Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for November, 2011


Christians in their eagerness to believe in MIRACLES make even RESULTS of  EFFORTS, which have fructified thru HOPE, to be classified as MIRACLES.

A good example is the story of KING DAVID, who was the second King of Israel and finds mention in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles of THE BIBLE.

For those not familiar with the story of David, let me recount a brief life story of one of the greatest symbols of Jewish History. His father’s name was Jesse and he had 7 brothers, who were all elder to him. Being the last and and ignored by his father Jesse, DAVID was rather consigned to tending to the few sheep which Jesse had. He was from the tribe of Judah.

David’s sculpture by Michelangelo leaning on one leg with a curled up fingers in the nude oozes with manliness. But his left hand is bent at the elbow with a sling slapped on his left shoulder. For me that sling is the SYMBOL of his skill, which eventually led him to strike GOLIATH and save the Israelites from the Philistines. Has it ever occurred to anyone why DAVID should keep the sling on his LEFT HAND  and SHOULDER? I have a good reason why Michelangelo  made David hold his sling on his left hand – IT SHOWS THAT SKILL OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, SHOULD BE MADE TO SERVE LIFE AND BEAUTY.

Getting back to our theme- David was not a mere shepherd as thought of by some Christians. It was the job assigned by his father and his elder brothers while he was still young. But what did he do while he was ASSIGNED THE ROLE OF A SHEPHERD? He did not fritter away his time chasing shepherdesses and whiling away his time. He developed 2 skills. One was his ability to sling accurately with force and the other was to play the harp. He built up skills during his free time. That was what made God choose him. God can give talents but He sure is not going to multiply it for you. God gave David the talent to be a lyricist (psalmist), a warrior and a musician, but it was left to him to identify what he had received and hone those skills. David sure did that.

DAVID did not have the mentality of a shepherd, he was filled with imagination. His brothers Eliab, Shamma and others scold him saying that he had left the few sheep their father had in the wilderness and had come to watch the war games initiated by GOLIATH. THEY WERE WRONG- DAVID DID NOT COME  TO WATCH THE WAR GAMES, DAVID HAD COME TO GO STRAIGHT INTO THE PALACE AND SHARE THE MATRIMONIAL BLISS AND BED WITH MEHRAB, THE DAUGHTER OF KING SAUL. David’s brothers were curry favouring ABNER, the Chief of the army of King Saul, but our David went straight for the jugular- DAVID wanted MEHRAB and become the son-in-law of the King. David did not go to Abmer to display his skills, he found a way to Saul.

Do you think King Saul would have let David take on Goliath without testing his skills as a slinger? NO WAY. King Saul would have given him 20 stones and put a condition that David had to strike the target set by him all the 20 times without fail. Saul was no idiot to let an untested man up in a battle, where King Saul and his people’s liberty were at stake. I am sure, rather dead sure, that Saul would have tested him thoroughly before sending DAVID up as the challenger to the declarer GOLIATH.The stakes were too hig to have been otherwise.

The rest is history. DAVID was no shepherd, he was a super skilled slinger, an accomplished musician and a great charmer of women- more than anything else, he was an ACCOMPLISHER. A FINISHER OF THE TASK UNDERTAKEN.

After him killing GOLIATH, King Saul does not give Mehrab, he doesn’t sulk, but carries on his mission to get to the palace. Gets foreskins and becomes the husband to Michal and makes it to the palace. That is where the action is. His brothers were still polishing the shoes of Abner, but our David had risen to the level of being perceived as a threat to the kingship of Saul. David befriends Jonathan and gets info on the palace intrigues even when he is forced out. David escapes with the help of Michal. So DAVID was no shepherd, he was relentlessly on his path to KINGSHIP. Saul calls his son Jonathan, ” THOU SON OF A PERVERSE WOMAN, DON’T YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE HELPING DAVID AT THE COST OF YOUR THRONE?” Was David a shepherd? NAY.

Archibald Primrose Rosebery is reputed to have said that he had three aims in life: to win the Derby, to marry an heiress, and to become Prime Minister. He managed all three. There are certain things which cannot be “GOT”, one has to be “PLACED”  to enjoy the benefits there. Like Archibald Rosebery, DAVID knew that early. HE worked hard to become a KING and even harder to stay that way. That is no shepherd trait.

Read Psalm 144:1

Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

Se the word “TEACHETH”, God can but MAN has to LEARN, that is man’s duty. David learnt the skills and that is what helped him to get there.

Dear Christians, do not believe that God is going to work on the talents given to you, work on it. Prayer is a defence, prayer is a petition but the “will” is God’s- in the meanwhile work on your SKILLS. Miracles do happen in stages also. Get that straight.

There were instances when Jesus told the ones who wanted to be healed “I will, be healed”, but there is also an  instance when he made clay out of his spittle and told the man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. We do not know what is HIS will, in the meanwhile LET US HONE OUR SKILLS. May be we are lucky like Bartimaeus or otherwise, but we cannot keep waiting for MIRACLES to happen suddenly. MIRACLES could be EVOLUTIONARY too in some cases!



why this kolaveri di?

This is a song by Tamil actor Dhanush, who has used typical Madras Tamlish to sing this song. What is great is that this song could have come only from Tamil Nadu. But why?

The reason is fundamental, cine songs in Tamil had reached such classical proportions that music directors in Tamil from Viswanathan- Ramamurthi, Illayaraja, A R Rahman, Vidyasagar have all made melody or rhythm or both the bed rock of their music making the music relatable to notes of other songs which had been made earlier. With Tamil lyricists also getting in a whole host of CHEMMOZHI THAMIZH words in,  common man was getting sick of all this pseudo classicism which had become all pervasive in the Tamil cine industry. Any new song was redolent of another song made by another music director a few decades back.

Coming back to,  why this type could have emanated only from Tamil Nadu?

Because anyone could straw paint out of paint buckets and sprinkle paint out of  dripping paint brushes like Jackson Pollock, but for the public and peers to recognize a person as an ARTIST, one should have exhibited classical skills. The IMPROVISATION would be accepted as ART only after proving one’s skill. That has happened in TAMIL CINE industry. If John Coltrane and Louis Armstrong had not played the classical notes to start with, their IMPROVISATIONS would have passed of as childish babble. Likewise since this song blends local Tamil with the inner feelings of  a dark complexioned Tamil boy going thru a crisis ridden adolescence, in the backdrop of  a dying classical background, an average Tamil guy identifies with this song  easily . A cultural thread that most Tamil boys carry into their adulthood.

This song is a BREAK FREE song from the classical mould, fashioned  over a period of time.

This song announces the arrival of TAMIL JAZZ BLUES. Actually, come to think of it, the -U- which is appended to every word is more the Telugu influence than Tamil. The Telugu financiers of the Tamil Cine industry seem to have put their little sting to the tail of every word.


Chennai is the Chicago of India, besides being the Detroit too!! LOL


Mayawati & Germaine Greer!

Two events last week, have left me dumbfounded.

The first is the proposal for TETRAFICATION of the state of Uttar Pradesh and the Cabinet recommendation by the UP cabinet. The second is the statement made by Germaine Greer in THE HAY FESTIVAL conducted in Kerala on the 18th inst. where Germaine had stated that in the plays of  Shakespeare the male characters depicted by the Bard, were boyish and not “manly” and “mature”.

Both the resolution and the statement made by the ladies suffer from “INCOMPETENCE”.

To take Madam Mayawati’s issue first, the Constitution of India, at Article 3 empowers the Parliament and also prescribes a procedure for bifurcation, trifurcation and tetrafication or pentafication etc. of the States of the UNION of India. The Parliament of India is the only body competent to send a bill with such proposal to the President and thereupon the President may send the Bill to the affected state for its views. Period. There is no other body or institution which is COMPETENT to INITIATE this division of State legally. Yet, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has got a resolution passed by the Cabinet. This is EXCEEDING the powers mandated under the Constitution of India.

Next is the preposterous “observation” made by Germaine Greer about the male characters in Shakespeare’s Plays. Yes, Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway, who was 8 years elder to Shakespeare, so naturally Shakespeare must have been very well acquainted with Oedipus Complex (as enunciated by Sigmund Freud!) at a personal level. Germaine might be right in her observation that Shakespeare had made his female characters very strong. The strength of these female characters get accentuated more by the fact that they in some way are responsible in putting their menfolk to sleep. For example, Cleopatra, in ANTONY & CLEOPATRA, by withdrawing her forces at the crucial point without going for the aid of her ally, is not a strong feature, but a “WEAKNESS” rather the “FRAILTY” of the woman, who doesn’t follow the etiquette of a war. Cleopatra was a decadent. Her sensual pleasures came ahead of her duties as the ruler of Egypt. She was a scheming and a runaway ruler.

In the case of MACBETH, lady Macbeth just hardens herself in the presence of Macbeth, who suffers from pangs of guilt. Lady Macbeth is like Ahab’s wife Jezebel in the BIBLE. She had always provided solutions  (mostly Procrustean) to Ahab, who suffered from remorse or guilt. Jezebel had no such compunction. Lady Macbeth was just another manipulative Queen, who wouldn’t let go of her privileges and position, and thereby provokes the man to do deeds which are patently criminal or sinful.

Getting  to Gertrude (HAMLET), the character is pitiable. She was sharing the matrimonial bed with her husband’s murderer and balancing her love for her son Hamlet with the comfort and cosiness provided by Claudius.

On the whole, the women characters in the TRAGEDIES of Shakespeare do not have any strength of character, but show great manipulative skills and ability to hold on to what they have and make the most of a bad bargain.

In KING LEAR, there is more character shown by Lear, after the tragic defeat and loss, which arose more out of error in judgement and an inability to see through the guile of Goneril and Regan! His paternal feelings blocking off realpolitik.

Character is not to be a winner ALWAYS, but an ability to take the LOSSES and DEFEATS squarely and go through it without DITHERING and make amends.

Germaine Greer’s statement seems without COMPETENCE, as the male Characters of Shakespeare are shown blending their DUTIES with their EMOTIONS and failing in the process. That does not make the men BOYISH. Whereas, the women characters are GREEDY, RAPACIOUS, PUSILLANIMOUS and PLEASURE -SEEKING, nor do these traits make the women characters “STRONG”!



Since the advent of the Tamil Movie, SAAMI, there have been a lotta songs which contain the word VAADA addressed by the heroine to the hero of the movie.

VAADA in Tamil could mean either ‘something which never withers’, for example there is a flower called VAADA MALLI, which in translation into English would mean JASMINE WHICH NEVER WITHERS. This VAADA is the shortened form of ‘VAADAADHA’. But the theme of this blog refers to the meaning COME, which is used on one’s equals or inferiors.

A wife calling her husband or a girlfriend calling her boyfriend VAADA was an anathema in Tamil usage a decade back. But with the advent of BPOs and other IT companies, the average age difference between the couples have not only decreased but have ceased altogether. So in a working atmosphere, when they start off as colleagues they address each other as VAADA and VAADI. Later when they either fall in love or discover that they are in love, the women do not retract, but maintain the pre-matrimonial form of address, causing a lotta consternation to the previous generation.

This form of address, for me is not only a manifestation of the equality which has been claimed by women at their homes, but also a recognition by the Tamil society of a certain equality between married couples.

Personally, VAADA sounds better than ENNAANGA? ENUNGGA? YEANGGA etc…

But one should watch the following links and especially pay attention to Suchitra’s voice when she calls the hero Ajith, VAADA BIN LADAA.

Another song whci i recall is VAADA VAADA paiyya. in the movie by Jeeva.

A colleague of mine said that now-a-days women have lost all respect for men and have started addressing them in such derogatory terms. I consoled him thus: You see, SOME women have started treating SOME men like this. It is merely a symptom of women not feeling comfortable with SUPERIOR MEN, who neither get treated this way, nor allow such treatment. So it is an opportunity for INFERIOR MEN to fling their hooks at CONCEITED WOMEN- so i see a lotta hope for YOU with them. Go ahead, swallow your pride and get the feel!




WHO are we to Forgive?

WHAT are we to FORGIVE?

WHY should we FORGIVE?

The  answer to ‘WHO’,  is that we are STILL ALIVE, and only while we are still ALIVE we CAN FORGIVE. In law there is a Latin Phrase called INTER- VIVOS, which means a TRANSACTION which is possible between only two LIVING BEINGS. But in the case of FORGIVENESS, the FORGIVER has to be LIVING. The FORGIVEN might already be DEAD.

Secondly, ONLY the person concerned CAN FORGIVE. Somebody else cannot FORGIVE on my behalf. Only when others get a RIGHT to FORGIVE that others can FORGIVE on our behalf, even that is not FORGIVENESS as it is based on the fact that the DEAD are HELPLESS in the matter and therefore the SOCIETY may have given the Right to the heir to FORGIVE, but the God given RIGHT to FORGIVE is entirely PERSONAL. Therefore WE , and WE ONLY, as INDIVIDUALS can forgive.

WHAT is to be FORGIVEN? WHATEVER which hurts us, WHATEVER which is perceived by us to be WRONG, WHATEVER is an obsession for us to retaliate, WHATEVER which consumes our TIME (therefore LIFE) in a negative way, has to be FORGIVEN. WHAT and WHY are linked, without knowing WHY, we cannot arrive at WHAT is to be FORGIVEN.

FORGIVENESS is an ACT by the INDIVIDUAL to pardon, ignore and never to recall the slight, hurt, offence or wrong inflicted or perceived to have been inflicted on him/her.


This RIGHT TO FORGIVE is the ONLY RIGHT GIVEN TO MANKIND WITHOUT ANYBODY INTERFERING. It is PERSONAL and needs no recognition from other HUMAN beings. That is why, even a WEAK man, even though incapable of retaliation, by taking this route, would be rising beyond the powerful and the rich. It makes him INDIFFERENT to the powerful man’s jibes, slights, harms and victimization.  It makes a DIOGENES out of him, who could tell the globe conquering ALEXANDER the Great, to move away so that Diogenes could get some Sun!

The above is not based on the teachings of the greatest Jew who walked on this earth, but simple logic. But there was a Jew called Chaim Herzog who had something else to say:

I do not bring forgiveness with me, nor forgetfulness. The only ones who can forgive are dead; the living have no right to forget.
Chaim Herzog

Now that I have quoted the POISONOUS Jew, let us get the analytical German in, Frederich Nietzsche:-

If there is something to pardon in everything, there is also something to condemn.
Friedrich Nietzsche

So where do we draw the line? Chaim Herzog had the memories of the German pogrom and could not get that out of his system. Nietzsche was prior to all the Hitlerian pogrom, so we get in La Rochefoucauld the Frenchman who ascribed everything to self interest:

One forgives to the degree that one loves.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

If you love yourself, FORGIVE – especially when NOT FORGIVING is turning your LIFE into a life of anger, remorse, vengeance and negative!!


I remember the narration in the Bible when Jesus made a whip of chords and whipped the back of the traders who were “making His father’s house a den of thieves”, so even Jesus decided not to FORGIVE. If you CAN DO something about it – JUST DO IT!! But do not let your inability to FORGIVE interfere with your LIFE!





MICHAEL VINCENT of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has reported the following :

It has now emerged via French news websites that Mr Sarkozy said: “I cannot bear Netanyahu. He’s a liar.”

Mr Obama is reported to have replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”

What is so intriguing about this statement? Nothing, absolutely NOTHING! Firstly, this was not for the ears of the common man. This was a conversation which was between the heads of 2 states who are in the process of co-operating with Israel with regard to the Iranian Nuclear issue.

Let us assume for a minute that what Sarkozy said was true and proceed further. As an “opinion” i hold that the French are the first to reconcile with TRUTHS faster than any other Caucasoid. That has led them to be the pioneers in pursuit of aesthetics. To LOVE BEAUTY, ONE HAS TO RECONCILE WITH TRUTHS. One should not be willful and hold on to opinions contrary to the TRUTH, as revealed through apparent facts. The French get there first. They are not the ‘battering ram’ type Germans, nor are they the ‘opinion reserved’ type Scandinavians, nor ‘the ever ready to settle dispute with a duel’ type Italians! They get there FIRST.

So i have enough reasons to believe that SARKOZY spoke from his heart.

Coming to our man who wants to outdo Abraham Lincoln, Mr. President, i feel that the alacrity with which he not merely endorsed the opinion of SARKOZY but went on to add his annoying experience of having to deal with him on a constant basis. Mr. Obama’s gaffe is likely to draw a bigger consternation back home, as the Jewish lobby is likely to view this as a betrayal of the avowed policy of the US to stand by not only Israel, but also their LIES and their LYING LEADERS.

Netanyahu is the person who had authorized Jewish settlements in the Palestinian region, against the wishes of the Pacifists. The beauty about the lies of a Jew is that, he is likely to invoke the name of Jehovah for each lie concocted, disseminated and propagated and also quote the TORAH in support of his statements. All that an American Christian is to be told is that the BIBLE has said so, and the American goes into the MUTE MODE – as if the sole right to interpretation of the Bible is given to the Jews only. The Bible might have come THROUGH them, but not FROM them. The ZIONIST preachers are also likely to put pressure on the public by depicting Obama as the villain in the piece!

Come to think of it the US and Pakistan are not very different. The Pakistanis would support and rear the Afghans to their own peril in their backyard, as much as the US raises the Jews in its front-yard. What i do not understand is that when the wishes of Golda Meir were acceded to and granted by the Allies, WHAT ARE THE WEALTHY JEWS STILL DOING IN THE US WITHOUT GETTING BACK TO THEIR PROMISED LAND!  


So whether Netanyahu is LYING abroad or LYING in Israel, he is bound to LIE!

I love you Sarkozy- you made a statement about an INDIVIDUAL but, just as i have made it a class action, the interpreters of your statement are also likely to brand you ANTISEMITIC.

Earlier we needed an Assange, to publish the inner workings of the Governments, but now a snippet has fallen out from the mouths of the political honchos without any recourse to spin doctoring of their spill-outs.

Tag Cloud