Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for March, 2012

GRANT to BORROWAL!


A telephone call,  late in the night from any family member arouses one’s anxiety. The least one could do is to take the call asap, so that if one could be of any help then one would have more time on one’s hands. Those “seconds” seems like hours.

So one night, at about 1am in the morning, i receive a call from my son, who believes that his father and mother have an unshirkable duty of attending to their children’s needs at any time of the day or night. Even though i do not subscribe to his belief, as it happens to be our son’s belief, we had always in deference to his belief, attended to his needs. As a reader you may rush in to conclude that my son had been brought up in such pampered circumstances, surely not. Kids were allowed to fend for themselves, as during the day their parents had to go for work, the only time they got to spend with their parents was after 9 in the night and the weekends.

So my son coming back from school was used to taking a nap before he pursued his basketball activities and other such activities which boys of his age were prone to.

So this call, so late in the night was quite alarming. I took the call and said,”So what’s the trouble?”

Son said, “Dad, i need money.”

I said, “For what and how much?”

He said, ” A thousand rupees and i need that for my expenses.”

I said, ” Aren’t you ashamed to wake me up so late in the night and ask for money? You could have asked me for it in the morning.”

He said,” You might leave early, so i’d want you to leave it with someone who’d be at home.”

I said, “I do not leave early, you wake up so late that even a lunch is an early tea for you! But i will leave the money with the servant maid. ”

I continued, “But this time it is not a GRANT but a BORROWAL!”

He said, “what do you mean by a grant and borrowal?”

I said, “son, now that you have a job on hand, my responsibility to provide you has abated and whatever i was giving you was a GRANT- which means a sum of money given for a purpose which was on a non-returnable basis. But now that you have “CREDITWORTHINESS” whatever you ask is a BORROWAL and due for payment when called upon!”

The next morning, when both my kids were at the table for breakfast, the older one tells the younger one, “see man whatever you get from dad and mom is a GRANT, whereas what i get is a BORROWAL and went on to explain the difference.

Without batting his eyelid, the elder one asks me, ” Dad i want to borrow 5000 rupees.”

I said, “nothing doing. But in any case why do you need it?”

He said, ” Just want to celebrate with my friends, just to tell them that i can borrow out of my creditworthiness! So lend me the money and make me feel like a MAN!”

I  went with him to the ATM, withdrew the money and told him that i needed the money back as soon as he got his salary. After he got the money in his hands, he asked me, “Dad, what is the meaning of DEFAULT?”

I left the scene silently like as the Central Government walks away finding a way to convert a STATE GOVERNMENT’S  BORROWAL into a GRANT!

CAUSE & CURE!


She was not the optimal essence of feminine beauty, but there was an aura of FRESHNESS. The kind of  freshness one finds in those vegetables where there is a thin layer of furry coat untainted by human hands. The freshness a lady’s finger has- while still on its stalk on the plant. I could sense that freshness. Yet there was this silent reserve, not the reserve of a repressed woman’s fear but he reserve of the IMPERIOUS. Freshness and Imperiousness was a heady mix that the combo cost the man his heads. One wouldn’t work and the other wouldn’t stop. Such was his plight.

None did understand, as none could. But she was aware of the stirrings she was creating in him. It was that ability of the femininity to sense the towers which were transmitting, and the more powerful the transmission, the greater the receptivity of the dish.

She appeared to the connoisseur that she was ready to give, but not to YIELD. He had not inspired in her enough to give up, but she was ready to GIVE. But that had to gel with his courage to ask. But a man in ‘awed love’ is more tongueless than tongue-tied, so with courage lacking, he could find no way of declaring his LOVE for her. She never cared for a man who never dared, yet she did not give in to daring by worthless men either.

They both drifted apart. Yet somewhere she lived in his consciousness, as a perfect female, whom he would willingly serve as a serf all his years. He had attached her freshness coupled with her imperiousness, as if those were life long attributes of character. The man was oblivious to these being a part of the physical, prone to shedding without ever recouping.

Many decades later they met. He knew her name and she his. They were introduced at a gathering and the introducer had left leaving them together. She was curious to know the CAUSE of his devotion. She had successfully bridged the lost years with her curiosity, but the man was wondering as to what happened to all that freshness and imperiousness. Years had made her elegant, with the aid of cosmetics YET the freshness he was looking for could never be recovered from that face ever. He was searching for the ILLUSION which had disappeared and existed only in his memories. Her IMPERIOUSNESS had led to  simulated humility- the kind which shows concern to people of unfortunate circumstances and pretends to willingly partake in their imagined woes. 

She was the cause of his woes once, now she’s the cause of his cure TOO.

UNENGAGED INFATUATION, GETS CURED BY THE SAME WHICH CAUSED IT!

AFTER EFFECT!


I have this Aquarian friend, who like what Winston Churchill said on Gladstone was : “Like a cushion he always bore the impress of the last man who had sat on him.”

One evening bored to death, he and I decided to visit BRIGADE ROAD, Bangalore for a stroll and some  snacking. So i accompanied him in his Maruti Car and as he parked the car, we heard a slight brush of the lower end of the bumper on the kerb of the footpath. This Aquarian friend got out of the car and saw that the lower end of the bumper was resting on the kerb. So he asked me why the bumper and half of the bonnet of the nearby car was over the footpath whereas his car couldn’t go up front?

My curt answer was ,” HIGH GROUND CLEARANCE!” More so because the vehicle parked next to ours, was an SUV.

He kept muttering HIGH GROUND CLEARANCE.

Within minutes a group of girls were waking on the same side-walk seen wearing micro-shorts, with their ends rolled up.

My Aquarian friend turns to me and says, “BOSS! NOW I GET THE MEANING OF HIGH GROUND CLEARANCE!”

I couldn’t control my laughter, despite my false sense of propriety!

LOVE & FEAR!


There is this beautiful passage which appears in Chapter V of The Book of ACTS in the New Testament of the BIBLE. I would like to remind the reader that these things happened after Jesus was crucified and resurrected and Peter was running the nascent Christian fellowship in Israel (or whatever was left of it then!)

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.

 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

 7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

   “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

 9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

 10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

PETER, as could be seen from the various incidents reported in the Gospels, was an IMPULSIVE PERSON. Not only that he was IMPULSIVE, but also a WILLFUL person. No doubt, he suffered a lot for Jesus and if God had forgiven him who am i to judge? Yet, Peter along with the NEOPHYTE Paul, who declared himself to be the Apostle of the Gentiles had brought in a brand of Christianity, which in reverberating through the centuries and has become the stumbling block on which many a church foundations had been/ are being  laid.

If i believe JESUS LIVES, i cannot submit to the belief that Peter had a better claim to Christianity than i have as a Christian merely on the grounds that Peter lived in the flesh along with Jesus in flesh.

JESUS SAID, “SELL ALL THAT YOU HAVE, GIVE IT TO THE POOR AND FOLLOW ME.”

Jesus did not want to benefit from the sale proceeds of anything which  anyone had who followed Him. Of course His daily needs were met by many people around Him, but at no time did He command that anyone should sell something and hand over the proceeds  to Judas. Jesus was supreme, whenever he wanted a colt he sent for it and told his disciples as at MATT 21. 3  :And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. Whenever Jesus wanted food he asked and took. Once  bread and fish was furnished by a small boy which  fed many and Jesus must have packed the boy a load out of the fragments of twelve baskets gathered after feeding those thousands! JESUS was a GIVER not a TAKER. HE definitely did not want to take from those who intended to follow Him.

I do remember that Abram (later renamed ABRAHAM), after he had pursued the 4 kings and recovered all and returned the goods to the King of Sodom, Abraham said: Genesis 14: 21-24

21 Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’— 24 except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”

If Abram wouldn’t take would JESUS take, who said, “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM!” That is the brand of Christianity that Jesus wanted. But Peter and Paul had IMMEDIATE interests and the victims were ANANIAS and SAPPHIRA! That brand of Christianity still continues and would till kingdom come. Peter and Paul built a Church based on FEAR, but that is not what Jesus wanted. He wanted people to give up their attachment to wealth and if that attachment were to be an impediment to their spiritual life, then they had to sell and come out of that ATTACHMENT.Let me give the prime examples of  Jesus’ disciples who were wary of declaring themselves as His disciples: one was Joseph of Arimathea and the other was Nicodemus. They were RICH, but that did not come in the way of their following Jesus. Moreover, when Zacchaeus wanted to sell half of his goods and give to the poor, Jesus did not want a share in that! That was Jesus, but look at the followers who had turned CHRISTIANITY into THREATENING BEGGARY!

NOW MANY SUFFER FROM THIS FEAR- WHAT WILL THE PRIEST SAY? WHAT WILL THE PREACHER SAY? WHAT WILL THE PASTOR SAY? WHAT WILL THE BISHOP SAY?WHAT WILL THE CARDINAL SAY? WHAT WILL THE ARCH BISHOP SAY? WHAT WILL THE POPE SAY?

Instead CHRISTIANITY should be a free flowing offering made out of gratitude or LOVE. That would be Christianity. There was more GRATITUDE shown when the woman opened an alabaster box of ointment and wouldn’t stop wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair. THE MASTER SEES THE HEART.

LOVE EXPRESSES but FEAR REVEALS.

Of Leaders & Leadership!


There have been a lot of discussion and opinions strewn about Leaders and Leadership with reference to the recently concluded LIST II elections in the various states of India, especially with reference to UTTAR PRADESH.

LEADER  is a post- facto determination OF A PERSON’S LEADERSHIP.  Anointment as a leader may legitimize his decisions and also empower him, but to exhibit LEADERSHIP, he should PERFORM & DELIVER. Otherwise, like Humayun in the string of the Great Mughals, would be treated as a mere HYPHEN which connected the other two Great Mughals, Babur and Akbar!

Let me expatiate on this point through the story of DAVID & GOLIATH.

Goliath was a Philistine champion. A person who prided on his skills in a one-to-one battle. He had a spear and sword to offend, a buckler, greaves and a helmet to defend and  heckled at the Jewish forces to engage him in a duel. On the other side was the King Saul and his chief of his army Abner. So both Saul and Abner were LEADERS! But they did not want to engage, as they were too big to get into duels with single individuals and expose themselves to the vagaries of a battle. They, though were LEADERS were relying on their POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE to find a person who could win the combat, yet were not willing to engage themselves in the combat.

So SAUL & ABNER went around scouting for a suitably skilled person  to defeat GOLIATH. This was extent of the leadership by Saul. He used his KINGLY position to side-step facing a combat. He was also a trained warrior- at least after he became a King, he was trained. But ABNER was in that position as a WARRIOR only, so he should have stepped in and taken GOLIATH head on. Yet he skirted the combat and wanted somebody else to fight GOLIATH and get the Jews the victory. Their LEADERSHIP WAS CONFINED TO STRATEGY NOT ACTION!

Eventually DAVID was chosen to combat GOLIATH, I am sure DAVID must have demonstrated his skills as a slinger and Saul and Abner would have seen the advantage in sending DAVID, as  – if David’s skill worked- he would be able to finish off GOLIATH before DAVID came into the range of the spear or sword of Goliath. A good ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. Saul and Abner were great ADMINISTRATORS, but exhibited poor  LEADERSHIP qualities. 

DAVID grabs the opportunity. DAVID slings GOLIATH to his death and cuts off the head of GOLIATH with Goliath’s own sword!

DAVID DID NOT RETIRE LEAVING THE VICTORY IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATORS! He exhibited LEADERSHIP.The women, show to Saul who the REAL LEADER was: they sang, “Saul got his thousands and David his ten thousands!”

He had earlier refused to wear the coat-mail of Saul . David relied on his own USP – SLING AND SWING THE VERDICT. He did it. That was LEADERSHIP. But still Saul and Abner were the leaders of the Jewish group. They reduced themselves to figure heads!

SIMPLE, TO BE A LEADER YOU NEED A CROWD WHICH RECOGNIZES YOU AS THE LEADER. BUT TO EXHIBIT LEADERSHIP YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE CAUSE.

DAVID WAS WILLING TO DIE, BUT WON THE BATTLE WITH HIS SKILLS. That makes for LEADERSHIP.

Like what Benjamin Netanyahu said, “IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK, LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? A DUCK. IF IT IS FITTED WITH A NUCLEAR HEAD THEN IT IS A NUCLEAR DUCK!”

So PERFORMANCE (which means FUNCTIONS) matter. Merely calling someone a LEADER is nothing but a feudal technique of management. One should exhibit LEADERSHIP TRAITS to be called a LEADER in a DEMOCRACY.

Let us get our fundamentals right!!


Movid's Weblog

lollllllllllllll

This MARE had been groomed in convent school, where morality was laid on so thick, that she was perennially left with a sense of guilt. The easiest way to sense a guilt ridden soul is to check if they, at the start of any activity, indulge in a seemingly innocuous question IF THE ACTIVITY WOULD PLEASE THE ELDERS OF THE FAMILY & SCHOOL. If the answer is a YES, then the morality had seeped into their souls thru constant indoctrination.

The mares raised in a liberal atmosphere are more likely to do whatever they want and if thwarted, would ask WHAT IS WRONG?The liberal ones want to know the PRINCIPLES, but the convent groomed ones constantly require the mental REASSURANCE of their superiors. Herein lies the difference and consequently their behaviour.

This buxom mare, in its youthful exuberance and self-assured morality had launched into an enviable career. She…

View original post 741 more words


Movid's Weblog

An ARTIST according to me is a person who has gone beyond the defined terms of logic, established procedures or even principles; and therefrom had  made man conscious of territories beyond the explained. It could be in any field, including science. For example,Max Planck was not merely a Physicist, but an Artist. An Artist had to explain or even if he is not able to explain the phenomenon, he should show to an intelligent mind a phenomenon hitherto unseen, much less explained.

But there is one area of Activity, where the very nature of the activity precludes the possibility of  a third party. That is the relationship between the Artist and his instrument.

The Stradivarius was played by many musicians, but it was this Artist, who was able to draw the sounds that had not yet been imbedded in the critic’s consciousness. The Critic was having a prejudged mind looking…

View original post 404 more words

Tag Cloud