Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


Job 41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Eventualities are plenty.

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

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

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

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

God bless the soul of Siddarth of Cafe Coffeeday 💐


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was it that important?

Yes, very important.

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

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

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

Numbers20:10…..

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live with dignity & Die in Liberty.


So they were matched up for a race.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make no mockery of the Maker. Live AT Peace.


She is called Missy,

Mixed in breed

& bred in clandestine ways.

Her master had embellished her with brass buckled collar.

Neat & respectable.

He walks Missy

Morning & evening-

Without fail.

In the nights she’s let loose.

Till midnight she guards her home.

By an hour to midnight she

Winds down her duties.

At the stroke of midnight

Missy lifts with her snout

The unhinged slat of the ledge.

Missy makes her way out

When her master is fast asleep.

She joins the pyes,

Which self arrogatedly guard the street.

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

Missy has admirers galore

But the biggest and the meanest pyedog guards her.

Missy has a collar,

The one that distinguishes her from the pyedogs.

She has a owner.

She is cared for.

Other dogs envy her.

They see Missy

Walk like a bride in the morning & evening.

But Missy spares no fun that the pyedogs have.

Yet Missy’s collar

Gives respectability & envy.

There is none like Missy

In our street.

Cared for, yet with Liberty

On the sly.

All because she has a brass buckled collar.

Tag Cloud