Nine out of ten Christians in Bihar have disappeared! In Andhra Pradesh the population of Christians has decreased. The Population Growth Rate (PGR) of Christians in Goa and Kerala is a fraction of the national average. But Delhi has seen a phenomenal growth in the number of Christians. Don’t believe me, but believe the statistics of the Census of India. A study of the figures for 1961 and 2001 (the latest available) is startling. Are they facts? Yes and no, for statistics are easily manipulatable. I do not wish to be a manipulator, so I will present both facts and figures.
The figures in the attached annexure are taken from the Census of India report of 2001. In 1961 there were 502,195 Christians in Bihar. Forty years later, in 2001, they were down to just 53,137, a drop of 89%! What the statistics don’t say is that in the interregnum a new State of Jharkhand was formed, and the majority of erstwhile Bihar’s Christians are to be found there. The data shows that the All India PGR between 1961 and 2001 was 134%. In contrast the Muslim PGR was much higher at 194%, while the Christians’ was lower at 124%. IN Delhi the Christian PGR was 345%, obviously because of immigration. Andhra Pradesh is the only State where the Christian population has actually dwindled from 1,428,729 in 1961 to 1,181,917 in 2001, a negative growth of 17%. And Telengana is still a part of Andhra. What does this indicate? Andhra has been in the forefront of the Dalit Christian movement. Is this indicative that the denial of equal rights to Dalit Christians has resulted in large-scale apostasy in Andhra? So much for our evangelisation.
Kerala and Goa are the two States that had a well-entrenched Christian presence. Their statistics merit attention. As against the national PGR of 134, and the Christian PGR of 124, in Goa the Christian PGR is lowest at 58%, and Kerala is not much better at 69%. Before we set the alarm bells ringing, we need to look at some other demographic realities.
Both Kerala and Goa have a high exodus of emigrants to other countries and States. Equally, they have a large influx of immigrant labour, as Keralites and Goans find manual labour below their dignity. Family planning is also more evident in both these States. In 2001 the Proportion of Age (0 – 6 years) had a national average of 15.9%. The average for Muslims was again higher at 18.7%, while that of Christians was lower at 13.5%. Goan Christians had the lowest proportion at 9.6%, while Kerala’s was 11.2%. Literacy has been a contributory factor. In 2001 the national literacy rate was 64.8%, while for women it was 53.7%. Among Christian Goans this was much higher at 83.8% and 78.8% respectively. Kerala Christians fared even better at 94.8% and 93.5% respectively.
One’s nature of work is also related to population growth. Those who till the land believe that for every mouth to feed there are two hands to work. They consider children an asset, not a liability. But the nature of Christian workers in Goa and Kerala again is different from the national norm. Among the categories of workers in 2001, the national average for cultivators and agricultural labourers was 58.2%. In contrast, for Goan Christians this was just 11.4%, and for Kerala Christians it was 24%. Small wonder then that all these factors have contributed to the vanishing Christians of Goa and Kerala (though Andhra is a sociological, not a demographic problem).
It is in this context that we need to address recent developments like the “Welfare of Women & Children Bill 2011” in the Kerala Assembly, and the strident reactions from Muslim and Christian religious leaders in Kerala. Why is the Bill so objectionable?
It seeks to enact harsh measures to control the population. It advocates a two-child norm; and three months’ jail or a fine of Rs 10,000/- for those who don’t follow this diktat. It further says that those organisations or individuals that campaign against family planning would also face imprisonment. This draconian measure has been likened to Sanjay Gandhi’s forced sterilisation drives during the Emergency (1975-77), and China’s one-child policy (1979).
Writing in Indian Currents (IC) Dr John Dayal says that China’s population policy has resulted in 30 million Chinese men without wives, with the attendant danger of increased violence against women and prostitution. A newspaper report says that wife-supplying agencies have erupted, arranging for women (wives) from Vietnam, with a money back guarantee of satisfaction. This is not surprising. Unabated female foeticide in India has resulted in a skewed sex ratio, with men from Haryana and Rajasthan actually paying for brides from poorer States. So the danger of excessive State control is real. However, Kerala, which incidentally has a high sex ratio, also has the highest population density of 859 persons per sq km; which Dr Dayal says is 3 times higher than the national average.
How has the Kerala church responded to this complex issue of a dense population and a draconian Bill? Long before any Bill was on the horizon the late Cardinal Vithayathil had advocated larger families; accusing parents who could afford it, of being selfish, by not producing more children. At that time I had strongly rebutted the cardinal’s convoluted logic. Now St Vincent de Paul Forane Church in Wynad district of Kerala has announced a Rs 10,000/- fixed deposit to be given to parents that produce a fifth child. The person who made the announcement, Salu Mecheril, is also the spokesperson of the Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Conference. So the announcement cannot be treated in isolation. The secular press has already splashed the news and made adverse editorial comments. The Kerala laity has also not taken this lying down. As reported in IC, Joseph Pullikkunel, Director, Indian Institute of Christian Studies, has objected, saying that “Catholic women are not just human machines producing children”.
The Kerala Bill is downright insane, even though the Christian Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, claims that “resentment against the draft is unwarranted”. How warranted is the reaction of the Catholic hierarchy? Rev Mathew O. Praem, writing in the same issue of IC, lets the cat out of the bag when he says that the bishops’ policy is “mainly in view of languishing vocations to priestly and religious life”. Had a layman like me said this, I would have immediately been branded anti-clerical. Coming from the horse’s mouth, need I say more? The reality is that large families in Kerala generously sent many of their offspring to novitiates and seminaries. Several foreign congregations even set up “fishing centres” in Kerala. With small families, the boom is over. They are no longer willing to contribute their mites (pun intended)!
This month the world population will cross the 7 billion mark. Here in India we are unable to define poverty. Infrastructure has collapsed, and forests have been slashed because of a burgeoning population. Voluntary family planning is essential to macro planning, and should not be opposed on purely sectarian grounds like empty novitiates and seminaries.
One must also ask the Catholic Church how effective has its propagation of Natural Family Planning (NFP) been? I taught about NFP before I got married! From the Rhythm Method we had progressed to the Sympto-Thermic Method, the Ovulation Method and the Modified Mucous Method. What happened? I throw an open challenge to the Catholic bishops of India to show us how many NFP centres are functioning in India today, and how many adherents they have. There is also mounting evidence that the Catholic Church is unable to cover the socio-economic needs of its existing members, particularly that of the Dalit Christians. So why talk of financial support to a fifth child?
The draconian Kerala bill should be thrown out, and the bishops’ fixed deposits with it. We need flexibility not fixity.
STATISTICAL DATA
Source – Census of India Report 2001
Population Growth Rate from 1961 to 2001 (40 years)
Category 1961 2001 % age Growth
All Religions 439,234,771 1,028,610,328 134
Muslims 46,940,799 138,188,240 194
Christians 10,728,086 24,080,016 124
Christians in Delhi 29,269 130,319 345
Christians in Bihar 502,195 53,137 -89
Christians in Goa 227,202 359,568 58%
Christians in Andhra 1,428,729 1,181,917 -17
Christians in Kerala 3,587,365 6,057,427 69
Proportion of Age (0-6 years)
Category Percentage
All India 15.9
Muslims 18.7
Christians 13.5
Christians in Goa 9.6
Christians in Kerala 11.2
Literacy Rates – 2001 (in percent)
Category All Female
All India 64.8 53.7
Christians 80.3 76.2
Christians in Goa 83.8 78.8
Christians in Kerala 94.8 93.5
Categories of Workers – 2001 (in percent)
Category All India Christians Christians in Goa Christians in Kerala
Cultivators 31.7 29.2 4.8 12.8
Agricultural Labourers 26.5 15.3 6.6 11.2
Household Industry 4.2 2.7 3.1 2.5
Others 37.6 52.8 85.4 73.5
* The writer has 42 years of experience in youth ministry, marriage preparation and community leadership.
October 2011
Thursday 20 October 2011
GROWING PAINS
When a child is young its parents go all out to teach it how to walk and talk. When it grows up, the very same parents now expend double the energy telling the “child” to shut up and sit down! A reversal of roles, or a changed situation? What has gone awry in the Parent-Child relationship, often referred to as growing pains?
Dr Eric Berne, in his best seller “Games People Play – The Psychology of Human Relationships” has developed a school of psychology called “Transactional Analysis”. It is based on the three ego states in every individual – Parent, Adult and Child. The all knowing, all-powerful Parent interacts naturally with the ignorant and dependent Child. Similarly, two Adults can interact naturally on an equal footing based on mutual respect and rationality, not superiority or authority. The problem arises when a dependent and ignorant Child grows up and evolves into a young Adult, with its own critical awareness.
The equations now need to change from a Parent-Child transaction to an Adult-Adult one. This is where the conflicts, aggression and misunderstandings begin, often called the “generation gap”. It is actually a “communications gap”, where the Parent still wants to speak (give orders, make decisions), and expects the young adult to listen and obey. The young Adult does not see the rationale of the Parent’s diktat, and rebels or reacts, resulting in a breakdown of relationships and communication. If left unattended it degenerates further into resentment and recrimination. Here the role of the Parent is crucial. It must recognise the changed circumstances, and make a deliberate climb down. The Parent must get off its high horse and recognise the rational young Adult. If not, the emergent Adult will either rebel, withdraw into silent indifference, or simply walk out.
Let us now juxtapose these transactions (relationships) on the Catholic Church, which is also a family (community). For centuries the Church has been referred to as a Mother, and its pastors, even if they are in their twenties, are called Fathers; thereby reinforcing the “Parental” nature and stature of the hierarchical church. The natural consequence was that the laity was treated as an ignorant and dependent Child, who had to pray, pay and obey. The Parental role of the hierarchy was accentuated in a Gora Padre Sahib/ Brahminical order, in a mission land like India. Here the convert was totally dependent on the missionary priest – for salvation, education and employment. The Parental role was deeply entrenched.
What happened in the West? The industrial and print revolutions resulted in the Protestant Reformation. The people were no longer dependent or ignorant. They had grown up, and flew from the nest, to live their own independent lives.
Despite its rich liturgical and artistic legacy, the Catholic Church in Europe (erstwhile Christendom) was faced with a mass exodus and empty churches, especially after the two World Wars. Pope John XXIII recognised these symptoms in time, and converted adversity into an opportunity. In 1962 he convened the Second Vatican Council (VAT II), praying for a new Pentecost, a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit and aggiornamento (updating or renewal).
VAT II was a sea change in the Church’s self-understanding (ecclesiology). Unfortunately, 46 years after VAT II ended in 1965, we have seen only cosmetic changes, as in the liturgy and the dress of priests and nuns. We have not seen the deeper attitudinal changes envisaged by VAT II vis-à-vis the world, other religions, science, etc; and its own internal attitudes, especially with regard to the laity. Here again, in a poor, ignorant, dalit or tribal community like India’s, the laity has been largely ignored or sidelined. Lay leaders who quote scripture, VAT II or Canon Law are not treated with equanimity as behoves an Adult-Adult relationship. They are, instead, branded as rebels, critics or troublemakers. Such knowledgeable lay leaders therefore withdraw into a silent sulk, rebel against the system, or simply quit the Church, as they are no longer afraid of damnation or ostracisation.
It is time for the hierarchical church (bishops and priests) to make a determined and conscious climb down, to shed their earlier Parental role, and interact with the laity on an Adult-Adult basis. This obviously requires openness, love and humility. The evidence so far is to the contrary.
In Sunday sermons we are reminded ad nauseum that we must be childlike to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are also reminded that the poor will inherit the earth. The message is loud and clear – stay where you are as an ignorant, dependent Child. Don’t attempt to be self-reliant – financially, intellectually or spiritually. You have to come to the “Father”, the one in the presbytery, not the one in heaven, for all your needs! This is a gross distortion of sacred scripture and VAT II ecclesiology.
Some of St Paul’s exhortations are poignant. He rebukes the Corinthians for their inability to grow up. “I was not able to talk to you as spiritual people; I had to talk to you as people … still infants in Christ; I fed you with milk and not solid food, for you were not able to take it” (1Cor 3:1-2). He exhorts them to imitate his maturity. “When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does; and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways” (1Cor 13:11). The Letter to the Hebrews is even more explicit. “We have many things to say, and they are difficult to explain, because you have grown so slow at understanding. Indeed, when you by this time should have become masters, you need someone to teach you all over again; …you have gone back to needing milk, and not solid food. Truly, no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, being still a baby. Solid food is for adults with minds trained by practice to distinguish between good and bad” (Heb 5:11-14). These words seem to be addressed directly to the infantile suckers that the Indian laity is.
Let us also revert to the Old Testament. The prophetic call to Jeremiah is, “I have put my words into your mouth. Look today I have set you over the nations and kingdoms, to uproot and to knock down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jer 1:9-10). A clarion call to revolution?
The prophet Ezekiel warns against the sin of silent indifference. “If you do not speak to warn someone wicked to renounce evil and to save his life, it is the wicked person who will die for his guilt, but I shall hold you responsible for that death” (Ez 3:18-19). He expands further by saying “If, however, you do warn someone wicked to renounce such ways and repent, and that person does not repent, then the culprit will die for this guilt, but you yourself would have saved your life” (Ez 33:8-9). Jesus, who was familiar with, and often quoted Jewish scriptures, may have had Ezekiel’s warnings in mind when he said, “If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you … But if he refuses to listen to these, report it to the community; and if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a gentile or a tax collector” (Mat 18:15-17).
It is therefore incumbent on enlightened lay leaders to speak out on matters of common interest, be they acts of commission (wrong doing); or acts of omission, like the non-implementation of VAT II teachings regarding the role of the laity, or the provisions of Canon Law pertaining to the temporal goods of the Church, and participatory bodies like pastoral councils and finance committees.
VAT II ecclesiology has also moved from papal authoritarianism to the collegiality of bishops; from a paternalistic attitude towards the laity, to a fraternal (Adult-Adult) one. A few quotes from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) will suffice for now. Talking of the laity in Chapter IV it says, “They are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). It defines the lay vocation saying “A secular quality is proper and special to laymen” (Ibid). And again, “The laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God” (Ibid).
Those who wrote this document must have been good psychologists. Here is what it says. “By divine condescension the laity have Christ for their brother .. They also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry” (LG 32). In relation to the clergy it again says “Every layman should reveal to them his needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which befits a son of God, and a brother in Christ” (LG 37). Harking back to Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s prophetic roles it states “An individual layman by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which he may enjoy, is permitted and sometimes even obliged to express his opinion on things which concern the good of the church” (Ibid). It is more than obvious that the laity has an important, fraternal (Adult-Adult) role to play in both church and society. There is a rider though. One needs learning, competence and outstanding ability. This is where the laity has failed miserably. We are still a bunch of ignoramuses that are largely unaware of our rights and duties.
This suits the “Fathers in Mother Church”, who are quite comfortable with an ignorant, subservient and dependent laity. The blame must be apportioned between both the hierarchy and the laity. Where there is a will there is a way. Who has stopped the laity from acquiring knowledge and skills? For years the AICU has been laying stress on leadership training, from the time of late Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas’ Jagruti programmes, to George Menezes’ emphasis on “Effective Christian Leadership”, down to the present day under Dr Remy Denis’ presidentship.
Those familiar with pre and post VAT II ecclesiology would have heard of the pyramidical and concentric models of the Church. In the pyramidical model there was a hierarchical structure, with the laity at the bottom of the heap. This followed the trickle down theory. But if the pyramid is made of hard rock, nothing can permeate it. The water will just run off. In the concentric model we are told that we are all equal (fraternal) but the laity is in the outermost circle, the periphery. Hence nothing much has changed. Earlier we were at the bottom, now we are at the edge. In this latter model we are exposed to the ripple effect, as from the epicentre of an earthquake. Here again, if the structure is earthquake resistant, there will be hardly any impact.
Judging the tree by the fruit it bears, one is constrained to conclude that the hierarchical church in India is both waterproof and earthquake resistant, which is why the wished for renewal of VAT II has not permeated the life and praxis of the church. How do we rectify this?
I see three approaches in history. All begin with the letter R. One is the Reformation, as initiated by Martin Luther, that resulted in a mass exodus from the Catholic Church. The second is Revolution, as seen in the French Revolution’s battle cry of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The ire of the revolutionaries was directed as much against the opulent church as against a corpulent aristocracy. This resulted in a sharp divide between Church and State, and an inordinately secularised way of life, as prevalent in France and much of Europe till today.
The third option was Renewal. The Catholic Church in thirteenth century Europe was going through the Dark Ages, where temporal power and lust reigned supreme. In that dismal scenario St Francis of Assisi was given the onerous task, “Go and repair my church”. He did it through personal and collective Renewal, by a return to pristine gospel values. He chose to renew from within, rather than to reform, revolt or criticise from outside.
We the laity of India could learn some lessons from church history, sacred scripture, VAT II teachings and Canon Law. Who is there to stop us in the true Renewal of the Catholic Church in India? I see the role of the AICU and its affiliated Catholic Associations, as also the forthcoming Lay Synod, as an important step in that direction. It will avoid unwarranted growing pains, and make for a happy family (community) life, based on mutual respect.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
Dr Eric Berne, in his best seller “Games People Play – The Psychology of Human Relationships” has developed a school of psychology called “Transactional Analysis”. It is based on the three ego states in every individual – Parent, Adult and Child. The all knowing, all-powerful Parent interacts naturally with the ignorant and dependent Child. Similarly, two Adults can interact naturally on an equal footing based on mutual respect and rationality, not superiority or authority. The problem arises when a dependent and ignorant Child grows up and evolves into a young Adult, with its own critical awareness.
The equations now need to change from a Parent-Child transaction to an Adult-Adult one. This is where the conflicts, aggression and misunderstandings begin, often called the “generation gap”. It is actually a “communications gap”, where the Parent still wants to speak (give orders, make decisions), and expects the young adult to listen and obey. The young Adult does not see the rationale of the Parent’s diktat, and rebels or reacts, resulting in a breakdown of relationships and communication. If left unattended it degenerates further into resentment and recrimination. Here the role of the Parent is crucial. It must recognise the changed circumstances, and make a deliberate climb down. The Parent must get off its high horse and recognise the rational young Adult. If not, the emergent Adult will either rebel, withdraw into silent indifference, or simply walk out.
Let us now juxtapose these transactions (relationships) on the Catholic Church, which is also a family (community). For centuries the Church has been referred to as a Mother, and its pastors, even if they are in their twenties, are called Fathers; thereby reinforcing the “Parental” nature and stature of the hierarchical church. The natural consequence was that the laity was treated as an ignorant and dependent Child, who had to pray, pay and obey. The Parental role of the hierarchy was accentuated in a Gora Padre Sahib/ Brahminical order, in a mission land like India. Here the convert was totally dependent on the missionary priest – for salvation, education and employment. The Parental role was deeply entrenched.
What happened in the West? The industrial and print revolutions resulted in the Protestant Reformation. The people were no longer dependent or ignorant. They had grown up, and flew from the nest, to live their own independent lives.
Despite its rich liturgical and artistic legacy, the Catholic Church in Europe (erstwhile Christendom) was faced with a mass exodus and empty churches, especially after the two World Wars. Pope John XXIII recognised these symptoms in time, and converted adversity into an opportunity. In 1962 he convened the Second Vatican Council (VAT II), praying for a new Pentecost, a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit and aggiornamento (updating or renewal).
VAT II was a sea change in the Church’s self-understanding (ecclesiology). Unfortunately, 46 years after VAT II ended in 1965, we have seen only cosmetic changes, as in the liturgy and the dress of priests and nuns. We have not seen the deeper attitudinal changes envisaged by VAT II vis-à-vis the world, other religions, science, etc; and its own internal attitudes, especially with regard to the laity. Here again, in a poor, ignorant, dalit or tribal community like India’s, the laity has been largely ignored or sidelined. Lay leaders who quote scripture, VAT II or Canon Law are not treated with equanimity as behoves an Adult-Adult relationship. They are, instead, branded as rebels, critics or troublemakers. Such knowledgeable lay leaders therefore withdraw into a silent sulk, rebel against the system, or simply quit the Church, as they are no longer afraid of damnation or ostracisation.
It is time for the hierarchical church (bishops and priests) to make a determined and conscious climb down, to shed their earlier Parental role, and interact with the laity on an Adult-Adult basis. This obviously requires openness, love and humility. The evidence so far is to the contrary.
In Sunday sermons we are reminded ad nauseum that we must be childlike to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are also reminded that the poor will inherit the earth. The message is loud and clear – stay where you are as an ignorant, dependent Child. Don’t attempt to be self-reliant – financially, intellectually or spiritually. You have to come to the “Father”, the one in the presbytery, not the one in heaven, for all your needs! This is a gross distortion of sacred scripture and VAT II ecclesiology.
Some of St Paul’s exhortations are poignant. He rebukes the Corinthians for their inability to grow up. “I was not able to talk to you as spiritual people; I had to talk to you as people … still infants in Christ; I fed you with milk and not solid food, for you were not able to take it” (1Cor 3:1-2). He exhorts them to imitate his maturity. “When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does; and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways” (1Cor 13:11). The Letter to the Hebrews is even more explicit. “We have many things to say, and they are difficult to explain, because you have grown so slow at understanding. Indeed, when you by this time should have become masters, you need someone to teach you all over again; …you have gone back to needing milk, and not solid food. Truly, no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, being still a baby. Solid food is for adults with minds trained by practice to distinguish between good and bad” (Heb 5:11-14). These words seem to be addressed directly to the infantile suckers that the Indian laity is.
Let us also revert to the Old Testament. The prophetic call to Jeremiah is, “I have put my words into your mouth. Look today I have set you over the nations and kingdoms, to uproot and to knock down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jer 1:9-10). A clarion call to revolution?
The prophet Ezekiel warns against the sin of silent indifference. “If you do not speak to warn someone wicked to renounce evil and to save his life, it is the wicked person who will die for his guilt, but I shall hold you responsible for that death” (Ez 3:18-19). He expands further by saying “If, however, you do warn someone wicked to renounce such ways and repent, and that person does not repent, then the culprit will die for this guilt, but you yourself would have saved your life” (Ez 33:8-9). Jesus, who was familiar with, and often quoted Jewish scriptures, may have had Ezekiel’s warnings in mind when he said, “If your brother does something wrong, go and have it out with him alone, between your two selves. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you … But if he refuses to listen to these, report it to the community; and if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a gentile or a tax collector” (Mat 18:15-17).
It is therefore incumbent on enlightened lay leaders to speak out on matters of common interest, be they acts of commission (wrong doing); or acts of omission, like the non-implementation of VAT II teachings regarding the role of the laity, or the provisions of Canon Law pertaining to the temporal goods of the Church, and participatory bodies like pastoral councils and finance committees.
VAT II ecclesiology has also moved from papal authoritarianism to the collegiality of bishops; from a paternalistic attitude towards the laity, to a fraternal (Adult-Adult) one. A few quotes from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) will suffice for now. Talking of the laity in Chapter IV it says, “They are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). It defines the lay vocation saying “A secular quality is proper and special to laymen” (Ibid). And again, “The laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God” (Ibid).
Those who wrote this document must have been good psychologists. Here is what it says. “By divine condescension the laity have Christ for their brother .. They also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry” (LG 32). In relation to the clergy it again says “Every layman should reveal to them his needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which befits a son of God, and a brother in Christ” (LG 37). Harking back to Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s prophetic roles it states “An individual layman by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which he may enjoy, is permitted and sometimes even obliged to express his opinion on things which concern the good of the church” (Ibid). It is more than obvious that the laity has an important, fraternal (Adult-Adult) role to play in both church and society. There is a rider though. One needs learning, competence and outstanding ability. This is where the laity has failed miserably. We are still a bunch of ignoramuses that are largely unaware of our rights and duties.
This suits the “Fathers in Mother Church”, who are quite comfortable with an ignorant, subservient and dependent laity. The blame must be apportioned between both the hierarchy and the laity. Where there is a will there is a way. Who has stopped the laity from acquiring knowledge and skills? For years the AICU has been laying stress on leadership training, from the time of late Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas’ Jagruti programmes, to George Menezes’ emphasis on “Effective Christian Leadership”, down to the present day under Dr Remy Denis’ presidentship.
Those familiar with pre and post VAT II ecclesiology would have heard of the pyramidical and concentric models of the Church. In the pyramidical model there was a hierarchical structure, with the laity at the bottom of the heap. This followed the trickle down theory. But if the pyramid is made of hard rock, nothing can permeate it. The water will just run off. In the concentric model we are told that we are all equal (fraternal) but the laity is in the outermost circle, the periphery. Hence nothing much has changed. Earlier we were at the bottom, now we are at the edge. In this latter model we are exposed to the ripple effect, as from the epicentre of an earthquake. Here again, if the structure is earthquake resistant, there will be hardly any impact.
Judging the tree by the fruit it bears, one is constrained to conclude that the hierarchical church in India is both waterproof and earthquake resistant, which is why the wished for renewal of VAT II has not permeated the life and praxis of the church. How do we rectify this?
I see three approaches in history. All begin with the letter R. One is the Reformation, as initiated by Martin Luther, that resulted in a mass exodus from the Catholic Church. The second is Revolution, as seen in the French Revolution’s battle cry of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. The ire of the revolutionaries was directed as much against the opulent church as against a corpulent aristocracy. This resulted in a sharp divide between Church and State, and an inordinately secularised way of life, as prevalent in France and much of Europe till today.
The third option was Renewal. The Catholic Church in thirteenth century Europe was going through the Dark Ages, where temporal power and lust reigned supreme. In that dismal scenario St Francis of Assisi was given the onerous task, “Go and repair my church”. He did it through personal and collective Renewal, by a return to pristine gospel values. He chose to renew from within, rather than to reform, revolt or criticise from outside.
We the laity of India could learn some lessons from church history, sacred scripture, VAT II teachings and Canon Law. Who is there to stop us in the true Renewal of the Catholic Church in India? I see the role of the AICU and its affiliated Catholic Associations, as also the forthcoming Lay Synod, as an important step in that direction. It will avoid unwarranted growing pains, and make for a happy family (community) life, based on mutual respect.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
THE CUCKOO TRAP
When we left our ancestral house of 150 years, we moved to one that had a lot of open space. Being fond of gardening, I wanted lovely flowers. But I had a tough choice – trees or flowers. As an environmentalist I opted for trees like neem and ashoka, which have thick foliage. This meant little sunlight and even fewer flowers.
The variety of birds and butterflies in the garden more than compensated the loss of flowers. My father, who was a member of the Bombay Natural History Society and National Geographic (long before the advent of TV), taught me to recognise and identify birds, aided by Salim Ali’s classic “The Book of Indian Birds”. So I quite enjoy bird watching, not necessarily limited to the feathered species!
There are two birds that seem to be deeply ingrained in Indian culture – the peacock and the koel (Indian cuckoo – zoological name – Eudynamys scolocea). Today the koel’s call is heard more on door chimes and mobile ring tones, than in gardens. I am not enamoured of koels. Let me tell you why.
Remember the scene from “Three Idiots”, where Dr Virus says that winners take all. He uses the cuckoo’s nest as an example, with an egg being dropped to the ground. Unfortunately, Dr Virus did not know that cuckoos don’t have nests. They lay their eggs in the nests of other birds.
The koel, cuckoo that it is, is a slender version of a crow. The male is shining black, with a yellow beak and beady red eyes. The female is spotted brown. It lays its eggs in the crow’s nest. The pale greyish green eggs are similar to the crow’s. The gullible crows literally do not know what is hatching! Meanwhile the koel flits around caring a damn. When the eggs hatch, the koel fledgling is far more aggressive and strident than the crow’s. It pushes the crow’s fledglings out of the nest.
Last month I saw this drama unfold in my garden. The koel’s cry is high pitched. The fledgling screeched like the plaintive bleat of a lamb to the slaughter. The hapless crows would rush to feed it. While other fledglings like the bulbuls and pied wagtails learnt to fly and fend for themselves, the koel kept shrieking, pressurising the crows to feed it.
In ornithology the koel’s behaviour is called parasitical – feeding off others, depriving them of their due, or taking undue advantage of the gullibility or susceptibility of the other. It made me think. Who are the parasites in Indian society today? They are cunning or shining masqueraders, who live off an unsuspecting public.
Steven D Levitt, in his bestseller “Freakonomics – The Hidden Side of Everything”, says that as the world has grown more specialised, there have evolved countless experts who enjoy a “gigantic informational advantage”. This coign of vantage is often used to exploit gullible dependents. Levitt counts doctors, lawyers, contractors and auto mechanics among the “advantaged”, that exploit the ignorance of the other. He observes that “In a medical study, it turned out that obstetricians in areas with declining birth rates are much more likely to perform caesarean section deliveries – suggesting that when business is tough, doctors try to ring up more expensive procedures”.
Levitt also admits that, as with corruption or domestic violence, “It is one thing to muse about experts abusing their position, and another to prove it. The best way to do so would be to measure how an expert treats you, versus how he performs the same service for himself”.
Annaji, ofcourse, would have us believe that the much-maligned politician is the real cuckoo, feeding off others. To a large extent he is correct. Politicians, like actresses and sportspersons, have a limited shelf life, so the corrupt ones would definitely try to “feather their nests” while the going was good. However, I believe that those with a longer innings, and a greater “informational advantage” are the real cuckoos.
Remember the British serial “Yes Minister”, and its pathetic Hindi version “Ji Mantriji”? The senior bureaucrat is the one who wraps the unlettered minister around his little finger, quoting rules and regulations to scuttle the minister’s plans. It is these high level bureaucrats who influence policymaking, its implementation or otherwise, who are the real cuckoos. Do a reality check. Ask them for a house allotment, and compare it to how they get their own allotments done. Need I say more?
A layman will agree with Levitt that the lawyer, doctor or auto mechanic has a “gigantic informational advantage”. But in India pride of place should go to the bureaucrat, not so much the executive one, as the policy maker. They have even scuttled all attempts at administrative reforms, that is the root cause of corruption (Annaji please note). To the list of Indian cuckoos I must add educationists and religious leaders. You can’t cross swords with them for fear of failure or eternal damnation!
There was a guy called A. Crowe, who was always teased as “a crow”. A friend suggested that he use his first name. It was Adam. That made it worse – a damn crow! Will the damned crows of India arise? Identify the cuckoos before you get trapped. Be a good ornithologist, lest you end up at a psychiatrist!
4th October 2011
The variety of birds and butterflies in the garden more than compensated the loss of flowers. My father, who was a member of the Bombay Natural History Society and National Geographic (long before the advent of TV), taught me to recognise and identify birds, aided by Salim Ali’s classic “The Book of Indian Birds”. So I quite enjoy bird watching, not necessarily limited to the feathered species!
There are two birds that seem to be deeply ingrained in Indian culture – the peacock and the koel (Indian cuckoo – zoological name – Eudynamys scolocea). Today the koel’s call is heard more on door chimes and mobile ring tones, than in gardens. I am not enamoured of koels. Let me tell you why.
Remember the scene from “Three Idiots”, where Dr Virus says that winners take all. He uses the cuckoo’s nest as an example, with an egg being dropped to the ground. Unfortunately, Dr Virus did not know that cuckoos don’t have nests. They lay their eggs in the nests of other birds.
The koel, cuckoo that it is, is a slender version of a crow. The male is shining black, with a yellow beak and beady red eyes. The female is spotted brown. It lays its eggs in the crow’s nest. The pale greyish green eggs are similar to the crow’s. The gullible crows literally do not know what is hatching! Meanwhile the koel flits around caring a damn. When the eggs hatch, the koel fledgling is far more aggressive and strident than the crow’s. It pushes the crow’s fledglings out of the nest.
Last month I saw this drama unfold in my garden. The koel’s cry is high pitched. The fledgling screeched like the plaintive bleat of a lamb to the slaughter. The hapless crows would rush to feed it. While other fledglings like the bulbuls and pied wagtails learnt to fly and fend for themselves, the koel kept shrieking, pressurising the crows to feed it.
In ornithology the koel’s behaviour is called parasitical – feeding off others, depriving them of their due, or taking undue advantage of the gullibility or susceptibility of the other. It made me think. Who are the parasites in Indian society today? They are cunning or shining masqueraders, who live off an unsuspecting public.
Steven D Levitt, in his bestseller “Freakonomics – The Hidden Side of Everything”, says that as the world has grown more specialised, there have evolved countless experts who enjoy a “gigantic informational advantage”. This coign of vantage is often used to exploit gullible dependents. Levitt counts doctors, lawyers, contractors and auto mechanics among the “advantaged”, that exploit the ignorance of the other. He observes that “In a medical study, it turned out that obstetricians in areas with declining birth rates are much more likely to perform caesarean section deliveries – suggesting that when business is tough, doctors try to ring up more expensive procedures”.
Levitt also admits that, as with corruption or domestic violence, “It is one thing to muse about experts abusing their position, and another to prove it. The best way to do so would be to measure how an expert treats you, versus how he performs the same service for himself”.
Annaji, ofcourse, would have us believe that the much-maligned politician is the real cuckoo, feeding off others. To a large extent he is correct. Politicians, like actresses and sportspersons, have a limited shelf life, so the corrupt ones would definitely try to “feather their nests” while the going was good. However, I believe that those with a longer innings, and a greater “informational advantage” are the real cuckoos.
Remember the British serial “Yes Minister”, and its pathetic Hindi version “Ji Mantriji”? The senior bureaucrat is the one who wraps the unlettered minister around his little finger, quoting rules and regulations to scuttle the minister’s plans. It is these high level bureaucrats who influence policymaking, its implementation or otherwise, who are the real cuckoos. Do a reality check. Ask them for a house allotment, and compare it to how they get their own allotments done. Need I say more?
A layman will agree with Levitt that the lawyer, doctor or auto mechanic has a “gigantic informational advantage”. But in India pride of place should go to the bureaucrat, not so much the executive one, as the policy maker. They have even scuttled all attempts at administrative reforms, that is the root cause of corruption (Annaji please note). To the list of Indian cuckoos I must add educationists and religious leaders. You can’t cross swords with them for fear of failure or eternal damnation!
There was a guy called A. Crowe, who was always teased as “a crow”. A friend suggested that he use his first name. It was Adam. That made it worse – a damn crow! Will the damned crows of India arise? Identify the cuckoos before you get trapped. Be a good ornithologist, lest you end up at a psychiatrist!
4th October 2011
Friday 2 September 2011
ANNAJI PLEASE ANSWER
Adarniya Annaji,
The whole nation salutes you for bringing the issue of Corruption to centre stage. I join that growing chorus. I also admire your personal austerity. However, Annaji (big brother) your chhotebhai (small brother) is confused about some issues, hence this query.
Whenever somebody questions me, I first ascertain who the person is. In like manner, lest you question my credentials, let me first present them to you.
I am a Gandhian activist living in Kanpur. When you went on fast on 5th April, I was the convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan, which gathered together 40 organisations and 1000 people for the day long fast and rally. I do not belong to any political party. In 1990, as National President of the All India Catholic Union, I fasted for 7 days in New Delhi, for peace in Kashmir, Punjab, Ayodhya etc. So I understand the power of the fast. Last year I went to jail for 6 days because I refused to bribe the cops and the judiciary. Even in jail, I suffered because I declined to pay for “services” available. Presently I am facing a big Income Tax demand, which would have been “settled” if I had agreed to cough up Rs 50,000/-. So I understand corruption, and with you, seek its amelioration. I trust that you will now regard me as an honest questioner and a concerned citizen. Here are my questions:
1. You have been hailed as a modern Gandhi. Gandhiji insisted that the ends do not justify the means. He suspended the freedom struggle when violence broke out at Chaurichaura. Do you subscribe to this tenet of Gandhism?
2. Did Gandhiji drink water during his fasts, like you did? Were any oral rehydrants added to the water in the steel tumbler that was not transparent?
3. Were your supporters inspired by Gandhiji (who is usually derided by the educated middle class), or by Munnabhai’s style of Gandhigiri, which was more of emotional blackmail and coercion?
4. Your initial demand was for the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) to be passed in Parliament before 30th August. Was this not coercion and blackmail?
5. You wanted the Prime Minister, Judiciary and Parliamentary conduct under the JLB. You then watered down your demands to State Lokayuktas, the lower bureaucracy and a parliamentary resolution. All you got was a “sense of the house” and an assurance. None of your demands were conceded. Then why did you call off your fast? Had the Govt called your bluff, necessitating a face saving withdrawal? Were you afraid to die for the cause?
6. Your knowledge of law, the Constitution and parliamentary proceedings is limited. The same cannot be said of your core team members. Why then did they push you and the nation to the brink, knowing full well that their demands were untenable? Was this brinkmanship or showmanship?
7. Kejriwal and Bedi were jockeying for the post of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). Now they are crying “sour grapes” that the CIC etc are toothless tigers!
8. Other bodies like the CEC, CAG, Supreme Court, CBI etc are doing a fairly good job. Why belittle all else, and project your JLB as the panacea for all evils?
9. Why was the Central Govt alone the target of your ire against corruption? Were you blind to Karnataka and U.P.? Does IAC stand for “India Against Corruption”, or “Individuals Allergic to Congress”?
10. The 2G Telecom scam, in which the CAG alleged a loss of several thousand crore rupees, was one of the launching pads for your team. The present Telecom Minister tried to say that Telecom is part of infrastructure, and not for profiteering. That is why telecom in India is so cheap. Your campaign used telecom and SMS to the hilt. It has saved itself crores of rupees. In Kanpur, during your 12-day fast, telecom companies generated revenue of Rupees Sixty Crores through SMS’s, largely due to your campaign! Maybe you actually have something to thank A Raja for!
11. Why didn’t Kejriwal and Bedi, your strategic and dancing colleagues, fast with you? Were they prepared to make a sacrificial lamb of you?
12. The BJP vociferously supported you on the streets, but made a volte-face in Parliament. Did the BJP suddenly realise that your increasing popularity would eat into their vote bank- the educated middle class?
13. Why were the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, OBCs, rural folk and the urban poor conspicuously absent from your campaign? Do they not feel safe in your hands? Are farmers happy enough with the support programmes of the Central Govt? Do the poor find that the very politicians (public representatives), that you constantly denigrate, are actually the ones that assist them against an obdurate bureaucracy?
14. Baba Ramdev, who is your supporter, had pronounced that hoarders of black money should be hanged. But after Rupees Four Hundred Crores of unaccounted money was found in Sai Baba’s personal chamber, both you and Ramdev were ominously silent! Is corruption selective?
15. Acharya Vinobha Bhave had said, “Think globally, act locally”. The local (microcosm) is so often a reflection of the larger (macro) picture. So I have some localised questions as well, that are no less relevant.
16. Here in Kanpur, lawyers, court clerks (peshkars) and doctors, amongst others, came out in your support. Could these groups collectively say that they don’t indulge in corrupt practices?
17. Several wagons of grey goods were confiscated at the railway station. None of your supporters, including traders, spoke out against blatant tax evasion. Why?
18. A woman was found naked and delirious on the road. Two Municipal Corporators and I got her admitted to Mother Teresa’s home. I asked some of your supporters for help. They declined. So who are the real servants of the people – your protesters, or the much maligned “public representatives”?
19. You asked your supporters to gherao the residences of MPs. Our MP is Sriprakash Jaiswal, the Union Minister of Coal. He has made Coal India the most valuable company in India. He has been re-elected thrice, because of his development works and clean image. Yet your supporters, including those who till recently sang the Minister’s praises, thought nothing of gheraoing his residence, even when he was not there. It reminds me of Shakespeare’s words “ Blow, blow thou winter wind, thou art not so unkind, as man’s ingratitude”. Why coal tar all with the same brush (pun intended)?
So Annaji, while appreciating your campaign against corruption (?) I regret that I cannot join you until you answer my questions.
1st September 2011
The whole nation salutes you for bringing the issue of Corruption to centre stage. I join that growing chorus. I also admire your personal austerity. However, Annaji (big brother) your chhotebhai (small brother) is confused about some issues, hence this query.
Whenever somebody questions me, I first ascertain who the person is. In like manner, lest you question my credentials, let me first present them to you.
I am a Gandhian activist living in Kanpur. When you went on fast on 5th April, I was the convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan, which gathered together 40 organisations and 1000 people for the day long fast and rally. I do not belong to any political party. In 1990, as National President of the All India Catholic Union, I fasted for 7 days in New Delhi, for peace in Kashmir, Punjab, Ayodhya etc. So I understand the power of the fast. Last year I went to jail for 6 days because I refused to bribe the cops and the judiciary. Even in jail, I suffered because I declined to pay for “services” available. Presently I am facing a big Income Tax demand, which would have been “settled” if I had agreed to cough up Rs 50,000/-. So I understand corruption, and with you, seek its amelioration. I trust that you will now regard me as an honest questioner and a concerned citizen. Here are my questions:
1. You have been hailed as a modern Gandhi. Gandhiji insisted that the ends do not justify the means. He suspended the freedom struggle when violence broke out at Chaurichaura. Do you subscribe to this tenet of Gandhism?
2. Did Gandhiji drink water during his fasts, like you did? Were any oral rehydrants added to the water in the steel tumbler that was not transparent?
3. Were your supporters inspired by Gandhiji (who is usually derided by the educated middle class), or by Munnabhai’s style of Gandhigiri, which was more of emotional blackmail and coercion?
4. Your initial demand was for the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) to be passed in Parliament before 30th August. Was this not coercion and blackmail?
5. You wanted the Prime Minister, Judiciary and Parliamentary conduct under the JLB. You then watered down your demands to State Lokayuktas, the lower bureaucracy and a parliamentary resolution. All you got was a “sense of the house” and an assurance. None of your demands were conceded. Then why did you call off your fast? Had the Govt called your bluff, necessitating a face saving withdrawal? Were you afraid to die for the cause?
6. Your knowledge of law, the Constitution and parliamentary proceedings is limited. The same cannot be said of your core team members. Why then did they push you and the nation to the brink, knowing full well that their demands were untenable? Was this brinkmanship or showmanship?
7. Kejriwal and Bedi were jockeying for the post of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). Now they are crying “sour grapes” that the CIC etc are toothless tigers!
8. Other bodies like the CEC, CAG, Supreme Court, CBI etc are doing a fairly good job. Why belittle all else, and project your JLB as the panacea for all evils?
9. Why was the Central Govt alone the target of your ire against corruption? Were you blind to Karnataka and U.P.? Does IAC stand for “India Against Corruption”, or “Individuals Allergic to Congress”?
10. The 2G Telecom scam, in which the CAG alleged a loss of several thousand crore rupees, was one of the launching pads for your team. The present Telecom Minister tried to say that Telecom is part of infrastructure, and not for profiteering. That is why telecom in India is so cheap. Your campaign used telecom and SMS to the hilt. It has saved itself crores of rupees. In Kanpur, during your 12-day fast, telecom companies generated revenue of Rupees Sixty Crores through SMS’s, largely due to your campaign! Maybe you actually have something to thank A Raja for!
11. Why didn’t Kejriwal and Bedi, your strategic and dancing colleagues, fast with you? Were they prepared to make a sacrificial lamb of you?
12. The BJP vociferously supported you on the streets, but made a volte-face in Parliament. Did the BJP suddenly realise that your increasing popularity would eat into their vote bank- the educated middle class?
13. Why were the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, OBCs, rural folk and the urban poor conspicuously absent from your campaign? Do they not feel safe in your hands? Are farmers happy enough with the support programmes of the Central Govt? Do the poor find that the very politicians (public representatives), that you constantly denigrate, are actually the ones that assist them against an obdurate bureaucracy?
14. Baba Ramdev, who is your supporter, had pronounced that hoarders of black money should be hanged. But after Rupees Four Hundred Crores of unaccounted money was found in Sai Baba’s personal chamber, both you and Ramdev were ominously silent! Is corruption selective?
15. Acharya Vinobha Bhave had said, “Think globally, act locally”. The local (microcosm) is so often a reflection of the larger (macro) picture. So I have some localised questions as well, that are no less relevant.
16. Here in Kanpur, lawyers, court clerks (peshkars) and doctors, amongst others, came out in your support. Could these groups collectively say that they don’t indulge in corrupt practices?
17. Several wagons of grey goods were confiscated at the railway station. None of your supporters, including traders, spoke out against blatant tax evasion. Why?
18. A woman was found naked and delirious on the road. Two Municipal Corporators and I got her admitted to Mother Teresa’s home. I asked some of your supporters for help. They declined. So who are the real servants of the people – your protesters, or the much maligned “public representatives”?
19. You asked your supporters to gherao the residences of MPs. Our MP is Sriprakash Jaiswal, the Union Minister of Coal. He has made Coal India the most valuable company in India. He has been re-elected thrice, because of his development works and clean image. Yet your supporters, including those who till recently sang the Minister’s praises, thought nothing of gheraoing his residence, even when he was not there. It reminds me of Shakespeare’s words “ Blow, blow thou winter wind, thou art not so unkind, as man’s ingratitude”. Why coal tar all with the same brush (pun intended)?
So Annaji, while appreciating your campaign against corruption (?) I regret that I cannot join you until you answer my questions.
1st September 2011
Tuesday 16 August 2011
HOW DOES GOD SPELL PROPHIT?
Poor God. He has a terrible time trying to make himself understood. His troubles are compounded when he uses the crazy English language. When he says, “My son will rise” he means Jesus. But some could have interpreted it to mean, “My sun will rise”, and they began looking at the eastern horizon!
The Bible is often referred to as the “voice of God” in the “words of men”. God’s expression is limited by human comprehension, hence subject to misinterpretation. His language of love is reduced to cold print. When the teachers of religion propound that message, it gets further compounded.
As I’ve said already, this is aggravated in the English language. Here is another example. The preacher says, “You must be a prophet”. The congregation, seeing the luxurious lifestyle of the preacher interprets it as “You must be a profit”; something oft propounded by tele-evangelists and advocates of the prosperity gospel. Does this metaphor sound bizarre? Is the church in India a truly prophetic, or profitable venture?
Fr Josef Neuner SJ, in his book “The Prophetic Role of the Laity” describes a prophet as one having the following attributes: 1. He speaks in the name of the living God 2. The message is addressed to actual situations (specific and existentialist) 3. He is confronted by the powers of evil 4. His only weapon is the word of God 5. He does not live for himself; God has taken possession of his life.
To what degree can we Christians say that we are fulfilling our prophetic role? Does our message come from God, or our own pet theories? Is our message situational and contextualised, or vague and idealistic? Do we experience opposition from evil or well entrenched forces; or are we well accepted, invited to grace occasions, and offered the high seat at the table/ dais? Is our faith our strength, or do we rely on institutional, financial and political power? Finally, are our lives consumed by God, or are we living a consumeristic life? Should we proclaim, “The prophet is dead. Long live the profit”?
The profit’s philosophy of life is to live and let live. Don’t interfere, maintain the status quo, don’t rock the boat, keep your house clean and throw the garbage on the road for somebody else to collect. Have faith in your own resources, climb the ladder using others as rungs, avoid situations of responsibility and pass the buck.
Should we blame God for not having spelt prophet correctly, or are we ourselves to blame, for turning a deaf ear to his word? Do we think that the biblical concept of prophet is obsolete?
For that we need to go back in time to understand the prophetic office. In the Old Testament the three pillars of the chosen people were the Priest, King and Prophet. This troika finds repeated mention in the New Testament, and also in Vatican II teachings. We have already seen Fr Neuner’s definition of Prophet. He describes the King as entrusted with political guidance, and the Priest as responsible for instruction and worship. I would recapitulate these three roles in the following simple terms: the Priest makes the rules, the King actually rules, and the Prophet interprets the rules in specific circumstances.
These three functions are also the foundation of modern democracy. The Legislature that legislates or makes the rules, is like the Priest. The Executive that has the power, resources and governance in its hands, is like the King. The Judiciary that interprets the law in a given situation, is like the Prophet. For a healthy society it is important to have all three functions separated and clearly defined, with no encroachment on each other’s domain. What happened during the Emergency, when two wings of Govt were subjugated to the executive? It was a ruthless and insensitive dictatorship, in which the poor suffered the most. India is yet to emerge from its shadow.
A fourth pillar has emerged in modern society, appropriately called the Fourth Estate – the Press. When the Judiciary or Legislature is suppressed, the Press assumes the prophetic office of being conscience keeper to the nation, and a barometer of its health. When this also fails, then the fifth sinister option emerges. In World War II they were referred to as the Fifth Columnists – the undercover operatives, who conveyed their messages though advertisements in the fifth column of newspapers. In peacetime such operatives are either terrorists or extremists, who see violence as the only solution to perceived injustice. They will stop at nothing. As sociologists teach us, violence is the option of those who have nothing to lose.
What of the church in India? Who exercises the legislative/ teaching/ priestly office? Quite rightly the hierarchy. Who governs the church, its institutions, finance, aid agencies, and even what has to be announced from the pulpit? The clergy and the hierarchy. Who adjudicates on what is right and wrong, even in peoples’ bedrooms? The hierarchy. Who controls the Catholic press, and determines what should or shouldn’t be printed? To a large extent the clergy and hierarchy again. What is this if not a totalitarian regime?
Herein lies the danger. There are those who will say that the church, being a divine institution, cannot be compared to a democracy, or based on democratic principles. Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas, that great champion of the laity, had a counter point, that the church is more than a democracy, it is a community. And a community cannot function as an autocracy. Should we be prepared for the fifth columnist, who is bent on grabbing power by any means available? Do we want a repeat of the French Revolution?
However, Catholics have for centuries been docile, and our Indian psyche is one of tolerance, so we react somewhat differently. We become indifferent, complacent, or abandon ship – an exodus. Grandiose, but empty churches in Europe, bear mute testimony to this. The number of sheep stolen by smaller sects, with more personalised religion, from the monolithic Catholic Church, is increasing.
How do we remedy this? By restoring parity and clarity in the social structuring of the church, with each being true to their particular office or vocation. Let the clergy/ hierarchy put their heart and soul into their actual role of instruction and worship. The laity must assume control of the temporal affairs of the church, and be the spokesperson and torchbearer of the community in public life. We don’t want clergymen being appointed to political office, including various Minority Commissions. Lay organisations must build on their own strengths and resources. Funding agencies should be removed from the domain of the hierarchy. The Religious Orders and Congregations also need to emerge from the shadow of the hierarchy, to exercise their prophetic office, at the service of the word and the world. The Catholic press, in like manner, must be given far greater autonomy, and the laity need to evolve their own media strength.
When the scale is tipped in favour of one side there are only two ways of restoring parity; either decrease one scale, or increase the other. Power is never surrendered gracefully, and I don’t see a violent upsurge in the church. So the only option open is to strengthen the role of the laity in the church. It’s a long haul, but there is little choice.
Perhaps this piece will be a small step in that direction and will inspire or strengthen somebody to hear God’s invitation to the prophetic office; to be a voice in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. The words of this once popular hymn are apt for the prophet.
It takes courage to answer a call
It takes courage to give your all.
It takes courage to say
What you know will not pay;
To be standing alone
One who no one will own.
It takes courage to be true.
Spellings may differ, but this, I believe, is how God spells Prophet.
The Bible is often referred to as the “voice of God” in the “words of men”. God’s expression is limited by human comprehension, hence subject to misinterpretation. His language of love is reduced to cold print. When the teachers of religion propound that message, it gets further compounded.
As I’ve said already, this is aggravated in the English language. Here is another example. The preacher says, “You must be a prophet”. The congregation, seeing the luxurious lifestyle of the preacher interprets it as “You must be a profit”; something oft propounded by tele-evangelists and advocates of the prosperity gospel. Does this metaphor sound bizarre? Is the church in India a truly prophetic, or profitable venture?
Fr Josef Neuner SJ, in his book “The Prophetic Role of the Laity” describes a prophet as one having the following attributes: 1. He speaks in the name of the living God 2. The message is addressed to actual situations (specific and existentialist) 3. He is confronted by the powers of evil 4. His only weapon is the word of God 5. He does not live for himself; God has taken possession of his life.
To what degree can we Christians say that we are fulfilling our prophetic role? Does our message come from God, or our own pet theories? Is our message situational and contextualised, or vague and idealistic? Do we experience opposition from evil or well entrenched forces; or are we well accepted, invited to grace occasions, and offered the high seat at the table/ dais? Is our faith our strength, or do we rely on institutional, financial and political power? Finally, are our lives consumed by God, or are we living a consumeristic life? Should we proclaim, “The prophet is dead. Long live the profit”?
The profit’s philosophy of life is to live and let live. Don’t interfere, maintain the status quo, don’t rock the boat, keep your house clean and throw the garbage on the road for somebody else to collect. Have faith in your own resources, climb the ladder using others as rungs, avoid situations of responsibility and pass the buck.
Should we blame God for not having spelt prophet correctly, or are we ourselves to blame, for turning a deaf ear to his word? Do we think that the biblical concept of prophet is obsolete?
For that we need to go back in time to understand the prophetic office. In the Old Testament the three pillars of the chosen people were the Priest, King and Prophet. This troika finds repeated mention in the New Testament, and also in Vatican II teachings. We have already seen Fr Neuner’s definition of Prophet. He describes the King as entrusted with political guidance, and the Priest as responsible for instruction and worship. I would recapitulate these three roles in the following simple terms: the Priest makes the rules, the King actually rules, and the Prophet interprets the rules in specific circumstances.
These three functions are also the foundation of modern democracy. The Legislature that legislates or makes the rules, is like the Priest. The Executive that has the power, resources and governance in its hands, is like the King. The Judiciary that interprets the law in a given situation, is like the Prophet. For a healthy society it is important to have all three functions separated and clearly defined, with no encroachment on each other’s domain. What happened during the Emergency, when two wings of Govt were subjugated to the executive? It was a ruthless and insensitive dictatorship, in which the poor suffered the most. India is yet to emerge from its shadow.
A fourth pillar has emerged in modern society, appropriately called the Fourth Estate – the Press. When the Judiciary or Legislature is suppressed, the Press assumes the prophetic office of being conscience keeper to the nation, and a barometer of its health. When this also fails, then the fifth sinister option emerges. In World War II they were referred to as the Fifth Columnists – the undercover operatives, who conveyed their messages though advertisements in the fifth column of newspapers. In peacetime such operatives are either terrorists or extremists, who see violence as the only solution to perceived injustice. They will stop at nothing. As sociologists teach us, violence is the option of those who have nothing to lose.
What of the church in India? Who exercises the legislative/ teaching/ priestly office? Quite rightly the hierarchy. Who governs the church, its institutions, finance, aid agencies, and even what has to be announced from the pulpit? The clergy and the hierarchy. Who adjudicates on what is right and wrong, even in peoples’ bedrooms? The hierarchy. Who controls the Catholic press, and determines what should or shouldn’t be printed? To a large extent the clergy and hierarchy again. What is this if not a totalitarian regime?
Herein lies the danger. There are those who will say that the church, being a divine institution, cannot be compared to a democracy, or based on democratic principles. Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas, that great champion of the laity, had a counter point, that the church is more than a democracy, it is a community. And a community cannot function as an autocracy. Should we be prepared for the fifth columnist, who is bent on grabbing power by any means available? Do we want a repeat of the French Revolution?
However, Catholics have for centuries been docile, and our Indian psyche is one of tolerance, so we react somewhat differently. We become indifferent, complacent, or abandon ship – an exodus. Grandiose, but empty churches in Europe, bear mute testimony to this. The number of sheep stolen by smaller sects, with more personalised religion, from the monolithic Catholic Church, is increasing.
How do we remedy this? By restoring parity and clarity in the social structuring of the church, with each being true to their particular office or vocation. Let the clergy/ hierarchy put their heart and soul into their actual role of instruction and worship. The laity must assume control of the temporal affairs of the church, and be the spokesperson and torchbearer of the community in public life. We don’t want clergymen being appointed to political office, including various Minority Commissions. Lay organisations must build on their own strengths and resources. Funding agencies should be removed from the domain of the hierarchy. The Religious Orders and Congregations also need to emerge from the shadow of the hierarchy, to exercise their prophetic office, at the service of the word and the world. The Catholic press, in like manner, must be given far greater autonomy, and the laity need to evolve their own media strength.
When the scale is tipped in favour of one side there are only two ways of restoring parity; either decrease one scale, or increase the other. Power is never surrendered gracefully, and I don’t see a violent upsurge in the church. So the only option open is to strengthen the role of the laity in the church. It’s a long haul, but there is little choice.
Perhaps this piece will be a small step in that direction and will inspire or strengthen somebody to hear God’s invitation to the prophetic office; to be a voice in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. The words of this once popular hymn are apt for the prophet.
It takes courage to answer a call
It takes courage to give your all.
It takes courage to say
What you know will not pay;
To be standing alone
One who no one will own.
It takes courage to be true.
Spellings may differ, but this, I believe, is how God spells Prophet.
THE FIVE SHOPKEEPERS
It was business as usual in the marketplace. Shopkeepers were opening and cleaning their shops, as customers began trickling in. Each shop had a signboard vying for the customer’s attention. This is about the Five Shopkeepers.
The first shop’s sign was -ATA. The first letter had fallen off, and the shopkeeper hadn’t bothered to repair it. The customer looked at the board and wondered. Was it BATA selling shoes, TATA selling tea, or LATA selling music? Confused, the customer moved on.
The next shop was called TOUGHNUT HARDWARE. Being a computer geek, the customer entered to see the latest hardware. To his consternation he found it stocked with very different hardware – nuts and bolts! The customer realised that connotations change with time, the same word meaning different things to different people.
The third shop was called MADHUSHALA (a place for honey). Hoping to get some pure honey the customer dashed in, only to discover that it was selling country liquor, as Madhushala is a misnomer commonly used in north India for such dens. Names can indeed be deceptive and misleading.
Fourth in line was a posh, air-conditioned SUPERMARKET. Many well-heeled customers were going in. However, this particular customer was rather poorly dressed and felt intimidated by the grand ambience. The shop looked too expensive. In trepidation, he walked on.
The last shop in the row was called the ROSERY. At last, here was something nice. He could pick up a bunch of sweet smelling red roses for his dear wife. Alas, this too was not to be. The shop had no flowers. It was selling religious articles like holy pictures, statues, and ofcourse, rosaries. The customer felt a twinge of disappointment. But he liked the peaceful atmosphere of the religious stall. While leaving he couldn’t resist requesting the shopkeeper to please spell ROSARY correctly.
The customer had reached the end of the row of shops, and he was empty handed. A waste of time, an exercise in futility. Are there lessons to be learnt from this shopping expedition?
There is a school of psychology called Transactional Analysis, which applies to inter-personal relationships. In like manner a shopkeeper-buyer contact is also a transaction. In the aforesaid instances we find that the customer was looking for something that he didn’t find, despite the initial attraction of the external signboard. Each transaction was different. As a businessman of many years experience, I can vouch with authority that sales and marketing are all in the mind. The classic 4P’s in sales are - Price, Product, Placement and Publicity. What went wrong in these transactions? In the case of –ATA the carelessness of the shopkeeper left the customer bewildered. HARDWARES’ definition and understanding had changed. He was out of sync with the times. MADHUSHALA was deliberately misleading for those not in the know. The SUPERMARKET was an overkill, its very strength becoming its weakness. The ROSERY was just slightly off the mark. But then so often in business, sports or life itself, a hair’s breadth is all that makes the difference between winning and losing. Going off on a slight tangent can result in a wide margin of error.
So we need to analyse these transactions. Sometimes the product was wrong, sometimes the price, the placement or even the publicity (projection). Can we now juxtapose these shopping transactions on the church? Is our product selling? Is our placement correct? What about our pricing, and finally what is our publicity or rather public image (projection or common perception)?
For this we need to use another management technique – of backward integration. In this case we need to employ the principle of cause and effect. From the effect, let us work backwards to the root cause, just as a doctor diagnoses a disease from its symptoms. So what image does the church project? What message is it giving? This can be ascertained from what people are coming to us for. I won’t go to a Bata shop to buy tea, or a Tata shop to buy shoes.
I recall a missionary priest bemoaning that people only came to him asking for money, and the principal of a convent school lamenting that people only came to her for admissions! Such admissions (pun intended) are revealing. They are telling us that indeed that is all that we have to offer. Conversely we may ask, “How many people come to us asking for spiritual solace, healing or peace? How many come seeking refuge from injustice or strife?” We cannot generalise, but the answers could be revealing.
We must learn from the mistakes or misrepresentations of the five shopkeepers. Even a minor error like the spelling of Rosary had a negative impact. So too many good and zealous Christians don’t cut much ice in society for minor errors – be it in language, dress or liturgy. A small change could make a big difference.
From projections (exterior image) we could move to internal dispositions. We will again apply the process of reverse integration for a proper diagnosis. Where there is sugar, the ants will come. On the other hand, as Jesus said “Where there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather” (Mat 24:28). Are we sweet sugar (amrit), or a stinking corpse? Are ants or vultures attracted to us? Ants are always seeking, hardworking and communitarian. In contrast, the vultures are lazy, selfish and greedy, always on the lookout for a kill. If our constant refrain is that our people are lazy and greedy, then we are castigating ourselves; that we are a corpse, devoid of the Anima Christi. We are far from being Corpus Christi, the living body of the resurrected Jesus. Food for thought – for ants or vultures? Double entendre!
Let us get our price, product, placement and publicity correct. Let us be wise shopkeepers. In today’s market economy only the best will survive the competition. So too in the economy of salvation, there is no more protectionism or exclusivism. Sell or sink.
The first shop’s sign was -ATA. The first letter had fallen off, and the shopkeeper hadn’t bothered to repair it. The customer looked at the board and wondered. Was it BATA selling shoes, TATA selling tea, or LATA selling music? Confused, the customer moved on.
The next shop was called TOUGHNUT HARDWARE. Being a computer geek, the customer entered to see the latest hardware. To his consternation he found it stocked with very different hardware – nuts and bolts! The customer realised that connotations change with time, the same word meaning different things to different people.
The third shop was called MADHUSHALA (a place for honey). Hoping to get some pure honey the customer dashed in, only to discover that it was selling country liquor, as Madhushala is a misnomer commonly used in north India for such dens. Names can indeed be deceptive and misleading.
Fourth in line was a posh, air-conditioned SUPERMARKET. Many well-heeled customers were going in. However, this particular customer was rather poorly dressed and felt intimidated by the grand ambience. The shop looked too expensive. In trepidation, he walked on.
The last shop in the row was called the ROSERY. At last, here was something nice. He could pick up a bunch of sweet smelling red roses for his dear wife. Alas, this too was not to be. The shop had no flowers. It was selling religious articles like holy pictures, statues, and ofcourse, rosaries. The customer felt a twinge of disappointment. But he liked the peaceful atmosphere of the religious stall. While leaving he couldn’t resist requesting the shopkeeper to please spell ROSARY correctly.
The customer had reached the end of the row of shops, and he was empty handed. A waste of time, an exercise in futility. Are there lessons to be learnt from this shopping expedition?
There is a school of psychology called Transactional Analysis, which applies to inter-personal relationships. In like manner a shopkeeper-buyer contact is also a transaction. In the aforesaid instances we find that the customer was looking for something that he didn’t find, despite the initial attraction of the external signboard. Each transaction was different. As a businessman of many years experience, I can vouch with authority that sales and marketing are all in the mind. The classic 4P’s in sales are - Price, Product, Placement and Publicity. What went wrong in these transactions? In the case of –ATA the carelessness of the shopkeeper left the customer bewildered. HARDWARES’ definition and understanding had changed. He was out of sync with the times. MADHUSHALA was deliberately misleading for those not in the know. The SUPERMARKET was an overkill, its very strength becoming its weakness. The ROSERY was just slightly off the mark. But then so often in business, sports or life itself, a hair’s breadth is all that makes the difference between winning and losing. Going off on a slight tangent can result in a wide margin of error.
So we need to analyse these transactions. Sometimes the product was wrong, sometimes the price, the placement or even the publicity (projection). Can we now juxtapose these shopping transactions on the church? Is our product selling? Is our placement correct? What about our pricing, and finally what is our publicity or rather public image (projection or common perception)?
For this we need to use another management technique – of backward integration. In this case we need to employ the principle of cause and effect. From the effect, let us work backwards to the root cause, just as a doctor diagnoses a disease from its symptoms. So what image does the church project? What message is it giving? This can be ascertained from what people are coming to us for. I won’t go to a Bata shop to buy tea, or a Tata shop to buy shoes.
I recall a missionary priest bemoaning that people only came to him asking for money, and the principal of a convent school lamenting that people only came to her for admissions! Such admissions (pun intended) are revealing. They are telling us that indeed that is all that we have to offer. Conversely we may ask, “How many people come to us asking for spiritual solace, healing or peace? How many come seeking refuge from injustice or strife?” We cannot generalise, but the answers could be revealing.
We must learn from the mistakes or misrepresentations of the five shopkeepers. Even a minor error like the spelling of Rosary had a negative impact. So too many good and zealous Christians don’t cut much ice in society for minor errors – be it in language, dress or liturgy. A small change could make a big difference.
From projections (exterior image) we could move to internal dispositions. We will again apply the process of reverse integration for a proper diagnosis. Where there is sugar, the ants will come. On the other hand, as Jesus said “Where there is a corpse, there the vultures will gather” (Mat 24:28). Are we sweet sugar (amrit), or a stinking corpse? Are ants or vultures attracted to us? Ants are always seeking, hardworking and communitarian. In contrast, the vultures are lazy, selfish and greedy, always on the lookout for a kill. If our constant refrain is that our people are lazy and greedy, then we are castigating ourselves; that we are a corpse, devoid of the Anima Christi. We are far from being Corpus Christi, the living body of the resurrected Jesus. Food for thought – for ants or vultures? Double entendre!
Let us get our price, product, placement and publicity correct. Let us be wise shopkeepers. In today’s market economy only the best will survive the competition. So too in the economy of salvation, there is no more protectionism or exclusivism. Sell or sink.
Saturday 16 July 2011
LAY PARTICIPATION – OH REALLY!
This is in response to the article “Lay Participation Down the Ages” that appeared in two successive issues of “The Examiner”, written by Rev Erasto Fernandez SSS. Some may not have read them, and others may not remember. It was about how the Eucharistic celebration evolved over time, with special reference to the role of the laity.
I was thrilled to read the first instalment, as it carried a wealth of information that is not easily accessible to the common lay Catholic. I presume that what Rev Fernandez wrote is common knowledge for our clergy. It therefore makes me wonder who is really responsible for the meaningless and insipid liturgy that most of us experience?
I was amazed to read that the etymological meaning of “liturgy” is “the work of the people”! Etymology apart, this is a cruel joke. Today’s liturgy is in no way the work of the people. It is solely designed and enacted by the clergy, with the people largely being passive spectators. Unless ofcourse reading the lessons and prayers of the faithful, or taking around the collection bag, is considered a high level of lay participation!
Let me run through Rev Fernandez’s pertinent observations on how the Eucharistic liturgy evolved over two millennia. It all began as a family gathering, informal and cordial. Rubrics and legislation later gained prominence, and it became a sacrifice. The table became an altar. An evening meal (supper) became a morning ritual (breakfast, shall we say?). Actual tangible bread became a symbolic wafer. The faithful were now estranged from the distant altar of sacrifice. It became the sacred preserve of the clergy whose role was now emphasised. The place of occurrence became a magnificent and artistic structure, an intricate court ceremonial and a solemn drama. The faithful had a passive role; busy reciting unrelated prayers. The high point became gazing at the sacred host, and not receiving communion. Emphasis was laid on Eucharistic miracles, and on an unhealthy multiplication of Masses, that led to several abuses. What a metamorphous?
This monolithic form remained unchanged for centuries, till Vatican II. Thereafter dialogue and vernacular Masses were introduced, and the priest now faced the people. Despite these far reaching reforms, Rev Fernandez rues that the Mass is still stereotyped and routine, not spontaneous and lively. He concludes by laying the onus on the “faithful”, for not going from the Cenacle to Calvary. He quotes the Prophet Isaiah, “Their worship of me is a human commandment learnt by rote (Is 29:13), for “this people approaches me only in words, honours me only with lip service, while their hearts are far from me” (Ibid).
After tracing the evolution, or should I say grotesque mutation, of the Eucharist over 2000 years; which by Fernandez’s own admission, has been the work of the hierarchy, he now lays the blame on the “faithful”, for what he calls a stereo typed and routine liturgy! Do Fernandez’s charges stick? They merit serious consideration.
One of my favourite punch lines is, “If you have the car’s steering wheel and keys in your hands how do you expect me to drive or deliver? If there is an accident why blame me?” It is more than evident that a hierarchically controlled church and priest-dominated liturgy must accept responsibility for its present morbid state.
Fernandez casually quotes Vat II, that the laity should be active, intelligent and fruitful. So let us examine what the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium) actually says. The introduction sets the tone by calling for reforms and practical norms to be established (SC 3), so it is not just theologising. By so doing, the liturgy will “be given new vigour to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (SC 4).
It says “In the liturgy the sanctification of man is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses” (SC 7). “The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the church. Before men can come to the liturgy they must be called to faith and conversion” (SC 9). “In order that the sacred liturgy may produce its full effect, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper disposition, that their thoughts match their words” (SC11). “Pastors must realise that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively, fruitfully” (SC 11).
The document goes on to say “With zeal and patience pastors must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation” (SC19). “The liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have by chance crept in which are less harmonious … or if existing elements have grown less functional” (SC 21). “Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance in the celebration of the liturgy” (SC 24). The liturgical rites “should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (SC 34). “The church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith … Rather she respects and fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples” (SC 37). All emphases in the above quotes are mine.
Now comes the big question. Why has the hierarchical church not expounded or implemented the teachings of Vat II? Why blame the “faithful”, when the “powerful” have retained their “knowledge advantage” (management terminology) to keep the faithful ignorant and powerless? We have only seen cosmetic changes like bowing instead of the Roman Legionaries’ genuflection; and not the deeper attitudinal changes in the liturgy envisaged by Vat II. A shame.
From Vat II let us go back to our scriptural roots. On the road to Emmaus the two disciples were concerned about what had happened. Jesus joined them, explained the scriptures to them, broke bread and then disappeared (cf Lk 24:13-35). This is one of my favourite episodes in the Bible. See the sequence of events unfolding – concern or informed discussion – Jesus comes – scripture explained – bread broken – Jesus recognised – he disappears! Where? Inside! In the bread he has entered into the disciples. He is incarnated in them, and they are transformed. Amazing grace.
This sequence of events is critical for both the clergy and the “faithful”, for a fruitful liturgy. What is our disposition prior to the liturgy? Does a secularised school principal or social work director suddenly become a spirit-filled pastor when he dons vestments at the altar? What of harried parents and chilled out youth? What do we go to Mass for? How much attention or importance is given to the scripture readings? How much of the Spirit is a pastor able to convey in his Sunday sermon, especially if it is lifted from the net or sermon notes? I sometimes observe the congregation during a sermon. Most are turned off or bored stiff.
We need to again walk the talk to Emmaus. We also need to jettison millennia of extra baggage in the form of meaningless symbols, rituals, and clerical domination. Only then can we hope for a fruitful liturgy with active participation of the “faithful’’. Otherwise we will continue as we have over the ages. We won’t meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Instead of transformation we may just end up merely debating a theological definition like transubstantiation.
* The writer has no theological training. This article is based on self-study only.
JULY 2011
I was thrilled to read the first instalment, as it carried a wealth of information that is not easily accessible to the common lay Catholic. I presume that what Rev Fernandez wrote is common knowledge for our clergy. It therefore makes me wonder who is really responsible for the meaningless and insipid liturgy that most of us experience?
I was amazed to read that the etymological meaning of “liturgy” is “the work of the people”! Etymology apart, this is a cruel joke. Today’s liturgy is in no way the work of the people. It is solely designed and enacted by the clergy, with the people largely being passive spectators. Unless ofcourse reading the lessons and prayers of the faithful, or taking around the collection bag, is considered a high level of lay participation!
Let me run through Rev Fernandez’s pertinent observations on how the Eucharistic liturgy evolved over two millennia. It all began as a family gathering, informal and cordial. Rubrics and legislation later gained prominence, and it became a sacrifice. The table became an altar. An evening meal (supper) became a morning ritual (breakfast, shall we say?). Actual tangible bread became a symbolic wafer. The faithful were now estranged from the distant altar of sacrifice. It became the sacred preserve of the clergy whose role was now emphasised. The place of occurrence became a magnificent and artistic structure, an intricate court ceremonial and a solemn drama. The faithful had a passive role; busy reciting unrelated prayers. The high point became gazing at the sacred host, and not receiving communion. Emphasis was laid on Eucharistic miracles, and on an unhealthy multiplication of Masses, that led to several abuses. What a metamorphous?
This monolithic form remained unchanged for centuries, till Vatican II. Thereafter dialogue and vernacular Masses were introduced, and the priest now faced the people. Despite these far reaching reforms, Rev Fernandez rues that the Mass is still stereotyped and routine, not spontaneous and lively. He concludes by laying the onus on the “faithful”, for not going from the Cenacle to Calvary. He quotes the Prophet Isaiah, “Their worship of me is a human commandment learnt by rote (Is 29:13), for “this people approaches me only in words, honours me only with lip service, while their hearts are far from me” (Ibid).
After tracing the evolution, or should I say grotesque mutation, of the Eucharist over 2000 years; which by Fernandez’s own admission, has been the work of the hierarchy, he now lays the blame on the “faithful”, for what he calls a stereo typed and routine liturgy! Do Fernandez’s charges stick? They merit serious consideration.
One of my favourite punch lines is, “If you have the car’s steering wheel and keys in your hands how do you expect me to drive or deliver? If there is an accident why blame me?” It is more than evident that a hierarchically controlled church and priest-dominated liturgy must accept responsibility for its present morbid state.
Fernandez casually quotes Vat II, that the laity should be active, intelligent and fruitful. So let us examine what the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium) actually says. The introduction sets the tone by calling for reforms and practical norms to be established (SC 3), so it is not just theologising. By so doing, the liturgy will “be given new vigour to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (SC 4).
It says “In the liturgy the sanctification of man is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses” (SC 7). “The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the church. Before men can come to the liturgy they must be called to faith and conversion” (SC 9). “In order that the sacred liturgy may produce its full effect, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper disposition, that their thoughts match their words” (SC11). “Pastors must realise that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively, fruitfully” (SC 11).
The document goes on to say “With zeal and patience pastors must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation” (SC19). “The liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and elements subject to change. The latter not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have by chance crept in which are less harmonious … or if existing elements have grown less functional” (SC 21). “Sacred Scripture is of paramount importance in the celebration of the liturgy” (SC 24). The liturgical rites “should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation” (SC 34). “The church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith … Rather she respects and fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples” (SC 37). All emphases in the above quotes are mine.
Now comes the big question. Why has the hierarchical church not expounded or implemented the teachings of Vat II? Why blame the “faithful”, when the “powerful” have retained their “knowledge advantage” (management terminology) to keep the faithful ignorant and powerless? We have only seen cosmetic changes like bowing instead of the Roman Legionaries’ genuflection; and not the deeper attitudinal changes in the liturgy envisaged by Vat II. A shame.
From Vat II let us go back to our scriptural roots. On the road to Emmaus the two disciples were concerned about what had happened. Jesus joined them, explained the scriptures to them, broke bread and then disappeared (cf Lk 24:13-35). This is one of my favourite episodes in the Bible. See the sequence of events unfolding – concern or informed discussion – Jesus comes – scripture explained – bread broken – Jesus recognised – he disappears! Where? Inside! In the bread he has entered into the disciples. He is incarnated in them, and they are transformed. Amazing grace.
This sequence of events is critical for both the clergy and the “faithful”, for a fruitful liturgy. What is our disposition prior to the liturgy? Does a secularised school principal or social work director suddenly become a spirit-filled pastor when he dons vestments at the altar? What of harried parents and chilled out youth? What do we go to Mass for? How much attention or importance is given to the scripture readings? How much of the Spirit is a pastor able to convey in his Sunday sermon, especially if it is lifted from the net or sermon notes? I sometimes observe the congregation during a sermon. Most are turned off or bored stiff.
We need to again walk the talk to Emmaus. We also need to jettison millennia of extra baggage in the form of meaningless symbols, rituals, and clerical domination. Only then can we hope for a fruitful liturgy with active participation of the “faithful’’. Otherwise we will continue as we have over the ages. We won’t meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Instead of transformation we may just end up merely debating a theological definition like transubstantiation.
* The writer has no theological training. This article is based on self-study only.
JULY 2011
Friday 10 June 2011
IF I WERE GOD
This is really pushing one’s luck. Trying to be Pope, the Prime Minister of India or the President of the USA is bad enough. But this is downright insane. Blasphemy. I can almost hear the cries of “Crucify him. Kill him. Stone him to death”.
Fortunately, I am not in Pakistan or in Judea, so I am still alive! India abounds in self-styled God men and women, so what is alarming about trying to play God? Recently Satya Sai Baba passed away. Some years ago when somebody challenged him for styling himself as Bhagwan (God) he had retorted, “You also are God, only you don’t know it”. The challenger became a disciple. Who doesn’t like to be told that he is God?
In India, there is no clarity about God. There are reportedly thousands of Gods and Goddesses in the Hindu pantheon. So adding a few more now and then is no big deal. Though even here one would need to make a distinction between Iswar/ Parmeshwar, Devta/ Devi and Bhagwan. I am not competent to comment further on the significance of these words. Suffice it to say that whereas Devi, Devta and Bhagwan are extensively used, the term Ishwar or Parmeshwar is sparingly used, and would therefore refer to the one and only Supreme Being.
On the other hand the Semitic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are monotheistic religions, that believe in one God – whether we call this Being El, Elohim, Yahweh or Allah. The root is the same – El. Interestingly the Latin word Deo is similar to the Sanskrit word Dev. I would therefore dare to presume that, except for a few atheists and agnostics including Stephen Hawking, most human beings believe in a Supreme Being, who is commonly referred to as God in the English language.
How one perceives and therefore experiences God differs widely across religions, time and space. Even trying to arrive at a consensus or synthesis could be an impossible task, and I have no pretensions about even attempting it.
Before trying to “play” God, I first need to understand who or what this “god” is. I will limit myself to the Christian experience of God, beginning with the revelation of who or what God is, as experienced by Moses. When on Mount Sinai Moses asks God what is his name, he replies “I am he who is” (Ex 3:13). This is the translation according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which I commonly use. The New King James version has the words “I am who I am”. The Good News Bible also uses the same words. When commissioning Moses God tells him to proclaim that “I am has sent me to you” (Ex 3:14). In the earliest translations from Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint uses the phrase “He who is” while the Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome in the 3rd Century AD has the more commonly used “I am who I am” . The original word in Hebrew is Yahweh, which seems to have its etymological roots in the Hebrew verb hawah, which simply means “to be” or to exist . The actual Hebrew word for a divine being, or God is El, or Elohim. In other ancient Semitic languages it is Ilu in Akkadian and Ilah in Arabic. Again there is no etymological root, but the connotation is of a powerful being .
All this sounds confusing. It is actually quite simple. There is no human vocabulary to express the reality of the Supreme Being. Adjectives like Almighty, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent (from catechism class) are merely superlatives; attempting to describe that which transcends description. Moses faced just such a predicament, which Yahweh sensed. He therefore changed tack to make it easier for Moses. He switched from deft definitions to personal relationships. This is what he now says to Moses. “Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name for all time, and thus am I to be invoked for all generations to come” (Ex 3:15). A definitive statement and a defining moment. A till then abstract being becomes a personal God, for all time. God was now someone to whom human beings could relate.
Way back in 1977, when I was just 26 years of age, I wrote my first book, “The Trinity and Me”. I re-read it while writing this, because it traced the journey from a “Hidden God” to a “Revealed One.” I shall borrow some of those observations.
In the allegorical account of creation in the very beginning we read “Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves… God Created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him” (Gen1: 26-27). However, with the fall and banishment from the Garden of Eden, there is a disconnect between God and Man. You know how it is with your dish TV when there is no transmission because of a “technical problem”. Man is now afraid of this unseen God. This is how is expressed. “But my face you cannot see, for no human being can see me and survive” (Ex 33:20). And again “For what creature of flesh could possibly live after hearing, as we have heard the voice of the living God?” (Deut 5:26). Centuries later Isaiah will lament “Truly you are a God who conceals himself” (Is 45:15).
As Christians we believe that this fearsome, awesome, hidden God is revealed in Jesus, and through his death and resurrection the disconnect (the technical problem) is removed and the transmission (communication) lines are now clear. St. Paul observes, “The message which was a mystery hidden for generations and centuries has now been revealed to his holy people” (Col 1:26). “In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness” (Col 2:9). Jesus is also referred to as being a man like us in all things but sin (cf Heb 4:15).
So the God who was earlier hidden, is now revealed in Jesus. Fine. But how do I become God? Sai Baba was not much off the mark. Let us see what some famous spiritual writers say. St. Gregory of Nyssa says, “When you hear that the divine majesty is exalted above the heavens… and its nature inaccessible, do not despair of ever beholding what you desire. It is indeed within your reach, you have within yourselves the standard by which to apprehend the divine”. St. Catherine of Sienna, another Doctor of the Church confesses, “Our nature mirrors yours, as your nature mirrors ours” . St. Augustine of Hippo would often say “Help me know thee, help me know me”.
The two sides of the coin therefore are awareness of God as revealed in Jesus, and self-awareness. No doubt this is easier said than done. Who said being God is easy anyway? To be Pope, PM or President one needs to be aware of everything that is happening around. More so for a person who seeks to be God, one needs this third area of awareness, of what is happening now, what happened in the past, and what one may expect of the future.
Here is where I believe that Sai Baba has gone off on a tangent, so I will have to differ. We are not God, nor can we become God, but we can certainly aspire to be connected to God, be inspired by him, and live our lives accordingly. To become God like, let us follow the path of triple awareness – Awareness of God in Jesus, speaking to us through he scriptures; self-awareness through deep soul searching, personal prayer and psycho-analysis; and awareness of the world around us including temporary affairs, history, the environment, etc. A tall order? Obviously. That is why I cannot be God; but by his grace I can try to live a godly life, where my awareness is translated into action, for the good of all, especially that “neighbour” who is most in need of it.
On a lighter plane, I have so often heard people cursing God, especially when things go wrong, or not to their liking. If there is a flood we curse God for destroying our crops, but don’t thank him for enriching the alluvial soil. If it rains we grumble about the bad weather, instead of thanking God for cleansing the air and recharging the ground water. We grumble about the heat in summer, not realizing that without intense heat and a low-pressure area, there can be no monsoon. I have used these common “complaints” against nature, as nature itself is attributed to God. The message is clear. If God (Nature) cannot please all the people all the time, then I would be the biggest fool to attempt to improve on that by trying to be God!
Another common “complaint” against God is that he doesn’t say anything, or tell us what to do. It is the other way around. “Look I am standing at the door, knocking. If one of you hears me calling and opens the door, I will come in to have a meal that at that person’s side….Let anyone who can hear, listen to what the spirit is saying” (Rev.3:20,22) The problem is not with God, but with us. If we have bolted the room from inside, if the TV is on full blast, or there is a loud argument going on, will we hear the gentle knocking at the door? Since God has given us free will (something Christianity strongly believes in) he respects our freedom. Hence he cannot intervene in our lives without our co-operation. St Ignatius of Loyola, the master of spiritual discernment, says that for the one who is disposed the Holy Spirit comes like a drop of water on a sponge, unnoticed and quickly absorbed. Isn’t that exactly what happened at the Annunciation, the actual Incarnation of God as man? When Mary of Nazareth said a quiet “Yes”, not a leaf quivered or a bird twittered.
Sadhu Sundar Singh, also known as the apostle of the bleeding feet, was once preaching about God’s love, when a heckler in the crowd cried out, But God is so far away”. Sadhuji retorted, “Who moved?” Is God far from us or are we far from him? A simple example will suffice. A mother is sitting behind her infant child. The child cannot see its mother so it cries in fear, for it feels that its mother is far away. Though the reality is that the mother was very much there and close at hand. So let us stop childish complaining against God, and grow up to discover his presence and guidance.
Just like with all the others, I cannot be God, but I shall humbly attempt to be godlike in my awareness and action. I hope that the thoughts that follow in “An Unfinished Symphony” will contribute to that end for its readers. If only…
(All references to God in the masculine gender are only for linguistic purposes, as God enshrines all the qualities of both male and female. As I said at the beginning, human vocabulary is finite and cannot define the infinite)
Fortunately, I am not in Pakistan or in Judea, so I am still alive! India abounds in self-styled God men and women, so what is alarming about trying to play God? Recently Satya Sai Baba passed away. Some years ago when somebody challenged him for styling himself as Bhagwan (God) he had retorted, “You also are God, only you don’t know it”. The challenger became a disciple. Who doesn’t like to be told that he is God?
In India, there is no clarity about God. There are reportedly thousands of Gods and Goddesses in the Hindu pantheon. So adding a few more now and then is no big deal. Though even here one would need to make a distinction between Iswar/ Parmeshwar, Devta/ Devi and Bhagwan. I am not competent to comment further on the significance of these words. Suffice it to say that whereas Devi, Devta and Bhagwan are extensively used, the term Ishwar or Parmeshwar is sparingly used, and would therefore refer to the one and only Supreme Being.
On the other hand the Semitic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are monotheistic religions, that believe in one God – whether we call this Being El, Elohim, Yahweh or Allah. The root is the same – El. Interestingly the Latin word Deo is similar to the Sanskrit word Dev. I would therefore dare to presume that, except for a few atheists and agnostics including Stephen Hawking, most human beings believe in a Supreme Being, who is commonly referred to as God in the English language.
How one perceives and therefore experiences God differs widely across religions, time and space. Even trying to arrive at a consensus or synthesis could be an impossible task, and I have no pretensions about even attempting it.
Before trying to “play” God, I first need to understand who or what this “god” is. I will limit myself to the Christian experience of God, beginning with the revelation of who or what God is, as experienced by Moses. When on Mount Sinai Moses asks God what is his name, he replies “I am he who is” (Ex 3:13). This is the translation according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which I commonly use. The New King James version has the words “I am who I am”. The Good News Bible also uses the same words. When commissioning Moses God tells him to proclaim that “I am has sent me to you” (Ex 3:14). In the earliest translations from Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint uses the phrase “He who is” while the Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome in the 3rd Century AD has the more commonly used “I am who I am” . The original word in Hebrew is Yahweh, which seems to have its etymological roots in the Hebrew verb hawah, which simply means “to be” or to exist . The actual Hebrew word for a divine being, or God is El, or Elohim. In other ancient Semitic languages it is Ilu in Akkadian and Ilah in Arabic. Again there is no etymological root, but the connotation is of a powerful being .
All this sounds confusing. It is actually quite simple. There is no human vocabulary to express the reality of the Supreme Being. Adjectives like Almighty, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent (from catechism class) are merely superlatives; attempting to describe that which transcends description. Moses faced just such a predicament, which Yahweh sensed. He therefore changed tack to make it easier for Moses. He switched from deft definitions to personal relationships. This is what he now says to Moses. “Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name for all time, and thus am I to be invoked for all generations to come” (Ex 3:15). A definitive statement and a defining moment. A till then abstract being becomes a personal God, for all time. God was now someone to whom human beings could relate.
Way back in 1977, when I was just 26 years of age, I wrote my first book, “The Trinity and Me”. I re-read it while writing this, because it traced the journey from a “Hidden God” to a “Revealed One.” I shall borrow some of those observations.
In the allegorical account of creation in the very beginning we read “Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves… God Created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him” (Gen1: 26-27). However, with the fall and banishment from the Garden of Eden, there is a disconnect between God and Man. You know how it is with your dish TV when there is no transmission because of a “technical problem”. Man is now afraid of this unseen God. This is how is expressed. “But my face you cannot see, for no human being can see me and survive” (Ex 33:20). And again “For what creature of flesh could possibly live after hearing, as we have heard the voice of the living God?” (Deut 5:26). Centuries later Isaiah will lament “Truly you are a God who conceals himself” (Is 45:15).
As Christians we believe that this fearsome, awesome, hidden God is revealed in Jesus, and through his death and resurrection the disconnect (the technical problem) is removed and the transmission (communication) lines are now clear. St. Paul observes, “The message which was a mystery hidden for generations and centuries has now been revealed to his holy people” (Col 1:26). “In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness” (Col 2:9). Jesus is also referred to as being a man like us in all things but sin (cf Heb 4:15).
So the God who was earlier hidden, is now revealed in Jesus. Fine. But how do I become God? Sai Baba was not much off the mark. Let us see what some famous spiritual writers say. St. Gregory of Nyssa says, “When you hear that the divine majesty is exalted above the heavens… and its nature inaccessible, do not despair of ever beholding what you desire. It is indeed within your reach, you have within yourselves the standard by which to apprehend the divine”. St. Catherine of Sienna, another Doctor of the Church confesses, “Our nature mirrors yours, as your nature mirrors ours” . St. Augustine of Hippo would often say “Help me know thee, help me know me”.
The two sides of the coin therefore are awareness of God as revealed in Jesus, and self-awareness. No doubt this is easier said than done. Who said being God is easy anyway? To be Pope, PM or President one needs to be aware of everything that is happening around. More so for a person who seeks to be God, one needs this third area of awareness, of what is happening now, what happened in the past, and what one may expect of the future.
Here is where I believe that Sai Baba has gone off on a tangent, so I will have to differ. We are not God, nor can we become God, but we can certainly aspire to be connected to God, be inspired by him, and live our lives accordingly. To become God like, let us follow the path of triple awareness – Awareness of God in Jesus, speaking to us through he scriptures; self-awareness through deep soul searching, personal prayer and psycho-analysis; and awareness of the world around us including temporary affairs, history, the environment, etc. A tall order? Obviously. That is why I cannot be God; but by his grace I can try to live a godly life, where my awareness is translated into action, for the good of all, especially that “neighbour” who is most in need of it.
On a lighter plane, I have so often heard people cursing God, especially when things go wrong, or not to their liking. If there is a flood we curse God for destroying our crops, but don’t thank him for enriching the alluvial soil. If it rains we grumble about the bad weather, instead of thanking God for cleansing the air and recharging the ground water. We grumble about the heat in summer, not realizing that without intense heat and a low-pressure area, there can be no monsoon. I have used these common “complaints” against nature, as nature itself is attributed to God. The message is clear. If God (Nature) cannot please all the people all the time, then I would be the biggest fool to attempt to improve on that by trying to be God!
Another common “complaint” against God is that he doesn’t say anything, or tell us what to do. It is the other way around. “Look I am standing at the door, knocking. If one of you hears me calling and opens the door, I will come in to have a meal that at that person’s side….Let anyone who can hear, listen to what the spirit is saying” (Rev.3:20,22) The problem is not with God, but with us. If we have bolted the room from inside, if the TV is on full blast, or there is a loud argument going on, will we hear the gentle knocking at the door? Since God has given us free will (something Christianity strongly believes in) he respects our freedom. Hence he cannot intervene in our lives without our co-operation. St Ignatius of Loyola, the master of spiritual discernment, says that for the one who is disposed the Holy Spirit comes like a drop of water on a sponge, unnoticed and quickly absorbed. Isn’t that exactly what happened at the Annunciation, the actual Incarnation of God as man? When Mary of Nazareth said a quiet “Yes”, not a leaf quivered or a bird twittered.
Sadhu Sundar Singh, also known as the apostle of the bleeding feet, was once preaching about God’s love, when a heckler in the crowd cried out, But God is so far away”. Sadhuji retorted, “Who moved?” Is God far from us or are we far from him? A simple example will suffice. A mother is sitting behind her infant child. The child cannot see its mother so it cries in fear, for it feels that its mother is far away. Though the reality is that the mother was very much there and close at hand. So let us stop childish complaining against God, and grow up to discover his presence and guidance.
Just like with all the others, I cannot be God, but I shall humbly attempt to be godlike in my awareness and action. I hope that the thoughts that follow in “An Unfinished Symphony” will contribute to that end for its readers. If only…
(All references to God in the masculine gender are only for linguistic purposes, as God enshrines all the qualities of both male and female. As I said at the beginning, human vocabulary is finite and cannot define the infinite)
Friday 27 May 2011
IF I WERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE (In the sequence of “If I Were the Pope” and “If I Were the Prime Minister”)
A mischievous friend of mine said that if a black man were to enter the White House then pigs would fly, and swine flu (flew)! It is a witty ditty to which I trust nobody will take offence, as none is intended.
Do you know who the S.O.B. in the White House is? This could be offensive. We know what S.O.B. normally stands for, so I need not elaborate. But I am not “normal”, so I have another connotation for S.O.B. It stands for two guys whose names begin with O, where an S is replaced by a B. Got it? Yes I am talking about Obama and Osama. Is a B or an S all that distinguishes the two Os? O stands for something else as well – Oil. That is why I am concerned, and want to enter the White House, though I am neither white nor black, just plain brown.
Mr President, I wish to enter the White House, neither to bomb it, nor to be a fly on the wall to see what Monica Lewinsky did with that cigar; but because what is decided in the White House gravely affects the rest of the world, be they white, black, brown or yellow. Samuel Huntington may call it a “Clash of Civilisations”, but many of us brownies would rather believe that it is a “Clash over Oil”; over which the Middle East (which incidentally is Islamic dominated) seems to have the hegemony. There is a loud whisper worldwide that your country has the largest oil reserves, but you would rather exhaust the oil in the Middle East first, and then dictate terms later when everybody else’s wells have run dry. This isn’t quite cricket (or should I say baseball) Mr President?
Our two countries are purportedly the world’s largest democracies. We should therefore be the best of friends. Yet we look at each other with suspicion, and you Mr President, spare no opportunity to shout yourself hoarse that “the injuns are coming”, but brown not red. There is more to our democracies than our Indian roots. As you have rightly and repeatedly observed, India has emerged as a neo-economic power. What you don’t know is that India is a threat to nobody, least of all the U.S. Why? Because our gigantic economic strides have been consumed by corruption. In your country the order is reversed. You are corrupted by consumption. See how close we are?
Five centuries ago White European settlers were the pioneers on the lonely prairie. Texan cowboys were as tough as their leather stirrups. Prospectors lived and loved for gold. That was long ago. You have now become a soft state like India. Your people are now accustomed to leisure and pleasure. Your wife’s main concern is obesity in children, while the other half of the world starves. Your per capita consumption of oil, food, water and timber is the highest in the world. Do you not also see the irony of the opium fields of Afghanistan being the opiate of the asses (oops masses) in your country? Who should you blame, if not yourselves?
Your children don’t want to study maths. They are happy doing waiters’ jobs in McDonalds or Pizza Hut; something we brownies did not so long ago. The roles have been reversed. Now you feel threatened by the brown and yellow guys.
Mr President, while the rest of the world was embroiled in World War II your people were relatively unscathed. Pearl Harbour was an aberration. Flanked by two vast oceans your country was insulated and isolated from the rest of the world. It made you feel invincible. You thought you were the world’s policeman. You thought that the US was bigger than the UN. You attacked Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. You burnt more than your fingers in Vietnam, while burning children with napalm bombs. You could fire missiles from aircraft carriers to subdue Iraq. In ground fighting, that requires raw courage, your GIs were no match for tenacious freedom fighters. After World War II you entered into a cold war in a bi-polar world. You would dare to say, “Those who are not with us are against us”. Now you face a more complex multi-polar world.
You in the West belong to the First World. We Asian tigers and dragons, whom you once called the third world, are now the Second World. The Third World is the Islamic and oil-rich Middle East, North Africa and Indonesia/ Malaysia thrown in for good measure. The Fourth World is the rest of Africa, Asia, and South America. So you are now confused.
Yes you were insulated and isolated till 9/11 happened. You were then rudely jolted from your reverie. From the reel world of superman and batman you entered the real world. What you now saw scared you. You became paranoid. It is symbolised in the picture of you and your advisors sitting in the White House, waiting to be told that Geronimo was EKIA (enemy killed in action). Mr President, you were slouched in your chair, fear and anxiety written all over your face. Hilary, your Secretary of State, held her hand to her mouth horror-struck, eventhough nobody was striking you.
Mr President, I have never been to America. Unlike you, I was not born there. So I cannot be the President of the USA. But I am a world citizen, so I am concerned, not just for America, but for the world we all inhabit.
Mr President, you once said that if you had a choice of a dinner date, it would be Mahatma Gandhi, eventhough you would not have much to eat. The Father of our Nation once said that there is enough to satisfy man’s need, but not enough to satisfy man’s greed. That goes for every man, American or Indian. But given the reality that you are the biggest per capita consumer, you must seriously consider curtailing greed and consumption, lest you be gradually overtaken by the other three worlds, and be corrupted entirely.
Mr President, some years ago I attended an international meeting in Vienna, Austria, where we visited the headquarters of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Present was a delegate from the United Kingdom, the empire on which the sun never set, for it was spread throughout the world, and at any given point of time the sun was shining somewhere. This Britisher was now bemoaning the fact that they had lost their car building industry to Japan, their shipbuilding to South Korea, and their doctors to your country, America. The sun had well and truly set. That is why they now went gaga about their son William getting married. At last they had something to cheer about!
Mr President, my wife visited your country, for two months, 15 years ago. She told me that the people of America are very hospitable and friendly. A die-hard communist friend of mine, who happens to be Muslim, and visited his daughter in America, said that your country is the best in the world. A Sikh classmate of mine, whose son has migrated to your country, says that there is no racial discrimination there. This is good news, and a rich heritage that must be preserved.
For that Mr President, I have through this column, entered the White House to humbly whisper to you that you must stop being the world’s policeman, otherwise you will be the biggest threat to world peace. You have no moral right to don that mantle. The days of colonialism and expansionism are over. Tell your wife that the kids are obese because they and their parents consume too much. As I said, you are corrupted by consumption.
Do read the writing on the wall in the White House, written by a fly that fell in my inkpot. If not, history will be witness to who is the S.O.B. in the White House. “God bless America”. No, God bless us all, and keep us in peace.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union
Do you know who the S.O.B. in the White House is? This could be offensive. We know what S.O.B. normally stands for, so I need not elaborate. But I am not “normal”, so I have another connotation for S.O.B. It stands for two guys whose names begin with O, where an S is replaced by a B. Got it? Yes I am talking about Obama and Osama. Is a B or an S all that distinguishes the two Os? O stands for something else as well – Oil. That is why I am concerned, and want to enter the White House, though I am neither white nor black, just plain brown.
Mr President, I wish to enter the White House, neither to bomb it, nor to be a fly on the wall to see what Monica Lewinsky did with that cigar; but because what is decided in the White House gravely affects the rest of the world, be they white, black, brown or yellow. Samuel Huntington may call it a “Clash of Civilisations”, but many of us brownies would rather believe that it is a “Clash over Oil”; over which the Middle East (which incidentally is Islamic dominated) seems to have the hegemony. There is a loud whisper worldwide that your country has the largest oil reserves, but you would rather exhaust the oil in the Middle East first, and then dictate terms later when everybody else’s wells have run dry. This isn’t quite cricket (or should I say baseball) Mr President?
Our two countries are purportedly the world’s largest democracies. We should therefore be the best of friends. Yet we look at each other with suspicion, and you Mr President, spare no opportunity to shout yourself hoarse that “the injuns are coming”, but brown not red. There is more to our democracies than our Indian roots. As you have rightly and repeatedly observed, India has emerged as a neo-economic power. What you don’t know is that India is a threat to nobody, least of all the U.S. Why? Because our gigantic economic strides have been consumed by corruption. In your country the order is reversed. You are corrupted by consumption. See how close we are?
Five centuries ago White European settlers were the pioneers on the lonely prairie. Texan cowboys were as tough as their leather stirrups. Prospectors lived and loved for gold. That was long ago. You have now become a soft state like India. Your people are now accustomed to leisure and pleasure. Your wife’s main concern is obesity in children, while the other half of the world starves. Your per capita consumption of oil, food, water and timber is the highest in the world. Do you not also see the irony of the opium fields of Afghanistan being the opiate of the asses (oops masses) in your country? Who should you blame, if not yourselves?
Your children don’t want to study maths. They are happy doing waiters’ jobs in McDonalds or Pizza Hut; something we brownies did not so long ago. The roles have been reversed. Now you feel threatened by the brown and yellow guys.
Mr President, while the rest of the world was embroiled in World War II your people were relatively unscathed. Pearl Harbour was an aberration. Flanked by two vast oceans your country was insulated and isolated from the rest of the world. It made you feel invincible. You thought you were the world’s policeman. You thought that the US was bigger than the UN. You attacked Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. You burnt more than your fingers in Vietnam, while burning children with napalm bombs. You could fire missiles from aircraft carriers to subdue Iraq. In ground fighting, that requires raw courage, your GIs were no match for tenacious freedom fighters. After World War II you entered into a cold war in a bi-polar world. You would dare to say, “Those who are not with us are against us”. Now you face a more complex multi-polar world.
You in the West belong to the First World. We Asian tigers and dragons, whom you once called the third world, are now the Second World. The Third World is the Islamic and oil-rich Middle East, North Africa and Indonesia/ Malaysia thrown in for good measure. The Fourth World is the rest of Africa, Asia, and South America. So you are now confused.
Yes you were insulated and isolated till 9/11 happened. You were then rudely jolted from your reverie. From the reel world of superman and batman you entered the real world. What you now saw scared you. You became paranoid. It is symbolised in the picture of you and your advisors sitting in the White House, waiting to be told that Geronimo was EKIA (enemy killed in action). Mr President, you were slouched in your chair, fear and anxiety written all over your face. Hilary, your Secretary of State, held her hand to her mouth horror-struck, eventhough nobody was striking you.
Mr President, I have never been to America. Unlike you, I was not born there. So I cannot be the President of the USA. But I am a world citizen, so I am concerned, not just for America, but for the world we all inhabit.
Mr President, you once said that if you had a choice of a dinner date, it would be Mahatma Gandhi, eventhough you would not have much to eat. The Father of our Nation once said that there is enough to satisfy man’s need, but not enough to satisfy man’s greed. That goes for every man, American or Indian. But given the reality that you are the biggest per capita consumer, you must seriously consider curtailing greed and consumption, lest you be gradually overtaken by the other three worlds, and be corrupted entirely.
Mr President, some years ago I attended an international meeting in Vienna, Austria, where we visited the headquarters of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. Present was a delegate from the United Kingdom, the empire on which the sun never set, for it was spread throughout the world, and at any given point of time the sun was shining somewhere. This Britisher was now bemoaning the fact that they had lost their car building industry to Japan, their shipbuilding to South Korea, and their doctors to your country, America. The sun had well and truly set. That is why they now went gaga about their son William getting married. At last they had something to cheer about!
Mr President, my wife visited your country, for two months, 15 years ago. She told me that the people of America are very hospitable and friendly. A die-hard communist friend of mine, who happens to be Muslim, and visited his daughter in America, said that your country is the best in the world. A Sikh classmate of mine, whose son has migrated to your country, says that there is no racial discrimination there. This is good news, and a rich heritage that must be preserved.
For that Mr President, I have through this column, entered the White House to humbly whisper to you that you must stop being the world’s policeman, otherwise you will be the biggest threat to world peace. You have no moral right to don that mantle. The days of colonialism and expansionism are over. Tell your wife that the kids are obese because they and their parents consume too much. As I said, you are corrupted by consumption.
Do read the writing on the wall in the White House, written by a fly that fell in my inkpot. If not, history will be witness to who is the S.O.B. in the White House. “God bless America”. No, God bless us all, and keep us in peace.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union
Wednesday 11 May 2011
A CENTENNIAL TRIBUTE TO GOD’S SENTINEL
Writing about a giant is a dwarfing experience. The giant is my spiritual mentor (I won’t call him Guru), Fr Augustine Deenabandhu Ofm Cap. I write this on the occasion of his Birth Centenary.
First the basics. He was born on the 9th of April 1911 in Bajpe parish of Mangalore diocese, and baptised Henry Joseph Lobo. He died on the 13th May 1991, so this is also his 20th death anniversary. What was so gigantic about the 80 years this priest spent on this earth? Perhaps I knew him better than anybody else, having spent 7 of the most beautiful years of my life with him – from 1975 to 1982.
Henry joined the seminary in Mangalore in 1927 to become a diocesan priest, and was duly ordained in 1935. Nothing gigantic so far. We now go off the beaten track. He was not satisfied with being a diocesan priest. He was influenced by the frugal lifestyle and deep simplicity of the Capuchin friars (a Franciscan order). Three years after his ordination the Bishop of Mangalore permitted him to join the Capuchins, where he took the religious name – Augustine. He began life all over again as a novice in the Order.
As a Capuchin he was known for his piety and simplicity, so he was inducted into formation and teaching theology. He was also a caring pastor. During the Second World War, when there was food scarcity, he began a Fair Price Shop, long before the advent of ration shops, to assist the needy. When posted to Kirol parish in Mumbai, he strongly advocated the Catholic Workers’ Movement. Because of his sterling qualities Rome appointed him as the first Novice Master of the fledgling Indian Missionary Society, for two terms. So far so good.
Fr Augustine was not a man to rest on his laurels. Like St Augustine he would rather say “My heart is restless till it rests in Thee”. If we are satisfied and satiated we become complacent and revert to mediocrity. Not for this giant. At every stage of life he felt that he still had to walk that extra mile (cf Mat 5:41). There were three events that impacted his future – the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Church in India Seminar (1969), and the move to Jyotiniketan Ashram, Bareilly, U.P., in 1971.
Fr Augustine was deeply influenced by Vatican II ecclesiology – that the Church was still a pilgrim, not one which had “arrived”; that it should be more Catholic than Roman, rooted in the local culture; that there had to be a preferential option for the poor; that the Church is not a monolithic “spiritual edifice” with big buildings, facades and structures, but a living community of believers. The Church needed to shed its extra baggage and return to its pristine scriptural roots. This new ecclesiology was echoed in the post-Vatican euphoria of the “Church in India Seminar”, India’s endorsement of Vatican II. So Fr Augustine experienced another restlessness, to move on, to explore the unknown, and to renounce the comparative comfort and security of the Capuchin monastery.
This kind of stirring is very well reflected in the earlier call of St Francis of Assisi (the founder or inspiration for all Franciscan Orders, including the Capuchins). The divine call to St Francis was “Go and repair my Church”. He took it literally, and with his own bare hands began to repair a church building in his vicinity. It was later that the real mission dawned on him. In 13th Century Europe the Church had become opulent and corpulent; a far cry from the Son of Man who had no place to lay his head, and told his disciples to “take nothing for the way, when on a mission” (cf Mat 10:9-10). St Francis took the Gospel to heart, living a life of abject poverty, renunciation, humility and simplicity. Before his conversion he had wanted to be a knight to join the crusades for liberating the Holy Land. Post conversion Francis sought to dialogue with the very same Saracens (Muslim invaders).
When the common man lived in awe of the papacy and the hierarchy, Francis was a man of courage, who would even tick cardinals off for their wrongdoing. When Italian society was divided between the Majors (the landed aristocracy) and the Minors (the landless peasantry), he made a preferential option for the poor, calling his group the Order of Friars Minor (OFM). Had be been in India he may have called it Deen Bandhus or Chhotebhais! Centuries later Blessed Teresa would make a similar choice, when she chose the blue-bordered saris of Kolkata’s municipal sanitation workers as her form of dress. St Francis identified so closely with Jesus, that he was called the Alter Christi (the other Christ), to the extent of receiving the Stigmata (Jesus’ own wounds) in his physical body.
Francis would seem like a digression from the Augustine story. It isn’t, for it is impossible to understand the one without the other. After Vatican II Fr Augustine was looking for a more authentic way of living his Franciscan life. Through one of his students, Rev M Devanand Ofm Cap, he came in contact with Rev Murray Rogers, and Englishman, a pastor of the Anglican Church, who had a pristine ashram called Jyotiniketan in Bareilly.
Rev Rogers, in turn, was influenced by Gandhiji’s ashram way of life. Padmashri Laurie Baker, another Englishman, who specialised in low-cost housing, built Jyotiniketan. It was truly “low-cost”. We called it an all-weather construction – hot as hell in summer, bitterly cold in winter, and damp and leaky in the monsoons! It had no electricity or running water, and was as close to nature as one could get. Peacocks and bamboos abounded. When Rev Rogers (another restless soul) felt that an Indian should take over the ashram, to make it authentically Indian, he found no takers in his own Anglican Communion. That is how Fr Augustine stepped in, in 1971, at the ripe old age of 60.
Ordinary folks think of retiring at such an age. Not the extraordinary and indomitable Fr Augustine. He was just beginning his second innings. He now took the name Deenabandhu (friend of the poor), and switched to a biscuit coloured (not saffron) khadi habit. At 60 he had to learn Hindi, to cook on a wood fire, to go to the loo in the jungle, to roll chapattis and squat on a cow dung plastered floor. Not easy at any age, let alone at 60, with no community support. Though his Capuchin Order professed poverty and simplicity, he got no companion from his Karnataka-Goa-Maharashtra Province. The few and far between Capuchin companions he had were from the Kerala province.
I joined Fr Deenabandhu in 1975. By that time he had already developed diabetes, because cooking was burdensome for him, so his staple diet was chapattis with gur (jaggery). Other than that he was a bundle of spiritual and emotional energy. Though slightly hunch backed he believed in doing atleast one hour’s manual work every day, be it tending the garden, sweeping the compound or chopping firewood.
The day I entered Jyotiniketan a bullock cart from the neighbouring village of Kareli knocked down the entrance gate. For the subsequent 7 years that I lived there, there was no attempt to rebuild the gate. It was for me symbolic of the total openness and utter defencelessness of Jyotiniketan and Fr Deenabandhu.
I first set foot in Jyotiniketan on a cold and misty December morning. There was Fr Deenabandhu, his nose red with cold. But he wore no socks. His feet were shod in sandals made by the village cobbler from discarded rubber tyres. He was addressed as “Father”, not guruji, swamiji, acharyaji or any other ji. I felt at home in the presence of a genuine person who had no pretence.
His back was hunched from spending hours in prayer. In scorching summer, under an asbestos roof, he would be praying before the Blessed Sacrament, in mid afternoon. At midnight (even in the dead of winter when no one wants to leave a cosy cot) he would be found in the windswept chapel. Very few outsiders knew that he had a metal chain in his room with which he would flagellate his frail body as penance.
But he was no zealot. He believed in service to the neighbouring villagers and leprosy patients by ministering to them, and helping in whatever way he could. Before my time, in the neighbouring village of Choubari, there was a long lasting and bloody feud. Fr Deenabandhu went and dwelt in their midst, fasting and praying till peace was restored.
He was a practical person, not an idealist. Once a Capuchin brother was complaining about the reforms ushered in by Vatican II, saying that earlier the friars kept a strict fast that they had now abandoned. Quick came Deenabandhu’s retort “Dear brother were you fasting out of the compulsion of the law, or the love of God? If you love God nobody can stop you from fasting”. This was an abject lesson in Vatican II spirituality, so much closer to the free flowing heart of Jesus, and in contrast to the Pharisaic keepers of the Law!
Fr Deenabandhu’s openness and simplicity were seen in his attitude towards diverse movements in the Church, like Inculturation, Liberation Theology and the Charismatic Renewal. He espoused them all. A somewhat conservative bishop, who was more comfortable with the pre-Vatican Latin liturgy, once visited Jyotiniketan. He found no dichotomy between liturgy and life. They were deeply Christian and authentically Indian. He frankly admitted, “If this is the meaning of inculturation I fully endorse it”. Indeed there were very few people who met Fr Deenabandhu, or visited Jyotiniketan, who didn’t go back touched in some way.
I lived with him as a layman for 7 years. Not once did I feel that I was a second-class citizen of the Church. Fr Deenabandhu had a deep understanding of the lay vocation, married life and human sexuality. He was no prude. When I once told him that I was attracted to a female visitor to the ashram and felt like kissing her, he floored me by saying that he too felt like doing the same! Of such stuff are spiritual giants made.
It is because of him that my to-be-wife Meerabai, reluctantly agreed to marry a mad cap (not ofm cap) vagabond like me. He even solemnised our marriage in 1984. Seven years later, when he fell critically ill on a journey, he asked to be taken to our home in Kanpur. He knew we were his family. We rushed him to hospital, stayed by his bedside day and night, and willed him to live; till his fellow Capuchins came to take him. We last saw him alive on his 80th birthday, twenty years ago, in another hospital, in Lucknow.
A few days later he passed on to his eternal reward. We bundled our sleeping children into the car and drove through the night to be in time for the funeral in Bareilly. He was a sentinel of God and a servant of mankind. I salute his revered memory on the occasion of his Birth Centenary. I hope and pray that the Church in India, and more particularly the Franciscan fraternity, will not have to wait another hundred years to see another like our beloved Father Augustine Deenabandhu Ofm Cap. Will such spiritual giants tread the earth again? As I said at the very beginning, I am dwarfed by the thought.
* The writer considers Fr Deenabandhu his spiritual Father.
MAY 2011
First the basics. He was born on the 9th of April 1911 in Bajpe parish of Mangalore diocese, and baptised Henry Joseph Lobo. He died on the 13th May 1991, so this is also his 20th death anniversary. What was so gigantic about the 80 years this priest spent on this earth? Perhaps I knew him better than anybody else, having spent 7 of the most beautiful years of my life with him – from 1975 to 1982.
Henry joined the seminary in Mangalore in 1927 to become a diocesan priest, and was duly ordained in 1935. Nothing gigantic so far. We now go off the beaten track. He was not satisfied with being a diocesan priest. He was influenced by the frugal lifestyle and deep simplicity of the Capuchin friars (a Franciscan order). Three years after his ordination the Bishop of Mangalore permitted him to join the Capuchins, where he took the religious name – Augustine. He began life all over again as a novice in the Order.
As a Capuchin he was known for his piety and simplicity, so he was inducted into formation and teaching theology. He was also a caring pastor. During the Second World War, when there was food scarcity, he began a Fair Price Shop, long before the advent of ration shops, to assist the needy. When posted to Kirol parish in Mumbai, he strongly advocated the Catholic Workers’ Movement. Because of his sterling qualities Rome appointed him as the first Novice Master of the fledgling Indian Missionary Society, for two terms. So far so good.
Fr Augustine was not a man to rest on his laurels. Like St Augustine he would rather say “My heart is restless till it rests in Thee”. If we are satisfied and satiated we become complacent and revert to mediocrity. Not for this giant. At every stage of life he felt that he still had to walk that extra mile (cf Mat 5:41). There were three events that impacted his future – the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Church in India Seminar (1969), and the move to Jyotiniketan Ashram, Bareilly, U.P., in 1971.
Fr Augustine was deeply influenced by Vatican II ecclesiology – that the Church was still a pilgrim, not one which had “arrived”; that it should be more Catholic than Roman, rooted in the local culture; that there had to be a preferential option for the poor; that the Church is not a monolithic “spiritual edifice” with big buildings, facades and structures, but a living community of believers. The Church needed to shed its extra baggage and return to its pristine scriptural roots. This new ecclesiology was echoed in the post-Vatican euphoria of the “Church in India Seminar”, India’s endorsement of Vatican II. So Fr Augustine experienced another restlessness, to move on, to explore the unknown, and to renounce the comparative comfort and security of the Capuchin monastery.
This kind of stirring is very well reflected in the earlier call of St Francis of Assisi (the founder or inspiration for all Franciscan Orders, including the Capuchins). The divine call to St Francis was “Go and repair my Church”. He took it literally, and with his own bare hands began to repair a church building in his vicinity. It was later that the real mission dawned on him. In 13th Century Europe the Church had become opulent and corpulent; a far cry from the Son of Man who had no place to lay his head, and told his disciples to “take nothing for the way, when on a mission” (cf Mat 10:9-10). St Francis took the Gospel to heart, living a life of abject poverty, renunciation, humility and simplicity. Before his conversion he had wanted to be a knight to join the crusades for liberating the Holy Land. Post conversion Francis sought to dialogue with the very same Saracens (Muslim invaders).
When the common man lived in awe of the papacy and the hierarchy, Francis was a man of courage, who would even tick cardinals off for their wrongdoing. When Italian society was divided between the Majors (the landed aristocracy) and the Minors (the landless peasantry), he made a preferential option for the poor, calling his group the Order of Friars Minor (OFM). Had be been in India he may have called it Deen Bandhus or Chhotebhais! Centuries later Blessed Teresa would make a similar choice, when she chose the blue-bordered saris of Kolkata’s municipal sanitation workers as her form of dress. St Francis identified so closely with Jesus, that he was called the Alter Christi (the other Christ), to the extent of receiving the Stigmata (Jesus’ own wounds) in his physical body.
Francis would seem like a digression from the Augustine story. It isn’t, for it is impossible to understand the one without the other. After Vatican II Fr Augustine was looking for a more authentic way of living his Franciscan life. Through one of his students, Rev M Devanand Ofm Cap, he came in contact with Rev Murray Rogers, and Englishman, a pastor of the Anglican Church, who had a pristine ashram called Jyotiniketan in Bareilly.
Rev Rogers, in turn, was influenced by Gandhiji’s ashram way of life. Padmashri Laurie Baker, another Englishman, who specialised in low-cost housing, built Jyotiniketan. It was truly “low-cost”. We called it an all-weather construction – hot as hell in summer, bitterly cold in winter, and damp and leaky in the monsoons! It had no electricity or running water, and was as close to nature as one could get. Peacocks and bamboos abounded. When Rev Rogers (another restless soul) felt that an Indian should take over the ashram, to make it authentically Indian, he found no takers in his own Anglican Communion. That is how Fr Augustine stepped in, in 1971, at the ripe old age of 60.
Ordinary folks think of retiring at such an age. Not the extraordinary and indomitable Fr Augustine. He was just beginning his second innings. He now took the name Deenabandhu (friend of the poor), and switched to a biscuit coloured (not saffron) khadi habit. At 60 he had to learn Hindi, to cook on a wood fire, to go to the loo in the jungle, to roll chapattis and squat on a cow dung plastered floor. Not easy at any age, let alone at 60, with no community support. Though his Capuchin Order professed poverty and simplicity, he got no companion from his Karnataka-Goa-Maharashtra Province. The few and far between Capuchin companions he had were from the Kerala province.
I joined Fr Deenabandhu in 1975. By that time he had already developed diabetes, because cooking was burdensome for him, so his staple diet was chapattis with gur (jaggery). Other than that he was a bundle of spiritual and emotional energy. Though slightly hunch backed he believed in doing atleast one hour’s manual work every day, be it tending the garden, sweeping the compound or chopping firewood.
The day I entered Jyotiniketan a bullock cart from the neighbouring village of Kareli knocked down the entrance gate. For the subsequent 7 years that I lived there, there was no attempt to rebuild the gate. It was for me symbolic of the total openness and utter defencelessness of Jyotiniketan and Fr Deenabandhu.
I first set foot in Jyotiniketan on a cold and misty December morning. There was Fr Deenabandhu, his nose red with cold. But he wore no socks. His feet were shod in sandals made by the village cobbler from discarded rubber tyres. He was addressed as “Father”, not guruji, swamiji, acharyaji or any other ji. I felt at home in the presence of a genuine person who had no pretence.
His back was hunched from spending hours in prayer. In scorching summer, under an asbestos roof, he would be praying before the Blessed Sacrament, in mid afternoon. At midnight (even in the dead of winter when no one wants to leave a cosy cot) he would be found in the windswept chapel. Very few outsiders knew that he had a metal chain in his room with which he would flagellate his frail body as penance.
But he was no zealot. He believed in service to the neighbouring villagers and leprosy patients by ministering to them, and helping in whatever way he could. Before my time, in the neighbouring village of Choubari, there was a long lasting and bloody feud. Fr Deenabandhu went and dwelt in their midst, fasting and praying till peace was restored.
He was a practical person, not an idealist. Once a Capuchin brother was complaining about the reforms ushered in by Vatican II, saying that earlier the friars kept a strict fast that they had now abandoned. Quick came Deenabandhu’s retort “Dear brother were you fasting out of the compulsion of the law, or the love of God? If you love God nobody can stop you from fasting”. This was an abject lesson in Vatican II spirituality, so much closer to the free flowing heart of Jesus, and in contrast to the Pharisaic keepers of the Law!
Fr Deenabandhu’s openness and simplicity were seen in his attitude towards diverse movements in the Church, like Inculturation, Liberation Theology and the Charismatic Renewal. He espoused them all. A somewhat conservative bishop, who was more comfortable with the pre-Vatican Latin liturgy, once visited Jyotiniketan. He found no dichotomy between liturgy and life. They were deeply Christian and authentically Indian. He frankly admitted, “If this is the meaning of inculturation I fully endorse it”. Indeed there were very few people who met Fr Deenabandhu, or visited Jyotiniketan, who didn’t go back touched in some way.
I lived with him as a layman for 7 years. Not once did I feel that I was a second-class citizen of the Church. Fr Deenabandhu had a deep understanding of the lay vocation, married life and human sexuality. He was no prude. When I once told him that I was attracted to a female visitor to the ashram and felt like kissing her, he floored me by saying that he too felt like doing the same! Of such stuff are spiritual giants made.
It is because of him that my to-be-wife Meerabai, reluctantly agreed to marry a mad cap (not ofm cap) vagabond like me. He even solemnised our marriage in 1984. Seven years later, when he fell critically ill on a journey, he asked to be taken to our home in Kanpur. He knew we were his family. We rushed him to hospital, stayed by his bedside day and night, and willed him to live; till his fellow Capuchins came to take him. We last saw him alive on his 80th birthday, twenty years ago, in another hospital, in Lucknow.
A few days later he passed on to his eternal reward. We bundled our sleeping children into the car and drove through the night to be in time for the funeral in Bareilly. He was a sentinel of God and a servant of mankind. I salute his revered memory on the occasion of his Birth Centenary. I hope and pray that the Church in India, and more particularly the Franciscan fraternity, will not have to wait another hundred years to see another like our beloved Father Augustine Deenabandhu Ofm Cap. Will such spiritual giants tread the earth again? As I said at the very beginning, I am dwarfed by the thought.
* The writer considers Fr Deenabandhu his spiritual Father.
MAY 2011
Sunday 24 April 2011
IF I WERE THE PRIME MINISTER (A Sequel to “If I were Pope”)
Is it easier to be the Pope or the Prime Minister of India? To a large extent the answer would depend on one’s understanding of the Papacy. If it is to be the Vicar of Christ, then of course it is the most demanding job on earth. If it is to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, it is comparatively easy. From whatever I have read of church history, and the functioning of various popes down the ages, I am constrained to conclude that, with rare exceptions, the role of Pontiff has assumed ascendancy over that of the Vicar.
It is easy to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church! Why? Because he is accountable to no one, and nobody can remove him from his “august” office. The Pontiff pontificates – speaks out. He seldom listens. In contrast, the Prime Minister of India is constantly answerable and accountable – to Parliament, to the Press, to civil society, etc. He is responsible for any crisis, be it war or finances. He has a hotline, and can be woken up in the middle of the night. Can you imagine anybody waking up the Pope to tell him about a tsunami, earthquake, or even the collapse of the Vatican Bank? Such mundane things could wait till he has said mass and had his breakfast in gold-rimmed crockery, and ensconced himself in his majestic papal office. If the Prime Minister or his party messes things up he is unceremoniously bundled out of office at the hustings. Such tremors do not affect the Pope. So I daresay that it is much easier to be a Pope than the Prime Minister of India.
I don’t belong to any political party, and I don’t have the money to stand for election to Parliament. So again, just like with the Pope, I will never be the PM. But as a conscientious Indian, who is active in social, civic and political affairs, I do have some concerns that I wish to articulate. They would be my priorities as Prime Minister.
India’s economic progress in recent years has been phenomenal. The NDA Government boasted of it as “India Shining”, but lost the elections. Learning from that experience the Congress led UPA Government talked of the “Aam Admi”, and implemented schemes like rural employment, waiver of loans to farmers, etc. It got the UPA re-elected with an increased majority.
Then the ghost of corruption loomed large, catapulting Anna Hazare to centre stage; brushing aside all our economic and diplomatic achievements. Corruption is the big C, the deadly cancer that is eating into our innards. It is the silent killer. So the eradication of corruption would be my first priority. V.P. Singh, as Prime Minister, sacrificed his coalition government, rather than allow the Babri Masjid to fall. That required moral courage, not seen in any other Prime Minister, barring Lal Bahadur Shastri. Both these Prime Ministers had very short tenures and have, unfortunately, been easily forgotten.
So whether or not I lead a coalition government, I will not compromise on basic principles, with zero tolerance for corruption. When I.K. Gujral (remember him?) was Prime Minister he made a profound statement that a staircase is swept clean from the top. There is also the natural phenomenon that a fish first rots from the head. So the PM would have to set an extraordinarily high standard of honesty and integrity in public life.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has himself often stated that even Caesar’s wife should be beyond suspicion. So the PM would have to handpick honest and competent parliamentarians for his ministerial team, and the same for bureaucrats to man key posts. It is not that we don’t have honest and efficient politicians, bureaucrats and judges. But many of them are not given their due or even side lined and harassed.
My second priority would be basic amenities like potable water and electricity. There can be no excuses for our people not having access to these. Together with that come primary health and primary education. This may sound like stating the obvious. But then, so often, we miss the wood for the trees.
Before Independence, there was a feeling of nationalism, perhaps because we had a perceived “enemy”, the British. Today our nationalistic fervour is limited to shouting “Chak De India” in cricket, especially if the opponent is Pakistan. We think that Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest Indian and want to give him the Bharat Ratna. A pity.
Somehow, and this is the really tough one, we need to re-inculcate in our people a sense of legitimate pride in our nation, and its premier institutions – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. We need to tell our young people that there is more to life than the “package” they will get after doing their B.Tech or MBA. Young and old must contribute to society and nation building. A boost should be given to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) and the National Service Scheme (NSS). Though I do not advocate violence I would even propose that young people have a two-year conscription in the Defence Services (as in Israel). Those who do their B.Tech or MBBS with Government funding, should in like manner be expected to devote two years to nation building, before being given their degrees. Thos who undertake such exercises should be given incentives in job opportunities or higher education. In fact from the Finance, Commerce or Defence Ministries, focus should shift to the Human Resources Development (HRD) Ministry. It is a big task, but it must be done. With over a billion people, our biggest resource is our own people. Would that we could make them that more resourceful.
On my part, and in my sphere of influence, I shall do my best for nation building and a corruption free society.
* The writer is the former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
April 2011
It is easy to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church! Why? Because he is accountable to no one, and nobody can remove him from his “august” office. The Pontiff pontificates – speaks out. He seldom listens. In contrast, the Prime Minister of India is constantly answerable and accountable – to Parliament, to the Press, to civil society, etc. He is responsible for any crisis, be it war or finances. He has a hotline, and can be woken up in the middle of the night. Can you imagine anybody waking up the Pope to tell him about a tsunami, earthquake, or even the collapse of the Vatican Bank? Such mundane things could wait till he has said mass and had his breakfast in gold-rimmed crockery, and ensconced himself in his majestic papal office. If the Prime Minister or his party messes things up he is unceremoniously bundled out of office at the hustings. Such tremors do not affect the Pope. So I daresay that it is much easier to be a Pope than the Prime Minister of India.
I don’t belong to any political party, and I don’t have the money to stand for election to Parliament. So again, just like with the Pope, I will never be the PM. But as a conscientious Indian, who is active in social, civic and political affairs, I do have some concerns that I wish to articulate. They would be my priorities as Prime Minister.
India’s economic progress in recent years has been phenomenal. The NDA Government boasted of it as “India Shining”, but lost the elections. Learning from that experience the Congress led UPA Government talked of the “Aam Admi”, and implemented schemes like rural employment, waiver of loans to farmers, etc. It got the UPA re-elected with an increased majority.
Then the ghost of corruption loomed large, catapulting Anna Hazare to centre stage; brushing aside all our economic and diplomatic achievements. Corruption is the big C, the deadly cancer that is eating into our innards. It is the silent killer. So the eradication of corruption would be my first priority. V.P. Singh, as Prime Minister, sacrificed his coalition government, rather than allow the Babri Masjid to fall. That required moral courage, not seen in any other Prime Minister, barring Lal Bahadur Shastri. Both these Prime Ministers had very short tenures and have, unfortunately, been easily forgotten.
So whether or not I lead a coalition government, I will not compromise on basic principles, with zero tolerance for corruption. When I.K. Gujral (remember him?) was Prime Minister he made a profound statement that a staircase is swept clean from the top. There is also the natural phenomenon that a fish first rots from the head. So the PM would have to set an extraordinarily high standard of honesty and integrity in public life.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has himself often stated that even Caesar’s wife should be beyond suspicion. So the PM would have to handpick honest and competent parliamentarians for his ministerial team, and the same for bureaucrats to man key posts. It is not that we don’t have honest and efficient politicians, bureaucrats and judges. But many of them are not given their due or even side lined and harassed.
My second priority would be basic amenities like potable water and electricity. There can be no excuses for our people not having access to these. Together with that come primary health and primary education. This may sound like stating the obvious. But then, so often, we miss the wood for the trees.
Before Independence, there was a feeling of nationalism, perhaps because we had a perceived “enemy”, the British. Today our nationalistic fervour is limited to shouting “Chak De India” in cricket, especially if the opponent is Pakistan. We think that Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest Indian and want to give him the Bharat Ratna. A pity.
Somehow, and this is the really tough one, we need to re-inculcate in our people a sense of legitimate pride in our nation, and its premier institutions – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. We need to tell our young people that there is more to life than the “package” they will get after doing their B.Tech or MBA. Young and old must contribute to society and nation building. A boost should be given to the National Cadet Corps (NCC) and the National Service Scheme (NSS). Though I do not advocate violence I would even propose that young people have a two-year conscription in the Defence Services (as in Israel). Those who do their B.Tech or MBBS with Government funding, should in like manner be expected to devote two years to nation building, before being given their degrees. Thos who undertake such exercises should be given incentives in job opportunities or higher education. In fact from the Finance, Commerce or Defence Ministries, focus should shift to the Human Resources Development (HRD) Ministry. It is a big task, but it must be done. With over a billion people, our biggest resource is our own people. Would that we could make them that more resourceful.
On my part, and in my sphere of influence, I shall do my best for nation building and a corruption free society.
* The writer is the former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
April 2011
Monday 18 April 2011
WHAT’S SO “HAPPY” ABOUT EASTER?
Good Friday is a holiday, and holidays are associated with festivities, so it is not surprising that some of my well-meaning non-Christian friends wish me a “Happy Good Friday”! We Christians are ourselves to blame for a wrong choice of word. It should actually be called “Holy Friday” in English; just as in Hindi it is called Punya Shukravar.
Most people are aware that Good Friday (for want of a better name) is when the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross about 2000 years ago. Christians believe in his redemptive suffering and death, to bring salvation to mankind. Just as sin, suffering and death came through the failing of one man, Adam; so too grace, peace and everlasting life come through the total submission to God’s will of the one man Jesus; referred to as the new Adam.
What really gets my goat though is when fellow Christians wish each other a “Happy Easter”, in the same sugary tone that we wish a child “Happy Birthday”. Easter is the third day after Good Friday, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is the climax of Christian belief; that death is not the end, but the beginning of eternal life. The resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate proof that death is defeated, and sin has been atoned for.
As with Good Friday, so too with Easter, I am unable to explain where this word originated from, or what is its etymological root. What I do know is that it is used to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection. This mystery of death and resurrection, with its implications for life, is so profound and complex that it cannot be expressed in a mundane greeting like “Happy Easter”.
This discomfort with a “Happy Easter” goes back 30 years. I was living in Jyotiniketan Ashram, Bareilly, and was directing a play depicting the death and resurrection of Jesus. I also played the lead role of Jesus. It was not difficult to enact the last supper, the washing of the feet of the disciples, the whipping, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of a heavy wooden cross around the open air ground, and even the crucifixion.
What I couldn’t do was the resurrection scene, though I went through the motions, to the thunderous applause of the thousands gathered there. I was at a loss. There are human emotions to depict pain, sorrow and even death. But there is nothing to express the mystery of the resurrection. So pardon me if I cannot reciprocate a sugary sweet “Happy Easter”. But I do hope and pray that every one of us may discover for ourselves the deeper meaning of life and death.
* The writer is the President of the Kanpur Catholic Association.
Most people are aware that Good Friday (for want of a better name) is when the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross about 2000 years ago. Christians believe in his redemptive suffering and death, to bring salvation to mankind. Just as sin, suffering and death came through the failing of one man, Adam; so too grace, peace and everlasting life come through the total submission to God’s will of the one man Jesus; referred to as the new Adam.
What really gets my goat though is when fellow Christians wish each other a “Happy Easter”, in the same sugary tone that we wish a child “Happy Birthday”. Easter is the third day after Good Friday, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is the climax of Christian belief; that death is not the end, but the beginning of eternal life. The resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate proof that death is defeated, and sin has been atoned for.
As with Good Friday, so too with Easter, I am unable to explain where this word originated from, or what is its etymological root. What I do know is that it is used to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection. This mystery of death and resurrection, with its implications for life, is so profound and complex that it cannot be expressed in a mundane greeting like “Happy Easter”.
This discomfort with a “Happy Easter” goes back 30 years. I was living in Jyotiniketan Ashram, Bareilly, and was directing a play depicting the death and resurrection of Jesus. I also played the lead role of Jesus. It was not difficult to enact the last supper, the washing of the feet of the disciples, the whipping, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of a heavy wooden cross around the open air ground, and even the crucifixion.
What I couldn’t do was the resurrection scene, though I went through the motions, to the thunderous applause of the thousands gathered there. I was at a loss. There are human emotions to depict pain, sorrow and even death. But there is nothing to express the mystery of the resurrection. So pardon me if I cannot reciprocate a sugary sweet “Happy Easter”. But I do hope and pray that every one of us may discover for ourselves the deeper meaning of life and death.
* The writer is the President of the Kanpur Catholic Association.
Sunday 10 April 2011
THE MUCK STARTS HERE
There is a popular TV programme named after the old adage “The Buck Stops Here”. It literally means, “Who is ultimately responsible?” It is usually asked in a pejorative sense, for somebody shirking responsibility, or for apportioning blame. Now that Anna Hazare has made his Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) a life and death issue, it would seem that the buck stops at the doorstep of the Central Govt. The Govt has since taken the plunge and accepted Anna’s main demands.
Anna has captured the collective mood of the nation, with people going ballistic in supporting his anti-corruption campaign, which was launched in New Delhi this 5th April. I myself, as convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan in Kanpur, gathered together about 40 diverse social, civic and religious groups for a day long silent fast and a 1000 strong rally in his support on the 5th. It spawned a chain reaction of spontaneous protests, signature campaigns and candle light marches.
After the candle light vigil at India Gate, New Delhi, demanding justice in the Jessica Lal murder case, and the mammoth gathering at the Gateway of India, Mumbai, post 26/11, candles seem to be the flavour of the season. (Prices of candles may go up)! Before these, candles were usually associated with church services or childrens’ birthdays. How things change! I wonder if some “custodians of Indian culture” think that candles are again some kind of a foreign conspiracy to destabilise our ancient culture? But I am digressing.
Anna has raised two issues – the JLB and corruption. I am not sure how many have studied the JLB. I have. At this stage, when its merits and demerits are being debated and a joint committee has been formed, I would not like to go into its specifics. However, since it has become a national issue, I will make some brief comments.
The impression sought to be created is that by enacting the JLB, corruption will be eradicated! How naïve! We have laws against dowry, untouchability, domestic violence, child labour, child marriage etc. Have these social evils been eradicated by mere legislation? We know the answer. In a democracy like India, we have a system of checks and balances in the three wings of Govt – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. We also have watchdogs like the CEC, CIC, CVC, CAG, CBI, ED etc, which have varying degrees of autonomy. If despite all these provisions, there is still a high level of corruption, is the system to blame, or is it the operators of the system?
Most of the laws of our country, or rules and regulations, are the legacy of the British. Though I was born in independent India, old timers tell me that despite the many failings and excesses of the British, they had a respect for the rule of law, which they had inculcated in their subjects. Once the British left, the fear of the law left with them! We Indians mastered the art of breaking, manipulating or circumventing the law. We are jugarias. I have often said, “Jab niyat saaf nahin hai, tho niyam kya kare?” (If there is no sense of morality, what use is legality?)
I give two instances to buttress my argument. Before T.N. Sheshan became the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the country paid scant regard to that office. Sheshan did not invent any new rules. He just went by the book, and instilled the fear of hell in those seeking election. His example has been followed by every CEC since.
Look at the Supreme Court. When Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in 1975 and curtailed human rights, 4 of the 5 Supreme Court judges hearing the case acquiesced before her. Only Justice H.R. Khanna (who later stood for President and lost) gave a bold and dissenting judgement. We have had illustrious Chief Justices of India (CJI) like P.N. Bhagwati and J.S. Verma, who even entertained a postcard as a writ petition. After a shadowy era under CJI Balakrishnan, we now have another intelligent and upright CJI in S.H. Kapadia. We must credit the Govt for appointing, and subsequently respecting his autonomy.
So what lesson do we learn? The people who operate the system are far more important than the system itself. When conducting leadership training programmes I have always stressed that a good driver in an old car, is better than a bad driver in a fancy new one. It is the driver who is in control, and not the car.
I see three levels of corruption in the system. The fist level is the FORCED one, when one is compelled to pay money for a basic right, like getting a ration card or caste certificate. The second is the NUISANCE level when one is obliged to pay something to a Govt official because, in the still prevalent ‘inspector raj”, the official’s nuisance value is so high, that the cost to benefit ratio dictates that it is better to grease the palm than struggle indefinitely. The third level is the MALICIOUS level, where one bribes officials to get undue favours and advantage; to file false cases and harass one’s opponents; or to cover up criminal, anti-social or anti-national acts. This is the corruption angle of the establishment.
What of “we the people”? Are we also not dishonest in various ways, thereby encouraging corruption? Fudging birth certificates to lower one’s age and gain an unfair advantage in nursery class is a common practice. Are we then not laying the foundation of dishonesty in our childrens’ lives? How many have not cheated in exams? Have we been honest in our private, public and professional lives? Are we also not taxchors, kamchors and bijlichors? It is so easy to point fingers at politicians and bureaucrats. Should we not begin with ourselves? Only then will we have the moral right to point fingers at others, for “the muck starts here”, with ourselves.
Some years ago, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of the Mahatma, had begun a moral rearmament movement. Parents, educationists, religious and social leaders need to abjure all forms of hypocrisy and double standards, to be paragons of virtue for the next generation. If not, Anna Hazare’s fast, and the proposed JLB, would be an exercise in futility. The writing is on the wall – The buck stops there, but the muck starts here.
* The writer is a Gandhian activist and the Convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan, Kanpur
9th April 2011
Anna has captured the collective mood of the nation, with people going ballistic in supporting his anti-corruption campaign, which was launched in New Delhi this 5th April. I myself, as convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan in Kanpur, gathered together about 40 diverse social, civic and religious groups for a day long silent fast and a 1000 strong rally in his support on the 5th. It spawned a chain reaction of spontaneous protests, signature campaigns and candle light marches.
After the candle light vigil at India Gate, New Delhi, demanding justice in the Jessica Lal murder case, and the mammoth gathering at the Gateway of India, Mumbai, post 26/11, candles seem to be the flavour of the season. (Prices of candles may go up)! Before these, candles were usually associated with church services or childrens’ birthdays. How things change! I wonder if some “custodians of Indian culture” think that candles are again some kind of a foreign conspiracy to destabilise our ancient culture? But I am digressing.
Anna has raised two issues – the JLB and corruption. I am not sure how many have studied the JLB. I have. At this stage, when its merits and demerits are being debated and a joint committee has been formed, I would not like to go into its specifics. However, since it has become a national issue, I will make some brief comments.
The impression sought to be created is that by enacting the JLB, corruption will be eradicated! How naïve! We have laws against dowry, untouchability, domestic violence, child labour, child marriage etc. Have these social evils been eradicated by mere legislation? We know the answer. In a democracy like India, we have a system of checks and balances in the three wings of Govt – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. We also have watchdogs like the CEC, CIC, CVC, CAG, CBI, ED etc, which have varying degrees of autonomy. If despite all these provisions, there is still a high level of corruption, is the system to blame, or is it the operators of the system?
Most of the laws of our country, or rules and regulations, are the legacy of the British. Though I was born in independent India, old timers tell me that despite the many failings and excesses of the British, they had a respect for the rule of law, which they had inculcated in their subjects. Once the British left, the fear of the law left with them! We Indians mastered the art of breaking, manipulating or circumventing the law. We are jugarias. I have often said, “Jab niyat saaf nahin hai, tho niyam kya kare?” (If there is no sense of morality, what use is legality?)
I give two instances to buttress my argument. Before T.N. Sheshan became the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the country paid scant regard to that office. Sheshan did not invent any new rules. He just went by the book, and instilled the fear of hell in those seeking election. His example has been followed by every CEC since.
Look at the Supreme Court. When Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in 1975 and curtailed human rights, 4 of the 5 Supreme Court judges hearing the case acquiesced before her. Only Justice H.R. Khanna (who later stood for President and lost) gave a bold and dissenting judgement. We have had illustrious Chief Justices of India (CJI) like P.N. Bhagwati and J.S. Verma, who even entertained a postcard as a writ petition. After a shadowy era under CJI Balakrishnan, we now have another intelligent and upright CJI in S.H. Kapadia. We must credit the Govt for appointing, and subsequently respecting his autonomy.
So what lesson do we learn? The people who operate the system are far more important than the system itself. When conducting leadership training programmes I have always stressed that a good driver in an old car, is better than a bad driver in a fancy new one. It is the driver who is in control, and not the car.
I see three levels of corruption in the system. The fist level is the FORCED one, when one is compelled to pay money for a basic right, like getting a ration card or caste certificate. The second is the NUISANCE level when one is obliged to pay something to a Govt official because, in the still prevalent ‘inspector raj”, the official’s nuisance value is so high, that the cost to benefit ratio dictates that it is better to grease the palm than struggle indefinitely. The third level is the MALICIOUS level, where one bribes officials to get undue favours and advantage; to file false cases and harass one’s opponents; or to cover up criminal, anti-social or anti-national acts. This is the corruption angle of the establishment.
What of “we the people”? Are we also not dishonest in various ways, thereby encouraging corruption? Fudging birth certificates to lower one’s age and gain an unfair advantage in nursery class is a common practice. Are we then not laying the foundation of dishonesty in our childrens’ lives? How many have not cheated in exams? Have we been honest in our private, public and professional lives? Are we also not taxchors, kamchors and bijlichors? It is so easy to point fingers at politicians and bureaucrats. Should we not begin with ourselves? Only then will we have the moral right to point fingers at others, for “the muck starts here”, with ourselves.
Some years ago, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of the Mahatma, had begun a moral rearmament movement. Parents, educationists, religious and social leaders need to abjure all forms of hypocrisy and double standards, to be paragons of virtue for the next generation. If not, Anna Hazare’s fast, and the proposed JLB, would be an exercise in futility. The writing is on the wall – The buck stops there, but the muck starts here.
* The writer is a Gandhian activist and the Convenor of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan, Kanpur
9th April 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)