Nandigram has turned into the Godhra of West Bengal. But the die-hard communist cringes at the equation. A few posers for the left sympathizers.
1. West Bengal is ruled by CPI(M).
2. It is the constitutional duty of the government to safeguard the honour, life and property of ALL its citizens.
3. From the 3rd of January 2007, when an unholy nexus of Maoists/Naxalites under the banner of TC took control of Nandigram, what was the administration doing?
4. If the administration failed, why was the army not called?
5. Why was this "alleged fact" not mentioned in the press? What does this say about the freedom and impartiality of the press in your state?
6. Since when has the gun-toting party members (goons, to be precise) become the official law-and-order machinery of a state?
7. Why does murder and loot and rape have to be the "official" weapons of the "state"?
8. The state response has been nothing but barbaric. It is against this "state barbarism" as opposed to "unholy nexus of M-Ns under the banner of TC" that the so-called intellectuals cried hoarse. While barbarism, per se, cannot be accepted, when it is sponsored by the State, it can and should NEVER be condoned. That is the ONLY reasons why Gujarat is still a national debate.
9. What does the 11 months of refugee-status in one's own state say about the law-and-order situation in West Bengal?
10. What do you have to say about the Left's assertion that Nandigram is a state subject while they had no qualms about discussing Godhra absolutely threadbare?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
An attempt at answering pertinent questions
Based on the news item that appeared on Rediff, dchech asked the following questions:
1)Bible, is there name bible in bible?
Ans) No. Why should it be there? The word Bible means "the Book". The contents of the Bible or the Scripture have an origin and a purpose. As is said in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2)is original bible available now? why there is different version in bibile? 76th version available in Protestant bible and for Catholic it is 66th version. here both are mismatching, why?
Ans) The Bible is a compilation. No one man wrote it. As I said in the previous answer, men of God wrote, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. There are two testaments of the Bible. Testament, as you may be aware, means Law. The old testament talks of the "Old Law" which is governed primarily by the "Ten commandments". The "New Law" talks of the Law of Love, forgiveness and grace. The basic tenets of the "New Law" were laid by Jesus Christ and were chronicled by his contemporaries and disciples, namely Mathew Mark, Luke and John and together they are called the Gospels. Paul, another contemporary through his letter (epistles) to the fledgling yet growing church of Asia, delineates the "rules" under the "New Law". However, the actual compilation as one complete holistic book took almost 3 centuries after the life of Christ, when under Emperor Constantinople, the Roman empire took Christianity as the official religion of Rome. The earliest writings of the Current Bible that we have are the Greek translations and historians have been able to certify their authenticity beyond reproach. The nearest and the most authentic English translation of the Greek version is the King James version. I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. Therefore I cannot either certify or repudiate your claims of the versions that you talk of. However I do know that while the Catholic Church records 73 books to the Bible, the non-Catholic arm of the Christian religion only has 66 books to their Bible. And they do not mismatch. The Catholic Church has only "additional" 7 books.
And I assume that you are not really interested in the versions of the Bible as much as in the fact that there is not ONE bible that everybody agrees upon. Giving rise to the spectre that if one were to read one version , there is another group vehemently opposing it saying that theirs is the "true" version and vice versa. True Enough!
However, one must understand that the very basic tenets, the testaments, the Law is the same. If there were ten commandments in the Old Testament, the new one contains only two, viz. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" AND "Love your neighbour as thyself".
3) some christians belive Jesus is god, some belive, jesus is son of god, some belive in trinity why?
Ans) I am assuming that when you say "some", you are actually meaning "some Christians". And I probably have not understood your question at all. Personally, I believe Jesus is God. I also believe Jesus is the Son of God. And I further believe in the triune unity of God the Father, God the son and God the spirit. I also believe in ONE God, not in three gods.
Where does your error in understanding occur? Is it in the fact that according to you,while some people ONLY believe in Jesus being God, others totally reject that view. The ONLY view of the second group of Christians is that Jesus is the son of God and not the God himself. There is a third group that does not believe either of the two positions but ONLY believes in the triune God. I guess you need to rephrase that question before I can answer that.
4)what happens to the people who lived before Jesus came (go to heaven or hell); why do some very righteous people automatically go to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus (we thought about Gandhi); on the other hand, why do some pretty horrible people (like my friend's abusive father) get rewarded with heaven just because they're Christian;
Ans) I guess this is one question I would love to ask God when I meet him in paradise. :-)
Anyway, your question is relevant even today. What about those people who have never heard about Jesus? there are millions of them even today in this "internet" age!
John 10:16 says, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." Now, obviously, this implies that Jesus' shepherdhood extends not only to his own flock but others flocks too. The very obvious corollary is, "Why then do Christian missionaries go around trying to convert people to Christianity if people of other religions are also part of the "Christians God's" plan? :-)
That is because of the commission that Jesus gave the disciples after he resurrected from death. Acts 1:8 says "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Guess India comes under the definition of "...and to the ends of the earth".
The fundamental idea is to be "His witness". Conversion is only a natural corollary. Unfortunately, that step has been reversed in the preceding centuries. I guess they could not help it. "Witnessing Jesus" is dashed difficult. What with "showing the other cheek" and "forgiving the enemy", I guess they realised that THAT path was not profitable. So they jumped a step and started the conversion process. They probably assumed and a large number are still assuming that shortcutting to the second step is OK with God. Personally I am convinced that THAT kind of shortcutting is a short cut to perdition.
And this wholesome assumption that all Christians are assured of heaven is rather misplaced. The Jews had VERY similar views in Jesus' time. To make them understand, Jesus told them The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector which you can read here. So, though I wont stick out my neck and commit that we will see Gandhi in heaven, I can very assuredly state that being a Christian is no guarantee for entering heaven.
5)why does a loving and merciful God require a blood sacrifice (Jesus) to forgive people's sins; why are we guilty of Adam's original sin; why does the Word of God (Bible) disagree with scientific facts;
Ans) Since two of the questions are theological questions, they need theological answers. God is loving and merciful. There need be no doubt of that! Here is where the testaments (Old and New) come into being. The purpose why God created man was for adoration. However, humans, created in the image of God, disobeyed Him. The redemption , in the old testament, could only be effected by the blood of bulls and goats. But it was amply clear to God that THAT redemption was partial and had to be repeated year after year. By the time of the New testament, God sends his only begotten Son to be sacrificed ONCE on the cross. The new testament states, "FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." This redemption was complete and therefore there is no need for any further sacrifices. I guess that answers your two questions. And as regards third, I guess you need to be more specific about which scientific law does the Bible turn on its head.
6)how can Jesus be God; how can One God be 3 different things trinity?
Ans) Er, Why cant he be?
God is not three different things. Let me put it this way. H2O is ice. H2O is water. H2O is vapour. Ice, water and vapour may be different "things", but aren't they essentially the same? I admit that the comparison is a little too simplistic. In which case, I honestly ask you to ask these questions to the one who can answer them. God himself. In His wisdom, He will reveal what you seek. But, if you posted them simply to ask "embarrassing" questions, well...., dont bother. You will never get the answer.
1)Bible, is there name bible in bible?
Ans) No. Why should it be there? The word Bible means "the Book". The contents of the Bible or the Scripture have an origin and a purpose. As is said in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2)is original bible available now? why there is different version in bibile? 76th version available in Protestant bible and for Catholic it is 66th version. here both are mismatching, why?
Ans) The Bible is a compilation. No one man wrote it. As I said in the previous answer, men of God wrote, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. There are two testaments of the Bible. Testament, as you may be aware, means Law. The old testament talks of the "Old Law" which is governed primarily by the "Ten commandments". The "New Law" talks of the Law of Love, forgiveness and grace. The basic tenets of the "New Law" were laid by Jesus Christ and were chronicled by his contemporaries and disciples, namely Mathew Mark, Luke and John and together they are called the Gospels. Paul, another contemporary through his letter (epistles) to the fledgling yet growing church of Asia, delineates the "rules" under the "New Law". However, the actual compilation as one complete holistic book took almost 3 centuries after the life of Christ, when under Emperor Constantinople, the Roman empire took Christianity as the official religion of Rome. The earliest writings of the Current Bible that we have are the Greek translations and historians have been able to certify their authenticity beyond reproach. The nearest and the most authentic English translation of the Greek version is the King James version. I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. Therefore I cannot either certify or repudiate your claims of the versions that you talk of. However I do know that while the Catholic Church records 73 books to the Bible, the non-Catholic arm of the Christian religion only has 66 books to their Bible. And they do not mismatch. The Catholic Church has only "additional" 7 books.
And I assume that you are not really interested in the versions of the Bible as much as in the fact that there is not ONE bible that everybody agrees upon. Giving rise to the spectre that if one were to read one version , there is another group vehemently opposing it saying that theirs is the "true" version and vice versa. True Enough!
However, one must understand that the very basic tenets, the testaments, the Law is the same. If there were ten commandments in the Old Testament, the new one contains only two, viz. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" AND "Love your neighbour as thyself".
3) some christians belive Jesus is god, some belive, jesus is son of god, some belive in trinity why?
Ans) I am assuming that when you say "some", you are actually meaning "some Christians". And I probably have not understood your question at all. Personally, I believe Jesus is God. I also believe Jesus is the Son of God. And I further believe in the triune unity of God the Father, God the son and God the spirit. I also believe in ONE God, not in three gods.
Where does your error in understanding occur? Is it in the fact that according to you,while some people ONLY believe in Jesus being God, others totally reject that view. The ONLY view of the second group of Christians is that Jesus is the son of God and not the God himself. There is a third group that does not believe either of the two positions but ONLY believes in the triune God. I guess you need to rephrase that question before I can answer that.
4)what happens to the people who lived before Jesus came (go to heaven or hell); why do some very righteous people automatically go to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus (we thought about Gandhi); on the other hand, why do some pretty horrible people (like my friend's abusive father) get rewarded with heaven just because they're Christian;
Ans) I guess this is one question I would love to ask God when I meet him in paradise. :-)
Anyway, your question is relevant even today. What about those people who have never heard about Jesus? there are millions of them even today in this "internet" age!
John 10:16 says, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." Now, obviously, this implies that Jesus' shepherdhood extends not only to his own flock but others flocks too. The very obvious corollary is, "Why then do Christian missionaries go around trying to convert people to Christianity if people of other religions are also part of the "Christians God's" plan? :-)
That is because of the commission that Jesus gave the disciples after he resurrected from death. Acts 1:8 says "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Guess India comes under the definition of "...and to the ends of the earth".
The fundamental idea is to be "His witness". Conversion is only a natural corollary. Unfortunately, that step has been reversed in the preceding centuries. I guess they could not help it. "Witnessing Jesus" is dashed difficult. What with "showing the other cheek" and "forgiving the enemy", I guess they realised that THAT path was not profitable. So they jumped a step and started the conversion process. They probably assumed and a large number are still assuming that shortcutting to the second step is OK with God. Personally I am convinced that THAT kind of shortcutting is a short cut to perdition.
And this wholesome assumption that all Christians are assured of heaven is rather misplaced. The Jews had VERY similar views in Jesus' time. To make them understand, Jesus told them The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector which you can read here. So, though I wont stick out my neck and commit that we will see Gandhi in heaven, I can very assuredly state that being a Christian is no guarantee for entering heaven.
5)why does a loving and merciful God require a blood sacrifice (Jesus) to forgive people's sins; why are we guilty of Adam's original sin; why does the Word of God (Bible) disagree with scientific facts;
Ans) Since two of the questions are theological questions, they need theological answers. God is loving and merciful. There need be no doubt of that! Here is where the testaments (Old and New) come into being. The purpose why God created man was for adoration. However, humans, created in the image of God, disobeyed Him. The redemption , in the old testament, could only be effected by the blood of bulls and goats. But it was amply clear to God that THAT redemption was partial and had to be repeated year after year. By the time of the New testament, God sends his only begotten Son to be sacrificed ONCE on the cross. The new testament states, "FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." This redemption was complete and therefore there is no need for any further sacrifices. I guess that answers your two questions. And as regards third, I guess you need to be more specific about which scientific law does the Bible turn on its head.
6)how can Jesus be God; how can One God be 3 different things trinity?
Ans) Er, Why cant he be?
God is not three different things. Let me put it this way. H2O is ice. H2O is water. H2O is vapour. Ice, water and vapour may be different "things", but aren't they essentially the same? I admit that the comparison is a little too simplistic. In which case, I honestly ask you to ask these questions to the one who can answer them. God himself. In His wisdom, He will reveal what you seek. But, if you posted them simply to ask "embarrassing" questions, well...., dont bother. You will never get the answer.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Myopic miasma
Reading the "interview" and the aftermath that it caused in the Parliament, I am amazed at the clarity of description that Ronen Sen has of his politicians back in India. Though one can easily assume that Mr. Sen was actually referring to the Indian politicians as "headless chicken", their behaviour in Parliament was absolutely like that of "headless chicken". Even after being told that "Parliament is in the position to take action if it found anyone showing disrespect to MPs and casting an aspersion on their freedom of expression", they did not abate. How could they? After all, they were just playing out their role. That of a "headless chicken".
And Karat's assertion is truly thick. He accuses Mr. Sen of being a US ambassador rather than an Indian one. Famous! And whose strategic interests are you safeguarding Mr. Karat? China's or Pakistan's?
I am not all in favour of signing the nuke deal. The idea of aligning ones foreign policy, defence policy and trade policy in tune with another sovereign nation who is an established superior power than us, does give the distinct impression that of kow-tow. But, to oppose for the sake of opposing, given that the alignment does not go against our stated objectives in these fields is not acceptable.
Mr. Karat does say that we have moved away from aligning with Iran and the Palestinians and towards US and Israel. If that is so, all I can say is why did we have the distance in the first place? The US as a hegemony could have steamrolled us. But Israel too? For a founder of Non-aligned movement that is a famous stand to take. And now, when the opportunity opens up wherein we can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best of the best in the comity of nations, trust these myopic flounderers to grass the deal.
A miasma does envelop the political horizon. The tragedy is that the nobody has the foresight to look far. The entire spectrum of lawmakers, including the ruling coalition is afflicted with the paralysis of short-sightedness. Alas, when will my country awake from this myopic miasma.
And Karat's assertion is truly thick. He accuses Mr. Sen of being a US ambassador rather than an Indian one. Famous! And whose strategic interests are you safeguarding Mr. Karat? China's or Pakistan's?
I am not all in favour of signing the nuke deal. The idea of aligning ones foreign policy, defence policy and trade policy in tune with another sovereign nation who is an established superior power than us, does give the distinct impression that of kow-tow. But, to oppose for the sake of opposing, given that the alignment does not go against our stated objectives in these fields is not acceptable.
Mr. Karat does say that we have moved away from aligning with Iran and the Palestinians and towards US and Israel. If that is so, all I can say is why did we have the distance in the first place? The US as a hegemony could have steamrolled us. But Israel too? For a founder of Non-aligned movement that is a famous stand to take. And now, when the opportunity opens up wherein we can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best of the best in the comity of nations, trust these myopic flounderers to grass the deal.
A miasma does envelop the political horizon. The tragedy is that the nobody has the foresight to look far. The entire spectrum of lawmakers, including the ruling coalition is afflicted with the paralysis of short-sightedness. Alas, when will my country awake from this myopic miasma.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
More on Godhra
All that you said is correct. Muslims need to change their attitude and behaviour etc... It is all correct. I fully support you. But, having said that, do you think what the Gujarat government and the "middle class" did was correct?
Before you fly off into a "pseudo-secular" prejudice, please take time out, think and respond, was what the government and the middle class did, right?
If you were a minority member, muslim, dalit, christian, parsee, how would you have responded to the state's response? I write to you because I feel you thought out your response and thought deep enough to put down your thoughts to words on this forum.
And that is what Yagnik is talking about. And that is what Modi is NOT talking about. My country is beloved to me. And I used to consider my countrymen as one of the bravest in the whole wide world. But the Gujarat state's response to Godhra has shaken my belief in that. As an ostrich that hides its head in the sand, reams and reams is being written about how the reprisal to Muslim appeasement was long overdue and all such matters. These are real issues, no doubt and only some self-serving politician of any hue will deny them. That still is no reason why the state government acted the way it did. In a society there are ways to teach and ways to learn. Pogrom is not one of them. And until Gujarat learns to stand up and say that as a society they failed during those days, no amount of swabhimani rhetoric will erase that guilt. Modi is a fair enough leader, as "leaders" go. Nobody can deny the effectiveness of a leader who is capable of raising investment climate in his/her state. But, it is also undeniable, that while leading the response to the Godhra tragedy, he willy nilly engineered the social ostracisation of his fellow statesmen, caused the murder of a large number of his people, for whom he had constitutional duty to protect. There is no denying the fact that he is a murderer. And as long as the civil society at large do not own to the reality of this charge, there will not be an awakening in Gujarat.
And Viral, Gujarat will progress. But at what cost? How long will you progress by hiding from the reality of the pogrom. Godhra was an incident, calculated or otherwise, depending upon the colour of your vote. But the state response was shameful. And the earlier we own up to that fact, the better for this country.
And certainly better for the whole of India, if muslims learnt to change their attitude and got assimilated into the pluralistic fabric called India. But that topic has been so widely circulated, that it would be a blind muslim who does not see the duality in his/her culture / religion and his life in secular India.
Before you fly off into a "pseudo-secular" prejudice, please take time out, think and respond, was what the government and the middle class did, right?
If you were a minority member, muslim, dalit, christian, parsee, how would you have responded to the state's response? I write to you because I feel you thought out your response and thought deep enough to put down your thoughts to words on this forum.
And that is what Yagnik is talking about. And that is what Modi is NOT talking about. My country is beloved to me. And I used to consider my countrymen as one of the bravest in the whole wide world. But the Gujarat state's response to Godhra has shaken my belief in that. As an ostrich that hides its head in the sand, reams and reams is being written about how the reprisal to Muslim appeasement was long overdue and all such matters. These are real issues, no doubt and only some self-serving politician of any hue will deny them. That still is no reason why the state government acted the way it did. In a society there are ways to teach and ways to learn. Pogrom is not one of them. And until Gujarat learns to stand up and say that as a society they failed during those days, no amount of swabhimani rhetoric will erase that guilt. Modi is a fair enough leader, as "leaders" go. Nobody can deny the effectiveness of a leader who is capable of raising investment climate in his/her state. But, it is also undeniable, that while leading the response to the Godhra tragedy, he willy nilly engineered the social ostracisation of his fellow statesmen, caused the murder of a large number of his people, for whom he had constitutional duty to protect. There is no denying the fact that he is a murderer. And as long as the civil society at large do not own to the reality of this charge, there will not be an awakening in Gujarat.
And Viral, Gujarat will progress. But at what cost? How long will you progress by hiding from the reality of the pogrom. Godhra was an incident, calculated or otherwise, depending upon the colour of your vote. But the state response was shameful. And the earlier we own up to that fact, the better for this country.
And certainly better for the whole of India, if muslims learnt to change their attitude and got assimilated into the pluralistic fabric called India. But that topic has been so widely circulated, that it would be a blind muslim who does not see the duality in his/her culture / religion and his life in secular India.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Reply to a fanatic
Dear Chaitanya,
Just for the record, I am a Christian. I appreciate your voice standing up to the rights of Hindus. And I think it was rather deplorable that nobody spoke the "other" side of the Gujarat story, and I think the press (at least the English press) was unnecessarily biased.
I would have preferred to write to you personally, but that seems kind of difficult. Anyways, in your writings, you seem to give the impression that India stands as a country, because Hindus, in general, (and since they are the majority) are a tolerant society that will take a lot of abuse just so that the country will not split. I know I am oversimplifying, but only a wee bit. Also that Hindus have always been preached to and so have become pliant.
Was it always so? I am not a know-all and would love to be genuinely answered. The Indian tradition / civilisation dates back to many centuries. Did the Hindu religious culture get anywhere in history, to be a spent force? History would seem to say no. And if so, does it say anything about the Hindu religion/culture? I hope you will read me out patiently.
The vedic culture is supposed to be one of the most powerful incentives of goodly/godly living. And history is witness that wherever and whenever the vedic culture was prevalent, there was peace and prosperity in the land. Why is it not propogated, at least among the Hindus now?
But your statement that India is a tolerant country, (Who, BTW, is being tolerated and why?) because of Hindus and for that fabric to be maintained, the Muslims and the Westerners (I hope that is your euphimism for Christians) need to be watched and careful "reactions" engineered, I am afraid, is laughable, but not funny. Ah, that is what the real Hindu religion/culture is all about, eh? Suffer everything and then when things seem to be getting out of hand, REACT. Hello, at least I react whenever it pains me, and not be tolerant of the pain and react when things have gone beyond a point. That is called hypocrisy. And I refuse to believe that this great country was steeped in that, as you would have me believe. This country has produced some of the most outstanding persons throughout history. Right from vedic periods down to the modern day, this country has been blessed with an abundance of spirit that has manifested itself in varied triumphs in myriad disciplines. Sure the country has gone bonkers, less often than not, but to blame it, oh-so-easily on Muslims and Westerners is, to take a dim view of the intelligence of your readers.
It is so easy to talk of minority bashing when you are in the majority mob. I will appreciate even your ham-handed attempts at "saving" the Hindu religion/culture the moment you appreciate the courage of living as a minority in a country where the likes of you espouse the need to use "engineered reactions".
Hinduism will survive, not because of you, but in spite of you.
Jai Hind!
Just for the record, I am a Christian. I appreciate your voice standing up to the rights of Hindus. And I think it was rather deplorable that nobody spoke the "other" side of the Gujarat story, and I think the press (at least the English press) was unnecessarily biased.
I would have preferred to write to you personally, but that seems kind of difficult. Anyways, in your writings, you seem to give the impression that India stands as a country, because Hindus, in general, (and since they are the majority) are a tolerant society that will take a lot of abuse just so that the country will not split. I know I am oversimplifying, but only a wee bit. Also that Hindus have always been preached to and so have become pliant.
Was it always so? I am not a know-all and would love to be genuinely answered. The Indian tradition / civilisation dates back to many centuries. Did the Hindu religious culture get anywhere in history, to be a spent force? History would seem to say no. And if so, does it say anything about the Hindu religion/culture? I hope you will read me out patiently.
The vedic culture is supposed to be one of the most powerful incentives of goodly/godly living. And history is witness that wherever and whenever the vedic culture was prevalent, there was peace and prosperity in the land. Why is it not propogated, at least among the Hindus now?
But your statement that India is a tolerant country, (Who, BTW, is being tolerated and why?) because of Hindus and for that fabric to be maintained, the Muslims and the Westerners (I hope that is your euphimism for Christians) need to be watched and careful "reactions" engineered, I am afraid, is laughable, but not funny. Ah, that is what the real Hindu religion/culture is all about, eh? Suffer everything and then when things seem to be getting out of hand, REACT. Hello, at least I react whenever it pains me, and not be tolerant of the pain and react when things have gone beyond a point. That is called hypocrisy. And I refuse to believe that this great country was steeped in that, as you would have me believe. This country has produced some of the most outstanding persons throughout history. Right from vedic periods down to the modern day, this country has been blessed with an abundance of spirit that has manifested itself in varied triumphs in myriad disciplines. Sure the country has gone bonkers, less often than not, but to blame it, oh-so-easily on Muslims and Westerners is, to take a dim view of the intelligence of your readers.
It is so easy to talk of minority bashing when you are in the majority mob. I will appreciate even your ham-handed attempts at "saving" the Hindu religion/culture the moment you appreciate the courage of living as a minority in a country where the likes of you espouse the need to use "engineered reactions".
Hinduism will survive, not because of you, but in spite of you.
Jai Hind!
Godhra - Wither goes thou?
There was a tragedy. A complete compartment got burned. People died. OR
There was a conspiracy. A bogie was meticulously burned and its passengers killed.
Be it either ways. What should a government do? Try and get the situation under control, immediately, using all the available resources. Using all available resources, find the cause of the incident. If it is a tragedy, provide succor to the bereaved. If it was a conspiracy, hunt down the accused and put them on trial.
What did actually happen? And therein lies the tragedy. All your short-sighted comments about Hindu vs Muslim, population control, nazism, pseudo-secularism and what nots look eerily like a well oiled plan to not discuss the real issue at all.
You can fool some people all the time, all the people some time but not all the people all the time.
The truth must come out and fortunately, it will. Inspite of false figures, inspite of SIMI, inspite of pseudo secularists, inspite of RSS, "inspite of" all the machinery available to the authorities to find the truth, inspite of NGOs, inspite of everything.
There was a conspiracy. A bogie was meticulously burned and its passengers killed.
Be it either ways. What should a government do? Try and get the situation under control, immediately, using all the available resources. Using all available resources, find the cause of the incident. If it is a tragedy, provide succor to the bereaved. If it was a conspiracy, hunt down the accused and put them on trial.
What did actually happen? And therein lies the tragedy. All your short-sighted comments about Hindu vs Muslim, population control, nazism, pseudo-secularism and what nots look eerily like a well oiled plan to not discuss the real issue at all.
You can fool some people all the time, all the people some time but not all the people all the time.
The truth must come out and fortunately, it will. Inspite of false figures, inspite of SIMI, inspite of pseudo secularists, inspite of RSS, "inspite of" all the machinery available to the authorities to find the truth, inspite of NGOs, inspite of everything.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Why credit cards
I dont understand the concept of having a credit card. To get a credit card, I need to pay something like Rs.750/- (average) annually. In return I get a credit card that allows me to buy goods from the market on credit (ranging from a day to 45 days). If perchance I am unable to pay the due "sufficiently" before the due date, I am slapped with a late fee. (This again ranges from Rs.100/- to Rs.250/-)
Where do I pay the due from? From the money that is there in the bank. Obviously, white money. Cant, of course, pay be cash. So, perchance I had black money, that cant be laundered.
So, to use my own hard earned money, I pay the credit card companies Rs.750/- every year. If that doesn't raise anybody's eyebrows, I can only suspect your intelligence quotient.
In most of our financial transactions, we are extremely prudent of the interest that we have to pay. However, here with credit cards, it is but natural to pay some thing as ghastly as 48% on credit items. Where does your prudent thinking go in such cases??
The sorry state of subscribers who paid only their minimum balance is so widespread that I only need to state it here as a point. Their plight is only too well documented in various media.
Yet, after all this, still the hankering after credit cards can only mean that the Indian mindset is still captivated by the western culture and the absolutely idiotic notion that whatever they do is best. Hoo Boy, when will you guys learn?????
Where do I pay the due from? From the money that is there in the bank. Obviously, white money. Cant, of course, pay be cash. So, perchance I had black money, that cant be laundered.
So, to use my own hard earned money, I pay the credit card companies Rs.750/- every year. If that doesn't raise anybody's eyebrows, I can only suspect your intelligence quotient.
In most of our financial transactions, we are extremely prudent of the interest that we have to pay. However, here with credit cards, it is but natural to pay some thing as ghastly as 48% on credit items. Where does your prudent thinking go in such cases??
The sorry state of subscribers who paid only their minimum balance is so widespread that I only need to state it here as a point. Their plight is only too well documented in various media.
Yet, after all this, still the hankering after credit cards can only mean that the Indian mindset is still captivated by the western culture and the absolutely idiotic notion that whatever they do is best. Hoo Boy, when will you guys learn?????
Change is ever constant
Today, my daughter started to cycle. I could sense in her the joy of mastering a new activity. As long as she struggled, it was a pain for both her and I. Then when she came to grips with it, the joy surged through her and she wanted to go full throttle through the colony lanes! But of course, she had not mastered it. She was only still learning!!
That is how it is with all activities. The initial times are very discouraging. Our spirit screams out, "Do we really need to do this? Can't we skip this?" The typical response to change is to maintain the status quo. Then when the new idea percolates down to the epidermal layer of our brain, the receptacle of our senses opens up. Their is more openness and when we fully master it, there is abounding joy at having mastered the subject.
That is how it is with all activities. The initial times are very discouraging. Our spirit screams out, "Do we really need to do this? Can't we skip this?" The typical response to change is to maintain the status quo. Then when the new idea percolates down to the epidermal layer of our brain, the receptacle of our senses opens up. Their is more openness and when we fully master it, there is abounding joy at having mastered the subject.
Fringe Benefit Tax
The logic behind FBT is all very fine. The problem begins when FM insists that loss making companies and companies with less than 5-10 emploess also have to pay it. I dont understand the logic there.
Travel expenses are genuine expenses. If there are enterprieses who are "resourceful" enough to pump up such expenses in their balance sheet, I think the way to deal with it should be to penalise those enterprises rather than blanket bomb the entire populace with the FBT. If you are unable to catch the robber, it is hardly justified that you brand the one you caught as the burglar!
An enterprise, a new one at that, thrives on its ability to reach out to more and more clients and thus make its brand known. But if you are going to tax me for travelling, I will certainly think twice. Probably I would still end up travelling and even paying the FBT. But I would be one heck of an unhappy taxpayer. And unhappy taxpayers dont forget easily.
Moreso, when there exists avenues wherein the FM could have taxed and did not do it. But then it is so dashed easy to milk the already lactating cow (damn the fact that it is a skinny one), than hunt for another cow to milk. Too much work!!
In the end, the FM gets a deluge of curses, the govt gets booted out for bad governance (oh yes, that is exactly what it is), the employer is unhappy, the employee is morose. The Tax Dept can sit on another pile. Gandhiji's talisman can go climb the nearest commode and get flushed out.
FBT should be implemented, but only as long as they are "benefits" AND they are "fringe". And if the finance ministry cannot figure out how to define them, go learn English or get out of governing. You are a burden on others.
Travel expenses are genuine expenses. If there are enterprieses who are "resourceful" enough to pump up such expenses in their balance sheet, I think the way to deal with it should be to penalise those enterprises rather than blanket bomb the entire populace with the FBT. If you are unable to catch the robber, it is hardly justified that you brand the one you caught as the burglar!
An enterprise, a new one at that, thrives on its ability to reach out to more and more clients and thus make its brand known. But if you are going to tax me for travelling, I will certainly think twice. Probably I would still end up travelling and even paying the FBT. But I would be one heck of an unhappy taxpayer. And unhappy taxpayers dont forget easily.
Moreso, when there exists avenues wherein the FM could have taxed and did not do it. But then it is so dashed easy to milk the already lactating cow (damn the fact that it is a skinny one), than hunt for another cow to milk. Too much work!!
In the end, the FM gets a deluge of curses, the govt gets booted out for bad governance (oh yes, that is exactly what it is), the employer is unhappy, the employee is morose. The Tax Dept can sit on another pile. Gandhiji's talisman can go climb the nearest commode and get flushed out.
FBT should be implemented, but only as long as they are "benefits" AND they are "fringe". And if the finance ministry cannot figure out how to define them, go learn English or get out of governing. You are a burden on others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)