....of Gospels & Evangelism

Few days ago I received a personal letter by post from a Pastor Paul Malla who as I could see from the address printed on the mail head represented the Gospel of Christ, an evangelist organisation. The letter was sent from Trichur the citadel town of Christianity in Kerala State.As all such messages it was replete with cajoling, enticing,  subtly baleful and artfully sinister proselytism.

In such occasion in the past, I chose to cast such letters and unsolicited pieces of evangelism into the place that is rightfully its own- the waste bin.But this time around, I chose to respond and shot off an email to Pastor Paul Malla.I did not expect a reply and neither did it arrive nor ever will.

"Thank you for the message sent to me. However dear Pastor there was nothing new and different in it,than the many I have received since my school days in a convent school that was run by wonderful nuns .

But yet,may I ask you something that I always asked after receiving such messages,

Firstly,you mentioned about Jesus coming back into the world. You tanatalisingly,(you might have thought), held out this golden carrot.Could you tell me when that would happen? Before this Xmas? Frankly, I doubt if he would dare, because no man or the son of God who cares a hoot for his life will plan a second coming after the fantastic(sic) treatment meted out to him some 2000 years ago when he came here last, through a circuitous route of virgin conception and birth. 

Secondly, you mentioned about non believers being damned and believers washed free, cleansed off their sins and that of Adam &Eve. Are you serious about this? This is the kind of calumny and guilt you create in people. I will call this an effervescent and banal joke.Sounds tempting though, to be washed off one's sin and the sin of one's forefathers that you guys foist upon people.

 Pastor let me tell you something.You folks who are paid marketeers, salesmen and more politely evangelists (of all faith) thrive upon the insecurity and fear that you create in the minds of the poor, gullible people vis a vis the sins that you talk about and accuse them of. You make them feel damned by such vile accusations and reap the en masse conversions to your fold.This is predominant in all Semitic faith.You now do it subtly while Islam does it through intimidation and physical abuse- murder.Well once you burnt people at the stake for refusing to convert,didn't you?
Pastor Paul stop this hocus pocus of the holy ghost , virgin conception- parthenogenesis , birth and resurrection stories.

Tell me truthfully, did Jesus ever exhort to form a church, a religion during his missionary days? And even if he did, supposedly, is this the kind of Church and faith he exhorted or envisaged in his sermons?

Baptism or the ritual of immersion in waist deep water was a ritual practised by the Jews as initiation. An ancient ritual was later turned by you Christians into a tool, a weapon that served as the sword of "Damocles" to coerce people to join  your fold.You have been perpetuating the meanest crime all these years while you proclaim from the pulpit that damned are the ones who are not baptsied. You stuck the so called original sin on the masses and it  stayed put on them like limpets and infesting their souls.In you letter addressed to me you branded me a sinner and fit candidate to rot in the netherworld.

Pastor Paul, is it not the subsumed principle and corner stone of civilised canon of society that no man be damned for life and  his faith and belief must not condemn him for eternity?But you did. You accused me of sinning and condemned me,my children and posterity too to eternal hell unless I baptise and repeat "hallelujah" to Christianity and Christ.

Your eloquence is fascinating like a book on wizardry and repulsive for its sinister intent and ideology. I wonder if you acknowledge that such vile misdeeds and misrepresentation under the cover of religion is possible only in India.

If you want further debate on the subject please write back in reply to this message.Else, I shall presume that you have nothing to say and that you without demure admit to the mumbo jumbo that you folks have been shamelessly wheeling for the past 2000 years and in the bargain converting people of ethnic pagan faith and worship- people who in their simple ways revered, supplicated and prayed to Nature,  into Christianity.

It is a different story that you have a dozen splinter groups amongst Christians and each one vying for the wealth evangelism brings.The evangelist group who spins the most horrendous and fearsome tale of sin, destruction, illness and stories of hell gets to garner the major portion of the bounty, the booty.Have you ever strived to build a society, a laity that does not live in fear of sin, but rather would conscientiously go about living their affairs? Why do you not help people, let them live their life here on earth in full, than dream of a paradise that is seen only in frescoes of ancient painters and alluring stories of lore and legend. Who amongst you raised a finger against the killing of Yazidi Christians?As for the cruelty and murder you evangelist perpetrated on the world- the native Indians of America, the tribes and Negroes in Africa, the aborigines elsewhere- those stories are chilling to even create nervous breakdown in even the most hardened felon.You did all this to convert people to a faith that you created in the name of a man who probably lived and preached, love, peace and compassion.

Fantastic(sic) Pastor Paul and shamelessly shameful are your intent.
I prefer an eternal hell to the Harry Potter kind wizardry , sensation and nonsense you reel."

Obit

Perhaps, it may be a bit early to write a blog when obituaries and eulogies have not totally ceased. Nevertheless! The guy is dead and gone and he had left a decent bounty that he would not have made if he had not chosen politics as a career.

How far did he get in up the ladder? Well he was the councilor of a city ward. That is a not an awfully exalted position by the way. If you ask about his education, I seriously doubt if he reached near matriculation.

He was born to poor subsistence labourer parents in a hamlet few kilometers to the north, outside the city. I guess he lost his father very early, for when I saw him first as a boy of ten or eleven he and his mother had moved into a single room –makeshift home in a rundown apartment  near my house in the town. She eked out living by doing menial work and chores at different homes in the neighbourhood.

He was certainly unable to cope with school and was an indifferent student. Later when he dropped out of school, or as some say when he decided that he cannot pursue school exams with moderate marks to pass, his distant uncle took him into his fold as an errand boy at the Lawyer’s office where the former was an aid.

He was dark skinned and was muscular for his age. Even at the age of thirteen or fourteen he had strong limbs and broad chest. He excelled in Kabaddi kicking opponents down and tackled mercilessly and roughly while playing football. Kids, skinny as I was stood not even a fortuitous chance confronting him at Football or Kabaddi. He simply elbowed us down, jostled us flat as a beaten pan. I remember he was merciless. His career graph I presume was aided by that quality, to take his rivals head on and bulldoze his way. He must have been tactful in later life. Some say, people preferred to not confront him and let him have his run.

The eulogies that came from political bigwigs who flocked to his house hearing his sudden death was enviously rattling and umbrageous too. “His early inspiration for public service came while he was a student”, the State president of his party, clad in white spotless cotton fabric remembered him. “That was when he joined the student wing of the party and became an active and dedicated party loyalist.” Some spoke about his foresight, his uncanny acumen, his passion to toil for the needy, the poor and the marginalised. The paeans seemed endless. Every day after he was dead, local vernacular dailies carried his picture and a glowing obituary.

When he died he was on the director board of a cooperative bank, (what he knew of banking and the cooperative movement is mystery. His middle school education was not a constraint. But then we have a plus two dame running the country’s Education and Human resource ministry), he was the party district secretary, he was nominated to the University senate (again defying the pathetic limit of his education), and he was the president or treasurer of the local temple (where, locals allege in almost muted tone that he was in cahoots with God and made enough from the temples revenue). Above all he had always put his money on the political party horse that won. He, in the little world of politics that he could travel, always ensured that his finger was in the pie.

If he did not achieve greater success or amass more wealth than he did, it must be because that there were bigger chisellers in the party than he. It is astonishment unrivalled that if an ordinary political party member who could go no farther than being elected councilor of a ward, could generate as much wealth as he could, the extent of booty that bigger sharks in politics siphon off is impossible to gauge.

Malarkey?

Much has been spoken about the richness of Indian culture, tradition, values and so on. The subject, in recent times has been more out in the open, now that a rightwing party has its wings spread wide and almost everywhere. Erosion of values, of ethos, of true Indian culture due to the malevolent influence of alien culture and faith….! The list of angst is fairly long. ( But it is much ado about nothing when one looks back to the fact that 90 percent of the present day Indians are descendants of migrants and the original inhabitants of India where aborigines or “adi dravidas”).

I wonder what is it great about the culture and tradition that we claim to uphold and bray often, beating inflated chests, with incessant eloquence and hysterically. What is it perse?

The Prime minister proclaimed from the Red Fort that he looks forward to leave behind an India that is clean- “Swach Bharat”, he said. He chose to sweep the streets on October 2, Gandhi’s birthday as an ostensible act, hoping the message percolates; that, the idea touches the chord of an India that is downright filthy. His act was obediently aped by his ministers, and bureaucrats – clad in pristine white. The custodians (sic) of Gandhi (sm) – the Kadhi clad Congress men were caught off guard! Government employees of Banks and PSUs were ordered to their offices on October 2 and ordered to swear oath and pledge on civic duties. Perhaps a shade of Soviet Union era here!

The visuals of ministers scraping about streets with brooms was replayed seemingly forever on television. Did that make any sense? Did it prompt you and me to bend our backs and knees to pick up the stray crushed cigarette pack on the street, or the empty coke plastic container left casually on the path? Did it stop the ones who throw away nonchalantly on to the kerb garbage piled from their homes? To desist from making streets and bus stations receptacle of spit and human waste? No. I think it will not. For, Indians are wanting in civic sense. Guess this must be the culture and tradition that some bray about proudly? The hyped, publicised images on televisions were for public consumption. Something we have been fed with every year on the day Gandhi was born. And only an obstinate person who refuses to be cynical would swear otherwise.

Well, one can say that the PM means business and intends good.

What is swaccha Bharat about? Is it just clean streets and building a few thousand toilets (which eventually will be veritable filthy, disgustingly dirty dumps)? From what it is made out to be, it seems so.

I guess we need to define what amounts to cleanliness.

Foremost, shouldn't we realise that cleanliness is not next to Godliness and it is and has to be a few yards before Godliness? Isn't this a country where people cried foul, offended, when a former minister suggested that we need more toilets than temples? Alas most temples in north of India are spittoons. Benares is a holy slum with filthy streets, cadavers floating down the mighty river Ganga that sustains the town. half-burnt corpse pushed into the river and half submerged they seem to float down like orphaned souls. A river that is the source and sustenance for half of the country’s population is relentlessly raped and violated by man. What have the puritan Hindus who claim sacredness for the river, call her “Mother Ganga” done all the while, the factories that spew sludge and sewage into its waters? The RSS who claims to be the bastion, guardian , caretakers of Indian culture and whatever greatness that was identified with her in the ancient, should rather use its cadre to cleanse Ganga , the slums, rivers and nook of India than unleash its frenzied volunteers to demolish ancient structures to build temples.

The wholesale give away of pristine forest lands to commercial interests? Driving away native dwellers to oblivion? Watering down a well-researched and empirical report on the Western Ghats to appease vested commercial interests? Are these acts too part of “Swach  Bharat”?

There was a report on the capital of Sweden, Stockholm. The city recycles 90 percent of the garbage it produces. It is evident from this that the technological wherewithal to sustainably dispose or recycle garbage is available. But we differ from the Swedes in the mindset and civic sensibilities to use it.

Hysterically braying about a rich cultural past and heritage is naïve and useless while we nervelessly rape our land, air and the water. It only emphsises the fact that we have done nothing to deserve a rich past and has no right to deny posterity a meaningful life.

Blaspheming Mortal Gods

Indians are a nation who seems to be lusting, esurient, desperate and yearning for Gods and demi gods. We make Gods out of stone, marble, drift wood and even mortals- lucky are the ones amongst us upon whom we thrust that status often to their glee. These idiosyncrasies are a lesser matter when compared to the outrage we express over iconoclasm and even honest analysis and discussion about the human Gods we made. Their infractions are seldom examined or condemned.

Recent times have seen a liberal dose of critical analysis of Gandhi -bashing as some call it -   Mahatma ‘bashing’ (sic) criticism. We thrust upon him a status akin to God’s, the most  revered, the infallible mortal, the holy man, Mahatma, the spartan saint, who lived in our midst. The eulogy in the words of Albert Einstein, and which strikes reverberantly, “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this in flesh and blood walked upon this earth”. Correspondingly there has been fierce defence of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi- vociferous indignation of any criticism of Gandhi, his utterances, philosophy,or his life.

Why Gandhi alone, we have other mortal Gods to whom we prostrate, let us be hugged and kissed, watch them agape and resent bitterly and sometimes hysterically when they are criticised. We automatically are tuned to become agitated, flustered and resent when our beliefs, faith and fantasies are questioned, are seemed to be threatened by scholarly dissection and argument. We fret and accuse of betrayal, irreverence and rudeness when the comparative cocoon that we built is exposed or threatened.

We made a living God of Sachin Tendulkar the cricketer. When an international Tennis player innocently admitted that she is not aware who this Tendulkar is, cudgels where raised in India and virtual stones were pelted at the tennis player for her audacious admission. Remember cricket is played by a miniscule number of countries when compared to the vast appeal of Tennis. We let Tendulkar hijack a whole nation and cricket insisting and wrenching what he wanted- a farewell series a swan song. And like Nehru’s famous “tryst with destiny” speech, we broadcast live Tendulkar’s 45 minutes grandiloquence from the stadium. We even recast the stands at the stadium to accommodate his mother so she could watch him play from a comfortable vantage point. We awarded him the responsibility as the Member of Parliament and he rubbished it with callousness.  We seem to believe that other countries and people are not blessed with legends.

We cast away old and disenabled parents in the streets of farway strange towns and in the insensitive cruelty of  temple towns and run after fat over fed cow like women and men whom we elevated to pedestals and anointed them as living Gods. We run to them hallucinated and gets intoxicated when they hug us supposedly washing away our sins and agonies. We resist any probity in their lives and in the conduct of the vast empire they deftly built and sustain out of our imbecility and blindness.

Arundhati Roy’s recent comments on Gandhi in a lecture led to hoarsely resentment and accusations of blasphemy. Poet and respected social & environmental activist Sugatha Kumari, a Gandhi fan herself shot off a center page article in a daily rebutting Arundhati’s irreverence of the Mahatma and demanding, even pleading kindness, respect and an iota of reverence are shown to Gandhi; his life be seen as a beacon of unflinching struggle in the path of truth and nobility.

Why do we make Gandhi a saint and God? Why is it blasphemous if we dissect his life, analyzing it, page by page, word by word, deed by deed? Why do not we accept and understand that he was a mortal like any and was infallible? Why do not we understand that he may have erred, had weird beliefs and even seedy behavior, which he claimed was his way of understanding his limitations and cleansing his sinful thoughts  etc.

Arundathi based the lecture on the lengthy forward she wrote for the book of unpublished historical speech of Baba Saheb Ambaedkar. The quotes, anecdotes and incidences where borrowed from archives and facts. 

Gandhi’s reluctance and stubborn fire-walling of the abolition of caste in Hinduism, his opposition to the agitation of the untouchables of Mumbai- the Mahad satyagraha when untouchables resisted the ban that was slapped on them from sharing waters of the public well; Gandhi’s parsimonious attitude to the Vaikon sataygraha when untouchables objected to the cleansed area around the Vaikom temple where they were banned; Gandhi’s opposition to the labour strike against the Mill owners in Mumbai when he ranked their satygraha as “duragraha’ – greed- devilish force,(possibly because the Mill owners were Gandhi’s staunch financiers). Gandhi’s attitude towards the blacks in Africa is bailed out by Sugatha Kumari as an aberration She uses his comparative young age as an excuse for his mindset towards ethnic blacks and the socially marginalized.She often in the article states that Gandhi's life as the title of his autobiography was "An Experiment with Truth".

Like what  most of us have been fed about Gandhi, he was not evicted off the train at Pietermaritzburg when he asserted the non-whites right to travel  I class. Gandhi was not endorsing the right of the blacks, but for equal status of  passenger Indians – the elite and middle class Indians like he. Gandhi’s attitude towards caste is perplexing. While he maintained that caste and discrimination was unjust and untouchability was evil he steadfastly endorsed the division of labor based on caste. He refused to admit that caste was the evil cloak of Hinduism.Imagine division of labour in today's world based on caste in which one is born- something not of individual volition!

Gandhi was a wile politician. He was perhaps the first Indian politician to ostentatiously play the communal card with his egregious “Khilafat Movement”. Goodness, Mother of God what had Indian Muslims got to do with the abolition of the Caliphate and the end of the Ottoman Empire in faraway Turkey?

His blatant blackmail with the weapon of satayagraha proclaiming fast unto death until the award of separate electorates for untouchables was withdrawn was perhaps the most cruel and unkind slap on the very same people he ceremoniously elevated as “Harijans”, ironically meaning “children of God”! He used satygraha s a potent black mail to even foster his autocratic views.

Why was SugathaKumari mute in her article about Gandhi’s infamous experiments with celibacy when he slept naked with his two young nieces? Because he was Gandhi and had the halo Indians gave around his being, he escaped criminal censure and was not accused of being willy. Yes that may have been a great experiment on self-control for him and his faithful. But do we care to ask what the poor, helpless young girls had to go through- their state of mind?

Is it not time we chastened and saw icons and great men as mortals and as people who would err, stumble and yet walk through like many? Are we not trivialising their lives when we give them a doughnut – halo and elevate them as Gods? What is blasphemous if we critically dissect their life- be it Gandhi, Christ or Mohamed? 

The Myth of The Holy Cow

A couple of weeks ago in the Facebook post of a gentleman where he expressed satisfaction that the new BJP dispensation in New Delhi will enact law banning cow slaughter and cow meat. I opined in my comment asking him why it is so, is it because the life of a cow is more sacred and important than that of a fowl, a goat or a swine? However though the gentleman choose to reserve his reply a young fellow and a FB friend of his from Haryana- Mohit Dutta took umbrage at me and were vile in personal comment. He seemed to be seriously rabid in state of mind. He referred to my Sur name which incidentally happens to be the eponym for the mythical hero Krishna, who is also revered by Hindus as the avatar of Vishnu of the trinity. He asserted that I have no right to retain that name and should feel abased. He accused me of being morally lost and stated that I must be like most Keralites a converted Christian who has no reverence to Hindu Gods or things Hindus consider sacred and the cow is holy and sacred to Hindus. His diatribes was fascinating and of an imbecile mind. I guess standing up to a rabid beast when it is after you is a stupid exercise and futile. I restrained from commenting further.

Mr. Mohit Dutta and his ilk must know – being a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or a Buddhist is not firstly of one’s volition. Mohit Dutta is a proclaimed Hindu because he was born to Hindu parents. I suppose. If my parents biological or by fatalism adopted were to be Zoroastrians, for instance I might have been a Zoroastrian. I am Hindu by birth because I was born to father and mother who were Hindus. And I chose to be so because I was never forced to believe in a doctrine nor was I indoctrinated to rubbish what others believed. Hence I metamorphosed into a person who is not touched by fanatic philosophy and bigotry like Mohit Dutta and his kin who claim to be Hindus but who certainly have not read the Vedas, the Gita or even the Ramayana the Hindu texts of philosophical wealth, to name a few. His infantile or screwball knowledge of what he claims to be Hindu beliefs is nothing but scraps licked up or stuck upon him from history lessons in middle school. If you’re a Hindu and you don’t eat meat, particularly beef because of a religious sentiment, I respect that completely. But to those like Mohit Dutta who say they are doing it because Hindu scriptures censure it, I urge you to read the ancient Hindu texts and decide for yourself. 
His comments about Keralites being a bunch of infested christian converts is puerile and nonsensical. His knowledge and erudition , even basic commonsense is alarming.

To arrogate that Hindu texts and scriptures forbid you to eat beef is rubbish and malarkey. For such an argument is on quick sand. I suggest you again, read the scriptures, if not the scholars who wrote thesis after learning them. Foremost do not try to force feed your morsel as I did not demand that of you.

Dwijendra Narayana Jha, was a distinguished professor who read history at the University of Delhi. He authored the book, “The Myth of the Holy Cow”. He received death threats when he tried to publish the book in India. One of the Indian publishers backed off after menacing warnings from the Hindu contemporaries of the ISIS and the Al Qaeda. His second publisher had to back out like the publisher of Wendy Doniger after the fanatic group got a restrain order from the courts. The rabid Hindu group declared the book blasphemous, a strange word that is seldom seen in any context in Hindu religious literature and mythical treatise What Jha has done was to bare and document in great detail the fact that in medieval times Hindus and Buddhists ate beef. The most ancient text of the Hindu faith -- the Vedas dating from 2500 BC to 600 BC, clearly mentions that the eating of flesh, including beef, was common in India. Rightwing Hindus have argued that cows were first slaughtered in India only after the Muslim foray into the subcontinent. However there is ample documentary proof that the extreme opposition to beef eating came about among a section of Hindus only in the 18 th century and the cow became a sacred animal.  The thesis is backed by plentiful footnotes and a bibliography in many languages. But unfortunately extremists and bigots in all religion are moved to rabidity in the face of such scholarships and evidence.

The nomads and pastoral dwellers who migrated from Eurasia and settled in the North of India in the 2^nd millennium BC, who created the Brahminic religion Hinduism, were herdsmen and agriculturists living upon land, bovines and fowls. For them cow was not a sacred creature. The Vedas that was compiled then did not ban cow meat or proscribe meat eating. There are ample instances in them that categorically state the fascination of Gods for cow meat. “The Vedic gods had no pronounced dietary preferences. Milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep were their usual food, though some of them seem to have had their special preferences. Indra had a special liking for bulls. Agni was not a tippler like Indra, but was fond of the flesh of horses, bulls and cows.”

“Although the ancient law giver Manu extols the virtue of ahimsa, he provides a list of creatures whose flesh was edible. He exempts the camel from being killed for food, but does not grant this privilege to the cow. On the contrary, he opines that animal slaughter in accordance with Vedic practice does not amount to killing, thus giving sanction to the ritual slaughter of cattle. He further recommends meat eating on certain religious occasions.”

Pandavas during their exile sustained on liberal diet of meat and cow meat was not an anathema in the times of Mahabratha. In fact cow meat was served to guest in ancient India as a token of respect and display of wealth. In ancient India the culmination of the“Ashvamdhayagna” was with the ritual killing (albeit sacrifice) of more than 600 animals of which the final ritual is the killing of 21 cows.Ashoka the emperor who embraced Buddhism did not ban cow slaughter. Nor was it banned during the reign of Guptas’- the golden age of Hinduism.

Hinduism and Indian philosophy after the Vedas have rejected the ritual slaughter of animals. This may have inadvertently saved the cow, though beef eating was not a sin. The influence of Jainism might also have contributed to the disagreement for the meat. The multifaceted historian Damodhar Dharmananda Kosambi states in his work, ‘Ancient India’, "a modern orthodox Hindu would place beef-eating on the same level as cannibalism, whereas Vedic Brahmins had fattened upon a steady diet of sacrificed beef".

It was Ambedkar who rightly said that “for the Vedic Brahmins everyday was a beef steak day”. For the ancient Vedic people cow was a prized possession not sacred as it is made out by Hindu zealots now. It was a sign of wealth and their sustenance. Hence the prized possession was offered to their Gods as sacrifice and the priests and the laity consumed the left over.

It has been revealed and also not refuted by Swami Vivekanda that he used to eat beef and he did not have any need to express remorse.

Titus Lucretius Carus, the Roman Philosopher, poet who lived in the2 nd century BC stated, “What is one man’s food is another’s bitter poison”. I do not disagree with this because I see no reason why I should. It is common for people to disavow certain types of meat, food on the grounds of religious sentiments. I respect that. But for them to dictate and demand that I follow their chosen food is unacceptable. Their religious beliefs cannot in any way hinder my personal life- what I eat. And I have no intend to thrust upon them what I believe and stand for. If they can accept my reason it is fine if not it is not my problem.

Intolerance, bigotry and obscurantism are great threats that are rabid in all faith. It has manifested menacingly in Islam and unfortunately the change of government in New Delhi seemed to have emboldened the rabid who claim to be Hindus.

Economic Jugglery sans Compassion

This is a tiny article that I wrote for the Assisi Magazine of August 2014 & published (translated into Malayalam). 

Even if you can never for real quantify happiness and satisfaction as exactly as you could quantify GNP, is it not better to be vaguely right than incisively wrong?

My apologies to you who may be reading this if you felt that this question was directed at you. No, certainly not, this is what I would ask the economist Dr.Chakravathy Rangarajan who brought out the startling and enlightening report on the poverty level of the population of this country. Startling more than enlightening, because this wisdom comes from a person who possesses scholarly pedagogy in economics and social awareness as the economic adviser to the Prime minister!

He was large hearted in the sense that he rubbished the findings of the Suresh Tendulkar committee report on poverty level. Besides that he added eleven and fourteen Rupees to the findings of Suresh Tendulkar and, Ureka the new threshold for graduating from below poverty levels to richness was determined. If you live in a mountain hamlet in the country, like Attapadi you are not poor if you spend Rs 33 a day, because those of you who spend more than that tier must be living like a prince; if you spend Rs 47 a day on living  in Lutyens Delhi , behold you are a prince too.

I’m not an economist and those of you who may read this are not either. Hence we are not in a position of command to criticise Dr.Rangarajan’s findings and in the bargain make ourselves look like nincompoops. But yet, erudition in economics and financial matters are not necessary to become alarmed at the assertion of Dr. Rangarajan and his defence of his discovery.

It is cruelly amazing that the Rangarajan report audaciously seems to claim that man lives by bread alone. This is if you or I can conjure to buy food in Attapadi or Delhi and live through a day with Rs 33 and Rs 47 respectively. Well, presuming that we succeed in the sorcery, mind you we may have to live like early cave men - without a string of loin cloth around our waist and in sewage canals with overhead shelter or inside discarded giant water pipes that are commonly seen by the wayside. You are in for impossible jugglery and Houdini act if you have a spouse and two kids. Assuming that your spouse too has earnings of the threshold sum, ie Rs 47 and Rs 33 respectively, depending upon where you live, you still have two more mouths to feed – your two children. Dr. Rangarajan is somewhat ambiguous here. He expects all of you to be a juggernaut like he.

Dr. Rangrajan reacted to the criticism of his determination and said. “I don’t think that it is conservative (poverty) estimates. In my view it is reasonable estimates. We have derived poverty estimates independently.” Elaborating further he said, “The World Bank also talks about purchasing power parity terms, (the minimum expenditure per day). They are talking about USD 2 per day….. Therefore it (our poverty estimates) is in keeping with the international standards”.  This seems to be an entendre. In the same breath he quotes the WB figure of USD 2 , which translates to INR 120 or thereabout and pegs his poverty threshold at Rs 32 and Rs 47.

Let me come to the direct question to the renowned former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, a question that any commoner will ask. “Can you Sir, if put in a hypothetical situation sustain a family of four including yourself with Rs 47 earnings a day in Mumbai where you lived and worked as the Governor of the RBI?”  One doesn’t have to own a doctoral thesis in Economics and finance to know that there are other things to sustain one self and one’s family besides the barest minimum of a daily square meal. Clothing and shelter; basic medical care; education for one’s children and last if not the least a provision for the rainy day. Am I being saturnine in my comments, pardon me for I cannot help sounding otherwise.

We must extrapolate the findings of Dr.Rangarajan with utterings on similar lines by some political bigwigs, of which one gentleman possessed a plethora of suffix in degree and doctoral thesis after his name, a person nonpareil.

George Bush Jr observed that the food crisis is largely due to countries like India where people have begun eating meat and exotic foods. He was alluding that the miserable Indians have long last found blithe in economic development and gained the resources to eat luxuriously. What would you say if someone who missed the Prime Ministerial chair by a wide distance, Rahul Gandhi blathering that, “Poverty is a state of the mind”? Meaning poverty is illusion or a hallucination. Who seemed hallucinated is worth laughing about if not scorning about. But then how could we forget about the former Prime minister and Doctor of Economics Manamohan Singh who was nonchalant and callous about tons of food grains rotting in FCI warehouse? What was the psyche of these men when they observed as they did, did they believe themselves to be paragons of frankness or did they consider the fact even remotely that their observations where the most of the irresponsible and cruel kind?

Dr.Rangarajan  need not measure the density of happiness or the scale of satisfaction in the commoners face , he need not bench mark gross national happiness instead of GNP. All that he and men who juggle with the economic livelihood of multitude of Indians need to do is only to show an iota, a fair amount of respect and appreciate that there is something called dignity even in a beaten man. And to extrapolate fantastic economic theories and determinations with poverty line bench marks as he has done is simply cruel and breathe of disdain. We do not deserve that. Do we?

Dr. Rangarajan’s poverty line threshold reminds me of William Shakespeare  quote in Julius Caesar, “The most unkindest cut of all”.

No,I Shall Not Enjoy Raping You

“Why are women… so much more interesting to men than men are to women”? Wondered Virginia Woolf. 

That cannot be true, is not true. Indeed women are interesting to men like men are interesting to women. And the difference is only in the selection process of whom to be interested in. Women choose power and security, while men can be less discriminating. Perhaps they are not tethered to the attributes women get enamoured about.  Can you, a woman, deny that you are not interested in men and do not hallucinate about a Casanova, about the macho quintessential man – the Lawrence of Arabia? I can see your disapproving grimace, the moue. You are offended and outraged by what you may call my crudity. You do often see candour as outrageous. Don’t you?

But I resent your accusations and I ‘m also embarrassed and peeved by your comment that I’m lewd and that I disrobe you, rape you all the while without feeling your skin, your flesh. You say all men are hideous and licentious. You are right in feeling that I’m a rapist even if I have not violated your body by touch. Yes you are right I disrobe you; my eyes can scan the deepest secrets of your pulchritude, your body, the tantalizing beauty of your being that titillates me to no end.  I feel embarrassed when you notice my longing eyes, my skilful glances in the sly at the heave of your bosom, my eyes roving into the deep chasm in them; my gape at the fatal curve of your hip, the irresistibility of your rump; when the puckish gentleness of the breeze gently violates you- blowing aside the pallu of your sari, to feel the enchanting navel; the wheat tanned skin of your nape , and your back that you deftly display with the sartorial skill of your blouse; the low waist jean that clings at the partition of your rump, while you consciously expose the flesh below your navel and the naevus there about  ; the light weight skin thin short knitted top that enhances the contours of your torso, while you wantonly  gives me a peek to the straps of your bandeau and the wealth of your bosom; the contrived innocence in your lovely eyes that bewitches to no end and sometimes the lustful and ravishing glances that you throw at me.

Didn’t this confession satisfy you? Now tell me why wouldn’t I want you?

I was brought up to respect you, to not abuse you physically and by word of mouth. I have been truthful to my conditioning and what I believe in- not to violate women. Not to force a woman to yield to a wild amorous fantasy that may plow me. I fantasise you as you would me. Can you be honest here? 

I must say that your garb, your sex appeal is hard to resist. Often the empyrean beauty of your being is overshadowed by the voluptuousness of your robes that is aided by sartorial skill and the sparse use of the fig-leaf. Often you barely wear enough and flirtatiously expose. You hide behind the argument, it is your body and you have the sole right over it; you have the right to wear what your are comfortable in.Certainly!  You do that I know to impress, to attract me, to draw you to someone, potently and instantly.  I agree that you and I choose our robes, douse our flesh and skin with fragrances (that begrudges even the Gods) with skillful intent to impress, to appeal. You may be confident but your fig up that often is not in sync, is flirtatious and is universally aphrodisiacal.

I do not ask you to move about cocooned in black cloak, head to toe with tiny vents for your nostrils and your eyes, lest my amour becomes roguish and go berserk. I do not ask you to weave into   cocoon like a pupa. I assured you, I know not to violate a woman. But I refuse to be cowed by your statement that it is your body and you have the right to expose it as you wish. Yes you may. So do me. But when I’m what I’m there is always in the inappropriateness that you show that would make me want you, make me feel that you want to let out the beast in me. Choose your grab to suit the time and place. If you walk in the street square in a high hemmed negligee, that is very silky muslin like outlining your lingerie, sans buttons venting your voluptuous bosom you are only a temptress inviting any. Why do you tauntingly smile at me reclined in from the hoarding aloft the rise in the square tantalisngly  and wearing a casual tee that seems to be licentiously and purposefully pulled down at one shoulder revealing the ivory coloured straps of your brassiere?

You even walked about with in an  organised way as sluts in New Delhi. You called that a “Slut parade”. Didn’t you by using the term “slut” defile yourself and violate the many among you? There and then you told me, you confessed that you are aware that sluts and hussies are dressed in such way that would provoke the carnal beast in me.

You may brand me vile, satanic, and slobbering male chauvinistic squalor swine. Yes you may, but first make me convinced that my statements here are rubbish and are fulminations of a chauvinistic pig.

Believe me your beauty is given to you with unrestrained abundance by Nature and the many artificial gimmicks you borrow to enhance it, to take it to a level where you would succeed to entrance me, to provoke me- might stumble me , might unleash all restraint that I guarded with care. And that thinking you have is naïve, is perilous to you and me.

Believe me, I admire you, respect you but it is you who can make me crave lustfully and it is you who can make me behold you in awe,  in awe of Nature and her creation that is you.