered Winston the highest civilian British award THE ORDER OF THE GARTER. But Winston is said to have replied: When the people of Britain had given him the ORDER OF THE BOOT, how could he accept the GARTER.

But in India where the numbers of the electorate is humongous and the seats are even fewer than the British Parliament, one should see the sex ratio as skewed and the sanctity of marriages are not possible to be maintained and the only adjustment is through Political Adultery.

I am more interested in the family Courts which are going to adjudicate the issues which are the offshoot of such Political Adultery.

‘Don’t talk ill of the dead’ has become a cliche that it has lost all sense. The depth of this statement could be understood only when dragged through situations in life.

When we talk ill of the dead, we are sitting on judgement on what the previous generations had done, from the comfort of the present, which itself has been built on the labour, resources and efforts of the preceding generations.

Let us leave the moral right and concentrate as to whether we could have done differently had we been the persons in charge in that point of the past, which we have dared to judge.

In India, since 1947 we have had native Indians Rule us, and from 1950 onwards, rather 1952 onwards, we have had the Parliament to make laws relating to List 1 of the Seventh Schedule and in some cases the List 3 also. Therefore, the electorate then were our forefathers who had delegated the job to the then Members of Parliament, which formed the government and ran the policies relating to the executive action and legislative actions. Now that we have a Parliament and we have elected our Legislators, have they performed better than their predecessors? Only history could tell, when we get the benefit of hindsight to see the graph in the cold settings of historical assessment. But are we any the better? Are we Mentally racing towards a nostalgic past or are we racing towards a hopeful future? If the answer is the former, we are NOT doing great. It simply means we are endeavouring to build a reminiscent Past in our Future. A repeat rather a relapse to a supposed Past, in which we never participated but merely imagined in parts by the imaginative and purveyed as a fact to the gullible present day population. Let us get out of this. Let us build a future – a Future in the future with the yardstick of health for all, happiness for all, Work for all, Rights for all based on a fair Order of the society- not merely tolerant and creepingly acquisitive, but giving space and holding on to one’s own space with the dignity of institutionalised Rights and God given Liberties. 

Are we competent to judge the then fledgling country run by those who had been mandated to run the country? Who gave us the right to question them?

One of the cardinal principles in law making is: No legislative laws binding the succeeding legislative bodies could be enacted by taking away the sovereign powers of any succeeding Legislature. Which means that the laws made by any preceding legislature could be repealed and new law enacted by amending, abrogating or even  leaving unregulated that subject. 

The courtesy that we owe to our preceding legislatures and the persons who ran the government then, is not merely a courtesy but respect to the Sovereign power the Constitution vested then with. The same constitution has vested the present legislatures with similar sovereign powers. It is that reciprocity which is to be appreciated. The will of the people then, was fulfilled through that legislature then, and the present will is to be fulfilled NOW by the present legislature.

However, academically we could speculate as to whether a decision taken then, had it been different, would it have resulted in better results so that such mistakes could be avoided.

But such speculation by a Legislator or even the electorate, to malign our forebears, is the false confidence of a Bradford millionaire who has forgotten the days of his penury, and had forgotten that he, like what Newton said, was merely sitting on the shoulders of a giant past. That indelible Past has given so much that the persons who dare to talk contumely should show understanding and modesty and be humbled that there is order established, institutions raised and fostered, the supremacy of the Legislatures have been left intact – unlike some of our neighbours.

Another point is, the troubles that we face today is not any more difficult than the troubles faced by our forefathers. That’s what covid 19 has made this generation realise.

We are no less afraid than those who dreaded the bubonic plague, the Great Depression or even the World wars. The GE Engines and Rolls Royce engines fitted to the aircrafts are all rusting; the wet leases and dry leases are languishing without returns; EMIs are being defaulted and force majeure clauses are being contemplated for enforcement. We stand deflated – the future does not something to be built on, but to be repaired and reconstructed. It is no more growth from where we were before covid, but rebuilding our economy, institutions and the general well- being of the people to those pre-Covid levels. Thriving has made way for mere Survival.

A new world Order is being born, in which Humility, compassion and fairness are not the ingredients in our sporadic personal interactions with other humans but institutions will have to be built to be humble, compassionate and fair to every human being similarly placed. That is the norm to be desired and worked towards. Episodic goodness is out and institutionalised goodness is to be brought in without whittling the Rights and Liberties of individuals. 

Let us stop this business of writing false histories through our WhatsApp messages without knowing the liabilities under which our forefathers strained. In fact it is against the general nature of goodness of Indians to talk ill of the Dead – definitely not because they are not there to defend themselves but because we just do not know what they went through to get us here – this far.

Once a mounting Eagle sighted a moulting Eagle perched on the crag of a rocky mountain top.

The Eagle on its wings asked the moulting one why he was idling; and was it not a sunny day to mount the thermals, and sight those rodents and rabbits from above and make a meal of them by swooping down with delight?

Said the moulting Eagle: Days of yore were spent thoughtlessly, never mindful of these moulting days, which come to pass to all eagles. I asked the same to those moulting ones then.

They replied in silence, holding dear to those memories of their mounting days.

Hope is what I draw from those eagles which soared again; but on the other side close-by lies Despair, when i remember the carcasses of some of those moulting flightless eagles, done in by the cougars then.

Hoping still, but Despair and Fear is not too far either.

Times have to be experienced, but memories keep us grounded and help us keep our mouth shut when we sight those in misery.

Can there be a more ridiculous statement than this in a democracy?

The constitution of India split up powers – both Legislative and Executive into the Lists. List 1,2 & 3.

Any person leading a legislature can at best make laws and get them implemented within those prescribed powers only. That’s all that is granted to him. But i saw a Chief Minister make the above statement.

This statement is the mindset of persons who are there merely to make laws and implement them. But their language is that of Feudal Lords.

‘My people’ – are these persons ruling by divine right?

Whose people are these so called ’my people’?

They are the electors and he is an elected representative. By this statement the fellow makes it seem as if he is outside the ambit of ‘My People’. He comes with an expiry date to his legislatorship and he seems to have forgotten that.

Covid is unfortunate, all efforts are being made within the permissible limits with the available resources. Each individual is battling his own battle, and the person who has been elected and chosen by his party representatives, to head the executive branch of the Government, cannot talk like Moses leading his people from the clutches of Pharaoh under a Divine Right.

When i hear these kind of feudal sentiments, my blood boils. When they talk these kind of words they think that they are appeasing the public- they are not. They are merely reinforcing that the electors are merely slaves to those Feudal Lords.

Beware these patronising statements which subliminally belittle the individual and the collective choices made by them for a very limited purpose.

I have to say LET MY PEOPLE GO.

Can there be anything more bizarre?

There was a time when, in the seventies and beginning of eighties those who had been anywhere near the criminal courts could see plenty of alleged criminals seen in handcuffs. In fact each policeman used to have a pair of handcuffs tagged to his leathern belt. That was the norm then.

If one had been associated with the prisons then, the entrance of those prisons would be crowded with handcuffed prisoners in the morning as a police van would be waiting to ferry the remand prisoners to courts, as no judicial remand could be continued beyond 14/15 days without production before the appropriate magistrate.

Nobody thought then that a criminal being handcuffed was odd, till the Honourable Supreme court came up with orders that remand prisoners should not be handcuffed.

One way we look at it, before being convicted, a person needn’t have to go thru the public ignominy of having to be handcuffed and paraded, on the other hand the number of constables required to produce them were very few if the prisoners were too be handcuffed. The courts lent on the side of the unproved charges being the basis of the ignominy and ordered that handcuffing should be an exception than a rule.

In the above case of Lawrence Bishnoi, the bizarre thing is that his lawyer has filed a petition in a court requesting that he be hand cuffed during transit to courts to ensure that the police wouldn’t have the excuse that he attempted to flee and the police either too prevent his escape or in self-defence shot him.

I wonder if the world had turned upside down! The dignity brought to the remanded prisoners was not an easy one, it was hard fought and many lawyer-days were lost in securing that dignity of presumption of innocence.

But when Life itself is in question, a suspect wants to be handcuffed so that the police wouldn’t have the fig leaf of self defence or attempted escape. In the context of Vikas Dubey’s encounter every suspect, like each one of us wanting to avoid the covid infection, wants to avoid getting into the irretrievable state of death.

The Darwinian principle of survival has trumped the concept of THRIVING. But I don’t discount those who look for muddy waters to do their fishing ; though i surely believe that there would be a select Lucky few who not only would proceed on the premise that covid would not hurt them but also believe that this is the time to thrive whether the waters are muddied or not, or are even daring to muddy the waters to fish.

Every idea has its time and when it has come, none can stop the operation of that Idea. A gangster begging to be handcuffed might be a strategy, but there can be counter strategies of the police too – claiming that the prisoner wanted too be de-handcuffed so that he could attend to the call of nature and when they obliged, the gangster snatched the weapon from the holster and attempted to hurt the police – why not?

After all these years of Thamizh movie watching, it isn’t difficult too imagine this.


Once I happened to ask Zorba what was the difference between these two parties.

Zorba’s prolonged silence made me think that Zorba either didn’t know the difference or that he couldn’t find the right words to explain the difference.

Instead of answering me straight, Zorba asked another question: What is the difference between a Cavalryman and a Dragoon?

I said, I know vaguely the meaning of a Cavalryman – a combatant on a horse, fighting for his country or a cause.

In fact the word Dragoon seemed like a spelling mistake with an extra ‘o’ to a dragon.

Zorba said: There is a unifying factor – both use horses and mount those horses. But the unity ends there.

I was all the more curious to know the functions of a dragoon – my impatience to acquire that piece of knowledge made Zorba give a cynical smile.

Zorba said, if only had you understood the function of each of the components in relation to the task accomplished, you would be able to understand the Purpose of those components.

Let us take the horse, which is common to both a cavalryman as well as a dragoon. The fortunes of a cavalryman is closely bound up with the fortunes of the horse. There has to be a synergy between the horseman of a cavalry and his horse. They both have to fight together. The cavalryman has to turn the horse in a battlefield and manoeuvre it in such a way as to not merely protect the horse but to generate an advantageous position so as to lance an opponent or use his sword with optimal proximity with his target.

I agreed, but asked Zorba: but how is a dragoon any different?

Zorba said: For a dragoon a horse is just a means to reach the battlefield. His relationship with the horse is neither durable nor is the horse obedient and perceptive enough to wheel or turn or stall or amble or trot at the call of the dragoon. The dragoon uses the horse to reach the theatre of war, thereupon the horse and the dragoon are separated. The horseman is no more an horseman but an infantryman, fighting his enemies on his own skills, as a unit with the other dragoon who have dismounted their horses. Their relationship with the horse is contractual and not abiding.

If Alexander the Great named a city after Bucephalus, his horse, it was a homage paid by that great warrior statesman to the synchronicity of purpose achieved during the war with his horse Bucephalus and NOT BEFORE OR AFTER THE WAR.

A dragoon uses his horse and feeds it enough to carry the dragoon from one theatre to another theatre and the horse is never called upon to think upon the weal of his rider. In its free time it chews its provender and gallops to the next peg near the next theatre to be tethered for the horseman to become an infantryman and fight his battles and get back to his horse, if alive. If he dies or is injured another infantryman is recruited and the horse would do its duty within its limited remit with faithfulness. A dragoon’s horse has no loyalty or care as to who was on his back, he just needs his provender and rest. These dragoon horses are neither protected nor caparisoned after the battles are won. At best these dragoon could be called mounted infantrymen.

I asked Zorba, if those were the differences, which one is a Cavalryman and which one is a Dragoon?

Zorba said: I don’t know, but the horse stands for the Dravidian ideology. Find out for yourself and let me know.

The title is the most approximate transcription into English, the state of Tamil Nadu, as pronounced in Thamizh.

I don’t know if we are becoming intolerant or assertive or cussed enough to make anyone who has to use Thamizh language to learn the sounds of Thamizh. There is now no margin for the disabilities imposed by the sounds found in their mother tongues. It is plain – learn the sounds of my language and if you don’t, we will accuse you of inaccuracies in pronunciation.

Well these are not new techniques which are being adopted, in the guise that we are merely transcribing into English the way places were being traditionally pronounced in Thamizh, whereas it has many wilful collateral functions.

Most National Schemes, financed by the 11% of the resources obtained through taxes from the state of Tamil Nadu, have been named in Hindi sounds which are difficult for a native Thamizhan to pronounce. If a Thamizhan is asked to pronounce ‘Jan Dhan’ bank account, it would be a shibboleth of the highest order for him because a Thamizhan is not familiar with the aspirated and glottalised sounds of Hindi. But yet if he wants to avail of the facility of the bank account, with all his cultural disability of not having been familiar with such glottalised aspirated sounds, he better make efforts to approximate to it.

The two official languages formula is no more in practice. ‘Jan Dhan’ is no more translated into English and given a decent English name, instead, the Hindi names are transcribed into the English alphabet.

A sort of UNIFICATION is in place.

Secondly, the sounds do not allow DIFFERENTIATION- a well heeled person cannot walk into the bank and spout his requirements using the English language, instead he has to ‘climb down’ to the sounds of the local language – call it official language of the Union or regional languages of the states.

In the Bible, there is a twin tribe called Ephraim & Manasseh but within the tribe were people from the hills of Gilead. The Gileadites got the aspirated glottal sounds integrated into their language and could pronounce SHIBBOLETH with a ‘sha’ whereas the Ephraimites couldn’t get the sound and would call it ‘sa’. Once during the initial days of a Judge of Israel called Jephthah, there arose a skirmish between these two tribes and the ‘runaway’ Gileadites. However the fortunes of the Gileadites had been on an upswing with their victory over Ammonites. In fact the Ephraimites were furious with the Gileadites that the Gileadites had not invited the Ephraimites for the battle against their common enemy, the Ammonites. The Gileadites under the leadership of Jephthah had squarely won the battle on his own, and of course with the help of Jehovah. But the ‘entitled’ elder brother Ephraim was not able to digest the fact that their marginalised brethren did not share the victory with their elder brother Ephraim by at least inviting them for the chase after the gory part of the battle was over.

Similar thing happened when Gideon, a Manassehite, defeated the Midianites leaving out the more powerful bother tribe of Ephraim. But Gideon was a diplomat, so in victory he was humble and said something which is worth the quote: “Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?”

This statement of Gideon means that even the wine made out of the gleaning (the deliberate left over grapes after harvesting, which are meant for the indigent who follow the harvesters & reapers) of the grapes of Ephraim were better than the best wine made out of the best quality of grapes from Abiezer, a place within the tribe of Manasseh and probably the best vintage of Manasseh came from there!

Gideon, had earlier sent for the tribe of Ephraim, while the chase of the Midianites were on and ensured that the Ephraimites also got some of the boasting Rights.

But our hero Jephthah was not raised in the way Gideon was. Gideon had the unstinted support of his father Joash, even when Gideon indulged in a few reckless action. But Jephthah’s siblings had disowned Jephthah citing that his mother was a harlot. So there is no comparison in their upbringing and consequently their attitudes.

Jephthah, took control of a fiord near Jordan, which probably was the pass through which the Ephraimites had to pass to reach their territory. There he put all the people to test: PRONOUNCE SHIBBOLETH, and the Ephraimites could pronounce it only as SIBBOLETH- thereby revealing that they were Ephraimites. So Jephthah ordered such Ephraimites to be put to death and in one day over 42,000 Ephraimites had been killed.

Come to think of it the distinguishing feature was merely a set of sounds. And that also between close half brothers!

Therefore when mindlessly, everyone started enforcing his entitlement – I wouldn’t consult with my Southern brethren before naming some of the Bank schemes – predominantly contributed by a set of states with less population – the Regional satraps also stoke similar entitlements within their competence.

Naming a place within a state is entirely in the domain of the State’s powers. Therefore the following Gazette Notification had been issued by the Government of Tamilnadu. Thankfully, the State legislature has not proposed to transcribe Tamilnadu as Thamizh Naadu! That would more or less transcribe the Thamizh sounds accurately. But changing the name of a State would not be within the legislative competence of the State itself.

As is stated in the Notification, the object of this Order is to transcribe faithfully the sounds of the Thamizh names into the English alphabet. Is it so? Let us examine that.

Here is a set of examples as excerpted by a Thamizh media house:

One error apparent is that while transcribing the letter , when ‘’ appears in the middle of the word, the sound becomes ‘dha’ instead of ‘tha’. For example, in the second entry above, instead of Vetharanyam the transcription should have been Vedharanyam; likewise Mathurai at entry number 4, should have been transcribed as Madhurai. Therefore, the stated objective doesn’t seem to have been achieved by such transcription.

But what has been achieved?

Many effects, not stated as Objectives, have been achieved.

Firstly, there would be no two names to the same locality. Egmore would not be Egmore in English and Ezhumboor in Thamizh. In English as well as in any other language the place has to be signified as Ezhumboor only. So in due course the word Egmore would stand eliminated and no pretence of English spouting populace would have a style advantage.

Secondly, the places have been purged of English and Sanskritised sounds. There are no glottal aspirates in Thamizh language, therefore those borrowed letters in vogue and kept alive by a minuscule, would fall into disuse. Those letters would be available only in the Tamil translations of the Bible and some other religious hymns. Bye bye to these letters which had been borrowed but had never been taught in the schools in Thamizh:

, , , , க்ஷ and ஶ்ரீ.

There were places called Srirangam, Srivilliputhur, Srivaikundam etc where the last letter was used. This was thamizhaised into ‘Thiru’ and these places became Thirurangam, Thiriviliputhur and Thiruvaikundam. So in the ongoing process of purging the Thamizh language of its anglicised and sanskritised elements, the latest changes should be seen as the next goal achieved.

There have been a lot of talk as to why Tamil Nadu alone should take these steps? The answer is simple, the erstwhile Madras State which was renamed Tamil Nadu, is a RESIDUAL STATE and not a state which was formed on the basis of an avowed linguistic ideology. The Malayalam speaking areas of the Malabar was ceded to Kerala; Andhra was carved out and places like Bangalore was ceded to the then Mysore state, whereas Tamil Nadu consisted of those areas of the Madras state with no linguistic foundation as a State. Thus this Residual state became the home of those Malayalees, Telugu speaking people and Kanadigas who did not get back to those states formed on linguistic basis.

However, of late politicians like Seeman and his cohorts have been insisting that the state of Tamil Nadu has to be ruled only by a Thamizhan and no non Thamizhan should be allowed to rule Tamil Nadu. As a measure to take the wind out of the sails of people like Seeman, these measures are steps by the present party in power.

But academically speaking, why does the Thamizh cognoscenti want purity of Thamizh? The answer to my mind is that there is a great feeling by a large section of my countrymen, who are ignorant of two important Lists within Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, where the List 2 enumerates the areas/subject wise competence of the States Legislatures to make laws and implementation of the same. These are exclusive subjects for the States. When India was made a Republic, it had 66 entries which have been whittled down to 61. Which means the States’ legislative and executive competence have been reduced to that extent. Whether it is moved to List 1 or List 3 the effect is the same and the Parliament gains primacy in making laws on that subject, whereby the weightage of determination of an issue gets reduced to 39/543 MPs instead of 233 out of 234 MLAsin respect of Tamil Nadu. So when it would be advantageous for a clump of other states, whether from the North, or South or East or West, such States could gang up and get a legislation passed in the Parliament to the detriment of a State like Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the state leaders of the Social Justice Party or DMK

party, focussed and ensured that the areas of interest of Tamil Nadu are protected. This mentality of protectionism is not altogether bad, as statistics shows that the contribution of Tamil Nadu to the national revenues under the Central Taxes are twice that of the population percentage and the central allocation is less than the percentage of the population of the state of Tamil Nadu. This is an eyesore to many. Further, Tamil Nadu is high on social equality, which no state has achieved.

The main source of such thoughts is the language.

And this language Thamizh, is no dead language in the grips of some ‘erudite’ grammarians, it is linked to the life, living and the livelihood of people who speak Thamizh. A vibrant language, precise and well calibrated to accommodate mathematical precision into it.

This purging is a continual process, some were carried out by genuine ideologues like C N Annadurai, or M Karunanidhi; and some carried out by leaders like MGR or Jayalalitha because of the popular sentiment primarily set off by those idealogues.

But in the context of the Union of States, Thamizh stands out as a self thinking, productive and a self monitoring cultural software which drives Tamil Nadu.

While still at Sunday School, the Book of Esther from the Bible, was centred around the storyline that Esther had been elevated to the Queenship of King Ahasuerus by God, in anticipation of the impending troubled times to be raised by Haman against the Jews. And the efficient manoeuvrings of Esther and turning of the tables against Haman.

This storyline was undisturbed till I reached college and met a classmate who told me: If the Jews were interested in saving their own lives and properties, where was the need for the Jews to kill 75,000 persons in the Empire of Ahasuerus, whom the Jews perceived to be their enemies and a further 810 in the Citadel of Sushan? Therefore he concluded that it was not salvation that the Jews were seeking from the unalterable decree, wangled by Haman from the King Ahasuerus, but the Jews with the aid of their new found influence through Esther from the King that the Jews exploited to their benefit by annihilating, probably their business rivals and probably the lenders who had lent money to the Jews inside and outside the Citadel of Sushan.

The line of reasoning forwarded had a ring of truth to it, but I couldn’t rebut it on facts. Rather my sense of Liberty had not matured enough then to gently add facts into the gaps of the story, as he had inserted with unobtrusive elan.

But had I read the Book of Esther a little carefully, with a lot of reading of the Histories of Herodotus in the background, I’d probably have found out the reason as to why the Jews had killed 76,310 of their enemies on that day – in which according to the first decree they should have been the victims.

The answer is that Haman’s indignation towards Mordecai was NOT SEEN by Haman as one between him and the individual Mordecai. This is reflected in the third chapter where Haman decided to not just eliminate the ‘arrogant’ individual Mordecai, who refused to wish Haman in deference to Haman’s higher entitlement in the table of precedence, but Haman wanted to kill Mordecai’s people. In furtherance of his plans Haman had arranged for 10,000 talents of silver to the treasury of King Ahasuerus.

The question is whose silver was that? Why were the Jews as a people hated in the realm of Ahasuerus?

Haman had been promoted to the position of Chief among the Princes almost 7 years after Ahasuerus became the King. And the decree was passed in the 12 th year of the reign of Ahasuerus, which means that it happened almost five years after Esther had become the queen and likewise Haman had also been elevated to the position around the same time.

Esther would have also stabilised her position and would have had enough information of the system.

If we remember, Mordecai had warned Esther NOT TO TELL ANYONE THAT SHE WAS A JEWESS.

Why did Mordecai tell her to be cagey about her stock? Was it because he was apprehensive of the fact that the Jews were those enslaved by the Babylonians and somewhat redeemed only after the arrival of the Persian/Medes? And hence wanted to avoid the stigma of an enslaved lot? I guess not.

If we read Ezra, Cyrus, the grandfather of Ahasuerus, from his mother’s side, had decreed for restoration of the Temple at Jerusalem at least forty years before this event took place. Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that Jews had by then found favour during the intervening reign of the Persian king Darius before Ahasuerus became king in his stead.

The Jews must have become wealthy, as lending money on usury was not prohibited by their law to people other than their brother Jews! But a wealthy moneylender attracts negativity more than any other professional – as the perception was that Jews could recover their interest and their capital with sternness and efficiency – which is a nightmare to any wayward borrower.

I have reason to believe that Haman must have had a private deal with all those people who had borrowed monies from the Jews and conspired with such borrowers and enriched himself by granting a mechanism to write off their debts to the Jews en bloc.

That is how Haman got his 10000 talents of silver – not a mean sum considering the fact that Herodotus says that some of the vassal states were assessed to only 10,000 talents of silver.

Haman had made a devious plan to get rid of all the Jews who had lent amounts to others by casting Pur, which returned the 13 th day of the twelfth month.

It was these rebellious borrowers who were probably attacked and killed by the Jews as they had conspired and paid huge sum in silver to Haman.

I feel that it was truly a salvation for the Jews to recover their outstanding capital lent to others in the realm of Ahasuerus. This, I believe that Purim is not a pretext but a true story of salvation through self help. No wonder the word God doesn’t appear in the Book of Esther.

This was a dynasty which was set up by Ghiyassudin Thuglaq and the second ruler in the dynasty was Mohammed Bin Thuglaq.

When the second king in the dynasty ruled the predominant part of India, then in the 14 th century, he undertook a study tour of India- the territories in the present day India which had accepted his suzerainty.

After going through his study tour, this Thuglaq arrived at one of the self discovered principles which he cogitated upon.

During his visits to the towns and villages in India, he noticed that the cows were fed well with cotton seeds and oil-extracted cakes for the milk that was taken out of the cows. Many families made a living out of it. But he also noticed that there were bulls, which had not been made into oxen which were roaming the streets of the villages and towns and were also having a good life though apparently, they had not contributed to the economy of the country. So this Thuglaq, the second in this dynasty, called Mohammed Bin Thuglaq came to a conclusion that these bulls which were roaming around unmolested had to be not just marginalised but has to be decimated.

When Thuglaq voiced his opinion in this matter, he was informed by his courtiers that these bulls were all temple bulls and were gifted by their owners and people revered them and gave it bananas and other eatables from time to time, as such this ‘idea’ of decimating those bulls were undesirable.

It was further informed that these bulls were let loose as nobody wanted to take up the burden of feeding these unproductive bulls. The Second Thuglaq thought, why privilege these bulls when the oxen which have not only gone through the process of painful gelding and also involved in human affairs as draught animals on a day to day basis.

But there were a resentful lot of advisors to this Second Thuglaq who encouraged him to fulfil his resolution and pass a firman that in a given day, all the bulls roaming in the streets are to be impounded and killed and their carcasses disposed of as manure to the fields.

The firman was issued and on a given day all the bulls in India were impounded and slaughtered and disposed of as commanded.

Mohammed Bin Thuglaq was very happy that there was no cattle which was feeding in his country which did not do any apparent work.

The second Thuglaq went back to Delhi, as he had not thought of shifting his capital to Daulatabad by then.

Happily he went to his harem and was sporting with the women in his harem, when not long after the execution of his firman, he heard a lot of mooing by cows in the vicinity. He quickly called his vizier and asked for the reason for such incessant mooing.

The Grand vizier returned after verifying and told the Sultan: My Matchless Sultan, the cows have come to heat and there are no bulls left in the country to cover them. Hence this incessant mooing.

The Sultan asked the Grand Vizier: why did you not tell me that when I ordered all the bulls to be executed?

The Grand vizier replied: My matchless Sultan, you convinced us that these bulls have been having a good time without contributing to the economy of the country. As you are more pleased with people who are aligned with your ideas, none ever thought of weighing the pros and cons of those decisions. Hence our minds never went that far. In fact in our Court we do not have a Devil’s Advocate – a person who views the decisions from the other point of view, as you had consistently eliminated those voices of restraint as voices of dissent.

The Sultan was stunned, he said to himself even though my ideas were for the good of the Nation, why should such things happen?

He called his scribes and told them to proclaim that bulls from Europe – the fresians and the Belgian breeds had been ordered to be imported so that there would be two bulls of such breed in every village and maintained at the cost of the Delhi Sultanate.

The people read the proclamation and were exhilarated at the far reaching acumen of the Mohammed Bin Thuglaq, the Second in the Thuglaq dynasty. The people were very happy and they were waiting for those Fresian, Belgian and other European bulls to arrive. Meanwhile, his scribes were told to let loose another idea that these bulls which sire would bring about calves, which when they become cows ( if they became one) would give them a triple yield of milk. The Sultan called those dead bulls as nondescript bulls. The people got accustomed to the mooing of the cows with a fervent hope that the Fresian and Belgian bulls would arrive anytime.

The effect was that the cows went barren and the prices of milk shot up, till the male calves became bulls by the next three years and got into the field of its forebear bulls- The nondescript bulls.

Still the Sultan never consulted those voices of restraint and still called them the voices of dissent.

The rest of the history as to how the Second Sultan of the Thuglaq dynasty shifted his capital to Daulatabad; how he made copper coins out of the silver coins are well known.

What is the true meaning of this phrase from the Bible and how could it be edifyingly interpreted in consonance with the Scriptures?

Matt 12:20

20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

John 8:15 & 16

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Judgement is determination of the superiority of a claim over another, a position over another, the intrinsic value over another, a right over another right, a person over another, or for that matter any situation over another. A judgement is by a Peer. Jesus by having served the Will of the Father in the flesh and having succeeded in the Flesh as Jesus, had become the only one to be called a Peer to human beings yet the Son of God from the beginning.

God the Father, when He judged man, He had gone by the compliance of the Commandments and judgement was bound to follow, unless a Righteous man were to intercede on behalf of the delinquent or the people themselves repented upon self-contrition or upon being preached to.

In the Old Testament, there were instances where God sent his angels to intimate Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; had there been those number of righteous souls as Abraham thought, probably the cities would have been spared. The people of Nineveh were spared when they repented. When Hezekiah was intimated of his imminent death, his prayers for extension of his life was granted even before Isaiah could leave the palace gates of the King Hezekiah. When King Solomon sacrificed to elicit the attention of God, God appears and grants Solomon his request and more. When Gideon was threshing clandestinely keeping his activity from the eyes of the Midianites, an angel is sent to call him a mighty man of valour. Therefore God the Father was attracted by DEVOTION TO HIM; IMPORTUNATE PLAINTS TO HIM; REPENTANCE & CONTRITION OF HEART. Essentially Man had to connect to God.

This changes with the advent of Jesus. God connects to man.

But God cannot connect from the heavens, He has to subject Himself to the liabilities and the constraints of human living. The curse that entered into the world had to be gone through, yet without being tainted by the evil. A person of perfection was required to both measure up and intercede with God the Father, who had been through the plight of man in those cursed circumstances and yet had remained untainted and DONE THE WILL OF THE FATHER. Only such a person would be worthy to break that curse through His intercession.

Jesus’ Life and teachings are an example on his perfection. A doubting Thomas would not have stayed with a person of dubious dealings; a greedy Judas would not have committed suicide had Jesus not been up to the reputation he was ascribed with. Thomas and Judas were there representing our scepticism and our suicidal provocations. The former was told: Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed and thereby we are all Blessed. Jesus who had said that one has to be pure in heart to see God, carves out a large exception to those who believe in Him (Matt 5:8). Belief takes the place of the Purity in Heart.

Jesus by having intimated Himself with the curse of man and yer having overcome Life successfully, was made the Judge of mankind.

So Jesus judges and it does not remain as a record in the books of the Father, but sends human beings to the Victory podium.

The verse according to me means that though we as human beings might have reached the end of all our capabilities, and become broken and therefore useless, or have lost our fire and enveloped with ashes which are bound to smother the embers of our lives, Jesus resuscitates us and send us to the Podium of Victory, just because we put our complete FAITH in Him.

That I think is sending Judgement to Victory.

Whether we like it or not, certain experiences which are either exceptional or derived through a deeper understanding CANNOT BE CONVEYED through words.

Many years back I’d concocted a fable to prove that point and how words are poor conveyors of deeper Truths. The following link would lead to that fable of mine.

Now that we as human beings are globally under the threat of the Covid 19 virus; and also aware that the problem is not just confined to some part of the globe but that the problem could tap at our doors has led us to an undesirable and undesired experience of fear and trepidation. We have no certainty of the course of the virus and its impact on us. But hopefully, we are under some deep seated belief that this pestilence would be contained and in due course overcome with prophylactic vaccines.

And after we overcome, in another twenty years, a generation would crop up oblivious to the trepidation this generation had been through and would be raised by every parent sparing their kids from those deep seated fears.

Yet, though I detest to wish a knowledge through an undesirable experience, it is the Will if God which would determine which generation and when they have to be taught that, like a lion cub tough raised as the King of the Forest, there are animals more powerful against which the kings are impotent and avoidance is the only option.

I hope mankind, though endowed with more resources than most other animals, creatures, organisms and viruses would still reckon that it is MODESTY IN THOUGHT & ATTITUDE coupled with compassion which should be integrated into their consciousness as human limits have been severely exposed through covid19.

The world was labouring under a misbelief that if we avoid wars, we could save the world from any calamity of mankind, but it is no more about wars but it is about modesty in thought; austerity in action and preparedness in anticipation of difficult situations which would save mankind.

There is no history of any other person who had prayed from the belly of a big fish and survived to narrate the experience, except for Jonah.

Preachers have belittled Jonah in the altar of self-righteousness, stating that he was not of the standard of Abraham, who obeyed God even to the extent of taking his only legitimate son Isaac to the mount for sacrifice.

Obedience to the extent of putting one’s own life and property in line is distinctly different from being obedient to the Word of God in matters concerning directions to prophesy against peoples and kings. It really did not go down well with Isaiah when he prophesied against Manasseh.

Elijah, despite his tremendous zeal after a point, could NOT withstand the onslaught of the political hounding let loose by Jezebel and Ahab. Elijah’s prayer is no less diffident than Jonah’s, towards the end. Yet Elijah’s chutzpah in challenging the worshippers of Baal, knowing fully well the unstinted patronage of the de facto ruler of Israel, Jezebel, is unparalleled.

Yet, Jonah, though classified as a ‘minor prophet’ by the writers for easy slotting, have led the Bible reading public to relegate Jonah to the sidelines of the prophets.

Had not Jesus mentioned Jonah in those two significant instances conveyed in the Gospels, Jonah would have remained a footnote to the Christian understanding of the Hebraic tradition of prophets.

Yet, Jonah’s testimony had a ring of truth to whatever he said.

Firstly, Jonah was chosen by God himself and no substitute was nominated, like in the case of Elijah. God tells the disgruntled Elijah to anoint his successor Elisha; but here Jonah was nominated and God pursued Jonah and made Jonah accomplish the mission to the great satisfaction of God. Maybe Jonah’s attempted truancy, diffidence and reluctance might be a stumbling block for humans to set him up as an example, but we should also consider why God did not relent and made only Jonah complete the task?

I’m sure that Jonah had the skills of an eminent speaker who could bring out the immediacy of the impending calamity and also make the people to repent, otherwise Jesus would not have compared Himself and said that one greater than Jonah was there about Jesus himself. Almighty God, in the flesh as Jesus, who was before Abraham was, certifies of Jonah – a no mean certification.

Besides this comparison, rather a contrast, Jesus says that there would be no sign given except that the Son of Man would be in the hades for three days and three nights like Jonah was in the belly of the fish.

The sanctification of Jonah was complete. So why did Jesus exalt the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish?

When Jonah was swallowed up by the big fish, the finality through Death, which Jonah preferred to the travel to Nineveh, did not happen. Jonah was swallowed whole. Jonah was in a situation where death could be preferred – Jonah did not faint but was fully conscious. For a human being, the most terrible situation is when – one doesn’t know where one is; one doesn’t know any way out; one doesn’t have any Hope for anything and the only Hope could be a long drawn out death or a remote possibility of divine intervention for relief. Jonah finally faced a situation where his preferred destination of Death was not only denied to him but he had to experience the ordeal with full consciousness, solitarily and hopelessly.

It is at this moment that Jonah prays to God and comes up with gems distilled for mankind.

No man could have been distressed to that extent that Jonah was. Jesus, who would have seen that, while still with the Father, compares His stay in the Hades for those three days and nights with that of the stay of Jonah – and we belittle Jonah’s experience by denominating him derogatorily as a ‘minor’ prophet? Who are we to judge Jonah, he was another man’s servant and he rose in the estimation of his Master.

I am compelled to repeat portions of the prayer of Jonah:

“I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.

They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

(Pl. read my blog : )

But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.”

Today, this world that we know and still continue to think we know, is confronted with COVID 19 and we are all locked down. Yet we have human interaction, electronic connectivity, hope that a cure would be invented, fervent hope that a vaccine would be concocted for future protection; but Jonah had NO ASSURANCE WHATSOEVER. Jonah was locked down not knowing where he was, whether he would live, if so how long; would he ever get back to where he once was… and the hopeless fears were endless. Those three days would have been the most endless passage of Time in Jonah’s consciousness.

It is in those circumstances that Jonah understands many distilled Truths and embedded it in his prayer. There could not have been a more authentic prayer in distress except for the prayers of Jesus Christ both in the cross as well as in the Gethsemane.

The greatest realisation of human existence is realisation of his own insignificance; followed by an AFFIRMATION that one will follow God and BE obedient to His will.

Jonah’s second excerpted passage relates to Human Understanding and the paradigms with which one lives in the comfort of those perceptions. Jonah recognises the falsity of it. Man needs Mercy and not vain formulae.

The third excerpted portion relates to a PERSONAL ASSERTION that one would Praise God; perform the vows with a RESOLUTE BELIEF that Salvation CAN come only from God.

These prayers of Jonah are totally relevant for us in today’s scenario. There might be over-beliefs like :THIS TOO SHALL PASS, but we should be conscious of the unknown time limit each mortal is subjected to and therefore should not be dragged into all these nice little pithy sayings, which are Timeless.

Therefore, it is time to seek His Mercy and stop following the Lying Vanities from the assumed comfort of our flawed perceptions.

The words of the Shipmaster of the ship bound for Tarshish from Joppa, carrying as one of its passengers Jonah, said the following, as is narrated in the first chapter of the Book of Jonah:

So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

The Shipmaster found Jonah slumbering on the side of the lowest part of the ship he was travelling wilfully unmindful of the terrible storm the ship was caught up in.

Jonah had resigned to his fate, he was feeling guilty that the storm had brewed because of his disobedience to God’s command that he go to Nineveh. Instead he had taken this ship bound for Tarshish.

The Shipmaster was probably an atheist or a secular person as is evidenced from the statement. He tells Jonah: Call upon THY GOD. This is because the Shipmaster either thought that there would be GREATER SINCERITY IN THE PARTICIPATION IN THE PRAYERS OF THE HUMAN BEING, if each were to call his own God, instead of the God of the Shipmaster.

The Shipmaster was lost, he had no specific idea to counter the storm. The storm in the middle of the sea was raging beyond his capacity to steer the ship. Goods had been jettisoned to lighten the ship. All human efforts had been exhausted. The lives of all the passengers and the very survival of the ship was at stake.

That is when he realises that there could be a force majeure situation which could be corrected by someone other than himself or the efforts of his crew. The Shipmaster does not bring in an idol like Nebuchadnezzar and place it on the deck and tell the passengers to fall prostrate or pray to the God he had brought on the ship or even to the God, in whom he probably believed.

The Shipmaster says: CALL UPON THY GOD.

It is that sincere prayer by each, which was sought and expected by the Shipmaster. Had he compelled gently by coaxing the passengers through subterfuge that the idol the Shipmaster had brought was capable of saving the ship and its people, many would not have believed. There would have been no unity of purpose. It is that dispersion which the shipmaster didn’t want. A true Leader of men.

The reason is that there is a deep-rooted Faith in each. In those moments, it is the Faith one holds which is called out. If we believe in Humanism, we have to appreciate the Shipmaster who had the good sense to instruct the passengers to call upon their God and not to call upon the god whom the Shipmaster believed in. In simpler terms it was not the time for evangelism – the urgency of the situation demanded a mature approach.

The shipmaster does not use plural also, as in dire and dangerous situations where Time is running out, a certain SINGULARITY seizes the mind and the mind latches on to that one Faith, which is the ultimate repository of one’s beliefs. At that point the mind loses all its distributive nature – a peace-time pastime – and finds Singularity. In mathematical terms a Function suddenly takes an Infinite value.

It was that Singularity of purpose that the Shipmaster was aiming at. The Shipmaster had the maximum at stake – besides the lives of his passengers, the Ship too had to be saved from the disaster.

Passengers who were on board did not ask him, neither is there a record to say that the passengers asked him as to why they should pray when he is going to be the greatest beneficiary? Once the storm is past the Shipmaster may have the maximum CROWING RIGHTS, yet none dared to ask, as the situation was of one’s own life or death – each was holding on to one’s own life.

When all the prayers failed, they hit upon an Idea- the most erroneous idea that someone must be guilty within the ship and therefore the storm had been caused because of that person, but fortunately, without arbitrarily naming the delinquent, in this ship a lot was cast to determine who that ‘trigger person’ was.

It is nothing new, Moses, Joshua and many others had ‘detected’ the persons who triggered those unpleasant situations, usually after a defeat in a battle or the start of a plague. Human beings introspect when calamities strike them.

The lot is drawn.

It happens to be Jonah.

The same Jonah to whom the shipmaster had said: Pray to thy God.

Did Jonah pray? There is no evidence to show that he prayed fervently for the storm to subside. But when his name turns up, he boldly tells the people that the storm would subside if he were jettisoned out of the ship. Jonah thought that he would end his life and be done with the directions he had received from God.

But Salvation had to come to Nineveh, to the ship, to the passengers – and Jonah too!

But the Shipmaster was a great human being – he said PRAY TO THY GOD. I presume, it was that Wisdom which helped him unite the spiritual forces within the storm battered ship and made the passengers come up with the idea of casting lot. But God had already reckoned whose name would turn up. Whether the decision to cast lots wise or foolish, the die was cast – against Jonah, but by hindsight in favour of the people of Nineveh.

Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. Jonah ch 1 The Bible

This was the conclusion arrived at by the mariners in the ship that was sailing from Joppa to Tarshish, when it was caught up in a storm. Prophet Jonah was one of the passengers of that ship.

The premise was a deep rooted belief, especially by the Captain of the ship, who instead of steering the ship in times of trouble using his skill, knowledge and resources, had arrived at a ‘belief’ that the turbulence of the seas surrounding his ship was caused by a human being, who was present in the ship when it was caught in the storm.

Based on that belief, the mariners and all the other passengers, including the merchants had arrived at a conclusion that the causal creature (a passenger) had to be firstly identified.

Prior to this, the mariners, as mentioned in the Bible probably included the whole lot of travellers in the ship, had taken action by firstly wailing and supplicating to their gods, hoping probably that they and their merchandise would be saved. When their mere prayers went unanswered and the storm showed no signs of abating, probably at the instance of the “shipmaster”, the merchants and passengers started throwing overboard the merchandise on a belief that the lightening of the ship would save the ship and their lives at least. Quite logical, considering the fact that the ship would float higher and consequently the billows would have to be higher if the ship were to be still drowned by those stormy waves. That marginal reduction of the risk is understandable and reasonably scientific. In my layman’s understanding the plimsoll line would have gone up better and the risk of keeling over considerably reduced.

The observing part of their brains did NOT get the desired result. Their initial action of merely praying but salvaging their merchandise gratuitously being of no avail, decided to throw the merchandise overboard. Even that did not bring down the storm. Following is the relevant excerpt:

“the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.”

But in all this commotion and finally engulfed with a fear for their own lives, the shipmaster is taking rounds to identify if he could do something which might further lighten the ship and he chances upon a man sleeping peacefully on the sides of the ship. The Captain – as I would like to dignify him, a democratically inclined man- rouses Jonah and chides him thus:

What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

The Captain is still under the belief that everything humanly possible had been done and PRAYERS probably by each passenger might alter the external turbulence of the storm. There’s no evidence that Jonah followed his instructions. Jonah could NOT ASK GOD. The clearest sign of an unrepented sinner. Cain could not ask God for forgiveness, because the sin of fratricide was hanging round his neck. Cain could only ask God for eliminating the paranoia, the unremitted sin still underlying his consciousness. Such was the case of Judas Iscariot, who could NOT seek repentance for his behaviour as his conscience was still laden with guilt.

Jonah had on the other hand been raised on a belief that sins OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED, come what may. Probably his premise had kept him within the banks of righteousness and but he also prescribed the same exacting standards to the people he preached to. Further, Jonah did not believe that the judgement HAS TO BE LEFT TO GOD- Jonah believed that the consequences of action should follow willy nilly. Secondly, Jonah believed that if he pronounced a consequence to certain behaviour, in consonance with the scriptures, there should no Mercy be applied by God despite repentance by the guilty person. Jonah believed that the punishment SHOULD BE INFLICTED. In fact he says that as a reason to God and how God’s Mercy would interfere in his prophetic credibility.

When Jesus says that one greater than Jonah was here, Jesus was referring to Himself as a sinless person – who in the flesh was not only sinless but also submitting to the will of the Father. That is why, when John & James sought Jesus’ permission to bring down fire from heaven like Elijah, Jesus says at Luke 9:

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

That spotlessness alone could beget a response like that. Jesus was sinless and He told his disciples to ignore and move on.

Jonah couldn’t have responded like Jesus did, as he was already imbued in that paradigm of sinful action being followed by punishment, he had not entered the dispensation of Grace. That was heralded by Jesus and Jesus alone.

Thus caught up in this paradigm, Jonah submits himself to the dictates of those passengers and provides his name for the purposes of the lot.

We as Christians are not any superior to Jonah, we also submit ourselves to become a party being named in the lot to be drawn. What a pity – and we believe we are better than Jonah. I shudder when people talk disparagingly, especially the preachers, about Jonah. Even when Jesus compares Himself with some of the best like the temple, or Solomon, Jesus names Jonah therein. We need to develop modesty – spiritual modesty. We can’t talk of our ancestors for their shortcomings disparagingly – even in those days when the dispensation of Grace had NOT DESCENDED they had led a life of probity, which probably was more exacting.

So Jonah, being a prophet of the Almighty God, should have volunteered himself to be offloaded in the middle of the sea even before the lot, believing that he was responsible for the storm – he didn’t. He submitted to the game of chance to be named. But when Jonah’s name came out in the draw, he is convinced that he was the offender and requests them to offload him in the middle of the seas.

That takes us back to the proposition if the line of reasoning of the mariners was right. That is whether “Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.” was right?

I believe that it was wrong because Jonah, a Prophet, if convinced of his own guilt and the consequent divine disapprobation should have volunteered and stepped out to confess his guilt before the mariners, but Jonah did not.

That is when God had to sanctify the outcome of the draw and ensure that Jonah’s name is drawn.

The line of reasoning was wrong – as the outcome under the theory of probability could have gone against anyone else, and if a weak person’s name had turned up, the mariners could have ferreted out his/her guilt and could have been made a SACRIFICIAL LAMB.

That is where God works. God sanctified a wrong question with an appropriate answer. As in the words of Francis Thompson in THE HOUND OF HEAVEN:

From those strong feet that followed, followed after

But with unhurrying chase and unperturbe d pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

They beat, and a Voice beat,

More instant than the feet:

All things betray thee who betrayest me.


Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.


To all swift things for swiftness did I sue,

Clung to the whistling mane of every wind,

But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,

The long savannahs of the blue,

Or whether, thunder-driven,

They clanged His chariot thwart a heaven,

Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn of their feet,

Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.

Still with unhurrying chase and unperturbed pace

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

Came on the following feet, and a Voice above their beat:

Nought shelters thee who wilt not shelter Me.

I sought no more that after which I strayed

In face of Man or Maid.

Jonah had to be pursued and had to be taken to Nineveh, no matter whether the route was wrong, no matter whether the transport was wrong, no matter whether the persons involved were stupid, no matter whether the logic was flawed, or no matter whether the question was wrong – the RIGHT ANSWER ALWAYS TURNS UP. That’s the law ordained by God.

It is a pity that a Ventilator costing probably ₹ 50,000 ($700), invented by one Prof Diwakar Vaish is not promoted by at least procuring those for the rural health centres in the states, which can easily purchase one and in these troubled times of COVID19, and we would not been wanting at least on ventilators. The state health ministers should answer the shortage.

In one of the promotional videos, a Dr in the AIIMS says that there is a 5 year waiting list for patients to be kept on ventilators.

Who is this Prof. Diwakar Vaish, let me paste the screen shots for better impact:

If we do not promote our own inventions, for whatever reason, when will we be the beneficiaries of our own innovations?

Let us assume that there are around 700 districts in India and there are over 2,00,000 Primary Health Centres, Community Health Centres, and Sub Centres. If we as a Nation had placed an order of one ventilator per PHC, we would not be running around.

We have innovators, but their innovations are not scalable. So a big fish which has scalability gobbles up our local innovators. And these innovators also would be happy to monetise the return on investment made over a period of time.

Why shouldn’t we as a nation identify these innovators and purchase from them and be generous so that they stay in INDIA and believe in the scalability of INDIA?

Time to support at least the small time successful innovators who have a product to back their claims.

Look at the prices being quoted in the net. It is shameful that a Ventilator, which should be a handmaiden for meeting the exigencies of human needs, is being sold as a Golden Goose, provided one houses it in a good hospital with a good insurance tie up, so that the Ventilator could be used for milking patients at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- per day.

This invention would hurt many surgical equipment dealers; hospital purchase people; and in quite a lot of cases even the management, as the idiosyncratic billability appears high. All big bucks are made only in the business of healing or killing human lives. (Read- Health & Defence).

It is time we as a nation build up our infrastructure State-wise and not be guided by merely keeping up with the other States by making that the benchmark for our allocation (distance between states) and assessing progress. Each State should build up its infrastructure for its own good. Infrastructure cannot be built overnight. Time we not just allowed innovators to compete, but promote them out of state funds by purchasing their products, which are approved as per international standards organisations.

We as a nation should not be left clueless in these times of unpredictable trouble.

The way a bee’s instincts are tuned to think of a daffodil would certainly be different from the way Wordsworth would see it. Maybe as humans we are likely to conclude that as the bee had reached the flower for its nectar, the bee ‘thinks’ of its purpose and desire as one of utilitarianism. The flower is there; the bee can get nectar from its flower; the bee has the body to reach the flower; and the bee could extract the nectar and take it back to its hive – therefore motivated by the utility of the nectar, the bee reaches the flower.

But does the bee ever feel thankful that the flower provides what it seeks or desires as useful? Or at least does it feel thankful to the person who had raised the flower on that plant which had been raised on the flowerbed?

The flower, on the other hand is it aware of the fact that the bee had entered it for the nectar and nectar only – and not for cross pollination? Or is the flower busy savouring the pollens imported by the bee and lavishing itself in those throes of ecstasy of being pollinated?

Wordsworth of Windermere, is filled with ecstasy and his heart dances with the swaying daffodils in the gentle breeze. Wordsworth is not aware of the millions of bees entering and exiting the daffodils pollinating the flowers, nor aware of the objects of the bee and the hierarchy that it has in the hive of having to satisfy the supposed expectations of a languorous and fecund Queen; nor is Wordsworth aware of his own insignificance to the bee or the flower:


Wordsworth lets his heart dance with the daffodils. Life in its various dimensions would be and should be and is, in a state of activity and flux, but Wordsworth has to derive his own lasting impressions based on his own little experiences – valuing his own perspective. Otherwise, there would be no daffodils dancing in Wordsworth’s inward eye nor would he have any memories which could unorbit him from those pensive mood.

In the upcoming days of self imposed isolation by all Indians, it is time they dusted their memories and started moistening those desiccated memories and start cheering up their hearts and feel the mirth that certain experiences evoked in jocund Company!

As a homage to the poem, the same is reproduced below for a quick recap:

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud


I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o’er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine

And twinkle on the milky way,

They stretched in never-ending line

Along the margin of a bay:

Ten thousand saw I at a glance,

Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they

Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:

A poet could not but be gay,

In such a jocund company:

I gazed—and gazed—but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils.

God appeared to Jehu and asked, “What do you want?”

Jehu replied I want most of the things except for those that I have.

God thought: Is the boy gonna slip an opportunity that came his way?

God said: I know that. That’s the case with every one, I didn’t mean want in the meaning of ‘lack’, but what do you deeply desire.

Jehu, realised from the tone and solemnity of the reply, that he was conversing with the Almighty and hurriedly said, I want to wear the crown of my master Ahab, with the power of my army.

God asked: For how many years?

Jehu replied: Twenty years of health, prosperity, power and strength with the crown on my head.

God said: You are going to regret for this at the end of your twentieth year.

Jehu said: God, pardon my impudence, but had I asked for 50 years also I would have regretted it as a short time asked, since, if you bless me with all the health, and all that I had asked for, I’d have had all that till the end of that period and I would regret for having asked my maker for such few years. So the regret is going to be the same irrespective of the number of years.

God said, Since you had built the foresight to see the end and to perceive those feelings which dawn only upon reaching there, I grant you not just the twenty sought, but thirty years with the crown of Ahab.

It is after that, that God told Elijah to anoint Jehu as the king of Israel.

It is our personal interactions with God, which get openly rewarded as prophecies in our Lives.

He that hath an eye let him read and perceive.

A verse from Psalm 119:

166: LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.

Is there a difference between ‘done’ thy commandments and ‘followed’ thy commandments?

Yes, the answer is Liberty.

I will explain the reasons for my answer later, but first let us start with the assumption that this Psalm was composed by King David. There are too many I’s in the Psalm, like those Epistles of Paul, leading to an inveterate belief that only a person with a crown could have composed the 119 Psalm.

What alerts one upon reading verse no. 166 is that, if David were the composer of the Psalm, how could he have said the contents of the verse, when we all know that David did commit adultery and probably responsible for the murder – though he surely was responsible for the death – of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. To make matters worse, Uriah was not just an underling in the army, he was a commander. Those circumstances being the past, would it have been right for a person who was truly devoted to Jehovah to utter the following verse? I am proceeding on the second assumption that Psalm 119 was composed after David’s illicit relationship with Bathsheba. Probably, had the Psalm been written prior to those events, David could have said that with some conviction, based on the facts made available as history through the Books of Kings and Chronicles of the Old Testament.

Let us read the verse again:

166: LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.

To ‘keep’ or ‘follow’ the commandments is the norm in the usage relating to the laws, rules, regulations etc., but when the verb is ‘do’ or ‘done’ it sounds a little specious.

If I assume that the Psalm had indeed been composed by King David and that he had composed it after the event with Bathsheba, and still eager to believe that David was uttering the truth to his maker, I need to analyse the Mosaic Ten Commandments.

Out of the Ten Commandments , there are only three commandments which are positive commands- which means that the subscriber to that religion has to DO those commands. The three positive commands are:

1. I am the Lord thy God

2. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

3. Honour thy father and thy mother.

The rest of the commandments are all Negative Commands, the effect of which is that, the follower is commanded NOT TO DO those things which are commanded.

Therefore, there are only 3 commandments which are TO BE DONE, so contextually interpreted, David could probably assert before God that he believed that Jehovah is the God; that he kept the Sabbath; and that he had honoured his father and mother.

In essence, David by composing verse no. 166 with an unusual verb, had technically overcome the general sense, by use of the verb DO THE COMMANDMENTS.

David, you’ve kept yourself in the right side by sidestepping the usual verb and have exercised your Liberty beyond the sanctioned bounds, yet have not lied to God, as you know you cannot.

The takeaway for us is that we can read the paeans of others and still can’t understand what they meant.

There are a few things in life, the difficulties of which, without attempting, through aspiration and desire, could never be understood. One of those is the art of conveying an event poignantly in poetic form.

Homer’s epic runs into many books – rather divided into many books- not just a poignant poem, yet in the course of the flow, which is swift and precise in expression, there appear descriptions which suddenly knock us out of our knowledge and plunges us into an experience.

At school, I’m sure we had all read of Cyclops in the “adventures” of Ulysses. The story tells us how Ulysses got trapped inside the cave of Polyphemus, a Cyclop, and how he and his mates made good their exit by scorching the eye of Polyphemus with a stake.

When we read Homer, it is no more a life saving tactic of an adventurer or the payback time for a giant for having mercilessly killed Ulysses’ mates.

The following lines, immediately makes us reach out for our own eyes, a participation in human predicament. Maybe, the scorching is justified, yet when a human being’s eye is scorched with a fiery brand while in a drunken stupor, startles us.

It is that poignancy of human predicament, when brought out in all its gore, which rouses us from mundane knowledge to an experience we would like to spare ourselves from.

Here are the lines from Homer:

“And as when armourers temper in the ford

The keen-edged pole-axe, or the shining sword,

The red-hot metal hisses in the lake,

Thus in his eye-ball hiss’d the plunging stake.”

If one believes that these poetic expressions are flashes in a ocean of words, the poem being an Epic, one is lost. Here is the description of the very act of Ulysses and his mates on the hapless Polyphemus:

“The stake now glow’d beneath the burning bed

(Green as it was) and sparkled fiery red,

Then forth the vengeful instrument I bring;

With beating hearts my fellows form a ring.

Urged my some present god, they swift let fall

The pointed torment on his visual ball.

Myself above them from a rising ground

Guide the sharp stake, and twirl it round and round.

As when a shipwright stands his workmen o’er,

Who ply the wimble, some huge beam to bore;

Urged on all hands, it nimbly spins about,

The grain deep-piercing till it scoops it out:

In his broad eye he whirls the fiery wood;

From the pierced pupil spouts the boiling blood;

Singed are his brows; the scorching lids grow black;

The jelly bubbles, and the fibres crack.”

Excerpt From

The Odyssey


Is the scene not redolent of what happened to Samson, the Judge of Israel? Look at the verse where Samson’s plight at the hands of the Philistines is expressed:

Judges 16:

21 But the Philistines took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison house.

Prose, gives knowledge to the reader. If one were to let one’s imagination on every information, there might be possibilities whereby one wouldn’t be able to reconcile the threads of facts with the fabric of the full narration. That’s where an Epic Poet like Homer with his craft, imagination and ethics blends it with balance.

The scene of Ulysses preparing and punching the only eye of Polyphemus may momentarily elicit sympathy, but when one had read the preceding stanzas where Polyphemus had brutally killed four of Ulysses’ mates, it gratifies the reader on two counts that the action taken by Ulysses was essential – as there was no other way; and secondly, the innocent guests were killed for no necessity of Polyphemus and those innocent wayfarers, who had strayed as uninvited guests into his cave, were without justification brutally killed and consumed.

Epics may be tedious, but if one gets involved in the poetic content, the imagery would be elevating and eye opening.

We, the Paris.

The apple of discord

Is the choice we all

Make in handing over.

Power, Wisdom & Beauty

One of the three

Is to be the choice.

The most visible is Beauty-

Seen & could be relished.

The next visible in its expression

Is Power.

The least visible is Wisdom.

Like Paris, one can blow away

One’s kingdom or even like Menelaus, lose it.

Juno’s gift has high procurement value.

Power can translate.

But the least appealing is

Wisdom, but durable.

Gives Life, longevity,

Experience, loyal friends,

Circes, Sirens’ indelible music,

With a Penelope

Hoping spouse’ safe arrival

At Ithaca, keeping the suitors

At bay with mild flirting

To feed her mind, but

Keep her body chaste;

An Argos to identify &

Get back to ruling his people.

Wisdom aids in vicissitudes

Seldom expected or hoped.

Power and Beauty,

The subsets of Wisdom,

Reside outside oneself

Whereas Wisdom

Is the superhuman chip

Embedded in ones own


Giving Divine capabilities.

One could still misuse

It like Solomon and

Tax his subjects

To finance his expensive Helens

And leave Rehoboams with

Disgruntled populace.

Wisdom, to be wisely used

Is more important than Wisdom Itself.

Such is the case of the other two too.

Yet, Wisdom gives something

Which the other two can’t give:


Humility is the greatest

Disguise against the

Outrageous tides of Time.

The Iron complained,

You weren’t strong enough to pull me to you.

Said the Magnet to the Iron:

I could only attract you,

But you have to yield & move.

Said the Iron: my Will could’ve

Been overpowered

by your attraction,

But you didn’t.

Replied the Magnet: I didn’t

pull you,

Lest you resist & I lose your friendship too.

But you could’ve leapt & clung.

Said the Iron: my baggage was

Too heavy to leap or cling;

And Your attraction was weak to pull me to your side.

Reticently they’d borne their Love,

Undisclosed to the addressees.

Uncommunicated Love

Fermented, effervesced,

Casked, distilled and bottled – forever.

Precious but….

There she stands

With anklets over her socks

Waiting at the arrival

Of someone she cares.

High heels to boot;

Crimson hued lips.

I see that look aching for

Approval on first sight

Of her beloved.

Lack of opportunities may

Reveal in garishness.

Aspiration achieved without

Culture, reveals.

Each set out to do what they could. One got all the knowledge and implements to test out the contents of his knowledge, the other having got nothing, set out to search himself.

The former became a super skilled engineer, having learnt to prove by experiment all the theories propounded by the ancient and modern physicists.

The latter propounded theories which none could disprove. His only proof was that, all that he said could be proved only beyond Life – an euphemism for Death. But if one were to wait, then after the point of reckoning (another euphemism for Death) there would be no redemption. Fear, utter Fear, drove the masses into the latter’s hands. He has been the Baba for those devotees.

Better to propound what can be proved and be useful to mankind. Better still is what can be propounded which can never ever be disproved. Worst is spending a lifetime learning to prove others’ theories and hypotheses.

Get propounding.

If one walks up to the horizon, whichever way one walks, that’s the path. Lesser mortals, who move by sight, would find it a path to walk. It is not the path which is important, but that you went beyond the known and seen horizon, which makes you a propounder.

Horizons are only limits to the eyes, but beyond those seen horizons exist Life, not as we understand it, but waiting to be understood

Just as the Chaldeans, astrologers and others from the court of Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘there is no king or lord who had asked for something like this’, nobody could have even thought of asking anyone what Nebuchadnezzar had asked.

The king had just been the king for two years and he had learnt all the precious knowledge required for executing the affairs of his kingdom. His commandment was this:

Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

The efficacy of an interpretation would lie only in the coming to pass of such events as interpreted.

Let us analyse what Daniel did. Daniel says that God revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold of all the kingdoms that had been and yet to be.

Is that even remotely true by hindsight?

I guess not. Compared to the Kingdoms held by Xerxes; Suleiman the Magnificent; or even some of the lesser known Caesars, neither was Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom as vast as theirs nor did he have the power that some of the above mentioned kings/ emperors had wielded. We are not including the Akbars and Louis the Fourteenth, who were more tactful and wisely ruled their kingdoms with vast resources. Nor are we including the brutal Chengiz Khans, Tamerlanes and their ilk of marauders. So by hindsight, the interpretation of the head of gold being Nebuchadnezzar nailed it for Daniel. It was a wise self promotion scheme, which was not by motive or intent, but a by product of a mind that was wired for survival – not just to escape – but to thrive and overcome all odds. Daniel submitted to the ultimate of all logic – if Daniel could repeat the dream which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamt earlier, Daniel’s interpretation would be believed, rather trusted. But Daniel had to place all interpretation beyond the life of Nebuchadnezzar except exalting him to a position which the wily Nebuchadnezzar had desired. The rest of it is all read as prophecy.

This prophecy was not ‘time specific’ like that of Joseph’s explanation of seven cattle as seven years and that accurate prediction of the coming of the seven years of famine in succession to the plenty of seven years, to the Pharaoh.

Then the silver, brass or bronze (as per the version of your Old Testament), the iron and clay. At the time of Daniel, no one could have imagined any of those kingdoms. Much less the possibility of a more powerful kingdom than that of the then Babylonian empire coming into existence, which lasted only for a total of 80 years. In fact Darius, the Persian takes over Babylon within Daniel’s own lifetime. In all, the interpretation satisfied the deep seated desire of Nebuchadnezzar – which was pandered to by Daniel.

Maybe God wanted it that way – to elevate Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. I am more inclined to believe that. For God, there is no such thing as a fact or fiction – He could turn a fiction into a fact and make any fiction into a reality.

We as living human beings don’t have to exalt God, because He showed the dream of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel upon the prayers of Daniel and his three friends, but our very life is a miracle in many ways. A self realisation is enough.

If we build our Faith based on these instances, which smack of stupidity, we are just getting into the jingoism of praise because we are aligning ourselves with a ‘powerful’ God, and not because we are in alignment with God’s expectation in men.

What will happen to such faith built on these stories if in some point in the future the excavations discover a record of the dreams dreamt by the Babylonian kings which are recorded real time and kept by a scribe? – just like the records maintained by the Kings of the line of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the Book of Esther? Would it not lead to a speculation that Daniel could have sweet talked his way to read those contemporaneous records of the Babylonian kings, with the assistance of the Ariochs?

Therefore, I believe that certain factual narrations which might have triggered our faith at the Sunday school level, should not be used as props to our faith in God after self realisation.

Life is a miracle and God is the master planner running the entire gamut of existence through set principles, with exceptions and provisos and special mentions. As such no knowledge – human knowledge would be sufficient to make formulae on the methods of God.

But acknowledging the existence of God and submitting to such a thought considering the vastness and depth and continuity of Existence could bring one to a sober self-realisation which is the best way to realise God. Definitely not through these jingoistic episodic narrations.

I love Andrew.

Andrew the brother of Peter. He had excelled in the art of Special Mention.

A Special Mention is a time allocated in the legislatures for bringing up issues which are not covered under any specific Rules of the Legislature concerned. Or so it was designed, but now to impress the voters in a constituency, issues are raised/ advertised etc.

Andrew was the first, of all the twelve disciples, to have met Jesus – that is if you go by the Gospel of John. But to believe that you have to also believe that Jesus was not in touch with his cousins John and James before He was identified as the Messiah. Further, you have to also believe that John and James had not introduced their partners Peter and Andrew. But surmises and suppositions, however probable they might have been from the realm of possibilities, facts are facts when reported. There OUGHT to be a finality to facts, otherwise they turn to myths and long winding epics of dubious history.

John and James might have been childhood and teenage acquaintances of Jesus, assuming that the Cousins’ mothers were close. But, after Jesus assumed Messiahship, it could be safely presumed that Andrew was the first to meet Jesus.

Is the meeting so important? I consider it was – for the reason that he connected his brother Peter to Jesus. John narrates thus in the Gospel:

1 Chapter

35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

So contextually, Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist first, before he identified Messiah, based on the utterances of the Baptist, relating to the superiority of Jesus. As regards John the Baptist, his actions were based on a CALLING, but Jesus’ was not based on anything called Calling, for He had been/was and is the Son of God – not a mere ‘calling’ but a descent of Godhood to dwell with men in the flesh.

It might look so simple to us – because the Kingdom of God had come and we have taken Jesus to be a part of our existence, but for Andrew the CURIOUS SEARCHER, it was a divine discovery.

I can imagine how much Andrew must have venerated his relationship with John the Baptist – a man who was the greatest of men born before the dawning of the Kingdom of God, according to Jesus Himself! But all that counted for nothing when the man whom Andrew venerated says that he wasn’t worthy enough to ‘stoop’ down and unloose His shoe’s latchet’. Andrew discovers the longing of generations of expectation blossoming before him. Andrew jumped out of the boat of the Baptist and went after Jesus. Andrew’s thirst for finding out the Truth is amazing and his ability to go after Jesus leaving aside his master John without any compunction is not any lack of loyalty but an innocent thirst for attaining an association with the Truth. How could he have resisted following the Messiah, when his own master had certified the dawning of the kingdom of God?

Andrew rushes to his bother Peter and informs him of his discovery – not a small event. Most of the prophecies of the latter prophets revolve around that event – the arrival of the Messiah. It must have been a moment much greater than the Eureka moment of Archimedes- he merely was attempting to solve a doubt of a temporal king- but here an intergenerational longing was suddenly unfolding with the assurance of person like John the Baptist. I’d have fainted – had I been in that position. If Elisabeth was excited to see her Lord’s mother how much more, when the Messiah stands there in front of me in life and blood, with the assurance of the greatest man born of a woman?

Unimaginable ‼️

It is this Andrew who identifies a boy with the loaves and fishes and makes a Special Mention to Jesus with a rider “what is that to so many?”. Jesus honours that, probably because Andrew believed that Jesus could do MUCH with little.

At Luke 11:1 a disciple, whose name is not mentioned asked Jesus, How to pray and adds a sting “Like John taught his disciples”. Who could that disciple have been and who could have qualified to say that? According to John’s Gospel, two of the disciples of John followed Jesus, but there is only evidence to show that out of those two, only one became an Apostle. Who could that have been? My unshakable Faith is that it must have been Andrew.

If Andrew has not asked Jesus for that prayer, possibly we wouldn’t have had the Lord’s Prayer today.

There are unverified a as nd unverifiable narrations regarding Apostle Andrew, but these three events give me certainty of belief that though he might not have been most impetuous in his Faith like his brother Peter, or filled with grace like John, or with the gravity of James, he had made special mentions, the outcomes of which sets his role in great importance.

For a man raised in the palace of Pharaoh, inculcated in the knowledge of the Times as assessed by the Chaldeans and astrologers of the highest repute, Moses had been tuned to go with the Times and take advantage of it in good times and lie low during the troubled Times. This tuning, based on the knowledge of the cosmic bodies though might be right in assessing the Trends of the flow of the high and low tides of Time, had not equipped Moses with the RESISTANCE to withstand the undesirable effects of Time – both by moderating one’s impulses to overdo in fair Times and RESIST the negative flow during bad Times.

The knowledge of the Chaldeans and Astrology had stunted the realisation by Moses, of the possibility of Resisting the evil; and instead of aligning with the general Trend of the natural forces, exert one’s WILL and lead the course of action, cutting through the unfavourable possibilities emerging during evil Times.

After 40 years in the Palace of Pharaoh, it took another 40 years for Moses to unlearn what he had been taught and thereafter voluntarily learnt from the Chaldeans and astrologers. The realisation was that though he should have perished, a WILL superior to his conscious mind had kept him not only alive but had led him through a path which made him realise that it was not the knowledge and consequent APPEASEMENT of the flow of Times which was essential for Life, but a Will, a Will that represents the God in man. It was that submission to that Will of God in Moses and facing the flow, irrespective of the desirability of the consequences which launched him in the path to the BURNING BUSH.

The Burning Bush was the culmination of the path he had taken by surrender of the knowledge of the Chaldeans and the astrologers. He did not deny the existence of such forces, but he realised that through the submission of his will to that WILL OF LIFE EMBEDDED IN EVERY BEING, he would be able to overcome the severity of the natural forces by a constant guidance provided by that Will of God.

That shedding of that knowledge, though partially true, was NOT the ultimate Truth, which engenders, preserves and sustains Life. The realisation was that the esoteric knowledge of the Chaldeans and the astrologers may keep one up above the rest of the cattle, but by no means would redeem man from the ‘cattlehood’. That knowledge is aptly called by Jonah as LYING VANITIES (Ref:

Moses, when he was ordered to shed his shoes, before he stepped near the Burning Bush, what he left behind was the LYING VANITIES.

He left the knowledge that anything that burned had to turn to ashes; he left behind the knowledge that there needs to be a human being to interact in a language used by humans; and finally Moses realised that there was a God, who would interact personally with humans.

A verse

A verse is a verse and not what anyone says that verse means. Each verse is imbued with the spirit, the spirit of the Eternal God, radiating yet unobtrusive and giving an impression of dormancy.

When Life triggers an event in a creature, an event being a tangible situation or a thought or a feeling, that verse’ radiating spirituality is captured by the creature to its own understanding.

That understanding is not conveyable in words or letters. Notwithstanding the inadequacy of words, that moment of capturing is imbedded in our consciousness as a record. Stored and layered as a nacre of a Pearl, adding its own depth and shine of the rainbow to our subconscious mind.

It is that pearl, which is precious. Not because of the value ascribed by the outside world but because of the nourishment it provides to the creature.

Each verse thus stands on its own, yet like a thread, formable into a skein with its neighbouring thread and giving a context in Time. Yet that concept of Time is relatable only within that skein. Those skeins in turn are made into fabric and the Word emerges enveloping the whole creation and also giving a glimpse of itself.

The Verse is the building blocks of the Word, in spirit. Read the Book to understand what I’ve written above. Matchless Word.


There is a passage seldom preached and rarely read with the sincerity with which it ought to be read – it appears in II chronicles 28 chapter of The Bible:

23 “For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me…”

The character who came to that conclusion was Ahaz, who is rarely included in the Roll of Honour of the Kings of Judah & Benjamin. He was eclipsed by his illustrious son Hezekiah, as a King of Judah & Benjamin.

Leaving aside the truthfulness of the belief as to whether the gods of Syria helped the Syrians, let me lead the reader to what made Ahaz come to such a conclusion despite having the heritage of David as his forebear?

Ahaz’ father was Jotham. His grandfather was Uzziah, the longest serving King of Judah & Benjamin.

Jotham had defeated the Ammonites and had amassed silver and wheat as tribute. His grandfather Uzziah was a greater warrior and had even installed machines to throw stones against enemies – a larger version of a sling to launch projectiles- which history credits as an invention by Archimedes of Syracuse called Catapult.

Therefore, Ahaz was not a person who was depleted of his resources. He had inherited resources from his grandfather and his father in good measure, but he came to a conclusion that the Syrians won the battles with him because the Syrian gods were stronger.

He adopted certain practices like making human sacrifice out of his own children. A practice which was not alien to the neighbouring Baal and Molech worshippers. But with Mosaic law proscribing human sacrifice to God, for any reason whatsoever, except Jephthah, a judge of Israel, none practiced it as an acceptable sacrifice to the Jehovah.

Even in the case of Jephthah, the Judge couldn’t bring himself to redeem his own daughter, though there are very many verses supporting redemption of human beings in the Mosaic rules. Jephthah’s case was more because he lacked good priestly advisors.

Ahaz lost to the Syrians more because he relied on the wealth created by his father and grandfather through their action.

Ahaz’s offer to the Assyrian king was the wealth secreted in the temple and the palaces of the king of Judah. Ahaz requested for support of the Assyrian king, but instead of lending a helping hand, even the Assyrians pillage Ahaz’ wealth.

It was a clear case of wrong interpretation by Ahaz, which led to his downfall.

Both Uzziah and Jotham needed God, as they were involved in risky enterprise of engaging in wars and securing their lands by building cities on hilltops and making their people secure; whereas Ahaz had taken it for granted that the wealth was there for him to enjoy and also deploy it as a means to his salvation.

Out of such a thought is born the concept of APPEASEMENT. Ahaz is a classic case of an APPEASER.

What did Ahaz appease with? He appeased, rather sought to appease with the resources so meticulously integrated into the system through care by both Uzziah and Jotham. The foolish Ahaz had used what he had inherited to save what was left of what he had concealed of what he had inherited.

As a King, it was his duty to show himself to be strong, not as an ‘appeaser’. Appeasement as a minor tactic to a larger strategy may serve well, but not as a quid pro quo.

The foolish Ahaz finally reaches a conclusion that the Syrian gods had helped the Syrians, therefore he should bribe the Syrian gods with more to turn those gods against their traditional worshippers.

What a pity, that weakness brings. It stretches it to even beliefs.

If the reader is still sceptical, please see the gumption of the successor of Ahaz, Hezekiah. Despite the deletion of the resources, though it put him in troublesome times, he had the guts to send letters to the tribes of Israel resume their feasts at Jerusalem.

Ahaz is the hyphen who connected the strong kings Jotham and Hezekiah.

If at all one wants to appease, one may do it with what oneself had earned not on what had been inherited.

It is a well known parable of Jesus that notwithstanding the gulf fixed between the Richman and Lazarus, they were able to see each other and talk to each other.

Using the same formula, David and Uriah would have had an opportunity to meet each other and talk to each other in the paradise or for that matter in hell or between these two.

I do not presume that David would be in heaven, as at least two major commandments had been breached by him and he was not punished the way a man of normal means would have been by the Mosaic law, which was in force then. Yet, David did not deserve to be in hell, as he was always humble towards God and had been a supreme survivor of the sins committed, and the punishment for his sins had always drawn a commuted sentence from God. That mercy shown by God to his sins were not in consonance with the Mosaic laws. Yet, the Psalms and his devotions reveal the predominant side of a man who subjected himself to the will of God. Therefore, placing him for a while in Dante’s Purgatory would be in the fitness of things and more as a balance of convenience.

But as a Protestant, the concept of Purgatory is out of question. In any case, I do not know from the Bible as to how the Hittite Uriah was with God. After all, he was a Hittite – a breed which Jehovah is stated to have promised Moses to vanquish and acquire the land of Canaan. But, if we look at his devotion to duty, Uriah had taken it a bit too seriously that David was emboldened to send a contrived death warrant through Uriah’s own hand, when David’s attempt to pass off the pregnancy of Bathsheba to have been caused by Uriah failed.

Would Uriah have known that he was got killed by David. If so, whose would have been the opening lines?

Would it have been an unqualified sorry of David?

When a Sadducee asked Jesus regarding the woman who married 7 men after the successive death of each of her 7 husbands, Jesus said “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”(Matthew 28:30).

Therefore to assume that both David and Uriah would be like angels would not be far fetched. Yet, the Rich man and Lazarus parable shows that the dead had not drunk from Lethe for them to have forgotten their past.

Or is it that, being angels, each would have been reconciled and would have no time to hold grudges for those events that took place back while they were alive.

The only conclusive thought for me, based on these two parables is that in the resurrection, Bathsheba would have become an angel and would neither be a wife to Uriah nor to David.

Sometimes I feel the Sadducees had logical reasons to doubt the Resurrection, not that I doubt it.

If logic and reasoning is not broken, definitely there is no Christianity. Reasoning and logic are mere tools for survival in this life and not for stretching it beyond life.

Otherwise, when Jesus said that Elijah had already come as John the Baptist and John the Baptist has been beheaded by Herod, why should Elijah appear in the mount of transfiguration as Elijah and not as John the Baptist?

Human beings extending logic and reasoning beyond the immediate purpose of life, is a wasteful exercise. Can Man contend with God? Yes he can for survival, like Jacob did on his way to Padanaram and still succeed, but cannot survive on the grounds of self-righteousness, though Righteous like Job.

The Greeks had coined a beautiful word for this – “Hubris”. The pride that gets into a man’s mind upon him acquiring power or even in man’s infallibility after complying with all the commandments of God. The only hope for man is Patience, Humility and Doing.

History has to be interpreted with the available facts. Then is born an assertion, which may not be to the liking of some. Consequently, they start looking hard for facts to punch holes in that assertion and thereby grows History – a mix of facts and undisproved assertions.

Tamil, of all the Indian languages has an advantage which no other language has – a script which is old and without much departure from the oldest Tamil script – thereby ‘proof’ could be looked for either from the inscriptions or cave scribbling or copper plates or even palm leaves. But there are languages which claim hoariness even more than Tamil, but when asked for proof, want of a script has been a severe stumbling block and therefore Belief is the basis & proof of assertions. We as decent individuals will have to respect their beliefs. But one thing to remember is that when even the written word changes it’s meaning with usage, relying on a oral tradition without a script to transcribe words for the future generations exposes such languages to be posited with meanings unascribed at the time of composition and also susceptible to be altered by the spirit of the Times.

Tamil is no such language – its basis is in facts, provable facts.

Though the purpose of my blog is not to eulogise Tamil, we need to look into the relationship between Tamil with the rest of India, to have a grasp of its place at any given time.

During the beginning of the 7 th century AD, there were two kings of great stature, one was Harsha Vardhana and the other was Pulikesi II of the Chalukya Dynasty. Harsha was reigning north of the Narmada and Pulikesin II was to the south of It.

Harsha Vardhana was an enlightened king, a loyal friend, great ruler, a warrior and above all one who understood the value of structured studies.

This Great King was ruled from Kannauj. His name doesn’t figure in the following list –

Narasimhavarman I is claimed to be one of the 12 Indian kings who never lost on the battlefield to their enemies, the others being Ajatashatru, Chandragupta Maurya, Karikala Chola, Cheran Senguttuvan, Sri krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagar empire, Chola king Rajasuyam Vaetta Perunarkilli (575 BC), who successfully completed military Rajasuyam sacrifice, Pandyan Nedunchezhian of the Sangam age, Samudragupta, great Pallava Nayanmar saint Rajasimha, Rajaraja Chola I, his great warrior son Rajendra Chola .


So Harsha Vardhana is left out. Not only is it left out, but the fact that he lost to Pulikesin II of the Chalukyas appears as a footnote in muted tones in the text books. I remember the History Text book, in which Harsha was devoted an entire chapter. I still remember a pencil sketch of Hieun Tsang – which for the life of me, I couldn’t spell it the way it was transcribed into English in my school text books.

The Hindu newspaper in one of articles had stated that a contemporaneous copper plate had been discovered, which is supposed to have on it the fact that Harsha was defeated by Pulikesin II in the year 612 AD or CE, give or take a few years.

Harsha’s contribution to the Nalanda University has been well documented. Heuin Tsang has praised the king as having been a righteous king. Yet, his defeat in the hands of Pulikesin has been an indelible blot on all his other achievements. But we have to look at the defeat in its perspective too.

An aggressor getting defeated when he trenched upon another man’s territory, is not so bad as when he loses his own territory after being defeated in the battle as an aggressor. To that extent Harsha Vardhana was not a loser. Harsha just couldn’t make forays into Pulikesin’s territory beyond the Narmada. All this happened in 612.

The same Pulikesin II in 642 AD, was defeated by a king from the Pallava dynasty. His name was Narasimhavarman, whose name figures in the list of the undefeated kings from India.

What is so great about Narasimhavarman? The King’s father was a contemporary to Harshavardhana and was also subjected to forays of pillaging and plunder in those territories controlled by him. His son was Narasimhavarman I.

The interesting part is the nature of the defeat of Pulikesin at his hands, Narasimhavarman not only defeated Pulikesin but pursued him to his state capital at Vatapi (presently called Badami), a place in the present day Karnataka and capital of the Chalukyas and took over his whole empire and set up an administrative machinery in Vatapi and returned. I can’t remember another King in India who had avenged the maltreatment of his father like Narasimhavarman did. The same Hieun Tsang visited Kanchipuran during the reign of Narasimhavarman. Hieun Tsang’s account of Harsha Vardhana’s defeat is the only reliable source of that fact, as the Court historian cum poet Banabhat doesn’t mention anything of the defeat of Harsha in his Harsha charita. Wikipedia’s take is as follows:

Harsha’s court poet Bana does not mention this conflict in his biography Harsha-charita, presumably to avoid portraying his patron in a negative light. However, Pulakeshin’s success against Harsha is confirmed by other independent sources. The Chinese traveler Xuanzang, who calls Pulakeshin’s kingdom Mo-ho-la-cha (the Chinese transcription of “Maharashtra”), provides the evidence of Pulakeshin’s success against Harsha. Xuanzang states that Shiladitya (that is, Harsha) had conquered the nations from east to west, and had marched with his army to remote parts of India: only the people of Mo-ho-la-cha had refused to accept his suzerainty. Xuanzang further states that Harsha gathered troops from different parts of his kingdom, summoned his best commanders, and himself led the army to punish the people of Mo-ho-la-cha, but could not subjugate them.

To have a fair idea of the Empire of the Chalukyas of Badami, one has to look at the territories they controlled. The whole of the present day Karnataka, most of Andhra Pradesh, the whole of Telangana, whole of Maharashtra, half of the non peninsular Gujrat and south western quarter of Madhya Pradesh.

The above, marked in saffron, was the territory of the Western Chalukyas of Badami (Vatapi).

Now compare it with the territories controlled by Harsha Vardhana from the below map:

Therefore, the Empire of Harsha consisted of the present day Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, most of Madhya Pradesh, Chatisgarh, Jharkhand, parts of Haryana and Punjab.

No doubt, anyone with those resources ranging from the Himalayas till the banks of Narmada should have defeated a king like Pulikesin II, but that was not to be.

Even more interesting is that the Pallava kingdom was not even one third territorially as spacious the Chalukyas.

Yet, Pulikesin II who is reported to have defeated Harsha was defeated by Narasimha Varma Pallava and not only that he defeated Pulikesin II, he marched up to Badami/ Vatapi and established an administrative set up there for 13 long years. Yet, after the death of Narasimhavarma the Chalukyas not only reclaimed their territory but defeated the Pallava kings.

History writing is very tough, especially when we belong to a region where we are fed with false histories and have converted those historical figures to icons.

Banabhatta couldn’t write about the defeat of his benefactor Harsha; the Pallava kings did not write about the subsequent defeats at the hands of the Chalukyas; nor did the Chalukyas write the ignominious end of their greatest conqueror Pulikesin II.

Basically, history in India has been an exercise to inspire heroism, heritage and not for factual reportage.

As such, I’m not surprised that Pandit Nehru in his Discovery of INDIA had very little to say of the Ancient kings of Southern India.

In these circumstances how can we designate Harsha as The Great? Neither can we call Narasimhavarma the Great, as his legacy did not even last beyond his rule. The very next ruler of the Pallava dynasty lost all the gains reflecting a poor integration of the territories won coupled with an inability to maintain the discipline or tempo of a king like Narasimhavarma.

No wonder, neither Harsha nor Narasimhavarma made it to the epithet The Great.

There are 282 laws out of which one of the laws which is interesting and relevant is Code no. 144.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

Hammurabi lived during the 19th Century BC. One has to read his political achievements before one steps into reading his Codes.

The most important concept that emerged out of his code, almost 3800 years ago was PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

In social intercourse an allegation has to be backed by a credible proof. The judge cannot presume the guilt merely because a person has been accused of having committed a crime. There are two things which are to be proved; one being by that indeed a crime was committed and secondly that such crime was committed by the accused. This has to be proved through witnesses.

Me as a Christian, raised in Christian beliefs rooted mostly in the Old Testament of the Bible, believed that Moses was the first law giver.

If one were to chronologically date the time of Moses, the starting point with some certainty would be the reign of David/Solomon, which has been recognised to have been around 1000 BC. That’s 3000 years back. Give the Israeli judges from Joshua another 450 years, so that makes it 3450 years back. Add generously another 100 years for Moses, who is mentioned to have lived for 120 years, and we would end up with a figure of 3550 years. Make it 3600 years, still that would make Moses as a person who was probably in existence almost 200 years after the Rule of Hammurabi, of the first Babylonian empire.

Therefore, as a man raised in the palace of the Egyptian Pharaoh, I’m sure that Moses would have had access to the Code of Hammurabi or at any rate would have been trained in the laws of other lands and thereby would have been familiar with the codes of Hammurabi.

The distinctness of Moses’ Ten Commandments besides having social perspective opens with the concept of God and his jealous nature and how one ought to worship that one true God, regarding which, at least the opening 144 Sections of the Code of Hammurabi doesn’t entertain.

Hammurabi’s Codes are secular and more designed to cater to the fairness of just existence – except for Death as a penalty at the drop of a hat. Worse still is that punishment of throwing someone into the Euphrates or Tigris – which according to me is no punishment for a swimmer.

Code no 144 is what Laban and his daughters Rachel and Leah did to Jacob. Laban was a Syrian and Jacob had been egged in by his mother Rebekah to go to Laban’s place and wive from there, unlike his brother Esau, who wives from the locals, which Rebekah believed was the cause of her conflict with her daughters in law, little realising that Laban and his daughters were bigger frauds than all those ones in the land of Isaac.

Laban finds that his nephew, Jacob was smitten by Rachel, his younger daughter, so in bargain agrees to get her married to him in return for his labour for seven years with Laban.

But Laban suo motu decides to get Leah, his first daughter, married to Jacob without his knowledge. I often wonder how Jacob spent the whole night with Leah not realising that it was not Rachel. Or was it a payback time by the cosmic forces for all that drama enacted by Jacob and his mother Rebekah by impersonating as Esau and stealing the blessings from his father Isaac? Or did the sharp Jacob, decide to take the bird in hand for the night and protest for the other bird – the wages for his seven years’ labour – later and obtain it too? I don’t put that thought beyond Jacob – the sharpest one in the Book of Genesis.

Be that as it may, Jacob protests and plays the victim card to Laban and gets Rachel too for another 7 years’ labour.

After the marriage of Leah and Rachel, the sisters play the one up manship based on their fecundity and in that race, Rachel gets left behind. Rachel gives her maid to Jacob and Rachel’s maid brings forth a boy. Leah also follows suit and gives her maid to Jacob for procreating purposes. At that point Jacob ends up with two wives and two of their maids in his kitty.

Jacob feels stifled by Laban’s methods of sharing the fruits of Jacob’s labour. Jacob flees overnight from Padanaram to his hometown – of course with his two wives, the two maids and the brood littered in Padanaram.

Laban overtakes then and takes an oath from Jacob, which is mentioned in the Bible as follows:

Genesis 31:

The LORD watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another.

50 If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee.

51 And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me and thee:

52 This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm.

Laban extracts a vow from Jacob that he shall not take any more wives than the ones he had given – Laban’s two daughters.

Now let us revert to Hammurabi’s law no 144:

If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

What Laban did was that he was merely enforcing that law no 144 on Jacob. Hammurabi’s code must have seeped into the consciousness of the Syrians by then, as unlike the Ten Commandments, which became an esoteric set of Rules for the Israelites, Hammurabi had directed every town/ city to rear a cylinder with all his 282 laws written and kept for the public to be aware.

Job 41

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

In the exposition of God’s capabilities by God Himself to Job, the above verses appear. It is in continuation of the description, by God, of the awesomeness of the creature Leviathan.

From the description of the foregoing verses it is clear – that the animal lived in water; that there was a possibility to hook him like a fish; that he was huge etc. Nowhere is the capability of this creature on land been mentioned.

It is therefore safe to assume that the creature was more like fish, yet not merely predatory like a shark, but awesome as well. Therefore the commentaries mentioning Leviathan as an equivalent to a crocodile appears inaccurate.

A Whale like creature in size but at the same time not playfully amusing but inspiring Fear.

To say that Hebrew language doesn’t have an equivalent for crocodiles and therefore the Hebrew texts arrived on the conclusion that a Leviathan is a crocodile, seems inappropriate. The Hebrews, if at all they grew into a nation, it was in Goshen, a place not far from the Nile, where crocs were in plenty. I’m sure Moses and Aaron would have invented a word for it.

Further, to assume that Leviathan must have been seen by the Hebrews does not appear necessary, as the period of Job is still a matter of surmise, despite much biblical research.

God tells Job, rather demonstrates to Job how he cannot judge God. Judging is a function to be followed up with exoneration or punishment. If the person doesn’t have the power to punish or exonerate, how could he judge? Therefore Job cannot show to God that He has been unjust.

It is at this juncture that God describes the massiveness of Leviathan and tells Job “Lay thine hand upon him” and if Job laid his hand upon Leviathan, God tells Job to remember the battle that ensues. God challenges Job to just recall the ensuing battle and requires Job just to remember the battle and nothing more.

If Job cannot remember the ensuing battle after he had laid his hand upon Leviathan, after all a creature created by God, how could Job justify himself condemning God who is far greater and incomparable with merely one of his creations?

The challenge of God: “do no more”, just remember the moment after you laid your hands on Leviathan, is a poetic knock out.

I suppose, the passage ought to be read the way I’d interpreted it.

Growth with borrowed money on interest is fine as long as the income therefrom is good enough to service the loan. Otherwise a Lot can happen over coffee.

Currency is such a strange thing that the intrinsic nominal value never changes but the purchasing/repaying power is dependant on whether there is cash in the system – as the central banks can suck them out for any reason whatsoever. Secondly, the servicing cost can be increased under the Floating rate concept by the banks in collusion, oops! consultation with the Central Banks and weaken your net earnings.

Eventualities are plenty.

Worse still, the banks and those bankers, who once chased you to sell their “product” and overvalued your property would be replaced, by the same management, with another set of bankers- when the going gets tough- who become recovery agents and devalue the same property.

The only lesson to be learnt from banks is – Take a Loan only when you badly need one and the banker makes you struggle for it.

Easy come, easy go. A Lot can happen over coffee‼️

How fragile is Life! Siddarth, you deserved a better end. You competed with the Baristas and Star Bucks and held on your own and gave us world class coffee at reasonable rates in a clean and good ambience.

God bless the soul of Siddarth of Cafe Coffeeday 💐

When I used to read the passage where God told Moses, ”Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” (Numbers 20:12), I was terribly upset as a young boy.

This Moses had struggled with the stiff-necked Hebrews, who had taunted Moses saying “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have brought us to die in the wilderness?”; “wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” and many such words of rebellion and unbelief.

But at every point, Moses went back to God, prayed and returned with the word of God and faithfully executed God’s command. Should such a plight await, as a curse, on a Man of God, in the twilight of his life?

Secondly, if Moses had done something which God disapproved of, was this punishment disproportionate?

As a mere mortal it is blasphemous to even attempt the second question – A good reading of the Book of Job would cure anyone who would challenge me on this.

But the primary question involves a most merciful God, not only NOT FORGIVING, but declaring that Moses would not be a part of the celebrations of having led the Hebrews into the Promised Land.

As a believer in the Bible, I am at liberty to share my understanding however imperfect and flawed it might be – which I exercise here-below:

The relationship between God and Moses was unique and with the exception of Jesus, in the flesh, none approximated to even the periphery of the mount where they had their trysts. Moses was even promised by God, that he (Moses) would be god to Pharaoh – a position which was never shared by God except with His son Jesus. It is what Lucifer aspired and fell from his glory. Even when the King Saul performed the functions of a priest, he was not spared, if so, one can imagine what it is to be told by God Himself that Moses would be god to the Pharaoh‼️

God tells Moses, had you not intervened I would have destroyed the Hebrews for their stiff-neckedness and causing grief even to God. Moses could intervene – albeit with Humility and Prayer. Who else could have intervened like Moses from the burning anger of God- none.

Despite such a relationship, he did something which God couldn’t believe that Moses would do.

Was it that important?

Yes, very important.

Here was a God, who meets a man at 80 years and not only guides him, but answers his call – every time.

Therefore in the desert of Zin, when the Hebrews rebelled for water and God had told him to SPEAK TO THE ROCK – probably God wanted to share the power of the Word and exhibit it before the rebellious people and exalt Moses even more in their presence.

But Alas! Even Moses didn’t believe in what God commanded him. Moses instead of imperiously standing before the congregation and speaking the Word to the Rock, on the strength of the command of God, slinks with suspicion and addresses the rebellious crowd and conducts the greatest DRAMA EVER ENACTED BEFORE GOD- Moses strikes the rock and utters:


Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice:

Look at the words, and look at to whom he addresses it. Moses should have lifted up his hands above and thanked the Father, like Jesus used to, and imperiously commanded the flint to yield water. That would have been in consonance with his past. A past where he had the assurance of God listening to him. But here, Moses, though armed with the promise of God, yet harbouring that it may be foolish to address a flinty rock to yield water, succumbs to “equivocation”. An equivocation which would address both the rebellious Hebrews of human inability to bring water out of a rock – if water didn’t flow; and also satisfy the command of God partially by doing something to the rock‼️ Moses strikes like he used to. But at the Red Sea the command word of God was different, but here God wanted Moses to address an inanimate thing with words and make the inanimate thing yield in obedience.

But Moses thought of being Wise. It was for that piece of wisdom, that Moses couldn’t set his foot in the Promised Land, across the Jordan and had to breathe his last in mount Nebo.

This is not to justify in anyway God’s ways to man, but after having known God, a man of God like Moses has no reason to be seen wise. Jesus when He made clay out of His spittle and anointed the eye of the blind man, how ridiculous would it have been if the blind had not got his sight back. Jesus did what he heard, risking and ignoring what other mortals might think. That was the faith expected of Moses. Moses failed and slipped out of the Promised Land.

Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.

Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.

Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.

The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.

This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.

But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️

Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.

Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?

If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?

If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?

Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?

Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?

Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.

Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.

Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.

The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.

This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.

But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️

Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.

Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?

If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?

If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?

Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?

Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?

There comes a time in the life of every cygnet, classified by the peers of ducklings, as ‘ugly’ – having been endowed with features like long necks and bills and significantly different from its peers.

But the cygnet itself doesn’t know that a long neck is functionally needed when it would take flight. But till it takes flight, it needs to be schooled in socialism of having to live with those waterfowls bound for the slushy ponds.

It is that inner voice, indelibly marked in its genes, which withstands those cackles and suffers its cohabitation and feeding on the same fish and worms.

One day – the day of its initiation as a swan – it watches a bevy of swans in flight and aspires to join them. The grown up swan still beset with those cygnet experiences wondered if it could ever be a part of the bevy in flight.

But this swan was unable to realise its ‘being’ – having been caught up with the inanities of the ducklings, ducks and drakes. Finally like that ‘Ugly Duckling’ throwing itself at the bevy of swans, the cygnet which threw itself among the swans made him realise that he himself was one of their breed.

A realisation which dawns when he sees his own reflection on the lake. When he discovers that he is similar to those birds which he had aspired to become; and having been warmly welcomed by the herd, he becomes one of those.

The newly aware swan had left his limited habitat of his barn-stuck siblings, though with much travails for not having conformed to the standards of those barn animals as a cygnet.

There are and will be ducks, geese, pigs, sheep and other barn animals which would resent the ‘good fortune’ of the ugly duckling, little realising that it was the ‘good fortune’ of those barn animals to have had the opportunity of sharing time with a swan – a breed meant only for fresh water, high skies and winged for long haul flights.

The swan has no time to hold grudges on those barn animals and birds. They would become a matter of memory – a distant & laughable one – where randomness had taken him to sojourn with, in his fledgling years.

The swan also realised that mortality would strike both the barn birds and the flight birds alike, yet the thought was gratifying that he had been to variegated geographical locations and wouldn’t be sure of where his last resting place. But he had the assurance that he would not rot among those barn animals and become fertiliser to the plants and trees chosen by those scrubby farmhands!

Live with dignity & Die in Liberty.

So they were matched up for a race.

The tortoise asked the umpire: Why should I run? I am secure the way I am. If I feel threatened I just withdraw into my shell. God has given me the heavy shell, which I carry for my protection always. So forget it.

The hare which heard this, which had prided all along on his swiftness mused to himself, for the first time: Yeah, the tortoise is right. Why should they set up a race between us? Disparate as we are, I realise that I’ve been given those nimble paws and strong legs to save myself when threatened by predators. Who matched us up?

Now that both the hare and the tortoise had gone beyond the disparate rat race, set as a spectacle by the Sponsoring intellectuals, for their own amusement and for the philosophically minded, to draw some moral, like Jacques sucking out moral pithy sayings out of random events and generalising those for mankind to labour in darkness of the soul for decades; the sponsors were disconcerted.

It was not the unionising of the Hare and the Tortoise, but a sudden deep realisation by the contestants that the liability of each had been compensated well by the Almighty and the special skills, if any, was also, not one to be displayed and prided in but also granted by the Almighty, for it’s own safety from mischievous predators.

But there is a lurking idle set of human minds which either sets up a contest between these elements, debases the talented by putting it to sleep in the middle of the race and garlands the relentless plodder while the talented is relaxing; or the other set, which sits on the sidelines and writes the glorious nonsense “slow & steady wins the race”- and feel smug at such an intellectual discovery.

Do not make contests for your own glory; the person with a liability, in him carrying his liability stands protected; and the skilled, through his skill has merely been granted survival skills.

Make no mockery of the Maker. Live AT Peace.

She is called Missy,

Mixed in breed

& bred in clandestine ways.

Her master had embellished her with brass buckled collar.

Neat & respectable.

He walks Missy

Morning & evening-

Without fail.

In the nights she’s let loose.

Till midnight she guards her home.

By an hour to midnight she

Winds down her duties.

At the stroke of midnight

Missy lifts with her snout

The unhinged slat of the ledge.

Missy makes her way out

When her master is fast asleep.

She joins the pyes,

Which self arrogatedly guard the street.

I can see her from my balcony in 7th floor.

Missy has admirers galore

But the biggest and the meanest pyedog guards her.

Missy has a collar,

The one that distinguishes her from the pyedogs.

She has a owner.

She is cared for.

Other dogs envy her.

They see Missy

Walk like a bride in the morning & evening.

But Missy spares no fun that the pyedogs have.

Yet Missy’s collar

Gives respectability & envy.

There is none like Missy

In our street.

Cared for, yet with Liberty

On the sly.

All because she has a brass buckled collar.


Gideon’s purpose was approved by God and supported by his father Joash. None, mind you, NONE even from his own tribe of Manasseh believed in the method or the purpose which he undertook on his own and when God recognised him as a ‘thou mighty man of valour’ – he did not bask in the certificate of the angel of God, yet when he had to engage with his enemies, Gideon took an ASSURANCE from God. An Assurance through two impossible signs.


There are three signs Gideon takes before he embarks on a fight against the Midianites, the Amalekites and the children of the East.


First, when the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon while he was stealthily threshing wheat, and told him “Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?” The sign Gideon received was that when the Angel of the Lord, who sat under an oak in Abiezer, touched the offering poured out on the rock and touched it by his staff, the whole offering was consumed.


Experience had taught Gideon that he should not only have an assurance but an assurance from the Lord who could do great things.

When the Pharisees asked for a sign from Jesus, they were not seeking for a sign to believe, but to debunk the sign and rely on their own Unbelief in Christ and rightly Jesus says : no sign would be given (Gospel of Mark) except for the sign of Jonah ( Gospels of Matthew & Luke). Jesus calls such seeking of signs by His contemporaneous generation as “wicked & adulterous”.

Wickedness could be defined as a ‘wilful choice of the evil’ and Adulterous means ‘not faithful to the choice made and showing waywardness in accepting favours, protection or resources by succumbing to the enticements and show of power by someone other than the God to whom one has chosen to stay committed’.


A sign is a prediction of the outcome. A prediction about the events to come in the future without the person seeking a sign not having made up his mind. A sign could turn out to be like Chananah’s son Zedekiah’s prediction before Ahab and Jehoshaphat, regarding the battle which they had undertaken to pursue on a prediction of positive outcome.

The difference between Gideon seeking a sign and Ahab or the Pharisees seeking a sign is VAST. Gideon had already embarked on the path of confronting the Midianites, the Amalekites and the children of the East. He was NOT asking which way the wind would blow. He wanted the wind to blow his way and he wanted an assurance from the Creator of the wind to blow his way.

If one understands the difference, it would be exhilarating. Gideon was finding a way to win. He wanted God to be on his side, whereas Ahab and the Pharisees had not hoisted their sails nor would till they were told through a sign that they would obtain a particular result. Otherwise, they were willing to desist and altogether abandon their embarking on the battle or their course.

Gideon had chosen his path, his request for a sign was a prayer for sanctification of the path already embarked by him.

Gideon places the fleece and requests God, truly humbly, that the fleece should be drenched with dew whereas the outside of the fleece should be without dew. Gideon does not request for a human possibility – except through fraud. When Gideon finds that God had made it happen, he once again humbly requests God to perform the reverse of his earlier ‘sign’- which by hindsight is even more humanly impossible – the fleece should be dry but the area surrounding the fleece should be wet with dew. God makes it happen, AGAIN.

God’s eyes which run to and fro have found Gideon – a mighty man of valour – willing to stand as a single man and resist the Midianites. Even God wants to convince Gideon to go to take the Midianites head on. God gives Gideon an unsolicited third party assurance- an enemy soldier dreams and another soldier interprets that dream reassuring an eavesdropping Gideon. An event not ‘intended’ but an independent assurance that Gideon would win.

Sure enough he wins.

Even after victory, he faces humiliation from the twin tribe of Manasseh – Ephraim. The Ephraimites chide Gideon the Manassehite as to why he did not involve the tribe of Ephraim.

None from the Ephraim could have imagined the nocturnal threshing that Gideon was doing to shore up the merge resources left unplundered by the marauding Midianites. Yet he comes up with two classic statements to assure the Ephraimites of their putative superiority over the tribe of Manasseh.

One is that he gives the Ephraimites the credit for killing the Princes Zeeb and Oreb. In fact the tribe of Naphtali and Asher, sniffed a deliverer in Gideon and joined Gideon in the pursuit of the Midianites, but the Ephraimites waited for an invitation and possibly the scent of victory before they took the Midianites at Bethbarah and Jordan. Yet Gideon ascribes the victory to the Ephraimites. Gideon kills it when he draws an imagery of the grapes thus:

“Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?”


This victory for freedom effervescent in the blood of Gideon was able to overlook the fact as to who contributed more to the victory over the Midianites. It was not mere generosity of the soul of Gideon; nor was it the political acumen to harness the dominant tribe of Ephraim, I see it as the fulfilment of the thirst of Liberty which was willing to forgo credit for the freedom achieved.

Gideon ranks in my list as next only to Moses as the Greatest Liberator.


We as individuals are all labouring under some Midianite or Amalekite force trampling and swindling our resources and livelihood, yet we eke out our meagre existence with a fervent Hope that one day we may be called as ‘mighty man of valour’ – while threshing our own wheat sheaves in our own backyard in the dark of the night‼️

The putative father of Louis XIV was Louis XIII, the reality was that Louis XIII failed to produce an heir to the throne of France through many women besides his Queen, which was a cause of concern not only for Louis XIII, his Queen and, most of all, the Pope.

The temporal head had to find means to beget an heir and a deus ex machina was invented. A Duke was interpolated into the conjugal bed of the King and Queen. Voila, two sons were born out of that unholy union. The elder one became Louis XIV and the second one became the Duke of Orleans.

The Pope, which means the Church, was fully in the know of this. The biological father’s functions were well performed and over. Therefore, this nameless Duke Sullun, was masked and detained in the high security dungeons- now called prisons.

In the Fifth year of Louis XIV, the King dies and Louis XIV being the Dauphin, is crowned the king. However, in view of his minority, his mother was made the Regent, who continued to rule France with the aid of a Cardinal ( I suppose). This arrangement continued for close to ten years and thereafter Louis assumes kingship and shifts his capital to Versailles.

The fact that his biological father was still alive was neither known nor suspected by Louis XIV.

When the Church manoeuvred to play the legitimacy card to keep the king in check, serendipitously he stumbles upon how his mother had, in satisfaction of her queenly duties, begotten him and his brother Philippe.

Louis, was a man who smelt a threat where such possibilities merely existed.

Upon discovery, he along with his brother poisoned their father and killed that Possibility from emerging as a Fact to threaten the good life they both had got used to.

This brutal act by Louis XIV doesn’t get highlighted in history, all because of the cardinal reason THE WINNER WRITES HISTORY – the loser’s version never gets the publicity.

I love to read this legitimisation of the illegalities of imposters and how they by doing good deeds perpetuate their names like Louis Le Grand‼️

History repeats itself constantly, only that the contemporaneous events do not have the feel of the exaltation of History.

Never ever wake up from that feminine lap of luxury with false memories of strength. With the locks go the strength too, but awareness came much later. Tell not the woman the reasons for your strength. If the locks are your strength, give her no clue. Else she’ll monetise that knowledge with the lurking Philistines.

Keep your locks in order. Philistines always lurk behind those laps of luxury. The luxury invested with those silver coins by the Philistines. When you see luxury in a woman, not financed by you or her father, dream not of pillowing your head in that lap. It is not a lap of luxury, it is the snare for disempowerment. Many a Samson has awoken to realise that by groping in the dark – that darkness created by Philistines with your gouged out eyeballs in their hands.

Philistines entice never ever directly, but by bringing those things before you with an unexpected surrender the things which you once furtively ached for.

Run son, Run.

Blindness awaits those who lean on those laps of luxury. Those laps make you reveal through feminine persistence and importunity.

David was not wiser than the ancients because he Trusted only the Lord, he helped himself by learning to scold the very same Michal for whom he once risked his own life for two hundred foreskins, and esteemed being the son-in-law of Saul too high for him.

Foolish Michal thought David returned her love. That Love he managed from the more devoted and unprincessly Abigail and Bathsheba, both of whose husbands propitiously for David died the day after each of those women met him‼️

Michal was only a means for David to sup with the king on the new moon days and other feast days. Foolish Michal scolds a King who was then in the very throne of her father. She forgot that David was not just a skilled sniping slinger but Michal’s King.

Michal went without kids, why so? David must have been particular not to bring forth kids from those imperious womb and made her a babysitter for her sister Mehrab’s kids. Mehrab, who was David’s denied trophy had to hand over her kids or was Mehrab alive at all at that point?

If David’s logic of informing Ishbosheth that Michal’s bride price was paid for in double by David and therefore his claim didn’t abate; how much more right he did have to claim Mehrab on the grounds that she was on the public block for decimating Goliath.

Methinks, David got her too but fortunately for him, was not discovered like in the case of Bathsheba.

In life neither are all men Samsons nor Davids. Each makes his own life – and be not like Esau who sold his birthright for colourful pottage.

Philistines come in different forms, some as Sauls, enticing you to fight for a princess; and some Philistines straight get to the woman through threats and incentives.

Beware of the Philistines, not the woman.


Tirukural is a Touchstone of righteous behaviour, it never made a man Righteous. I’ve heard many quoting Kural as the proof of something they have observed, but never quoted as a dictum they followed – come what may.

The eagerness to compare the pithiness of the couplets to those of the sayings of De La Rochefoucauld could be tempting, yet, the comparison is not apt as the range of the Kural is phenomenally wider than that of the maxims of Duc de La Rochefoucauld and less sarcastically insightful.

I would also hate to equate the Kural with the Beatitudes for the same reason.

There is an entire part devoted to the carnality of love between a man and a woman, which is unaddressed in the Beatitudes – the purpose being entirely different.

Some of the Beatitudes are epigrammatically formulising and some are didactic, but they don’t deal with the sensitivity of human feelings – legitimate or otherwise; The Kural is magnificent in its scope and precise to the point of focus.

To slot it would be very difficult. The translations of Rajaji or Sundaram are all partially interpretative. The proof is that one has to go to the உரை or the commentary in prose in Thamizh by Karunanidhi and others, where the meaning of a particular Kural has been found to have been interpreted according to the known ideology of the interpreter.

One of the earliest translators of the Kural into English language was Joseph Beschi, whom I suppose was a missionary. He never published the part relating to Love, the third part, which he thought might not be appropriate to the Christian teachings he was probably propagating- this is assuming that he even translated the third part. It took a person by name GU Pope to translate the whole Kural into English.

There have been votaries of all religions who have read their proclivities into those couplets, yet none has made it his dictum in life to live by any of the Kurals. However any reader would wonder how a single person, by name Valluvar, could have had not only had the grasp in such a spectrum of wide ranging topics, but his poetic succinctness in expression.

I want to find a single man who says he has followed the statements- because they are NOT prescriptions- found in the Kural.

The Tent of Power remains the same, only that the well entrenched Sheik and his camel keep taking turns to stay in and out like our political parties.

If as Twain said, “No man’s life or Liberty is safe when the Congress is in session”, no man’s Peace is safe at anytime if the Executive is not controlled by the Legislature and the Judiciary, as the Executive is perpetually in session.

It is that control over the Executive Power that the Legislative mandate gives.

Funny, that in India, everyone hankers after the Executive Power through the Legislative Power; and do not make any effective contribution in the Assembly or the Parliament.

The Legislative Power has declined and the media does not cover the debates in the Assemblies and the Parliament. The Legislative Power has become merely the means to achieve the Executive Power.

When I hear the promises and read the Manifestos of political parties during elections, I wonder whether they had not debated these issues in the Assemblies and the Parliament?

If they had debated, what proposals were made by which Parliamentarian or MLA? How much he pushed it? What were his reasoning?

All that is missing.

When such an informed choice is hard to make by the electorate, the easy option is to rotate the strike, especially when one party’s manifesto reads like a stencilled copy of the other.

We have come across the term ‘elitist’ in many a context especially relating to one who has not sullied his hands in the grime of Life, yet has had ‘success’ in his profession; and had exhibited ‘taste’ in his choices. But to portray them as a political class and to exemplify that class par excellence, it needs a high magnitude of understanding and to vilify them is not easy, as they say the politically right things and are seen as those who hate talk of money, yet silently cream out the society through their ostensibly altruistic policies.

After many years of reading insipid writers with those didactic homilies delivered piecemeal thru Whatsapp circulars, when I read the following by P J O’Rourke, I was exhilarated:

“Another result is the European refugee crisis. What do the elites care? The refugees aren’t crowding the halls and jostling the elites in the corridors of the European Parliament in Brussels. The refugees aren’t building shanty­towns on the tennis courts at the elites’ country clubs. Young refugee men commit assaults in public places, like the Cologne train station, on public occasions, like New Year’s Eve. That’s the public’s problem. These things don’t happen at the private dinner parties elites give.

The elites fail and don’t suffer any consequences from their failures. As it is with elite carelessness about refugees, so it is with elite carelessness about immigration. To elites immigration means nannies, household staff, and fun new ethnic restaurants. Elites don’t see any similarity

between Trump’s border wall and the gated communities where they live.

To be fair to elites, they’ve got their problems too. We live in speedy times. Quick changes in social mores, economic norms, and political givens confuse everyone, especially those who thought they were leading The Mores, Norms, and Givens Parade.

We don’t have to march in lockstep anymore. People are becoming persons, not masses. This is fun. But difficulties arise after the stride is broken. When the band breaks up it can leave the tubas to be turned into beer bongs; the fellow with the bass drum sitting on the curb playing the solo from “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida”; the trombonist using his slide to goose the cornet player; and nobody left who can spell “glockenspiel.” Meanwhile, the elite drum major is just some dork standing in the middle of the street wearing a goofy hat and waving a stick.”

Most of the literate people themselves wouldn’t be able to differentiate between these two. If the literate themselves do not know the difference, what kind of an informed ‘choice’ are the balance 30% going to make at the time of voting in a Democracy?

Should they know the difference? If the people knew the difference, would their choice be any different? In case it is different, on what count, would it be different? Yes, I guess.

Firstly, through Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the Executive power of the States is defined. This is merely to carve out the areas in which the State could exclusively act, those areas where it has to act along with the Union, and those areas which are outside its scope.
If we read Article 53 of the Constitution, the Executive Power would not be thus circumscribed as the Parliament has the Residual powers, as such the Executive Power cannot be circumscribed or defined, as the Parliament is empowered to act in areas unenvisaged as yet, but provided for a contingent situation.
Therefore, the True meaning of ‘Executive Power’ has to be discovered from Art 162 only. Which is ‘Executive Power is coextensive with the Legislative power within its competency’.

162. Extent of executive power of State.

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:

53. Executive power of the Union.

(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.

I’ve reproduced part of the two Articles for reference and it can be noticed that the Executive Power of the Union is not clearly defined, as the wordings of the Article would have become clumsy if one had to detail the residual powers also.

Therefore, for the understanding of a layman like me, the Executive Power of any authority would be circumscribed by the Legislative Power it has been vested with under the Constitution.

So, what is the difference?
Aristotle said this:
It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens’ and upon evolution of this idea through Locke and Dicey we have the Rule of Law.
But Laws have to be made by human beings and that body of Human beings are the Legislators. It is they who are required to be elected in our great Indian democracy. We don’t elect Executives, we elect only Legislators. Or to put it even more lucidly, we elect the Law Makers and not the Ministers.
The Ministers are a body of Legislators who enjoy the majority support of the Legislature, whether it be the Parliament or the Assembly. These Ministers are the ones who perform the Executive functions in the name of the President or the Governors.

Therefore, when we elect, we elect people to do the primary function of making laws. These laws cannot be discriminatory and should have universal applicability with reasonable exceptions carved out as mentioned in the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy or even as exceptions in some of the Fundamental Rights, otherwise those Laws run the risk of being struck down as offending the Constitutional guarantees or even its Basic Structure.
So the Executive has to be a Legislator FIRST, therefore, it is imperative on the part of the electorate to decide the competency of a person as a Legislator before considering any other aspect.
If a Julius Caesar were to use his techniques he employed with the Gauls against the Romans citizens, there would be order and peace for a while but no true Growth.
True growth means even getting to employ the differently abled and the weak into the machinery of the State or the Nation and providing them the wages not according to their productivity but according to the effort put in by them.
I am very impressed with Bharat Petroleum, as they employ persons with limited understanding to just fill gas and note the reading and collect the amount shown in the meter. The effort those young boys put in, to perform those basic functions are no less contributory than the skilled workers. We, as a society have salvaged, a person from getting ghettoised and marginalised from the dungeons of his own house, where he could be seen as a burden. Having been made an earning member, Bharat Petroleum has fulfilled not CSR obligations but a duty as a member of the Society.
We need Legislators who are capable of distinguishing not on grounds of materialism like Productivity alone but providing ways of livelihood for the deprived and the disabled, without compromising on recognising and fostering Merit and the Meritorious.

When we understand this we will not turn to Legislators who make rabble rousing speeches but to those Legislators who are capable of taking other Legislators along on a sane and fair path to make Laws and find ways to implement the same justly.

Voting is a Right in a Democracy, but to vote rightly is merely an option. Don’t waste it.

Saul, the King of Israel was after David, his son-in-law. David was sore afraid of Saul, as the whole state machinery was put after David to the extent that David tells Saul’s son Jonathan ‘there is but a step between me and death’!

Even David, so wise and skilled couldn’t withstand the onslaught of the machinery that was set upon by Saul that he decided and migrated his family to the land of Moab. Before David found favour with the king of Moab, David landed up at the palace of Achish, the King of Gath, one of the conglomerates of the Philistines. David was mortally stricken when he was presented before Achish that he feigned madness, and found his escape by a disgusted Achish.

David was able to escape because he was assisted by Jonathan, the son of Saul. Had not Jonathan assisted David, in probability, Saul and Abner would have overtaken David.
Saul was so upset that none who belonged to his own tribe of Benjamin, showed him that his own son Jonathan was in league with David.
The following passage reflects the Loser in Saul.

“Then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundred”.

Saul’s position as the King of Israel had given him the ability to apportion lands and other resources, which Saul had been whimsically apportioning among his own Tribe of Benjamin.
Saul relies on the Benjamites to inform Saul of the doings and affiliations of David. Basically, Saul expected his tribesmen to give him clue of the life of David and Saul feels that the Benjamites has let him down.

Firstly, that Saul as the King by distributing the resources of his kingdom would be able to buy the LOYALTY of people was erroneous.
Secondly, by distributing such largess to his Tribe, they were DUTY BOUND to inform Saul, was downright stupid.
Thirdly, by thinking that since David was from the other Tribe of Judah, people from Benjamin Tribe wouldn’t sympathise with David’s cause, is a loser’s premise.
Fourthly, that the intangibles like Loyalty, Insider information would be forthcoming only from because of tribal affinity is proven wrong immediately after this verse. It is an Edomite called Doeg, who sneaks on David’s meeting with Ahimelech, the priest at Nob.
It is only a person with information who can share it, irrespective of whether he was a Benjamite or not. In this case it happened to be an Edomite.
The loyalty bought with State’s resources neither got Saul the loyalty of his tribesmen nor the intelligence of the whereabouts of David.

It was this attitude of Saul, that he could BUY the loyalty & information by REWARDING HIS OWN TRIBE by distributing the State’s resources is the greatest flaw. His Tribesmen think it is a matter of RIGHT to be given that largesse. In any case, Saul was NOT PAYING anything out of his own sweat or tears or blood, which makes Saul a cheat, who is merely putting his hand into the till of the National Resources and distributing.
The down fall of Saul was immense. He was so interested in the outcome of his wars, that he went to the extent of getting a Necromancer to raise up Samuel to divine for Saul. The ominous prognosis was “to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me:” – what a terrible thing to hear, from the dead Samuel!

To submit to the limitations of a human being is the true crown of a King. To be just in the distribution of the national resources is the sceptre of righteousness. Gathering information somehow, like Saul, from the dead, takes the seeker there.
Kings beware! Power has its limitation only in two ways:
0. in its supply- when it would be cut off -is known to none.
0. One’s own mortality.

Any kid regular to the Sunday School would know who Mordecai was, especially with reference to the Book of Esther of the Old Testament of the Bible.

But who was Memucan?

If there is one person other than Mordecai who should be given credit for raising Esther to that position, it should go to Memucan.

Memucan got that place vacated, which was filled in by Esther. If the vacancy hadn’t risen to start with, all the labour of Mordecai in having raised his Neice Esther, the way she turned out, would have been in vain.

In the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus, the King who ruled from Ethiopia to India, the King had a feast and when his heart was merry with wine on the 7th day of the feast, the king sent his 7 chamberlains to fetch Queen Vashti with the royal crown. Vashti had been throwing parties all these 7 days in her own palace too. When she was called on the 7th day, she refused and Ahasuerus burnt with anger.

He called his 7 princes and asked them to tender their advice for his consideration. The 7th Prince of the 7 Princes was Memucan.

Memucan and the other six of the 7 Princes knew the times and were wise. Memucan’s first advice was that Vashti shouldn’t go ever before the presence of Ahasuerus. The second suggestion was that a new girl/ woman be found for the King as a replacement for Vashti.

What happened thereafter each Bible reading person would know, but this blog is focussed on the issue How Advice of advisors transform into a Law of the Perses and Medes – unchangeable and irrevocable.

Esther enters the trial nuptial bed of Ahasuerus in the 7th year of his reign. Rest is history.

Ahasuerus issues two orders, one is that Vashti is banished from his presence forever and one better be sought as replacement; the other being that every man should bear rule in his own house.

This Memucan, whether he knew Justice or not, I know not, but sure he knew the Times. And this Memucan knew the art of self promotion – he created an opportunity to get rid of an intractable mare Ahasuerus was stuck with and devised a great plan for providing sexual fodder for the King perennially for the next four years. It isn’t a joke that Esther’s turn came in the 7th year of the reign of Ahasuerus. The decree was passed in the third year – Ahasuerus’ search for a Queen ended after four years of relentless nuptial nights, with no repeats, probably‼️

I have no sympathy for Vashti, she owed, if not obedience to the call of Ahasuerus, at least a credible explanation.

Or was she threatened by the presence of those intimidating 7 chamberlains, one of them, Harbonah, who in the latter chapters covers the face of Haman and bundles Haman out of the bed of Esther. Or was Vashti busy enjoying herself in the feast from her own palace ignorant of the ire that her attitude might trigger in Ahasuerus. Or was it a palace intrigue to decimate Vashti for some oblique reason?

But Memucan’s presumption that a Royal decree of the supremacy of a man in his own house, would rein in all intractable behaviour of their respective wives, seems to be not a solution laid on sound foundation. Probably, that kind of application on a mass scale was the only solution, when one makes laws for such a huge country.

If any reader discovers where that Sushan Palace existed, he should share it with me so that we could go thereabouts and look for the grave of Memucan and build a memorial for that male chauvinist – who succeeded in getting such a decree issued under the unchangeable law of the Medes & Perses‼️


They are all great writers from different vocations, but they look at Life from a perspective which is seldom viewed and rarely expressed with such felicity.

They make you Think, they don’t just lead you, if at all they lead, they lead you to review your own prejudices. Leaders are dangerous, whether they lead by example or authority or by deceptive words, because they make you Follow. They don’t even allow you the luxury of deceiving yourself into believing that you are following your own fancy.


There is no more rebirths coming up for me, at least I subscribe to that religious belief, so why waste this one by merely following someone or someone’s ways or ideas, when, I believe, there is boundless God given Liberty?


Rights are inferior to Liberty. Rights seeks equality with someone or something, Liberty knows no bounds – it is our own limitation which circumscribes our limits. Humans build on the knowledge of the previous generations and explore areas beyond what the previous generation was capable of – merely because every succeeding generation does NOT bind itself within the limits of the previous generation.

It is not a single man’s effort like Daedalus’ wings, the limitations of which cannot be conveyed to the Icaruses of the succeeding generation. The human compendium of knowledge in technology is thorough in what it knows and what it assumes and what it doesn’t know. That knowledge is applied and tested through appliances and other products by each generation and built through the touchstone of Efficacy.

Imagination is good for one who Attempts or Does, but for others it is onanism of one’s Time. Better to have a plough to your hand than to have a pillow to your head.

These three lead one to Liberty, they don’t purvey any false hopes and lead you on- they just show that you can dare to think differently.


In the land of the slaves there can be Rights, but no Liberty. Liberty is God ordained – anyone who leads you to that outer space to sniff at Liberty is a greater writer than one who persuades you with authority, or seduces you with rewards, or activates you with hopes of unverifiable and intangible hereafter.

“Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” This was uttered by Nebuchadnezzar to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Did the Lord Almighty answer that question raised by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar; or was it the answer to the Faith reposed by the three in a statement to the King thus:
“our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.”

Any reader of this passage at Daniel Chapter 3 would know that there was a fourth person sighted by Nebuchadnezzar in the furnace along with those three, whom Nebuchadnezzar surmises as ‘Son of God’.

The same Nebuchadnezzar in a few verses below says thus:
Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies.

Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar did not see GOD THE SON, rather it was an angel. Had it been an angel, why should he have been invisible to others, especially to those three?

Did the ‘Son of God’ appear to prove that there was someone who could save the three; or was it because God wanted to honour the Faith of those three?

The answer is simple, for those who want to propagate the hypothesis that ‘God humbles the proud’ the Son of God appeared only to Nebuchadnezzar and taught him that haughtiness doesn’t survive.
For those who want to exemplify that Faith in God is rewarded. Even though the presence of the Son of God, was not visible to the Faithful, the angel’s presence frightened the opponents who saw the Son of God and surrendered to those three beneficiaries of Son of God’s presence.
Either way, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego got the relief.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Megalomania was there to see in the way he spoke. It is the same arrogance which made him say later thus:
“Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?”
That the Son of God appeared in the fiery furnace to Nebuchadnezzar was a precursor to quell his teeming arrogance, yet Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t realise. His arrogance reached such alarming levels that instead of giving all glory to God – like ‘Not unto us O, Lord!’- he wanted to appropriate all glory to himself and in no time he was consigned to be with cattle, eating grass.
Yet there was this elemental goodness in him, just as he acknowledged the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and issued the decree that none shall utter any ill against their God, in the past. It was that elemental goodness which brought him back from those grass eating ways.

Being Compliant of an unjust law could be a necessity at times and a good strategy sometimes, but rarely both. But in the case of Gideon the Valorous, it was both a Necessity and a Strategy.
The Midianites, who were the Overlords to the Israelites, extracted tribute in the form of  agricultural produce, which probably kept the Israelites poor, with no reserves or leisure – the twin benefits of prosperous activity. Each day’s labour was expended on earning their bare livelihood.
In these hard times for the Israelites, the Overlords kept an eye on the Compliance of the rules the Midianites had made to keep the Israelites in that state of want and lack of leisure.
Seeming to be compliant yet threshing wheat near the wine press keeping his activity out of the view of the Midianites was the valorous man Gideon.
The Midianites, Amalekites and the children of the East came in multitudes like grasshoppers and entered into the labour of the Israelites and destroyed the very source of their sustenance. This impoverished the Israelites.
I can imagine what a plight it would have been when mere numbers are used to subjugate a people in their own land; depriving them of the very source of their sustenance and making them labour without pride & having to conceal their labour and the meagre rewards which accrue out of such clandestine labour, in their own lands. Can one forgive the perpetrators of such cruelty? I guess not.
I can imagine a Gideon, a valorous man, slinking and threshing his homegrown wheat in his own land, gathering the same and saving the wheat for his near and dear ones- all because he was ranged against a multitude of men who outnumbered his clan. Yet that spirit in Gideon sustained him to not give up, but toil in silence and in the dark and gather as much as possible.
When that ass seeking King Saul spared the Amalekite King Agag, much later despite Prophet Samuel’s instructions, did he recall the plight his ancestor Gideon suffered at the hands of the Amalekites? I guess not. Saul was protecting Agag the king of the Amalekites. Samuel definitely had a longer memory of how that Amalekites had attacked the Israelites from the rear, harming the women. children and the enfeebled lot on their journey to Canaan.
Even if Saul hadn’t read that history, he should have had some idea of how a valorous man like Gideon had to cower under the Overlordship of the Amalekites and should have diligently carried out the instructions of Samuel. Alas, Saul didn’t! Saul became a big man in his own eyes – rightly spotted by Samuel and questioned.
Gideon, a valorous man threshing in the dark and away from the sight of the Amalekites had a reason. The Amalekites attacked the enfeebled and the impoverished, having no MANLINESS in them nor the courage to risk and make a frontal attack on their enemies.
An Amalekite doesn’t need your land, he needs your wheat and corn- the finished products. An Amalekite doesn’t want to administer, he just needs all the resources from others.
Moses was able to identify this trait in the Amalekites very early. The Amalekites stole or used violent means to obtain the resources of others without expending any labour on it. At Rephedim, Moses anoints them as enemies of God.
If I have not yet convinced the reader about the ways of an Amalekite, look at that Amalekite who found the same Saul – who wanted to save the life of Agag the Amalekite – in a moribund state leaning on a sword in the mount of Gilboa begging the Amalekite to deliver the coup de grace on Saul. That wretched Amalekite dares to kill a King, though ostensibly at the king’s request. Who knows? There were three, one was the dying Saul, the other was that wretched Amalekite and finally, as always, the Almighty. Out of this one killed the other and very rarely God stands as a witness in such sordid human affairs – except in the case of Abel. Now that Amalekite narrates a story to David, the ultimate story teller. David, the Shrewdest King of Israel, knows better‼️ The Amalekite steals the crown and the bracelet from the dead Saul and takes it to David for a reward.
David was DAVID. Uses the opportunity to redeem his own image in front of the Israelites – especially the Benjamites but also kills the Amalekite for having dared to have been responsible for the final blow to the dying King of Israel. David remembers how to handle an Amalekite – spare them not!
So Gideon was dealing with these type of Amalekites and that needed outward compliance for SURVIVAL – that compliance was strategy.
There is another kind of compliance – Compliant so that one doesn’t take up an issue which carries no purpose.
Jesus, while in the flesh, asks Peter whether the Kings collect customs and tribute from their own children? Peter promptly answers in the negative and Jesus says something absolutely BRILLIANT and becomes Compliant of those unfair Laws, without any Conviction in what he recommended to Peter to do. Read the following:
Matt 17: 24 & 25
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus tells Peter to pay not out of the offerings given by people or any other laboured money, but tells Peter to cast a hook and pay the money found in the mouth of the fish as tribute/ custom for Him and Peter. He demeans their greed by getting the money from a fish. 
I sense the contempt Jesus had for such unfair taxation; and the method He used to defray the tax liability was amazing. 
I see this episode as a clear proof of Compliance without Conviction. 
In keeping with His saying : Render unto God that which is God’s, and unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, that piece of money that came out of a fish’s belly, is paid out to the Caesar.
Don’t rebel when your rebellion is to no avail. Just comply WITH CONTEMPT!

There might be a lot of rejoicing by the Angels when someone is lost and found. But to be lost or not, is entirely in one’s own own hands, to a very large extent. I say ‘very large extent’ as otherwise, Jesus wouldn’t have taught his disciples the Lord’s prayer with ‘lead us not into temptation’!

And, it is not exactly our business to create ‘rejoicing’ in the Angels, in fact there is more for the three, if one had not taken half of the property and returned without the one half he had demanded and taken from his father.

The story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, is a parable of Salvation & Redemption and NOT a parable which prescribes the benchmark for Christian life.

The context of Chapter 15 is explained at the outset by Luke, wherein it is mentioned that the ‘righteous’ Pharisees were indignant of the Publicans and sinners, listening to Jesus and consequently repenting and obtaining Salvation.

Jesus gives three parables, of how a shepherd lost his one sheep among hundred and found that one sheep, after much searching, and rejoiced over it.
Second is when a woman had lost her silver coin and when she searched and found it, she rejoiced over it with her friends & neighbours.

Jesus says that when these two had searched diligently and found it, in the first case, there was ‘rejoicing in heaven’. In the second case of the coin, Jesus says, ‘the angels in heaven rejoiced’.

The first of these  two parables involves an animate sheep which had strayed from its flock, which necessitated the shepherd to leave the 99 sheep in a fold or in fellowship and go looking for the Lost Sheep.

The second was a coin, an inanimate object, which couldn’t have got lost on its own, consequently, the woman sweeps her place and recovers it. In these two cases, there was EFFORT by the owner to trace it.
However, the third parable of the PRODIGAL SON required no effort from the outside. This parable involves a human being’s Realisation after depleting his salt and returning to his father with the realisation that in his father’s house, his servants had a better life than the one he was living. Still, it can be ‘salted’ through the magnanimity of God.

The beauty of the arrangement of the third parable is such that the problem was beyond effort. The solution was self-realisation and repentance.
The third Parable involves property, a father and two of his sons.
Jesus doesn’t talk of whether the properties in the hands of the father were self earned or ‘inherited’.
But I am inclined to believe that the father had inherited those properties, as otherwise the second son couldn’t have been emboldened to ask his father to divide the property into portions that fell unto him, nor would the father have been duty bound to divide the property into two portions. Alternatively, though it was not the second son’s ‘right’ to receive half, the father wanted to sever his properties into two so that he could secure for his first son the father’s half of the one third share and not be molested by the second son in future, on some venial pretext if the second son were to return for more.
This parable is an amazingly apt parable in the context. The second son asked for what fell for him, which means, his father could rightfully have divided his inheritance from his forebears into three and keep one share for himself and the other two to be given, one each to the two sons. But the Wise & Compassionate father divided his ‘living’ into two parts, and gave the second son half of all that the father had. What the father did was a SEVERANCE OF NOT ONLY THE INHERITED PROPERTY BUT ALSO THE SELF GAINED PROPERTY AND DIVIDED HIS LIVING EQUALLY AMONG HIS SONS. The father left nothing for himself, either he trusted God like Abraham and/or had faith in the righteousness of his first son. Either way, he was right by hindsight.

The scripture says that the second son wasted his goods in riotous living, though his resenting elder brother, upon the return of the younger brother says that the younger brother “hath devoured thy living with harlots”! In any case, the resultant Fact was that the second son’s share and half of the father’s one third share were irretrievably lost.

Sure, it was lost. But the father is compassionate and gets the best robe for the Repentant Son, gets him a ring, shoes et al, upon his return; but the father was Not foolish enough to tell his first son to transfer half of his father’s share -which was half of one third of the original property divided between the sons- to the Repentant son, instead tells the disgruntled first son, let us celebrate now and make your brother happy, but still whatever is my share I have secured it for you and the Repentant son will have no say in it.
That’s why Jesus says “JOY SHALL BE IN HEAVEN”, but in no way would the original title as an ‘INHERITOR’ be restored to a Prodigal Son.

Look at the self proclamation of Paul in Philippians 3:6 “touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless”. Even though Paul glories in the Grace of God, he did NOT give up on his ‘blameless’ past. That still continued as a good qualification in the eyes of the gentiles and Paul knew it and exploited it. So to have a blameless past is great, but to insist on such a blameless Past for salvation, is Pharisaical and anti Christian. That is the pith and substance of this parable.
Jesus says, In my father’s house are many mansions, definitely a Repentant sinner would find a place there, but to exalt the Second Son and glorify him over the first is to grant the Repentant sinner the sceptre of power, which is neither tenable as per the Scriptures nor advisable on grounds of fairness. The Repentant sinner has to ‘restart’ with no talent in his hands to work on. He gets a start at life without being consigned to the dustbin of despair, but by no means would a father say ‘All that I have is yours’.
The Second Son got relief from his despair, but his return in now way restored his role as a potential Inheritor. The Second Son might have created the ripple of rejoicing but it does not guarantee the return of his former Prince-hood.
The Preacher in a Church today, 03/02/2019, was eulogising the Second Son, forgetting that human endeavour is not to create ‘rejoicing in heaven’ or ‘rejoicing among the angels’; but to be granted adoption as God’s children.
I am amused at the interpretation of rehabilitation being exalted above Inheritance. It is time preachers stopped taking Parables out of context and flying kites with their warped interpretations and making those parables the mules to carry their pet half baked hypotheses.

Blasphemy by a Poetess – Lucille

The above is a poem by Lucille Clifton, once poet laureate of the State of Maryland in the USA.
The poem is drawing its imagery from the Rod of Moses, which was cast by him before the Pharaoh which turned into a serpent. Another imagery deployed in the poem is also from the life of Moses, when he saw the burning bush, out of which Jehovah spoke to Moses during his stay with his Midianite Father-in-law Jethro.
I would fain explain the contents of the poem were it not to lead to an inescapable conclusion that I relish smut. Consequently, I refrain from expatiating the contents thereof. However, I’d like to furnish the title of the poem, “To A Dark Moses”. That this poem has been written by a “poetess” gives greater credence to the intensity and meaning of the iconic imagery around which this short poem is woven.
If this poem were to have been penned by a male poet, the question would be on authenticity and a natural question: How would he know?, unless he were a Tiresias with a distinct memory of both his existences!

In any case, taking a Biblical imagery and revered characters out of the Bible and portraying it in matters relating to carnal matters in a kind of this poem would in no way have ingratiated herself to the Christian community which would have bothered to read it.
But it is also a point that since she was a Poet Laureate, this poem must have been scrutinised by the puritans of his time. Probably, it was their ilk which prevented her from winning the Pulitzer Prize, though having been a finalist twice.
In India, we are a touchy lot. When our icons are drawn to furnish parallels on carnal matters, there is a serious risk of the poet running not only ‘offending the religious sentiments of fellowmen and fellow women, but may even trigger riots and reprisals of the worst kind.
I am sure that in the US no such things happened, as poets like Ginsberg, EE Cummings, Plath, Bob Dylan had already liberated free expression from the thorny sensitivities of the Christian folks, by then.
I had serendipitously fallen on the Judgement of a Madras High Court Justice by name Seshasayee, recently, wherein the Hon’ble Justice had averred that there was no need of any legislation laying down ‘reasonable restrictions’ in terms of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, by the Legislature or the Executive, but that it was the ‘Duty’ of every citizen to respect the sentiments of his fellow citizens. The Hon’ble Justice goes on to state that when a citizen demands a ‘Right’, he has to also observe the ‘Duty’ cast on him as they are jurisprudentially correlatives.
My understanding of Hohfeld is that when I have a Right, then the Jural correlative would be a Duty on the other and not on the person who has a Right.
Secondly, when the State is infringing in my justiciable Rights, how far would the argument be correct that I have to be Duty bound by the nebulous sensitivities of all humans in India who could be affected by my freedom of speech and expression?
The Fundamental Duties in Article 51A of the Constitution is worded as a positive command and non justiciable, consequently enforceability would be lacking.
May be the judgement is a good step towards building harmony by making those persons who provide a platform for others to conduct programs, responsible; however, how could the police take action based on an assurance given to the police and other civic authorities on behalf of a person who has been guaranteed Fundamental Rights Himself?
Seems we are poised for interesting times with the elections round the corner.

Shorn of all aesthetics these are men and women who are not ppl who inspire one’s imagination, they just are safety valves of Relief. Depending on them is merely depleting and boring.
Freud in his book JOKES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNCONSCIOUS alludes to a pithy saying:
“ A wife is like an umbrella, sooner or later one has to take a cab.”
I’m sure, every reader has got what it means. That comparison of an ‘umbrella’ with one’s spouse has happened merely because the institution had been reduced to one of RELIEF.
To not fall into it, one has to glorify Romance. What is that? Not that one should pamper one’s spouse with all the material needs – the reason being ‘needs’ met may provide a thankful heart but never a craving mind.
Romance is linked to the MIND. The person has to get preoccupied with the thoughts of the other- that’s Romance. When preoccupied with lovely thoughts our minds imaginatively improve it and make it colourful than reality. Reality may be drab, but the very thought of being with that person alters the surroundings because of an idyllic mental setting created all by they person. To prolong that is Romance.
From this relief there can be culmination but not a ‘relief’ as there is a craving to perpetuate that state of mind.
If one gets into the mode of building pressure through the process of natural welling up, that needs Relief, but when the Mind effervesces and builds up volume it needs Sustaining. That’s why in the first case, one catches a cab. If one enjoys the drops and droplets which splatter on him and the dripping of those edges off the umbrella and relishes each moment, the Mind looks for NO ALTERNATIVE.
When I read this Freudian book as a boy of all 19 years, it was posited by me with a physical meaning, which today feels CRASS, but with mellowing down and cooling of the hotheadedness of youth, the ‘joke’ is to be interpreted to sustain ways to enjoy the umbrella during rains.
OR Is it just that the same data is getting interpreted by a mind that doesn’t remember the exigencies of the youth? Maybe.

Winds that blow
Move the leaves;
Leaves that move
Sway the stalks;
Stalks which shift direction,
Alter the equilibrium of the branches; &
Branches which move laterally
Strain the trunks –
And that my friend
Breaks the trunks.
Except the winds, there
Is no Fact- Rest is all Reaction.
But the Trunk breaks.
Winds of change, though mild
Has to be sensed by the Trees
To avoid a fall.
Allow the wind to go through
Don’t resist.
Because, the root can’t hold out against
The turbulent winds of change.

A PIL filed before the SC challenges the recital of certain Sanskrit shlokas by all students in the assembly proceedings in KV schools. When the matter came up before the SC, the SG of the Union Govt argued that Sanskrit shlokas were a part of even the words written on the emblems of the Supreme Court and the Nation. His averment was that the words were secular and therefore cannot be declared a religious text forced on children in education.
The matter has been referred to a Constitution Bench.

The question to be framed to answer this issue is whether the Liberty of a child to be educated in a Govt. run school be taken away, if the compulsory recital of a phrase – moral in its content, but ostensibly taken from a religious text and uttered in a language which is neither the student’s medium of instruction nor a regional language – be not followed by any student.

Secondly, whether for non- recital of such shlokas a student could face penalty?

Thirdly, whether the school authorities have a Right to impose a duty on a child for recitation of an Ethical statement having a strong nexus with a Religious text, especially in a language which has no common application and stands in line with languages, like Latin, which are considered ‘dead’ but are in vogue only in religious ceremonies?

Fourthly, are the school authorities who are merely tasked with providing liberal education, become disciplining authorities in the event of disobedience or refusal by a student to submit to such recital on the grounds that the child believes or has been made to believe that the recitation of such shloka was an anathema to his or her religious beliefs?

The SG’s comparison of certain Sanskrit words like Satyame ve jayete, in Sanskrit is distinguishable on the grounds that those words, though taken from the religious texts of a particular religion, have been secularised in its application by serving as Declaratory statements and not a PERSONAL AFFIRMATION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL.

It would be interesting to watch the outcome in the next two decades!

This was not a Queen bee with its own colony, it had become the princess fed with Royal Jelly and kept secure in its own quarters.
This princess bee used to see its mother Queen bee being frequented by drones which came from time to time to discharge their duties and urges. These drones never understood the power politics of the Queen bee.
The Queen bee felt that the numbers of worker bees which made up the colony were not sufficient to let the Princess bee take off with its own supporters and decided to retain the Princess, well quartered and nourished with royal jelly, but it felt that when the need to make its own offsprings arose, the Princess bee would fly away and take away those meagre workers.
So this Herodias of a Queen bee told a drone, why don’t you visit the quarters of the Princess bee.
The Drone was not happy, as the workers didn’t recognise the authority of association that came to him when he was associated with the Queen bee. However, as is wont of all Drones to have irresponsible romantic behaviour, the Drone visited the Princess.
The Princess, which saw the intruder with suspicion, started giving way to his glob talk of how she should embellish her quarters like her mother Queen. Fascinated by such descriptions and such security and servility shown by the worker bees, the Princess bee was drawn like Desdemona to the black Moor.
It culminated in consummation and the Princess bee became another Queen been in the same hive.
The Queen bee was eager to know about the thraldom in which the Drone has kept her, so that the hive could be repopulated and at an appropriate time the Queen II could be sent away.
The Drone became a story teller at one quarters and a seller of dreams at the other. This continued as long as the Queen II did not visit Queen Bee I.
But alas! The Queen Bee II crawled her way with her paraphernalia to the quarters of the Queen bee I and found that neither the quarters of the Queen I was as exotic as portrayed by the Drone, nor was the Queen I as young and attractive as she had imagined. After paying respects to the mother, the Queen bee II trundled back to her quarters, whereupon the Drone entered the hive and straight made it to the Queen Bee II.
The Queen II listened to all those imaginative stories and was still enamoured of such a possibility if she could get away and get the Drone to implement its imaginative ideas in a hive of her own.
Now that the population of the hive had increased, the Princess bee, apprehending like Jacob the reprisal of Laban at severance, took off to a new destination.
The hive was halved and the Queen was happy that she had done enough to keep the hive bustling.
The Drone searches for the Princess bee and found it far away, when it was guided by a spy worker bee, which went with the Queen II and after knowing the location came back to the Queen bee I and was in her service.
To the utter shock of the Drone, it found that Queen Bee II was surrounded by three drones all competitively displaying their skills to impress Queen II. When the original drone entered and tried to shoo away the other drones, the newly coronated Queen said, Dear Drone, do not bring your hierarchy of that old hive with that hag Queen here. I set the rules and I am entitled to my imperial pleasures at my will, I’ve learnt that it is the day to day existence of a bee which is important and not those fanciful castles you told of as being the residence of my mother Queen.
If I let someone he shall like, Esther come and serve me. The sceptre is in my hand and you may come in only at my pleasure.
The Old Drone flew away chastened with the thought : A DRONE HOWEVER INFLUENTIAL IS NEVER POWERFUL.

What irritates me is the lengths to which pseudo interpretations have been stretched and forwarded to justify Ruth as a Book, worthy of being placed in the canon of the Bible.

Let us get some facts in here. Facts which are narrated in the Book of Ruth, shorn of all interpretations.

Ruth was a Moabitess, married to one Mahlon and his brother being Chilion; her husband Mahlon and his brother also died; with no male left surviving, Naomi the mother-in-law, was left with two of her daughters-in-law Ruth & Orpah; despite the Liberty granted by her mother in law to her daughters-in-law to go back to Moab, Ruth’s people, Ruth chooses to be with Naomi, but Orpah after a customary leave-taking parts from the other two.

Up to here there is no conflict of facts.

The trouble starts with the entry of Boaz, a man with means, as shown in the Bible, and a man of tremendous Character, which neither gets highlighted by the interpreters of the book RUTH. I think the trap that the interpreters had fallen into is that as ‘Ruth’  had been made the name of the book, they probably feel that they are obligated to believe that Ruth ought to be the protagonist, like Esther became in the book of ESTHER, much later in history, of this book too.

Naomi returns with her daughter-in-law to Bethlehem Judah, the place of her dead husband Elimelech.

Naomi, calls herself ‘Mara’ and elicits sympathy from her people citing that she who had left for Moab, during those years of famine, had returned having lost her husband and her two sons too.

Ruth takes the leave of her mother in law to go gleaning in the fields as that was the season of barley harvest and also they didn’t have the wherewithal for their meals. Ruth, serendipitously reaches the fields of Boaz, her kinsman once removed on her deceased husband’s side.

Boaz notices this woman, enquires his servants and gets a background feed on Ruth. Instructs, his overseer of the harvest, to be kind and even let some of the sheaves fall purposely so that Ruth could glean and gather well.

This Book of Ruth, is so truthful to facts, that an ignorant reader is likely to be misled into emphasising on facts which could advance his or her own interpretation on Ruth and Naomi instead of the real protagonist Boaz.

If not for Boaz’ Character this whole book would have petered into a Book that depicted the deployment of feminine charm to ensnare an older man with means, like Judith in the Apocrypha, and thereby survive the insecurities heaped by circumstances on an unsuspecting young woman.

Neither are Naomi’s instructions to her daughter-in-law Ruth edifying, nor the words uttered by Ruth in the night to a half drunk man exemplary. Yet this Book of Ruth stands as a monument to the character of Boaz, one of the forebears in the line of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus.

Naomi hears the kindness shown by Boaz to Ruth and her scheme is revealed in her utterances thus:

Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.

And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.

When such instructions were given by Naomi to Ruth, the intentions don’t seem very spiritual. But to be fair, when humans are driven to abject poverty they could be forced by circumstances to succumb to any degrading job.

The irony is that Naomi had instructed her daughter-in-law ‘he will tell thee what thou shalt do’, instead Ruth tells Boaz the most appalling thing by shamelessly telling Boaz: “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.”

It is at this point that the character of Boaz is revealed, despite being inebriated Boaz ever so gently spurns her, and refrains not only from taking advantage of a helpless young widow but assures her that he would do the ‘kinsman’s part’, if the closer kinsman refuses to do his part.

Deuteronomy 25 deals with this ‘kinsman’s part’:

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.

10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Boaz remembers this law or had contemplated this earlier and probably was working on it, when these two women jumped the gun and made all those indelible statements of disrepute thereby letting many preachers and Christian evangelists either gloss over the statements of Naomi and Ruth or end up sanctifying the profane.

Can you believe it, in one of the Pentecostal churches once a very senior pastor, who later went on to become the Chief Pastor of the Church said that Naomi was symbolic of the Church which prepared the individual to be worthy of the Second Coming of Christ preparing individuals the way Naomi prepared Ruth for the tryst with Boaz – some interpretation and some spirituality.

All these interpretations crop up because one thinks that anything relating to ‘sex’ is anathema.

It was Boaz who with his sanest of interpretations at that spur of the moment deflected the idea of an ‘opportune sexual encounter’ into a ‘Necessity-Right’ paradigm and worked out a solution.

If in Mercantile Law, the Law follows the Merchant, in life Laws are built around ‘order & necessity’.

That Ruth was nubile, though a widow, was recognised by Naomi and an ‘undefiled bed’ had to be provided since she did not have any more sons, Naomi couldn’t. But she saw an opportunity in Boaz.

But why didn’t she work on the kinsman who was closer than Boaz? Maybe Naomi didn’t know; Maybe Boaz was a wealthier man and probably unmarried; maybe Naomi just wanted to keep the wolf away from her doors and wanted Ruth to become a concubine and reap the economic benefits from Boaz.

But Boaz excels over all these human predicaments, in which these two women were caught up, and equitably tunes the law, from its application as was then applicable.

He applies his candidature but finds out the hierarchy and realises that he was next in line after the first and consequently DOES EVERYTHING WHICH RUTH WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.

The Deuteronomy law was to be a claim by the widow and not by a suitor. Here the suitor argues with the first kinsman and there is ‘no spitting’ – (thankfully) as Ruth is still kept in the background.

Further, what is mentioned at Deuteronomy was the law applicable to brothers, not kinsmen. The law relating to Kinsmen and their claims are enumerated in Leviticus 25 chapter and the relevant portion talks of the Redemption rights and the Reversionary Rights which accrue in the Jubilee year.

25 If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.

On a conjoint reading of the above mentioned portions of the Bible, the law relating to Redemption was applicable on the 50 th year, which was the Jubile year. On that Jubilee year every person who was the inheritor of the property is to be put back in possession of that property which he had ‘sold’ during his times of need. Elimelech, when he left Bethlehem-Judah to escape the famine probably ‘sold’, his inheritance to someone and it could be redeemed by paying for the value till the next Jubilee year. Typically, the arrangement as envisaged in the Bible is one of usufruct Lease till Jubilee year for the purchaser and Mortgage money to the seller with a compulsory reversionary provision on the Jubilee year. During those years of lease/ mortgage the property could be redeemed by the seller or a kinsman.

Using these provisions of law, Boaz concocts a story to shoo away a kinsman who was willing to ‘Redeem’ the property of Elimelech and stumps the kinsman with a condition that the day he bought the property, that kinsman has to marry Ruth too.

Chapter 4:5 reads thus:

Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.

I can’t remember any passage from the Old Testament of the Bible, connecting the ‘right to redeem’ with that of the ‘obligation to marry the widow without a child’.

Boaz brings in the nexus. When a man redeems a property as a kinsman of the inheritor he pay only the mortgage money till the remainder of the next Jubilee year; but his advantage is that he becomes the INHERITOR OF THE PROPERTY, leaving it with him for his heirs to possess in the future. The first kinsman was EAGER to redeem.

The purpose of ‘redemption’ was the right vested in a kinsman to retain the property with that Tribe primarily and with the family, if possible. But to raise the name of the dead brother was exclusively cast on the brother of the deceased brother. So what is the kinsman’s part that Ruth initiates with the inebriated Boaz in the dead of the night on the threshing floor? Boaz realised the need of a young widow without a child expressed by Ruth so ‘ruthlessly’ and builds on it. The first kinsman is made to realise that the provision was not merely disposal of a ‘right’ but the presence of a claimant who stood second in line for acquisition of that ‘Right to redeem’ the property of Elimelech. Boaz makes an ASSERTION that he would raise an heir to the memory of Mahlon. An assertion that the property thus redeemed would go as an inheritance to the first child in the name of Mahlon.

This underlying fulfilment of the intent of the law of not only giving the kinsman the right to redeem the immovable property but also to secure the life of a young widow’s physical needs were integrated well and duly performed by Boaz.

Ruth’s necessity was met on the conjugal bed of Boaz; the property was redeemed and Naomi was probably put in possession; Mahlon’s memory was also sustained; Obed was born and probably enjoyed, possessed and had the title to that immovable property as an inheritor of Mahlon’s inheritance; all these happened because BOAZ UNOBTRUSIVELY DID THE RIGHT THINGS AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE WAYS BY INTERPRETING THE LAW AS INTENDED BY GOD.

Is there a better example of an inebriated person dealing with one of the most tantalising situations in life with such probity, in the whole Bible?

One of the greatest enterprising INITIATIVES shown by David was that he did not graze his sheep or feed his goats with the companionship and the comfort of togetherness with other shepherds. Simply put, DAVID DID NOT ENSCONCE HIMSELF WITH THE COMFORT OF FAMILIARITY! He fed the sheep and goats by grazing them in places fraught with the presence of lions and bears.
That courage to lead his sheep and goats among those uncertainties and challenges prepared him for the greater battles with his enemies later in Life.
The initiative shown in shepherding offered David the opportunities to show his courage and valiance. Those victories gave him the provenance to see Goliath’s temple, as the chink to be taken advantage of.
Plus his skill, in Slinging, honed in those shepherding times makes David see what others COULDN’T see & DO.
If effort is nothing, then David wouldn’t have made it as one of the icons of courage, poetic skills and an able King.

Movid's Weblog

in my church, last Sunday, the Lady Pastor made a statement which, according to me, was neither factual nor required, which was: BOAZ WAS ABLE TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CONDITION OF RUTH, AS HE HIMSELF HAD FACED A SIMILAR SITUATION AT HOME, AS BOAZ’ MOTHER WAS  THE REFORMED HARLOT RAHAB, OF JERICHO!

Something wasn’t jelling! Boaz’ father’s name is not mentioned clearly except for saying that his mother”s name was Rachab, according to Matthew’s gospel who was married to Salmon.

Just because RUTH is placed before I SAMUEL, does it mean that RUTH chronologically preceded most of the Judges of Israel? If such an arrangement had been contemplated JOB should have been placed much before JUDGES, as it is common supposition that JOB was written by Moses.

Jephtha, one of the judges of Israel asks the aggressors against Israel why they are raking up issues settled through possession after 300…

View original post 207 more words

The following cartoon from Gilbert, at the apparent level may be hilarious showing how the priorities of the Management is in conflict with the Super-skilled workforce under the employ of the Company.

But at the quantum level, it is the age old issue of the conflict that arises between the DOER and the person or a body of persons who promise a third person that THEY WOULD GET IT DONE.

The Getting it Doner has been provided with resources from the shareholder in respect of the company, which is supposed to be deployed for the bringing forth of the product.

The persons who have to plan and execute the manufacturing of the Product are highly skilled people who work not merely on the ‘resources’ provided, but on the skills of those super skilled personnel who besides brining their skills have to be inspired to channelise their creativity for inventing a product and designing it for mass production so that before the copy cats steal their intellectual property, at least the company would remain solvent.

In this scenario, the trouble starts when the Super-skilled innovator is given a lot of pep talk by the management, without realising the demands made on the Time of those super skilled personnel and the lack of recognition which would ensue once the product is brought out successfully. How many people know the ‘innovators’ of those incremental inventions made on a regular basis without which the quantum leap would not have been possible? Whereas, the Top Management which had acquired funds through promise built on chicanery, claims all the credit for the product and leaves out those who had contributed through their intellectual commitment.

It must be mentioned that even a failure in innovation and recorded in a journal is invaluable, as that piece of information prevents other innovators from pursuing that line of thinking and work on fruitful ways. For example, If Edison had tried multiple elements and compounds before he arrived on Tungsten for filament in bulbs, and if that search had been undertaken by many groups, when one element failed, public knowledge of that failure would save the time of others. Therefore, in innovation it is not the success alone which should be exalted but the strenuous participation and commitment by those super skilled to discover those unknown. It is this which is missed by the Management and a Nobel prize cannot be given to every little incremental discovery, yet they have to be recognised both by the Management and among the peers.

At the labour level, wages would be a compensation which could be a measure in itself, but at the super skilled levels, mere wages do not reflect the intensity of the participation accurately.

This cartoon brings out that conflict, just as Labour Laws were made to protect the interest of the workers, in the coming years there need to be laws to protect the intense participatory amounts of Time expended on building products, designs etc., without which those Super-skilled personnel would be left like Dilbert making those sarcastic comments against the Management.

After years of writing this piece, I am amazed at the thought which occurred to me then. I still believe it👍🏽

Movid's Weblog

As David was ageing, Joab told David: My lord, I am your cousin and I take the liberty of this relationship to tell you that Kingdom is not easy to divide like other property. My Lord should decide who is going to rule in your stead. Again taking advantage of my relationship of an uncle to all My Lord’s sons, I should say that Adonijah would fit well. David shot back: Where does that leave Solomon? Is he not superior in all imperial skills to Adonijah?
I agree! Yes I agree, but we should consider pedigree.

Bathsheba was an adulteress once. That My Lord regularised it through breach of at least four commandments of Moses, notwithstanding.
But that is known to only three of us and only you are not the interested party, and that’s why your thoughts stray thus, said an angry David.

Abhishaag had been reporting all these…

View original post 275 more words

I thought his stoicism was a produce of abstinence; in reality it was surfeit which led him to it.

He was a monk pretending to be hungry on a full belly. We, onlookers took him for a hungry monk in total restraint of his senses, while he had sated them well into somnolescence. .

There is a series of intended acts narrated at Chapter 37 of the Book of Genesis, which culminates in the sale of Joseph.
I don’t think that anyone has more facts than anyone else except as narrated in the said chapter, which I consider pivotal in determining the human trafficking of Joseph which takes place in Dothan, where Jacob’s ten brothers had meandered into from Shechem with their flock.

The fist part of evil intent is expressed by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpha, the maid servants of Rachel & Leah, who when they sighted Joseph afar discussed among themselves that if they killed Joseph, they could put an end to the fulfilment of Joseph’s DREAMS.
Who were the sons of Bilhah & Zilpah?
Dan and Naphtali were Bilhah’s; and Gad and Asher were Zilpah’s children by Jacob. Essentially the four sons who conspired to kill the dreams of Joseph were these four boys born to the maids of Jacob’s wives.
From the narration it is clear that these 4 were in the outer, if we look at the formation of the wives and children of Jacob when they were arranged by Jacob to meet Esau, his bother, at the vanguard were these two maids and their 4 sons. The middle was Leah and her six boys; and the rearguard comprised of Rachel and her two sons Joseph and Benjamin.
This formation must have been the hierarchical structure within the brothers too.
Ruben heard the conspiracy and tells these four to desist from killing Joseph but to keep him in the pit so that Ruben could rescue Joseph later.

From the narration it is clear that Judah enters with his own proposal of selling Joseph to the Ishmeelites who were on their way to Egypt with their spices and myrrh sourced from Gilead.
When Judah and his brothers were waiting, Midianites pull out Joseph from the pit and sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmeelites.

28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

But there arises a contradiction at the end of the chapter wherein it is mentioned as follows:

36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard.

Therefore, the ultimate sale is made in Egypt by the same Midianites to Potiphar.
So what is this arrangement between Ishmeelites and the Midianites?
I believe in speculation that after retrieval of Joseph from the pit, the Midianites who were merchants in articles did not want to take up trading in slaves nor were they into human trafficking, which involved controlling the human being, guarding, feeding and marching him to Egypt, which they as merchants didn’t want to get embroiled in, consequently the Midianites must have sold Joseph for 20 pieces of silver with the assurance that if the Ishmeelites were to successfully bring Joseph to Egypt, the Midianites would get Joseph sold to someone at a good price, which would not only make good their 20 silver but fetch a better price including the cost of transporting joseph and a handsome profit over and above their initial investment. The Midianites would also get a commission on the final sale price.
Wonderful arrangement it seems.

So Ruben returns and finds that Joseph was not in the pit. What was his reaction?

Was Judah with his elder brothers Simeon & Levi the types who would have meekly left the scene without any money?
I guess not.
There is enough room to spin a big Hollywood story on this missing link.
Ruben is astonished that Joseph was not in the pit. Look at Ruben’s reaction, quite sincere:

29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes.
30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?
31 And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;

Ruben is astonished and he is bothered more about how he would answer their father Jacob. The story is spun, the multicoloured coat which the maids’ boys had stripped was drenched with blood and presented to Jacob, as if Joseph was killed by a wild animal on his way to meet his brothers.

There is no effort by the four boys of the maids nor is there any mention of Simeon. In the latter chapters it is shown how Joseph had kept Simeon as a pledge till Benjamin was brought to him. Why Simeon? Simeon and Judah were the FORCE, the brutal force of the twelve and they were a pair. Joseph with all his experience in the most trying circumstances had learnt that these two HAD TO BE SEPARATED and by a master stroke separates Judah from Simeon, while taking Simeon as a pledge.
So from Chapter 37, the persons who were responsible for the sale of Joseph were Judah, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali Gad and Asher.
Ruben was kept ignorant and like a chief executive who is only worried about his charge, upon a credible alibi propounded by the conspirators abandons his pursuit of facts.
Levi was absent and the other two boys Zebulun and Issachar were probably hoodwinked by their powerful siblings Judah and Simeon.
But did Judah and Simeon make a part of the money out of the 20 silver coins?
For all we know, it could have been these two who had shown the boy in the pit to the Midianites to rescue Joseph and later enter into an arrangement with the human trafficking Ishmeelites.
Maybe Judah used the ill-gotten silver to obtain his wife Shuah, which appears in the very next chapter. A much older Judah is seen with bracelets, staff , all those accoutrements of a dandy when he went after his own daughter-in-law, whom he thought as a harlot‼️

Let us look at Joseph’s version

Chapter 40
15 For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:

Joseph says he was STOLEN and nowhere does he say that he was SOLD BY HIS BROTHERS, that is probably because joseph didn’t want to belittle his older siblings in the eyes of the superior Egyptians. But later in chapter 45 when Joseph makes himself known as Joseph to his brothers he says thus:
5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.

Joseph’s verdict is that ‘they had sold’
But not before Joseph brings two of his brothers to super time trouble. Simeon was bound and kept for at least 6 months, as only 2 years had expired at the time when joseph made himself known to his brothers.
Secondly, Joseph humbles Judah to such an extent that he makes Judah tell Joseph that he be taken as a bond man instead of Benjamin.
Joseph, who was perceptive wouldn’t have done these to Judah and Simeon, if they had been blameless.
Definitely, Judah and Simeon were the boys who benefitted by the sale and pretended as if the Midianites rescued Joseph and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites.
Why am I leaving out Levi? Levi teamed up with Simeon in the matter of Dinah in respect of Hamor of Shechem, but there was a gross injustice involved of using force to rape Dinah and in this case, Levi wouldn’t have involved himself in such a despicable deal. Simeon was up to any violent deal and Judah’s line of reasoning was always ‘profitability’. Considering these traits I am inclined to believe that Judah and Simeon were responsible for an operation amounting to a sale with the active assistance of the Midianites,  disguised as an act of stealing which happened when they left the boy Joseph in the pit‼️

Sabarimala: It has become a very difficult problem, Fali Nariman [Watch Video in YouTube]
Fali Nariman had said this in the video:
Nariman was also critical of what he called the lack of “Collegiality” amongst Supreme Court judges.
“The importance of Collegiality amongst judges is a very important thing which I have found lacking. Unfortunately, the difficulty is when Supreme Court judges sit in Benches of three, five and seven. But they don’t sit and discuss as to what is to happen. Or that ‘you write for the majority and you write for the minority’. While that happens everywhere in the world, it does not happen here. They (Supreme Court judges) all come on the same day and pronounce the judgment. Nobody knows which judge has dissented [until then].”

We know that, not so long ago the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and three other then senior Justices had openly alleged that the then Chief Justice, being the Master of the Roster, was acting arbitrarily and assigning high profile cases to juniors and cold-shouldering the seniority of those peeved Justices! So much for the simmering that goes on within the Justices of the SCI. It also brings out an important point that the puisne Justices are not among equals qua the Chief Justice; secondly that there is an unwritten but a felt seniority and juniority among the puisne justices too. Consequently the only forum where they have a right is to register their opinion on an issue before them when they find themselves as a member in the bench.
From what Mr. Fali Nariman talks of Collegiality, one needs to understand the meaning of COLLEGIALITY. It derives from “Colleague”. Notwithstanding the root of the word, one has to see if a Justice of the Supreme Court of India, who has been vested with privileges and immunities and when being a member of a Constitutional Bench be bound by Collegiality or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described “be as scorpions in a bottle?”
Predominantly a Constitutional Bench is set up to review an existing precedent or in any case to LAY DOWN A BINDING LAW for the times to come. Is it better that each Justice should articulate the legal grounds or the principles or even the weight of the exigencies on which he bases his ruling; or to use his authority as a Justice of that bench and concur with the majority or dissent therefrom and be a footnote to that judgement authored by another Justice?
I believe that the former is better for a democracy which is built by the people brick by brick made of the reasonings given, emphasis laid, and delivered through those binding judgements.

by Frank B. Cross and Emerson H. Tiller, “…After a majority opinion author is assigned, he or she circulates a draft opinion, after which other members of the Court circulate bar- gaining statements, agreeing to join the opinion if certain changes are made.Subsequently, a Justice may circulate a dissenting or concurring opinion in hopes of persuading other members of the Court, or affecting the content of the majority opinion, and this action is not
infrequently successful.”
The above is based on the American model, where the ideological leanings are openly stated and mostly reflected in their rulings.
Of course, there is a space where the justices could confabulate on the perspectives and opinions articulated by the justices before delivery of the majority opinion, but doing so in the private would not be an ideal situation as how much pressure could be brought on puisne justices to go with the majority could become a matter of speculation in the media.
Supposing a justice were to take a position and later gets ‘convinced’ by the persuasion of a minority opinion Justice and if it were to tilt the verdict pronounced in the court earlier, the principle of pronouncing in the open court would be a travesty.
Alternatively, if there were to be a lone dissenting Justice and if he were to change his opinion after collegial confabulations the judgement would become a unanimous one, without the point of dissent neither brought out in the judgement nor explained on what line of reasoning the change of mind took place.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that our system is adversarial and in the name of dispensing justice the role of the courts shouldn’t compensate for the inadequacies of a lawyer and thereby make the adversarial system an inquisitorial one.

I personally feel that it would be best to leave each justice to hear and clarify points in the open court but when the pronouncing of the judgement takes place, each should present his perspective and the basis of his/her opinion so that even an observer would feel that justice was indeed done. This collegial confabulation may not be the best for our system especially because of the variegated culture and different priorities of each state.

Socrates was highlighted and brought to public view beyond the territory in which he lived by two persons, one was Plato and the other one was Xenophon.
Plato is read well, whereas Xenophon is not read much for reasons more than the fact that he did not have an illustrious disciple like Aristotle.
Xenophon is supposed to have been turnpiked by Socrates and asked: How men are made virtuous?
When Xenophon pleaded ignorance, much as the Biblical command of Jesus to Matthew at the customs, is supposed to have stated: FOLLOW ME & LEARN‼️
This Xenophon became Socrates’ follower and wrote many books, which have mostly survived and the one book called Apology deals with the trial of Socrates and the defence.
The interesting part of all this is that Xenophon being the head of 10,000 men of the mercenary band, had gone on a war and was actually absent from Athens at the time of the trial and execution of Socrates. Yet, what Xenophon wrote of Socrates, is accepted by historians as true.
The point I am labouring at is that one need NOT BE A WITNESS to the events to gather facts from those who were present at the scene and present those facts as History. Therefore on a comparative basis, much of the History wouldn’t measure up to the touchstone of historicity if the same yardstick which is applied to Jesus were to be applied to those historical figures.

Like Plato and Xenophon to Socrates, the persons who were in a position to write about Jesus were John and the other 10 disciples who survived the crucifixion. But it was not any of these who brought out the teachings of Jesus as much as the Evangelist Paul. An erudite Jew, with a Roman citizenship. This Paul of Tarsus, earlier called Saul, wrote on Jesus and his teachings by the mid fist century of the Common Era. The evangelism of Paul made enclaves of Christianity in various cities of Greece and the Asia Minor. That is History. A record not disputed. Paul had not met Jesus while Jesus was in the flesh, however Paul says that Jesus appeared to him. This is almost a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion, if we take that as a fact, then Pontius Pilate, who as per historical records was the Roman Prefect in-charge of Judaea executing the functions on behalf of the Roman emperor, was contemporaneous to Jesus historically.

But why was not Jesus’ name not mentioned in the records?
I believe that not only the Roman Prefect was not interested in perpetuating the status of persons who could be a threat to the the Roman Empire; even the Jewish Religious heads were against the memory of Jesus, consequently all records must have been destroyed so as to gloss over the empty tomb issue.
Further, looking at Jesus from the synoptic Gospels, Jesus was then a popular local hero shuttling between Galilee and Judaea, at variance with the established Jewish faith and its informal custodians like the Pharisees and the Scribes and it wouldn’t have been anybody’s case to glorify his deeds in the flesh or to perpetuate the memory of Jesus. In fact the Jews then being under the Roman vassalage, the local authorities were interested in maintaining status quo lest a worse fate befall them. Therefore, to look for contemporary references either in the Roman history or the Jewish history wouldn’t be of much avail.
At least one and a half decade had passed before Paul starts his epistolary venture, before the Gospel writer Mark wrote his Gospel.
Therefore the forerunner to the Gospels were those 13 epistles written by Paul the evangelist to the various branches he had established around Greece and Asia Minor. These pockets of Christian Faith coagulated into the Church. These are facts.

I’d like to excerpt Schopenhauer here from his essay WISDOM OF LIFE:

“We can thus understand how it is that the vainest people in the world are always talking about la gloire, with the most implicit faith in it as a stimulus to great actions and great works. But there can he no doubt that fame is something secondary in its character, a mere echo or reflection—as it were, a shadow or symptom—of merit: and, in any case, what excites admiration must be of more value than the admiration itself. The truth is that a man is made happy, not by fame, but by that which brings him fame, by his merits, or to speak more correctly, by the disposition and capacity from which his merits proceed, whether they be moral or intellectual. The best side of a man’s nature must of necessity be more important for him than for anyone else: the reflection of it, the opinion which exists in the heads of others, is a matter that can affect him only in a very subordinate degree. He who deserves fame without getting it possesses by far the more important element of happiness, which should console him for the loss of the other. It is not that a man is thought to be great by masses of incompetent and often infatuated people, but that he really is great, which should move us to envy his position; and his happiness lies, not in the fact that posterity will hear of him, but that he is the creator of thoughts worthy to be treasured up and studied for hundreds of years.

Therefore, it was the content of Jesus’ teachings which Paul gathered from the Apostles which form the bulk of his exhortations to those pockets of Christianity which Paul established, which formed the kernel and substance of Jesus’ sayings and lent to the appeal and coagulation of the movement called the Church at Antioch.

In the case of Jesus the man, the man Jesus died and His ideas sprouted and spread. Whether he was crucified, buried and resurrected could be a matter of faith but that the Faith led to the discovery of tracing those teachings to Jesus, which is discovery of a fact from an Idea.
That atoms existed was an Idea even before it was discovered and proved and its structure hypothesised though chemistry. Likewise, Jesus was a discovery and that discovery is a fact that its origins are not concentrated at one point does not take away the fact that it was historical.
If Imran Khan could rely on the revelations made by the Angel Gibrel to the Prophet Mohammed as ‘facts’ and implicitly believe in those facts as historical, he should at least concede to the fact that Jesus, Isa Nabi, for him and refrain from questioning the Historicity of Jesus.
I may not agree with the belief that Jesus was merely a prophet, but Mr. Imran is bound to believe as a fact that Jesus was born, lived a Prophet and would return.
At least each man is to be judged by the same yardstick which he uses, for Jesus said:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Matthew Chapter 7)

‘Did he know her?’ Son asked.
‘Not in the biblical sense’ the father said.

‘Then what is she MeTooing about?’ Son asked.
‘He wanted to know her – in the biblical sense’ the father answered.

‘So what’s wrong in the asking?’ The Son asked.

‘She felt that it was in that asking that her modesty was outraged!’ The father answered.
‘Outrage of modesty in the asking?’ The Son lamented and added: “ Did she say No?”.

‘Outraged, not in the asking, but that he thought of her the type who could be asked.’ Said the father.

‘Now she has to prove to her paranoid spotlight syndrome of her youth that she didn’t mentally succumb later on to that asking, the answer for which was kept in abeyance then! – the father added.

An unuttered NO of the youth, haunts her well past her youthful body‼️

There was this Captain of a ship which set sail from a port to another somewhere in the Middle East. On the way, a storm brewed and all the passengers, the crew and the Captain realised that their journey was in jeopardy and escaping with their Lives became their ONLY PRIORITY. Bad Times don’t support our pet theories and ideologies, consequently, the Captain of the ship issued an edict as follows:

So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

The Shipmaster was the Captain of the ship proceeding to Tarshish from Joppa and the sleeper was Jonah, a Jewish Prophet, running away from the instructions of his God to proceed to Nineveh.

The Captain says: O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not. The Captain’s personal beliefs notwithstanding chides the sleeping Jonah to call upon HIS GOD and doesn’t even ask the sleeping Jonah to identify his religion or the name of the God he worshipped.

The prayers sought was for the storm to subside but the answer came from Jonah, who felt penitent and told the Captain to throw him overboard. Sure enough the crew, Captain and the passengers threw Jonah out and sure enough the storm abated.
Well it is not uncommon to say that God had plans, rather other set of plans to deal with the errant Jonah. Doctrinally that ‘plan of God’ is odious to my ears and thought. God is God and Time is in His hands. God could do anything, so why plan? Plan is a forethought of a
possible future. When it is God who creates ‘future’, where would be the necessity of a Plan? Plan is an anthropomorphic idea laden with the deficiencies of human understanding. Why ascribe that to God?
God send a fish which swallows Jonah and he his transported to another location and he finally lands up in Nineveh.
The point of this blog is that, when absolute necessity arises in one’s life one may surrender to the will of God, whom he or she believes. But as a Captain of a ship, having the responsibility of the ship, the goods in the ship and the human lives involved it is the DUTY OF THE CAPTAIN not to ascertain the names of the gods those humans worship but to exhort every human in his ship to pray to HIS OWN GOD. That full-throated participative prayer is what a Captain is to exhort and hope for a relief.
The prayer was not answered in the way it was imagined. Till Jonah was offloaded, the storm did not subside. The proposal itself came from the person who was to suffer the consequences of his own proposal. That is how the prayers of those who called their own God’s was answered.

My best example for Secularism is the Captain of that ship caught in the storm with Jonah.
Getting human participation retaining their own beliefs is more important than proselytising humans in distress or cataloguing them during distress.
Like that Captain, leaders ought to shed the divisive distinguishing mapping of people and exhort them to give their best.

Some of the conflicts which have arisen between contemporaneous Prophets are interesting. I rely on the Prophets and prophecies exclusively from the Bible, not merely because I trust the Bible but because I don’t trust the way the Bible is being interpreted to suit the preacher’s priorities.

Week before last I had the opportunity of attending a service at King’s Temple, Hyderabad. The preacher, not only spoke on Tithes, but also caveated the listeners that one should Tithe only at the local church, which supports its members of the congregation and explicitly warned the congregation against contributing to the Tele-evangelists out of the Tithes. Understandably, Malachi 3:10 was pressed into service.
You may call me a forum shopping Christian, if you choose to. I would fain listen to a well read Osho on Christianity than listen to a ‘fire & brimstone’ doomsday preacher stirring up unsavoury anxieties to make the listeners submit to their agenda on their avowed ‘distributive infrastructure enabling’ programmes.
I believe, and firmly at that, that God given Liberty cannot be mindlessly squandered away at these exhortations which are neither consistent with the Bible nor with the teachings of Jesus.

Micaiah s/o Imlah and Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, stake it out in I Kings 22 chapter.
Zedekiah had mustered the support of 400 other prophets who had prophesied that if Ahab and Jehoshaphat went to war together against Syria to regain Ramoth-Gilead for Israel, Ahab along with the King of Judah Jehoshaphat would defeat the Syrians. But there is one lone voice against that prophecy by another Prophet Micaiah, who says that a ‘lying spirit’ had fallen upon the other 401 prophets and that Micaiah saw the Israelites ‘shepherdless’. The way these two prophets confront each other is dramatic and versified well:
24 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?
25 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.

The issue raised was not that Zedekiah had become possessed by the ‘lying spirit‘ but how did the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ get into Micaiah? That was the question of Zedekiah. Zedekiah would that all the prophets were wrong so that the blame could be laid on the King or the people. But when the prophecies are contrary to each other, and there are two camps of Prophets with two contrary prophecies, the one who turns out to be right is likely to have an upper hand post, the event. This division cannot be countenanced by Prophets. They stand united or they rise united, but never fall. Here, by hindsight we know that Zedekiah fell.

Similar situation arose in Chapter 27 of Jeremiah, wherein Jeremiah prophesied thus:
8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.
9 Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:

The interesting part of this prediction was that Zedekiah, probably a close relative of the reformer King Josiah, was the then ruler of Judah and probably wanted to become a sovereign and not continue to be a vassal King of the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar. At the same time he did not want to lose control over the king of Edom, the king of Moab, king of the Ammonites, king of Tyrus, and to the king of Zidon, who had sent messengers to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah, either as bringers of tribute or for a conclave of the emissaries of vassal kings led by Zedekiah.
In any case the situation was not very appetising. Jeremiah makes it worse by bringing out a prophecy, which I am unable to digest.
The Almighty God makes a Jewish Prophet say that not only Nebuchadnezzar but his son and grandson would rule over their kingdom without any recourse for the Israelites to repent and gain remission for that remaining period. Has Jeremiah forgotten that Yahweh had commuted the sentence decreed on Hezekiah; has Jeremiah forgotten that Yahweh had given options to King David to choose a sentence out of three?
In the next chapter there is s counter Prophecy by Hananiah, which like the previous set of prophets, is equally dramatic:

10 Then Hananiah the prophet took the yoke from off the prophet Jeremiah’s neck, and brake it.
11 And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way.
12 Then the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,
13 Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron.
14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.
15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.
16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.
17 So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.

Quite curiously, Hananiah prophesies this in the fifth month of that year and dies after Jeremiah’s prophecy, in the seventh month of the same year.

Jeremiah, instead of extolling the mercies and long suffering nature of the Almighty is ‘prophesying’ that God had given the lands to Nebuchadnezzar, who in the meanwhile probably was erecting a big statue, said to be Nebuchadnezzar’s god, in Babylon, and busy decreeing that everyone should prostrate before that statue. Ridiculous. I am sure and believe that God knew what Nebuchadnezzar was doing back in Babylon when Jeremiah was making those prophecies.
I find this prophecy to be in tune with the Prophecy of Caiaphas in John 11 thus:

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

I find no difference between Jeremiah’s and Caiaphas’ prophecies. It was born out of expediency.

I believe in a God, who would confront me and make me go through deeds of penance either through a punishment, but never ever a God who would put the punisher above me and exalt him above me being a part of his flock.
Ezekiel 34 offers a better perspective on the goodness of God.
In any case, Jeremiah doesn’t measure up to the Prophets like Elijah, who not only withstood the might of Jezebel’s influence over Ahab but also exhorted the Israelites, in those trying times, to stick to Jehovah. Nor like John the Baptist, who resisted Herod.

Submitting to a political power that prospers, is one thing but to acquiesce to such political power doesn’t behove a Prophet. Jeremiah falls short and comes out as an expedient Prophet, who saw off his days of vassal-ship of Judah in comfort‼️ No wonder Jeremiah is called a ‘weeping prophet’ – helplessly Hopeless.
What could one expect of a contemporaneous Prophet like Jeremiah with the King Josiah, who was faultless but died in the hands of Neco, the Egyptian. Maybe his circumstances moulded him into a weeping prophet.
Me thinks that Jeremiah had been included in the canonical books of the Bible more because he supported the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar than the Egyptian Pharoahs, who went down in their quest for suzerainty over Canaan.

Unless Prophecies are written like minutes at the time of such utterances, it should be taken with a generous pinch of salt. It is even highly probable that after facts have stabilized, post facto writings could be passed off as fulfilled Prophecies, by the Baruchs and Boswells to enhance the image of their idols.

When one’s mind is infested with spiritual or temporal megalomania it may attract vain persons, who are seriously looking for someone to give them a direction. Such vain persons who lack the brakes of common sense, born out of liberal education, willingly believe those assertions powerfully made by those megalomaniacs.
Hitler’s assertions of superiority was neither tested in the touchstone of a large sample, nor did his assertions acknowledge exceptions. Those vain Germans who fell for that Austrian’s assertions took more than 45 years under the yoke of the victorious Allied powers. It is a pity that that generation of vain men who believed in the fake news of Aryan supremacy reached their graves with the yokes concocted from Nuremberg Trials onwards by the Allied thinktanks‼️

When personal Beliefs justify Facts, objectivity gets thrown out.
If a society is bred on Personal Beliefs, it becomes an excellent breeding ground for Lies.
When Lies get packaged as Truth, the Society which entertains and promotes such Truth, becomes unreliable on Facts and consequently unstable in its path.
#MeToo has set in motion such a possibility. Stale and unverifiable allegations without proofs have started crowding our newsfeed.
The reader is unable to dislodge from his mind, the sympathy the victim deserves, with any certainty of Facts, thus leaving the reader in a Limbo of equivocation.
Yet, videos of Suhel Seth publicly pinching/poking an awardee in the dais, justifies the necessity for such a platform.
I am with the Victims, but who is the Victim?

One of the two pet Christian notions of each generation is that that generation is the culmination of all discoveries and revelations on Christian theology. The Second notion is that the Second Coming of Christ would happen within their generation, for sure.

The first notion is erroneous and the second one could turn out to be false.
As regards the First notion, that notion is a good insulation against reading up the Christian theological material written over the ages, consequently it affords one to be puffed up with a sense of prophetic confidence – Elijah like, being emboldened to tell God that he was the only one who had not fallen to the coercive methods of Jezebel in Baal-ising Israel. But God, who in his en passant reply tells the mortal Elijah that he had reserved for himself 7000 men who had not bent their knees before Baal.
So one day, when my father was still alive, to emphasise the point that Jesus’ healing was conditional, I told him that Jesus always told those whom he had healed that they should SIN NO MORE.
He calmly said: Son read the Bible. Jesus has said that only twice, and both are reported only in the Gospel of John. One was to the woman who was caught in the very act of adultery, and the other was to the invalid who had lain in the vicinity of the pool at Bethesda, for a full 38 years.

I scurried to my Bible and read chapters 5 & 8 of the Gospel of John, and found that indeed to that woman and that invalid Jesus had said : Go and sin no more.

I asked my dad: Why did he say that only to these two, whereas the Bible has multiple instances of Jesus having healed many?

These two persons did not ask Jesus for relief, nor did anyone else intercede on their behalf, in fact they both were resigned to their condition; one as a sinner deserving being stoned in public; the other one, stuck in the formalism of ‘being the first after moving of the waters’. They neither thought that they deserved relief nor did they believe that there was an option outside their own judgement and knowledge.
These persons when they obtained their relief unsought,  had to be intimated not of repentance, but not committing sins in the future, as Jesus had already cleansed them of their past sins through Grace.
I was flabbergasted at his interpretation, I’ve never heard of any such interpretation of GO AND SIN NO MORE, neither before nor after.
I believe that every generation is intimated through Discovery or Revelation from the Bible and to believe that ‘our generation’ is the culmination of all understanding of the Bible is downright erroneous.

As regards the second notion, Jesus’ warnings were aimed at an awareness of human consciousness to be prepared continually, without any backlogs of un-repented sins &  unresolved spiritual issues, so that when the end comes, one could stand prepared before the seat of Judgement.

But Jesus’ ‘continual awareness’ and ‘constant doing’, have been hijacked through institutionalised anxiety, by stamping everyone of being perpetually guilty. The more the anxiety the more a man would believe that the end is near.  Time hastens. If the end were to be near, then Death is the only option for him to consider. This idea of Death has to be interposed with a more redeeming idea of the Second Coming. But his own unworthiness would rule out him being ‘raptured’. Now that Death has been relegated as a NO OPTION, he has to believe that the Second Coming SHALL HAPPEN WITHIN HIS OWN LIFETIME. Consequently, the Second Coming has become the mechanism for everyone to ignore Death, which could also happen before the Second Coming, yet institutionalised Belief that it SHALL happen before his death, keeps his attention fixed not in being “raptured” but with the anxiety of being LEFT BEHIND‼️

Secondly, it preempts the thought of Death. So why not believe that the Second Coming is imminent? Forgetting fully that no man, not even the Son knows the end of Time.

Instead of following Good and doing Good, PERPETUALLY, everyone is anxiety ridden  to predict that end, that day of reckoning, and be prepared and flawless, for that one day!

I fail to understand as a man who has a reasonable understanding of the English language, whether the ‘meaning’ of the words have assumed meanings not conveyed through the words of the statute, and if so, as a common man of normal prudence would my understanding of the law be tenable at all?

Let us read the provisions of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code:


Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.


Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both—Non-cogniz­able—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-com­poundable.

Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Section 497 it appears to me that the following ingredients are essential for the commission of the offence.
0. The perpetrator of the offence has to be a male;
0. That male has to have had sexual intercourse with a woman who should, at that time of such intercourse, have been married to a man, other than the perpetrating male;
0. The perpetrating male should know for a fact that the woman with whom he had intercourse was married to someone other than himself, or that the perpetrator should have had reasons to believe that she was married to some other man at the time of such intercourse;
0. Such intercourse should have been without the consent or connivance of the man married to that woman, with whom the perpetrator is alleged to have had sexual intercourse;
0. That such intercourse should not be within the ingredients of the offence of rape; &
0. The woman cannot be made an abettor of this offence.

What I understand of these ingredients is that if a man despite knowing that a woman is married to another man though has sexual intercourse with her with the consent of the married woman (not being rape) but without the consent or connivance of the husband, the PERPETRATING MALE has to be punished under the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC for Adultery.

There are multiple issues which flow out of this offence. If during the subsistence of the marriage, the husband had access to the woman during the period when she conceived the child of the perpetrating male, the presumption in law would be that the HUSBAND OF THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD WOULD BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

We have been squabbling in the courts over not bastardising children by skirting illegitimacy issues of a child, but what about perpetrating a lie in the mouth of a child who believes that his/her mother’s husband was her biological father?
If for any reason the child after reaching adulthood finds out that facts were not facts and embarks on a quest to find hi/her biological father, we would not only have a nice Bollywood script on our hands at the cost a generation of such adults, but also traumatise those adults irretrievably.
You might ask: What if the woman had sexual intercourse with a man out of consent from her husband and conceived? In such a case, the risk of exposure is less as the couple had ‘agreed’ and it would not be a ‘discovery’ to the husband consequently the husband may not have any sane reason to expose. The risk at least gets minimised to the extent that the child may not be embroiled in taking sides with either of his/her parents. With Time, the fact could become a non-issue.

The unfairness that follows by casting a burden on an unsuspecting husband to maintain not only the cuckoo but also the she-cuckoo revolts against the much bandied ‘polluter pays’ Principle in the Environmental issues.

There are facts which one can let pass, but as a society, though there are bound to be infringements, we need to uphold certain positions which would not encourage lies which could spill over to generations.
The cuckoo nest story is a lot decent as the egg breaks into a cuckoo and flies out in due course, but in these cases, the she-crows egg itself has been fertilised by the cuckoo!

I am inclined to read the provisions of Sec. 497 as a norm of the society to uphold the Brotherhood of Man. The underlying principle is hoary and timeless: No man in the normal course, wants to nurture and lavish his resources on whom he doesn’t believe to be his child. Much less, leave a legacy at his passing away.
Men leave their women folk behind like Uriah and go to the battlefront to eke out a living, sometimes for honour and mostly impelled by a drive to improve his economic conditions. In his absence, there are bound to be Davids, who might watch, entice, ensnare and subsequently commit adultery, which could end up in conception, as in the case of Bathsheba. But the society has to have some laws in place to assure those menfolk who have to depart in pursuit of business. It is for this reason that this Section was put in place.
Like in any law, it starts with harsh punishments and after achieving a certain threshold of compliance, the law falls into desuetude. Likewise Section 497 had fallen into disuse. But that Damocles’ sword was essential to those Davids, who could go full fledged in sowing their oats on unsuspecting women.

By an amendment to this section in 1992 by the then united Andhra Pradesh Government, this was made into a COGNIZABLE OFFENCE. As in communities, which are quartered by castes, these adulterous issues could end up in spilling of much blood.

To interpret the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC as a triumph of ‘equality of genders’ is ridiculous. If the law had been interpreted by striking down the “abettor” clause as DISCRIMINATORY, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, I could have conceded, but not when the breach of the bond of brotherhood is not visited with a threat of incarceration.
I see the striking down of Section 497, as the removal of the final societal sanction against breaking the bonds of Brotherhood.
Man has to have some taboos. It is not for nothing that married women in our society were encouraged to wear prominently vermillion on their foreheads as a mark of them being married. Even if one were to get past that, there were rings in the second toes of married women’s feet. The reasons for a man to know that an Indian woman is in a matrimony are plenty, whether he looks her in her eye or looks at her feet. ‘Notice’ can never be wanting, but now that the threat has gone, it is only limited to ‘age’ and ‘consent’.
Yeah! Some direction ‼️


A Fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

In the movie CASABLANCA, the Protagonist Humphrey Bogart is asked by the German Major, in charge of the then occupied territory of French Morocco: “So what brought you to Casablanca?”
Without hesitation our hero says “For the waters.” (Meaning water springs and spas)
Major Strasser says: “ But there aren’t any spas around here.”
Bogart says, “Oh, I was misinformed.”
Or so the conversation goes. Please don’t pick holes on my recollection of that scene, as that would derail a whole lot of hypotheses I’ve built around it‼️
The point is that Bogart resented the presence of the Germans, and Major Strasser in particular, in Casablanca where Bogart was successfully running his ‘gin joint’ with an adjunct gambling den. The Major had collected, or at least from the tone of Bogart, it appears that Bogart suspected that Strasser had a good idea of Bogart’s colourful unsavoury past and wanted to gain an upper hand over Bogart by either forcing him to tell a lie about his own past and catch him, which Strasser attempted, or admit his past.
Bogart being Bogart, through a line well written by the script writer states: ‘He was misinformed’, thus disengaging our hero from the trap laid by the German Major.
In fact the audience knew that the reply of Bogart was a FALLACY.

Likewise DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY in the IV part of the Constitution, which starts with Article 36, titled ‘Definition’ raises hopes of a detailed explanation of what Directives of State Policy meant, however it peters to adopting the meaning of ‘State’ as defined in Part III of the CoI.
It is through Article 37 that the larger picture is accepted and the functions of DPs are explained.

37.Application of the principles contained in this Part
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

There are the following prescribed under this Article, which are:

0. That they are not enforceable by ANY COURT.
0. That the principles laid down are FUNDAMENTAL in the governance of the country; and
0. That a duty has been cast in the State to apply these principles in making laws.

What emerges out of these prescriptions is that neither the state (except through legislating on these principles) nor individuals or entities have recourse to the courts for implementing these ‘principles’ .

Secondly, a duty has been cast on the State to carry out their Legislative mandate under the guidance of these principles.

Read together, it means and only means that in the absence of a Law, these principles cannot be invoked by the Government (means the Executive) nor by individuals or entities.
Whereas, I have seen a Harvard Professor say that these principles are meant to be implemented by the Government, implying that even in the absence of a LEGISLATED LAW, the government could invoke desultorily one of those principles and start implementing their likes and dislikes, as if they are duty bound to implement the same.

I suppose the protection from misuse of this Article is that the even if laws are made ostensibly in pursuance of a Directive Principle, the Law enacted would be subject to the touchstone of the Guarantees granted under the Constitution, like the Fundamental Rights and in the event of a conflict between those legislations and fundamental rights, a fine balance has to be struck by the Higher Judiciary and pronounced on accepted doctrines and principles.
Directive Principles, especially relating to the slaughter of Cow, calf, milch & draught cattle; environmental issues; uniform civil code; and separation of powers have become tools in the hands of self proclaimed implementers of the Directive Principles, which is tragic. .

In the process of Nation building all these issues cannot be taken up at one go, as that would be a severe strain on the resources of the State; and issues which need a gestation period cannot be prematurely taken and forced on the populace, therefore it should be left to the wisdom of the Legislators to legislate. And once the enactment passes the legislative sanctions, the Government and the people would be  vested with duties, liberties and rights but not before that.
Clutching at Directive Principles to advance their lopsided agenda, with a partisan motive by a lumpen few, is nothing but intellectual terrorism.
Let us become aware to identify and distinguish a motivated deleterious agenda disguised as an enticing fallacious Constitutional mandate.

The phrase ‘making of laws’ is wide enough to include their interpretation and therefore the courts must inferpret the laws in the ‘light of the Directive Principles’ (Balwant Raj Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) – Supreme Court Judgment 1966 – Dhawan .J)

This interpretation of the law doesn’t appear to be tenable in the light of the clear words of the provisions of the Article which says ‘the duty of the State in applying …’; and the State doesn’t include the Courts. Secondly, Judicial Pronouncements cannot be called as ‘making of laws’ rather they are meant to be ‘interpreting the provisions of law’.   

India vaazhga!

It has been the general opinion of interpreters of the Old Testament to blame Samson’s weakness for women as the sole reason for the tragic end of Samson.
My understanding of Samson is significantly different from this general opinion, which is a Trojan horse for smuggling the pet theories of the moralists.
Being Moral is entirely different from being a Moralist. A Moralist is one who goes around prescribing standards of ‘desirable’ behaviour for others to follow.
Samson’s association with Delilah, and before that with that woman from Timnath, whom he married; and the Harlot from Gaza are bandied about as reason for his tragic end. No doubt Samson’s choice of women were mostly Philistine women, who were the “Rulers” of the Jews then.
A necessary parallel has to be drawn to King David, who was no less active in the same field as Samson, but King David’s choice starts with Mehrab as the trophy for having defeated Goliath. When Mehrab was not too keen on becoming the spouse of David, a single swallow making the summer then, settles down for Michal, who according to the Bible was in love with this young hero, more as a compromise to gain access to be counted as a member of the King’s family. Then David marries Abigail, who had met him the previous night and conveniently for David, Abigail’s husband dies the next morning putatively out of a broken heart for his indiscreet words to David’s men the previous day‼️ David’s other women were Maacah, a Princess of Geshur. All these women gave David access to the princely power through Michal; economic resources through Abigail; another Princely cohabitation with Maacah. As regards Ahinoam and Haggith, except that the latter was the mother of Adonijah, very less is known of them. Lastly, Bathsheba, who was the mother of Solomon through David and the one who was involved in the accession politics after David became incapacitated in his last days. But the thread which runs through the choice of the women of David is that his priorities as a Ruler never took a backseat. More than that David never succumbed, except in his last leg, to the charms of these women so as to risk his Life.
But Samson played with fire right from that woman from Timnath; the harlot at Gaza; and finally with Delilah. Samson’s behaviour and association was risky from the outset.
But is that all there was to Samson? I guess not.
Samson was from the tribe of Dan. Dan as a tribe was the last tribe to receive its territory from Joshua, just over Philistia and West of Ephraim and Northwest of Judah and South of West Manasseh. Dan was a small enclave East of the Mediterranean. Therefore a tribe hemmed in on all sides. Surrounded by the big boys like Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah.
Let us get back to the origins of this tribe. Dan was one of the sons of Bilah, maid of Rachel.
Not a very bright prospects for a person born to one of those handmaiden Tribes of Israel. Even this territory was divested and in time Dan ended up in the North along with those tribes, not of stature. But at least they escaped the slings & arrows of their supercilious half-brothers.
Even Gideon of Manasseh had to say : “Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?” to Ephraimites to palliate their hurt pride, as Gideon had not included them at the beginning of his campaign against the Midianites. Such was the hierarchy of the tribes. Uterine brother Ephraim was above Manasseh, how much worse would have been Dan’s position with Ephraim, Judah and Manasseh encompassing Dan and a common border with Philistia, to boot!

If I should exemplify with another example, Jephtha, the Gileadite had trouble with the Ephraimites even after his victory over Ammonites and had to encounter the wrath of the ‘superior’ Ephraimites thus:
Wherefore passedst thou over to fight against the children of Ammon, and didst not call us to go with thee? we will burn thine house upon thee with fire.”

When such was the case, what would have been the plight of a brilliant hero Samson, from Dan?
If the reader thinks I am imagining please read the attitude of the tribe of Judah, when Samson was on the rock of Etam after he had set the fields of the philistines afire.

Judges 15

Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them.

Here was a strong man Samson who should have been assisted and his lack of tact should have been supplemented by others, but Alas, Judah is trying to educate the irrepressible Samson into subjugation by teaching Samson who their masters were‼️
I pity that generation of Judah, which had not only become servile but were without the spirit of resistance when they had a hero like Samson around.
Judah saw the Danites as lowborn and wouldn’t aid his attempts.
I don’t say that Samson was a great man manager, but those are skills which could be supplied through advice and mentoring. Till Danites captured Laish and renamed it as Dan in the Northern tip, they were hemmed in between half-brothers who were intent on suppressing and stifling Danites and I feel that this also contributed greatly to the downfall of Samson.

Art is to be relished and not to be explained, the reason according to me is that there is a certain internal ambience at the point of reception of a work of Art. That ‘internal ambience’ is made up of one’s knowledge, feelings, mood, proclivity and the serotonin levels of circulation in one’s brain.
But there are works of art which not only startlingly attract us, but keep us occupied with the associative thoughts related to that work of art or that of the artist’s.
Very few artists have had their feelings expressed in words like Vincent Van Gogh. His epistolary saga with his brother Theo is intense, sincere and open to the point of raw vulnerability.
His paintings in ‘China blue’, those bright yellows, twirling strokes and day-to-day themes are his trademark but there was something more to his works. Those were the stories which were built around his Life. A Life, not merely reduced to the somber ending – which is the case with most humans, but lived VIBRANTLY and INTENSELY. Who could have had a distraught moment with another posthumously exalted great artist like Paul Gauguin which led to Vincent’s earlobe being chopped off by Gauguin and yet never implicated another genius to the objectives of the Arles criminal justice system?
How about that myth that Van Gogh presented his chopped off lobe to a prostitute with whom he was in love‼️
All these facts which the art historians are floating from time to time cannot be verified and proven with indelible accuracy. They were lost without a trace and yet we are weaving our ‘facts’ and our earlier generations had woven their ‘facts’ too; and when we were naive we believed as if they knew best and we learnt it from them.
Despite all these vortices of facts there is a painting of Van Gogh with a bandaged ear with a look in his face, which I wonder how a self portrait painter could have captured and reproduced.
Was that traumatic look in his eyes and the wrinkles on his face the pain of the ear or was it the loss of his friend Gauguin, is left for our imagination.
Van Gogh made me see art in the common things of life. His ‘infatuator’ Gauguin had rightly said that all art was either plagiarism or a revolution. Van Gogh’s paintings are a Revolution. They elevated common things and people around us and brought out that ‘timbre’ or that ‘thisness’ to each item or person he painted.
How can we abandon the myth that Van Gogh cut off his own ear and presented it to a woman whose profession did not allow her to be ‘chaste’ to his love?
How can we allow facts that Van Gogh did not commit suicide but was murdered? That takes away the heroism of a man who had been burdened with oscillating sanity. To be murdered as an ending to an artist like Van Gogh is not befitting. Caravaggio, yes. A street brawler, yes- but a sincere, sensitive and intense soul should be given the power over his own life.
How can a movie like “At Eternity’s Gate” destroy such a powerful ‘fact’ which I believe?
The movie is supposed to have opened to excellent reception in Venice and due in the USA in mid November.
I’d hate to see a movie with that ending. What a pity, that the factmakers want to destroy Vincent even after his death. Allow the dead man his dignity of having taken his own life and let us keep him in the company of the Alpha males like Hemingway.

Those who do not want Religion to be mixed with governance and politics propagated Secularism.
This kind of Secularism was interpreted by the Theists as Atheism.
The Tamil Secularists, as an assertion denied the factoring in the role of God or the use of religion in political matters. This was interpreted by the Religious/ Theists as a Denial of the existence of God.

Just as kids in the primary classes are taught that the THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST, THE SECULARISTS LEADERS TAUGHT THEIR CADRES THAT GOD DOESN’T EXIST. What they wanted their cadres to learn was THAT RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE MADE A BASIS OF POLITICAL DECISION MAKING in a Democratic society.

Now when people go to Kalignar’s resting place and conduct religious ceremonies, those Believers/ Theists are contemptuous of the Atheists turning to God, after the death of their leader. The Theists probably believe that those Secularists should continue to say that THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST and not that THE EARTH ROTATES TOWARDS THE EAST ON ITS OWN AXIS WITH THE SUN IN THE CENTRE, even though they have come of age!

How ridiculous, that a Believer / Theist instead of being happy that an erstwhile unbeliever has turned to God, are contemptuously looking down on them for backsliding from the earlier beliefs held by those Secularists! Probably even gloating that finally “they succumbed to Religion – like us”!
Why not we look at it like this: After all, in Death no one can be certain as to what happens thereafter.

There were these Pharaohs who were interred with their personal belongings, in the hope that they may need those belongings; there was this Alexander the Great who piled gold coins in his father Philip’s grave – so in Death, why take a chance? At least in the life after, the man may not be assigned a not so convenient place for the sake of not having asked some Cosmic consciousness! It is a practice In Catholicism for the relatives of the dead to pray for the dead for mitigation of the punishment in the afterlife, called “indulgences” even without the consent, when alive, of the dead.

Therefore, I am of the firm belief that the Belief of a follower ‘following rituals and practices’ in the grave for the benefit of the dead, need not be in keeping with the beliefs of the dead.

Therefore, the clamour of those Theists who want to hold those Secularists responsible for their word, in the literal sense, is neither reasonable nor giving them the Liberty to change their minds and beliefs.
No Mortal can be a Custodian of any belief in God, as any Mortal has the Liberty to assert/affirm his own beliefs, but can never “rule out” any other mortal’s beliefs. All mortals are limited by Time and for all we know, may not carry his consciousness beyond his Death.

In a gist, Secularism is merely not mixing Religion in politics & governance and has nothing to do with their personal practices in their Private lives.
Let us be sane enough NOT TO JUDGE THE DEAD. They are beyond the grasp of the Living.

Even when I was a boy, whenever I read Esther 7, I was fascinated by Harbonah. 

The interesting part evolved from a situation from my home. It was routine for us to read the Bible on Sundays after lunch and my father would vividly explain those doubts which I raised as a boy of 12 years or so. 

I couldn’t understand as to why Harbonah covered the face of Haman, when Ahaseurus asked rhetorically: Will he(Haman) force Esther in my presence in the house? 

My father had to explain the context picturesquely and he said, “do you know that when I inspect prisoners and ask their grievances on Tuesdays I go on rounds to every block of the prison and all the prisoners would be lined up in front of their respective blocks and I would lead a posse of prison officials and with me would be the District Medical Officer too?”

I said yes, I do. 

Dad said:” But do you know that the convict warder Khader would be to my right, just a step behind me but between me and the closest prisoner, as I pass by?”

I said: so?

Dad said: “Those prisoners are criminals and I am the head of the Central prison and have to behave in a dignified manner. Yet, if any of those prisoners were to attack me or anyone, the first line of defence would be Khader. Khader would not mind his life but would do everything within his powers to stave off any assault to me and I could still remain composed, even in an ugly situation.”

He added: Even if a Prison Superintendent was so powerful that there were officials to give their lives, can you imagine the power of a ruler who ruled 127 provinces from Ethiopia to India? 

That Harbonah was like our Khader. I got his point in my own juvenile way. 

I have to describe Khader, otherwise this piece would have no meaning. He was a lifer, convicted of murder and serving life term. When a convict gets upgraded, he becomes an overseer first and thereafter he could become a CONVICT WARDER. 

Khader used to be in white shirts like police with half trousers and a leather belt with a brass buckle. He must have been 5’8” and stocky with no smile on his face. There was a sternness to his demeanour and a sense of decisiveness to his stride. He was also adept at electrical work and he used to have a plier slung with one handle in his right pocket. He could leave the jail unescorted anytime and he would get back for sure. He was the most powerful person inside the prison. He had his cell open in one corner of the jail and he was raising wild pigeons. It was reported that he would feed those pigeons with generous amounts of corn, supplied as per his requirements by the store in- charge. It was also reported that he ate pigeons for dinner, which were cooked inside the jail by those flunkeys, mostly remand prisoners who had come under his ‘keep’! 

Khader was a man with a purpose, he looked the type who had forgotten that he was a convict, yet absolutely loyal to only one person – the Jail Superintendent. 

The plier on his right trouser pocket looked like the jawbone of an ass in the hands of Samson. His sheer presence could dissipate crowds of prisoners. No small talk; no banter; no smile; always purposeful and always busy. His lunch was the food sent to the Jail Superintendent for tasting, every afternoon. I am sure, that must have been tweaked to ensure that the Superintendent is not appalled by the food dished out to the general prisoners by tasting that food, which came in a tray in stainless steel cups and bowls. The food might be from the same cauldron, but additives to give flavour and taste might have been added. I’ve tasted that a couple of times, myself, to my utter disgust – even with all that tweaking. 

This Khader who lived on royal jelly and pigeon meat, no wonder was stocky, muscular and loyal – how else could he keep his supplies thus. 

The prisoners on Tuesdays could lift their hands up to 30 degrees from their elbows and if the Superintendent deigned to stop, Khader would be so alert that he would not only look into the eyes of that prisoner with a grievance but also circumspect that no other jailbird pounced on his master. His role was self-exalted by presumed threats and his assumed role as a protector of the body of the most powerful person. 

Such was Harbonah. 

I got it, I’m sure you as a reader must have got it too. 

So, Haman, the Chief Minister of the Emperor Ahaseurus, had also been invited along with the emperor, by Esther for a dinner running the second day on the trot. 

When the king asked Esther what she wanted, Esther begs for her life. Ahaseurus is aghast, as to who could threaten his Queen and promptly she says that it was the “wicked Haman”. The emperor is furious and walks out and when he returns he finds Haman fallen on the bed/couch of Esther. Freeze. 

In that instant the emperor says : Will he(Haman) force Esther in my presence in the house?

The Bible says:Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman was fallen upon the bed whereon Esther was. Then said the king, Will he force the queen also before me in the house? As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face.

This Harbonah advises the method of disposal of Haman, by informing the Emperor that Haman had raised a gallows at his own house to hang Mordecai, cousin/uncle of Esther, because of their pre-existing enmity. 

Haman, the hen-pecked, had raised the gallows in his own house at the behest of his wife Zeresh, who advised him to set up and hang Mordecai in that gallows. 

Haman, who knew that Mordecai was a Jew failed to know that the Queen was not merely any Jewess, but the foster daughter of Mordecai! 

All these pale into insignificance when we see Harbonah covering the face of his own Chief Minister and dragging him out no sooner had he heard the displeasure of the king Ahaseurus. 

“But where was Harbonah, when Vashti had refused to come to the banquet when the same Ahaseurus had invited her for showcasing her before the emperor’s princes and nobles?” Asked I. 

Dad said: There was one Harbona then, who probably was the same Harbonah. But there were six other chamberlains who were dispatched by Ahaseurus to fetch Vashti. But Vashti did not go at the invitation of the Emperor. 

My curiosity got the better of me and I said after all Harbonah had access to the king’s harem too, further if Harbonah had no qualms about covering the face of the Chief Minister, why didn’t he lift Vashti and present her before the Emperor? 

Being a juvenile then and not understanding the dynamics of a man woman relationship I had asked that indiscreet question. 

But without getting into that, my father said something which reverberates even today in my mind:  Had Harbonah got  Vashti before the emperor, the Jews would not have had Purim to celebrate. Reminds me of the Verger of Somerset Maugham.😄

Divine ways to have the Festival of Lights.  

“Whether authors ever live to see the dawn of their fame depends upon the chance of circumstance; and the higher and more important their works are, the less likelihood there is of their doing so. That was an incomparable fine saying of Seneca’s, that fame follows merit as surely as the body casts a shadow; sometimes falling in front, and sometimes behind. And he goes on to remark that though the envy of contemporaries be shown by universal silence, there will come those who will judge without enmity or favor. From this remark it is manifest that even in Seneca’s age there were rascals who understood the art of suppressing merit by maliciously ignoring its existence, and of concealing good work from the public in order to favor the bad: it is an art well understood in our day, too, manifesting itself, both then and now, in an envious conspiracy of silence.”

Excerpt From
The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: the Wisdom of Life
Arthur Schopenhauer
This material may be protected by copyright.

When Bartimaeus’ eyes were opened, he realised that he had shouted out to the Son of David while he was still oblivious of the milling crowd outside Jericho, following Jesus.

If only had Bartimaeus SEEN the crowd, he’d NOT have called out to Jesus, being afraid to draw attention to himself and having become overawed.
Our faith remains stifled and unarticulated because we feel others are watching!
Turn a blind eye and call out, the Redemption maybe in our calling to attention the Saviour passing by.

The Cheetah which had through circumstances lost the symbiotic forays with the Lion, wizened – not with age – but lack of nutrition, and realised how unequal relationships, though might work fabulously for a while, wouldn’t change the script of his Life structured by the cosmic force which had made him a creature of Speed and not Strength.
Having reconciled with his genetic script, took to hunting smaller animals for his sustenance.
His Expectation of pining for the Lion coming back had wasted a few months of his Life. Our Cheetah was finding it difficult to generate those unleashing leaps of  a compressed spring. He took to scavenging, but even out of that false Expectation sprang Hope. He built his skills of guile, he would stealthily crawl up to less swift smaller animals and take them. This not just kept him going, but unconsciously built up his strength to become the Cheetah that he was genetically designed to be.
The Cheetah’s confidence in himself grew with time. He learnt one of the biggest lessons of life: never ever build alliances with those who rely on your skills but give you an impression of favouring you by sharing pittance out of your own Labours. Better to be your Creator’s servant than serve another mortal Creature for a morsel. Better to live with the insecurity of a mortal than be secure in the shadow of another mortal‼️
The Cheetah now has his lair on top of a flinty hillock overlooking a meadow, where he could see and choose his prey. The Cheetah thought to himself: Thou preparest a table before me – in the presence of Lions, which  are nothing but creatures competing for the same stuff😎

This lion, which neither had a pride nor the care of a lioness once chanced upon a cheetah which had caught its prey but unable to kill it and eat it.
When the Cheetah saw the lion, he meekly left the moribund stag and left. This lion reached the stag and deftly clamped his mouth on the jugular of the dying stag and within seconds had started feasting on the stag for which he had neither laboured nor planned. To put it in biblical terms, “the lion had entered into the labours of the cheetah” (John 4:37)
The lion after satiating himself, left behind a considerable portion of the carcass which the cheetah, which was salivating for from afar, stealthily moved before the hyenas could reach and had its fill.
Said the Cheetah to itself in realisation: I was swift to catch the stag but I neither had the strength of a lion’s paw to pin it down nor its jaws & claws to rip the stag. What a great FINISHER.
Yeah, the Lion was a Finisher!
The lion which had snoozed for a greater part of that evening woke up to find the cheetah standing at an audible distance. The lion sleepily yawned and asked the Cheetah, if he had had the rest of the stag. The cheetah shouted back , YES SIR!
This was reassuring to the lion which not only believed in its own superiority but believed in the acknowledgement of the same by the other animals. The lion said: Anyway, you would not have killed the stag had I not intervened.
The cheetah replied: yes sir, the drain in my energy would have been more than the gain.
The Lion liked the rhyme besides the truthful acceptance instead of a claim over the stag as the first capturer!
Now the lion and the cheetah are great friends.
The cheetah’s speed brings the quarry down and the imperial lion takes over the prey for its warm blood and its lion’s share.
This symbiosis had a threat in the form of a lioness, which this Lion tracked after a year of that incident. The lioness and the lion raised a family and in due course the Cheetah was being left with mere bones despite his usual speed in bringing down the quarry.
The lioness has been busy with its cubs and was a lil sluggish too. Where leisure and time comes one’s meal, Mischief spawns. The lioness asked the lion: why have your friend, that emaciated cheetah hanging around, when you are so powerful and strong? Why share your quarry with that tear marked sprinter?
The Lion though knew that it was the Cheetah which gave the chase and brought down the quarry, was shy of admitting it before his woman.
The Lion said, YEAH WHY SHOULD I?
The lion told the cheetah of the lioness’ opinion and wanted him to move out.
Till date, neither the Pride has had it so good as before, nor the Sprinting Cheetah.
Though disparate in skills & power, well matched alliances of skills and power synergise to accomplish great tasks with ease.

“The Man and the Lion
A MAN and a Lion traveled together through the forest. They soon began to boast of their respective superiority to each other in strength and prowess. As they were disputing, they passed a statue carved in stone, which represented “a Lion strangled by a Man.” The traveler pointed to it and said: “See there! How strong we are, and how we prevail over even the king of beasts.” The Lion replied: “This statue was made by one of you men. If we Lions knew how to erect statues, you would see the Man placed under the paw of the Lion.”
One story is good, till another is told.”
False exploits and credit taking for others’ work done well should be treated as FAKE NEWS!

Zophar the Naamathite‼️

Zophar was a friend of Job and in chapter 11 he launches defending God and expatiates on all aspects of His glory.
In the first flush it seems true. It is not the contents which Zophar utters which irks and draws a fitting response from Job, at chapter 13 of the book as much as the mettle of the person who said it & the person to whom it was addressed.
Hypocrisy is not revealed better in any other piece of literature I’ve ever read.
Job’s predicament of having been subjected to the misfortunes that he was going through was not because of the “fault theory” or even “randomness of events”, there was a testimony by the Creator on Job, which was assailed by the Creator’s antipode, the Devil, on the grounds that Job stood protected by God, the Creator, and consequently Job was merely ‘grateful’ and once the protection of God was removed, Job would not be ‘perfect’.
God, allows Satan to assault Job serially after God removes the protection gradually till Job is denuded of all protection except Job’s life.
It is in these circumstances that Job’s three friends find him and Zophar requires Job to ‘repent’.
Job’s justification is known to the readers as his misfortunes were not the cause of his faults.
Zophar eulogises God and tells Job to repent.
Chapter 13 shows that Job couldn’t find anything to repent. Zophar should have left it at that, but he exalts God and His virtues.
Job demolishes Zophar’s arguments by saying the Zophar was not worthy of talking of God.
It is not uncommon to find priests walking into houses and telling people to repent, neither leading worthy lives of making such a demand on innocent people and rounding off their demands by exalting God.
Maybe Zophar’s averments would have worked with lesser mortals, but Job was of a sterner stuff. Job’s answer thus is amazing:
7 Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?
8 Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?
9 Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him?
10 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.
11 Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread fall upon you?

Job’s assertion is: be worthy of talking and taking up for God and just don’t do it because an institution has vested you with temporal authority. Spiritual humility is fundamental. 
Jesus’ challenge at Luke 13: that do you think that the tower fell on them in Siloam and you have been spared is because you are more righteous? Is similar to what Job told Zophar, Bildad  and the other friend. 

The New Living Version of the Bible runs as follows and is easier to comprehend: 

Are you defending God with lies?

Do you make your dishonest arguments for his sake?

8Will you slant your testimony in his favor?

Will you argue God’s case for him?

9What will happen when he finds out what you are doing?

Can you fool him as easily as you fool people?

10No, you will be in trouble with him

if you secretly slant your testimony in his favor.

11Doesn’t his majesty terrify you?

Doesn’t your fear of him overwhelm you?

12Your platitudes are as valuable as ashes.

Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot.

13“Be silent now and leave me alone.

Let me speak, and I will face the consequences.

Interpreting, without factoring the text or the context or the person to whom it applies, is terrible!

When still callow and burdened with little understanding to distinguish between a Fact and a Popular Opinion, I was asked by my Professor the meaning of Xanthipee, I blurted with youthful effervescence that the word meant a “shrewish woman” and that the word derived its meaning from Socrates’ wife’s name, who was supposed to have been a shrew.
After reading Xenophon, well into my forties, I realised that the name had assumed a meaning without any contemporary authority to back that ascription. Neither Plato nor Xenophon, ever say that Xanthipee was a shrew in any of their writings. However the line ‘after thunder comes the rain’ and the various paintings of Xanthipee  emptying a chamber pot on to the head of Socrates, had to be explained to be consistent with the popular beliefs and consequently the idea that Xanthipee was a shrew, has come to stay.
A maligning based on popularised beliefs!
Facts do not stand alone, they network in a way that envelops the reader into a possibility. Socrates’ sayings and the writings of Xenophon lucidly show that Socrates was a reasonable and honourable man prone a little too much in explaining the lives of those who were living it.
It sounded to many as a nice explanation of what their lives were, and how worthy they were.
He built a consciousness of a human view of itself.
Secondly Socrates showed the Virtuous side of it and named it Good.
Thirdly, how Good was Desirable.
Finally, how and why a man has to Strive for the desired goal.
Socrates showed how a Man through observing and studying oneself, one would know, as much about the outer world, and function perfectly in the external world  too!
Three fifty years before salvation was brought by Jesus, Socrates brought the thought of making man look both inside and outside himself- Man got over a hunger based Life.
The greatest thought Socrates left behind was social responsibility with honourable goodness through effort.

Croatia beat England to reach World Cup final for 1st time
-via inshorts

This semifinal match is the most pedestrian match at this level. England having scored their first goal within the first ten minutes of the start are behaving like those kids which failed marshmallow test- no plan- just grab the ball and run to the Croatian end. Kane had been offsided at least twice within twenty minutes.
Scoring the first goal within the opening minutes of any football game against a mediocre team is a sure recipe for the standards of the game to hit new lows. Sure enough, I have quit watching after the first half an hour – watch! NOT the first half.
England wants to be in the finals. That’s it. They have colonised Croatia and no need for keeping up the international standards of the game. Pity, when the result is the only thing.
Yesterday, even after France had taken the lead, they didn’t let their game slacken to merely aim at possession, even though Mbappa was puerile enough to delay throws and free kicks of Belgium in the second half.
Kane appears to be desperate to add some international WC goals to his kitty. Kane is not interested in being in  position to feed the ball to some of his teammates who probably have a better view and chance, he is all tied up behind the Croatian defenders.
France, despite having scored at the 51st minute, did string some poetic passes at the goalmouth of Belgium, though nothing fructified.
Those flipped back passes, and pushes to vacant slots where teammates are likely to reach ahead of the defenders and other individual brilliance is what soccer is all about- jingoism notwithstanding. At least that makes great spectacle.
With the exit of Brazil, standards have fallen to European club levels.
Hope at least in the finals the traditional rivals would raise the standards of this spectator sport and not a statistical affair.

A Footman with a horse doesn’t become a Cavalryman!

Skills, my friend, skills, is what matters. Aspiration with good fortune can fetch a horse but riding skills is not only a question of opportunity, but acquiring skills through practice.
After acquisition of riding skills, where it is applied determines the person’s contribution to himself and/or the society.
One could become a show jumper, a lion tamer on a horse in a circus, or a warrior. Opportunities could be created like King David of Israel, where he marketed to Saul, his skills as a slinger when his father assigned him the job of being a Swiggy boy to his brothers and Abner.
Or because of adverse Times be in the jail, like the Joseph of Genesis, and learn bookkeeping, store management, reporting, prioritising the institutional requirements; and thereafter, when Joseph met the cupbearer identified that he would be released and restored to his position with the Pharaoh, requested him to remember him of his innocence and obtain for Joseph release by putting in a good word.
Circumstances are different, but application without skills might get relief, but not RECOGNITION. Joseph could have been released, but to be out in charge of Egypt required skills.
Astride a horse never made one a cavalryman.
Get the skills & market it. Time will redeem the persistent.

Whether one is Right or not, is known only when one is powerless to the point of Death. Any powerful person is Right because of the implications of the Power he wields. But whether he is Right or not is known only when he is powerless. When Jesus made Himself powerless by Not Summoning the Legion of Angels from His Father in Heaven, he made Himself Powerless by Choice. A choice which is seldom exercised by humans in such a situation. He postponed the exercise of this power because He said He had been given the Power to Resurrect Himself from Death. After His crucifixion Jesus resurrects Himself. That makes Jesus, God.

How can I get more logically certain about Jesus’ divinity?

I watched and wondered how Belgium was able to thwart left flank forward Neymar from even having a view of the goal – post to post- of the Belgium side.

From the attacker’s view from the front, the Belgian backs and the other midfielders on defence line up in a position not in a single line horizontally or even diagonally. Except the extreme end defenders, each defender was placed randomly blocking the view of the Belgian goal. Thereby in split second the Brazil forward is unable to see the chinks between the defenders.

If you had observed the shots were either the corner ends of the post or the crossbar of the goal post. They were palmed off for a corner.

When one sees bats fly, they never fly in a symmetrical formation, reason being that they go not by sight or by echolocation, therefore they do not form a phalanx. Each bat is on its own and has to fly finding a path for itself it doesn’t ‘follow’ another bat – unless the reason is a fight or mate!

The Brazil forwards are used to the lined up defence, which is for offside trap, when they saw this random formation they had to either try below the crossbar or incurving ball, where they couldn’t make it.

It must be interesting to watch the semifinals of Belgium match against France, I suppose.

But Brazil’s playmaking was poetry. It is a pity that they were pitted against the next best in the quarterfinals itself, denying them of a podium finish.

To understand I have pictorially done a bat formation for my own hypothesis, maybe I am wrong, but worth reducing it to a written thought.

Movid's Weblog

It is not very common to find this expression MAHOUT MENTALITY. But, if we understand the methods which a MAHOUT employs to control, exploit, manage and show helplessness when the ELEPHANT turns “musth“, we’d be able to identify the people who have a similar mentality.

The most important thing before a man becomes a mahout is for him to IDENTIFY an elephant. Once identified, then take over the control of that elephant. Mind you, the MAN never goes to the wild to capture an elephant, he merely identifies a temple elephant, a draught elephant or a circus elephant. They are already DOMESTICATED and are familiar with the spear used by the mahout to harass the elephant. They are nothing but soft targets for the mahout and once he gets into control, he merely has to know how to exploit the strength of the ANIMAL.


View original post 319 more words

So there is this couple known to me who go on city drives, long ones, on holidays and weekends, just to get the feel of the city of Chennai. These drives are mostly with the husband at the wheel.
The wife, uses these drives for clarifications of facts long held in abeyance with anxiety; seeking new eat outs; watching families on scooters and bikes and feeling good for the institution of marriage; delivering lectures on strategy as to how the husband could have been one up on the servants by adopting her post-mortem brainwaves; and picking  holes in his facts.
The husband had not only to concentrate on the slow but surely moving (unlike Bangalore) traffic besides listening to her talk, but had to also carefully follow her chatter. A promptly unrebutted nod to her statements are likely to be called into question as a wilful act of defiance of her ‘suggestion’.
After a few weeks of such drives, the husband said: see, we get to see a lot of Swiggy delivery boys and when I sight one, I will call out 1. When you sight the second one you call out 2 and at the end of the journey if the total sightings are odd, then you pay me Rs. 100; if at the journey’s end the total sightings are even, I pay you.
Thus started the game.
Now the husband confides that his wife is busy not only looking out for those orange T shirts with Swiggy, but even enthusiastically calls out. The wife has become more participative and has given up on thinking up, out of her false memory, to pull out petulant infractions.
He said: I was surprised when she noticed a Swiggy boy in the odd sequence and she kept quiet. When quizzed she is supposed to have said: “The law doesn’t come to the aid of those who sleep over their Rights. It is your responsibility to call out the odd numbers in the sequence, if you sight one, why should I assist you?”
A great principle which Eve used to great effect. Adam had the Right of Liberty to refuse eating the forbidden fruit, but he like a lamb to the slaughter took it and ate it, thereby not enforcing his Liberty not to eat even though offered.
Now the wife is not only busy in sighting those Swiggy boys, but delays that pittance she owes, when she loses; but maha prompt when it comes to collecting her dues.
The husband said: small participative skirmishes are good alternatives to those long rancorous silences.
Long live these impromptu games. God knows how long these games would last. Maybe, he has to up the stakes when he loses and keep it low when she does😂

Boccaccio’s Gillette of Narbonne is just like the story of Judah and Tamar from the Old Testament. Boccaccio’s story redeems itself by leaving out the death of the earlier husbands Er and Onan of Tamar; Judah not honouring the tradition of giving the younger brother of her deceased husband Shelah to Tamar; and Tamar playing the harlot with Judah.

The ring stays without the bracelet & staff as a symbol to redeem Gillette from the accusation of having had carnal relationship with someone other than Bertram, the Count. The setting is also regal.
No wonder Shakespeare chose him as one of his sources! Story is short, but multiple perspectives – well integrated with parenthetical clauses-  describing each perspective simultaneously and sensitively‼️

I wonder what Gillette and Bertram would have named their twin boys, surely Boccaccio would not have recommended Pharez & Zarah as the names – that would have been a dead giveaway 😊

They shared the same bathroom, but his cup holder in the washroom was red with a colgate tooth paste tube sticking its head out of a neatly rolled up crimp.
In her’s was a blue Binaca toothbrush, basically bought by her for those little plastic dolls kept to lure the children. Beside that brush was a Pepsodent toothpaste all squeezed randomly that one can’t make out if she was squeezing in the middle to make the crimp end of the tube bulge up instead of the mouth-end.
Their marriage boiled down to their preferences shown in squeezing the bottom or the middle!
They parted ways and now they share the same bathroom but have separate toothpastes, a choice not based on aesthetic or health reasons, but their inability to conciliate. But it has its benefits, when she kissed him she could sniff a hint of his Colgate and he could the Pepsodent. They are beneficiaries of a benevolent Nature. They stay together but they live single.
Oh, how beautiful‼️

While others had striven to make a reader/ listener to understand an imagery or a metaphor, Shakespeare is unconcerned. He’d said it and they like arrows shoot on all directions from his bow, grasp if you can. But while you are still grasping many, arrows streamingly dart out. Shakespeare isn’t trying to hold a mirror to a reader’s ignorance, if you miss the images and metaphors, you still have the plot to feel gratified. But grasping the aptness of his images and metaphors elevate your associative awareness – an introduction to the past; sewing it up with the present and predicting the probabilities of the future. Alabaster is itself premium, but monumental alabaster is the unmatched homage to the memory of that Imperial past. Lilies do fester, but who could have related it to the smell of the weeds and redeemed those weeds? None besides Shakespeare!

The interpretations of Prometheus herein is based on the THEOGONY of Hesiod.
Prometheus was on the winning side of the war among the Greek gods.
But Prometheus did two deeds, which infuriated Zeus, the Chief of the Gods, on whose side Prometheus had once played the games of the gods.

The problem about interpreting the later falling out or rebellion or testing Zeus, by Prometheus has bred many literary, art & cinema based interpretations.
For me Prometheus, like any follower of a victorious man assumes that once the victory is won, EVERYTHING should be made possible for the followers, forgetting that the followers has added volume to the cause and not necessarily the right inputs which led to the victory.
The crowd which had followed either would have had no opinion at all or even if they had one, not a very balanced one. The leader provides the greatest inputs: balance & prioritising the action plan, which in the Altar of Time gets sanctified as Victory!
Prometheus turns a rebel creates man and restores fire against the WILL of Zeus!
Zeus, whom I tremendously admire, keeps his once vanquished foes in Tartarus, alive and kicking but severely constrained through rationing and sequestered from external interaction. Zeus knew fully well that if an external enemy is eliminated, sure enough even for gods, inimical forces would sprout from within!
Hiranya Kasiphu had to counter Prahlad his own son. Likewise, Kamsa had to decimate his own nephew. The principle of UNIPOLARITY OF UNCHALLENGED EXISTENCE is denied even to the Greek gods! A great piece of wisdom.
Prometheus, is thus the voice of modesty of the victorious wilful SELF.
But, it has its own pangs. The pangs of INGRATITUDE which visitS every night to peck at the liver of Prometheus! The liver is restored each morning but the eagle visits every night and inflicts the excruciating pain of being pecked at by the eagle. In Sisyphus, it was a repeated FUTILE TASK, which was only an exercise in futility in its unadulterated form, but Prometheus’ punishment was crying for mere relief every night and probably the days spent in anxiety over the impending nights!
Yet, the spirit of Prometheus to debunk Zeus wouldn’t subside!
Prometheus restored fire to mankind, but that led to Pandora and her box of gifts! The bigger evil came visiting MANkind!

The Graft!

There once was a garden in which stood a huge banyan tree. The tree had by its longevity spread its seeds through the centuries by birds which had eaten its fruits. The garden became a forest and subsequently, filled the nation with banyan trees all over.
Suddenly, a few insects had invaded the banyan and started gnawing at them, or so the farmer thought. This spread and most of the banyan trees got afflicted with those insects.
A farmer saw the plight of the huge banyan in his vicinity, losing its majestic qualities and merely living off the structural support of the aerial roots which had become trunks to the main  banyan tree. The main banyan has become hollow, sheltering the birds and rodents. The farmer tried to resuscitate the main trunk, but to no avail.
The farmer took the issue to an agricultural scientist for a solution.
The scientist after prolonged study discovered that the main trunk was no more the conduit for the nutrients of the water and minerals from the ground, as the passages had been clogged over the years and that the aerial roots which had become trunks, after supplementing to the efforts of the main branch, had taken over the functions because of Necessity.
The scientist discovered that the main trunk by forwarding all the nutrients and water to the branches, had not utilised the same nutrients and water for nourishing itself, even though God had designed it to be not merely a conduit for conveying but also a beneficiary of such conveying. The scientist invented another specie of a Banyan, which had followed the God designed principle of deducting the user charges, for conveying the nutrients and water.
The scientist advised the farmer, see: we cannot restore the health of all the existing banyan trees of this strain, but we can GRAFT the specie of the banyan which collects user fee into this banyan and over a period of time attempt to grow a breed of Banyan, which would not be prone to this self-inflicting debility.
Thus the Grafting of another specie into the original banyan was done.
Generations later, the hybrid (grafted breed) replaced the old banyan trees after half a millennium.
The new generation of scientists after 500 years discovered certain health issues of the hybrid and had to decide whether to bring back the old banyan tree’s strain by eliminating the grafted strains which have become a part of the hybrid banyan trees.
A conclave was convened and all the farmers, scientists and vegetation enthusiasts met.
The squabbling went on for years.

The Traditionalists said that the GRAFTING was wrong, as the original banyan tree’s integrity had been compromised.

The Modernists said, we are people here by accident and our duty is to primarily rectify the issues, as is understood by us now, and continue with the historical grafting untouched. They further added as a compromise, we can accentuate the original strains without stymieing the grafted strains.
The Traditionalists said: No, elimination of the grafted strain was a must through stymieing the supply of nutrients and water through targeted policies.
The Functionalists, said: See, both are banyan trees and we have grafted only strains of another banyan into this Banyan, so why eliminate the benefits derived out of the newer strain grafted by our forefathers? We do not know the challenges faced by our forefathers 500 years ago, nor can we predict the inherent gains through the grafting done centuries back. The fact that the hybrid strain has coped with these 500 years, should vouchsafe for the benefits of the rectification. So let us not INTERPRET HISTORY in a cussed way, but allow the grafted strain to continue and provide more nutrients to the older strain of the original banyan.

The Purists would have none of it.
The matter is now escalated and it has been resolved that the whole country should participate in determining whether to eliminate the Grafted strain or to allow more nutrition to the older strain without stymieing the grafted strain.
The next conclave has been fixed for May, 2019.
God bless India.

Truth is beyond Fearlessness, it is Truthfulness. Voltaire was not one to merely set up an idol and leave it to your choice to follow, Voltaire destroyed the existing idols by setting his idol above the preexisting idols. He not only set up Sir. Isaac Newton but destroyed the conquerors by setting up Newton above the Caesar, Alexander, Tamerlane, or Cromwell. How Cromwell made it to that list should not be read ejudsem generis, but as referring to a contemporary, hence to each and everyone.

Not long ago,” said Voltaire, “a distinguished company were discussing the trite and frivolous question” (alas, this is an untimely quotation!), “who was the greatest man Caesar, Alexander, Tamerlane, or Cromwell? Someone an-swered that without doubt it was Isaac Newton. And right-ly: for it is to him who masters our minds by the force of truth, and not to those who enslave them by violence, that we owe our reverence.”

In India everyone believes he/she knows the law.
That there are broadly statutory laws and judicially pronounced laws, are known to the better informed.
That unless the Supreme Court had authoritatively pronounced on an issue, the High Court decision on the issue ought to prevail in that state is known to the legally minded.
That if a decision could be distinguished on certain grounds, the precedents set by the SCI and the HCs could be challenged is known to the lawyers.
If a matter has not yet been decided authoritatively by any court in India then such issues are classified as RES INTEGRA and beg for judicial determination!
Beyond all these is something called CONVENTION, which by common consent over a period of time has come to be accepted as the Law.
In Administrative Law there is a judgement delivered by Lord Greene, in the late forties of the last century, which enunciated certain principles which goes by the name WEDNESBURY PRINCIPLES.

There are three limbs to those principles relating to DISCRETION in administrative law. They are
0. Whether in the decision making process any irrelevant material has been taken into consideration?
0. Whether in the decision making process any relevant material which ought to have been taken into consideration has been left out?
0. Whether the decision is so unreasonable that the decision is UNREASONABLE.
I have been amused at the arguments put forward both in the TV news and sometimes even in the Supreme Court, that I wonder if we as a nation should spend so much time on ‘distinguishing facts’ to overturn the principles enunciated in precedents of force.
Some of the arguments which are laughable are
0. Whether the Anti Defection Law as mentioned in the Tenth Schedule would come into force only after an elected representative had taken oath 😂🤣
0. Which law provides for a person to start executing the office of the Chief Minister, immediately after swearing in, when he doesn’t have the support of 50% of the house. It is a constitutional necessity to be sworn in as a CM before proving his majority, but to start exercising its functions even before the floor test, especially when apparently the numbers are not there, and take administrative decisions is a ludicrous act.
0. Under which law of the land does it say that the largest single party or pre-poll alliance should be called to form a govt. overlooking the reasonable numbers of the post poll formation from the other side?
0. As a convention we have accepted the Goan, Manipuri and Meghalaya models, so it appeared as a convention to me that post poll alliance is also acceptable for consideration by the Governor.
0. Who told that when elections are called for, upon end of the previous term, if the party which was in ruling received fewer seats it has been VOTED OUT? It simply means the same party has not been VOTED TO POWER. Period. This cannot form the grounds for a less than majority party to stake claim that the previous ruling party had been ‘voted out’. Every party is voted to power for a period of five years and thereafter they have to seek a fresh mandate. After four years of Presidentship when a George Bush senior recontested, he was not voted out, he was not voted in for the second term. That’s it. To build grounds for claiming a better right on those grounds appear to attack ‘reasonableness’.

This hogwash of ‘dance of democracy’ of unreasonableness and irrelevant consideration and non consideration of relevant factors have to be stopped in the altar of Conventions.
It would be laudable if the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came up with its own WEDNESBURY Principles and shorten and sanctify the procedures for determination of whom to call, by the Governors of the various states of India.

Lying Vanities!

A phrase which had set my mind to explore the meaning is ‘LYING VANITIES’.
The clearest mention of this phrase occurs in Jonah’s prayer after he had been thrown out from the ship to Tarshish; swallowed by a fish; stayed inside the belly of the fish; and finally spewed out by the fish.
Does this phrase have a specific meaning? I believe it has.
I believe that one of the commandments of God in the old testament is found at Leviticus 19:
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

Observing Times’ is with reference to people studying patterns of human existence falling under the influence of the movement of heavenly bodies.
Firstly, one has to have sufficient knowledge of the heavenly bodies; secondly, the movements and the inter se positions of these heavenly bodies will have to be measured accurately. Upon measurement of Time & Space regarding these heavenly bodies, one has to speculate on the effects of these heavenly bodies on human beings and human affairs. Those predictions would be knowledge based.
Then there are those who are possessed by spirits, they also predict human affairs, sometimes with accuracy. The Bible says that those predictions are not prophecies, they are predictions – a mere sporadic foretelling of an event to come in the future, which mostly is within the realm of probabilities.
If one resorts to these forces, (I am not saying that these forces and these predictions are false), they may come to pass, but as human beings when we repose our Faith on such predictions and on the purveyors of such predictions, what we mentally succumb to is
1. We believe that certain things are bound to happen and they would happen anyway.
2. We believe that neither our will nor our actions would change the occurrence of these predictions
3. Through subscription to these beliefs, we repose faith on those people who indulge in those predictions, thereby undermine the power of the Almighty to alter the impossible.
At Jonah chapter 2:8 it is written:
They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

This leads us to the question as to whether we need MERCY at all and if so to what purpose?
MERCY is a jurisdiction which chronologically falls after judgement of conviction. Mercy could be setting aside of the sentence, proroguing the sentence, commutation of sentence, or remission of the sentence.
So why do humans need Mercy?
Remorse is the feeling that envelops a mind for having done something wrong. This feeling doesn’t go away when it involves an issue that is proscribed by spiritual laws and stays as a millstone round his neck. It could be an event which had happened in his days of ignorance, nevertheless, it hangs. To remove that one needs contrition and REPENTANCE.

Mercy shown without Repentance is Grace. If the execution of the sentence after the conviction had been instantaneous, there would have been no Mercy. But Christianity presupposes that the sinner is intimated of his sins and is allowed time for repentance. But till the repentance takes place, every sinner is in a period of Grace, having no idea of his sins, persisting in those sins, which he falsely believes as right. Therefore, everyone is in a period of Grace.
Evangelist Paul, when he was still Saul and ‘breathing out threatenings and slaughter’ against Christians, may call his actions as zealous acts, but was the recipient of Grace. But when he was intimated of his behaviour of ‘kicking against pricks’, he was directed to go to stay in Damascus and for three days what he did and how God told him to wait for Ananias, was the Repentance phase. Thereafter Saul turned a new leaf and preached Christianity. He obtained Grace as an unpunished sinner and once convicted of his sins, he was pardoned/sentence commuted, we cannot know which, it was between Saul and God.
Grace is the period spent as an unpunished sinner, worthy of death yet spared in time.
This Mercy would not be available for a person who observes ‘lying vanities’. The reason being that if there is no repentance there cannot be any Mercy. Cain, when cursed by God, doesn’t repent, yet he asks for commutation of the curse. Cain didn’t forsake Mercy, as he was not observing lying vanities‼️

One should read the Old Testament Saul, the King at I Samuel Ch: 28

When Saul, the King of Israel, didn’t get any answer from God, he consulted a woman who could bring up the dead. After that incident, he couldn’t ask God for His mercy. The reason was Saul couldn’t repent or seek God’s mercy.

Judas, after his betrayal of Jesus, couldn’t obtain the Mercy, as he had used Jesus as a mere miracle performing diviner‼️ What Judas did was observing lying vanities and forsook Mercy.

The typical example would be DR.FAUSTUS. Please commiserate with me for these words of Faustus:

“FAUSTUS: But Faustus’ offence can ne’er be pardoned:  the serpent that tempted Eve may be saved, but not Faustus.
O gentlemen,
hear me with patience, and tremble not at my speeches!  Though my heart pant and quiver to remember that I have been a student here these thirty years, O, would I had never seen Wittenberg,never read book! and what wonders I have done, all Germany can
witness, yea, all the world; for which Faustus hath lost both
Germany and the world, yea, heaven itself, heaven, the seat of God, the throne of the blessed, the kingdom of joy; and must remain in hell for ever, hell.  O, hell, for ever!  Sweet friends,
what shall become of Faustus, being in hell for ever?”

(Excerpt From
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
Christopher Marlowe

Dr. Faustus through observance of lying vanities couldn’t seek Mercy nor the preceding Repentance‼️

Please read Psalms 31 verse
6: I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD.

In the following passage from
Ezekiel 13:23, it is not a coincidence that vanity and divination are juxtaposed!

Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

In a gist, observing Times depletes a man of his will to stand up for something and becomes a stumbling block in seeking mercy or repenting💐💐💐

This portion in chapter 7 of the Gospel of John has been a great challenge to my understanding.

22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

There is a commingling of the Ten Commandments and the other Rules given by Moses. Jesus tells those Jews who tried to kill Him contextually thus in the same chapter:

19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

It appears that Jesus was trying to dissuade the Jewish people who were trying to kill Him, that they ought not to kill, as killing would be breaking of a commandment of God.
But a few verses later he brings in the conflict arising between CIRCUMCISION and SABBATH.

My understanding is that Circumcision started with Abraham and definitely doesn’t find a part in the Ten Commandments; whereas keeping the Sabbath holy is a commandment of God.
Jesus brings in the conflict, between circumcision and the Sabbath, by saying that if the eighth day after the birth of a male child were to fall on a Sabbath day, you Jews circumcise the male child even on Sabbath, as you believe that the TRADITION of yore should not be broken. But by circumcising the child on the Sabbath, you are violating one of the Ten Commandments. Thereafter, Jesus Justifies circumcision on Sabbath by stating that if for the benefit of the child circumcision is carried out on the eighth day, only through an infringement of breaking the Sabbath, then DOING GOOD, like HEALING (making a person whole) on the Sabbath would not tantamount to breaking the Sabbath!
The underlying principle which Jesus said was: God is good and if any deed is done infringing a general law, such Good deed should not be seen as a deed having violated the general law.
How he got them!
It was not the Circumcision that Jesus was questioning but the tradition of circumcising only on the eighth day, come what may, though the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, which Jesus drew as a parallel to justify good deeds, like healing and making people whole.
Another way of looking at theses passages is that a General Law need not be strictly applied to every PARTICULAR situation. A child would have only one eighth day after his birth and if it were to fall on a Sabbath, why break the tradition? After all that work of circumcising was not the choice of the parents, assuming that the day of birth of a child would be beyond the choice of a parent. Therefore, in the PARTICULAR case of male children whose eighth day fell on Sabbath, the act of circumcising would not offend the General law of the Sabbath, but would act as an EXCEPTION to the observances of the Sabbath. Likewise, if Jesus were to heal on the Sabbath, such healing would also fall within the exception and would not attract the penalties for non observance of the Sabbath.

The Serpent entered Eve’s mind much before the forbidden fruit entered her throat.
One’s mind is the last bastion to repel an enticingly evil idea. Once entertained, rationalisation takes over and sanctifies the evil. That’s the penultimate stage.
Finally, once entertained, rationalised and sanctified, very rarely a person escapes DOING the evil deed.
Once Done, all the perfumes of Arabia wouldn’t sweeten the little hand🦆


When Hope is severely challenged by the existing perception of Reality, awaiting the Biblical Grace may involve an undefinable period of Time!
Secondly, the Pauline predestination leaves one in further doubt as to whether one is surely predestined to receive the Grace‼️
Teetering between these uncertainties, the only way is to redouble one’s efforts and plunge into Life with all gusto and drown one’s Despair and Doubts in the frenzy of toil. God willing, if the tide were to turn, instead of becoming an exemplar of an amorphous Grace, one may become a cherry picked example for Effort based escape from Despair & Doubt‼️‼️

In the early eighties, my Professor Eugene D’Vaz in one of his lectures made a passing reference on Giotto and contextually said that a Pope was able to identify the drawer of the circle among many other competing paintings presented to the then Pope vying for his attention and the concomitant patronage.

In the first year of graduation it wasn’t easy to ask for the sources to one’s Professor, neither did I have the nerve to ask.

I legged it to the library and asked the librarian if there was any book on Giotto, he told me to check the decimal dewey system and find out for myself.

Well I couldn’t make out what decimal- dewey was. Any way I walked up to the section on Art & Architecture and browsed a few volumes and got carried away by a tome titled 100 GREAT PAINTINGS. After perusing a few plates, I was ashamed that someone might watch me ogling intently at those nudes, with that juvenile guilt writ all over my face, I quickly closed the book and left it at the table nearby, as I had forgotten the exact place from where I had taken the tome!

Decades passed by with no thought of the Circle and Giotto, even though I had seen some of the photographs of his paintings.

Fortunately, as I was going through Vasari’s LIVES OF THE ARTISTS, Giotto’s life was the first and what I found there resuscitated the doubt I had 3 decades back and gave me a graphic detail of how the Pope identified Giotto’ circle!

The screen shots are extracted and placed below, for anyone who cares to read!

A great Professor like Eugene D’Vaz never leaves you, he stays and triggers thoughts even after years of preoccupation of “preparing to Live”‼️

When one’s time for Thankfulness has arrived, he would either receive a benefit for which he would become thankful; or he would discover a preexisting reason to be thankful for‼️


The difference between a person who affirms the Resurrection of Christ, affirms it based on his Belief; whereas, the man who denies the resurrection of Christ, at best could only rely on common sense and assert that Jesus could not have self-resurrected!
Through denial, he closes down his options for belief in such a possibility, on common sense grounds.
But there arises a time in everyone’s life to go against COMMON SENSE, as common sense itself is built on the five senses and the tools which reveal more to the five senses, and common sense fails when those senses are assaulted by ‘possibilities’!
It is when he realises the limitation of his senses that he is driven to belief on EPIPHANIES. Once a person’s mind is prepared for belief on ‘possibilities’ , it is merely a question of ‘which belief system’? Thereafter his proclivities, his earlier knowledge, and his attendant circumstances come into play.
The mind and soul get their relief through BELIEF and not through questioning every Belief, the mind and soul cling on to some belief and the process of ASSERTION starts and ends up in an AFFIRMATION! It is that affirmation which becomes a part of the self.
I am amazed at those who do not know the names of their great-grandfathers, accusing others of conversion.
It is steeped in a belief that they must have been of a particular ‘belief system’ that a geographical territory is supposed to have had!
Such beliefs are sanctified, whereas, when a person has consciously subscribed to a new religious belief, he is assailed as having given in to those ‘perks’. It is risible that those accusers’ Beliefs are in no way superior, in fact they are inferior as there is more traditional pressure in their acceptance of the beliefs of their forebears, than an informed rational choice, in their following a faith of their fathers!
Liberty in such matters is highly recommended, as no one knows for sure as to what system exists after death – whether like a Judeo-Christian-Islamic one time judgement for all deeds done while in the earth; or enter the cycle of rebirth till one attains the Ultimate; or extinguishing of all memory in time.
No one knows, why do we strive for proving superiority of one assertion over the other?
Just like a person is judged by the law to which he subscribes, each person is to be judged by the accepted standard Religious Beliefs to which he subscribes.
Social laws should be separated from the Religious laws, unless through secular means we arrive at a conclusion that certain religious beliefs are inseparable even in secular matters.

When the rusted shackles fall off your wrists, Fool don’t believe that you overcame the shackles, you just outlasted those shackles. And…. everyone resurfaces!‼️


Just as clarity improves during the endgame of chess because of fewer pieces on the board, in Life as one ages, with fewer resources, clarity dawns and gives everyone the vanity of perspicacity! 

If the Hon’ble High Courts were to criminalise acts, which are exempted under the existing criminal laws of the land, based on Fundamental Rights against Discrimination, would that be fair?
When a husband misapplies his conjugal rights without the consent of his own wife, would that tantamount to Rape? The Inshorts message says, YES.
The argument which appears to have been applied to arrive at the above judgement doesn’t seem to be sound to me as the ‘right against discrimination’ is a guarantee granted by the Constitution against exploitation and deprivation without an intelligible differential.
In the case of a Rape, even if there is no consent, or any of those ingredients necessary to constitute Rape, the preexisting CONJUGAL RIGHT, excludes a man from being treated as a Rapist.
I guess, for want of any other section to penalise the husband, to invoke the charges of Rape against the husband seems inappropriate.

Paradigm Shift!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has found a way to untie the Gordian knot, knotted by all the Hon’ble High courts of the country by granting STAYS in civil and criminal trials, mostly on the only ground that somebody had approached the respective High court.
The path breaking judgement has cut through the cackles and come to the horses of the issue. Which part of Justice would be served if a high court were to grant a stay merely because someone has pled his cause and escalated his issue by approaching a High court, and the Justice in his magnanimity has granted stay for complying with the Audi alteram partem Rule? Unfortunately the other side lacks prosecution and never takes the initiative to submit its reply and the person who obtained the Stay is ‘Happy’ !
The whole story became an endless saga waiting for someone to comply with the Principles of Natural Justice.
Finally the brilliance of the Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013. D/d. 28.3.2018 in
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Central Bureau of Investigation decided by the bench consisting of
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Navin Sinha and R.F. Nariman, JJ.
has settled the issue FOR GOOD.
0. No stay valid for more than six months
0. All extensions beyond 6 months should be backed by a Speaking Order.
0. All stays would lapse beyond 6 months if not reviewed under those parameters!
The impact of this decision, I feel, should go a long way in de-clogging our judiciary. Secondly, the Justices would be more inclined to “write” speaking orders and therefore there would be clear grounds of appeal, not merely based on the Principles of Natural Justice and the broad doctrines of justice!

Movid's Weblog

I along with my two friends visited the PERIYA KOIL (BIG TEMPLE) at Thanjavur, last Saturday. I was amazed at the magnificence of the temple and even more amazed that Raja Raja Sozhan the Great (henceforth I declare him ‘GREAT’) did complete the temple in a span of 6-7 years; did pay for the labour employed towards building the temple; had engraved in old Thamizh, his land administration, revenue collection and the like.

The entrance of the temple is smaller compared to the temple spire and edifice. On top of the temple spire sits the granite dome of 80 tonnes of carved granite. The temple is stated to have been completed in 1010- a full thousand years back. The millennium celebrations have been completed and it was told that a thousand bharatanatyam dancers participated in the inner court meant for such dance performances.

The nandi- overlooking the temple entrance with…

View original post 686 more words

The Righteous!

 Because the entitlement of rising after a fall is assigned to the righteous, doesn’t mean that a person who hadn’t fallen can’t be Righteous!

Agri Income Tax?

Taxing Agricultural Income!

Can Agricultural Income be taxed in India?
Sure, by common consent, we gave ourselves a Constitution which provides for taxation of agricultural income, but who is authorised to make legislation on taxation of agri incomes? Under entry 46 of List II of the Constitution the States are EXCLUSIVELY EMPOWERED TO LEVY TAX ON AGRI INCOME.
Does the law prohibit levy of tax on agri income anyone else?
Yes, under entry no. 82 of the List I of the 7th Schedule, the Union is PROHIBITED FROM LEVYING INCOME TAX ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME.
So where is the confusion?
As the Constitution stands, there is NO LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE FOR THE UNION TO LEVY INCONE TAX ON AGRI INCOME. When there cannot be a law enacted for taxation by the Union, why the itch to tax agri income as a Union Taxable Income ?
It has been reported that agri incomes totalling @ inr 3000 crore escapes taxation under income tax based on personal/ corporate holdings generating income from agriculture!
Who gave the Union authorities to make an estimate regarding income arising out of agriculture and account it as ‘escaping’ taxation? Especially when the income is mandated under the constitution to be taxable by the States!
I know of at least one state which has enacted a law on this subject and that is the Kerala State in 1991.
Agri incomes in Kerala are taxed and from a cursory reading of the Act, it only taxes incomes from holdings over 5 hectares of land and the income arising there from are taxable.
I also remember that there was a case decided by the Chief Justice of the Kerala High court in 2004, along with a puisne judge Sh. Sankaran, wherein the issue was whether income arising out of a building, which was in the vicinity of the agri area and used for storage arising out of non clearing of the produce by the buyer of the produce, and the rent/ charges earned by the company was to be taxed, as Agri income or not.
The CJ of Kerala concluded that based on the 1991 State Act, the income was Agricultural and hence taxable under that statute.
There is at least one state which has enacted a statute to tax Agricultural income, so it is not an unoccupied field either. So why COVET A STATE SUBJECT?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul has been the mantra for all financial policies . National law making is getting covetous of the potential gains arising from taxing some states, especially those states which earn out of cash rich cash crops and “use” it for “national development”!
The Constitution has given enormous powers under List I of the Constitution for the Union to develop/ protect the Nation, whereas agriculture which is terrain, climate, and worker based is best left in the hands of the state politicians who could within a short period react to situations emerging or even make distinctions based on the quality of land and climatic conditions, for example certain produce from certain taluks are taxed at a higher rate than similar produce from certain other taluks, and give concessions based on their disabilities. Sitting far away from the terrain, how would it be proper or pertinent to make laws and change rules compatible with the exigencies of the climatic conditions prevalent in those areas. The time lag to take corrective measures from a far off place would be time consuming.

Another important factor is that the ruled should believe that they are being ruled by a Ruler sensitive to their needs. That makes it mandatory to have a local person’s face to the ideology! Whatever that may be😊

Default Democracy!

In our Democracy an Assertion is worth more than a thousand Abstentions, unfortunately it doesn’t factor the Negativity attracted against that one Assertion. Which means the negativity of those thousand votes go unheeded in the computation of the victor’s tally. Consequently leaders who are unacceptable to a sizeable chunk capture power and make policies compatible and convenient to their votaries! This type of default option has led Indian Democracy up the garden path.
In an election there are votes which are obtained because the voter ASSERTS his preference, but some voters prefer a candidate merely to avoid another contestant- this is no choice though expressed by a vote, it is the negative vote which could not be cast, as there is no provision for that. The only option available is to invalidate his own vote by choosing NOTA.
NOTA is merely an exercise of franchise with no quantitative difference to the counting.

Instead, if an option is given to the electorate to cast a VETO against a candidate and if one VETO cancels out one ASSERTIVE VOTE for that candidate, though that candidate may be popular yet if he is unacceptable to a sizeable chunk, it is possible that a more ACCEPTABLE candidate with fewer Veto votes may EMERGE, who ultimately may have more nett assertive votes with less negativity .
This would pave the way for getting new leaders and the parties wouldn’t be able to control the electorate through money and paid media!
Let me exemplify this, supposing out of 100 votes, 30 supported X and cast Assertive Votes in favour of X, but 20 VETOS are against X, then the nett votes he received would be 10. This would leave the balance 50 votes meaningful, as even a person with 11 ASSERTIVE VOTES and no Vetos, would trump X, though X had received more number of votes.
I suppose we should empower people to express their single transferable vote either as an assertion for a candidate or to negative a candidate.
This method would ensure that Disguised Frankensteins do not escape the notice of the discerning, as their numbers are few but virtuous.
The positive part of this NEGATING CHOICE would ensure that that Negating Choice would cancel out a vote of Assertion.
Only one vote ought to be given and the option should be with the voter to either make it an ASSERTIVE VOTE or a NEGATING VOTE. The final tally should be that the person with the maximum votes of Assertion is chosen.
This method would make the voters more than conquerors, as collectively if people decide to keep someone out, it would be easier yet that would be at the cost of an Assertive vote for the voter as he has to use his vote as a VETO and not as a vote.
Maybe with this system, we may be able to keep some of those “popular” leaders out because of the attrition of a sizeable electorate sacrificing their votes for a VETO.
The NOTA is a meaningless exercise, as it neither Asserts nor Vetos any of the candidates in fray. It is a palliative for the voter to believe that he voted and that nobody else had exercised his franchise with no quantitative difference. It is a clever ploy by those well entrenched to assuage the weak conscience of the indifferent voter!
What say you, TRUMP?


Movid's Weblog

Did Joseph tell Jacob about his brothers’ deed of having sold him for a price to the Ishmaelites after him having become the minister in Egypt? I think so. He reported all matters to his father and to destroy his brothers’ credibility he’d have done that further he couldn’t have concocted a better story than telling the truth as to how he ended up in Egypt. Truth stated to his advantage! Or had he learnt the lesson, not to carry old and damaging tales to others, with all those terrible experiences? Maybe. But he in all probability to wangle the birthright he might have stated the fact. But what was the fact? He wrote the history in Egypt! God gives the good man the opportunity to give final touches to history.

View original post

One of the new baking company chains, which has caught the fancy of the Madrasis is OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY. There is an outlet in the Kilpauk area of Madras(presently Chennai) on Landon’s Road and my wife loves the Tuna Salad served in the outlet. It is reasonably priced at ₹ 250 @ 4.1 $. Though I share the salad, which is exceptionally good, it is more for the Jazz, mostly traditional, which sets the background to the tuna and the green tea, which captures my attention.
With enormous storage in our iPhones with iTunes retailing songs on a reasonable price of ₹ 12-20 apiece, one grows used to those old downloads, which have lost their novelty, though high in sentimental value. The enormous space helps retain those old sentimental tunes for those days when out of the blue, those tunes waft in our memory unsought. So where does one add to the repertoire?
The calmest place is THE OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY with its Jazz playing, while one lets one’s spouse enjoy the tuna salad.
If the tune doesn’t catch my fancy, I just let go; if it does I turn on the app called SHAZAM, with which my boys fooled me for quite a while identifying western classical tunes in a jiffy. Discover the jazz tune and just download the tune for future hearing.
So when I told my friends that I’m in Landon Bakery, they presume I am in a bakery in London – some benefit out of some jazzy aspirations.

Why not Boaz?

That was my reply to a question to me, by my friend, thus: what do you think of the Book of Ruth?

What do you mean?

I said: Why didn’t the author name it Boaz, if he didn’t, how did the compiler miss renaming it as Boaz?

He said: Why so?

It is not the struggles of misfortune which should be glorified, but the character shown when a person has the power and resources. Boaz had it in a platter, that night when Ruth uncovered the sheet of a drunken half sleepy Boaz, to have had a fling and paid off the next morning. But Boaz was of sterner stuff- despite his tipsiness Boaz is not only RESTRAINED but also SENSIBLE to the extent of following the rules of succession! That was Character, the next day he followed it through, which Naomi had predicted to Ruth : That man wouldn’t rest!

That makes him a MANLY CHARACTER.

My friend was unconvinced, look at it this way bro: a woman loses three men in her life and is stuck with two young daughters in law, with no security of not only shelter but the next meal. Only Jews had gone through such situations in their history and had yet survived, not through the masculine force, but through the feminine charms and guile! So naturally the Books of Esther and Ruth are examples of triumph of the spirit of the feminine when the masculinity of their men had been subjugated by their enemies. Men are not allowed the luxury of IDLENESS. First they are told to earn their bread, then their family’s and finally the society’s! Men are kept for breeding more worker bees and the rest are castrated into oxen to the plough. It is at this moment that the Feminine forces emerge to defend its offsprings and these books are examples of that Spirit.

I told him: It is always a perspective of identification, you glorify the struggles and I exalt Manly Character.

My friend wanted to end that topic on “diverse perception”, he said: whenever I refer to that book I shall call it Boaz, for you.

I felt a small battle of the sexes had gone in favour of Man.

What an illusion!


I love chess, for the integrity of each piece.
No doubt there is an indelible hierarchy and the King is to be protected at all costs even by voluntarily inter posing oneself; vacating a square jeopardising one’s own survival on board, for the king before he is ineluctably jammed; or even sacrificing oneself in the interest of structural advantage. Despite all these burdens of a hierarchy, never ever can one pawn or piece cut its own colour however hindering that pawn or piece be, or even to facilitate a win.
That is integrity!

The bird that perches on a branch without a doubt of falling has the subconscious succour of its wings; but the monkey that clutches a branch and swings to catch another leaving the first branch, has the knowledge of the strength of the prospective branch and confidence in its reach and grasp. The underlying difficulties have to be overcome with other capabilities, no point in analysing the difficulty and getting stuck. Resource is what we use of what we have/get and the way we use it to move ahead. Imperfect steps sustained, leads to strides, but seeking for perfection before taking the first step, preserves our fear of imperfections, breeds judgementalism and delays our progress.
The wings for a bird, but strength of the knowledge of the prospective branch is the monkey’s wing to confidence.
Move and keep moving ahead. Make use of everything on the way. That Liberty is God given and only we can get stuck thru diagnosis of the problem.
Think, dream of what you want to become or what you want to achieve and keep Doing.

With people becoming secure in their own homes, Zeus still held sway on the memory of the fear of the thunderbolt.
But with Benjamin Franklin’s invention of the lightning conductor, even the residual power of Zeus vanished.
Zeus is ossified for poetic metaphors and secured in literary museum.
What a fall for a God who depended on Destructive Power.
The day mankind discovers a way to harness the power of lightning, Zeus would be restored in the Pantheon!
Destructive capability is NOT POWER, it is merely a capability that breeds Compliance out of Fear and vanishes once its firepower is earthed safely!

I’d like to juxtapose two sets of verses from the New Testament of the Bible to delineate the character of a teacher and his pupil:
Acts Chapter 5 poignantly portrays Gamaliel based on a situation where Peter and other Christians preached Jesus, thus:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
At Acts 26 Paul testifies about himself thus:
9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
So this is what Paul did, by his own admission. He persecuted the Christian believers and even went to the extent of getting them death sentence. Paul says ” he compelled them to blaspheme”! 
So why did Paul do these things? 
He says at Philippians 3:6 thus:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
At Acts 22:3, Dr. Luke says that Paul spoke thus:
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
So Paul was brought up as a student of the same Gamaliel referred to above. Gamaliel cites two examples and arrives at the conclusion that both Theudas and Judas of Galilee had declared themselves to have been more than mere mortals, yet their end showed that they were mere mortals who had their time in the sun for a while and faded into oblivion. But at the same time Gamaliel cautions the Jews that, if what the Apostles said about Jesus were to be true, why take the unwarranted risk of opposing God? 
Despite Paul having been schooled by Gamaliel, while Paul was still Saul, he did not imbibe the moderate attitude of Gamaliel. 
The difference between Gamaliel was this: while Gamaliel did NOT want to be wrong; Saul believed that his belief was True and hence not only asserted his beliefs but defied anyone who went against his Pharisaical upbringing. 
Saul of Tarsus wanted to find the Truth and took those beliefs to the extremes! 
I believe Gamaliel was able to impart knowledge but NOT THE WISDOM, which made Saul of Tarsus do the things which he did against the Believers in Christ. 
Saul had a gory past, which along with his oft repeated accomplishments as a human being, stickler to the Mosaic law, being a Roman citizen and thus entitled to certain privileges, is interspersed. Naturally he has to glorify the Grace more than Jacobean ‘Works’, along with Peter, whose imperfections are well documented. 
In Christianity there is an inherent conflict between WORKS and GRACE and if one examines the putative lives of the votaries of each, the past life of each of the votaries has a significant bearing. 
Had Gamaliel been converted to Christianity, as I presume there is nothing contrary to that assumption of mine from the Bible, I believe that Gamaliel would have rooted for the WORKS a trifle more than GRACE. But why Gamaliel was not the recipient of such an epiphany as Paul on his way to Damascus, depends on how virulently one takes an ideological position. In Gamaliel’s life there was Liberty, but Saul of Tarsus not only bound himself with the Mosaic law but also virulently imposed it on others and worse still inflicted punishment on those who digressed. This virulence called for course correction and the epiphany happened. Moderation is the foundation of Liberty, methinks⚖️

I’d like to juxtapose two sets of verses from the New Testament of the Bible to delineate the character of a teacher and his pupil:
Acts Chapter 5 poignantly portrays Gamaliel based on a situation where Peter and other Christians preached Jesus, thus:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
At Acts 26 Paul testifies about himself thus:
9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
So this is what Paul did, by his own admission. He persecuted the Christian believers and even went to the extent of getting them death sentence. Paul says ” he compelled them to blaspheme”! 
So why did Paul do these things? 
He says at Philippians 3:6 thus:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
At Acts 22:3, Dr. Luke says that Paul spoke thus:
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
So Paul was brought up as a student of the same Gamaliel referred to above. Gamaliel cites two examples and arrives at the conclusion that both Theudas and Judas of Galilee had declared themselves to have been more than mere mortals, yet their end showed that they were mere mortals who had their time in the sun for a while and faded into oblivion. But at the same time Gamaliel cautions the Jews that, if what the Apostles said about Jesus were to be true, why take the unwarranted risk of opposing God? 
Despite Paul having been schooled by Gamaliel, while Paul was still Saul, he did not imbibe the moderate attitude of Gamaliel. 
The difference between Gamaliel was this: while Gamaliel did NOT want to be wrong; Saul believed that his belief was True and hence not only asserted his beliefs but defied anyone who went against his Pharisaical upbringing. 
Saul of Tarsus wanted to find the Truth and took those beliefs to the extremes! 
I believe Gamaliel was able to impart knowledge but NOT THE WISDOM, which made Saul of Tarsus do the things which he did against the Believers in Christ. 
Saul had a gory past, which along with his oft repeated accomplishments as a human being, stickler to the Mosaic law, being a Roman citizen and thus entitled to certain privileges, is interspersed. Naturally he has to glorify the Grace more than Jacobean ‘Works’, along with Peter, whose imperfections are well documented. 
In Christianity there is an inherent conflict between WORKS and GRACE and if one examines the putative lives of the votaries of each, the past life of each of the votaries has a significant bearing. 
Had Gamaliel been converted to Christianity, as I presume there is nothing contrary to that assumption of mine from the Bible, I believe that Gamaliel would have rooted for the WORKS a trifle more than GRACE. But why Gamaliel was not the recipient of such an epiphany as Paul on his way to Damascus, depends on how virulently one takes an ideological position. In Gamaliel’s life there was Liberty, but Saul of Tarsus not only bound himself with the Mosaic law but also virulently imposed it on others and worse still inflicted punishment on those who digressed. This virulence called for course correction and the epiphany happened. Moderation is the foundation of Liberty, methinks⚖️

Read more:


Movid's Weblog

The following is the analysis of Philosophy and the evolution thereof according to Nietzsche:-

In every philosophical school, three thinkers succeed one another in the following way: the first produces out of himself the sap and seed, the second draws it out into threads and spins a synthetic web, the third waits in this web for the sacrificial victims that are caught in it- and tries to live off philosophy.

Nothing can be truer than this epigrammatic statement. Let us take the example of the trio Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had to consume hemlock before his Philosophy sprouted in the youth of Athens. Plato drew the thread and spun the synthetic web of UTOPIA and Aristotle with his ETHICS waited with hope for the sacrificial victims.

Let us come to Christianity, where Jesus produced out of himself the sap and seed, then Peter spun the web…

View original post 93 more words

Both valorous and courageous but, to the guile of women, fell victim. Samson was felled for Power for the Philistines; & Agamemnon for the stolen pleasures of his unchaste wife Clytemnestra. 
Tragedy is that both Delilah and Clytemnestra had come into some other male influence in the absence of Samson and Agamemnon. The Philistine Lords were able to undermine Samson in the eyes of Delilah. She being a Philistine thought too well of the cunning Philistine Lords and helped them denude Samson of his power- a power unmatched by any man, mentioned in the Bible. Delilah had become like a steel which has lost its magnetic power once the wires of induction around it had been removed. Her overestimation of the power of the Lords and her kinship with them Led to that loss of respect towards Samson. Samson lacked the guile to measure the unfathomable depths of a woman’s guile. Like a moth drawn to the flame to its own decimation, Samson, barters the fact of where his strength lay without realising that it wasn’t a question of Delilah’s curiosity but intelligence gathering. 
In the case of Agamemnon, it is worse. His wife had developed intimacy with Aegisthus and had been emboldened by that untrammelled intimacy in the absence of Agamemnon, to kill the victoriously returning Agamemnon, in collusion with Aegisthus. Clytemnestra had lost all her moorings of her matrimonial devotion during the long absence of her Lord
Homer in Book xi of the ODYSSEY, makes a parade of the dead souls in the HADES and the Protagonist Ulysses (Odysseus, in the Epic) is advised thus by Agamemnon : 
“Then from a wretched friend this wisdom learn,
E’en to thy queen disguised, unknown, return;
For since of womankind so few are just,
Think all are false, nor e’en the faithful trust.”
Probably these words of advice made Ulysses take all the precautions in the matter of Penelope. The trouble in life is that, in most cases, till one dies, one doesn’t know whether one had a Penelope or a Clytemnestra for his wife. Homer’s Epic had survived the onslaught of Time, not for nothing. 
Let us get in Shakespeare, who brilliantly brings out the dilemma of Othello. Desdemona seems innocent but the proof of the handkerchief in his hands challenges Othello’a belief in Desdemona’s innocence. In real time, sexual jealousy and an implacable sense of betrayal crowds his mind and elbows out the benefit of doubt due to Desdemona. 
Alternatively look at Hamlet’s plight, he is dithering between the factuality of the intimations of his father’s ghost and his inability to ascribe and believe that Claudius was his father’s murderer. Gertrude’s faćade intervenes! His indecision peters to inactivity and finally does Hamlet in. 
Look at the formula of Homer: 
“Think all are false, nor e’en the faithful trust, even though a few are just”
A formula he provides to Ulysses, as he would also have to return to his matrimonial home after a long absence! 
What is the prescription? 
Mentally think that the ALL women are false – make no exception merely because she is yours! Therefore trust NOT even though they might be faithful. The woman being faithful is not in your hands, that being so, why TRUST any woman at all?
Henry VIII, was an example who excelled in it. He went a step further, he decimated each of those whom he perceived to have digressed from his perception of faithfulness! If Samson had intelligence on the Philistine Lords having communed with Delilah in his absence, would he have spared Delilah? Nay! 
That’s what exactly happened in the case of Catherine of Aragon with Henry VIII. 
Look at what the wise Ulysses does? He enters as a suitor in his own house and gauges Penelope’s inclination much before he wins her. Ulysses gives the benefit of doubt to that general presumption of faithlessness of women, as recommended by Agamemnon, who had become the victim of Clytemnestra’s liaison with Aegisthus. That patience coupled with fact finding nature made him a Hero. Let us assume what would have happened if Ulysses had found his wife Clytemnestraish? Would he have decimated her like Henry VIII? Nay! I believe Ulysses would have engaged the man to an honourable duel defeated the man, may be killed him, and would have reclaimed Penelope. Whether he would have had the marital bliss thereafter? That could be another story to tell. Would a Clytemnestraish Penelope be happy in such an end of her lover, at the hands of her peripatetic husband? Another story again. 
There is an underlying GOODNESS TO PEOPLE AND THEIR PERCEPTION and that is TRUST. Without that Life cannot exist notwithstanding our cherry picked examples, both from scriptures and art! 

Moses’ first forty years are recorded and thereafter Moses’ history starts at 80 and lasts for the third 40 years, the most eventful and the most religiously believed history.
Moses and his encounter with God in the burning bush happens at 80.
The first 40 years of the life of Moses was spent in the palace of Pharoah. Moses, being then thought of as born to the Pharoah’s sister was educated in all types of knowledge, especially the esoteric knowledge of the Magicians in the Egyptian courts.
To understand the esoteric knowledge of the Egyptians one has look at the plagues.
The first plague was BLOOD, second was FROGS.
Let us stop here.
The Egyptian magicians were able to perform, rather aggravate these plagues as they also converted all water founts and pools to blood. Likewise, the Egyptian Magicians were able add more frogs to the ones declared by Aaron and Moses.
From the third plague LICE (Gnats, as per certain versions) the Egyptian magicians were UNABLE TO REPEAT WHAT MOSES DID.
There was this acceptance of failure to replicate the third plague, by the admission of the Egyptian magicians.
Exodus Chapter 8 reads thus:
18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

It doesn’t end with this. Till now all the three plagues were commonly affecting both the Egyptian cities and Goshen, the ghetto of the Hebrews. But after the third plague, that is in the plague of the FLIES, there is a differentiation of the habitation of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Confer the following verses:

22 And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.
23 And I will put a division between my people and thy people: to morrow shall this sign be.

To simplistically state that Moses’ life after forty was eventless till eighty may be a Truth simpliciter, but it is in those forty years that Moses had the exposure of the religion of his father in law Jethro and Moses’ consciousness went beyond the knowledge of the Egyptians. Moses must have realised that there was a HIGHER TRUTH than the ones he had been taught at the palace of the Pharaoh. That crumbling of the existing knowledge and the resurgence of a higher knowledge what made him reach Jehovah.
To prove this point I need to refer to the book of Job, which is putatively written by Moses. The book of Job describes the life of a righteous man, who maintained probity yet was not spared the travails and vicissitudes of human existence. Upon completion of a period, falsely interpreted by those ‘religionists’ as when Job realised that it is not the works but Grace of God that health returned to him along with a double portion of all that he had before bad times befell him. Be that as it may. Moses learnt that there was more than “GOODNESS” required to endure the misfortunes and become resurgent. It was that understanding which paved the way for Moses to meet his Lord. Thereafter it was a ‘communion’, which empowered him beyond his earlier knowledge and his later understanding of Jethro’s religion.
Moses, according to Jehovah, would become GOD TO PHARAOH!
Cf. Exodus 7:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

I presume that Moses having been taught the knowledge of the magicians of the Egyptian courts had to go beyond the divination arising out of the heavenly bodies and their effects upon human affairs. Moses’ survival for 40 years taught him draw nigh to an understanding that the power of the Creator was and must be greater than the effect of The Creator’s creation of the heavenly bodies and made a connection with that God, Jehovah, when He appeared to him in the burning bush. All the past knowledge became SUBSERVIENT TO THE TRUST MOSES WAS ABLE TO REPOSE ON JEHOVAH.
When Jesus says that at Mark 11:23
King James Bible
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Moses was able to arrive at that core of Jehovah’s Faith, which went beyond the knowledge of the Egyptian Pharaohs: the RELIGION OF FAITH.
I believe that Moses was able to approximate to it to be drawn to the religion of Faith, as he was successful in unlearning the Egyptian knowledge and also understand the limitations of that knowledge through the religion of his father in law Jethro.
In effect he was able to perform ‘miracles’ which the magicians were unable to duplicate and when the fourth plague onwards Moses was able to provide IMMUNITY TO THE HEBREWS.


Abner, despite having been the Chief of the Army of Israel under King Saul, which I believe was more because of his kinship with Saul than his fighting skills alone, DID NOT HAVE A RESUMÉ, like that of David, soon after the latter defeated Goliath.
Resumé is assiduously built based on the opportunities presented, embraced and utilised, for display of one’s skills honed in idle hours!
What stopped Abner from offering to Saul that he be nominated to combat Goliath?
Fear – Fear of losing. Lack of a Plan backed by appropriate skills. Abner had become the head of the armed forces and to indulge in a dogfight was neither befitting his stature (or so he must have thought) nor a wise move. Abner avoided, where David embraced and succeeded. That success was entered in his Resumé. David did not win wars for Saul, but built a name for himself as a protector of the Hebrew tribes. He became the alternative to Saul as a brand in the minds of the Israelites! That’s why after David ruled in Hebron, that the same Abner, for whom he had carried parched grams, figs and honey, was made to sever the matrimonial links between Michal and her enfeebled husband – whose name my subconscious doesn’t want to remember with certainty – could it be Phlatiel- was made to pimp for David “THE SHEPHERD” !
David had a Resumé, that the Jews have carried his ideals till date, under his name ‘David’.

Regret & Remorse

A successful son’s regret is that he could have done more but didn’t while his dad was alive, whereas an unsuccessful son’s remorse is that his father could have done more for him!

The greatest achievement of an individual is his capacity in having drawn Future to the Present through an idea, a principle or an act.
There are infinitesimal things to be known and to be done in the Future. Human endeavour is not merely to be functional for providing the necessities of the Present efficiently but to strive and make the efforts of humankind easier through discovery of a Principle or a Fact so that our move forward is fast forwarded with Certainty and ease. It is such discoveries and deeds which leapfrog man to the Future.

When I did not know the difference between Belief & Truth, I was believing as truthful all those things which I believed in. My belief validated Truth. What is my Belief made of? Impressions, certainty of cause and effect and occasional run ins with Scientific Facts. All an amalgam of hope/ despair inspiring Impressions; results of action/inaction; and trust in chemistry/maths induced Beliefs. The only substantive of the three above are Chemistry and Maths.
Chemistry defines the material therefore properties and the results of the interaction between different materials. But to prove that you need a system and that tool is maths – which is built on the predictability of a constant result irrespective of the mode of counting numbers. This being the provable, those who insist on scientific beliefs rely on the provability and deny the Truthfulness of anything that doesn’t provide proof little realising that the tools of Chemistry and Maths are limited to chemically composed material. Now that there are new compounds being concocted out of the elements and compounds, since there are possibilities which have not YET been invented, they cannot deny Beliefs as untruthful those which do not stand the scrutiny of their own yardstick which is expanding triggered by inventions of new materials – which have not been tested thru interactions with other material and proving the same through Maths. They cannot deny an Assertion which has not been proved wrong by their own yardstick- at best they can assert that they have either not tested it or that the results of their tests have NOT denied such a possibility.
That being the case, when all religions are based on ASSERTIONS, the margin for Liberty of Religion is huge and only a negative proof would suffice.
Does it mean that all and sundry ASSERTIONS are to be suffered till proven wrong through some scientific method? The answer is that When the society has granted the Liberty of Belief, the society by implication has granted a reciprocal Liberty to Hope, which turns into purveying of seductive future skimming off your present labour/ time.
Awareness is the only test of that Hope.
Anyone who believes that Beliefs may be true or not, but I want that belief to be true. When you run to catch it, it is a reality for you notwithstanding the fact that the reality may be a mirage, but to insist on that to be a Universal Truth as an assertion is being Cussed!
Awareness lets one live this Life, DOING things which would aid his Happiness, Health and Growth, without asserting on the wrongness of a thing without a proof of falseness to that Assertion!
Liberty to remain a fool is allowed but NOT TO BECOME a fool at will.


Liberty is not the oft walked path, yet if you are of the few, who tread that path, no one can accuse you of any criminality, yet you may be responsible for the damages – simple, whoever dares ought to go out there & try out something new😊💐💐💐

Read this news item appearing in the ToI on 23/10/2017. Tamil Nadu earns 30% of its revenues from liquor sales, based on a monopoly status exercised through the provisions of certain Articles of the Constitution of India. The State Govt is the licensing authority for the manufacture and the same Govt has monopoly in marketing liquor within the state of TN.

The responsibility is dual, rather their control could be exercised at the point of production as well as at the time of sale.

Let’s cut the cackles and come to the horses, it has been reported that ANCIENT CASK PREMIUM XXX Rum contained alarming levels of tartaric acid, acetic acid and ethyl acetate which could cause gastrointestinal diseases!

That the Govt has failed in its duty by not banning that brand or at least warning  its customers of the health hazards.

The wives and women of regularly drinking men have been expending their ire on the shops; and the Supreme Court had issued orders to remove liquor shops on highways much to the perverse delight of some women and wives, but what about the quality of content sold by these shops? The health hazards of these chemicals are passed off for the ill effects of drinking! The deaths and ill health caused by these hazardous drinks are billed to drinking, whereas the reality is that it is the profiteering of the distillers and the connivance and lack of quality checks by the licensing authority, who are the culprits!

Why not make an open market for liquor sales when the government, which has taken upon itself to sell and collect taxes on it has grossly abdicated its responsibilities?

Should we take the taxes collected from liquor sales and build our infrastructure at the cost of serious exposure to gastrointestinal issues to those regular drinkers?

Don’t we as enjoyers of those taxes disassociate ourselves, like the priests of yore, citing moral reasons, and allow the distillers to sell substandard products?

Let us leave morality aside and provide the minimum safe guards to those products the consumption of which we may not agree.

Ahab & Jezebel

The following is a portion of I Kings 21:

7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:
10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

Jezebel’s techniques at handling the male ego is amazing.
Ahab refuses to eat food and his Queen, Jezebel is concerned. Asks him as to what is distressing him, the King of Israel is neither wicked enough to dispossess Naboth of his vineyard nor is he good enough to relent his pursuit of wanting to possess the vineyard. Caught between his covetousness and incapacity, like a disgruntled kid, refuses to eat food and makes a mighty show of it.
Jezebel steps in.
She smothers that wee little manhood still left in him by asking him in a reprimanding tone:

Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry:

The King of Israel with ten tribes under his rule, must have been bewildered and Jezebel instinctively follows it up with the solution thus:

I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

That the King of Israel, who ought to be upholding the Rule of Law, sheepishly hands over the symbols of his power and authority to a woman who promises to take through cunning and violence the heritage of his subject and hand it over to the King!
What a plight of a King, who did not know the nature of his office. The same King on the advice of his courtiers or even the same Jezebel had, in the previous chapter of the same book of the Bible had sent word to Benhadad, the Syrian King thus: Let not him who puts on his armour talk like one who is putting off his armour!

The weakness of Ahab is to be contrasted with David’s reply to Michal when she reprimanded David for dancing in the presence of the Ark of God. I Samuel 6 runs as follows:

20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.
22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

I know not whether David danced naked or in the exuberance of his dance he was seen undressed as is reported:

Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD;

In any case, that was not palatable to the Princess Michal. So the Princess admonishingly chides David and see the response from the MAN. David refuses to be ‘cowed’ down and rebuts the princess and defends his action.

Ahab, though a King, behaved like a spoilt kid and went running to the mothering Queen, little realising that it was his own power which was deployed by Jezebel to procure for him Naboth’s vineyard. Worse part was that the sin which accrued out of that act of getting Naboth killed was billed to his account also!

But the beauty of all these virulent Queens who use their men’s resources and power meet their Jehus also.
Jezebel threatens Jehu thus: HAD ZIMRI PEACE? (Refer my earlier blogs on this topic)
Jehu was made of sterner stuff, he just orders the eunuchs from her own harem to throw her down and his orders were complied!
Jezebel’s end though pathetic, is fittingly cathartic.
The Bible says:
25 But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.

Ahab allowed himself to be stirred up and Jezebel was the best in this business. There was none like her in the Bible, even her relative Athaliah is not a patch on her. Elijah blurted out and ran away, but Jehu, kept all these things in his heart and after his anointment wreaks retribution on the whole bunch of the Omriites.

Ahab exposed the underlingness of his subordinates before his Queen Jezebel.
Permitting the use of his seal, without him sealing the orders himself; thereby empowering and sharing his power and also shortening his own time for recall! It might seem like delegation, but it was sharing. Jezebel took hold of Ahab’s seal and whatever she wrangled out of Ahab during her pillow talks, she converted them into Regal proclamations and orders!
Ahab’s childish desire for land got him into trouble, Naboth’s vineyard and Ramoth Gilead. The man who defeated the Syrian Benhadad, became a shadow of his former self. Irony is that he uses the principle that even ancestral property from the hands of the legatee was subject to procurement by money or exchange and thereby denied the sanctity of a heritage; whereas, in the matter of ramoth gilead he relies on the same principle which he denied at home and says that Ramoth Gilead belonged historically to the Israelites. This double talking principles did him in.
Fourthly, Ahab did not show humility when Micaiah predicts disaster as Ahab did in the case of Naboth. In Naboth’s story he had contributed to the crime by having shared his Regal Authority with Jezebel. But in Ramoth Gilead he had not been specifically arraigned with any sin. Yet his arrogance and preconceived notion of Micaiah did Ahab in.

Budding to blossoming

In the exuberance of blossoming little do the petals sense the irreversibility of the blossoming! The petals would wilt one day and then the petals would yearn for the Reversible!


When I was probably 10 years old and while playing chess with my dad’s friend’s son, who was in college, one of my moves forked the opponent’s king and one of his pieces, he didn’t notice the threat to his king and made a move leaving the threat to the King open, and in a flash I cut his King.
I started jumping for joy, whereas the opponent was amused at my exultation and was telling my dad that I can’t cut his king without notifying him of the threat to his king. For the life of me I couldn’t understand what he was talking about!
I sprang an analogy and asked him, if I could cut his Queen, the most powerful piece on a side, without notifying why should I notify?
Logic, but the game cannot end in a whimper. The game of chess is so structured that there is another result called STALEMATE!
When the King is not under a threat on the square he stands but cannot move into any square without a threat, and no other move is possible, then the result is a DRAW because of a STALEMATE!
Had my older friend clarified that NOTICE was essential because there was a possibility of a stalemate where the King is immobilised from moving into a square and sacrificing himself, and there is no other move possible with any of the pawns or pieces, I probably would have understood. Probably‼
The point I’m labouring is that a King can be mated but cannot be ambushed. Therefore, the Doctrine of Notice is essential. And the King is the only piece in the chess board which has this privilege. Every other pawn or a piece could be sacrificed, the King – NEVER.
An exalted position but restricted in moves. His greatest liberty is his capability to jump one square to his left or right while castling with the rooks. Even while castling he can’t jump a square under threat or run into a square under threat!
Great model for our honchos‼
There are the marching pawns which squint while cutting! They are the BLOCKERS- they impede the progress of the other side.
There are those diagonally moving Bishops, who squintingly HAVE AN EYE ON THE OPPONENTS.
There are those rooks which help the King to jump to security and move straight, like the FORCES.
The knights have a convoluted movement capable of jumping the occupied or unoccupied squares but have to cut on landing, if their landing square isn’t free! The knights are the PARATROOPERS.
Finally the Queen, who is the most powerful piece and is a clone of a bishop and a rook. It could move diagonally or straight up or down. The only drawback is that theoretically, the King could end up with eight more queens, if each of his pawns were to be Queened! A sort of harem of chaos! Good for the King. Structurally, the Queen is the most belligerent piece and has the greatest latitude to move within those 64 squares – a kind of SHUTZSTAFFEL!
When a King surrounds himself with such people with delegated responsibility, why worry about footmen on footbridge?

Mark of Cain! 

The reference is to the Bible and for authenticity’s sake I reproduce the relevant passages from the KJV: Ch 4:
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
So that’s the whole story relating to the “mark of Cain”. 
That Cain is a murderer was known to God; Cain did not answer back God with any self righteousness when God answered Cain’s question AM I MY BROTHER’S KEEPER? 
That Cain was the murderer is a known fact to any reader, but nowhere did Cain confess. 
God did not set about proving Cain’s guilt, as just Abel and Cain were there in the field and one was missing. The cry of the blood was the proof! 
Straight a way, God delivers a judgement. Only in the case of the Serpent that God did not use the Audi alteram partem rule! God never gave the Serpent a hearing, God convicted and sentenced without a hearing. Interesting thing was that the Serpent had “beguiled” Eve – that was its guilt! The sentence may look disproportionate but, as Othello says: ” lest she betray more men” the Serpent was punished disproportionately lest she beguile more women! 
There are creatures and humans who deserve no hearing. Coincidentally, in both the cases, the ‘beguiling’ and the ‘murder’, there were only two persons when the alleged instances of beguiling and murder took place. There was no third person and God rightly dispenses with the Audi Alteram Partem rule and pronounces the judgement based on the nakedness of Eve and the crying of the blood of Abel. Wonderful! 
But in our theme why did God put the mark on Cain? 
Notwithstanding the sentence, Lord’s mercy being immense, God puts a mark on Cain and warns others that those who slay Cain would have a seven fold sin of Cain. Therefore I believe that God wanted none to allay the murderer of the pangs of being murdered. What Cain saw of the suffering of Abel while dying was probably haunting him and became paranoid of someone inflicting the same on him! Cain couldn’t handle it. God, though didn’t find a repentant Cain, was moved by the fear exhibited by Cain, of punishment by third parties, so God put a mark on Cain as a skull and bones sign. 
It is not as if in this generation there are no Cains with Marks of Cain, they sure are there, UNREPENTANT, but afraid of the punishment, yet crying to God daily. So let us recognise that we may not be able to read the marks of the contemporary Cains, but lest a sevenfold sin be cast on our backs, refrain from wasting our time hunting those fratricidal fellows. 

A Trojan Horse to smuggle in the syllabus and agenda of a Central Subject of List 1 of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. 
Education at the secondary and Higher Secondary Schools were exclusively in the hands of List 2 of the said Schedule VII, which was moved to the Concurrent List III entry no 25 vide the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which till date remains the most controversial Amendment of the Constitution. 
Armed with this Amendment the Government in charge of List 1 subject, had made in roads into the syllabus of the school education which was exclusively the domain of the Government running List 2. 
The framers of the Constitution had applied their minds to give a broad liberal education at the primary and secondary levels so that the cultural identities of the states do not get swamped by the political agenda set by government running the List 1.
So how would the agenda be reset? 
Navodaya Schools follow the CBSE syllabus, which is controlled by the government running the List I subjects, they consequently would follow the democratic dictum of the maximum Good to maximum people, which not only COULD but WOULD marginalise the exceptions to the majority opinions. 
No effort had been made by the Government running the List 1, to adapt the history of the culture of Tamil Nadu, especially the Independence movement! Even Jawahar Lal Nehru with all his erudition and exposure couldn’t write much about the Madras Presidency’s contribution to the freedom fight in his 1946 The Discovery of India. There is no VOC, no Vellore Fort Rebellion of 1806, no resistance by the various satraps who were running the Tamil areas since the reign of the Nayaks and Zamindars! 
Ironically these Navodaya Schools are named after the person who wrote the Discovery! 
It is no doubt that Hindi is compulsory in the Navodaya Schools, as the B II level for non Hindi speaking states. That’s about the concession granted, but that is not the issue. 
Firstly by allowing Navodaya Schools in Tamil Nadu, which has the stated objective of providing standard education with free boarding facilities to talented rural children, in some states the same are being availed by not so talented middle class urban kids. 
Tamil Nadu is the most urbanised state, so these Navodaya Schools would have not much impact, they would just become showpieces for kids to flaunt. 
NCERT books which form the backbone of CBSE syllabus is to be weighted not on the basis of numbers but based on facts and truth. If one language is declared by a Professor as a Classical language, examine that language and either accept or reject it on intelligible differentia! Not on powerful and majority opinions. 
TN gets 4.02% of the shareable revenue from the centre with a population of 7 %. If there’s true concern the Navodaya propagandists should ask for funds for education based on the progress made since independence! 
Let the primary and secondary education be reverted back to the List 2 of the seventh Schedule. 
Even not knowing Hindi is a qualification in India, otherwise why would have the Tamil Nadu Special Police be the guards in Tihar Jails in Delhi? 
Variety is the soul of Liberty. 

DRAWING POWER is a power that is a Right, whereas DOING POWER is a power of Liberty. To exercise Drawing power one has to have the resources under his control or command. The resource could be a stored one like money, captive workforce etc. But a Doing power is not something which could be exercised as a matter of Right, it has to be earned through “DOING” something which would attract resources to be put in one’s hands or people may join in and contribute.
Drawing Power is therefore a personal resource at one’s command acquired through effort, by virtue of an office or even as a patrimony or bequest.
The greatness of Buddha was that he forewent Drawing Power as the heir of the Lumbini throne and CHOSE the path of Liberty to pursue the Doing power. The Gautama abdicated his throne and donned the role of a man who started with nothing other than the education his position gave him. Jesus was born with no Drawing Power, yet He, while alive in the flesh acquired a set of followers who propagated His teachings, which in time gained momentum and formed a Religion, which attracted even people like Paul, who was a avowed anti- Christian ! That is the Doing Power. Doing power is available with everyone, not that everyone would reach the level of renown or popularity of the Gautama or Jesus. To cite an example from recent history , Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great example of the Doing Power. He did not take an insult from the Apartheid pro people in the then South Africa, he quit a flourishing practice of an attorney to take up the cause of Liberating India from the clutches of foreign rule. To that intent he DID many things which galvanised a movement. The Tilaks, VOCs and Pal’s were resisting and did something, but the galvanising didn’t happen, it was Gandhi who was able to do it. May be the time had come for it during Gandhi! I do not subscribe to such fatalistic cosmic timeless perception on any Doing! Gandhi nailed it. Probably, even though Gandhi could have aspired to have become what he became, I’m sure that when he started, he COULDN’T HAVE HAD THE ASSURANCE OF SUCH GALVANISATION! That’s the point.
In the Doing Power, it is the Faith and Effort, which matter. The fruits of such labour is not guaranteed and most people don’t start as there are no guarantees.
When I see a cobbler sitting on the street and waiting for his next customer yet sewing up a new footwear for a future customer who hasn’t yet ordered or met him, he’s not idling his hours but gainfully deploying his Time with Hope. That’s the Doing Power. At every level Doing Power works, it is not capital intensive but could be Labour intensive.
Most of the people having DRAWING POWER prescribe ‘doing’ to others thereby breeding more administrators like Pharisees who in the guise of perfection goad their doers to excel and produce better products and once the products are made, the meagre wages are paid to the doers and the product is removed by those Drawing powered persons and sold at abominably high profits at a jurisdiction to which the Doing powered people may not have knowledge or access. But the Doing Powered people have to realise that it is their skill and craft which is spreading joy and happiness not the Trader’s racketeering! The Trader acquires goods not for its value but for the profits he could make out of someone else’ skill, which may give him the Drawing Power but never ever the skill of Doing power.
The greatest have always struck a good balance between the two and eschewing undermining the Doing power of anyone.

Liberty to listen to the Sirens is not merely a Liberty, but a Right acquired through Leadership.
Ulysses couldn’t have obtained the Compliance of his comrades to have wax fixed in their ears had he not been considered a useful and benevolent Leader. Ulysses’ comrades not only agreed to have their ears plugged with wax to disable them from listening to the Sirens, but obtained their approval for exempting himself from such ear plugs.
What Ulysses won was his Liberty to listen, cherish and even ethereally be transported with delight listening to the Sirens.
Having been made aware of the music and death, from Circe, Ulysses got his Liberty of motility restricted by getting himself tied to the mast and ordering his comrades not to untie him till they had crossed the island of the Sirens.
In true democratic fashion, Ulysses imposed a disability which would have allayed the scepticism of his comrades denying them what he himself wanted to relish.
May be in Voltaire terms it was a masterstroke of leadership when he imposed a disability on himself, as Voltaire says in his ‘Philosophical Dictionary’ thus:
“To succeed in chaining the multitude you must seem to wear the same fetters.”

But to what effect was this Liberty of Ulysses put to use?
He heard something which none had survived to tell.
That may look simple in the first flush, but it is those songs which move one’s standards higher. I’m sure, Ulysses would never have been impressed with the music of any troupe or person thereafter. He reached the next level of perception, denied to the underlings.
But to survive not only one has to have the Liberty, but the Leadership to afford an opportunity to go near the Isles of the Sirens ( without the galley or the sails and sailors there is remote chance of Ulysses reaching the isles); have the courage to tell one’s followers to deny what he didn’t deny himself; and finally leave instructions to tie him to the mast and not to untie him, come what may, till the Isles are past.
When all that is achieved, one succeeds in surviving after hearing the untold!

Movid's Weblog

When I watch rich kids flaunting their flashy cars and unbounded swiping of credit cards acquired through their father’s good fortune or effort or skill, or of the last two above like King David, I wonder often, how they are any different from Solomon, the Wise, in impressing the Queen of Sheba? Wise Brats, who probably would leave their kids with a disgruntled and rebelling workforce, little realising that Future, a merciless one at that, is always lurking round the corner, striving like Jeroboams to make comebacks!

View original post


It is the process of disenfranchising the common man of his Right of Choice, in favour of a Politician and vesting him with an irrevocable Right of Choice on your behalf for a fixed period -excepting for reasons occasioned by institutional crisis- and which when exercised is mostly for personal gains, which metamorphoses into Greed.
Personal Gains is the mother of Greed. Personal Gains starts with the thought: WHAT IS THERE FOR ME IN A PROJECT FOR WHICH TAX MONEY (public money) IS SPENT OSTENSIBLY FOR PUBLIC GOOD. Thereafter, as the appetite grows on what it feeds on, Projects are promoted which fetch inordinate profits for those Representatives of common man’s Delegate. 
The above is the worst end of the spectrum of Democracy. Thus Greed is engendered by Personal Gains and the Public becomes the pretext for such gains. 
When the old methods of taking gratification for public projects slims out, new methods are brought in revamping the old system. But this delegated responsibility of framing public policy and public spending always leads to corruption. 
The best method to sustain a corruptionless Democracy is to have a method of expressing online opinion of informed denizens on policy matters and a sound technical force to execute projects in an efficient and uncompromised way. 
Would it ever happen on India. I believe it would, maybe in another 20 years. 

Tag Cloud