Apostle John Vs. Evangelist Paul

The most erroneously interpreted verse of the Bible is Verse 11 of Chapter 8 of the Epistle to Romans by the greatest Evangelist Paul, which reads as under:

Romans Chapter 8

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

What meaning do the words of this verse convey?

Does it convey the meaning that there was a distinct spirit, which was not a part of the Jesus who had died of crucifixion but before resurrection, who was responsible for the Resurrection of Jesus? Why was it not written “But if the Spirit ______that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you…”. Why that “him”?

Secondly, in the phrase “that Spirit of him”, who is this uncapitalised him? Does it refer to God the Father or Jesus the Son?

Luke 23 says this:

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

The spirit that Jesus gave up from the cross, was it the Triune Holy Spirit, or the spirit that gives Life to all humans? According to my understanding he gave up that spirit, which according to John was the ‘light of men’ – which is the life giving spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

The interpretation would be that when any human being makes himself/ herself a temple of the living God and allows the Holy Spirit to dwell in him/her; upon attaining mortality, that human spirit which returns to God upon death, would in due course shall quicken the mortal body because of the close knit communion which the God given human spirit(life) had with the Holy Spirit, while the body was still alive.

But with Jesus it was different. That is why Jesus was divine in the flesh too.

To understand this, one has to advert to John’s gospel. Jesus was given Life, not like every other human being.

John Chapter 5 says this:

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Jesus had a commandment: that Jesus could lay down His life and take it back – at His own will, just like His father. Jesus had Life in Himself. Jesus did NOT NEED THE SPIRIT TO RAISE HIM FROM THE DEAD, HE WAS ENDOWED WITH SELF RESURRECTING POWER. Just like the Father, Jesus had LIFE IN HIMSELF.

This is the point which has not been enunciated well by the evangelist Paul, leading many to believe that it was the Holy Spirit which raised Jesus from the dead.

At John 20 it says as follows:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

This verse is a testimony that Jesus self resurrected Himself and had Life in Himself just like God the Father, as he had to ascend after He resurrected Himself.

Jesus resurrected Himself and that’s the superiority of the Gospel of John.

Read chapters 5 and 10 and marvel.

Not for nothing that Jesus in the flesh, loved John more than any of His disciples. John enunciated the divinity of Jesus better than anyone else in the New Testament. If Augur was curious to know the name of the Son of God, as expressed by him in Proverbs 31:4, he should get to know the name of the Son of God from Apostle John.

John Jebaraj and Evangelism in Thamizh Nadu!

I don’t know what’s happening to the Christians and those who love Jesus in Thamizh Nadu!

I have categorised into two, since there are card holding subscribers affiliated to Churches in Thamizh Nadu; and those who see Jesus as an incarnation who was not merely compassionate but accepted anyone the way he/she was, and consequently follow Jesus. The second category read the Bible just like any other Holly text and derived their own meanings, until they see some apparent contradictions and get into the Evangelist’s net.

Of all the Evangelists whom I had seen, the most exhilarating, talented, and absolutely contemporaneous in presentation is John Jebaraj.

Like Orpheus he plays his music and doesn’t hesitate to dance and the second category of Jesus admirers, have started following him quite avidly. John Jebaraj is not fishing those card holding subscribers – who are well entrenched in the rituals of baptism, confirmation, wedding ceremonies, and death ceremonies- and need the certificates of those established churches for these occasions.

But to the delight of John Jebaraj, it appears that not just one sheep has been lost but many sheep have been lost and he is able to attract many of those with his brand!

The trouble is that some of the members of those established churches, the utility of which is limited to those ritualised certification, have started enjoying the lyrics and the music of John Jebaraj. In fact I have heard and seen some of the songs of John Jebaraj and I should admit that since Sister Sarah Navaroji there’s been none who pens the lyrics of his songs by stringing parts of verses with promises from the Bible with a mellifluous music with interesting play of instruments. In fact John Jebaraj’s lyrics are what the Thamizh Christian fraternity has been waiting for nearly 30-40 years, since the severance of Sister Navaroji from her parent body – Ceylon Pentecostal Mission. I don’t think she produced such inspired lyrics since she left the organisation which probably had laid the seedbed for her to sprout those lyrics.

There’s a song by name சீர் படுத்துவார் ஸ்திரப்படுத்துவார், which is amazing in its lyrical content and the accompanying music. I’ve seen and heard the rendition by a group of well known evangelists and church heads, in which John Jebaraj is merely one of the singers. I wish I could hear John Jebaraj render a solo of the song. Alas, I found that JioSaavan had acquired some rights to that song. Seems pretty complicated- whether the song writer has the copyright or the composer has the rights or the singers seems mysterious. It is quite possible that John Jebaraj has not claimed the copyright to the song- for reasons best known to him. However, Bro. Paul Dhinakaran and his family seem to be milking the views in YouTube!

The old guard has understood that they would be left behind if the content does not cater to the tastes of the upcoming bread earners- the pensioners and the previous generation can’t provide that level of energy or contributions.

On the sidelines are those Fishers of Men who had built churches which have thrived on tithes and subscriptions- one word which could describe them is PENTECOSTALS. These Pentecostals don’t seem to be happy with the evolution of John Jebaraj as JJ himself breaks out into talking in tongues and thereby has endeared himself to these Pentecostal flocks! But the Pentecostal Church heads don’t seem to be impressed, as their tithing flock may start diverting their resources!

Christianity has evolved to a different level in Thamizh Nadu and it is interesting to watch the evolution. But where’s it heading? New paths beyond the horizons, need to become beaten paths by many walking through those paths before they become acceptable Roads. New generations have their own footprints to be left behind.

Jesus hid Himself and walked through them!

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

This verse from John chapter 8 had been a big stumbling block for me: I often wondered why Jesus, the maker of heaven and the Earth had to “hide himself” from those who had taken stones to stone Jesus?

So what led to this incident? Jesus told the Jews that “Abraham rejoiced to see His day” and “that Abraham saw it and was glad!” The verse runs as follows:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

The trouble is that when we operate on two different references of time we cannot understand certain events. Let us take the example of a tortoise which had seen Charles Darwin in the island of Galapagos and let us further assume that that tortoise did recognise Darwin in AD 1836. Darwin is dead in 2023, but that Lonesome George Tortoise is still alive and remembers the interaction he had with Charles Darwin. Let us assume that that tortoise had, built up a faculty to communicate with human beings and if we met that tortoise and that tortoise were to narrate that he had met one Charles Darwin, would it not be amusing and an impossibility, if we did not know that these tortoises lived 500 years? It is that Time frame reference which was preventing the Jews from accepting what Jesus told them.

The Jews think here is a man in human form, his age is not yet 50 years and he claims that Abraham had seen him and rejoiced to see his day!

The first difficulty is that, for any human being to accept a contemporaneous person as God or even as a Prophet. If we know the history of that person – the origins of a person as humans understand – all the more so!

There were two, nay three sets of people: those who thought Jesus was the son of David and hence a rescuer; the second believed that Jesus was a charlatan who took advantage of the ignorance of the masses; and the third set was simply indifferent to the existence of a human being, who would be considered just a few centuries later by half of humanity as the Christ.

Many were curious onlookers – they just wanted some memories, and they got it. Some though curious got called like Zachhaeus and have found a place in the history of mankind. None could have believed that Jesus was the person who had been seen by Abraham or had seen Abraham! Abraham had lived at least 1500 years before Jesus was born a child in the world. Naturally, the people couldn’t bring themselves to reconcile with such a chronological impossibility.

Would Jesus have wanted them to become murderers of a God, because of their limitations in understanding, which itself was imposed after Noah’s time by the Father by shortening human longevity?


But how to relive them of their bloodthirstiness?

Jesus hid himself – but went through the midst of the very same people who were ready to stone Him.

Just as Elisha led a troop blinded from recognising that they were being led to their enemy’s den but happily walked towards the King’s house blinded; or just as Gehazi’s eyes remained blinded till opened by Elisha, ocular limitations were imposed on the whole crowd, so as not to be able to see Jesus – but Jesus walked through their midst.

I perceive now, that what Jesus did was Fearless Compassion!

The crowd was not unreasonable in their assessment with all their human limitations, but they cannot be held responsible for such thought; but at the same time, their zeal should not be allowed to commit an act for which, had it happened the succeeding generations would consider them to have been a murderous lot.

It was that COMPASSION coupled with FEARLESSNESS which is reflected through this Incident. This Chapter 8 illustrates the COMPASSION OF JESUS, which culminates in that verse from the cross: FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

Governor’s Address and Articles 175 & 176 of the Constitution of India.

There have been a lot of debates and tweets of unsavoury nature on the above topic with reference to my State of Tamil Nadu.

At the outset it must be mentioned that the distinction between the Articles 175 and 176 of the Constitution is obvious. Article 176 is the Special Address, which is a Ceremonial Address by the Governor either at the beginning of a term of the State Legislature or at the beginning of every Calendar year. Therefore the Special Address by the Governor is designed when a new Government is formed in the State or when a new calendar Year dawns in any state of the country.

Therefore contextually when we look at the intent of the Constitution makers it is obvious that when a new government, as the expressed will of the people of a state, takes charge of the governance, their Statement of Intent has to be expressed through the document. Therefore the State Government- which means the State Cabinet would have to formulate its Address and with the approval of the Governor that statement has to be delivered by the Governor within the State Legislature, and in the place assigned for the congregation of all the elected representatives of the people of that State, as he is the Ceremonial head of the State.

The address is to be solemn in its content and delivery. The objections if any should be ironed out between the Governor and his State Government. Therefore a draft has to be sent and once the approval of that draft is obtained, considering the solemnity of the occasion and the expression of intent of the course, the Governor has to follow the text.

This is no occasion for the Governor to indulge in editing, which should have been followed prior to the event.

But the rights that flow out of Article 175 is distinct and different from Article 176. By virtue of Article 175, the Governor, being the agent of the President of India for that particular State, it would be within the Governor’s remit to alert the President through the Union Government concerning the National issues relating to List 1 and List 3 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and have an oversight over any legislative threat, anxiety or attempt to bring into conflict a Union List entry with that of the State List entry; or any administrative measure that might undermine the sovereignty of the Union’s functions, in such a scenario, the Governor should advise the State Government and if the Cabinet is not amenable, then the Governor has a constitutional Right to summon the State Legislature and voice his/her concerns and even admonish them. A discussion could be held by the State Legislature and remedial measures taken. It is that right which is to be exercised by the Governor under Article 175.

The confusion has risen more from the Rules enacted in terms of the rule making power given by the Constitution to the State Legislature.

The Tamil Nadu legislative assembly rules

11. At the first sitting of the Assembly after the Governor has addressed the House under Article 176 or under Article 175 of the Constitution a copy of the Governor’s address shall be placed on the Table of the House.

12.(1) Under Article 176(2) of the Constitution, the Speaker shall, in consultation with the Business Advisory Committee allot the time necessary for the discussion of the matters referred to in the Governor’s Address under Article 176(1):

Provided that, if the Business Advisory Committee has not been Constituted or is not functioning the Speaker shall, in consultation with the Leader of the House, allot the time referred to in the above sub-rule.

Let us now advert to the Article 176:

176. Special address by the Governor.

(1) At the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Legislative Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year, the Governor shall address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, both Houses assembled together and inform the Legislature of the causes of its summons.

(2) Provision shall be made by the rules regulating the procedure of the House or either House for the allotment of time for discussion of the matters referred to in such address.

There is no conflation of Article 176 and 175, and the directive to make provisions in the Rules are specific to Article 176 – which is Governor’s Special Address.

Whereas when we read Article 175, it is clear that the Governor addresses his concerns for “consideration” and “remedial measures” by the State Legislature. But if the Legislature is insistent and the Governor is of the opinion that he has to take some steps, then he can send a report to the Union Government, thereby requesting for usage of the Presidential powers (under the aid and advice of the Union Government).

Hence the Governors are not entirely helpless, if there are issues relating to domains for which the States are not competent, then the Governor could report the trenching, referrals of alert on administrative matters but the Governor is definitely not in a state to express his/her opinions on political matters or to shape it according to his will or judgement- for whatever reason. The Governor should always be aware of his/her office as one with solemnity and ceremony and that he is a NOMINATED REPRESENTATIVE of the Union Government and not a DIRECTLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE.

Skipping pre-approved drafts of Special addresses, delivered under Article 176 of the Constitution of India, is to be considered as a serious affront to the will of the people of Tamil Nadu.

Bear market shopping

That’s the best thing one could do – BEAR MARKET SHOPPING – the only hitch is that one doesn’t know the bottom of a bear market. Any fall in prices could be a downward spiral after the shopping. For example there was this friend of mine who was a fan of Infosys, his cost was ₹3000 way back in 2006. But those 15 shares had grown to 240 by 2022 that he felt that any price below 1600₹ was a kill.

So he not only bought, but persuaded by his personal example, convinced a few of his friends to buy it at 1600₹. When the price of Infosys plummeted to 1370₹ or thereabouts, he had exhausted his funds and was even under the firm belief that it might go to 700₹! The sad fact is that it never went below that 1300s!

But an Indian couple’s son in law would become the prime minister of the UK was not in any one’s thought. Now that a son in law of an Indian family is likely to reach the helm, Infosys is likely to see further gains only on sentiments. If we dig a little deep, the Pakistanis have a greater claim based on the geographical location of Sunak’s paternal grandfather!

But the Father in law and wife are both Indian born and I’m sure the

In the meanwhile Anand Mahindra, nephew of Keshub Mahindra has come up with a tweet referring to a statement supposedly made by Winston Churchill! You may, if interested, visit his Twitter account and read that tweet which doesn’t befit the standing of Anand Mahindra who had been raised in the schools at Lovedale and Harvard. Though his caveat ‘supposedly’ redeems to some extent the non verification of the putative statement of Churchill, the tweet has still used as its foundation the attributed statement for which there’s no source verification!

However, though my resources are not comparable with that of the Indian billionaire, a cursory peek into the Google throws up a challenge to the attribution of that quote to Winston Churchill– a screenshot of which I am appending below:

To believe the contents is up to the reader, but that there’s a doubt raised for a better source verification is a fact!

The WhatsApp messaging service has helped India in many positive ways but it has also spawned unverified, motivated material being attributed to persons whom one hates or likes! That such material should become a cornerstone of a tweet of an industrialist is amusing!

Let us look at it through an interpretation! There’s no date referred out the context in which Winston is supposed to have said this. Did he say this of the pre independent India or a post independent India? Did Churchill, assuming he made that statement, make a statement explicitly against India in contradistinction of Pakistan? Time to look for fact checking.

Super Confusion

Super confusion

If ever I want to be super confused, I just play Consolation No.3 in D flat major by Franz Liszt; and Nocturne Opus 9 No. 2 in E flat major of Chopin, side by side.

I cannot say which one I’d heard last if you stopped the music and asked me.

Try it, worth it.

Criticism of Elon Musk.

I’ve screenshot an article which has appeared in THE ATLANTIC, just to ensure that I am not left with nothing, if and when either the author or the publication removes the article, for reasons known to them. At least there would be the residue of their sources reported by them to propagate their rambling ideas, built on material which they have become privy to, but not entitled to, as a publication or as a journalist!

The whole article is by a scribe named Charlie Warzel which has appeared in The Atlantic, built on residual facts statedly emanating out of some disclosures of ‘discovery’ made in a lawsuit between Elon Musk and Twitter.

The scribe starts off by saying that “The Tesla and SpaceX CEO is currently in litigation with Twitter and trying to back out of his deal to buy the platform and take it private.”

Firstly, the use of the phrase ‘trying to back out of his deal’ makes it seem as if any person who has entered a contract should never back out of the deal and if he did, that would be a matter of great social stigma! If a contract is under dispute, whether rightly or wrongly, we may have an opinion on it and entitled to one. But when that opinion is canvassed, it becomes a propaganda; as the scribe is using a popular platform of a journal/newspaper to influence the reader, who could be reading the article as a news item for the first time, or the scribe may be aggregating those who are holding a negative opinion and involved in the creation or accretion of persons to amalgamate them into an opinionated and misinformed irresponsible crowd!

In a Democracy it is all allowed, but when a counterpoint is not presented, such type of journalism gets undue coverage enveloping the electorate with one sided views.

Firstly, the Delaware Chancery courts are seized of the matter and it is they who could pronounce an authoritative declaration as to whether the non performance of the conditions in the Contract is enforceable or damages awardable!

In the meanwhile, drumming up support is one thing but slyly denigrating a person’s reputation is another thing.

I think that Charlie Warzel is doing the latter. Good for him- at least some hydro carbon guys would pitch in and pay for his potboilers!

Discovery is a process in civil matters, especially when the Plaintiff who claims equitable relief and the Defendant who is ranged against the Plaintiff have to show that their hands are clean and therefore anything relevant in subject matter and Time should be laid open for the other side to rely on!

In such a process, there are hyenas which steal those salacious crumbs and bandy those crumbs as facts. Charles Warzel has just done that.

A mobile connection is a secure and more often an encrypted data exchanged between persons who communicate using the telecom facilities. They are private, but in these processes of Discovery, the picture may not be complete. To cite an example, the CEO of Google, Sundar Pitchai has stated that he has twenty or thirty mobiles at his residence. If Google’s CEO, who has no investment skin in Google, except through ESOPs received over the years as an employee and as compensation/ incentives given to him as the CEO, by the company, how much more mobiles could have been in use by an Entrepreneur CEO of multiple multi National companies engaged in cutting edge technologies? Did the pen pusher Charlie Warzel have access to it to provide a holistic picture? Nay.

Let us advert to the blather of the Pen pusher to the contents as understood by him from those ‘Discovery processes’! The pen pusher is talking of the contents of others, which in his opinion are sycophants. Assuming that Elon encourages those types, would it not still be a matter of great credit that Elon has not fallen for all those buttered words and squandered his resources?

When many crony capitalists have through public money, borrowed from public banks, built their commercial empires and call themselves unashamedly ‘richest billionaires’, is it not a matter of mettle that Elon had sold his ideas to venture capitalists, and fund managers to invest in his ventures thereby participating in the profits and losses of Elon’s entrepreneurial ventures of avant garde type?

The way a man made his money is more important that how much he made.

Elon has shown not just the way, but has triggered the imagination of a whole new generation with the idea that the limitations laid down by the previous generations need not be believed as Gospel and that HUMAN EFFORT can always take mankind many notches above the normal organic growth. It is that for which Tesla has the market valuation surpassing the combined value of the next two companies in that domain.

Anyone can write, but there should be not only fairness but one should also see if one’s sources of facts are reliable and complete before daring to calumniate a person of such technological innovation, entrepreneurial success and a Redeemer of mankind from the hands of false accountants and business graduates of dubious integrity.

Relent, Pen pusher Charlie. Again I say Relent.

Peacock dance of shares!

There are many shares in the stock market which do a peacock dance to attract the gullible retail investors who have been fed overnight with dubious analysis of stock market data by the mushrooming YouTubers.

These retail ‘investors’ without understanding that YouTubing is only an ancillary industry purveying attractively packaged spurious stocks, rush in and buy those stocks on the first bell emptying their anxieties of missing out by disgorging their bank accounts.

The smugness lasts till the last trading session of the day when the traders dump and exit leading to a glut and a consequent fall in stock prices.

Thereafter, the post coital palliatives are purveyed again by the YouTubers in the next night – keeping the ‘investors’ in an anxiety of hope.

The end game is that from the geocentric anxiety of the fear of missing out the retailers are hushed into heliotropic anxiety of unexpected future gains!

Time flies, Hope continues to feed their expectancy – the clever trade on others’ margined money and live on a state of equilibrium.

If one is small, reconcile with your smallness and make continued small calculated investments and like a Banyan seed would take time to sprout and grow in stature, but surely would withstand the storms and vagaries of the stock market!

Sathiya Vedam – A Thamizh hymn by Sister Sarah Navaroji

The title relates to a Thamizh hymn, the lyrics of which were written by Sister Sarah Navaroji and the music was also composed by her.

In any song consisting of lyrics, the content of the lyrics dawn on the hearer much later than the capturing of the mind by the aftertaste of the music.

The mind captures the music consisting of the tune, the melody, the rhythm, the interlude, the spaces within the articulated sounds, in bits and pieces, if heard repeatedly. When the same song is heard at different stages of one’s life, the same song may permeate the inner being in ways hitherto unexperienced!

Besides the music, when one starts realising the meaning of the lyrics in confluence with the music, the experience could be elevating. An elevation which can surely be experienced but ineffable – and any effort to explain verbally the experience would infinitely fall short of the wholesomeness of the experience.

This hymn, and not merely a song, was set to music by Sister Sarah Navaroji, a Thamizh Christian Priestess, who had established a Church in Chennai and continued to maintain that place of worship for more than four decades to my memory.

This is not a write up of historical facts relating to Sister Sarah Navaroji, but an effort by a listener of music, to convey in words a hymn which had impacted him in an ethereally elevating way.

In this effort, let me first provide the links of these renderings by multiple singers and musicians to familiarise the readers to have a foretaste of what is to be written thereafter by me.

https://youtu.be/MaH20a7PmOA. (Sister Sarah Navaroji)

https://youtu.be/WbJ7lM2LWRs (Ms. Vani Jairam)

https://youtu.be/RvdR3LRt6r0. (Mr. Clement Sastriyar)

(Mr.Clement Sastriyar on Violin with Ms. Beryl Natasha)

(Music by Mr. Jolee Abraham & sung by Ms. Reshma Abraham)

The above links could be accessed through YouTube and I suggest that one should listen to the rendition of the hymn by Mr. Clement Sastriyar on his violin, so that even those who haven’t heard the song would be able to get the hang of the tune. Which in my case wafts into my consciousness from time to time and elevates me to ineffable effusion of joyful delight.

I have provided Sis. Sarah Navaroji’s rendition as the the first link more as a homage to her for having been divinely inspired to not only write the lyrics but to have set those reverberating words to an unshakably echoing music to any soul.

I have had the good fortune of not only having met her as an adult, but had the divine grace of having stayed under the same roof for a couple of days when Sister Sarah Navaroji stayed in my father’s official bungalow in Salem in the late sixties of the previous century, which still is etched in my memory.

My mother, who had then recently learnt to bake, had baked a tea cake, which was specially made in honour of the Sister. My childhood impressions, which I still carry, of her person was that of an elegant lady dressed in sparkling white with the serious sincerity of a Lady who had dedicated her life to some divine purpose, ignoring all those distracting elements of Life.

My father being an avid music listener, had bought a turntable, which had to be attached through thin cable/wires to the valve radio, which would transmit the music through its speakers. One of the discs contained the songs of Sister Sarah Navaroji by HMV – yes, where the brand icon was an Alsatian dog obediently and intently listening, sitting on it’s haunches, to the horn of the speaker placed opposite- and those were played from time to time.

I should say that the songs sung by a younger Sis. Sarah Navaroji with the music set to by a professional cinema music director Kalyan, probably T A Kalyan, were more appealing – you could look up the Google and confirm it. That rendition was truly professional, the reader could scour the net and listen to that too.

Getting to the Lyrics written by Sister. Sarah Navaroji, the lyrics are interspersed with aptly strung phrases and verses from the Bible. The subject of this Hymn itself is in praise of the TRUTHFUL SCRIPTURE – meaning thereby, the TRUTHFUL BIBLE.

சத்திய வேதம் பக்தரின் கீதம்
சுத்தர்கள் போகும் பாதையின் தீபம்
உத்தம மார்க்கம் காட்டும்

எத்தனை துன்பம் துயரம் வந்து
பக்தனை தேற்றிடும் ஒளஷதம்

நித்தம் விரும்பும் கர்த்தர் வசனம்
சுத்த பசும்பொன் தெளிந்திடும் தேன்
இதயம் மகிழும் கண்கள் தெளியும்
இருண்ட ஆத்துமா உயிரடையும்

பேதைகளிடம் ஞானம் அருளும்
தேவ புத்தகம் மேன்மை தரும்
இரவும் பகலும் இதன் தியானம்
இனிமை தங்கும் தனிமையிலும்

வேதப் பிரியர் தேவப் புதல்வர்
சேதமடையா நடத்திடுவார்
இலைகள் உதிரா மரங்கள் போல
இவர்கள் நல்ல கனி தருவார்

உள்ளம் உதிக்கும் உறுதி அளிக்கும்
கள்ளங் கபடெல்லாம் அகற்றும்
கடிந்து கொள்ளும் கறைகள் போக்கும்
கனமடைய வழி நடத்தும்

கர்த்தர் வசனம் வல்ல சம்மட்டி
கன்மலையையும் நொறுக்கிடுமே
இதய நினைவை வகையாய் அறுக்கும்
இரு புறமும் கருக்குள்ளதே

வானம் அகலும் பூமி அழியும்
வேத வசனம் நிலைத்திருக்கும்
பரமன் வேதம் எனது செல்லவம்
பரவசம் நிதம் அருளும்

There is no translation of the same into English, so the following is an attempt to test my skills in translation and also to make it easier & attractive for the English reader. (I blog NOT because I want to propagate whatever I write, but I have realised over the years that in the process of evolution and decay, the memory of man is the prime victim – to ensure that my momentary euphoria is not lost in Time, for my own reading pleasure and a record of my thoughts, I blog)

Truthful scripture being a devotee’s hymn,

Is a lamp unto the pure man’s path,

Which shows the noble way.

However grave the troubles & sorrows be,

It is the medicine which strengthens the devotee!

Forever loved word of Christ

Is purified gold and dregless transparent honey,

Which gladdens the heart and opens one’s eyes

And revives a darkened soul.

Suffuses the naive with wisdom

And the Holy Book elevates.

Meditating upon it day and night

Would fill one with sweetness, even in loneliness.

The lovers of the Scripture are lovers of God

And would progress without damage.

They would be like an evergreen tree

Which brings forth good fruits.

Awareness would arise with conviction

And remove guile and lies.

It would admonish, remove the stains,

And pave the way for Honour.

The Word of Christ is a valorous hammer

Which pulverises rocks.(Jeremiah 23:29)

A keen edged double edged sword,

Piercing even to the division of the pondering of one’s heart (Heb 4:12)

Heaven & Earth would pass away,

But the Scriptural verses would stand steadfast.

The Creator’s Scripture is my treasure,

And daily bestows blissful ecstasy.

I am very sure that the translation has not captured, not even partially the poetic content of the lyrics. I am reminded of the Foreword to GITANJALI by W.B.Yeats, wherein he wonders how the verses of Rabindranath Tagore would have been more poetic and lilting with music in the original Bengali! If even a poet of Yeats’ calibre was left wondering about Tagore’s translation skills into English, a dilettante like me should never even hazard a thought of capturing the poetic sense into English the poetic sense from the original Thamizh.

Now to the persons other than the Lyricist who had written and rendered this hymn:

Mr. Clement Sastriyar : An amazing Virtuoso in playing western classical and spiritual Thamizh songs, both the popular and Carnatic genre on his violin. I’ve seen and heard him perform at the Museum Theatre in Chennai and also in the various CSI Churches in and around Chennai. I personally am a great admirer of his violin playing skills, especially in capturing the nuances of the old Kirthanai s and Paamalai s set to tune in Carnatic music, which I think is no small feat. His rendering of another Sister Sarah Navaroji hymn UM PAADHAM PANINDHEIN and MAANGAL NEERODAI are worth listening. He has cut many albums under the title TUNING WITH CLEMENT. Me being a keyboard player of sorts know the difficulties in capturing the Carnatic nuances and the two hymns named above have never failed to leave me wondering how close a good violinist could get to the vocals with his rendition on a violin.

Though I’ve not met him personally, meeting him when I get back to Chennai would be in my agenda.

Secondly, Ms. Vani Jairam. I have listened to her vocal rendering of many Thamizh cinema songs and I had always deeply felt that there was unshakable dignity, conviction of hope, and deep devotion to her voice quality, which suits this hymn in particular. In fact I was amazed that such a renowned and well known Singer had rendered this hymn. Thanks for the Organizer/Producers who had got this celebrity Singer to render this hymn.

As regards the music producer Mr.Jolee Abraham, he is a great singer and Ms. Reshma Abraham has sung the hymn with the respect the hymn deserves for its pedigree. Her talent is not in question either – very serene and mellifluous. 💥💥

Chess Rowther!

The Chess Olympiad at Mamallapuram, Chennai has, if nothing else, has exalted the Tamil language.

The whole Chennai city is plastered with a Knight – more like a two legged centaur dressed in a Tamil traditional Dhoti! Whoever had conceived of this as an icon for the Chess Olympiad has definitely interwoven the Tamil tradition into the game of Chess.

Napier Bridge is chequered in black and white squares, that while driving over the bridge one wonders if the moves of the tyres of the car are legal, as it moves even through stranger squares than that of the knight on Chess board.

If exalting one language over other Scheduled languages of the Nation has become the priority at the expense of the consolidated fund of India, surely the Governments which run the List 2 of Schedule 7, should be given the same leeway. Accordingly, it all balances out that the Chess Olympiad in Chennai has no place for any other schedule language except English and Tamil (at least the cut outs I’ve seen would bear me out)!

Tamil Nadu has interesting outcomes. I asked a half literate person who this Dhoti clad horse was?


That more or less sums up the deeper understanding of even the half literate guys in Tamil Nadu! The guy has heard about or had seen Chess being played and with a Dhoti, he doesn’t call it a seahorse instead calls him a ‘Rowther’- who were the traditional Arabian horse dealers in the south, since the times of Krishna Deva Raya! Amusingly appropriate.

Elon Musk – from Taxes to Businesses!

It is well known that after Apollo XI there’s been no landing on the moon by man. Rather the discovery was that spending tax money on discoveries impelled by curiosity and arm flexing, was not sustainable. And the result was Space agenda went into hibernation and countries with lesser resources started desiring to put their satellites in orbit for communication and other profitable purposes!

Then lands Elon Musk.

What were frontiers in science- costing much to explore, fraught with risks of heavenly proportions was taken up by an individual. Should one call Elon Musk an individual? Nay- an INSTITUTION.

Greed of money would have made Elon Musk to start with the cost benefit, but that was not his script. That would have been a typical MBA’s method of doing things- neither is the money the MBA’s nor any skin in the purpose hence no risk.

Elon Musk’s passion drives him to understand the technology, The wheel has already been invented, therefore it is just the cost has to be rationalised with technological men and material. Done.

What’s Elon’s greatest contribution to mankind as yet?

If an entrepreneur meets the Surface Transport Minister of a country and asks him merely to provide him with the plan for auto bahn roads throughout the country and the Entrepreneur paves the whole country with roads using a technology which didn’t take much time to lay and pave the roads and states that the Government, without spending its tax money on laying roads could collect toll taxes for enriching the government coffers and for the maintenance of the newly laid roads, wouldn’t the whole country be happy?

Faster locomotion of goods , quicker reaching of destinations, more commercial outlets on the sides of the roads- motels, shops, cinema, malls etc. That’s what Elon Musk has done to the world.

All this, Elon Musk has done to Space not only by NOT plundering the tax money, but has created options for mankind to put satellites in orbit at Will and at attractive prices so that the income therefrom becomes a source of income for a suite of sustainable businesses!

That Elon Musk is the richest man on the Earth shouldn’t be an eyesore for any sane individual.

Unlike the MBAs who broke the skull of toads to mine that Shakespearean jewel and peddle it to some willing buyer at fantastic cost of an useless showpiece, Elon has DONE, what every human being would realise that it was Elon who helped us leap from the tax money to viable business models on Frontiers in Space Exploration.

Below is the launch today 19/06/2022. Isn’t it a matter of great joy that we, in the comfort of our homes, are able to see the space travel with precision?

Is this not a superhuman achievement? It was a delight to watch, how quick man could leave the Earth and take an outsider’s vote of it.


The best that I’ve learnt in Punjab is the Ji thing.

In Thamizh we have a neutrally gendered appendage to every sentence, which is ‘ங்க’, transliterated as ‘nga’, which when used at the closing of any statement or sentence would be reflecting respectfulness to the person spoken to.

It is not as much the respectfulness, but that to append nga, one doesn’t need to know either the gender of the person at the other end or his/her age or rank.

This Ji thing is used profusely in Punjab and at first I thought it was not merely a phatic palliative but a statement made with utter regard. As time passed by, I understood that it is just an appendage not to give offense.

Aahnji and nahinji are said with the same nonchalance, that without that ji, the hearer would be put to some discomfort.

One can append this ji to anything. Kyaji is may I know what?

This Ji is so very important that while professionally meeting officers, one is caught in a bind as to which batch and branch the other officer belongs, so as to Sir him or Madam her! But Ji solves all this dilemma, and after ascertaining discreetly the seniority through identification of common acquaintances and batch mates, superciliousness or obsequiousness could be resorted to safely.

The Floor Fisher and the Wave Rider!

They were two friends who got on to investing and a little bit of trading in stocks.

The older one was a ‘Floor Fisher’ – which meant that he had a list of stocks which were worth investing in but wouldn’t buy till the prices of that stock plummeted below a certain preset limit. These limits were set by him and the list contained limits which were ridiculously low. Since they were investing in the NSE/BSE, the following were the limits which he shared with his ‘Wave Rider’ friend.

They were not poles apart, in the sense that both wanted to see profits but their methods were different and distinct. The Floor Fisher didn’t have the mind to keep following the stock prices perennially while the trades were on, he would rather buy the shares and forget about it with a smug feeling that the turbulence of the stock markets wouldn’t pull his shares down below his purchase cost! That was true to a very large extent, but he was also aware of the seminal changes in policies and politics which could alter the pacific course of the stocks he had invested in.

His friend, Wave Rider was alive to every bit of news whether it be stock related or the policies and politics. Everything was a grist to his anxious mill. He didn’t want to lose a good opportunity- an opportunity to make money. He was up to date on news, views and gossip built on hopes, fears, anxiety and a whole lotta emotions. His ride was focused on riding every Wave so that his surfing would give him the necessary High of being on the stock trade. Saturdays and Sundays were horrible days for the Wave Rider- it kept him hanging for the turbulence of the Monday morning and it flattened him from Friday afternoon.

But the Floor Fisher was placid- it was not a calm without any anxiety, but an expectant hope that for some reason the blue chip shares he had identified would fall to the limits he has arrived at – none knew as to how he arrived at those limits.

When he shared the list and the rates at which the Floor Fisher proposed to buy those shares, the Wave Rider burst out laughing.

The conflict between these two started on these grounds:

But before I start the grounds I would like to share the list, which seemed ridiculous not only to the Wave Rider but even to me:

Reliance 1,850

Nestle. 16,400

Asian Paints. 2,550

Abbott India 12,500

Page Industries. 33,000

TCS. 2,250

Bosch. 11,000

Siemens. 1,200

Aurobindo Pharm. 550

Colgate. 1,050

HUL. 1,600

Maruti. 6,600

Polyplex. 1,700

Tata Investment Corp. 1300

Vindhya Telelinks. 1000

Finolex Cables. 350

Ambuja cements. 260

Heidelberg Cement. 180

You may go through the current prices to see how ridiculous the targets were.

Now getting back to the reasons for their divergent views:

The Floor Fisher believed, not without reason, that there are only three routes for raising funds by any company to build up their activities- firstly from the banks by submission of a project report and furnishing collateral or alternately to ride on the subsidies of the prevalent policies; Secondly, by holding substantial percentage of shares in the company by the promoters and ensuring that the prices of the shares are kept fabulously high so that a part of the shares held by the Promoters could be pledged and monies could be raised. Thirdly, The Floor Fisher thought that the Promoters/ Management of the Company could sell their hopeful ideas to investors like for example Bloombox Sridhar, and raise money, and make an attempt to fulfill their claims of discovery etc. This is what Wikipedia has to say about Sridhar:

On 24 February 2010, Bloom Energy launched a new energy-efficient and environmentally friendly fuel cell known as the Bloom Box. As of 2010, natural gas and atmospheric oxygen are pumped through a stack of cells, producing electricity, but theoretically any other gaseous fuel could be used.[8] The energy is clean and inexpensive, but development and production of this fuel cell required a large initial investment of $100 million. Sridhar was able to obtain funding for the project from investors such as Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and New Enterprise Associates. Kleiner is represented on the Bloom Energy board of directors by John Doerr, an early investor in companies such as Amazon and Google as well.

Floor Fisher also believed that not everyone purveyed hope without success, but the numbers of the Hope purveyors far exceeded the ‘true performers’. To take the example of an Edison or a Nikolai Tesla or an Elon Musk would be hazardous, as these success stories were one in a million each. But, investors have their own ideas- which only a person with that kind of money could fathom, and our Floor Fisher was utterly unsuited for that task.

With this mindset there was no meeting ground between the Floor Fisher and the Wave Rider. Many a time, the Floor Fisher would give the data of those promoters holding around 74% of the shares of those companies, another 15% by investors from Mauritius and other not so financially clean and transparent jurisdictions and ultimately only around 10% of the shares were the shares supposed to be in the hands of the public.

One day the Floor Fisher said: Can’t you imagine that it could be easier to jack up the market value of these shares which have only 10% float?

The Wave Rider queried: So how would that benefit the Promoters?

The Floor Fisher said: Assume that the face value of the share was ₹ 10; if some assets are integrated to the company prior to an IPO would not the valuation of those ₹10 face value shares go up?

The Wave Rider said: Yes, so what?

The Floor Fisher said, Would it not be in the hands of the promoters to fix up the value of the integrated assets – on intangible benefits to accrue to the company?

Yes said the Rider.

If the promoters of the company add free licences using their political contacts and money power, would that not enhance the value of the shares of the company and consequently give the Promoters the power to project valuations, not entirely connected with reality?

The Rider agreed, but added: Yet people should subscribe at those inflated rates, isn’t it? There’s no guarantee that the investors would invest at all.

The Fisher said: that’s where the demand and supply Principle hand is played! See, there’s going to be only 10% of the shares in the market for the Public and even assuming that they don’t get subscribed, there are underwriters, who would have agreed to pick those unsubscribed shares up!

The Rider said: Ok, so how would that help the promoters?

The Fisher said: Wouldn’t it be easier to sell 10% of the shares in a market, if the promoters show themselves to have the financial prowess and political heft?

Yes, said the Rider.

The game is to win much before it has started, said the Fisher. He added, The idea is to propel the shares to a ₹1000 share, thus by making marginal investments, the 90% of the shares held/ controlled by the Promoters, would be propelled by 100 times! Now look at the eligibility of the Promoters to borrow money from the banks! The Promoters would be able to borrow 50% of the market value, which would be ₹500 per share. Isn’t it phenomenal that by investing a marginal amount the promoters would be able to raise so much capital and thereafter really acquire valuable companies with the bank’s money and enhance the value and earnings through those mergers and acquisitions?

Yes, agreed the Rider.

The Fisher said, Bro you are fueling

those companies, which are nothing but a risky proposition, as such promoters have to rely on the support of the policy makers and the approvals of the executives. And I don’t want to get into those risky investments, though the earnings through my investments could be modest.

The Floor Fisher keeps waiting like a stork on one leg for the stock prices to hit those lower limits, as the Wave Rider is flitting from stock to stock creaming out!

They are friends, whose paths don’t coincide, but they travel watching each other with amusement and wonder!


Mantle is the symbol of the man wearing it.

If we go to the Judeao Christian tradition the Jewish priests and prophets were known by the mantle which they wrote over their outer garments. Those were loosely laid around their necks, which symbolically showed their uniqueness. Even in the Christian tradition, the priests wear mantle reflecting their status and ranks- occasionally based on the occasion too.

Mantle is visible to the masses- the crowd that congregates to participate in a festival, a solemn occasion etc. The man or woman who wears a particular mantle is announced as the person with authority.

But in a democracy, where there are no set hierarchies during elections, it is what a person states, stands and lived for, which symbolises him, and in time he or she becomes the Icon of the masses, so far as that ‘idea’ for which the person stated, stood and lived.

For example Mahatma Gandhi stood for non violence as a not negotiable creed. That was his mantle. None in India has been worthy of earning the Mahatma’s legacy, hence the mantle has not ‘fallen’ on any individual.


It just cannot be acquired through design, it has to be laid on that person – a person befitting in stature and substance.

If we go back to the Old Testament, there are two Prophets who were Elijah and Elisha. The Bible says that when Elijah was intimated by God to get ready for good and was given certain tasks, one of the tasks was for Elijah to choose his successor as the Priest & Prophet of the fragmented Israel. Elijah seeks out Elisha and when he found Elisha ploughing with oxen, Elijah threw his mantle over him and told him to remember what Elijah had done!

The following is from the Book of Kings (if interested Plz find out which Book of Kings)

19 So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him.

20 And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him, Go back again: for what have I done to thee?

There are many versions, as translations and I’m inclined to reproduce the one which is contemporaneous to the English spoken by this generation:

New Living Translation

Elisha left the oxen standing there, ran after Elijah, and said to him, “First let me go and kiss my father and mother good-bye, and then I will go with you!” Elijah replied, “Go on back, but think about what I have done to you.”

That was merely a casting of the mantle for an onlooker, but for Elijah and Elisha it had a special meaning and significance. Elijah didn’t give any instructions, much less did Elijah tell Elisha, like Jesus said: FOLLOW ME! Merely the casting of the mantle took place and Elisha was enlightened to imbibe the significance and as the later chapters inform, Elisha not only followed him but got back the mantle of Elijah when Elijah was taken up. A legacy. A legacy left behind AFTER the casting of the mantle. I’m sure that there were two different mantle.

One is the ‘mantle of calling’ and the second ‘the mantle of legacy’. The first one was cast by the will of Elijah, but the second mantle was ‘received as the legatee’ !

Each, of these two, is distinct. One is given on the instructions of God – God’s infinite grace, the second falls on one when one is worthy.

In politics, I’ve seen that there are many mantles which have been languishing for want of deserving persons. For example the mantle of the Mahatma Gandhi is lying unadorned by any man, the mantle of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is also lying unadorned, such are the mantles of great social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, EV Ramasamy Periyar, and great political administrators like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel.

What is amusing to watch in Indian politics is that from time to time unworthy, but ambitious men and women of straw, who being puffed up with notions by the support of their factotums, not only steal and wear those richly golden embroidered mantles very ceremoniously and expect the educated people to believe that they are the incarnations of those giants but expect those educated lot to write praises of comparison!

They had lost sight that first it has to be cast for calling and secondly, the mantle has to be delivered beyond the will of the person who had worn that mantle earlier!

Alms and Elon Musk.

Alms by definition is providing to the deprived seeker. Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount has this to say regarding alms giving:

Matthew 6:

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

There is a possibility of conflation of the idea of ‘alms giving’ and ‘Offering to God’ as is expounded by Jesus at Mark 12:

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

The reason for conflation appears to have its genesis in the idea of ‘giving something to someone, which is not due’.

The first passage from the Bible is predicated on sharing one’s resources with a less fortunate person; the second is predicated upon one’s sense of gratitude towards God. In both the instances the question of repayment doesn’t arise, though ‘reward’ has been promised by Jesus in the case of alms giving.

Yet these are two classes of ‘giving’ and Jesus spoke of ‘alms giving’ to be done in secret and not for recognition by other human beings, whereas the offering to God may be forced by circumstances to be done in the open.

While talking of ‘loving one’s neighbour’ , Jesus gives the allegory of the Good Samaritan.

The Good Samaritan did something which was neither planned nor provisioned for, but the moment he found himself in a situation which warranted human interference to save another life, the Samaritan went into helping the man with his resources. That was an instance of ‘Loving one’s neighbour’.

So where do we slot the United Nations’ WFP and its Director David Beasley, who named and urged Elon Musk to be charitable and alleviate the hunger of those who starve globally and naming the figure of usd 6.6 billion?

The United Nations and its various arms, with avowed roles to play in specific areas, which have been the recipient of largesse from Nations, has now through UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) turned with a begging bowl to billionaires for carrying out its avowed charter, which seems ridiculous.

To openly name potential donors without their consent is worse still! To put an amount of $ 6.6 billion for rescuing the starving population soon after Elon Musk became the world’s richest person smacks of greed – based on a thought that “if he has it, he has to share it”, after all I am the repository of all altruistic global efforts on eradicating hunger! And this David Beasley becomes an ALMS ADMINISTRATOR!

Elon Musk is not one who is taken in by these cerebral blackmails! After all he has gone through the knife’s edge to get wherever he is. No single man has had greater altruistic feelings for mankind than Elon Musk himself – who could have thought that we got to plant people in other planets so that if the Earth faced the threat of elimination, we could save mankind and ensure its survival at least in other planets? None – even the UN doesn’t have such lofty ambitions.

Elon just did not sell the idea of interplanetary space faring civilisation and make his billions, he did something concrete and helped a nation’s Space exploration at a much minimised cost, with NASA. Elon knows all about what money can do! When David Beasley of WFP tried that silly request, Elon came up with the issue of transparency in accounting! Beasley said that all their accounts are open! What a white lie it is.

If one were to visit the accounts of the various data available on the operational expenses of the UN programmes, it is easy to find that their accounting policies are couched in a set of rules and practices which are as transparent as a nimbus clouds- it promises a downpour but sheds no light!

The media which have been the beneficiary of the advertisements of these UN arms have been concocting articles portraying as if Elon had committed a faux pas by having demanded an open accounting process!

In the name of charity, we have seen Nations selling arms to itself and defraying those expenses out of the UN funds! Inviting people as goodwill ambassadors of UN and providing junkets to celebrities and their cohorts – not that it shouldn’t be done, but when one uses others’ resources one should show a semblance of modesty! That’s been lacking and that is what Elon wanted.

But at the end of it, if Elon wants to do his charity why should he do it through another agency? After all Bill Gates and his ex wife have their own Charities, why not a richer person like Elon?

People tend to forget that Elon has NOT REACHED THE AGE OF WARREN BUFFETT OR BILL GATES OR JEFF BEZOS! Elon has plenty of time left, while he is still fighting his multiple battles with Tesla’s competitors like Rivian and Lucid, just in one vertical of his business, why push him?

When Elon’s right hand does Charity, even his left hand would NOT know it. He has already rescued mankind from inflated bills and expense-account writing businesses! What Elon has taught mankind is far more charitable than what he can spend on WFP and their charter!

Leave Elon alone 🔥

David – the Shepherd sent to deliver food!

Sometimes in Life, certain demeaning tasks – like running errands or delivering food- are assigned by our superiors. One of those instances is narrated below:

17 And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run to the camp to thy brethren.

18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge.

Jesse, Father of David, assigned the task of running an errand and delivering some eatables to his three brothers and the Captain of their band of thousand men.

There is no mention of David as to whether he was willing to do the task or grudgingly did it. Whatever it be, he went to deliver the eatables to his brothers and take a pledge to show that his brothers were alive and doing well.

The intent of Jesse was to find out the well-being of his three sons and Jesse thought that the eighth son David was the one who could be spared for such a mundane task. Jesse did not know the skills David had honed. In the previous chapter at 1 Samuel 16, the person who recommends David to Saul says thus:

17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me.

18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.

To fit in the chronology of the events between chapter 16 and 17, should be left to those with the skills and aptitude, as a layman’s interpretation may lead to a polemic as to whether Samuel anointed David first or whether David fought Goliath first!

Since my blog is just a slice presented in an expatiated form to highlight a point, to be beset with apparently contradicting facts would be merely a digression, hence those facts are being ignored.

The point of this blog is that there are three persons involved, Jesse, David and God!

Jesse’s intent was to employ the services of his last son David as a carrier of eatables. Joseph was once sent on such an errand by his father Jacob and that landed joseph in the jail before he became the Governor of Egypt. Jacob, for this indiscretion of throwing joseph to the likes of his other bloodthirsty and greedy sons ended up believing for 20 years that his beloved wife Rachel’s first son Joseph was dead!

But in this instance Jesse was not so unfortunate, though David’s brothers were less virulent than Joseph’s brothers- rather David was of a better mettle not to be browbeaten or intimidated by his elder brothers Eliab, Aminadab and Shammah! He circumvented them and got nominated by King Saul for contesting the Champion Goliath. David’s skills, initiative, cunning, might be ascribed to have helped him to win the fight, but to get nominated was not in his hands!

An untested David gets nominated by Saul to contest a battle hardened veteran Goliath!

I’ve written a blog earlier on David


Which I think should be read along with this blog.

The skills honed in idle hours might have been David’s effort but to get nominated by Saul to fight Goliath was not entirely in David’s or Saul’s hands!

God’s ways are inscrutable!

I believe that the call by Jesse to deliver the eatables to his brothers was the design of God. God had already strengthened David’s hands to fight and had instilled David with the courage to look Goliath in his eyes and say that the God whom he worships would give Goliath’s flesh to the birds of the air!

That was the time to redeem the skill through action and God in His infinite wisdom makes Jesse to send him on an innocuous errand which turns out to be an historic event.

All journeys do not turn out to be historic, but once God has strengthened one’s hands and bolstered one’s spirit, each Christian should believe that his innocuous inane errand, whatever be the original intent of the sender, would turn out to be eventful. It is in that belief that God works. God loves a person who not only takes the initiative but also believes that God opens rather creates doors where none exists!

The fishy tax payment by Jesus & Peter

God, includes Jesus, doesn’t want any human being to pay taxes on illegally enacted and antisocial legislations and their Rules etc. – Would that be a truthful statement?

I have to quote the whole passage to refresh my memory of those verses, which might even lead to serendipitous discovery of a missed understanding of Christianity.

Matthew 17:24…

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 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.

The three words which need to be defined are

1. Tribute

2. Custom

3. Money

Tribute” in Roman times, referred to a certain sum periodically paid to the Victor/Captor country by the vanquished country, which was collected from the citizens of the vanquished country, for making such payments to the Victor country.

Custom“ refers to the taxes imposed on goods which were brought from outside jurisdictions, which is ultimately collected from the purchaser of the goods but is levied on the seller at the time of him bringing those goods into the customs levying jurisdiction. Customs is prepaid before the sale mostly, but definitely before delivery.

Money“ is the most difficult to define as its functions are more important than what it was originally intended for. If one were to ask a bitcoiner, he would say that Money is a medium for store of value. If one reads the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle- which defines Money as a measure of value for equitable exchange of goods and services, then it is ‘measure of value’.

But from this passage of the Bible, Jesus looks into the purpose of deployment of such money. Jesus looks into the ‘taxation’ carried out by the Romans on the Israelites – one is a ‘tribute tax’ the other being ‘custom’ – a tax levied on goods brought into from other jurisdictions.

Jesus asks Peter, do the kings levy tribute and customs on their citizens? Peter says: No. That’s because a country doesn’t levy ‘tribute’ on its own citizens, because sovereign citizens don’t have to pay tribute, Israel then being a vassal state was bound to pay the agreed indemnity amount called Tribute.

Therefore, when Jesus visited Capernaum, He and Peter had to pay taxes as they were from Galilee.

Jesus does something amazing at this moment:

1. Compliance without conviction

2. Payment for such taxes are made out of resources generated NOT OUT OF ONE’S SWEAT OR TOIL

Jesus tells Peter, let us not offend the Tax Collectors therefore let us pay the Tribute. Jesus didn’t believe in the Tribute imposed on him, yet He complied with that unjust tax being levied on a citizen whose country had become a vassal state.

The way Jesus defrays the tax obligation is even more interesting: He tells Peter to catch fish by dropping a hook – not a net. In all the other instances where fishing was involved Jesus always talks of casting the net, but when it comes to paying those unjust taxes, He instructed Peter to drop a hook and catch that fish which came up first, open its mouth and find a ‘piece of money’ and that piece of money was instructed to be used for making payment of the Tribute Tax.

If we read this as a whole, this incident shows that the unjust claims of the puppet governments need NOT be met out of the hard earned resources but out of the miscellaneous gains made during the course of one’s engagement in the society. Not all obligations are lawful but they have to be met – so don’t waste the money given by the devotees, disciples and benefactors.

I would also like to narrate what would have happened after the fish was caught:

Jesus would have instructed Peter to release the first fish caught once the piece of money was recovered from its mouth. The purpose of that fish swallowing the piece of money was to deliver the same to fulfill the unjust obligations imposed on Jesus. That fish should NOT be sold or eaten immediately. After all even the Jealous God the Father, in one of the commandments had instructed that ‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk’ (Exodus 34:26). Why was that Commandment given – the kid which ought to be nourished on its mother’s milk should not be used to boil the kid! Don’t yoke together LIFE and DEATH. Don’t take the benefit of Life from a person and use that to kill the person! It was that mental COMPASSION, which has withstood the rest of time and exalted the Name above every other Name!

Likewise the fish which was designated to deliver the piece of money, shouldn’t be used for consumption immediately – though it could be caught later by fishers for eating purposes.

The Queen

Aren’t you my slave? He asked.

She said: why do you merely want to be a slave driver?

What else could I be? He said.

She said: I could become the Queen!

Without me? He asked

She said: Through you!!

He realised his potential.

Nataraja Mudaliar & my memories of him at Ceylon Pentecostal Mission church!

Many would have heard Brother Nataraja Mudaliar but very few would have seen him perform live. That was in 1969 or so, Bro. Nataraja Mudaliar used to attend the evening church worship at the then Ceylon Pentecostal Mission church, which was some where near Mekala theatre in Chennai.

The church had a thatched hall – thatched with coconut palm leaves and periodically the church members were enlisted to involve themselves in the thatching – so that the cost could be kept to the minimum. CPM, as it was then called, had a huge hall and an abutting open ground on two sides. On the far end from the entrance was a printing machine room, which was used for printing VOICE OF PENTECOST, a periodical, the periodicity of which i don’t recall now. I remember that the main editor was Bro. Sukumaran, a man who was dour and hardly smiled. It takes all types to make any religious congregation, and probably he didn’t have anyone with his intellectual accomplishments from within the CPM congregation to build up an easy disposition.

There was a pastor called C. John, who was credited with writing the lyrics of many CPM songs in Tamil. CPM is an institution which would be a good study on how an organisation is to be built, without allowing the seminal contributors to run away with the credit! The contributions should be diffused and no trace of history should be left behind in the name of any of those contributing individuals!

This was probably an organisational mindset as an aftermath to the Pastor Alwyn split! To give an interlude- Pastor Alwyn walked out of CPM taking, like Jacob, a good part of the flock, which contributed to their revenue model then in the 60’s. I don’t imply that those left behind were Laban, Laban met Jacob and realised that his daughters were with Jacob and any rash move would jeopardise their weal and hence desisted from reprisal for reclaiming his lost flock. But those residue, who stayed behind in the CPM, had nothing more to lose and probably became a virulent strain of self righteous and fastidious Pentecostals, and they laid such a foundation, that the edifice on which it stands now, rechristened as THE PENTECOSTAL MISSION, is entirely to be credited to those who embarked on such exclusive determined action. 1969 could not have been very far from those Pastor Allwyn triggered schism, so to find those dour and unsmiling austere persons in the congregation was not rare. Prof. Sukumaran was one of those. He was one of the few erudite persons in the congregation- organisationally, a person who could translate the agenda of the Malayali Pastors who were at the helm. If I remember right, there was this very sophisticated looking Pastor by name A.C. Thomas. Probably a Malayali or a Srilankan. He had sharp features, short in stature, fair in complexion and spoke impeccable English – which was highly valued in CPM then- and carried himself with great dignity.

Many of the Tamil songs said to have been written by Pastor C. John had been rendered by Bro. Nataraja Mudaliar. One of those songs was காணீர் அற்புதம் வானத்திலே …..

Bro Nataraja Mudaliar has also sung many of those songs composed by Sister Sarah Navaroji.

I used to be seated not very far away from Bro. Nataraja Mudaliar, whenever he attended the evensong at CPM. And if I remember right, I had seen him play the accordion Hohner standing – except without the footstool which was depicted for the brand icon of Hohner!

I am yet to hear an evangelist or a Christian preacher in India who could play an interlude like Bro Nataraja Mudaliar.

To understand Bro Nataraja Mudaliar‘s style and substance one should read the following and thereafter listen to his rendition of those songs:

Bro Nataraja Mudaliar ensured that the lyrics did NOT get drowned in the accompanying music. One could hear the lyrics enunciated crisply.

During the singing of the lyrics one could hear the percussion but not the stringed and wind instruments. The stringed and wind instruments would glide into the song towards the end of that line and rise to a voluble interlude, so rapid and tapering off as the next line of the lyrics is to be played.

This is probably what Sis. Sarah Navaroji did in her HMV recordings when the Tamil Cinema Music Director T A Kalyanam headed the orchestral Music to Sister Sarah Navaroji’s singing in those recordings.

The interlude played by Bro. Nataraja Mudaliar was exhilarating, you stop listening to the lyrics and await the short and fast changing notes of the interlude. What a player and his singing, though not in the class of the best vocalists, it overflowed with conviction and sincerity.

Even today I hear his music for the gliding in with the interlude and sliding off when a new line of the lyrics dawns.

I still remember with awe the nimbleness with which his fingers played on the keys, and the power with which he bellowed to give additional impact to certain parts of the interlude. The interludes would be creative and worth listening.

I’ve posted some links of his songs just to give a feel of Bro. Nataraja Mudaliar’s virtuosity in accordion playing.

He should also be said to be the first person who popularised Safari suits for evangelists, in those days when white and saffron were the colours of an evangelist, he turned out in classy Safari suits and showed that God doesn’t bestow poverty, but man, to avoid the supposed evil eye of his brethren, chooses to clothe himself in such dowdy clothes!



Happy listening

The Perch

On the coconut tree, facing my house, on the top branch sits a kite cranking its neck up, down, above and below. Watchful with predatory eyes and announcing its presence with its trill.

On that branch of the coconut tree sneaks a crow and shares the perch, with the imperial kite.

The kite has a job to do – to protect its young one, which is tentatively perched closer to the coconuts, helplessly watching its parent kite and assuring itself periodically of its protection, from those scavenging crows, by looking at its parent kite.

Those crows believe that coconut tree branches are their natural perch, but for want of better height, kites have made those coconut trees their home.

The kites and crows have their opinions of the coconut tree top. The crows believe it is their natural home, but the kite believes that when higher positions are unavailable, the crows have to make way for the kites to make its home.

The kites when they have to protect and nurture their young ones, have a dual duty of guarding as well as procuring food for itself and its young ones. The crows sniff the kite’s predicament- and the scavenging crows after a good feed- perch on the same branch as the kites, to bask on the vulnerabilities of the kites.

City scapes have deprived the kites of their high altitude perch and have to choose the transmission towers or coconut trees.

When need strikes, perches are shared- even among unequals!

The Laban Scheme – Crypto currency racket in India.

I personally believe whether other crypto currencies thrive because of Indians or not, Bitcoin is going to thrive because of the retail investors in BTC. And let me tell you it is a racket.

In 2018, the Reserve Bank of India banned institutional support of trading in BTCs till in 2020 the Supreme Court of India struck down the Regulations.

The result is that Crypto exchanges have mushroomed all over and some of those have even sponsored some big events! They are in a publicity binge.

Why so?

All the exchanges are talking about BTCs and giving free BTCs worth around ₹500 to anyone who would open an account with them.

Let us pause for a minute and understand what is “₹500 worth of BTC!”

The smallest denomination of a BTC is a Satoshi.

What is the value of a satoshi?

The value of a Satoshi is one BTC divided 10,00,00,000. So the Bitcoin and Satoshi are separated by miles!

To put it in perspective, One satoshi is 0.000000001 of a BTC.

There’s a lot of verbal calisthenics in the marketing of BTCs in India. For example the hundredth paise after ninety nine, makes the rupee, as regards a BTC, the tenth crore satoshi after nine crore ninety nine lakhs ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine would make ONE BTC.

So what is it that one gets when one is given a free entry into the exchanges with an initial bonus of ₹500?

At the time of my writing this blog (10/09/2021) the value of one BTC in ₹ terms is

₹ 34,60,917. In terms of Indian rupees one Satoshi would have to be divided by 100000000 to arrive at its its exchange rate in Indian rupees, which would be

₹0. 0346. That’s roughly three and a half paise! In fact whatever a small time retailer buys, is never mentioned in Satoshi, which would be the unit of purchase. Which means when an Exchange offers a free ₹500, that the Exchange would credit to their account 1445 satoshis, but the retailer who has been credited with 1445 satoshi would be so happy to see that he has already made 0.000001445 of a BTC!

From hereon one would be gratified that one has started building his investments in BTC – the mother of all cryptos.

To have a clearer understanding, if a person were to invest ₹10,000 per week every week, it would take seven years to reach today’s value of one BTC, but the irony is that, the value of one BTC is NOT going to remain static for that person to acquire one BTC! In all likelihood, after the halving of 2024, BTC would become a rarer commodity and the value, even if BTC had doubled by then, the investor has to make a weekly investment of ₹10,000 for the another seven years! So his dream of earning one BTC would take 14 years, but the story would not end, by then on the 8th year there would be another halving and in the 12th year there would be another halving!

The foolish retail investor could weekly pay the exchanges ₹10,000 and yet the investor would not be the owner of a single BTC till Kingdom come.

This is a typical LABAN SCHEME. Show Rachel and push Leah; after pushing Leah, allow Rachel to also marry Jacob (concession to the investor); then Leah and Rachel together would give their handmaiden (develop the numbers in the family), but you can never leave the Syrian Laban with your wives or your Sheep and cattle! The investor would be in thrall and yet be kept in hope of a bright future!

The exchanges are talking of BTCs but they are pushing a minuscule part of a BTC; yet the exchanges themselves would be leveraging the BTCs they collectively hold on behalf of their retail clients.

Every transaction would enhance the kitty of the exchange, which in turn could leverage it! In India with the truly literate level being definitely not the stats provided by the States, which are competing with each other in data embellishment, there is very little hope of any of the crypto investor securing his BTC holdings in cold storage. Thereby, leaving his holdings in the hands of the Exchange “runners”, as they wouldn’t have any territorially determinable office – Definitely not within India, much less amenable to the Indian laws. It may not be a surprise if they vanish without a trace citing hacking and myriad other reasons!

Welcome to the world of FINANCIAL INSANITY with the LABAN SCHEME!

(Let us get this one straight, my writing is limited by my understanding of Cryptos and as the wise one says, despite one’s understanding, ignorance far outweighs, out-numbers one’s knowledge. Hence this is NO FINANCIAL ADVICE – this is purely written for my pleasure and if you gain, it is God given SPIN OFF, if not, carry your cross and follow – Whom, that you may decide)

Undifferentiated Wages in kind – Laban & Jacob!

Anyone familiar with the history of Jacob would know that Jacob left his father-in-law Laban without informing him, along with the cattle he had ‘earned’, the goods he had accumulated, and the ‘CATTLE OF HIS GETTING’ besides his wives and children.

The triggering point is found in the first two verses of chapter thirty one in the Book of Genesis.

1 And he heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father’s; and of that which was our father’s hath he gotten all this glory.

2 And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and, behold, it was not toward him as before.

If we read the last few verses of the thirtieth chapter of Genesis, Jacob’s possessions are mentioned thus:

43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

If one is perceptive one could sense that the conflict arose sequentially based on the increase of Jacob’s goods in his father-in-law’s house; that being noticed by Laban’s sons and filled with envy; Laban’s sons complaining to Laban that Jacob had ‘increased exceedingly’ because of the cattle and goods of Laban!

What Laban’s sons failed to account was the LABOUR OF TWENTY YEARS – diligent labour of twenty years.

Like Longfellow put it with a lilt:

The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.

When Laban’s sons were sleeping, Jacob was toiling upwards in the night, in his own words Jacob says:

I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night.

40 Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.

41 Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times.

Labour, labour, labour! The mistake was that there was no money – at least there wasn’t a currency system like the ones controlled by the central banks and exploited by the other banks! So labour had to be indexed against wages and wages was determined by the productivity; and in the case of Jacob, wages was determined as flocks and cattle.

It is through labour that Jacob got his share of cattle. Even though Jacob says that he had separated his flock and cattle from that of Laban’s, since he came in with nothing except a gritty heart, he probably was seen as a person who lived off his father in law.

But when Jacob gained an upper hand when Laban couldn’t find anything that belonged to Laban after the search, Jacob is emboldened to talk about the rigours of his labour. May be out of deference to his son-in-law, or after perceiving that his daughters were not on his side, Laban listens to the rigours of the labour of Jacob.

Yet for the purpose of this blog, I cannot imagine that without Jacob’s diligent labour and watchfulness, the flocks of Laban would have grown the way it was reported to have grown. Therefore I’m inclined to believe that Jacob was narrating his travails truthfully.

The point is that Laban’s sons lived in a state of entitlement, knowing very little that diligence with hardwork fetched its own rewards.

Jacob worked hard and the time had come for him to sever his property from that of Laban’s otherwise, Laban’s sons would malign Jacob’s reputation in a strange land!

It is in that severance that things come to the head!

Laban who was the primary beneficiary of the labour of Jacob, knew fully well that it was the labour of Jacob which kept him unengaged from the troubles of raising a flock and tending to the cattle. Laban’s investments were growing and recoverable anytime!

It was this which kept Laban happy, but when his sons poisoned his mind by dropping a thought that the capital was Laban’s and that it was the outcome of that capital, which had made Jacob affluent, turned Laban against Jacob, regarding which Jacob makes a mention by saying that Laban’s countenance was not towards him as before.

Labour gets lost and the gains of the labour is very difficult to store by the labourer. When such labour is stored as a part of the capital, which belongs to the person who supplied the capital, labour is discounted. To sever the wages from the capital is the biggest difficulty.

For example, the labour of the Jews in Egypt was stored as gold and infrastructure in the land of Egypt. There was no option for severaibility. Hence Moses devised a method whereby, the Jews borrowed gold ornaments from the Egyptians and left for the lands of Canaan for good!

Labour has to be received as wages and segregated and should be kept under the control of the labourer, to use it as he pleases. But when the labour is not indexed into wages in money terms, and such labour gets integrated with the capital, the labourer becomes disgruntled and the only way is to take it and leave. And when the gold or capital leaves, the owner of the capital feels his capital has diminished and pursued the labourer who had left with the capital, thought it was not only capital but also unpaid fair wages.

As Christians, one should not only pay fair wages but should also provide ways to put the wages immediately into the hands of the labourer, and NOT COUNT the unpaid fair wages as capital. This leads to stealing in future, by those who had laboured.

That’s proven, according to me, from the lives of the Jews in Egypt and Jacob in Syria with Laban.

Investment in BTC gives the drug convicts the appreciated differential – in Sweden!

Though the article is not clear on facts, the sensational title conveys the following:

That certain investments made by drug dealers were assessed and as the investment from drug money was in the form of Bitcoins, the value of the Bitcoins on that day was converted into Swedish kroner for the purpose of adjudication.

Therefore the property to be attached/confiscated was indexed in Swedish kroner and the judgement, after trial (probably), confiscated the amount in the assessed Swedish Kroner. Since the primary asset (?) of BTCs we’re still kept as BTCs, those BTCs appreciated and the confiscated amount was not the value of the BTCs, as on the day of the judgement but in Swedish kroner, as predetermined in Swedish Kroner.

Since there has been an appreciation in value of the BTCs from the date of the chargesheet (?) and the date of judgement, the amount to be confiscated was determined as only the amount equivalent to the converted Swedish kroner!

The residual amount out of the sale of the BTCs should be given back to those convicted drug dealers!

This situation is a double edged sword:

How are the prosecutors to suppose the appreciation in value of the BTCs in future?

Supposing BTCs had declined in value, would the prosecutors not been taken to task for not having converted the value of the BTCs into fiat currency as on the date of the seizure?

When BTCs have not been recognised as assets or money, the Swedish prosecutors couldn’t have seized it as an asset or a money, maybe they could have seized it as a commodity, if so, considering the volatility of the BTCs seized, why didn’t they sell it and monetise it in fiat currency so that the appreciated value would not have accrued to the benefit of those Drug convicts?

Supposing the value of BTCs had depreciated, How would the Swedish prosecutors have realised the value, as on the date of seizure?

In any criminal proceeds, if the seizure were to be in goods, and the goods were considered to be perishable, those goods are to be auctioned off expeditiously and the proceeds considered the value of the goods seized.

In this case, when the volatility is well known, at least not to be left with a depreciated value, why didn’t the prosecutors monetise the same. This would have avoided the convicted criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime.

Isn’t it?

In effect the prosecutors have enriched the criminals and have also aided them in discharging their criminal liabilities in full 😎

Data and the interpretation thereof!

The following is excerpted from an article titled What Bitcoin Price Predictions Teach Us About Tribalistic Thinking, which appeared in MEDIUM. I am impelled to excerpt the same below as my paraphrasing abilities wouldn’t come anywhere near the lucidity with which the idea had been expressed.

It all boils down to this. There are two kinds of people, or tribes, in the world: those who believe in technical analysis (or fill in the blank with your favorite tribe), and those who don’t. I happen to fall in the latter camp, in part because that was my academic upbringing, and yet some of my own research is not consistent with the EMH. I’m willing to be convinced to switch tribes if there is compelling evidence. Despite his harsh words, even Malkiel is also able to make the case for why technical analysis might work: for example, he points out that “the crowd instinct of mass psychology” of investors jumping on the bandwagon could propel stock prices in a continuation of a trend. I tend to put a lot of weight in the academic evidence. That being said, there is so much subjectivity in the interpretation of charts that it’s very difficult for academics to devise a test of their efficacy. What I do know is that I’ll be watching bitcoin’s price closely to see if it penetrates the neckline, and if it does, how far it drops.

There’s a much broader take-away beyond the relatively narrow realm of investing. Whatever “tribes” you belong to, make sure you understand where the other tribes are coming from. Listen and learn, even if you don’t agree with them. Don’t just go out and buy Technical Analysis of Stock Trends and become a chartist. Don’t just go out and buy A Random Walk Down Wall Street and become an EMH-er. Buy both books, give it some thought, investigate, and then perhaps join a tribe. I’m glad I have both books on my bookshelf.

Listen to opposing points of view. Keep an open mind. Look at the evidence. Be mindful of all of the tribes you belong to and be respectful to those that you don’t belong to.

Stephen Foerster is a co-author, with Andrew Lo, of In Pursuit of the Perfect Portfolio: The Stories, Voices, and Key Insights of the Pioneers Who Shaped the Way We Invest, Princeton University Press (August 17, 2021).

To transpose this idea to the data on COVID from STATISTA would be very interesting. STATISTA, seems to me to be the best source for data since they obtain their data from both governmental sources, the NGOs and various other sources and try to arrive at a harmonised data set, which I think is credible.

The data put out by the Governments have to be aligned with the earlier proclamations made, the preparedness for the future and most importantly facts have to be trimmed to keep the morale of its citizens high, and even project to the other nations that they are performing as per the international outcomes.

NGOs have their own charter and they go around ferreting for data from sources, not yet factored by the Governmental sources, and bring out the discrepancies to malign the parties performing the functions of the Government. In between these ideologically presented forces lies the Commercial interest of the various medical interests, which are profit driven! In this melee to arrive at the facts and consequently project the future trajectory would be impossible. As such, it is better as suggested, at the close of the excepted portion, to know both the interpretations, not merely for the purpose of choosing or identifying where one belongs but also to sympathetically view the other point of view.

Being a Protestant, I did not subscribe to the concept of the LIMBO or the PURGATORY. But when ranged against two massive interests, instead of being an ignorant onlooker and being swayed by the power of the Heaven and the Hell, better to be in a place to observe both and at least feel good with a falsely inflated sense of understanding!

God & Balaam’s enchantments!

The exposition from the pulpits of the history of Balaam stops with an equivocally greedy prophet who went with the Moab King Balak to curse the people of Israel, who were on their way to the land of Canaan. But is that all there is to this episode?

Let us get a bit of the flavour of the New Testament on this:

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Revelations 2:14

So John in his Revelations says that the Church at Pergamos holds on to a doctrine of enticing people to indulge in activities which would alienate them from their God and thereby remove the protection which God gives his people.

Let us advert to Numbers 22 to see if Balaam advised Balak to entice the Israelites and ensnare them through making them eat food offered to the idols and wiving from the pagans and thereby alienate the Israelites from God?

There is nothing in the Book of Numbers, in fact Balak was so displeased with Balaam that the parting words were:

11 Therefore now flee thou to thy place: I thought to promote thee unto great honour; but, lo, the LORD hath kept thee back from honour.

Yet, Balaam doesn’t depart till he foretells the future of the Amalekites, Midianites, and their associates! The contents of Balaam’s foretelling were more a curse than a foretelling. I have to presume that Balak was not around, had he been around Balaam would hardly have been spared, such were his prophecy on those Moabites and their ilk.

The Chapter ends with the curses predicted by Balaam on the Moabites and in the very next chapter we could read the Israelites wiving from the Moabites and eating the food offered to the idols of Baal in a place called Peor, ending in a plague killing 24,000 Israelites.

Did the vision of John, instead of juxtaposing these events, import and attribute the wanton behaviour of some Israelites to the advice by Balaam and make it the causative factor, resulting in the undoing of the Israelites at Peor?

To ascertain facts, it is too late in the day. Either we could believe that it was revealed to John that it was Balaam who advised Balak of this snare and saved his own life, or that John believed that it was Balaam’s idea which made Balak resort to this enticement ploy!

But do we have any clues within the text in Numbers that Balaam could have done this?

I believe that there are enough situations within the Numbers to show that Balaam must have advised Balak to try this ruse of enticing the Israelites and probably saved his life after cursing the Moabites, Amalekites and their ilk..

I believe that Balaam, though had the ears of God of Abraham and Isaac, it was NOT through enchantments that he was able to establish the link twice, but because of the compassion of God, as is evidenced by his third communion with God wherein he ABANDONED his enchantments and lifted up his eyes to the wilderness and called upon God and God answered Balaam.

Let us leave all this and look at it this way!

Did Balaam really have the ears of God? Maybe not.

God, who neither sleeps nor slumbers, wanted to demoralise the Moabites through the very person on whom they reposed their faith – Balaam. Moabites believed that if Balaam were to curse the Israelites, Israelites would be enfeebled! God leads them on through the very Balaam on whom these Moabites trusted and makes him not only bless the Israelites but makes Balaam predict unsavoury future events about the Moabites and their cohorts!

It is like the dream narrated by a soldier to another from the Midianite camp when God made Gideon overhear the interpretation – the result was Gideon gets emboldened and the Midianite soldiers get disheartened. It is that demoralisation which God did here to the Moabites too.

God’s plan was probably to give the Israelites a victory over the Moabites through demoralising them by the very person on whom they believed – Balaam.

God’s ways are inscrutable. God spoke to Balaam just to lead the Moabites to give up fighting and grant a victory to the Israelites without a war.

But in the meanwhile being drawn by the fleshly lusts, the Israelites went and wived from the Moabites and started serving the very Baal who couldn’t save the Moabites from the fear of those very Israelites, who were led by the God thru Moses!

This is an example of God standing by His own peoples when they themselves do not know the machinations of their enemies and are unaware of the impending curse, which though may not work, yet may embolden the enemies to fight valiantly. God removed the backbone of the Moabites to fight the Israelites much before the fear of the Israelites, licking them up as an ox licks grass, could become a reality !

Getting back to the advice, Balaam was perverse and the Angel of the Lord says “because thy ways are perverse!”

God is merciful and allows Balaam to go with the messengers of Balak, as Balaam is partially after the reward that the king Balak would give, probably harbouring in the recesses of his mind that in case the word of the Lord coincided with the intent of Balak, Balaam could benefit!

But the Angel of the Lord is not expected to be merciful. The Angel has some duties and he has to perform it and the Angel knows, or at least thinks that Balaam is PERVERSE and that’s why we see the conflict between God’s allowance and the Rules of God. Angel is the executor, he is guided by the intent of Balaam and not by the enchantments and supplications of Balaam, he knows and he takes action.

I am amazed at the way God protects His people! He allows Balaam to persist with his greedy ways, yet turns the intended curse to a blessing; God has an Angel who shakes up a double minded perverse Balaam, by making the ass talk to Balaam in his presence! During all this the Moab King Balak is exhausting his energy and getting demoralised! The enemies of God’s people have no chance when God Himself gets into the situation and provides protection unknown even to the beneficiaries themselves.

One more important event takes place: there are three places where Balaam is taken to, by Balak the King of Moab, first to Arnon and Baalaam resorts to his enchantments to establish his link with God, God in His infinite Mercy responds, though Balaam believes that God responded because of his enchantments. The next place where Balak takes Balaam is to the top of Mount Pisgah – does it ring a bell? It should because, it was from the summit of Nebo of the Mount Pisgah that Moses was shown the whole land that the Israelites were to inherit as per the covenant of God with Abraham and Isaac- it is in one of those fields in Mount Pisgah, from the fields of Zophim, that Balak shows the Israelites spread out in the plains abutting Moab.
Balaam again resorts to enchantments to establish communion with God. Balaam still believed that his enchantments were the reason for finding favour of establishing that link with God – God still obliges, all because God is interested in His covenant to protect the up till then the law compliant Israelites, even though the Israelites themselves were not aware of the protection that God was providing. To bring in a contemporary image without demeaning the protection of God but to understand how despite our ignorance our protection may be at play, Virus protection against malware when being connected to the internet would be apt. The beneficiary himself would not be aware of the protection, but the Anti Virus is silently doing its job in the background. God’s protection is without any time gaps, SEAMLESS, whether in nanoseconds or eons.

Finally, Balak takes Balaam to the third place Peor and importunes Balaam to curse his enemies – the Israelites. Balaam realises that his enchantments are NOT WORKING and totally abandons his enchantments and looks over the wilderness and GOD DEIGNS to talk to Balaam.

Why did Balaam, only in the third instance understand that his enchantments are to no avail?

Herein lies the mystery. Man’s efforts cannot cross the second barrier.
Recall that the magicians and the Chaldeans of the Pharaoh’s court were NOT ABLE TO REPLICATE THE THIRD PLAGUE? It fails after the second.

The third is the Holy Spirit at play. Balaam realised his limitations and realised that it was NOT his enchantments which made God speak to Balaam, but that it was God’s relentless protection to the Israelites which deigned to respond to Balaam – after all Balaam is also God’s creation. The point is that Balaam abandoning his enchantments before taking his parable for uttering God’s revelation, is the second testimony after the magicians of Pharaoh stating that God cannot be accessed through human effort or human knowledge or through rituals and enchantments. It is in this context that Balaam says: THERE IS NO ENCHANTMENT AGAINST JACOB NEITHER IS THERE ANY DIVINATION AGAINST ISRAEL! A statement made by a person given to enchantment and the practice of black arts.

I wish the preachers in the Pulpits get beyond the apparent and get into the whole narration and provide interpretations for edification and not skirting issues like: When Balaam was a pagan given to enchantments, why did God listen to Balaam every time?

Joseph & the Pharaoh of Egypt:

So the Pharaoh told his dreams to the magicians and wiseman in his Kingdom and none was able to give an interpretation of the Pharaoh’s dreams.

Finally on the recommendation of the cupbearer of the Pharaoh, Joseph is quickly called out from the prison and Joseph expounds the meaning of the dream.

There was and is a huge difference between the dreams of the Pharaoh and the Babylonian Kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. The Babylonian Kings dreamt of the future which was so far away, that in one instance the King insisted on the Chaldeans and the wisemen to not only expound on the dream but to reveal to the King even the very dream to which only Nebuchadnezzar was privy to! A demand which not only sounds unreasonable, to a man of normal prudence, but atrociously undiscoverable except disclosed by the dreamer himself!

Pharaoh’s dreams had an immediacy, the prosperity in the land had to happen shortly, otherwise Joseph’s interpretation would have been thought of as false, with dire consequences to joseph himself. The interpretation could be proved shortly.

The Pharaoh himself was satisfied and started looking for a discreet wise man upon the unsolicited advice of joseph which ran thus:

33 Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt.

34 Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.

35 And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.

36 And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.

In those four verses, Joseph redacts conceptually his experience in administration at Potiphar’s house and within the prison.

Pharaoh mulled over this and his mind was disturbed. He thought “No doubt Joseph is probably a good interpreter, but have i in haste decided to appoint him as the governor of the kingdom?“

The Queen sashayed in and saw the Pharaoh’s agitated thoughts and said: I heard Your Majesty had appointed a molester and attempted rapist as the Governor of the kingdom of Egypt?

The Pharaoh was all the more agitated. He said: So have i heard, but the cupbearer has told me that Joseph had always claimed that he was innocent of the charges of molestation and attempted rape of Mrs. Potiphar.

The Queen said: But that was a claim by one inmate of the dungeon to another. Does your Majesty have to believe, when His Majesty could find out the truthfulness of past facts?

After all Mrs. Potiphar is the wife of the Chief of your Guards, and i had scheduled a party to the wives of the High officials tomorrow, if your Majesty commands me i will ascertain the truth and let you know. In fact it would not be in your administrative interest to ask for such details directly by your Majesty to his own Captain of the Guards.

The Pharaoh was relieved and he said: I need to know the full facts by tomorrow evening and i don’t want to be accused of having appointed an attempted rapist as the Governor of the Kingdom.

Peculiarly, in this party the Queen was slowly gyrating towards Mrs Potiphar. After curtseying to the Queen, Mrs. Potiphar drew nigh to the Queen.

The Queen took her aside and said: Look Mrs. Potiphar, the Pharaoh has appointed the very person who has been accused by you for attempted Rape as the Governor. Don’t you have reasons to fear, if the accusations were falsely made, which is what the other inmates have made people to believe?

Yes your Highness, it all happened so fast that i had to concoct that lie. Joseph was so efficient and the way he managed the household of the Captain unobtrusively drew me like a moth to the flame. Joseph was not like our Egyptians, he was moderate in his appetite, he held a silent command over the other servants, he could do anything aesthetically and most of all he held enormous reserves of his mind – i just couldn’t figure out what could entice him. Shamelessly i confessed my love for him, yet he was so faithful to his tasks and the Captain, whereas day in and day out my passion mounted, unuttered and stifled. That day, i saw that none was in the vicinity and i don’t know what came over me, i pounced on him to attack his senses directly. Joseph ran out leaving behind his clothes and the noise made in the melee triggered a response, and i shouted out apprehending the other servants getting to know about it. In fact i thought Joseph would inform others and i preemptively shouted and created witnesses to bolster my intended false allegations before the Captain.

The Queen listened to the confession of Mrs. Potiphar in absolute silence. She saw in Mrs. Potiphar a certain girlie effervescence even in the narration of her confession. Mrs. Potiphar drew closer to the Queen and imploringly asked: Now that Joseph has made it to the Governorship, May i request your Highness to intercede on my behalf with His Majesty and ensure that my misdemeanour and the false accusation are not brought to light. “Not only the Captain would kill me, all these wives of the high officials would treat me with contempt and if the word spreads around, the Captain’s prestige itself would be diminished.”

The Queen was compassionate and all the more so when she considered that Mrs. Potiphar was one third the age of the Captain and has been maintained by the Captain more as a trophy with no utility value!

The Queen said to herself, i can’t allow past facts to disturb the present peace and prestige of this childless couple, who have been in the service of His Majesty.

The Queen met the Pharaoh that night and narrated with much sympathy and sensitivity the role of Mrs. Potiphar yet extolling the virtuous conduct of Governor Joseph.

The Pharaoh was relieved, yet he resolved to meet Joseph the next day to obtain a promise from him to desist Joseph from using his authority to discover the facts relating to the circumstances which led Joseph to the dungeon.

Joseph made obeisance and entered the Private Chamber of the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh made him seated on the chair opposite his own throne and smiled at Joseph – a man whom Pharaoh considered to be an Angel in human form. He has intimated me what God revealed to me in a dream and has shown Supreme efficiency in handling the administration in all these three days!

Pharaoh opened: There are records, prison records that you had been thrown into the prison some two to three years back and no charge has been mentioned except that you had gained the displeasure of the Captain of my Guards, Mr. Potiphar, while you were in his personal service. I am sure, you have the power now to diminish his dignity.

Joseph lowered his head and gestured his interjection. The Pharaoh said: Go on Joseph.

Joseph said: Your Majesty, i have gone through a lot in my life since i was eighteen years old. I was sold to the Midianites as a teen and ended up a slave in the Captain’s house. Thereafter You Majesty knows why i was put behind bars.

I had relied only on one person My God, the God of my great grandfather Abraham, my grandfather Isaac and my father Jacob. I tend to look at the Good that is engendered through evil. Had i not been sold as a slave i couldn’t have gained the favour of your Majesty; likewise, had i not been accused falsely by the Captain’s spouse, i wouldn’t have met your Majesty’s cupbearer. Had i not met Your Majesty’s cupbearer and not expounded his dreams, he wouldn’t have recommended me to your Majesty. I believe that all things work together for Good to them that love God – and i love God. Your Majesty shall not have any apprehension that i might indulge in any way to diminish the authority of the Captain nor the social standing of Mrs. Potiphar.

The Pharaoh was pleased. Very pleased and mused to himself, what a wise man have i chosen. A man who doesn’t go around wasting his time rewriting his past!

Tamil Nadu & Gross Enrolment Ratio.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), describes “Gross Enrolment Ratio” as the total enrolment within a country “in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the official age group corresponding to this level of education“.

The GER of Tamil Nadu is the highest at @ 48% (except for Sikkim & Chandigarh) of those who pass out from the Higher Secondary School.

Let us look at the number of students who pass out of the Higher Secondary School. As per the data for 2020, the total students who passed out is around 8,00,000. Therefore 3,84,000 students would be competing among themselves to get into Colleges in India, Abroad, and within the State of Tamil Nadu.

The next question to be considered is: How many college seats are available within Tamil Nadu to accommodate @ 3,50,000 students? (@24000 students may go abroad or to other colleges outside Tamil Nadu).

The first point to be considered is : What is the yardstick based on which the inter se precedence in admission to the colleges and courses are determined?

The norm was the examination conducted by the various school boards and their marks are normalised by a certain formula and admissions are granted.

Therefore, if common examinations are NOT conducted because of covid complications & anxieties, what would be the yardstick?

Would the yardstick be based on the eleventh standard marks, or internal marking based on online classes?

Such a determination would be prone to prejudice and not giving enough weightage to those students who are late bloomers.

Therefore, i believe we need to conduct 12 th standard examinations to get the latest assessment of the inter-se calibre of the competing students. Which would be accurate for contemporaneous reasons.

Now let us look into how many college seats are available within Tamil Nadu?

Do we have 3,50,000 seats?

I guess not.

In view of the above, in all fairness, 12th standard examinations ought to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu government as TN is a state where the GER is very high and we need to provide seats for all those eligible students based on a contemporaneous assessment.

Comparison between Tamil Nadu and the other states is a joke, as the next state which approximates to TN in terms of the GER is less by 10%!

Foremost is the fact that School Education doesn’t find a separate entry in the Constitution of India. Education is entry number 25 of List 3 of Schedule VII, subject to the Higher Education and technical education entries at 63,64,65 and 66 of List 1 of Schedule VII!

Therefore the Secondary Education in reality has to be handled by the State government concerned. Leaving that to the states is very important as there is no parity among states if we take GER as the yardstick.

Hope the TN government would conduct the twelfth examination.

Whether mining of crypto coins and possessing those would be a taxable income?


There is no case law on this, however a litigation is in progress by Jarrett demanding a refund from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the USA claiming that the cryptos mined by the Plaintiffs and held by them would not be taxable. However, I have attached a link above which contains the Plaint relating to the refund of Income Tax already paid.

The Code relating to Income is, gross income minus the permitted deductions. The mining and possessing of the crypto coins are includible in the gross income as per the Code.

The argument forwarded is that these coins did NOT exist but were generated through the work and therefore created. On the basis of which the cryptos in the hands of the Plaintiff cannot be treated as income, till the same is paid out for some goods or services or converted into a Fiat currency.
The persuasive analogy is taken from a case law where the cake baked by a baker cannot be taxed as the baker had created the cake and till sold and the value realised, the cake would be a property created, rather an asset created but the value of which has not been realised and hence not an income. Further, it is argued that the “coming in” would be an income and in this case, the Plaintiff claims he has merely created an asset for which certain expenses had been incurred, therefore, there has been a “going out” than a coming in.

It would be interesting to watch the verdict on this case.

More so because, the IRS would lose track of who mined how much in which year if the arguments of the Plaintiffs are to be accepted in toto.
Secondly, if those mined crypto coins are used in subsequent years for some goods or services, how would the IRS know that these cryptos had been realised in value, unless there has been a compelling reporting mechanism for the year of generation and a statement of assertion by the Assessee that the crypto is still with him under his control?

Supposing, the Assessee asserts that he had lost the secret password to the place of storage in the internet, what would be his liability? If the Assessee were to somehow retrieve after many years the password, how would be be able to bring into accounting the lost cryptos? What if a person gets undeclared remuneration for generating cryptos and ‘sells’ it to an investor, who retains it without a trace in the blockchain and later declares it as having mined by him? Should the Government give MINER’S LICENSE?

Either way, the decision in this case is likely to spawn many further issues, which would compel the US government to bring in stricter reporting requirements as regards mining of cryptos.

The COVID Vaccine status in India

The newspapers are abuzz with the news items that since COVAXIN has not been approved by the World Health Organization (WHO), except by 9 other countries, the rest of the countries would not allow Indians to enter those other countries which have not recognised COVAXIN based on the yet to be received approvals by the WHO.

This is the hot news today 23/05/2021.

Let us see the status of the two vaccines which have been approved for use in India; they are Covishield by Astra Zeneca in collaboration with Serum Institute of India and the other being COVAXIN by Bharat Biotech.

To understand the status of each of these two vaccines accepted for use in India let us visit the website of WHO, which tells us a little about the processes involved and the present status:

In the above table, please refer to the serial numbers 4 and 16, they refer to the vaccines approved by the DCGI, which is the abbreviation of Drugs Controller General of India. Sl. No. 4 deals with Covishield and the final approval had been granted on 15/02/2021, whereas the status of COVAXIN under the column head “PRE SUBMISSION MEETING HELD” is mentioned as “to be planned May, June 2021”.

So one can understand that COVAXIN is under the consideration of the WHO, which has not been brought out in any of the news items appearing today – strange are the ways of the mainstream media. They don’t bother to check with the WHO website, from where any diligent person could get those facts.

While the process is still on, as of today, an anxiety has been let loose on the Indian public that in the absence of having been vaccinated with Covishield, aspirant students who want to study in any country other than those 9 countries which have recognised COVAXIN, may not be admitted into those countries.

Stop stop stop…

Which of those other Universities have mentioned in their admission brochures that those who are NOT vaccinated by any of the WHO approved vaccines would be ineligible for admission?

Secondly, have the Governments of those Countries, where those Universities are situated, enacted that those persons who have not been vaccinated with WHO recognised vaccines for COVID would NOT BE ALLOWED into their Country?

I guess not.

So who is behind this anxiety driving agenda?

Elementary, look for who benefits from this anxiety?

Covishield manufacturers and the promoters of Covishield vaccine, and those who are interested in the failure of Bharat Biotech! The first would benefit, if it remains as the only cock in the yard – it can create monopoly. Secondly, there are many new entrants such as Dr.Reddy’s Lab, which have also entered the fray. Pfizer had always been on its wings, so it could benefit anyone of those, or all of them. Further, these new entrants are faced with a new finding in favour of COVAXIN that the vaccine is efficacious against certain new strains, therefore jealousy cannot be ruled out. Therefore this news item is to be viewed with a lot of suspicion!

But there is already a story in the public domain that Covishield has huge order book both from India and abroad and that there would be no need for taking any further orders! What about the new entrants?

Good idea, but there is an abiding economic principle which says that demand drives up the cost, so why not build up your order book and make the product more expensive?

Secondly, the thicker the Order book, the easier it would be for the company to raise cheap money from the Nationalised banks, which in any case have been not so prudent either in their norms of disbursal or in their pursuit of recovery.

By the way, an event happened in the past few weeks, which has been suppressed by the mainstream media, which is the DEATH OF DR.K.K.AGGARWAL – due to COVID.

I am just curious to know, whether he was vaccinated and if so, which of the two vaccines was used?

There has been a lot of talk stating that once vaccinated, with either of the vaccines, the severity of the disease would be mitigated and that surely death could be avoided – Oh, yeah?

What is the basis of these assertions? When cornered, the Latin spewing allopaths state that the morale is very important and hence alloying their treatment methods with a little cupric lies would enhance the morale! Oh, yeah?

If so when the Siddha, Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners purvey faith based on their beliefs of efficacy on their concoctions, from where do these allopaths get the nerve to condemn them?

Let us build MODESTY in propagating the efficacy of the vaccines, at the same time tell everyone that as on date being vaccinated may provide better protection than not being vaccinated.

Secondly, let us propagate GOOD HYGIENE and COVID appropriate behaviour.

We know very less and even those practitioners who are supposed to be following the scientific principles are not only not sure but CANNOT be sure of any infected case, as the infection itself hits only @2% of the population and out of that only a few get into real bad situation and meet their end. So not only that those so called physicians know not, they are caught in the cusp between sure knowledge and evolving research, which also they know not.

Let us in the meanwhile also recognise that these two vaccine purveyors, along with those new entrants, are business houses and working on profits. To be drawn into their agenda is unsavoury for our health. If the Government has provided only two vaccines, let us get vaccinated and maintain good hygiene and COVID appropriate behaviour with the HOPE that God would be on our side.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Robinhood’s game in GameStop!

Whether one owns any crypto currencies or not is not as important as having an idea as to how these crypto currencies’ valuations get set. It is important because, the assets which we hold could be purchased by the spawning new billionaires at the cost that we demand. Funnily, the payments that they would be making for those assets would not be out of their blood and sweat, nor out of liquidating some other assets of some value.

These crypto cowboys had entered the market very low and purchased their cryptos. For example, the Dodge coin millionaire’s average cost of his four million dogecoin is 4. odd cents per coin, and the present cost is round about 30 cents, which means he is already sitting on a pile of appreciation of 700%. The Dogecoin millionaire has diversified into YouTube spots and has become a celebrity and icon for the millennials who have collectively invested small amounts on doge, thereby he has ensured an internet following with financial accruals which would not visible to others. Good for him, but that’s the icon he has to exalt, come what may! He has claimed that his personal target would be ten million dollars before he would think of selling. He recommends HOLD HOLD HOLD! There is no intrinsic value to doge except for the fact that there is a huge crowd following him like the Pied Piper and it is that following which by holding on to doge stabilises the price of the coin.

Hope is purveyed on a perennial basis! And nobody wants to be left out in this Second Coming of the crypto, everyone is waiting for the Rapture!

That on the one side, there are sharks which operate on the processes and make it confusing even for Congressional committees to arrive at ‘facts’ integral to ascertaining the TRUTH!

The example of the ROBINHOOD, headed by Vlad Tenev in the context of GameStop would be apt on this count. Please read the screen shots of the article which appeared in Medium:

The context of the above screenshots is that GameStop was the scrip and the brokerage firm was Robinhood. The players were the millennials of Reddit on the one hand and the Hedge fund guys on the other side.

So this is the game of sentiments and the collective might of the fries on the one side, and the knowledgeable hedge fund bosses with financial might on the other side!

GameStop, pumped up on the sentiments of the millennials starts rising and the Hedge fund managers see the non-sustainability of the price of GameStop and go short on the same scrip!

The game continues and at one point the millennials keep buying the scrip even though the prices kept going up, whereas the Hedge fund guys are required to buy up the shares and provide delivery to the buyers (millennials). Now the scrips for delivery have to be bought from the very millennials who are in a bought position, which they would not be willing to sell and thereby constrict the Hedge fund guys. The process escalates and the hedge-fund guys had to offer more and more to buy and deliver.

At this juncture an event is supposed to have happened: The clearing house demands a 100% on any further purchases by Robinhood on behalf of its clients. The amount demanded was reportedly $ 3.7 billion in cash. Robinhood was NOT ABLE TO ARRANGE THAT COLLATERAL AND IT APPREHENDED THAT THE FIRM WOULD SINK – hence they shut shop without notice to the clients! This brought down the momentum and the Hedge fund guys were the ‘UNINTENDED’ beneficiaries!

What i am unable to believe is that, as already mused in the article screenshotted above, who impelled the Clearing house to put up a demand of 100% collateral at that juncture?

Anyone would know that a brokerage firm may neither hold that much in cash nor be able to arrange for it at such short notice.

Did the Congressional inquiry team get behind such a demand – if so whether it was sanctioned by Law that the clearing house could make such a condition midstream?

What baffles me is that Vlad Tenev, who had been the beneficiary of the millennial crowd instead of bringing that fact to the knowledge of its millennial customers and requesting them to put in 100% margin, silently closed the operations, which “unintended ly” and “unintentionally“ helped the Hedge fund guys who had gone short beyond their means with no sellers of GameStop in sight.

The article by James Surowiecki is too kind on Vlad. Further, he gives another example of another brokerage firm which went through the same stuff on the same scrip at the same time and did the same thing, and goes on to add that Vlad was faced with an uncanny situation and that he could have explained it post facto like that other guy! What a fallacy!

When the millennials were baying for the blood of the Hedgefund guys and the momentum was in favour of the millennials, instead of relying on those very millennials on whose money Vlad was riding the wave, chose NOT to take the Reddit millennials into confidence and inform them of the demand of the clearing house, instead went sneakily supporting the cause of the Hedge fund guys!


Because the crowd would dissipate in time, but the Hedge fund abides for ever! That was MUTUAL FUNDING‼️

KARNAN – the Thamizh movie

Finally Education in Tamil Nadu has paid off!

The purpose of education is not merely to accumulate facts and become a server of information, but to process that in some human context for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

That’s what is called a definition of Education in clichés!

An art form has to translate these jargons and clichés into a thriving reality and present it to the observer in a human context triggering in the observer an interpretation of a reality, in which the observer exists but has never interpreted it that way. That’s what the Tamil Movie KARNAN has done.

What’s so great about KARNAN, the Tamil movie in which Dhanush plays the protagonist?

The movie has no foreign sounds, no glottalised expressions which are not native to the Thamizh sounds. The movie is an allegory – it shows something but means a deeper Truth, which unless one has been a part of such archetypal lot, cannot understand.

If John Bunyan’s PILGRIM’s PROGRESS is read as a traveler’s travelogue, Good for the reader – but that classic has not had its intended truthful impact. It is a distilled experience of the Soul shorn of all its accreted embellishments.

KARNAN is a classic.

The story, i don’t want to call it plot, as if it were a play where the plot plays an important role with a denouement! No denouement is required for one who lives Life everyday- each day and each moment has its own meaning. Multiple lives lived like that in a community by many individuals leads to a indelible history of the community, which neither requires revision nor embellishments.

What a movie!

The movie opens with a predatory eagle/kite, which swoops on a brood of chicks and right in front of the mother hen takes out a chick and settles on a perch. This imagery sets the tone of the movie- a predator who has to survive only by depriving the life of another bird. That’s the law of Life, but neither that hen nor the chicks are a product of the wild, they are domesticated poultry in a small decrepit village owned by households which have no regular incomes and life is lived on a day to day basis. It is a loss to that family, but it is that response of the owner of those chicks, the mother of Dhanush (Karnan), which reflects the response of a soul burdened perennially with helpless possibilities.

Mother of KARNAN begs the eagle/kite to spare that chick. It is the crux. A certain helplessness caused by a situation leading the victim to make prayers to the perpetrator of the situation.

It is in this back drop that there arises a consciousness – a reality that there is no point in pleading to a perpetrator of undesirable situation, but to take head on, unmindful of the consequences. The underlying ethical principle being that an individual has the God given Liberty to either raise chickens or have unhindered access to the public utilities, provided for the common Good; and none has the right to prevent any individual or a community from exercising that Liberty either in the name of tradition or man made constructs rooted in ideologies or practices.

The setting is a small village called Podiyangulam, situated not far away from a larger village or town called Melur . The names chosen are redolent of the caste considerations exercised by caste based communities in Tamil Nadu for many centuries, and without naming any one community, the movie has distilled the truth, preventing such cussed groups from rebelling against release of this movie. The boys and girls who have been the beneficiaries of the Education policy of the Tamil Nadu politics would understand this. Each episode of the movie resurrects the plight once felt or avoided narrowly by their parents’ generation, having left a scar seldom recognised by that parents’ generation but observed clearly by the succeeding generation.

The gnarled knuckles and the calloused necks may be a reality to the old, but the new generation looks at those and figures out as to who caused it or which ideology caused it. The empathy and reaction of the succeeding generations come into play – not for revenge, but to set right those processes and systems so that the oppressive nature in man and certain predatory groups don’t infest those systems and processes with self aggrandising agendas any more in the future, in the name of development and growth and other attractive words!

For those who do not understand Thamizh, Podiyangulam means a ‘tiny water pond’ and Melur means “Higher Town” or even a ‘Western Town’.

One of the abiding images in the movie is a donkey whose front legs are tied together so that the donkey doesn’t take off! The front legs are knotted with a cloth and the knot is so complicated that only the person who knotted it could unloose it. Karnan, like Alexander, cuts the knot and liberates the animal. The prancing of that animal is shown for a long time showing the New found Liberty of the donkey.

The villagers are strapped to the town with no transport bus stopping near the village. Karnan reads the situation differently from that of the village elders – the purpose of education! Karnan states that it is the agenda of the ‘Upper town’ fellows to keep them confined to their small village so that no development could take place through exchange of ideas which happen through interaction with outside individuals and communities.

Anecdotal sentiments such as a girl being denied free movement to the college by the rowdyism of the upper town youths, exemplify the wilful constrictions exercised by dominant communities, in the name of tradition and practices.

Finally, how even a police force is filled with constables and officers with prejudices, all because there is none to represent that small village community before those officers is sensitively brought out.

The whole village’s aspiration gets diminished and minimised to an individual getting an appointment as a sepoy in a para military force! It is a great achievement – what a pity. A community had been made to subsist on the produce of that pond and live out of the provisions vended by the Melur-ians!

It is from this milieu that Karnan resolved to fight back, not just to hurt the perpetrators as revenge, but as a rescuing operation and survival of the villagers.

A powerful allegory with NO CARNATIC music and no glottalised sounds whatsoever.

A microcosm of how oppressive systems are perpetuated in the name of some obsolete ideologies by some agenda driven communities and the explosion of that oppression through individual realisation and action.

Dhanush’s portrayal is amazing and realistic. Those small town rituals of fish slicing, sword handing over ceremonies may not be attractive initially, but when the movie is felt as a whole, the Director Mari Selvaraj has done a great job, with those utterly parochial images representing a larger point.

I watched it twice, which I’ve never done before except for Mckenna’s Gold, more because my inability to follow the movie’s English pronunciation, without subtitles in those 80’s, but this movie was watched twice to imbibe the representation of the larger point through an allegory.

A great allegory. But i don’t expect non Thamizhans to even understand this, may be a few could relate it to their own way, but the Thamizhan way would be the right way.

Jesus & Paul

The following two passages, one from the Gospel of John and the other from the Acts of the Apostles, relate to a somewhat similar incident which happened in the life of Jesus and the life of Paul, the Evangelist.

Gospel of John chapter 18

19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

The passage shows how the ‘High Priest’ Annas interrogated Jesus about his doctrine and his disciples and how Jesus was not inclined to provide Annas the details. I feel that Jesus was indifferent to the authority of Annas, however Jesus told Annas: why Annas wanted Jesus to furnish the details whereas Annas could ask the persons who had heard Jesus. Jesus further states that He had not said anything in secret and had openly preached and as such the public would be better witnesses – rather disinterested factual witnesses rather than asking the very person who had been arrayed as an accused before the High Priest – (Annas had been a High Priest earlier), but at that point it has been historically accepted that it was Joseph Caiaphas who was the High Priest. When Jesus answered thus, one of those officers struck Jesus and asked Jesus if that was the proper way of addressing the High Priest.

Jesus, brilliantly answered that rhetorical question implying: no sentence before conviction!

Let us advert to the passage which refers to a similar incident in the life of Paul, who had also been brought before the then High Priest Ananias.

Paul opens, as usual, with his self exculpatory defence, which infuriates the High Priest. In fact Paul opens his defence more as a person who had led a life of good conscience before God. Immediately, the High Priest Ananias directs an officer to strike Paul in his mouth.

Here, it is the High Priest Himself who directed the officer to strike – was it because of the contempt that the High Priest had for a person who, not so long ago, had been obtaining warrants from the same office of the High Priest to arrest and produce followers of Jesus? May be, but no direct evidence is available on that.

Paul immediately reacts and uttered almost impulsively that the High Priest was ‘whited sepulchre’. In fact immediately Paul accuses the High Priest of an inconsistency: that the High Priest who was to judge by the law, was ordering an executive to strike him on his mouth, which was inflicting a punishment without convicting him of an offence.

Paul, when called upon to defend himself, instead of pleading guilty or defending himself against the charges, Paul opens his defence by stating how he was faultless – a certification which is to be given by the High Priest and not by the individual. Read the following passage:

Acts of the Apostles chapter 23

1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?

5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Please read verse 5 above. Paul states that he didn’t know that the instructions to smite came from the High Priest and launched on a self reminder as to how one should not speak evil of the rulers! Paul was not to indulge in self certification and it was that usurpation which probably infuriated the High Priest.

Paul, unlike Jesus, did not want the High Priest to rely on third party independent witnesses, but relied on his own assertions to convince the Council, which Paul thought was the Jury. Paul tried to convince the jury (the council members) by his oration and self certification; and in fact when he realised that the council consisted of Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul takes advantage of his Pharisaical past to his advantage.

Jesus, on the other hand, does neither defend Himself nor does He launch on convincing the Sanhedrin! Jesus’ Supreme indifference is born out of the unshakable belief that: When all my hairs are numbered, why bother to answer these wilful mortals! He neither answered the High Priest nor did He get the members converted into a Jury and persuade them of his innocence – He requests the High Priest to call for witnesses, who were contemporaneous to the sermons He preached earlier, and not the wilful gathering there!

This is where God is distinguished from a mere man! Jesus tells Annas to call for contemporaneous witnesses to His teachings, whereas Paul indulges in self justification of his own ‘righteousness’ – the expression of one’s own ego partially alloyed with faith in God!

(Some of my readers have informed me that i am harsh in my assessment of Paul- surely Not. What Paul has done, at that point in time, is incomparable with any other human effort for the spread of the name of Jesus. But like any mortal, he had his failings. Merely because we notice those failings, we are none the better, nor can i ever be presumptuous enough to even entertain a thought that because i critique on Shakespeare’s plays, i could write a better play.)

Elon Musk and the coming of the new Christianity

The name inspires awe in me!

How could a human being having not only attempted in so many fields, could have succeeded in most of those fields during his own lifetime?

May be it has got to do with the FIRST PRINCIPLES, which he has been advocating.

First principles as i understand it is not mere reductionism but cerebrally ascertaining not only the nature of the fundamental components but obtaining a technological infrastructure to make those components minimising the costs, thereby putting oneself under less strain and pressure during scaling.

For example, Elon Musk is stated to have bought rockets from Russia, not for launching but for learning the technology behind it. Indians did it by getting some cryogenic engines and finally making a superior product out of it from the USSR. But India has a huge body of dedicated scientists which without compromising on its innovative skills works, with all the limitations of a government funding, more for the Nation and the pride that follows. But Elon Musk is and has been a business man and he did not have any budgetary allocation, all the money he made by selling his shares in PayPal was deployed in SpaceX- with no assured return. And we all know that he was just a step away from bankruptcy after the failure of some of SpaceX’ rockets, yet he rose like a phoenix – literally out of his own ashes.

So what did he do which no human being dared to dream – let alone attempt or achieve?

Elon wanted human beings to colonise other planets and Mars

is the nearest!

To reach there we need vehicles, so he gets into manufacturing of rockets; and not just rockets which drop off, but which return to the Earth safely and would be ready for another shuttle service!

Each part accomplished by Elon Musk would be a lifetime achievement in itself.

Next is that he wanted cars with clean energy and promoted Electric Vehicles – to realise that he by using his ’first principles’ , focused on the charge of the battery for his car Tesla. He succeeded in getting batteries which could go up to 200 miles on a charge. Though he has been expressing that he could ideally strive towards 400 miles per charge. He’s said to be negotiating with the Argentine government for supply of Lithium, in case lithium ends up being the viable battery component in the long run!

But that’s not all – he has a plan to transport people within cities at super high speeds and that’s happening through his entity The Boring Company – by building tunnels under ground. So the equipment for Boring, which he is said to be using was his own innovation, which not only reduced the cost but many times more efficient.

Same applies to every business, but to have had the skill to take and give advice to NASA, is incredible.

The reasoning of Elon is even more interesting, while a normal individual would be able to perceive threats to himself, his family, his friends, his community, his state, his country, his continent and at best to preserve and nurture the earth to its pristine freshness, Elon Musk not only stopped with the threat perception, he thought up of a solution of settling human beings in other planets and becoming a multi-planetary creature, to avoid extinction of human beings as a species. Wow! That’s some threat perception – but possible.

Now, that needs a new brand of Christianity, with newer interpretations to the existing body of interpretations. Pauline ethical exhortations through epistles may have to be redesigned to fit those human beings who settle in other planets too.

Because, the concept of Rapture, which has been the cause of much interpretations, has to be expanded to other planets as well. It may not be just a global event, assuming that a Rapture is the taking away of the chosen live and then a period of tribulations followed by a millennium of righteous rule, then Rapture has to be an inter planetary event!

So what about the shuttle service between Mars and the Earth? What about the the event happening after Elon Musk establishes a community on the Mars?

If as Isaac Newton had predicted that the Rapture is not going to take place before AD 2060, by then a thriving community must be available in the Mars and the rockets carrying humans must be aplenty.

Rapture wouldn’t be a global event but a Universal event, wherever human beings had migrated to beyond the Earth.

I can foresee some zealous preachers starting the collections for trips to Mars to save souls there. That day doesn’t seem to be far away.

On the whole, Elon Musk is not only in the here and now, but in the there and the thereafter!

Spiritual excitement! Is it necessary?

If it is necessary, is it ok to tweak facts so that we as humans get excited or stay excited spiritually?

For example, if we look at the Life of Jacob, though in hindsight, he might seem to have obtained all the blessings from his father, mother and God, did he have the certainty of such blessings, during his life time especially at those poignant moments when he needed them most?

He had already obtained the intangible birthright from Esau; blessings of God, father and mother but when Jacob got the news that his brother Esau had a following of 400 men and that Esau was already on his way to meeting him, he did not rest on those birthright and blessings, Jacob took precautionary action to appease Esau, secondly he compartmentalised his entourage so that if Esau were to remember the deprivation of both the birthright and the blessings of his father, lost twenty years earlier, Jacob would still have the time to retreat and seek safety at some other end!

Notwithstanding the assurances of the blessings and the divine assurances, Jacob was meticulous in his human endeavour.

In the whole of the Bible, there is no other person who measures up to Jacob in human effort, despite the blessings and assurances.

Jacob wants his wages to multiply faster than the portion due to Laban, but he resorted to some home remedies to attain those objectives by placing those barks and streaks before the watering holes of those sheep and goats!

Jacob, did not Rest on those blessings and assurances, but attempted in every little way to further his objective. Jacob’s life, to put it succinctly was: GET THE INTANGIBLE BLESSINGS FROM ONE’S PARENTS, AND ASSURANCES FROM GOD AND ANGELS; BUT SLACKEN NOT IN HUMAN EFFORT AND TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS.

It is not easy. Christians erroneously believe that once blessings and assurances are obtained, human effort could be minimised.

The only other person who comes at a distance is King David. Anointed to be the King stealthily by the erstwhile Judge and Prophet Samuel himself, yet when he is pursued by King Saul, David doesn’t merely meekly stay put; likewise when his son Absalom turned against him, he vacated Jerusalem and crossed the river Jordan for safety.

Both Jacob and David realised one of the most important truths of Life: Blessings and Assurances and Anointment are the intangibles, and for those to operate better create human situations of better opportunities – which could be achieved only through human effort.

Jacob would never take NO for an answer – may sound cliched, but we have no example of any other human being having wrestled with God, and God making a request to that human being to relent, as the dawn was breaking!

That relentlessness, that Hope and that purposefulness – one could assume were the byproducts of those intangible blessings, assurances and anointment obtained prior to those trying and exhausting situations- but both Jacob and David had exhibited their relentlessness and indomitable spirit to pursue their objectives even before they were assured of what they had sought and obtained as a promise!

But these examples, Jacob and David did not need tweaking of facts- they believed that they should not be found wanting in their human part for the Divine to express itself through them! After all those human efforts, when they prospered, they gave all glory to God, because they realised that those human efforts could have been laid to waste in the randomness of events, but had providentially not been!

But we, the living generation of human beings have primarily a tendency to believe that a priori certain events had been destined to happen and as such the unalterable conclusions would come to pass willy nilly – which is downright erroneous, if not a cardinal mistake.

God loves Human Effort – relentless effort! Jericho has been rebuilt, notwithstanding the curse of Joshua, and i am inclined to believe that God, as Jesus said, is more merciful than the Judge who neither feared God nor man, and when human effort is noticed, He in his infinite mercy, would even obliterate the curses – maybe, he may set up the foundations of Jericho at the birth of his first son and raise the lintel decades later, but God would not dishonour human effort!

But little realising that God loves human effort, the sermons and preachings have debunked human effort under the umbrella of Grace and predestination! All the shining examples of the Bible were not spared of defeats and humiliation, but the assurances gave those patriarchs the resurgent spirit to redouble their efforts without depleting themselves through despondency!

Spiritual reserves are more important for human effort, and therefore untrue facts are not necessary for building those spiritual reserves. In fact, i believe that depending on SPIRITUAL EXCITEMENT alone is a sure recipe to end up with the result of those seeds which fell on stony ground and for lack of moisture dried up.

A good blend of INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE coupled with REGULAR DEVOTIONS are a must to sustain one on the christian spiritual path.

Is it right on the part of a CM to live telecast a meeting convened by the PM?

One may, as a knee jerk response, ask a counter question: What is wrong?

Let me tell what is wrong:

1. When an elected representative discusses state matters relating to legislation in a legislative assembly, legislative council, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, he talks as a representative of the people, therefore for his constituents and the public to know what position he takes on various issues is a must.

2. But when some of the representatives are administered oath of office to function as a minister or in Constitutional terms an Executive, he dons the role of a legislator within the House; and as a link between the executive and the Assembly or the Parliament, as the case may be, when he is a minister of the Cabinet

3. Though the ministers are all elected or have to get themselves elected to continue, when they are a part of the Cabinet, the decision of the Cabinet is authoritative and has the force of the executive. That executive decision making process is not open to review even by the Supreme Courts, except on extremely narrow grounds because the Cabinet is tasked with a job, which has to take into account not only the broad policy but the implication of security, our positions taken before other countries, positions taken before courts, resources stated to be available but unavailable because of logistics; which may have apparent contradictions but in the broad implementation have to be given a shape with necessary alterations.

4. The PM and the CMs are the heads of the respective executive branches they head, and there are bound to be facts which are apparently not so but could be managed to look so, and these Heads have an unthankful job of having to carry the mistakes and blunders of their predecessors and also the unforeseen benefits for which they themselves may not have been responsible, even though such Heads are eager to appropriate the benefits and malign those whose decisions have left a bad impact, they still have to manage not only the day to day affairs but also have a reasonably long vision to cover up the systemic deficiencies besides attempting to propel the State or the Nation in the path of growth.

5. As such, the meetings that happen among the Executives NEED NOT be accessible or made accessible to the public.

6. Further in meetings of such nature, where the vulnerabilities of the States and the Nation are discussed threadbare, the morale of the common man is likely to be affected and the not-so-well-wishers of a particular party are likely to highlight certain factual observations made in those meetings to portray certain persons in poor light, which is to be avoided.

7. Does the intent of the CM matter? No, not at all. Whether he did it to convince his constituents of his goodwill or to portray the foibles of others is not a matter to be looked into at all. Whether the CM did it or not, is a fact, which is the only thing to be considered.

8. Further, i know of no law which has a direct prescription on this. However, using logic, even if there was a direct live telecast, it must have been only done when the CM presented the issues relating to his state. As the head of the Executive of the state (though the Lt. Gov is the constitutional executive head), he should have known that there is a Doctrine of Notice, especially when even in public places, which are frequented by all and sundry, Notice is kept that the place is under electronic surveillance, therefore in a meeting chaired by the PM, if the CM had NOT NOTIFIED the PM and his other equals that he was transmitting his interactions Live, the CM would have had the opportunity to calibrate his behaviour as acceptable as he was aware of the live telecast and the others including the PM were not aware and could have reacted or uttered certain things, which could be portrayed to diminish their image and standing.

9. This NON NOTIFYING the persons is, to say the least uncivilised behaviour in oneupmanship and in total barbarous!

10. There may be disputes, between and among political parties, but to bring it to a meeting at a juncture of uncertainties -including multiple medical propositions doing the rounds as authentic prescriptions, confusing the population, the CM should have shown some restraint from these cheap methodologies.

11. The Prime Minister, despite such a provocation, maintained the dignity of office. I bow my head to the exemplary restrained dignity shown by the most powerful person in India today. That is very very difficult when one is powerful.

Voltaire on King David!

Voltaire on King David

David, who sometimes possessed a conscience tender and enlightened, at others hardened and dark.

When he has it in his power to assassinate his king in a cavern, he scruples going beyond cutting off a corner of his robe—here is the tender conscience. He passes an entire year without feeling the slightest compunction for his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah—here is the same conscience in a state of obduracy and darkness.”

Did Voltaire miss the point? Or was he just being too kind to David?

If he had missed the point, how could he have explained the murder of his father in law to Michal – his princess wife?

What explanation could David have given to Jonathan – David’s brother in law and soul mate?

Most of all, how could David have had the whole of Israel – especially the tribe of Benjamin, after a murder of their anointed King?

Abner would have still been there after the murder of King Saul, would Abner have left Ishboseth, like Abner did later, on the flimsy grounds of Rizpah?

David was a consummate politician, whose sharp political acumen has been camouflaged by the devotion and humility expressed In the Psalms, ascribed to him. Was Voltaire also a victim of such positioning?

At best one could arrive at a conundrum as to how a man, so selfishly sharp been so devoted to God, not merely to a personalised God, but a God who had unequivocally proclaimed through Moses & other prophets that Righteousness in human conduct was prime?

In King David one arrives at a conclusion that the apparently incompatible traits could be harmonised with wisdom and relentless energy, but can hardly be a prescription to a common man.

Was David keeping Mephiboseth close by, to ensure that the fissiparous elements don’t rally behind him; or was David merely keeping his word given to Jonathan?

If the latter, when Mephibosheth’s servant Ziba accused Mephibosheth of treachery, why didn’t David not forgive Mephibosheth fully? In fact towards the end, after seeking clarification from Mephibosheth, David tells Zeba and Mephiboseth to divide Mephibosheth’s holdings equally!

Worse still is the specious reasoning in killing the children of Rizpah, I can’t imagine a God who would justify the reasoning forwarded in the context of the Gibeonites!

David left nothing to chance, wherever he could, he did something, and sometimes deploying even the name of God very efficiently.

Is that the reason why Jesus doesn’t prefer Himself to be called Son of David? I am inclined to think so – his life was hardly edifying and definitely not emulatable!

A greater scrutiny of what David did, would not have withstood the standards prescribed under the New Testament.

The Eagle taloned man

With the wings, did you soar?

Upon soaring, did you widen your horizon?

Upon widening, did you sight more?

Upon sighting more, did you choose?

In choosing did you show taste?

In showing taste, did you retain your strength?

With your strength did you swoop?

With the swoop, did you clutch her in your talons?

With the talons, did you take her to the craggy top?

In the craggy top did you feast your being?

Well done, good & faithful man, Enter her and rest.

Have we accidentally found a cure for blood clot?

After going through all the nonsense relating to the covid vaccines, i have to paste two screen shots which are two parts of the same write up in a media report:

This means that as per a study, for 5,000,000 persons the total number of instances at the rate of 1 case per 1000, the total number of such instances ought to be 50,000.

Now let us get back to the previous paragraph, which is as under:

So out of 5,000,000 people who had received AstraZeneca vaccine, there were only 30 cases of ‘thromboembolic events’.

Now of we use our logic, in fact in the normal course there should have been 50,000 cases on a population of 5,000,000 whereas only 30 persons had had ‘thromboembolic events’ ! What a miracle!!

If nothing else, the vaccine appears to have avoided ‘thromboembolic events’ in respect of 49,970 cases on a conservative average.

Should we not celebrate this?


Statistical b.s should stop somewhere.

As it is, the greatest principle is that do not apply the general principles to the particular and vice versa.

Where are we heading with corporatised policy making?

The context:

Give me the Straws- demands the Farm Owner.

There is bound to be a super bull or a super stallion in every farm. But the farm owner does not want to give the credit to the Super bull or the super stud for having sired the pedigreed offsprings. Hence the stud farm owner collects all the semen from these studs into numbered straws and keeps it frozen for further staggered sale and building up a brand name for the farm.

The bulls and studs are NOT INTERESTED IN the farm owner’s artificial insemination processes or his commercialisation. The bills and stallions are interested in the Cows and Mares.

Get the Cows and mares into the farm, the studs want to perform NATURAL INSEMINATION to not only spread their genes, but also to let the cows and mares know who COVERED them. Covering is important than SIRING!

Leave an imprint or so the Super Studs mused.
One day the Studs saw that the farm owner was speaking respectfully, to the point of obsequiousness, to someone at the other end. The Studs were surprised and launched on who that person at the other end could be who could elicit such obsequiousness from their master.

Some days later it was rumoured that the farm had been sold and that a new Entity had bought the farm. The Studs got to know that whom they believed to be their owners were nothing but FARMHANDS who had been given the charge to maintain those Studs well and generate income to the farm.

The Studs realised on that day that the whole income of the entity, had been derived only by their activity! All that opulence and show which the farmhands indulged in, were out of the channelised and commercialised natural urge of those Studs.

Conflation of spending tax money & Belief in social justice in Tamil Nadu

The election narrative in Tamil Nadu by the DMK party is that that while they were in power, they had empowered the socially backward social outcasts and that they had consistently devised economic programs for the upliftment of the economic conditions of such voiceless people.

The other party AIADMK, predominantly relies on their efforts at upliftment of the poor and the downtrodden without any discrimination.

Both are right in what they claim and assert. But as a voter one has to clarify what powers the electorate actually vests the elected MLAs with? Once we establish that fact, it would be easier to find out, what could each have done with such power.

Legislative power relating to the State list and the Concurrent List are the domains on which the MLAs could legislate on. The power to tax and spend such taxes and also to borrow in the name of the state, and leaving a debt for the state to take care off is also within the power of that legislature. But the important power is the power to legislate and make laws to maintain law and order and fulfill the hopes as expressed in the Directive Principles of State policy.

Enduring power is the legislative power to empower the socially backward classes, or so the DMK thought, having championed the cause under the teachings of EVR. India has a peculiar issue of caste, which by its very design could be empowering or debilitating. It is in empowering and liberating of those the depressed classes which was concentrated by DMK, while it was in power and it had ensured that much legislation had been carried through and implemented, which granted positive discrimination in favour of those depressed classes. However, the generations which had laboured under those unwritten caste rules had passed away and the legislations made in those days have reduced the gap which existed then leaving no scope for the younger generations to be guided by them except in small towns and villages of Tamil Nadu.

That should be seen as the period between 1967 to 1976. Which the late Kalaignar Karunanidhi used to describe as the ஒளி நிறைந்த ஒன்பது வருடம்.

Thereafter came the period of Puratchi Thalaivar MGR, which lasted from 1977 to 1987. During his regime much dole was measured out from the state government exchequer. It was a reign of providing relief to the masses from their day to day economic burden.

Yet, MGR brought in a special quota for persons purely based on economic consideration, which had a negative political repercussion, which he quickly withdrew. By then MGR had understood that he shouldn’t make any attempt to dilute the benefits legislatively granted to the downtrodden castes. Any accommodation on economic considerations was seen by the voting public as the usurpation by the upper castes of the facility created by the DMK legislatively.

I’d like to quote the Indian Express on this:

MGR further declared that certain percentage of reservation would be provided to poor among the forward communities. However, he backed down after the AIADMK’s virtual rout in the Lok Sabha polls of 1980.

The MGR government issued an order (G.O.Ms.1156), dated July 2, 1979, fixing Rs 9,000 as the annual income ceiling for BCs to get the benefits of reservation. To justify the G.O, the government cited the recommendations of the Backward Classes Commission, under the Chairmanship of AN Sattanathan, submitted in 1970. Then general secretary of Dravidar Kazhagam K Veeramani (now president) and late DMK president M Karunanidhi immediately opposed the move and, with many other leaders, spearheaded protests against it.

They argued that the order was unconstitutional and unreasonable, and said, “The Constitution clearly defines the beneficiaries as socially and educationally BCs. Introducing an economic element will be a wrong remedy to a malady which is essentially social.”

So the fact is that, MGR’s belief was not that strong relating to those that were held by MK. But MGR made a little tweak to the Dravidian narrative by earning a name as a generous giver, devoid of caste considerations. Even today AIADMK continues to be in the same mould.

Dr. J Jayalalitha tried a legislation on conversion, which in 2002 was thought of to be an effort to get close to a national party, the Ordinance was “Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religious Ordinance, 2002”.

These areas of carving out a quota for the economically backward, and prohibition of forcible conversion had already taken deep roots within the AIADMK, however they could not be made into enduring legislations as the people reacted, though at the nudging and instigation of the ever vigilant DMK, against such dilution of social justice, and Liberty to convert and be converted.

These have crystallised well and now what these two parties stand for is very clear – as each had allied with national parties which are in alignment with the core thinking of either the DMK or the AIADMK.

I am not sure if Dr. J Jayalalitha would have got the reservation of 69% for the Backward classes placed in the IX Schedule of the Constitution in 1994, had she been assured of her place with the masses, which she acquired subsequently in the 21st century!

So this election is very interesting in the sense that the real fight is between what these two Dravidian parties really stand for. That each of the Dravidian parties is vying with the other to dole out largesse out of the tax money is inconsequential. Tax money has to be spent anyway on maintenance, implementation of programs and infrastructure building. Corruption is not an issue in Tamil Nadu, though political parties accuse each other for the optics, and TN is the only state which electorally handed over the state exchequer to a person convicted by courts. I believe that there are provisions within the Constitution for remitting sentences and pardoning convicts, which i believe should have been exercised by the State when such is the will of the people, however to grant a pardon using those provisions in a corruption case would have definitely harmed the polity more! Anyway no attempt was made on those lines.

When people are not bothered about corruption and elect a party whose supremo had been convicted, one must arrive at a conclusion that those who had been accused and convicted were not corrupt above the plimsoll line mentally demarcated by the public; or that people thought that those who were themselves as culpable, cast the first stone and took advantage of the system, or that corruption was absolutely inconsequential.

From the narrative which is expressed, an outsider is bound to believe that the votes would be cast on what is being uttered. But i for one believe that Thamizhans and Thamizhachis collectively think differently from what is touted during elections by parties in justification of their alliances. The conflation, of the legislative power and the tax money spending power, doesn’t work with the Thamizhs.

I am impelled to quote what G K Chesterton in his essay had to say while contrasting the French with the English:

Let a fool hate France: if the fool loves it he will soon be a knave. He will certainly admire it, not only for the things that are not creditable, but actually for the things that are not there. He will admire the grace and indolence of the most industrious people in the world. He will admire the romance and fantasy of the most determinedly respectable and common-place people in the world. This mistake the Englishman will make if he admires France too hastily; but the mistake that he makes about France will be slight compared with the mistake that he makes about himself. An Englishman who professes really to like French realistic novels, really to be at home in a French modern theatre, really to experience no shock on first seeing the savage French caricatures, is making a mistake very dangerous for his own sincerity. He is admiring something he does not understand. He is reaping where he has not sown, and taking up where he has not laid down; he is trying to taste the fruit when he has never toiled over the tree. He is trying to pluck the exquisite fruit of French cynicism, when he has never tilled the rude but rich soil of French virtue.

Relief & hardening of the heart.

This is the third plague. Pharaoh was testing Moses on two grounds:

1. Whether what Moses uttered was replicable by his magicians?

2. Was Moses merely taking advantage of the knowledge Moses had about the times of certain events which were to take place, and passed it on as an act which would happen only when it was being WILLED by Moses?

The first two plagues were ordered to be replicated by the Pharaoh’s magicians and they replicated it. The effect was that they further aggravated the misery – just to show the Pharaoh that what Moses did, has nothing to do with the Divine, but possible ‘at will’ by human magicians.

The third plague is the infestation of lice, as in the previous two, the Pharaoh orders his magicians to replicate the infestation, but they couldn’t.

Pharaoh, has doubts, maybe Moses is more skilled in the enchantments of the Chaldeans and magicians, so why concede? After all it could be display of superior skill, which though is not obedient to the Will of the Pharaoh, yet is merely a skill, which could be honed through practice and knowledge. So why attribute the infestation of lice to the Divine?

But with every plague, the Pharaoh was forgetting that his people were suffering more! He didn’t mind it, the Ruler has to rule out that the plague was not a gimmick of a clever charlatan using the name of his God!

Every time Pharaoh reaches the boiling point because of the plague, he calls for Moses and obtains Relief. After every Relief, the Pharaoh’s heart hardens.


To come to a reasoned conclusion that the difficult situation was not a target aimed at oneself but a random unpleasant event which happened and one was unfortunately caught therein – is the primary thought of all hardening!

Christians, including me are not alien to such reasoning, in our own little spheres the impact may not be national, as in the case of the Pharaoh, but to believe that the Pharaoh was wicked and that we are better human beings, is a fallacy we weave unto ourselves and stay smug.

We do not believe that we were the target of the plague, based on a faulty logic that since my neighbour and whole lot of others have also been subjected to the same plight. We believe that we were merely caught up with the rest and the event had to happen anyway! This is how we succumb through reasoning leading to the HARDENING of OUR HEARTS.

One of the biggest reasons for HARDENING OUR HEARTS is to look if others are also inflicted with as much misery as we are? And if we find that others are also entangled in the same misery, we harden our hearts and like the Pharaoh invite upon ourselves a worse plague than the previous one!

Let us have the humility to discern and concede, where we enjoy the fruits of free labour and efforts of other human beings without adequately compensating them for their efforts. Most importantly, let not RELIEF take us back to our fallible reasoning.

Create a trustworthy system, don’t make me trust a person whose trustworthiness is in his own control!

That seems to me to be the end of human trust.

We have reached a point of no return – we have realised that we have reached a fork, where we are unable to decide if the institutions, like banks, we created are doing their jobs efficiently or do those who hold the controls manipulate it to serve their interests, or is it truly the inefficiency of the mammoth institutions which are inflicting those losses to individuals?

It is easy to accuse that those institutions are untrustworthy or that we have discovered that they are manipulate-able, therefore we as individuals have started looking for systems which are efficient but at the same time not capable of being controlled by private undisclosed factors.

In the process Internet came in as a system which became a source for transmitting information to a targeted address. Into this was dovetailed all economic activity and the old inefficient and untrustworthy institutions cloned themselves and took tremendous control.

The internet which gave Liberty, was used for enslaving the masses – their data is being collected without their own permission, but which is of value to the data mining companies which are able to predict the trends and sell such information to businesses, which target those persons who are more likely to buy those products.

Bitcoins, rather cryptocurrency, is another invention which is a byproduct of Blockchain technology, which provides a distributed ledger system with consensus of the majority of those verifiers being the point of approval.

How long would this remain that way? The blockchain may continue that way, but the spin off of that blockchain would be a cryptocurrency which would be tamed, tethered and taxed.

We as human beings are burdened with multiple tasks that, we in exhaustion, finally hand over our Liberty to a few, who subsequently become greedy and don’t perform their tasks as trustees, but as owners of the trust property!

The time has come when even the crypto currencies would be routed through exchanges, which would be brought under the regulatory framework controlled by a few – whatever be the political system of the country.

Humans, according to me, have this uncanny knack of picking up the strangling neck-chain and wearing it themselves, just as my Doberman which senses that he would be taken out for a walk to sniff the streets, Would by surrendering his Liberty!

All are Esaus in one form or the other!

Rahab, the harlot & Faith!

One of my abiding doubts which could never be clarified from those sermons i had heard from pulpits was: Why do the preachers always harp on her harlotry when talking about Rahab’s faith and why did God rehabilitate her and include her in the Hall of Faith mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11:31?

The niggling underlying doubt was, Did Rahab repose her Faith in God or did she obtain a favour from Joshua as a reward for having hidden and saved the lives of the two spies from Israel? If it was a contractual obligation on the part of Joshua to honour the assurances of the spies, where is the question of Faith?

This question was neither answered nor touched upon, probably the Preachers had to deal with the moral issue involved in dealing with a person whose references in the whole Bible is invariably juxtaposed with her profession of harlotry. Notwithstanding such a judgemental reiterative reminder, at least the preachers should have gone beyond the ‘moral fibre’ of Rahab.

In fact, in one of the sermons i had listened to, the Preacher had mentioned that Rahab was the mother of Boaz, which i not only found amusing but was seen by me as an attempt to hallow the profane, by downplaying the references to the profession of Rahab. In an attempt to debunk that hypotheses i had written a blog many years back, which had gained a lot of traction in Google searches and till date receives a first page listing!: https://movid.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/was-boaz-mother-rahab-of-jericho-2/

Many a time have i read the verses relating to Rahab, but the verse which escaped my sincere application of mind was the following verse:

Joshua 2:9

And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

கர்த்தர் உங்களுக்கு தேசத்தை ஒப்புக்கொடுத்தாரென்றும், உங்களைப்பற்றி எங்களுக்குத் திகில் பிடித்திருக்கிறதென்றும், உங்களைக்குறித்து தேசத்துக் குடிகள் எல்லாரும் சோர்ந்துபோனார்களென்றும் அறிவேன்.

These were the words of Rahab, even before the priests had touched the ‘verge of Jordan’ or even before Joshua had met with the Captain of the Host of the Lord outside the plains of Jericho. Rahab had heard stories of what the children of Israel had done to the Amorite Kings and King Og.

These stories had inspired fear in the minds of the people of Jericho and Rahab predicts something which was to happen, she was not merely taking an assurance from those Israeli spies; Rahab was sure that the Israelites would take over Jericho and that the King of Jericho would be defeated, much before all these events were even to become a probability! At that moment, Rahab DOES NOT give any of the credit to the commanders or the leaders of the army but draws an inference from the preceding improbable events of the parting of the Red Sea thus:

10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

12 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a true token:

It is easy to be distracted by the constantly harped profession of Rahab, and miss this most important point.

These events, which were highly improbable and nigh impossible (possible only by hindsight – because it is written that it had happened) led Rahab to a conclusion: THAT IT CANNOT BE HUMAN EFFORT OR CHANCE. Even if the Red Sea had parted by chance because of certain types of tides and winds, how could such events like defeating the Amorite kings, favouring the Israelites happen consistently again and again?

It is that FAITH in the God of Israel which she believed in, which gets exalted in the Epistle to Hebrews. The fact that she sought temporal benefits of relief to her family, is not the basis of the text in the Hebrews, but her faith in the God of Israel which is the basis of the reference.

It is that FAITH which exalted Rahab to the Hall of Faith, enshrined in the Epistle.


Thistle and Cedar

The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.

This is the reply by the grandson of Jehu, Joash, King of Israel, to the King of Judah Amaziah, when Amaziah, puffed up with his recent victory over the Children of Seir, sent a message to the King of Israel Joash to fight him.

The irony is that Amaziah, had not long ago paid mercenaries from Israel 100 talents of silver to engage their services in a battle Amaziah proposed to engage. However, heeding to a prophecy, discharged those mercenaries, probably irking them by recovering a part of the silver agreed to be paid as wages. This is not stated in II Chronicles 25 so explicitly, yet the behaviour of the discharged mercenaries by attacking certain cities of Judah after their discharge leads one to a conclusion that they were nursing a grouse.

Whatever be the reasons thereof, one thing was clear that those discharged 100,000 men from Israel (Ephraim, being the most dominant tribe), had access routes and intimate knowledge of Judah along with the capabilities and vulnerabilities of Judah. Despite these inherent vulnerabilities, Amaziah wanted to engage with Joash, in a battle!

Aid of history is a must to understand the pedigree of both these kings.

Joash’s grandfather was Jehu, who according to a prophecy was assured by God that up to his fourth generation they would be kings of Israel! Not a mean promise – though i have my doubts as to whether these were pre-facto prophecies or written after history had run its course! In any case, Joash had had peace in Israel, whereas Amaziah’s father was another person named Joash, who though from the royal lineage had escaped from Athaliah by the skin of his teeth to become the King of Judah, at the age of seven, all because of the wisdom, strength and grace of God obtained by the Priest Jehoiada.

Weighing these two kings, it is not difficult to see that Joash, the King of Israel had a better pedigree and better resources at his command than the King of Judah, Amaziah.

But Amaziah had won a battle with the Edomites and having expended his and his people’s bloodthirstiness on around 10,000 Edomites by killing them from a hilltop, this Amaziah was emboldened to provoke the King of Israel into a war, little realising that resources accumulated in one generation by an upstart, who made it more by the goodness of the Priest Jehoiada, would be no match to the resources gathered and accumulated by three generations of Kings!

It is in this context that Joash compares himself to a Cedar – a wood that has dimensional stability. After installing the doorposts and lintels if the wood were to bend, such a wood would have a negative structural impact on the house, but with Cedar the moisture, heat and other elements have marginal impact. I presume, that Joash aptly referred to himself as Cedar and to Amaziah as thistle. Thistle is an unintended outgrowth of vegetation. It is by chance and not by design that thistles grow – and Amaziah is rightly metaphorically told that he was a product of chance with no inherent merit!

The Bible contains passages which are like the words of Joash: fitly spoken like apples of gold in pictures of silver

The sickle & the seed bag!

He entered the field with a sickle;

And i with my seed bag.

The fields were boundless

He put his sickle to the harvest

And i to the ploughed fields.

Both rested our nights

In the languorous comfort of our homes.

I met him with his sickle

And me with my seed bag.

I sow and he reaps.

Neither the sheaves he reaps are his,

Nor the seeds i sow are mine!

The owner of the fields

Had assigned our tasks.

I may go with empty hands

At eventide;

And he with sheaves on his shoulders.

Neither the seeds that i brought

At Dawn were mine,

Not the sheaves at the even

Were his!

But i complain that he steals my Labour,

And he thinks he’s smart!

Each to his Labour

And plods his way back home!

The indelible ledger

Is reconciled and wages meted

In Full, if not here,

Then there.

There’s another who invests

And contracts the Labour

Of the innovator.

Innovation is the investor’s,

The credit for innovation

Is the innovator’s.

The investor obtained patent

And monetised,

The innovator improved his CV.

Investor assumes it balanced,

But the indelible Ledger,

Maintained by the Divine,

Has its own algorithm.

It’s reconciled in Full,

If not here, then there!

The priest who preaches brimstone,

Gets his tithes.

The payer has diluted his guilt,

The preacher is busy

Making legal heirs to the

Undistributed tithes.

The Preacher calls it a blessing,

The payers, feel relieved.

Yet the accounts are not closed,

In the indelible ledger.

It is reconciled in Full

If not here, then there!

Is there a ‘there’, at all?

Asks the rationalist.

The seen is what there is!

Nothing more, he asserts.

Fool, there’s more to the seen

Than what’s been seen!

The indelible Ledger

Opens to reveal the

Self blinding reason!

The ledger says:

“It’s not there, but here”.

When the There becomes the Here,

To be ready

Is all that God leads us to.

The Gordian Knot

One of the Truths I had personally discovered and I believe firmly is that KNOWLEDGE CAN WAIT, BUT POWER WOULDN’T.

Knowledge is interconnected and to use pieces of information to form a fabric would give its structure. Knowledge accretes and becomes a part of the cause and effect continuum.

Notwithstanding the Oracle of Telmessos, Alexander never thought of cutting it till he discovered that there was no KNOWLEDGE available then to untie it. In fact the knowledge that had emerged by then, after many attempts by many at untying the Gordian knot was that, if one were to set a strand loose, another end would end up into a knot. That experience precluded the assumption that THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO UNTIE IT.

In fact experience of Alexander and his knowledge of those who had tried and failed, impelled him to take a decision. Had Alexander the Great allowed the presumption that “THERE IS A WAY TO UNTIE THE KNOT AND IT IS JUST THAT I HAVE NOT DISCOVERED IT” to survive in his mind, he would probably have untied the knot later or would have left it to the posterity to succeed within those rigid terms of ‘untying’. But the MILITARY POWER that stood behind him, wouldn’t brook such a thought.

Asia had to be conquered, ‘if not now, how would any Emperor ever be vested by providence with so much success with military POWER to fulfil the oracle’ Alexander must have thought. Alexander ensured that he fulfilled the predictions of Telmessos, NOT by untying the Gordian knot but by cutting it or probably by removing the lynchpin. Either way, the ‘untying’ was not within the rigid framework of knowledge or skill as had been supposed.

Could a man of limited means have survived with such a thought much less acted so? Nay!It needs a Conqueror with an indefatigable army to do what Alexander the Great did.

Now the cognoscenti interpret that there are ‘inextricable’ problems which do not need knowledge and skill to ‘extricate’, but the Power to cut and delink the cart.
Gordios’ good fortune of having rode into Phrygia on an ox-cart when the people were waiting for the oracle to come to pass, might have been serendipitous for Gordios, but the cutting or removing the lynchpin was based on the confidence of the military POWER of Alexander.

This cherry picked example of mine proves that Knowledge can wait, but Power won’t.

Mehrab & Michal

Michal came running breathlessly and barged into the room of Mehrab and gaspingly said: Hi Sis, did you know that the curly ruddy boy called David, had killed Goliath? And daddy has promised your hand to anyone who killed Goliath. So lucky! Women and girls, all over the cities, towns and villages, are screaming that David had killed his ten thousands and our dad his thousands! You would be lucky to be married to a courageous and capable person like David! “

Mehrab chid Michal and said, “Are you out of your mind? These are promises made by Kings before winning. Once the battle of won, Dad wouldn’t waste his time in keeping his promises. In any case who wants to get married to a skilled shepherd? No breeding and he wouldn’t know how to treat a princess. We are princesses and the whole Israel is looking up to us, why should we surrender to mere skill? Skill is at our beck and call. And you say that he belongs to the Tribe of Judah, which in any case might carry the traits of the tribe – unsophisticated and forceful. But tell me, Michal, does not our tribe of Benjamin have the best slingers? So why should dad have nominated that shepherd boy for the contest?”

Michal was surprised at the impudence of her sister and asked Mehrab, “So what is it that you want?”

Have you seen Adriel? That sophisticated Son of that nobleman Barzilai, who financed our dad in his campaigns? That Adriel, whom we met the other day in one of those dinners before dad went on a campaign to Philistia. He just captivated my heart with his suave manners and polished talk- why would i marry a slinging shepherd?

Michal interjected and said, “But you see David is courageous and took on a man twice his size and an established champion of the sinewy Gathites! And do you know Sis: David cut off his head with Goliath’s own sword and brought it to dad, as proof. He can protect us from any other man.”

Mehrab said, “Us?” That’s just the duty of the many soldiers who maintain our security in service of our Dad, are you getting carried away by that ruddy fellow? Be careful of these rough and tough types, Princess are safe in houses of wealth, not in a house of swords!”

Michal was relieved and happy, she told Mehrab: “So if you are not going to accept David, let me be the trophy for his victory over Goliath.”

Mehrab said, “Go get your head checked, where is the need for all of this excitement? We have our brother Jonathan and he would be the king after our dad, would he be pleased to have a shepherd boy as his brother in law or would he prefer a nobleman like Adriel? If you want, you can have David.”

Meanwhile Michal had been spreading the word that she was besotted with David and had, during one of those dinners told her dad Saul that Mehrab doesn’t want to marry that David whom she calls a ‘shepherd boy’! Saul was so proud of Mehrab, what a true blue princess daughter, but nevertheless asked Mehrab, “but i had promised my daughter in marriage to the Victor of that battle with Goliath!”

Mehrab said: Dad, you had promised only a daughter, Michal is all in for that slinging shepherd, and let out a guffaw.

Saul was relieved, but he wanted to take full advantage of that alliance. Meanwhile Jonathan was also getting friendly with David and each day, Jonathan was taking an invisible step away from his father’s throne, whereas David was inching his way to Saul’s throne. Saul could sense that and was apprehending that David, who could withstand him, despite his kingship, would definitely decimate Jonathan. But how could Saul convey to Jonathan that David should be used for the state’s purpose in the name of institutional duties, but all credit should be channelised to the personal credit of the King and his family? Despite his best efforts, Jonathan wouldn’t understand and Saul saw that he was ranged against two from his own household – Michal and Jonathan. Saul noticed that Jonathan was even informing of the decisions taken by his father, which were meant to secure the kingdom for Jonathan. How to make a perverse son understand that as a Prince he has to keep himself above affections and do promptly those which have to be done. In exasperation Saul when he found that Jonathan had sneaked Saul’s resolve to terminate David, called his own son: “Thou son of a perverse and rebellious woman” – but not without a reason, all because Jonathan thought that he loved David as his own soul, but the fact was Jonathan forgot that he was the crown prince and David could be his only challenger other than Adriel, and Ishbosheth from Saul’s family!

The imperious Mehrab was right, David knew where to keep his relationships.

Michal, another princess and wife to David, scolds David for having danced naked like a vain man when the Ark was being restored, the unparalleled KJV captures the imperious indignation of a princess thus:

How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

And David’s answer is no less withering:

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.

Saul and Mehrab saw it coming, Michal got carried away, but continued to live out her life as a reclaimed spouse of David; and Jonathan was a fool! Fool not because he frittered away his opportunity by not letting his father Saul, who knew the machinations of David, settle scores with David; if Esau sold his birthright for the ruddy porridge, Jonathan offered himself as a sacrifice in the altar of the brilliance of David, much before the succession battles began. The fool admits to David, or so the winner writes his own story, that David would be the king and begs for mercy much before it was due! Read the following and wonder why a prince who is helping a fugitive, beg the fugitive for being merciful to not only him but to his generations later?

And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:

But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.

Despite all these so called covenants, what happened in a dispute between Mephiboseth and Ziba, his servant? David without wanting to ascertain the facts, divides all the properties of Mephiboseth equally and his servant Ziba walks away with one half! Ishboseth the other son of Saul, when betrayed by Abner, did this covenant come in the way of David restoring to Ishboseth his kingdom? No, never. David plays to the gallery by executing cruelly the two servants who behaved Ishboseth!

Because, David was a man who wanted to be the King and he had it in him to take prompt action he was not carried away by vain purposeless words. But Jonathan and Michal lived in a state of “entitlement” – entitled to the kingdom, by virtue of their father, but David believed that if one wants to rule, he has to have his hands strengthened by war. Read Psalm 144 – and God strengthens one’s hands by taking one through a series of challenges and unless one submitted to each of those processes, there would be no substance and permanence to his ability to face challenges and achieve.

Like Jeremiah puts it poignantly:

If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?

Jonathan was wearied when he ran with footmen, how could he have run with horses? David perennially strengthened himself by running with horses and outran every horse and every mare! Redeemed his name from those sullying infractions which he had committed for timely benefits; and trusted in himself and gave all glory to God!

So the story of the Princesses ends in the most confusing note: the factual biblical contradictions are reconciled through minor factual tweaking. Whether Michal has children of her own or whether Mehrab died leaving behind five sons, to whom Michal became the adopted mother – needs much better reconciliation. In a gist, Saul lost his connection with God and his daughter Michal and son Jonathan worked at cross purposes with that of their father Saul and it became a ‘house divided’ – in Jesus’ terms, so HOW COULD IT STAND?


He who presupposes a negative outcome habitually, can never get started.

It is not the outcome which finally does him in, it is the non-starting which whittles away his progress.

Every time one says No to an Idea, a proposal or a task, it brings about a sense of false power, as if one had a choice to accept and do, yet one out of his God given Liberty refused doing it.

Such habitual negation of opportunities are nothing but rungs on which the bread of idleness are baked!

A habitual No-sayer has a great responsibility to convince himself that he had said NO, based on some real reasoning. Therefore he starts hunting for a reason to convince himself and bring himself to that belief. The greatness of the human mind is that it is a storehouse from which one can pull out anything that he wishes to. It is a larder of archetypal dots which could be connected with one’s wishes and presented as a drawing. Having been endowed with a mind, the No-sayer clutches at negative possibilities and weaves a fabric of probabilities where he could have fallen. That fabric is nothing but a self-woven shroud to his own growth. He feels secure in the warmth of the shroud for a few years and in the ensuing inactivity of the mind and body, incapacitated from taking risks, pulls the shroud over his head and fades into the sunset horizon with no trace of him having lived a Life at all. A cow among the cattle; a sheep among the herd, having spent his time eating grass and letting others milk benefits out of his life with no footprints to show- not even to one’s own generation, leave alone the next.

Among this huge mass of dead cattle and sheep, some names have stood as beacons inspiring succeeding generations for millennia – Moses, Gideon, David, among those should also be counted Abijah, who though not popular, because of the shortness of his reign and also because of lack of preservation of the Chronicles relating to him.

Abijah did what his Grandfather and Father failed to do.

Can one imagine Solomon, a man who had been stamped the wisest man unable to rein in a Jeroboam? Do we recall that Solomon married a daughter of Pharaoh? Do we recall that Jeroboam took refuge in Egypt? So why couldn’t Solomon, being the exalted son in law of the Pharaoh, not able to rein in Jeroboam?

To speculate, Jeroboam must have been a force even in Egypt that the Pharaoh didn’t want to antagonise! So the Pharaoh just let him be.

This Jeroboam gets back to Israel and wangled out ten of the tribes including the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon out of a third generation King of Israel – not a mean achievement.

Rehoboam meekly submitted to the so called prophecy of a minor prophet, whose name is not only difficult to recall, but goes down in history as a prophet who palliated a King with his prophecy in the name of God’s purpose as a punishment for the deeds of his father Solomon. Pity, that he was not a prophet or a seer with the relentlessness of Jacob to wrestle with God and call to memory the ‘covenant of salt’ made by God with Rehoboam’s grandfather David!

Rehoboam is overwhelmed by his father’s enemy at his door having walked away with ten portions of his twelve assets- despite his big talk of the girth of his little finger being thicker than his father Solomon’s ‘waist’ – Thanks be to God, that Rehoboam compared his little finger to that of his father’s waist- at least it is so reported!!

It is this Jeroboam, who was Solomon’s nemesis and the stealer of a chunk of the Kingdom from Rehoboam that Abijah is confronted with.

How many prophets and seers would have told Abijah that it was reported by that Prophet during his father’s time that it was God’s Will to sever the kingdom, and not to go to war with Jeroboam? Many – i suppose. How many commanders would have told him that with half the strength of the army of Jeroboam, Abijah stood no chance? Most, i suppose.

But Abijah did not deter from his path despite these circumstances – both the prophetic history as well as contemporaneous military advice.

Abijah delivered a harangue from the mount and mentally berates Jeroboam as a SERVANT, of his grandfather. A word Jeroboam wouldn’t have heard in the last twenty years. Abijah reminds Jeroboam of his past. Not a gentle reminder, but a hard hitting slap in front of his own army. Abijah had mentally overcome the rut in which Solomon and Rehoboam had grovelled, before the ability and efficiency of an Ephraimite.

What happened thereafter is not clear – the smart Jeroboam surrounds the army of Abijah yet Abijah not only wins the war but decimated five portions of the eight portions of Jeroboam’s army and reduces the forces to 75% capacity of that of Judah. I am yet to find a King within the Bible who did so much for his succeeding generations, with such a depressing legacy. To boot, Abijah gets into Bethel and cuts through the Northern kingdom. Where are the Chronicles of Prophet/Seer Iddo, which probably described this battle?

One person i would like to meet and talk to, deo volente, would be this Prophet Iddo. He must have accurately brought out how Abijah won the battle; and not merely the battle, but how Abijah broke the backbone of Jeroboam by decimating his army and reducing it to below twenty five percent capacity of Abijah’s own army; and took back the lands of Bethel and other parts of Ephraim/Manasseh.

God, helped Abijah, but longevity was denied and the man achieved in three years what Solomon and Rehoboam couldn’t achieve in 30 years.

I am of an inveterate opinion that the histories of Abijah must have been suppressed after Ahab and Jezebel took over; and with their villainy ensured that their daughter was married into the family of the King of Judah and got rid of the History of the Seer Iddo, which was the history of Judah and Abijah, and a damning one for Samaria!

If Jehu, had only seen through that, he might have secured the history and preserved it for me and you the reader. Asa, the son of Abijah who came to power had an untrammelled run as the King only because of the body blow delivered by Abijah.

I am all for these types who had not only the indomitable spirit but took the God given Liberty in their hands and DID attempt something, and God sanctified those efforts.

God loves a man who says YES. Yes to righteous action

Ahasuerus, the Democrat!

Yes i am talking of the same Ahasuerus, the Emperor of the Perses and the Medes, referred to in the Book of Esther in the Old Testament of the Bible.

I have been in the habit of reading the Bible for a very long time, but this verse cast a thunderbolt. It is the from the New King James’ Version (NKJV).

But before i excerpt from the NKJV, let me excerpt from the KJV (1611):

Esther 1: 22

For he sent letters into all the kings prouinces, into euery prouince, according to the writing thereof, and to euery people after their language, that euery man should beare rule in his owne house, and that it should be published according to the language of euerie people.

Into modern English it would read:

22 For he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

The meaning is very simple, there was only one Decree that was made by Emperor Ahaseurus that EVERY MAN SHOULD BEAR RULE IN HIS OWN HOUSE.

This was a decree passed after the Seven Wise men, who were in charge of the 127 provinces under Ahasuerus’ empire, were consulted by the Emperor and decreed, as the slights by wives on their husbands would engender ‘contempt & wrath’. The quoted version states that this decree should be published in the language of every people. That’s the doctrine of intelligible Notice.

I had read this passage many times and I’d even written a blog on one of those Wise Men named Memucan.

Curiosity sometimes leads one to strange versions of the Bible. There are so many versions that some of those translations, intended for use by certain ethnic groups, are positively abominable. Maybe those are versions like our meaningless nursery rhymes – where an intelligent kid may keep wondering throughout his primary school as to where to find Humpty Dumpty’s wife and kids!

Here is the excerpt of the same verse Esther 1:22 as per NKJV:

Here the decree consists of two portions:

1. Law declaring Man to be the master of his own house; &

2. That Man shall speak in the language of his own people.

The background of all this is that EmperorAhasuerus had a vast Empire consisting of various ethnic, linguistic and variegated cultural groups, but was ruled by a Persian. He could have declared and enforced the language of the Perses & Medes, probably Persian, as the only language through which official communications could be made to the Government in Sushan, otherwise their pleas would not be entertained. It would have been easy for Ahaseurus to unify the whole Empire, on the premise that Language was a unifying factor and as he himself was a Persian, propagating the Persian language could have been taken up on ideological grounds too. Yet he made a declaration which i think is laudable and Emperor Ahaseurus seems to have understood the pulse of the people, the cultural settings of each of the peoples of his Empire and their aspirations as well!

The Second Decree was:

“…..That Man shall speak in the language of his own people.”

What could be the meaning of ‘language of his own people’? I suppose the meaning would probably be that, not only that Man shall bear rule in his own house, but the language of the Man of the house should be the language of that family. A marriage brings two people together and they could be from different linguistic backgrounds, it would not be the choice of the couple to decide as to which language could be chosen as the language of the family, but the language of the linguistic group from which the Man comes from SHALL BE THE LANGUAGE OF THE FAMILY.

I think this was a decision very much ahead of Emperor Ahasuers’ Times. Paul, the Evangelist, has a logic that as woman was deceived by the Serpent, she should serve Man!

I Timothy 2

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If we succumb to this logic, then being deceived puts a person in a humbler position than being in transgression caused by the weakness for one’s spouse and disobeying the Commandment of God. Well there is the seniority of Adam, which could have carried the argument, but the second line of reasoning seems utterly dubious.

The following were the reasons given by God in Genesis 3:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

There was nothing said by God as to the reasons for inflicting the punishment on Women because of Eve’s transgression, much less the attribution of her having been deceived!

Seems as if the Christian doctrine, built on the Pauline epistles are falling apart, and socially the importance, efficiency and contribution of women have surely shaken the belief in these Pauline prescriptions. But at the same time, the society’s building blocks being FAMILIES, there has to be an established procedure for ascribing the linguistic lot that a family belonged to, in the eyes of the society and government at large, without getting into the peculiar arrangements of linguistic preferences arrived at by each family internally.

That Ahasuerus was able to think about it four to five centuries before the birth of Christ, only proved the point that our forebears were no fools and that there is safety in the number of advisors one has, especially a Ruler. Further, those advisors should be able to impress upon the Ruler that it is not HOMOGENEITY WHICH MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY, but when there is no governmental interference in certain matters – especially in linguistic matters, people would be happier and more productive. The preferences should be left to the ethnic lot from which that family head hails.

As regards the version NKJV is concerned, i am sure that the errors which had crept into the earlier translations, because of the limited availability of sources in the early 17th Century, are getting rectified.

We as readers of the religious texts should not be bound by earlier versions, instead, if the later versions cite reliable sources and is based on verified research, it should be reconciled with our existing beliefs – which is built anyway on the unshakable foundation laid by Jesus- and accepted. After all i believe that if we are going to be judged, we would be judged only by what was made available and which sounded reasonable to our ears!


Idle plectrum

Waiting to strum.

But the fingers Pluck

On their own,

Besides holding the plectrum

They produce a lasting twang.

But whether it is a strum or a Pluck,

The chords

Held by the other hand

Gives harmony.

Gideon’s Justification!

So the Law of the land of Israel was suffering under Dyarchy.

A system where the local Israeli Government was in charge of paying the Indemnity Amount to the Midianite Overlords, on a regular basis, and that local government was held accountable by the Midianite Overlords, rather a Superior body, which unofficially or even formally ‘advised’ the Israeli Government.

All this happened in those seven years prior to when we find Gideon, who in the cover of darkness, in his own lands was threshing wheat, the produce of his own fields, full of apprehension in his heart that if the Overlords knew it, they would have him decimated. If the ‘agents’ of the Midianites were to catch him engaging in production of wheat, in his own land, out of his own labour, based on his own Capital, even those agents, like Joseph Caiaphas, would, to appease the Midianite Overlords, catch him and hang him!

It is in this scenario that Gideon was threshing wheat in his own fields, with his own efforts, employing his own skills, using his own capital.

This effort was, over and above his share of the effort required of Gideon to pay the taxes appropriated by the Puppet Israeli Government, set up with the consent of the Midianites, to defray the cost incurred towards payment of the indemnity. No progressive work could have been undertaken in the land of Israel. All the resources were getting diverted to the Midianites. The roads that were to be maintained in Israel were getting maintained in the land of the Midianites; the houses which were to be built in the land of the Israelites were getting built in the land of the Midianites, the vineyards that were to be planted in Israel were getting planted in the lands of the Midianites; the smithies which were to be forging weapons were built and fully functioning in the land of the Midianites; and the Midianites were NOT PAYING FOR IT. It was from the indemnity appropriated from Israel, that all the development in the land of Midian was happening !

This lasted for seven long years.

It takes that long for man to realise that not only his labour is being appropriated, but also the OUTPUT OF HIS LIBERTY is being appropriated.

Let me clarify this point further. Jacob went to the land of his mother Rebecca and met her brother Laban. Many things happened, Laban offers his daughter Rachel to Jacob and Laban strikes a deal with Jacob and obtained the labour of Jacob for seven years. But what Jacob did was more than his duty of one third of the day, tending to the sheep of Laban. The sheep was that of Laban’s, that’s the Capital; labour was that of Jacob’s; and the Lands were that which were the grazing fields not owned by any particular person but held in common. Jacob’s contribution was not limited to his Duty, but he tended to the sheep, in such a manner that he put in extra effort not only to get the brindled or spotted ones or the plain ones, but ensured that the numbers of the whole flock went up. This is evidenced, when Laban said that God had blessed Laban because of Jacob. Laban’s idea of blessing was limited to the increase of his flock. Laban’s sons were living in the cushion of ENTITLEMENT, they were the owners of the flock. They neither understood that the numbers of sheep was multiplying – not merely because it was there, but that someone was tending to it and hoping that the flock grew in numbers, by feeding them appropriately, ensuring that the ewes gave birth in time, the rams were in the right proportion to the ewes, bartering the rams for ewes, protecting them etc. Jacob’s only wages was the share promised by Laban. Jacob’s Liberty was also focused on the growth of his father-in-law; Jacob’s Liberty was paying for the good-life of his jealous brothers-in-law!

When Laban changed the wages of Jacob many times, Laban’s change was based on the count of the sheep. It was nothing but skimming out the rewards of the Liberty of Jacob.

Another example is, what the Pharaoh did to the Israelites in the land of Egypt. The Jews in Egypt were doing their job of producing the tale of bricks but the necessary straw was provided by another section. When Moses met Pharaoh and demanded that his people be allowed to go to the wilderness, to offer sacrifice to Jehovah, the Pharaoh attacked the Liberty of the enslaved Jews. Till then, the Pharaoh was extracting labour, but after the demand of Moses, the Pharaoh went after the Liberty of the enslaved Jews. The Pharaoh told the Jews that straw would not be supplied and the enslaved Jews themselves had to gather the straw but the tale of bricks determined earlier shall not diminish and be delivered to the Pharaoh’s overseers. The only way this could be met is by taking up the leisure time of the enslaved Jews.

I have been using the word “ENSLAVED”, for the simple reason that it is no more to be considered a person’s fault to have been a slave, because another human being, with temporal power and the laws made thereby; is, was and had never been designed for one human being to enslave another. And if someone had approved of it at any time, either in history or at present or in future, can never be considered a HUMANIST. If a human being could bring himself to degrade another human being, made in the image of God, he is not a believer in God. He is a brute who wants to deny the Liberty of another human being, and appropriate his labour and skills by force! Period.

What is appropriation of another man’s labour and skills? If fair wages is not paid, then that is appropriation of the man’s labour. If his skills or his leisure hours are not paid for, as per his determined rates, then that is appropriation of another man’s LIBERTY.

Enslaving is inhuman, being enslaved is not necessarily an individual’s choice and mostly it is a byproduct of oppression inflicted to extract labour by the empowered, and sustained through an impersonalised system designed to enslave other human beings on one ideology or the other.

In such a disenfranchised state, deprived of their revenues, deprived of their Liberty, the Israelites were languishing under the permanent yoke of the Midianites and the recurring forays of the same Overlords, pillaging them from time to time.

In these circumstances, arises the courage of a man and the man was Gideon. He may not be rescuing a people who had been in bondage for for centuries like Moses, but within the same generation, in the last seven years, his people had been enslaved and had degenerated to such an extent that an altar of Baal had been erected by Gideon’s father Joash, in his own land for public worship. The Midianites had not only deprived the Israelites of their Life & Liberty, but had forced their gods like Baal on the Israelites.

When my God is MADE TO REPLACE YOUR GOD, the subjugation is complete. Because, my god’s priests would become the eventual arbiters of not only what is right and wrong, but even what is a fact and what is not!

Thus the Israelites had been subdued by the overwhelming power of the Midianites, Amalekites and the children of the East.

Gideon firstly REBELS in his mind.

Secondly, he FLOUTS their Rules.

Thirdly, Gideon PRODUCES in the dark.

Thereafter, he gets the ASSURANCE FROM GOD.

Fifthly, he SACRIFICES.

Sixthly, Gideon erects his own God and destroys the altar of Baal, and finally

Gideon informs his sub-tribe, his tribe Manasseh, other three tribes of Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali of his plans to fight the Midianites and the children of the East.

With all these happenings, Gideon attains victory. A victory so great that even the tribe of Ephraim joins the plunder towards the end and Gideon becomes the Judge of Israel.

Was Gideon justified in threshing against the Midianite Rules, supported by a quisling government of Israel?

Yes, when it is your own land, labour and capital, if an outsider for any reason steals your Liberty, it is time to assert your individuality.

Gideon did and his rebellion was sanctified by God.


When Midianites exercised suzerainty over the Israelites, one of their constant programmes was to deprive the Israelites from harvesting the UNREPORTED produce of their own land.

This was not a burden imposed by the Midianites on Israelites, it was a ceiling on their Liberty!

When Israelites were under the vassalage of Midianites they had to pay an amount of farm produce as INDEMNITY. That indemnity was determined by the Revenues collected, by the Israeli Authorities, when they were a Sovereign nation.

So after Midianites had defeated the Israelites, probably in a war or a series of battles, it would do no good to the Midianites if they destroyed all the crop, fruit bearing trees, timber, livestock, wineries, oil extractors etc., and the Midianites would have gained nothing through their victory! Therefore, the Midianites first impose EXACTING TAXES, so that 90% of the revenues of Israel, recorded in the previous years, is appropriated as INDEMNITY.

But if the people have the Liberty to work harder, for example, would end up cultivating more lands, putting in more hours of effort in their carpentry factories, smithies, wineries, fields, orchards, etc., and there would be an increase in income in the hands of the INDIVIDUAL ISRAELITES!

If individual Israelites ended up with more reserves, the Nation Israel, though had to part with 90% of the Revenues as the indemnity payable to the Midianites, would end up having a population with more disposable income in their hands – which could turn out to be a threat to the Midianites in the long run.

So what did Gideon do? Gideon paid his exacting taxes, for ultimately settling the indemnity amounts imposed by Midianites on Israel. But over and above that, Gideon was using his free hours to thresh the wheat and corn he had raised in his own land- to supplement to his personal income.

The Midianites could not revise their INDEMNITY amount (which had been fixed at some point of time in the past), but to keep the Israelites in poverty, the only way was to pillage and destroy the crops of the Israelites, so that the fruits of the Liberty of the Israelites, is made unprofitable for them. In any case, the Midianites would not gain anything out of the produce of the Liberty of the individual, therefore keep the total produce just enough for the Israelites to pay their obligations under the Indemnity.

Judges Chapter 6 says this:

when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them;

4 And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.

That’s what a Midianite does, he can neither toil to increase his own income, nor would he allow the Liberty of others to increase their income through their own efforts. Further, in their pillaging they get the help of another breed called Amalekites. They are brethren in idleness, supercilious, lacking in effort but diligent in skimming the efforts of others. Even in their skimming, they ensure that the extra efforts of the Israelites are not beneficial for the Israelites, hence they pillage and keep the Israelites impoverished.

So the overlords of Israelites, at that point of time were the Midianites.

Today’s world does not lack in Midianites either – their trait is very easy to identify:

1. Their own sustenance is out of the efforts of others; and

2. They control the means of production, so that surplus does NOT stay in the hands of those who toil.

Now let us come to the Amalekites. Who is an Amalekite in the Bible?

Exodus 17:

Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.

9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

12 But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

This is the first encounter with the Amalekites, wherein Joshua fought the battle, while the Levitic force of Moses & Aaron, had to stay up and hold up Moses’ hand for Joshua to win the battle.

To fight an Amalekite, one has to have not only the physical might but has to have the spiritual backing too. Not for nothing that some of the historical writings depict Amalekites as sorcerers‼️ Further, the Amalekites were the descendants of Esau, a person who was intended to be blessed by his father Isaac, but denied that by the machinations of Esau’s mother Rebecca. An Amalekite is one who was to be favoured by the father but denied the benefit by his mother. Not only Esau was denied, but his younger brother, Jacob, sneakily received the blessings preserved by his father for his brother Esau. The culmination was that when Esau begged his father for blessings, Isaac’s blessing was that HE SHALL SERVE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER!

So an Amalekite is reduced to a dependent force, though physically superior.

In the context of this blog, an Amalekite plays the supportive role to Midianites.

Further from the Bible, it could be seen that it was an Amalekite, who not only dared to kill the dying King Saul, but claimed that he was the person who decimated a moribund Saul, and brings the crown to King David, hoping for a reward for a work for which he was not fully responsible! An Amalekite is therefore, one who has the physical strength but very less foresight and sells his birthright for an immediate reward. A man who would perennially fail the marshmallow test!

So the fit was perfect:

The Midianites subjugated and lay down the rules to keep the Israelites impoverished; and the Amalekite is a mercenary for reward, in the spoils of somebody’s war!

These were the traits that Gideon was up against.

It is not that Gideon alone was against those types, even we are against these types which appear as a combination.

So what do we do?

Be like Gideon – get the assurance not only from the angel, but from God himself as well as from the enemy camp. But in the meanwhile, thresh your wheat by the winepress in your own backyard, away from the sight of the Midianites and the Amalekites. God, in due time would not only make our efforts prosper but also call us MIGHTY MAN OF VALOUR.

But it is for is to identify the traits of the Midianites and be discreet in our efforts.

What Adam Lost!

Adam just didn’t lose being in the Garden of Eden, laden with a curse and having to sweat his brow for a living before being declared dead – Adam lost an opportunity to become the Interceder with God on behalf of the Woman!

Just imagine the situation immediately after Eve had been enticed by the Serpent, to taste of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and after having taken a bite, when she offered it to Adam, if only had he remembered the Rule: Didn’t God tell me that i should not eat from that Forbidden tree? And was that proscription not applicable to you too?

The woman would have given the same explanation to Adam which Eve gave God.

The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

Adam could have asked: How did the Serpent beguile you? And Eve would have meekly given a gist of that clandestine conversation she had with the Serpent:

The Serpent asked me: Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Adam would have interjected: So did you tell him which tree? The Serpent did not know which Tree was proscribed by God. Did you give away the details, to that slithery creep?

Eve would have said: i am sorry, i thought the Serpent fore-knew which tree was proscribed, as the Serpent asked me if i shall not eat of every tree in the garden.

Adam would have asked, What did you say?

Eve said: i told the Serpent “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Adam could have said: WE? Why did you involve ‘me’ in that slimy conversation, of yours, with that wily fellow?

I had told you that God had commanded me not to eat of a particular tree in the Garden, i had shown you which tree that was and now you are offering me a fruit of that very tree, after having consumed a fruit from that tree?

At best you should have told the Serpent that Adam had informed you that God is supposed to have commanded Adam, not to eat of that tree, and as agreed between us, even i was bound by that Commandment.

Why did you share those details, which you were made privy to, as i had chosen you as my own flesh and blood, when God presented you before me? Don’t you remember that i was in this very Garden for so long without you, and yet it never crossed my mind to try that proscribed tree?

I refuse to hearken to you to eat from that Forbidden tree and i would rather keep the Commandment of God, than show disobedience to what God had commanded me personally, long before you came into existence!

Eve stood like ever before Adam, but felt a sense of shame creeping all over her and said that She was naked.

Eve ran for cover to hide her sense of shame, which was overwhelming. Adam would have taken pity on the plight of Eve and made her comfortable with fig leaves.

And in the cool of the evening when God came, Adam as usual would have met God and interceded on behalf of his fallen Wife.

May be the most merciful God would not have driven out Eve, for the sake of Adam’s OBEDIENCE. Maybe the Men would have had to live with the fallen women and stitch fig leaves and clothe them, to keep them from being ashamed of themselves, while men would have been in the Garden of Eden, walking without knowing what is good and bad; and consequently without a sense of guilt- and probably meeting God daily in the cool of the evening.

Adam, blew up all that? Eh?

No not at all.

Each man would have been confronted with another Eve, who would make a clandestine conversation with a wily Serpent, and after being enticed, would have eaten of the Forbidden Fruit and be offered of the same fruit and been confronted with the same challenge that Adam faced once: Whether to appease the woman companion or implicitly obey the Commandment of God and REFUSE TO PARTAKE IN ANYTHING RELATING TO THAT TREE OF KNOWLEDGE, would have been a perennial challenge!

The challenge is eternal, if that Adam had not brought us down to the Earth, someone else would have!

There is only one UNFALLEN ADAM and he was hanged on the Cross. The Man who asked: “Woman what have i to do with thee?”, When His time had not yet come. He brooked no coercion even from His own terrestrial Mother.

Faith – A matter of UNDISPROVABLE Belief!

Faiths are built on these two cornerstones:

1. Unprovable Beliefs

2. Undisprovable Beliefs

Even the auto correcting dictionary of my iPhone is underlining the word UNDISPROVABLE.

What is so difficult for the human mind to accommodate ‘Undisprovable’ as a word, when Unprovable is already a part of the vocabulary of a decent dictionary?

To get to the Undisprovable, one has to have gone beyond the parameters of Time, which are History and the Senses. An idea or a piece of history, which cannot be found out either through the writings of contemporaries or through remains of an archaeological discovery, or not palpable to the senses, are UNPROVABLE , but if an assertion of a fact is mentioned relating to the same period, even if the asserter is unable to prove, the leg on which that Fact stands would be UNDISPROVABILITY.

When such an undisprovable fact is sanctified through revered religious voices, these facts get set as FAITHS.

For example whether Soul exists at all, is not as important as to whether it is a provable fact as much as whether it is an undisprovable fact.

Many charlatans and many sages have asserted facts which fall in this category – Undisprovable fact. But believing in some, have led to salubrious effect on the society and some beliefs have led to deleterious effects. The effects have to be seen on humanity at the individual level, and not on a group, vis à vis an undisprovable fact.

This is the reason why in most of the Modern Laws, the person who asserts a fact has to prove it. If he doesn’t succeed, that assertion is not considered a proven fact.

Let us take one of the most mysterious happenings in the history of Israel- the reign of Abijam or Abijah, the son of Rehoboam, the son of King Solomon, the son of King David.

He ruled only for a period of three years, according to the Kings as well as the book of Chronicles, from the Bible.

I prefer to call him Abijah, as the ending ‘jam’ doesn’t sound good to my ears, for a man’s name. Abijah is engaged in a very decisive war with Jeroboam – the founder of the Kingdom of Israel minus the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. A very capable man who threatened the peace of Solomon, but ran away to Egypt and stayed till the death of King Solomon. Upon his return, he is set up as the King by the ten other tribes against King Rehoboam, the Foolish. Grandson of King David, he neither inherited the skills and cunning of his grandfather, nor the putative “Wisdom” of his father King Solomon.

King Solomon himself was mostly responsible for the plight of Rehoboam. King Solomon died with the kingdom’s coffers dry, replenished only through exacting taxes imposed. Added to this were his advisors, who were hotheaded young men. Why Rehoboam should have had hotheaded young men, as advisors, at an age of 41 years, would be a good question, but no undisprovable factual answer could be adduced from the text of the Bible. With such a flawed inheritance and a bad governing attitude, Rehoboam falls a victim to the creation of the ten tribes. Worse still is the fact that Rehoboam, who boasted that the girth of his little finger was thicker than his father’s waist, listens to a prophet stating that the division was from the Lord and Rehoboam accepts that meekly.

Rehoboam was so enfeebled that he had to accept that decision of the ten tribes, because of his own weakness.

Abijah did not accept this so called “came from God” theory and gives his own explanation to Jeroboam and his forces of 800,000 men of war. Abijah says that by a covenant of salt, the whole kingdom of 12 tribes were given to King David and his heirs in perpetuity by God, and that his father, Rehoboam while he was still young and tender hearted, couldn’t withstand the vain men and sons of belial, whom Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, had threatened Rehoboam with! At one stroke, Abijah demolished the past, present and future of Jeroboam. Words which talk of the pedigree of a servant disobedient to the word of God, disobedient to the king, a thug, and taking advantage of a newly anointed but an inexperienced king!

None, none in the Bible is spoken to in such terms. Abijah strips Jeroboam with his address. Meanwhile, Jeroboam had started encircling the mount on which Abijah had set his army in array. Abijah further adds that, since Jeroboam, as the scum of the Israel, had dared to fight the God’s anointed, God would fight the war on behalf of Abijah.

The fact as reported by the Chronicler is that 800,000 enemies were to be countered by an army half the size, yet Abijah was not trying to be ‘wise’ like Rehoboam and accept the loss of 10 tribes as God designed, as propounded by the dispersed levitic prophets! But invoked the name of God and was willing to stake it out against a much bigger force. A proposition not considered wise in any warfare. Mysteriously, how Abijah won this war is not mentioned except that God gave victory to Abijah. It was not a mere victory, it was a slaughter, 400,000 men utterly slaughtered 500,000 men and Judah gets back Bethel and vast swathes of land in Ephraim – the tribe of Jeroboam! It was a 125% slaughter. You may choose to believe it or not, but i chose to believe it, not because i am a newly minted fan of Abijah, but because it took the next king of Israel Baasha 35 years, to start the first war with Asa, the son of Abijah! That was also not a war but an act of effrontery of starting construction in Ramah, which was the traditional lands of the tribe of Judah.

If it took 35 years for the kingdom of Israel to recover, some deep injury must have been inflicted by Abijah. In those 35 years, the tribe of Israel was hobnobbing with the Syrians. Asa builds, rather rebuilds the diplomatic ties with Syria, by sending gold and other precious things to Benhadad and breaks those pre-existing ties between Syria and Israel – reminding Benhadad of the earlier ties which, Asa claims as having existed between his father, Abijah, and Benhadad’s father!

So now let us get to the UNDISPROVABLE FACT!

So how did four hundred thousand men rout eight hundred thousand men? Worse still how did they manage to kill five hundred thousand men?

Asa says his father Abijah and the father of Benhadad were allies! In that short span of three years of Abijah’s kingship, he is not reported to have been engaged in any big battle, except for the fact that border skirmishes had taken place. Nothing so decisive as the one which happened in the mount Ephraim, had taken place!

In the meanwhile, the Book of Kings states that the Prophet Iddo had written about Abijah. But history says all his writings have been lost for good – as of now‼️

In this scenario, why cannot i insert a highly probable history, that Abijah had already built an alliance with Benhadad’s father, regarding which Jeroboam was not aware of. And as Jeroboam was surrounding the mount, why can’t i say that there were Syrians who had been lying in wait behind the encircling Israelites?

Why can’t i say that Israelites did not want the Chronicles of Iddo to survive, after Ahab and Jehosaphat became allies! Especially after both the Kingdoms became United through matrimonial alliances during the reign of Ahab?

Am i not entitled to start stories like Dan Brown’s DA VINCI CODE– which merely are stories which have taken bits and pieces of facts from the Bible and strung together EMBOLDENED only based on the UNDISPROVABILITY of those assertions?

Yes, i have the Liberty, so does everyone, but discretion is required by the reader to distinguish between what is an UNDISPROVABLE fact and a highly probable fact.

But beyond all this, if i assert a Faith, i don’t have to stand on facts- but we have to ensure that our faiths do not disturb others’ Faith. That’s the bedrock on which all Faiths are to be ‘bedrocked’ not merely laid.

Asa and his father Abijah

Strange it may sound to many Christians, even to those who read the Bible, that there was a King of Judah & Benjamin called Abijah!

The worse part is that, Christians would remember Jeroboam, the King of Israel but wouldn’t know that it was this Abijah who finally settled scores with Jeroboam, decimated Jeroboam’s war machine and emasculated him to such an extent that Jeroboam never recovered from that defeat inflicted by David’s great-grandson.

Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, was a thorn in the flesh of Solomon. When Solomon’s ire concentrated on Jeroboam, he escaped from the hands of Solomon and lived out, almost twenty years of his life, in exile in Egypt.

I am not getting into those reasons which are mentioned in the Bible as to why a king lost or won a battle or a war. Based on the cull-able facts, as written in the Bible, i am presenting to myself a political perspective of the events which are mentioned in the Bible.

Rehoboam, the son of King Solomon, lost ten of the 12 tribes of Israel to Jeroboam.

I am sure that Jeroboam would not have served the Egyptian Pharaoh in any low capacity, during those years of his self exile in Egypt. In fact i believe that the Pharaoh Shishak capturing Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam and stripping the gold plated doors of the Temple, could have been triggered by Jeroboam.

The Bible was not meant to be read as a historical document, it was written and compiled to inspire spirituality and glorify Jehovah and reveal the purpose of each generation on this Earth through the prophets and scribes. Yet, i can’t ignore, the history buried in it which to me is extremely intriguing and edifying.

One of those is the period, of two decades, following the split of the Kingdom of Israel into two parts. I personally think that Solomon was the MOST FOOLISH KING of Israel. He dissipated all the wealth generated, accumulated, preserved and bequeathed to Solomon by his father David. Had Solomon depleted those resources on building cities for his own glory, may be one could say, that he was a megalomaniac and overlook his dissipation, but King Solomon, with all his knowledge did not put that knowledge to practice. At least not in the way his father had. He neither generated, nor was he able to tax people moderately, in fact he created a burden for his successor Rehoboam and Rehoboam buckled.

Jeroboam probably sensed the inherent weakness of Rehoboam – even Abijah in his harangue, while facing Jeroboam, pities the youthful ignorance of his father Rehoboam at the age of 41 years- and stoked the people against Rehoboam and succeeded!

This Abijah, son of Rehoboam, fights the battle from a mount in Ephraim. How a Judah-Benjamin got that far is still a mystery. But the greater mystery is that the 400,000 army of Abijah killed 500,000 of the 800,000 men of Jeroboam in the battle.

Abijah reduced the fire power of Jeroboam, and the inherent advantage of having five times the number of tribes of Judah- Benjamin. That was the beginning of the restoration. Had it not been done, Israel would have gobbled up Judah-Benjamin and we would not have had those wonderful kings like Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoshapat, and Josiah, to name the prominent few.

Abijah ruled for a very short period but within that short period he did two great things which brought parity among the 2 and ten Tribes of the United Israel. One was he was singularly responsible in reducing the men of war in Israel. Second is that he made inroads into the territories of Israel and made a path to the Syrian land.

Asa, the son of Abijah, ruled peacefully for 35 years and thereafter Baasha, the king of Israel, starts a building project in the land traditionally held under the control of Judah. At that time, Asa takes the help of the Syrian king Benhadad, to frighten the King of Israel Baasha, which was possible for Asa, because of the inroads which paved a way for the Southern Judahites to have access to the Syrian lands.

But, Abijah’s reign did not exceed 3 years in all. That was pitiable.

What Abijah recaptured and restituted to Israel, was tremendous. In fact King Asa tells the Syrian king Benhadad at

II Chronicles 16:3 thus:

There is a league between me and thee, as there was between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent thee silver and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me.

Spiritually, the Kings of Judah-Benjamin like Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoshapat, and Josiah would be more inspiring, but Abijah cannot be ignored, and in strategy and politics his role in having placed Judah Benjamin on an equal footing with Israel, through strategy and effort deserves him to be placed just below King David. If there is a flaw in his strategy, it was he who, to counter the hobnobbing of the Israelites with the Egyptians, brought about a political alliance of Judah with the Syrians. Nevertheless, Abijah rises very high above those who had longer reigns, but performed very little to show such political acumen or put Judah Benjamin in a structurally superior position.

STRIKE RATE – A Media Concoction!

Strike rate is a concept which has been popularised in the context of Cricket, both in bowling as well as batting. When a batsman has faced a certain number of balls, the number of balls faced becomes the denominator and the runs scored becomes the numerator. The resultant product is the Strike rate. Likewise in bowling, the product of the total number of balls bowled divided by the number of wickets taken would be called STRIKE RATE.

Importing this concept into Elections may help inflate and deflate the egos of many leaders of political parties, but is it the right way to assess the result? I guess not.

In electoral politics, this concept has been imported to mean the product arrived at by dividing the total number of seats contested by a party divided by the number of seats won and multiplying it by 100.

This concept is being bandied about to camouflage the dismal performance of some parties. When there is coalition, there are bound to be alliances and seat sharing consequently. When the seat sharing takes place, alliance partners do not contest in the same seats; and the final count of wins becoming the denominator of the total seats contested, and multiplied by 100, ignores a very important aspect.

In an alliance, not only there is seat sharing – which means the un-contesting partner in an alliance not merely forgoes an opportunity to contest in the constituency, but also helps his partner in the contest by providing resources, moral support and all other support to ensure that the alliance partner wins.

But of late, some in a partnership just about forego contesting in favour of a partner and not only ensure that they do not provide the necessary support, but also secretly ensure that transference of their party votes do not take place.

This kind of practice happens when disparate elements which do neither have congruence of interests nor being birds of similar feather merely flock together, with the intention of ensuring that someone else does not capture power or to have a bigger bargaining power even within the alliance.

In the Israeli elections, if noted carefully, this would be visible.

The final effect is that within the same alliance partners there are rich partners with unlimited resources and indigent ones also. Further transference of votes become osmotic, the weaker partner’s cadres vote as per alliance whereas the stronger and economically stronger parties don’t feel obligated to go to the booth to cast their votes. There are no boasting rights in having voted for a candidate, who probably doesn’t belong to one’s own caste or creed or belief. This indifference creeps in and the party leadership is not overly concerned with getting their base voters to the booth in a constituency where their party candidate is not nominated!

In this scenario, the Media, especially the electronic media goes to town exalting certain parties, for their own oblique reasons, and ascribing a higher STRIKE RATE to such parties, is ludicrous.

It is time that the Media gets into educating the public and laying open the internecine strategies practised by certain parties to ride on the strength of their alliance partners and pretend to be reciprocating, whereas all that they do is stymie the resources of alliance parties and ensure that transference of votes do not take place, and ensure that their parties fatten their electorate base by cannibalising other parties in the bargain.

Goliath’s sword!

Soon after the victory in the battle with the Philistines had established the slinging skills of David, David was hoping that Mehrab would be offered.

Mehrab was not one to give herself to a shepherd boy who, no doubt had skills but lacked in pedigree. Mehrab had her own exalted notions of her nobility – a Nobility built in one generation, after Saul had abandoned his search of the donkeys and serendipitously found his way to kingship!

David has his own plans. He had no pretensions, even if he had, that was about his achievements based on his skills. A man who honed his skills in the lean hours of his uncool profession – keeper of a few sheep, in Jesse’s words!

Yet, Time, which is common to all mankind, was put to use with a fervent hope that some day those skills, which were assiduously built in those lean hours, would redeem him from shepherding those few sheep.

David met those challenges – more than halfway. The dead lion and the bear bore testimony to his courage and skill. He had embellished his curriculum vitae with valorous deeds – indelible in his own mind. There were no witnesses, when David talks of his achievements before Abner and King Saul, his proof is not based on witnesses, but his own memory and his capability to repeat, if challenged.

David’s trophy was to be the daughter of the King. Mehrab was disinclined, Michal steps in. Michal was no less imperious than her sister, but she saw in David what Mehrab couldn’t see. Michal saw in David, how David filled in the void created by Saul. Saul, the anointed, didn’t want to engage with the Champion of the Philistines. Saul was looking for someone who could defeat Goliath and rescue the Israelites from slavery- that was the King’s job, but there must have been two reasons for avoiding a fight with Goliath.

Firstly, as a king he didn’t want to engage with a mere Champion. A loss would ensure that the whole kingdom, however fledgling it might have been, would have gone lock stock and barrel.

Secondly, Saul must have felt inadequate to fight Goliath.

Besides all this, the failure of Saul was that there was an inordinate delay in either challenging Goliath himself or setting up another person. Saul couldn’t find a man in his service to fight Goliath- not only that a person has to be willing, but in a fair assessment, the person should be an equal. None was found in Israel and Abner was in as much quandary as his King.

That’s where David steps in. David’s credential’s were his own claims of having killed a lion and a bear. I am sure Saul would not have believed all his claims without proof. As per History in the Book of Judges, the Benjamites were the tribe which had the best slingers – they could sling up to a hairbreadth of the target – so the Bible says, and here we have a king from the tribe of Benjamin assessing the capability of a Judahite, in slinging! Reasonably it could be assumed that David was aided by Saul to fight Goliath only after testing the slinging skills of David. The Benjamite Saul must have been overly impressed.

Skill without courage would be a non sequitur! To show courage and execute one’s skills in the face of a formidable challenge is God’s grace. The mind needs to be focused on what is to be done and not buffeted by the negative possibilities. Even if Goliath were to taunt David, David’s retort was courageous towards his opponent and simultaneously humble as a mortal ought to be. Like Ahab said, wisely in one of those rare instances, ‘Let not him who puts on the armour boast like one who is removing it’, David was humble.

After the victory is won, David uses Goliath’s own sword to sever the head of Goliath.

Michal is married off to David much later and that too reluctantly by Saul, after extracting his pound of foreskins. Yet David doesn’t slink away from those who never gave him the promised reward despite the task having been accomplished, yet he continues to labour.

Ŵe also know from the following chapters that the sword of Goliath was not given to David, but was in the safe custody of a priest at Nob. It is only much later David obtains Goliath’s sword from Ahimelech, there Priest at Nob & the father of Abiathar, by telling him a lie which results in the death of Ahimelech, in the hands of Doeg, the informer, at the command of Saul, and the escape of Abiathar. A cursory Reading shows that David Himself might not have been aware of the sword having been there, but we can’t say anything with David. As King Saul says: David was crafty!

Now David is restored his Sword. The sword which was in the service of Goliath, like the hounds of Actaeon, yet was used by David to sever Goliath’s own head. That very sword came back to the hands of David – the symbol of his unadulterated singular victory, which saved the Israelites from the ignominy of an un-responded challenge and the defeat by a Champion of the Philistines!

The Sword of Goliath, once it came into the hands of David, he became a force, no more an appendage in the camp of King Saul, assigned all the risky tasks to pull chestnuts for Saul and his imperious brood of daughters.

The irony of it all is that after David gets the Sword of Goliath, David goes to GATH. Look at God’s ways. I am amazed, Good sends David with the Sword of Goliath into GATH – the very place from where Goliath hailed from. God takes David to the very place where the Sword was forged. David enters Gath, in his own right with his few men. Then he moves to Moab and finally ends up with his own Tribe of Judah, where Adullam plays the host for a while.

I am amazed, except the Grace of God nothing could have taken David with the Sword of Goliath into GATH. David should be inoculated and familiarised with the terrain and people from whom his weapon had emerged.

David was no more a stranger to his own weapon about which he states thus in 1 Samuel 21:

the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

The battle with Goliath was not won by anyone except by God, through the strengthening the hands of David. But the very trophy, GOLIATH’s SWORD was deprived by Saul, who instead of playing the King had reduced himself to a mere Manager of Israel’s resources, keeping the Sword of Goliath hidden at a nondescript Temple in Nob. What a pity. Saul’s plight was because he had become too imperious and wouldn’t listen to the words of Samuel, nor did he give honour to the division of labour as prescribed in the Scriptures.

But the Sword of Goliath, probably had to be repaired and had to be polished, where else to get it done than in GATH? Probably that thought took him there, but factually the Sword went to its own place of birth and it was re-sanctified and re-christened in GATH as David’s Sword. The taint of it having been kept wrapped in an Ephod at Nob was over.

Saul is alienated without recourse to him using his Son in law David as a troubled shooter.

David comes on his own. God remembered where Goliath’s Sword lay for years and He RESTORES IT TO DAVID, Gets IT to GATH and not for nothing David in Psalm 144 says:

1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.

God subdued David’s own people under him, by strengthening David’s hands and making them unite, to take over when Saul when died in the battle.

All started with Goliath’s Sword. Sever yourself from those masters who use you for their purposes and expose you to unwanted risky ventures. Claim your long lost trophy and get it restored and most of all WAIT ON HIM TO EXALT YOU IN DUE TIME.

Sauls would not want Davids to have Goliath’s Sword, lest people congregate with David and create dissipation of the power of Sauls.

Refined experience

When asked, how would it have been for Zorba, had he had a relationship with a classy heiress to a fortune?

Zorba said: I would have been lulled into some refined experience, without realising the immenseness of the underlying resources, intensity of the labour, and the easeness of the privileges that went into each of those refined experiences.

How true!

To lead a Life, shorn of those resources, labour of other human beings, and privileges, would have been the beginning of the learning of the compositeness of Life. More importantly, how one’s Time gets depleted on merely acquiring and saving those, for calibrated refined retail Living.

Bathsheba’s first son

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.

Solomon’s anxieties.

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.

Grand Narratives & all

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.

Power has no reasons, but has reasonings & pretexts‼️

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.

The Pomeranians & the Dobermans

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.

The master was pleased with the arrangement as the Dobermans could guard their campus like any guard dog, but they didn’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 Dobermans had 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.

Political Adultery

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.

Our forefathers weren’t fools.

‘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.

The mounting Eagle and the moulting one

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.

I can’t see my people suffer!

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.

Gangster requests to be handcuffed.

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.

Thamizh Naadu & its name changing of places.

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.

Purim – A salvation or a pretext?

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.

Unparalleled Thuglaq‼️

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.

Judgment unto Victory

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.

Ineffability of Epiphanies!

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.

The prayer of Jonah.

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 : https://movid.wordpress.com/2018/05/17/lying-vanities/ )

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.

Shipmaster’s God in Jonah’s ship.

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.

JONAH – Wrong question, but the Right answer‼️

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.

Ventilators in India – during COVID19 times.

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.

Perspectives differ – but we have to derive our lil pleasures – Wordsworth style‼️

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…..

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.

David’s chicanery of “Doing the commandments”!

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.

Homer’s Odyssey

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 and the Magnet.

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….

Anklets over socks

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.

The Engineer & The Baba!

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

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

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.

Special Mentions!

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.

Realisation of Moses!

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.

Uriah the Hittite & David of Judah.

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.

Why neither Harsha Vardhana nor Narasimhavarma Pallava make it to the list of ‘The Great’?

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.

The Truths hidden of Hammurabi’s Code by the Christendom.

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.

“Do no more”- God to Job‼️

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.

Remembering Siddarth of CCD🇮🇳

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 💐

From ‘Stretch out your hand’ to ‘Speak the Word’:

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.

Wimbledon 2019 & Cricket World Cup 2019 – How to subvert the Idea of Fairness with the Doctrine of Notice?

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?

The Cygnet syndrome

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.

The hare & the tortoise

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.

The Collared bitch

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 humility‼️

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 had undertaken 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, but 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 second sign Gideon received was, 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 happen in the future, without the person seeking a sign not having made up his mind which way to go. 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 prediction of a 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 they, 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 dry 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 meagre 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 Liberty, 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 for Liberty which was willing to forgo credit for the liberty & freedom achieved.

Gideon ranks in my list, 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 would be called ‘mighty man of valour’ – while threshing our own wheat sheaves in our own backyard in the dark of the night‼️

The legitimisation of the Greatness of Louis XIV‼️

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.

Beware of Philistines‼️

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

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.

P J O’Rourke on the Elites

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.”

Legislative power & Executive Power.

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’s downfall!

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.

Memucan, the Seventh Wise Man.

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 Cousin 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 the Advice of advisors, transform into a Law of the Parses and the 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 laws of the Medes & Perses‼️

Why do I like Gore Vidal, P J O’Rourke, Woody Allen and the like?


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.

God deigns to answer the challenge.

“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.

Compliant without Conviction. 

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!

The Inheritor Son & the Prodigal Son!

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.

Hurting the religious sentiments of others.

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.

Men & Maids of Relief!

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 don’t break Trunks

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.

Recital of Sanskrit shlokas in Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools

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!

The Drone & the Queen bee!

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.

How Boaz changed the law.- Book of Ruth, Chapter 5‼️

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?

Shed the comfort of familiarity like David.

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.

Was Boaz’ mother Rahab of Jericho?

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

Imbalances between the ‘Doers’ and ‘Getting it Done-ers’

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

The sated Saint‼️

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. .

Did Joseph’s brothers sell him to the Ishmeelites?

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‼️

Collegiality of SC Justices – Fali Nariman

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.

Historicity of Jesus is dubious – imran Khan

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 first 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 decades 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 be 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 and 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)

‘No’ in abeyance‼️

‘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‼️

Captain Secular‼️

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.

On Prophets & their prophecies‼️

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.

False Assertions of Megalomaniacs.

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‼️

My take on #MeToo‼️

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?

Go and Sin no more!

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 ‼️

Fallacy of Article 37 of the Constitution of India


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!

Reasons for Samson’s tragedy!

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.

Vincent Van Gogh & ‘At Eternity’s Gate’

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.

Secularists Vs. Theists, in Thamizh Nadu.

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.

Harbonah, the Chamberlain & Purim!

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.  

Schopenhauer: Merit & Fame‼️

“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.

Blindly shouting Bartimaeus.

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 wizened Cheetah‼️

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😎

Cheetah & the Lion!

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.

Fake News! & Aesop’s fable🤣

“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!