Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


Paul and Peter might have encashed it, but this blogger believes that what Jesus did that day to the Canaanite woman set the standards of Christianity to all!

Movid's Weblog

One of the passages of the Bible which had troubled me a lot during early adult years, was the passage found in Matthew chapter 15 verse 26. We as Christians are fed with a lot of  nice epithets like ‘loving’, ‘compassionate’, ‘non-judgmental’, ‘forgiving’  JESUS and suddenly the verse, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs”  hits an Indian Christian. Was Jesus truly sent for the lost sheep of Israel and not for the salvation of “MANKIND” as suggested by the disciples  after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?I reproduce the passage for better appreciation of the episode:-

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David…

View original post 1,003 more words


One of the finer distinctions one fails to make in the parable of the vineyard owner and the wage of one denarius is that the first set of workers offered their services on a fixed wage I.e on Labour contract. The second set were persons who were not HIRED, so the vineyard owner engaged their services on the basis of SERVICE. In Thamizh, that would mean OOZHIYAM! Oozhiyam is essentially rendered as service owed to a Church, Temple, deity or public work of the community. These are NOT QUANTIFIABLE in wage terms. There is a certain prestige in Service, without the assurance of a specified wage. 
When the owner gave a denarius each to those contracted on Labour as well as to those who were called to render service at the vineyard, it was the owner’s will to assess the service rendered and the ex gratia to be paid for service. When the master gave a denarius each to all in both the categories, the wage contracted probably thought that they had sold themselves short! They could have bargained for more for their labour! 
It is also possible that the vineyard owner had a specified sum assigned for the harvest and there was no cost overrun despite completion of the harvest, therefore he decided to be generous with those who did ‘service’ at the vineyard! 
What emerges on the whole out of this parable is that, of the one who has entered into a Contract for a job, it would be none of his business to see how much his boss pays people who do lesser duration of work. If you don’t win the contract, do service, you may still get paid handsomely! Go and Work. 
The skilled win labour contract but the unskilled may have to go thru anxious moments, but the vineyard owner would come even at 5 pm and engage our services and pay us equal to those who had won the contract for labour. Cheer up! There is Hope and keep it alive while still alive! 
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”(Matt:20)
Does anyone sympathise with the idle anxiety of those who were not hired in the morning at six, again at 9, again at 12 noon and finally at 3 pm but were sent in to the vineyard at 5 pm but received their “service fee” of one denarius at 6 pm? 
Does anyone sympathise with the 5pm service providers who had missed their breakfast, lunch and tea- break but waited with hope or merely stood there with nowhere else to go? 
We don’t. We look at the salaries and perks. We seldom realise what Milton said in his epic poem : THEY ALSO SERVE WHO STAND AND WAIT! 
But like Godot, one could turn up wasting one’s life – with Nothing to be done! 


There is an underlying belief in Christians who are born Christians or who have declared themselves to have become Christians that those who are Christians by belief but are shy – not ashamed- of confessing, that the latter are crypto- Christians not eligible to be called as Christians! 
There are verses from the Bible which are adduced by the former, such as: 
For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26)
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.(Mark 8:38)
Such verses are repeated to assure themselves of a certain superiority and decrying that those Christians wouldn’t inherit the kingdom of God! 
Woe unto them who preach such things! 
Christianity is an evolutionary process. Learning through hearing, reading or even an epiphanic event are the resources through which Christianity gradually sets into the consciousness of man. 
Zacchaeus in Luke 19, did not plan to meet Jesus, but when Jesus tells him to come down from the Sycamore and stays with him, Zacchaeus repents of his rapacity and restores many times the amounts he had wrongfully collected as taxes at Jericho! He became a practising Christian much before he was baptised! To become a practising Christian nothing is a bar. If the Chief Vizier of the Ethiopian queen was convinced by Apostle Philip, that the Eunuch had to be baptised before he started practising Christianity, even that was right. 
There is no single formula to Christianity. The hierarchification which goes on in Christianity neither has the sanctions of the teachings of Christ, nor are they sustainable on a sane interpretation of the Bible! 
In fact when Jesus’ mother’s sister kneels before Jesus and asks Jesus to make his sons James and John sit on His right and left in His kingdom, He nails it thus: 
…but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matt.22:23)
This is the condition of Jesus’ apostles chosen by Him. What guarantee can a man or a church give to an individual about his place in the kingdom of heaven? 
Christians should stop making such distinctions which teem with stupidity. Christianity is an evolutionary process and at what stage a person is and what opportunities he or she had, what is the weightage to his or her contribution are variables beyond the ken of human understanding and therefore, we as humans shouldn’t rush in to judge. 
If anyone has any doubts if the Father in heaven (Jehovah) also thought so, please refer to the big talk of Elijah when he distinguishes himself as the only one who had not bent his knees to Baal! 
14And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
15And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: 16And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. (I Kings 19 chapter)
See that reply of Jehovah, a passing reference of those 7000 who had not followed Baal! God recognises and en passant counters the superiority claims of Elijah! 
If that is the plight of Elijah, a man who feared no man or woman, except that he grew tired of Jezebel’s relentlessness, how much less would be the judgement of mortals who, to borrow a phrase from John the Baptist, would be unworthy to unloose the latchet of the shoes of Elijah say that Declared Christians are superior to those Christians, who confess within the confines of their homes and churches only? I am a declared and born Christian, but that in itself isn’t redeeming as the deeds and belief of man. It is time Indian Christians understood that! 

Heine Heinrich 


A mistress stood by the sea
sighing long and anxiously.
She was so deeply stirred
By the setting sun
My Fräulein!, be gay,
This is an old play;
ahead of you it sets
And from behind it returns


Written in 2008, seems relevant in today’s scenario in Thamizh Nadu

Movid's Weblog

OF late in INDIA there have been a spate of en masse  resignation of the Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assemblies of the states. The reasons cited are dependent on the political hue of the party they belong to. The issues that i am interested in is two fold:-

1. Whether the MPs and MLAs have a right to resign and if so, what is the alternate arrangement for ensuring the representation of the constituency that sent them, subsequent to the resignation of that MP or MLA?

2. Shud the grounds based on which the resignation is tendered, be enumerated in the Constitution and unless it falls within the prescribed reasons, the Speaker/Chair-person SHOULD NOT accept the resignation.

Getting publicity for one’s policies and principles, in a democratic set up is essential. No doubt, if the electorate is ignorant of the policies, for which a candidate stands…

View original post 316 more words

Thelonius Monk & Wagner


I’ve listened to many jazz pianists and other pianists, but none stings the keys of the piano like Monk does. To listen to him sting those keys and wiggle on those keys, is just like a bee which after stinging, continues to exercise its sting into its victim further by wiggling its abdomen, till it expels the last vanishing venom into the victim. It unravels the deeper anxieties of the soul mercilessly, making me stand and wonder at the vast expanse of the universe, ALONE. 
When complacency gets the better of me Thelonius Monk is my cure, if that fails, I listen to Wagner, who belligerently marches into my soul with his trumpets and tubas and trombones and drags me to his Valhalla. 

God bless their disruptive music! 


On the 5th of December, 2016 Dr. J.Jayalalithaa, then the Chief Minister of Thamizh Nadu passed away, while a Criminal Appeal was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against the acquittal granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Appellant in this case was the State of Karnataka, as the Prosecutor.
In the above scenario, on the day of the passing away of Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, what was her status as a citizen, endued with all the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India? I’d not have given serious thought to this, had I not been flooded with whatsapp messages stating that a “CONVICT” cannot be glorified in the Government offices or in the State Assembly by displaying her photographs and much less be exalted by the State government sponsoring the building of a memorial at the Marina.

According to me Dr. J. Jayalalitha was an AUTREFOIS ACQUIT, at the time of her demise and merely because a Criminal Appeal had been taken by the State, the Appeal does NOT reverse her status as a CONVICT under Section 120B of the IPC, 1860 and Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988. She had been absolved of all the taint which stuck to her by virtue of the Trial Court’s order convicting her of the above mentioned offences and sentencing her to serve 4 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 crores.

Did the Appeal reverse the status of the Accused who was ACQUITTED?

A categorical reply would be NO.

There was no CONCURRENT FINDINGS by the Trial court and the Hon’ble High Court, in fact the penultimate court order exonerated her and thereby her innocence of the offence was established under the abiding principles of “presumption of innocence till proven guilty”.

If that were so, when did the Hon’ble Supreme Court convict her?

By the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court and affirmed the Trial Court Order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court REINSTITUTED (not ‘AFFIRMED’) that Dr. J. Jayalalithaa was a CONVICT on the date of pronouncing the Judgement on 14/02/2017 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 300-303 OF 2017(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6117-6120 of 2015).

Irony is that Dr. J. Jayalalithaa had passed away on 05/12/2016, so the question arises as to whether a person could be pronounced guilty and convicted after her death?

Secondly, the sentence was also upheld in toto, which means that Dr. J.Jayalalithaa shall serve a prison sentence of 4 years and also pay a fine of Rs. 100 crores. That she had died on 05/12/2016 would preclude the deceased from being within the grasp of the living to enforce such an incarceration. Therefore the sentence of the jail term of 4 years would have to necessarily abate, however, the fine of Rs. 100 crores imposed on her would be recoverable from her assets left behind, either in her own name or from the beneficiaries of her bequest.

The law governing abatement of proceedings upon death is available at Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 394 reads as under:

394. Abatement of appeals.

(1) Every appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.

(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant: Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate. Explanation.- In this section,” near relative” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.

“It was conceded by learned counsel for the parties that neither in the Cr.P.C. nor in the Supreme Court Rules there is any provision dealing with such a situation.” (State Of A.P vs S. Narasimha Kumar & Ors on 13 July, 2006)  

Justices A. Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, in their 2006 judgement, had excerpted passages from Harnam Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 343), which appears relevant in the present context:

2. …….It is to be noted that Section 394 Cr.P.C. corresponds to Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (in short the ‘Old Code’).

8……….Dead persons are beyond the processes of human tribunal and recognizing this, the first limb of Section 431 (Chapter XXXI of the Code of 1898) provides that appeals against acquittals finally abate on the death of the accused. Where a respondent who has been acquitted by the lower court dies, there is no one to answer the charge of criminality, no one to defend the appeal and no one to receive the sentence. It is of the essence of criminal trials that excepting cases like the release of offenders on probation, the sentence must follow upon a conviction. Section 258(2), Section 306(2) and Section 309(2) of the Code provide, to the extent material, that where the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge finds the accused guilty and convicts him he shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 562, pass sentence on the accused according to law.

9. Every other appeal under Chapter XXXI, except an appeal from a sentence of fine, finally abates on the death of the appellant. By “every other appeal” is meant an appeal other than one against an order of acquittal, that is to say, an appeal against an order of conviction. Every appeal against conviction therefore abates on the death of the accused except an appeal from a sentence of fine. An appeal from a sentence of fine is excepted from the all pervasive rule of abatement of criminal appeals for the reason that the fine constitutes a liability on the estate of the deceased and the legal representatives on whom the estate devolves are entitled to ward off that liability. By Section 70 of the Penal Code the fine can be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence and if the offender has been sentenced for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; “and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts”. The fact that the offender has served the sentence in default of payment of fine is not a complete answer to the right of the

Government to realize the fine because under the proviso to Section 386(1)(b) of the Code the court can, for special reasons to be recorded in writing issue a warrant for realizing the fine even if the offender has undergone the whole of the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The sentence of fine remains outstanding though the right to recover the fine is circumscribed by a sort of a period of limitation prescribed by Section 70, Penal Code.

10. The narrow question which then requires to be considered is whether an appeal from a composite order of sentence combining the substantive imprisonment with fine is for the purposes of Section 431 not an appeal from a sentence of fine. It is true that an appeal from a composite order of sentence is ordinarily directed against both the substantive imprisonment and the fine. But, such an appeal does not for that reason cease to be an appeal from a sentence of fine. It is something more not less than an appeal from a sentence of fine only and it is significant that the parenthetical clause of Section 431 does not contain the word “only”. To limit the operation of the exception contained in that clause so as to take away from its purview appeals directed both against imprisonment and fine is to read into the clause the word “only” which is not there and which, by no technique of interpretation may be read there. The plain meaning of Section 431 is that every criminal appeal abates on the death of the accused “except an appeal from a sentence of fine”. The section for its application requires that the appeal must be directed to the sentence of fine and not that it must be directed to that sentence only. If by the judgment under appeal a sentence of fine is imposed either singularly or in conjunction with a sentence of imprisonment, the appeal against conviction would be an appeal from a sentence of fine within the meaning of Section 431. All that is necessary is that a sentence of fine should have been imposed on the accused and the appeal filed by him should involve the consideration of the validity of that sentence.

11. It is difficult to discern any principle behind the contrary view. The reason of the rule contained in the exception is that a sentence of fine operates directly against the estate of the deceased and therefore the legal representatives are entitled to clear the estate from that liability. Whether or not the sentence of fine is combined with any other sentence can make no difference to the application of that principle.”

State Of A.P vs S. Narasimha Kumar & Ors on 13 July, 2006

       Bench: Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ

        CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1446-1450 of 2004.

The distinguishing part of the above mentioned judgement with that of Dr. J. Jayalalithaa’s case is that, the Appellant in the cited case was a “CONVICT”at the time of the Appeal, as the Appellant went on appeal against the orders of the High Court which had held him guilty, whereas, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa had been exonerated and the State went on appeal. Therefore, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa was innocent in the eyes of the law during the pendency of the Appeal.

The above judgement by Justices Pasayat and Kapadia is based on Section 431 of the 1898 CrPC, as no pari-materia provisions were found to be available  to the succeeding CrPC and after adoption of the Constitution of India, the law had to be rewritten.

It is clear that only the Fine part could be continued and that too from the assets of the deceased Convict. But the question rises again whether a person could be held guilty of a crime after her death and be declared a Convict? If all the criminal proceedings except the liability of fine continued, at the time of her death, what is the sanctity of “presumption of innocence” which followed her acquittal? and who convicted her guilty after her death?, to create a claim over a fine, which was imposed by the Trial court and later set aside and thereafter revived by the SC Order dated 14/02/2017?

I have no answers for the above questions, but am sure that someone who is interested in ensuring that Dr. J. Jayalalithaa’s reputation is not sullied, by the exigencies of the political commotion, would be emboldened to raise it as a Curative Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and remove the unwanted taint cast on her because of her association with EVIL.

 

Tag Cloud