by Sachi Sri Kantha, July 30, 2026
Introduction
I was requested by a Hindu reader of my commentaries, to rebut the nonsense Prof Ratnajeevan Hoole had written about the activities of deities holy to Hinduism in his recent column entitled, ‘Down with impunity in Jaffna for sexual harassment’ in the Colombo Telegraph site,. in a posting date July26, 2026. The link is,
[https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/down-with-impunity-in-jaffna-for-sexual-harassment/, accessed July 31, 2026]
In this rebuttal, I restrict my criticism only to Prof Ratnajeevan Hoole’s ignorance of Christianity, and not to the contemporary events in Jaffna which he had alluded to.
Prof Ratmajeevan Hoole
First, I provide the selected passages written by this Professor to insult Hinduism. Then, I submit references and citations to the sex-related episodes presented in the Holy Bible to (1) rebut the Hinduism drivel, he had been indulging for forty years or so, and (2) prove what a schmuck he is about the contents presented in the Holy Bible.
Prof. Hoole’s demented version of Hinduism, in his commentary appears in a section under the following sub title:
“Tamil Attitude to Sexual Exploitation of Children and Women
This attitude of tolerance of sexual deviants is deeply rooted in Jaffna society and comes from the gods – almost all of them. Both Paedophilia and Incest are examples to us from Brahma, the Creator God . As described in the Dalit Voice (Vol. 29, No. 15, 1 Aug 2020):
“On seeing his daughter Padma, Brahma was very much moved. He looked at the beauty of his daughter. He wooed his daughter and wanted to have intercourse. How could a daughter give consent to one’s own father? Padma refused. Brahma did not give up his desire. He began to quote the Vedas to his daughter to make her realise that there is nothing wrong in enjoying with anyone, anytime, anywhere for the sake of giving birth to a child.”
Child marriage was an entrenched Hindu custom. For example, when the British colonial government introduced the Age of Consent Bill of 1891–92, seeking to raise the age of consent for girls from ten to twelve, several prominent Hindu leaders, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, opposed the reform on the grounds that it violated Hindu customs. Tilak was one of the first and strongest advocates of “self-rule.” He famously said: “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it!”. How can a ten- or even twelve-year old girl forced into marriage to an old man enjoy the freedoms of swaraj?
Similarly, we have the story in the Natya Sastram of how Brahma was sexually excited by his daughter Saraswati who sits on a lotus with her legs open in sexual invitation. The over-charged god of creation in heat kept ogling at the voluptuous Saraswati and when her brothers got angry, to avoid showing he was ogling, he grew a face on every side of his head so he could see her without turning his head.
Such stories do not make for a chaste society.
Then we have version of Siva seducing the wives of sages (rishipatnis) in the pine forest (Darukavana) and subsequently losing his lingam. (I have given another version elsewhere of Siva being having his Lingam scorched by Munivar whose wife Snushya was seduced by Siva). It is a classic Puranic narrative recounted in texts like the Siva Purana and Linga Purana. According to the The Darukavana Legend, the sages of Darukavana relied heavily on rituals and ego, forgetting the supreme reality behind them. To humble them, Siva assumed the form of Bhikshatana (an alluring, naked beggar), while Vishnu took the form of Mohini. Upon seeing the enchanting form of Siva, the wives of the sages became completely infatuated and abandoned their household duties to follow him. Enraged by this perceived immorality, the ignorant sages cursed Siva, causing his generative limb (lingam) to fall to the ground. Once the lingam detached, it began to burn and sink into the earth, causing chaos across the three worlds until Brahma and Vishnu intervened, advising the sages to worship the formless lingam with devotion to restore cosmic balance.
Hence, we have Siva’s erect black penis bathed in milk and stroked by young girls, reminding us of how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, trained young girls to massage Epstein.
Then we have Krishna who runs about seducing young girls and running off with their clothing while they bathe nude in ponds. These stories our women sing with religious devotion. The most galling to me is when our Tamil women call their little sons Kanna (an endearing name for Krishna) as if to say, “May you grow up into a successful womaniser.” The habit is so ingrained that I have seen Christian women wishing this dirty quality on their sons.”
By cherry-picking stories only from Hinduism texts, Prof Hoole continues to proof that he suffers from a penis fetish syndrome. For proper balance, here I educate him with a few stories from the Holy Bible itself, which have been analyzed by scholars of both sexes.
Christianity deficit in Prof. Hoole’s learning
A 1864 biography of Virgin Mary
Prof. Hoole asserts “Child marriage was an entrenched Hindu custom”. Of course, it was so, in the past centuries, for various cultural and biological reasons. How about the child marriage practices in the Holy Land, during the time Jesus was born? It has also been deduced from circumstantial evidence that Mary (the mother of Jesus), was NOT an adult woman, but a child-teenager, in the age range of 12 to 16, when she underwent annunciation, by the Holy Ghost that resulted in the birth of Jesus. [check the link in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus, accessed Aug 1, 2026]
Pardon me for blasphemy. For ages, Bible scholars had split hairs on this ‘story’ of ‘virgin birth’ of a historical Jesus (via Holy Ghost) to a betrothed Mary, and how the Apostles (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) have interpreted within a short span of few decades. American historian Joel Carmichael (1915-2006) had painted this dilemma succinctly in a chapter ‘Jesus’ origins’, in his stimulating book ‘The Death of Jesus’ (Victor Gollancz, 1963). To cite a few sentences, from this chapter,
“The Jews did not reckon birthright through women; consequently Mary’s genealogy would be useless as a proof of Jesus’ descent from David. Further, it is Joseph’s lineage that Luke also tries to establish, not Mary’s, since even the present text reads that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph (Lk 3:23).
We are left with an ineradicable discrepancy between the lists. In fact, the only thing they have in common is the same object of ‘proving’ that Jesus was really the ‘son of David’ expected by the Jews. It is this tendentious aim that explains why it was that no one ever tried to deduce Jesus’ Messiahship from his Davidic descent, but just the opposite; after the belief had grown up that he was the Messiah it was simply inferred that he was, necessarily, a scion of the house of David.”
The agony felt by Joseph, the betrothed husband of Mary, is described as follows in a 1864 biography of Mary, by Rev Husenbeth. [Italics, as in the original]
“The condition of Mary became more and more visible she was found with child, says the Gospel, which means that all Nazareth was informed of it, and that of Joseph’s relations, in the innocence of their hearts, offered him painful congratulations, which he was obliged to receive without changing countenance, and which struck him at once like a flash of lightening. According to the Proto-Gospel of St. James, in the first transports of his grief, he prostrated himself before God with his face on the ground, and all bathed with tears, crying out, ‘Who has betrayed me? Who has brought evil into my house’ Then, yielding to his tender affection for the young orphan who he had ever regarded as the pearl and honour of her sex, he bitterly accused himself of not having guarded her with sufficient care. ‘Alas! He said to himself, ‘my history is that of Adam, whom he reposed with the greatest confidence in his glory and happiness, behold on a sudden Satan deceived Eve with lying words, and seduced her’. When Joseph was sufficiently calm in mid to reflect, he found himself in great perplexity.”
Now, to Prof Hoole’s penis fetish. Euphemisms used in the Bible for penis has been decoded. Edward Ullendorff’s review essay of 1979 entitled ‘The Bawdy Bible’ was an adorable compilation of naughty words for linguists focused on private regions of human body. I wish Prof. Hoole should read this essay for pleasure. Ullendorff had compiled numerous sexual references from the following chapters in the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, I Kings, 2 Kings, Isiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (Canticles), Lamentations, Romans. Reality being this, will Prof Hoole has the courage to recommend that Holy Bible should not be touched, read or taught in the contemporary world to children and juveniles? Or all the ‘nasty words’ itching the perverted minds be expunged from the Holy Bible?
As for the sexual crimes described in the Holy Bible, I suggest Prof. Hoole should read about Noah’s nakedness and Lot’s two unnamed daughters who were impregnated by their father to give birth to Ben-ammi and Moab. A painting by Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617) of Lot with his two daughters is placed nearby. Another vital source for Prof. Hoole to refresh himself about the sexual crimes in the Bible, is a 2009 review by Anil Aggrawal in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine.
Does Prof. Hoole know that the Holy Bible is rife with euphemisms for penis and prostitutes? I suggest he should read Scott Noegel’s perceptive lengthy analysis with the title, ‘Scarlet and Harlots: seeing Red in the Hebrew Bible’, published in 2016.
Coda
Prof. Hoole had inferred ”Such [Hindu deity] stories do not make for a chaste society”. I’m tempted to ask him whether he had checked a 1,068 page tome by David Warren Sabean. It has a long title ‘A delicate choreography – Kinship practices and Incest discourses in the West since the Renaissance’, published in 2023. Sabean does not mention about Hindu society. But, the section 1 (consisting of 5 chapters) has a sub-title “Baroque Europe: The Bible Tells Me So”
Three of my favorite lines from the Holy Bible are these. “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye”. You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew, 7: 3-5) I have no doubt that Prof Hoole should have been taught these lines, when he was young in his Church.
Cited sources
Aggrawal A. References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 2009; 16: 109-114.
Bergsma JS and Hahn SW. Noah’s nakedness and the curse on Canaan (Genesis 9: 20-27). Journal of Biblical Literature, spring 2005; 124(1): 25-40.
Carmichael J. The Death of Jesus, Victor Gollanz, London, 1963.
Rev Husenbeth FC. The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the History of the Devotion to Her, Virtue and Co, London, 1864, p. 128.
Kutz I. Revisiting the Lot of the first incestuous family: the biblical origins of shifting the blame on to female family members. British Medical Journal, 2005; 3331: 1507-1508.
Low KB. The sexual abuse of Lot’s daughters: reconceptualizing kinship for the sake of our daughters. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, fall 2010; 26(2): 37-54.
Noegel SB. Scarlet and Harlots: seeing Red in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Union College Annual, 2016; 87: 1-47.
Sabean DW. A Delicate Choreography – Kinship Practices and Incest Discourses in the West since the Renaissance, Part 1, De Gruyter, Oldenbourg, 2023, 1,068 pp.
Ullendorff E. The Bawdy Bible. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1979; 42(3): 425-456.