Church History: The Big Split of 500 Years

The two major divisions of Christianity came together this week, on the 500th anniversary of that historic day when it was split into two.

“We begged forgiveness for our failures and for the ways in which Christians have wounded the Body of the Lord and offended each other during the five hundred years since the beginning of the Reformation until today”.

These words are from a joint statement, released on 31 October 2017, by ‘Lutheran World Federation’ and the ‘Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity’ on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the Reformation.

The official press release from the Vatican is here.

Pope Francis embraces the Rev. Martin Junge, general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, in the cathedral in Lund, Sweden, on Oct. 31, 2016.  It started an year-long commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Reformation.

I found these words of ‘ecumenism’ – a principle of promoting unity among the world’s churches – appropriate and timely.

While there are many theologians who do not see the possibility of complete ecumenism - because a fully-agreeable common church doctrine seems unlikely - it is heartening to see that this joint statement also has the words: “It has become clear that what we have in common is far more than that which still divides us”.

To understand the division, we must go back 500 years.

It was on 31 October 1517 that an Augustine monk Martin Luther, apparently, nailed 95 theses on the church door of Wittenberg Castle in Germany.

His protest was against the church’s sale of indulgences – somewhat like certificates of God’s forgiveness - and against the corruption in his Roman Catholic Church.

The influence of pope, the church’s head, during that time was so powerful and so far-reaching, that almost all the European kings were under papal authority.

And, therefore, calling the pope and his administration wrong was akin to an unpardonable sin. And needless to say, the church soon declared Martin Luther a “heretic”.

That is why Luther had to keep on hiding and running from persecution. But, from various hideouts, he was able to translate the Bible into readable German. It had earlier been available only to the clergy; only in classical Latin.

But soon, along with the Bibles, Martin Luther’s theological teachings were also mass printed and circulated – thanks to a wonderful new invention, called the printing press, invented 60 years earlier, by another German called Gutenberg.

Unlike the prevalent church doctrine then, Luther’s Protestant Reformation movement was based on five solae.

The Salvation of humans according to the Protestants was ‘Sola Fide’ (by faith alone), Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone), Solus Cristus (through Christ alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone).

The Catholic Church too restructured and reformed itself, by revisiting its core belief system, in what became termed as 'Counter-Reformation'.

The new religious awakening into the understanding of the scriptures - with Bibles being mass-printed and circulated by Protestants, resulted in problems too.

The differences in its interpretation resulted in the formation of numerous Protestant denominations. And there was huge political power mongering too.

A case in point is the British History of that time.

King Henry VIII was unable to secure an annulment of his first marriage. So, reformation theology came handy in his rejection of papal authority, and in the formation of the Church of England in 1530s.

His two daughters, Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I, from his first and second wives, had been bitter rivals. Mary was a Catholic. Elizabeth was a Protestant. They ruled England one after the other.

Queen Mary I executed scores of Protestant church leaders, earning for herself the gruesome title of ‘Bloody Mary’. And Queen Elizabeth I, when she came to power, took revenge by executing many Catholic Church leaders. Horrible times!

But, in 2017, we seem to be living in sensible times when the Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite having doctrinal differences, are willing to agree on the essentials.

We are living in sensible times when both divisions of the church are saying “This pilgrimage, sustained by our common prayer, worship, and ecumenical dialogue, has resulted in the removal of prejudices, the increase of mutual understanding and the identification of decisive theological agreements”.

What Do I Think of 'The Crown'?

It does not matter to ‘The Crown’ what I think. But I suppose I can still express my thoughts on it. I am not talking here about Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, ‘The Crown’, and the powerful head of the now jaded and faded British Empire. I am talking about the TV series ‘The Crown’ that has been made on her life. In July, I had set a one-month goal to complete watching this Netflix TV series, and I am glad I accomplished it. All the ten episodes - set during 1947-1955, spanning the time of her engagement to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, to the time of her differences with her sister Princess Margaret, over her sister’s love affair with Peter Townsend - are extremely engaging and immensely informative. The TV series covers the period of British Empire under Prime Ministers Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill (during his second term) and Anthony Eden. In the background, we see the diplomatic problems related to the independence of India, ‘the jewel in the crown’ of the British Empire; And also to the times of US President Dwight Eisenhower and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. We see a few flashbacks. Of her interesting exchanges with her father King George VI, and with her uncle King Edward VIII who abdicated the throne -- to marry the twice divorced Miss Wallis Simpson of USA. The TV series gives us a sneak peek into what could have transpired, behind closed doors, in palaces and parliament buildings. It gives us a keyhole view, into The Crown’s interactions with her family members and with her Prime Ministers. It gives us her innocent misdemeanours, as a novice – she was only 25 when she became the Queen - and also her clever manipulations, as she understands her role as the Queen. It gives us her private struggles and her public triumphs. Not everyone may agree with Peter Morgan, the writer of the series. Some critics say he was not accurate in his portrayal of the world’s most famous royal family. But “They’re still living, and you have to take that stuff really seriously,” he had said in an interview to ‘The Hollywood Reporter’ (THR, 14 August 2017); which goes to show he must have done a good deal of research, before surmising some of these scenes. No wonder this drama is nominated for an Emmy this year. And some are predicting a 'six season' series of ‘The Crown’. It looks like I must now set aside a lot of time, in future, for this. And maybe the TV series makers also must be regreting choosing the story of a monarch, who is the longest reigning in British History! Claire Foy, as ‘The Crown’, did not seem like a good actress at first, but as the series progressed, I began to love her performance. Vennesa Kirby, as Princess Margaret, was beauty and spirit personified. Initially, I felt Sir Winston Churchill was caricatured a bit. But then, I realized that this was set during his later years, when he was very old, and when he refused to let go of his office. The locations, of English countryside and palace interiors, are very beautifully shot. As an Indian, I am angry that India had suffered under ‘The Crown’ of British imperialism. But Britain’s advances in communication and transportation, long before telegraphy, and its administrative effectiveness, across continents, cannot be denied. I write this piece, sitting in a coffee shop in London, near Buckingham Palace, after a visit to some historic places here. And I must say I am awed at the beauty and the grandeur of this place; a place from where the once famous British Empire was run. This TV series shows us how ‘The Crown’ had struggled, how it succeeded at times and failed at times, and how it had affected the politics of far-flung countries across the globe. But, most importantly, it shows us how ‘The Crown’ actually affects the person wearing it.

Space Exploration: New Lens to Mankind's Eyes

 

It has been in development for 20 years, at a staggering cost of $8.7 billion. And it is now set to launch in October 2018.

In fact, it had been originally proposed in mid-1990s, at a basic cost of $500 million, and was expected to be launched by 2007.

But, it is now 11 years overdue, and 17 times over the budget.

It is the James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST.

As I read a fascinating article about it, titled ‘Eyes in the Sky’ by Jeffrey Kluger (TIME, 3 July 2017), I began to wonder how far this new telescope can help us to look, into the immensity of space and time.

Space telescopes, we know, are different and better than those on earth’s observatories.

As they are launched into, and placed in, outer space (to observe distant planets, galaxies and other astronomical objects) they overcome many problems which ground-based observatories face.

Light pollution and distortion of electromagnetic radiation (scintillation) prevents better views from our planet’s surface. Also, the ultraviolet frequencies, X-rays and gamma rays are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere.

But, only space telescopes can help us overcome the visual defects of terrestrial instruments. And with the latest technology now available, ground observatories can smoothly record high definition data being streamed from space telescopes.

A few years ago, my daughter and I had watched ‘Hubble 3D’, a fascinating documentary on, not only the making and the launch of NASA’s ‘Hubble Space Telescope’ (HST) in 1990, but also on the repairs undertaken by astronauts flown to it, in a space shuttle.

We had watched it at an Omnimax dome theatre - much greater in size than an IMAX theatre, and in the shape of a dome (like a planetarium) - at the Ontario Science Center, in Toronto.

When NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) of United States discovered that their Hubble Space Telescope’s vision is blurry, because of a faulty mirror, they had to quickly work on it. Or all those millions, spent on it, would go down the drain; or let’s just say, down a black hole.

They sent the first repair team (called Service Mission 1) aboard the space shuttle ‘Endeavour’ in December 1993, and the team installed several instruments and other equipment over ten days.

And, in January 1994, when HST began to show sharper images, NASA declared the mission - one of the most complex missions performed till date - a complete success.

Watching those repairs being done, on the majestic Omnimax screen was an experience I shall never forget; mainly because I realized I was watching a real problem in outer space, being solved by real people. Not a scene from some sci-fi movie, in some make-shift studio of Hollywood.

So, as I read about JWST, I could not help think of HST’s problems and of its service missions.

Unlike HST which is orbiting at a mere 353 miles (569 km) distance from earth, JWST would be placed 1 million miles (1,609,344 km) away!

I am therefore unable to easily shrug off an area of concern.

I could be called a cynic. But I know it would be absolutely impossible for any service team to go 1.6 million kilometres into space to do any repairs if, God forbid, something happens to this $8.7 billion project.

But then, the plus point is this. If all goes well, it will be, once again, a giant leap for mankind.

And, through James Webb Space Telescope, we would be able to boldly see what no man has ever seen before.

The Social Media Religion: Its Many Forms

Source: blog at techcrunch.com

If ‘Facebook’ were a religion, it would be the second largest religion in the world.

That’s what we got to know this week, when Facebook’s total worldwide users reached the astounding figure of 2 billion.

This global corporate giant in social media now accounts for over a quarter of the world's population!

If Christians are 2.3 billion on the planet, and if Muslims are 1.8 billion (as per the latest statistics on pewresearch.org), then the new number of Facebook members, now at 2 billion, shows us very clearly that we can almost call ‘Facebook’ the world’s second largest belief system.

But, come to think of it, has it not already become a religion?

The way we, around the world, are now almost worshipping it, around the clock. And the way we have now become ardent devotees of this phenomenal online social connectivity.

Is it not already making the real religious leaders shudder?

People wake up each morning not to offer a prayer first, but to check their Facebook app on their mobile phones. And people are going to bed each night, with the glare of the mobile phone screen on their faces in the dark; as they check - for the millionth time that day – if friends and family people have posted anything important. Anything that spurs a missionary zeal in them to like, share, and comment on posts.

The call of the red-notification on the Facebook app is now taking precedence over the call of prayer, from the nearby mosque.

But then, we know, there are also those who are complete unbelievers in the phenomenon called Facebook. Those who do not wish to convert to this faith. Even though many of their Facebook friends had been proselytising for long.

These unbelievers do not wish to leave their exclusive devotion to ‘WhatsApp’. And they lambast the believers of Facebook-ism on the amount of time the Facebookers are seemingly wasting on frivolity.

These ‘Exclusive Whatsappers’ somehow consider themselves baptised by fire to remain adherents to the doctrine of personal and private communication. On a higher spiritual plane. And they wield enormous power, administering WhatsApp groups with an orthodoxy that facebookers will never understand.

And then, there are also those of another religion called ‘Instagram’ism. These people believe in the enlightening tenet that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.

And they patiently thumb through thousands of pictures, reading volumes overnight, understanding – probably- the underlying existential struggles within the pictures posted by friends.

Many of the faithful are, however, completely unaware that 'Facebook' with 2 billion users, 'WhatsApp’ and ‘Facebook Messenger’ with 1.2 billion users each, and even ‘Instagram’ with 700 million users, are all owned by one single company.

Now, there are also the YouTube faithful who believe more in watching, than in posting. More in listening, than in reading. They indirectly show their charitable side -- by contributing generously and immensely to the coffers of Internet Service Providers through data consumption.

Facebook’s 2 billion number stands high “above YouTube’s 1.5 billion, WeChat’s 889 million, Twitter’s 328 million and Snapchat’s estimated 255 million (extrapolated from its December 2015 ratio when it had 110 million daily and 170 million monthly users)”, according to techcrunch.com.

Which brings me to address the minor sect called ‘tweeters’ – within the social media religiosphere - with a major impact on world affairs. Several political world leaders, and social celebrities have embraced this faith. And are often persecuted for their thoughts. Because this sect has also created a new 21st century marvel, of stalking and pouncing (on fellow tweeters if you don't like them). And its called trolling.

With millennials in its fold, another new age cult called ‘Snapchat’ is ushering in followers who faithfully practice newest rites and rituals. Such as large floral decorations of hair, sporting of cats’ whiskers and wagging of dogs’ tongues, on their contorted selfies.

All said and done, it is for us, the faithful followers, to choose which belief to follow. One or more.
It is for us to decide if our social media religious passion is coming in the way of our real life passion, or aiding it.

.....
(Today's piece in my Friday Column)

British and the Monarchy

"Even if I was king, I would do my own shopping."

Prince Harry of United Kingdom said this in an exclusive interview to a leading news magazine (Newsweek, 21 June 2017).

"Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so," he said.

He shows us that royalty is not, really, something one eagerly looks forward to; and that no one is keen to take up the huge responsibilities these royal roles entail.  

It made me think of the words of his grandmother, the reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth II. From the TV series I am watching on Netflix.

In “The Crown”, Season 1, Episode 3, the queen firmly tells her uncle that he had not apologized.

Her uncle, the former King Edward VIII, had abdicated the British throne in 1936, in order to marry the American socialite, twice-married, Wallis Simpson. 

And thereby he laid the onus of kingship on his younger brother who, despite his unwillingness, had to become King George VI. And the reluctant king had to lead Britain during the difficult and deadly Second World War.   

The former King Edward VIII replies to the new queen that he had apologized to his brother, and also to her mother. 

But, she resolutely says he has not, however, apologized to her!

She asks him if it had not occurred to him that she herself would have preferred to stay out of the spot light. She says she would have preferred to live the life of a normal woman and a normal wife. Not as a queen bearing the heavy responsibility of the crown. And he then says sorry.

The dialogues in this TV series may or may not be accurate. But we know that Queen Elizabeth II, now 91 years old, has been reigning responsibly for over 65 years, since 1952.

In fact, in 2015, she surpassed the reign of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, to become the longest-reigning British monarch in British history.

Prince Harry is currently fifth in line to the British throne after his father Prince Charles, his elder brother Prince William Duke of Cambridge, and William's little children, George and Charlotte.

And with Prince William and Kate Middleton, Prince Harry expresses, in this interview, that they would modernise the monarchy.

“The monarchy is a force for good,” he says. “And we want to carry on the positive atmosphere that the queen has achieved for over 60 years, but we won’t be trying to fill her boots.”

In an article titled “Why Monarchies Are Still Relevant and Useful in the 21st Century”, (The Diplomat, 24 June 2014), the author Akhilesh Pillalamarri argues that “most of the criticisms of monarchy are no longer valid today”.

He says “Monarchies can serve up a head of state in a more democratic and diverse way than actual democratic politics”.

Old fashioned monarchy is out. But, in today’s world, with the leadership and its citizens being well aware of their rights and responsibilities, the way the world could be governed by monarchies may be even better than democracies.

With well-designed constitutional structures and with equitable legal systems, today’s average citizen could get what he wants with greater ease.

It is also in the interest of monarchs to provide the best for their people. And, they do. 

Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Thailand, Bhutan, Belgium, Morocco, Thailand, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are but only a few of the countries modernising their monarchies.

But one thing is certain. The responsibility on the ruler is huge.

Perhaps, that is why in Shakespeare's “Henry IV”, a British king’s story, we hear the words:

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”.

***

A White House Wedding

On this day, 131 years ago, there was a marriage in the White House, the official residence of the US President.

About 40 people had gathered in the Blue Room where, in an intimate ceremony, they watched the wedding of the President himself.

On 2 June 1886, President Grover Cleveland became the first, and the only, US President to marry in the White House. He was a 49 year old bachelor then.

Courtesy: History.com

And now, here I am, wondering about this man.

Should I call him extremely clever, for successfully warding off all nuptial liaisons until that very late stage of his life? Or should I call him supremely patriotic, for devoting his life to serving the country with such single-mindedness, that he found no occasion to consider matrimony?

Whatever I call him now is immaterial and irrelevant. But, history shows that marriage did take a toll of him, for a brief period.

He lost his re-election to US Presidency in 1888. But he came back in the next elections, with renewed energy, and re-entered the White House in 1892.

As the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, Grover Cleveland is only US President to have gotten re-elected, after a full term out of office.

But readers might find the following piece even more interesting.

We know that it is somewhat normal to expect mothers to become highly excited to introduce their daughters to the most eligible bachelor from the White House. And we know it is somewhat normal for people to keep asking him when he was getting married.

But, apparently, the bachelor had a standard response: "I'm waiting for my wife to grow up!"

The people had not realized then that he was actually serious!

Frances Folsom, who become the youngest First Lady, was the daughter of his law partner and friend, Oscar Folsom.

When Oscar Folsom died, she was only 11 years old, and Grover Cleveland was, in effect, her legal guardian. In fact, it is said that, as he was Folsom family’s close friend, Cleveland had bought a baby carriage for Frances, when she was just a baby.

After he became the Governor of New York State, and even after becoming the President of United States, he pursued the relationship with great delicacy and secrecy.

This - in the current day and age - would be unthinkable. Newspapers, television news channels and social media would have come out with a myriad speculations, justifying themselves saying ‘there is no speculation without fire’!

On May 28 1886, Cleveland stunned America with his marriage announcement. And despite the age-difference of 27 years between them, they hit off very well. And with Frances’ good looks, and youthful energy, she became one of the most popular first ladies that White House has ever seen.

When she came back to White House, for her husband’s second term, she gave birth to her second daughter Esther. And Esther holds the record as the first baby born to a President in office, in the White House.

When I dug up the cyber space for more information, I found that two other US presidents also married while they were in office.

But both were remarriages, after their first wives passed away.  The widowed 10th President John Tyler (54 years) married Julia Gardiner (24 years) in New York, and the widowed  28th President Woodrow Wilson married Edith Bolling Galt.

One of the former first ladies, Nancy Reagan, had said, “It is true that when you are in the White House alone, it is a lonely place.  Big and Lonely”.

And that is why, perhaps, its residents seek company.

Roger Moore - The Spy Who Fascinated Me

What is common to Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig?

Okay. That was easy. They are all actors who played Bond. James Bond.

This fictitious British Secret Service Agent of MI6 has kept at least three generations of action-movie lovers, on tenterhooks; but is yet to be fully understood by the new millennials.

Roger Moore in 'The Octopussy', with Kabir Bedi (standing, with turban)

I just hope the young don’t rate the debonair James Bond, on the same lines as the dumb Austin Powers.

But what made this particular actor, Roger Moore, who passed away this week, special?

It was his suave and smooth style, I think. With his cool-calm and deadpan face, while he performed those gut-wrenching and heart-thumping stunts as James Bond, he personified the spy who loved danger; and the ruthless man, with or without the golden gun, but with a license to kill.

Which is why, perhaps, among all those actors I had watched play Agent 007, I somehow remember Roger Moore’s action-scenes better.

He was not the expressive kind. But, perhaps, it is that very not-so-revealing-demeanour itself, on his handsome face, that made him a ‘perfect’ cast, for the role of that ‘almost perfect’ spy.

It was from the high school boys and from the neighbourhood young men that I first got to hear of the escapades of James Bond.

I used to stand in awe, among those big boys, listening to the stories of the thrilling escapes of this slippery spy.

One of the big boys was a big fan of James Bond. He had had a belt with a buckle shaped like a pistol (with 007 embossed on it). The buckle is etched in my memory, along with the story which the buckle-owner told me -- about ‘Jaws’, a goliath of a man with metal teeth, whom James Bond/Roger Moore beats.

By the time I was old enough to actually watch a James Bond movie, it was already 1983. The movie was ‘Octopussy’.

But Roger Moore had, by then, already made five James Bond Movies, out of the seven he made in his career.

And I had already heard stories from ‘Live and Let Die (1973), ‘The Man with the Golden Gun’ (1974), ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ (1977), ‘Moonraker’ (1979) and ‘For Your Eyes Only’ (1981) – all Roger Moore’s movies.

So, ‘Octopussy’, you could say, was like a 'coming of age' movie for me. Of course, much later, I had watched all other movies, and I got the full gist of Bond’s character.

Interestingly, in this movie, ‘Octopussy’, James Bond (Roger Moore) is seen fighting the bad guys, in my country. India.

With Indian actors like Kabir Bedi and Vijay Amritraj (Yes, the famed Tennis player acted in a few movies), and with excellent shooting locations like the banks of River Ganges, streets of Bombay, stations of Indian Railways, minarets of Taj Mahal, and lakes of Rajastan’s Forts, this movie made me feel proud.

Roger Moore with Vijay Amritraj (Right, in blazer)

And even before the movie released, I had watched pictures of Roger Moore, from Udaipur of Rajastan State of India, in the LIFE magazine.

Not many people know that while filming ‘Octopussy’ in India in 1983, Roger Moore was shocked at the utter poverty on display, and soon got engaged in humanitarian work.

His colleague Audrey Hepburn impressed him with her work for UNICEF, and consequently he became UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in 1991. He was also the voice of "Santa" in the UNICEF cartoon "The Fly Who Loved Me."

He may have acted as a spy who had the licence to kill. But, he was a humanitarian with heart, with reverence for life.

Quotes and Misquotes

“Play it again, Sam". Isn't this the famous line from the film ‘Casablanca’?

No. It's not. Or that's what I came to know.

This line, though supposedly from that film, was never a part of its script. And it was never uttered on screen. The actress Ingrid Bergman actually said something slightly different. But, people just kept misquoting it, to fame!

I had watched the original classic, the black-and-white movie, ‘Casablanca’ five times, maybe twenty five years ago. But I could have sworn I heard her say - "Play it again, Sam."

But now, thanks to YouTube, I searched and found the film’s video clip. And I now know the minor difference, and the correct phrase, from the original.

I quickly did some investigation into 'famous misquotes', and was startled to find many many more!

Lines from books and movies, politics and literature, can be altered completely out of shape, and sometimes be even misattributed to a wrong person.

"Elementary, My Dear Watson", is a misquote! Yes. You heard me right. It is not in any of those Sherlock Holmes' books! The creator of this famous fictional detective, Sir Arthur Canon Doyle had not, in any of his books, used that phrase. Even once!

But how did this line become so famous? Well, such is the mystery of misquotation. It is said that the phrase "Elementary, My Dear Watson", first appeared in a film review in the New York Times, on October 19, 1929. And people have been using it ever since.

Star Trek fans would say "Beam me up, Scotty" was a great line too. But that's another misquote. The closest that Captain Kirk, the head of ‘Starship Enterprise’ ever came to it was an occasional, "Beam us up, Mr Scott".

Many people believe that Mahatma Gandhi said: "If someone slaps you on one cheek, show him the other". But they are unaware that Gandhi himself was quoting Jesus Christ who said it in the Sermon on the Mount. The correct quote was actually this: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

But, hang on. There are more historical misquotes. Did you know that Queen Marie Antoinette never said: "If they have no bread, let them eat cake!" And that Machiavelli never said: "The ends justify the means" but it was the Roman poet Ovid who did. Or that Murphy - of Murphy's law - never said, "If anything can go wrong, it will"?

Even the quote attributed to Mark Twain, "The only two certainties in life are death and taxes," should correctly be attributed to Benjamin Franklin who said it first.

Misquotations and misattributions can be primarily ascribed to journalists and speakers who don't always get their facts right.

Unlike in the olden days when word-of-mouth and passing-on-of-information-from-person-to-person was prevalent, today's editors and journalists can actually verify things, more easily. And they should.

With the plethora of web content now available, one cannot simply believe everything in cyberspace.

Of late, I am receiving Whatsapp picture forwards with quotations by famous people. But a bit of research showed me that they never said those lines; in any of their verifiable books, speeches or interviews.

Integrity is a beautiful word. And it must be applied in writing too. Just having good Google search skills, excellent Adobe Photoshop skills, and a huge social media network, does it give anyone the licence to distort Truth?

After all, “Social media like Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp will make our new generation immoral and irresponsible,” said Mahatma Gandhi.

Oh, Did he? Or didn’t he?

Nizam of Hyderabad - Miserly or Magnanimous?

As my alma mater began its 100th anniversary celebrations on Wednesday, 26 April, I thought I should pay tribute to the man who founded it.

The founder of India’s prestigious Osmania University, was an incredible man – amazing and eccentric - who had adorned the cover of TIME magazine - issue dated 22 February 1937 - in which  it called him “the richest man in the world” then.

In fact, the opening lines of TIME’s cover story went like this: “India has no native state so rich, potent and extensive as Hyderabad which is about the size of the United Kingdom and there last week the Royal Family of the Asatia (Asaf Jah) Dynasty celebrated the Silver Jubilee of “The Richest Man in the World,” Lieut. General His Exalted Highness Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, the Nizam of Hyderabad & Berar”.

It continued further, in this way: “Because the scheduled Coronation Durbar next winter of British King & Emperor George VI has had to be cancelled by His Majesty (TIME, 15 Feb 1937), there is no immediate prospect for the world to see such another Indian spectacle of pomp and power as that of the Jubilee Durbar…”

Such was the pomp and power of the Nizam of Hyderabad then that the entire world stood aghast, with awe and wonder!

But this seventh and last Nizam of Hyderabad was also a top-rate miser. An eccentric scrooge.

On the one hand he was so wealthy that he had the Jacob diamond, about the size of a lime, 280 carats, which he used as a paper-weight on his desk. And on the other hand, he was so stingy that he kept wearing the same old fez cap for 35 years!

On the one hand he gave, then, a huge 25 million pound contribution to the British exchequer during First World War. On the other hand, he smoked cigarette butts left behind by his guests, saying there was still a lot of tobacco left in them!

On the one hand, in 1947, as wedding gifts to Princess Elizabeth (now, Queen Elizabeth II), he had his jewellers ‘Cartier’ present her with a diamond necklace and a tiara.  On the other hand, he used to switch off electricity in his Hyderabad palace to save on small electricity bills!

In fact, once, when doctors tried to do an ECG (Electro Cardiogram) test on him, they discovered there was no power in the palace because he had ordered his palace officials to cut electricity, to save money. The doctors had a tough time convincing him that electric power was needed for the ECG machine to work, and for his own good.

Anyway, despite his cheapskate temperament, I am glad he established a huge University by a Royal Charter in 1917, with his name ‘Osman’. 

And just recently, in 2015, this Osmania University was rated the No.1 State University of India from among 350 such universities, by India Today-Neilson Survey.

From this university, which turned 100 now, thousands of graduates, had passed out; including yours truly.

Also recently, in 2001, Osmania was awarded five-star status by the National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) by India’s University Grants Commission.

Surprisingly, though the Nizam was very parsimonious towards himself, he was very generous towards his subjects.

Osmania Hospital, one of the biggest hospitals in South India then, was also built by him.

He spent 2 million rupees at the time to build a palatial structure and threw it open to the public in 1921.

Is it not strange that some of history’s most eccentric rulers have often given their citizens some of the most amazing developments?

Famous People: The Names they Leave for the Animal World

A newly-discovered  moth species has been named after Donald Trump.

According to a January 17 article on the website livescience.com, “A miniscule moth with a wingspan of just 0.4 inches (9 millimeters) is the first species to be named after the soon-to-be president of the United States, Donald Trump”.

Yellow and White Scaled Minuscule Moth - Neopalpa DonaldTrumpi

So, just ahead of his inauguration on Friday (20 January) – when USA’s president-elect will formally metamorphose into its president –this peculiar news made me think.

It made me think of at least two other famous people, and of a flower and a sheep named after them.

But, let us come to that nomenclature of those two a bit later.

'Neopalpa donaldtrumpi’. That’s the scientific name given to the classification of the newly discovered moth species of the genus ‘Neopalpa’.

Apparently, the Canadian scientist Vazrick Nazari, who first discovered the moth in January 2017 felt that the yellow and white scales topping the moth's head resembled Trump's signature hairstyle. And thus, was born the name.

The moth’s occurrence is mainly in Southern California and Northern Mexico which - interestingly and surprisingly - is the very place where its namesake is proposing to build a wall!

Earlier in 2016, according to TIME, "a critter found in the Peruvian Amazon hit the headlines because of its striking resemblance to Trump’s hairdo. The flannel moth caterpillar (Megalopyge opercularis), was subsequently dubbed the ‘Trumpapillar’ by researchers".

Trumpapillar  - Megalopyge opercularis

Some twelve years ago, I remember reading that a special variety of ‘orange and yellow edged’ tulips, in Netherlands, was being named after the Indian actress, and former Miss World, Aishwaria Rai.

“This tulip represents all the beautiful things of Holland. This tulip will be named after one of the most beautiful women in the world — Aishwarya Rai,"  said Hans van Driem, the then Managing Director of Netherlands Board of Tourism during a special ceremony in Amsterdam in 2005, before sprinkling the tulips with champagne.

Dolly the sheep is important to the world of science because she was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.

Announced to the world in February 1997, Dolly captured public imagination and sparked a global public debate, about the possible benefits and dangers of ‘cloning’, and of genetically modified livestock.

But why did the scientists name the sheep ‘Dolly’?

It is because Dolly’s DNA came from a mammary gland cell. And everyone knows that a famous country music singer, the buxom Dolly Parton, is personally privileged in that department!

Besides the moth, flower and sheep, there is a fish too! Named after Obama.

Yes. Not many are aware that a species of fish is also named after Barack Obama.

Discovered in June 2016, this new species of Hawaii’s coral-reef was given the formal scientific name ‘Tosanoides Obama’.

Even George W Bush has been immortalized in zoology. ‘Agathidium bushi’ is a beetle named after him.

Australian horse fly - Scaptia beyonceae

That’s not all. ‘Trigonopterus Chewbacca’ is a beetle with hairy legs, named after the ‘Star Wars’ Character Chewbacca. ‘Scaptia beyonceae’ is a species of horse fly with a shapely golden behind named after singer Beyoncé. Don’t ask me why . ‘Gnathia marleyi’,  is a crustacean parasite found in the Caribbean named after the reggae legend Bob Marley.

I wonder if people become presidents of big countries, or singers on world stage, thinking that they will leave their mark on the plant and animal world.  But they should ideally help conserve the rich and varied eco system of our beautiful planet.

Is it not astounding that even after centuries of zoological research we are still finding new species, every other month?

Talking of Trump, our moth-discoverer Vazrick Nazari had said:  "I hope that the president will make conservation of fragile ecosystems in the U.S. his top priority. These ecosystems still contain many undiscovered and undescribed species, and deserve to be protected for future generations."

Beetle named after Star Wars' character Chewbecca - Trigonopterus Chewbacca