Religion

Religion, as a word, is but ambiguous. It's a set of beliefs one has about the existence of an unproven identity. Isn't the last sentence ambiguous? This is how religion is and yet, it is followed religiously by the populace. While Democracy runs on the premise of all men being intelligent, Religion, on the only condition that each man should remain unintelligent. An intelligent man is never known by his religion, but his mind.

Any life form inherently dislikes restrictions. Religion - originated anywhere, at any point of time, revering single or multitude of idols - however, unfailingly professess some or other sort of restriction. The restrictions - as they should be obviously - ridiculously foolish and abhor the followers from apparel, food, procreativity, et al. How can one willingly submit to restriction when one dislikes restrictions? Simple: Give incentives. The incentive like, gratification of an inanimate idol, which, upon being followed, promises the follower a sure shot free ticket to a place called heaven. In absence of incentives, no one will naturally care to bother for restrictions. Further, if one dishonours the restrictions, he is penalised under the namesake of penance! The restrictions are practically for Social Publicity. The more are the restrictions, the greater is the greatness of the religion. As a corollary, funnier is the restriction - meaning, beyond the limits of insanely ridiculous - more is hype associated with it; e.g. celibacy. Men and women observing celibacy are usually given revered status is religious circles. What for? 'Observing celibacy is but most difficult!', is the trite - but, grave - reply. When it is difficult why do it? 'To achieve self restraint', 'To remain pure', 'Devote oneself wholeheartedly, to the God, by abstaining from from sinful deeds', are some of the pious replies. Well, I never understood this logic. Suppose everyone gets enlightened (!) and starts celebrating celibacy, will anyone be there to sing the hymns in the next generation. Or do they intend to outsource it to Orangutans?!

Some say, religion professes guiding principles for the followers, to guide them to lead a peaceful, amicable and prosperous life. But this is a blatant violation of the definition! Religion is belief in existence of God and not the way to live! The latter is Philosophy, per se. Now, Religion and Philosophy are two distinct words and should not ever be assumed synonymous.

Religion is exclusively for stupid people. If one dig into the history, mention of religions is only recent; circa two millennia. No Vedic literature mentions, propounds or prescribes of any religion. Interestingly, there is no mention of idol and idol worship in any of such pristine scriptures. As one can't teach rocket science to any Tom, Dick and Harry, so can't you teach them Philosophy. Philosophy, anyway, is best learnt on self. How else then one teach them to live, like humans, in a civilised society? One word answer: Intimidation. Device rules for the right and the wrong and provide incentives when obeyed and penance when violated. Replace magic for logic, faith for knowledge, prayers for work, rituals for processes and a book for a rational mind. Do it, and you get a Religion. Tweak a parameter and you get a new Religion. All of the formers can easily be adapted by a frivolous mind. A man of mind can never accept the,, for he understands that segregation of his own specie on such funny parameters is but a degradation to non-human status; not even wild monkeys segregate themselves on the basis of progeny or race.

Religions are not symbols of social evolution, but it's antithesis. No civilisation advocated a religion, but Philosophy. Never a civilisation was led by a religious man. Art, craft, literature, architecture all are derivatives of civilisations which exhibit the richness of the intellect of the civilisation. Religion has never created an asset and can never create any, for it requires belief in facts, not phantoms.

Loans

In layman's terms, loans are alternative money. A tad formal definition describes loan as the temporary provision of money, usually at an interest. One needs to pay back a premium for being given that much bulk money, in one shot, no sooner the demand for it was put. Banks are the primary source of loans. Hence or otherwise, the reason for their bankruptcy too.

The loan - technically, credit - is given after assessing the credibility of the borrower. If the borrower doesn't have the assets worth to payback the loan, the loan won't be issued. Many joke about this premise calling it as incredibly foolish - The borrower needs to prove that he doesn't need the loan. The fact is, the guarantee the borrower provides say, by mortgaging house or any other fixed asset, can be redeemed by the lender, i.e., the bank, if the borrower defaults. The banks are into business, not philanthropy. Ask yourself, will you invest in bankrupt firms or profit making firms? The loans, and for that matter, any form of credit - monetary or emotional - is extended to them who have the worth to possess it, not moochers. So, if one is denied loan for being poor, it's perfectly correct. The poor must save rather than begging. It's always better to learn to fish, over the Fish in a dish.

What if the borrowers default? In the worst case, the bank will collapse. A well is abandoned if there is no water in it. If the sources to replenish the water in it dry, the well gets dried. If customers of bank, borrowers and depositors both, don't supply money - the depositors withdraw money incessantly and the borrowers default - the bank must collapse. Two things one might have observed lately. Firstly, the unsolicited calls for Personal and Vehicle loans from the banks have dwindled. Secondly, the interest rates for short term loans - 390 days, 400 days, 590 days, and ilk - have shot up. A few days back, there was a report in the newspaper that a few private banks are in bad state of affairs. Of course, it didn't get footage in the prime time news, for Ms. Shitta Shilpi was in demand! The sorry state of the banks was because they had lent more loans than required. The central bank has hiked the Cash Reserve Ratio to be maintained by each bank with the itself. A hike in the CRR means the banks had to part away with their pile of money and relinquish it to the central bank. Deposits hence reduced, loans given too many, guess, what can happen to the balance sheets.

Lets take a hypothetical case. The bank has had given some shaky loans, to increase the profit margin. To add to the woes of such a bank, a rumour is spread amongst the depositors that the bank is in a bad state and may collapse soon. The customers, mostly dirt stupid, queue up the bank to withdraw their deposits. The first day, the branches can pay off with the money collected during the regular retail banking transactions. Towards the end of the week, the bank needs to borrow money from other banks, at higher rates, to match unprecedented withdrawal rates and stave off the notion of the bank being in shambles. The bank being already in bad state, for those shaky loans were being defaulted, time and again goes even more deeper in red. Within a month, the bank has to close the doors as there is no money to quench the withdrawal. The newspapers print pictures of the people, suddenly gone poor, calling names to the bank management. Within a few days, the bank is declared insolvent.

Now, whom to blame? Three variety of people. One: The Customer. Two: The Newspapermen. Three: The Auditor. Never Management. The customer, for it invested in the bank without bothering about the fiscal condition of the bank. The newspapermen, for highlighting the misery of the aftermath over the cause of insolvency. The auditor, who approved the manipulated balance sheets. The management is there to make money, howsoever it may come. The clerk, to earn a regular salary. Have you ever seen a clerk or a management being crucified? The reason is not the deficiency of penal law but the incorrect reasoning. Banks, I reiterate, are the only institutions that run on pure trust. If it breaks, the institution collapses. One should trust intellect over instincts, at least in matters of money. So, if one deposits in a bank that has a track record of shaky loans and favouritism, over business acumen for lending loans, and loses when such a bank collapses, it's not the bank to be blamed. The bank never gives you a promise to return money in case of insolvency! The newspapermen are supposed to keep track of the state of affairs of the bank. What Paris Hilton does or what is the new slogan of the political campaign is of little use to men of sense. If that's amiss nothing changes in one's life. However, if the scamp goes undetected and is discovered when the damage is done, it is of no use. Exposé are good (and proven) catalyst to rev up the circulation count. The Auditor is supposed to be moral and ethical. What for? Same salary and no incentive? Such hypocrisy looks good in HR newsletters, not reality.

The understatement is not that one should be corrupt. It is that the customer should be vigilant. Stupidity, in the namesake of ignorance, is not warranted. If one is careless about one's money, why blame the other (read management). Had one not invested in that bank beforehand, or withdrawn at the slightest hint of mismanagement, the bank would have collapsed naturally, on it's own! You consciously poured the liquid in the bottomless hole and now complain that I can't get it back!!

The connection between loans and intellect is best explained in the Marathi proverb, used when someone amiss, अक्कल गहाण ठेवली होतीस का? (Had you loaned your intellect?)

Democracy

Democracy, by definition, is a funny system. Its tenets are based on a plainly incorrect premise that all men are intelligent. The only grace is that the definition duly discounts women. As the definition goes, in a democratic system, people elect their representatives. That technically means, one selects a person amongst themselves, to rule them. Consciously elected slavery! Now, every sensible man is a slave of his wife; not for a man is a good slave and a woman is a good Master, but for the simple reason that as a slave, he just have to offer his ears for the fiats, while execution - a deed that eventually decides the fate of that fiat - remains at his disposition. Taking cue from this, perhaps, the promoters of democracy might have propounded the doctrines of the system. Though ironically enough, we find a little representation of the fair sex in the top brass of the democratic system world over.

Those who found the aforementioned analogy of slavery and man vs woman comparison offending or frivolous might argue in favour of the system vehemently with a superior logic. In one or the other way, it boils down to the platitude of equality amongst the men. But can it ever be? Can you equate the mind of Francisco d' Anconia to that of some rustic mystic, whose brain houses only the carnal knowledge? Men should never be compared. While the specie is same, the minds are quintessentially unique, distinct, diverse and discreet. Mind is the only criterion to judge a man. If he has inferior mind, his judgements, decisions, analysis - summarily, thinking - has to be commensurately inferior. Such a man needs nourishment of knowledge, a posteriori. How can two such divergent men decide a common good? A schmuck can be won with little shrewd wordplay and alms, for a poor mind coexists notoriously always, with a poor wallet. The poor mind once - and hence - won, given that it has myopic outlook, can only see short term gains. Simply speaking, the poor mind can be lured, favourably. As it is there for any natural phenomenon, the peak - the apogee, the pinnacle, the highest point, the crest, the best quality, et al - is always either short liver or occurs too less, so is with the human mind. The poor mind occurs aplenty, while the best ones, rarely. As democracy relies on numbers, the demand of which can be offset much easily by the humongous supply of the poor brains, democracy essentially a system of the fools, by the fools and for the fools. If one of you feels grudged in it, congratulations, your mind has evolved.

Personally, I would rejoice all stupid and unintelligent primates being shot dead, perhaps, many other sensible vegetarians may disagree. A rather worse, time consuming, expensive and yet, low success rate work around is to educate the poor brains. Any religious leader, obviously, can't be entrusted. I would incalculably relish strangleholding each of them. Then who else?

Alas! the onus is but always on me...