Press the panic button. 2012 is not far away. The world is going to end on the 21st of December 2012. So says the Mayan calendar of South America. You may have heard of the ancient Inca and Mayan civilizations. But Hollywood’s latest blockbuster “2012” has made the Mayan calendar a household word. What should we do? Is the world indeed coming to an end? Maya in Hindi means illusion. Is the Mayan prediction an illusion, delusion or is it just Hollywood again creating confusion?
What do different people think about the end of the world and time? The three monotheist religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in the end of the world and a final judgement. The Muslims call it Qayamat Ka Din. According to the Bible there will be a final judgement, with the Second Coming of Jesus, and the beginning of a new creation, a new heaven and a new earth (cf Rev 21: 1-2). How and when will that happen? Hinduism does not seem to have a clear-cut definition of a beginning and an end. It leans towards a cyclic form, rather than a linear one. It believes in four eons (yugs) – Satyayug, Trethayug, Dwaparyug and the present Kaliyug. Each yug extends for millions of years. When the present Kaliyug ends we will go back to the Satyayug, and the cycle will begin all over again. How can this be verified?
We also have seers like Nostradamus and Malachy who have prophesied about future events from a very Euro-centric, and often Pope-centric perspective. What do they have to say about “The End”?
Michel de Nostradame (1503-1566), whose name was Latinized to Nostradamus, had made 942 predictions published in his book “Leo Propheties” published in 1555. Like most prophecies, his too are so vague that “post facto” one may try to fit them in anyhow. He does however refer to 3 antichrists, of whom two have already been identified as Napoleon and Hitler. The third antichrist is yet to come. Will his appearance signal the end of the world?
The prophecies of St. Malachy, the 12 Century bishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland are somewhat more specific. They are 112 Papal prophecies. By that count the present Pope Benedict XVI is the 111th one. So there is just one more to go! Too close for comfort? This is what the final prophecy says:
“During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the seven-hilled city will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.” So Malachy leads us close to judgement day and the end. The end of what - the Church, Christianity, the papacy, the earth, the entire cosmos? Malachy was in no way competent enough to address, let alone answer, such questions.
What does science or astrophysics say? The greatest living astrophysicist, after Albert Einstein, is believed to be Stephen Hawking. I have studied in depth his best seller, “A Brief History of Time”. He quotes the philosopher Immanuel Kant and St. Augustine, who say that time did not exist before creation. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was actually expanding. From this evolved the Big Bang theory that time and space began about 20 billion years ago. Scientific evidence points to a slowing down of that expansion till it comes to a point where the force of gravity will exceed the diminishing velocity of expansion. This will result in the Big Crunch, the reverse of the Big Bang. And that could take another 10 to 20 billion years! So where do the Mayans, Nostradamus or Malachy fit into those billions of years? Both these seers were Eurocentric. But the entire cosmos has a diameter of 8 billion light years. There are about a hundred billion galaxies, each with a hundred billion stars. Earth is just one of this vast cosmos. And Europe is a small continent on the earth. So Nostradamus or Malachy would be totally out of depth on any cosmic predictions.
What then of the Biblical understanding of the end? Several Christian preachers, especially the evangelicals, quote calamities like earthquakes, floods, famine and warfare from the last book of the Bible – Revelation. They see similarities and arrive at the hasty conclusion that the world is hastening to its end. Biblical scholars, exegetes, differ greatly from the evangelicals on this point.
Exegetes say that it is even unlikely that John the Evangelist wrote the Book of Revelation. It has two focuses – secrets of the cosmos and secrets of the future. It has two approaches – one terrestrial and the other celestial. In the historical perspective it was written at the time of persecution of the Christians, especially during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD). It is a compilation from different sources, and lacks a single literary production, or progress of thought. It is more symbolic than factual. Hence it would be dangerous to make geographical or chronological predictions based on the often confusing symbols mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
Many Christians refer to the Apocalypse. This comes from the Greek word apokalypsis, which literally means lifting of the veil or revealing. Hence the word Revelation, used for the last book of the Bible. In no way does the word apocalypse means the eclipse or the end of the world. No doubt Revelation talks of a new heaven and a new earth. Is this an on going spiritual renewal or a finite moment in time? Definitive conclusions are beyond human perception.
Even the great St. Paul erred when he advised people not to marry, as the “time was limited” and “this world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor7:29,31). Jesus, the Son of Man, who was limited by time and space, was humble enough to say, “Sky and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father alone” (Mat 24:35-36). Perhaps it was for this reason that St. Paul later admitted that “Now we see only reflections in a mirror, mere riddles, but then we shall be seeing face to face. Now I can know only imperfectly, but then I shall know just as fully as I am myself known (1Cor 13:12).
We could conclude with the wisdom of Cardinal Newman, “The distant scene I do not wish to see. One step at a time is enough for me.” Be it the Book of Revelation, or anything else, we should be more concerned with the words of Jesus that will not pass away, rather than the passing away of anything else. Let us live the gospel of love and service, and leave the cosmic future to the Father, who alone knows. Till then sit back and enjoy watching Hollywood’s fictional “2012”, with our without the Mayan Calendar. Unveil error, and reveal the truth.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
“WHEN THE SAINTS GO MARCHING IN”
“Oh when the saints go marching in …
Good Lord I want to be in that number.”
An old song, an even older human aspiration; the desire to get to heaven, to attain nirvana, moksha, jannat, eternal life and bliss. To be counted among the saints.
There are also countless jokes about St. Peter and the Pearly Gates, and who are the surprise entries in heaven and hell respectively. On the other hand there are some smug souls who sing the ditty:
“We are the few the chosen few,
The rest of you be dammed.
There’s place enough in hell for you,
We don’t want heaven crammed”!
Each unto its own. The Catholic Church also has its own idea of sainthood, both canonised and otherwise. I am writing this piece on All Saint’s Day, after having reflected on the day’s readings. They themselves are an indication of the Church’s thinking. The first reading was from the book of Revelation, showing a vast multitude kneeling and adoring God (Rev 7:12). They had been justly rewarded. The second reading from St John’s first letter says that we are children of God, but admits that “what we shall be in the future has not yet been revealed” (1Jn 3:2). The Gospel passage was from the Sermon on the Mount, the eight beatitudes (Mat 5:3-10). What messages do these readings convey?
Bible thumpers who specialise in frightening people about Judgement Day and the end of the world, love quoting from the Book of Revelation. It helps instil the fear of the devil in gullible believers, and stampedes them into the congregational fold. It also helps to loosen their purse strings. Frankly, I am not enamoured of this particular book of the Bible. On the Feast of All Saints we are told, based on revelation, that heaven is akin to kneeling in perpetual adoration before an almighty God! I find this description of heaven abhorrent. Tell this to today’s youth and they will turn around and say to you, “Hey Pop, heaven sounds very boring. Maybe hell would have a lot more excitement.” Does the Church have an answer to that query?
St. John’s observation that the future has not yet been revealed would be a more realistic approach. St. Paul also admits that for now “we only see reflections in a mirror, mere riddles, but then we shall be seeing face to face“ (1 Cor 13:12). Coming to the beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, there are many, both old and young, who would find this teaching too hard to swallow. The cost of “sainthood” would not seem to be worth it, more so since the reward or result itself was uncertain or boring! You why should one aspire for sainthood? The answer is simple – Don’t!
True saints like Sts Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Avila never aspired to be “saints”. They didn’t cherish the idea of having their statues placed in alcoves in Churches. Their aspiration was merely the imitation of Christ, following in his footsteps. That was Christian discipleship
This makes much more sense than “sainthood”. This brings us back to Jesus’ teachings, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount. It is infact the turning point in biblical spirituality. The ritual is replaced by the spiritual. Old timers were so comfortable with ritualistic religion that they felt threatened by the paradigm shift espoused by Jesus. It was so much easier to give a donation to the temple coffers, or go through the motions of prescribed forms of dress, food and behaviour. Once one was accustomed to such rituals, one was also inured to them. The goal was achieved.
Jesus’ idea of spirituality was a journey, not an end in itself. It was a continuous process, and a constant challenge. He was giving a new commandment, to walk the extra mile (Mat 5: 42). He said that, “If you love those who love, you, what reward will you get? Do not the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not the gentiles do as much? You must therefore set no bounds to your love, just as your heavenly Father sets none to his” (Mat 5:46-48).
Right through the Sermon on the Mount Jesus repeatedly uses two phrases “You have heard how it was said ...”, followed by “But I say this to you …” He is telling us that what we had heard in the past was just not enough. There was now a new way.
The Pharisees, who were comfortable with their rituals, obviously resented this new teaching. That is why Jesus warns his disciples, “If your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the kingdom of Heaven “ (Mat 5:20). Jesus seems to emphasise living a good life, more than promising a just reward. “It is not anyone who says to me Lord Lord who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mat 7: 21).
Jesus is emphatic in his perception of those who will be rewarded with “sainthood”, the surety of a heavenly reward - those who served him in the image of the poor and needy. “In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me” (Mat 25:40). This emphasis on good deeds is reiterated in the letter of St. James, who says, “faith without good deeds is dead “ (Jas 2:26).
The Feast of All Saints is over. By the time you read this in print we will be at the end of the liturgical year, when the Sunday readings will wax eloquent on the last things, the Last Judgement and more excerpts from the Book of Revelation. The Church’s liturgy goes in annual cycles. No quarrels about that. But life is either a progression or a regression. We either move forward or backwards. We cannot go around in circles.
So let us not aspire to be a saint, a statue with acrylic paint. Rather let us be simple disciples of Jesus, the ideal human being. As we follow in his steps we will come to the gradual realisation that he is more than human. Let our march begin. We will be in that number.
Good Lord I want to be in that number.”
An old song, an even older human aspiration; the desire to get to heaven, to attain nirvana, moksha, jannat, eternal life and bliss. To be counted among the saints.
There are also countless jokes about St. Peter and the Pearly Gates, and who are the surprise entries in heaven and hell respectively. On the other hand there are some smug souls who sing the ditty:
“We are the few the chosen few,
The rest of you be dammed.
There’s place enough in hell for you,
We don’t want heaven crammed”!
Each unto its own. The Catholic Church also has its own idea of sainthood, both canonised and otherwise. I am writing this piece on All Saint’s Day, after having reflected on the day’s readings. They themselves are an indication of the Church’s thinking. The first reading was from the book of Revelation, showing a vast multitude kneeling and adoring God (Rev 7:12). They had been justly rewarded. The second reading from St John’s first letter says that we are children of God, but admits that “what we shall be in the future has not yet been revealed” (1Jn 3:2). The Gospel passage was from the Sermon on the Mount, the eight beatitudes (Mat 5:3-10). What messages do these readings convey?
Bible thumpers who specialise in frightening people about Judgement Day and the end of the world, love quoting from the Book of Revelation. It helps instil the fear of the devil in gullible believers, and stampedes them into the congregational fold. It also helps to loosen their purse strings. Frankly, I am not enamoured of this particular book of the Bible. On the Feast of All Saints we are told, based on revelation, that heaven is akin to kneeling in perpetual adoration before an almighty God! I find this description of heaven abhorrent. Tell this to today’s youth and they will turn around and say to you, “Hey Pop, heaven sounds very boring. Maybe hell would have a lot more excitement.” Does the Church have an answer to that query?
St. John’s observation that the future has not yet been revealed would be a more realistic approach. St. Paul also admits that for now “we only see reflections in a mirror, mere riddles, but then we shall be seeing face to face“ (1 Cor 13:12). Coming to the beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, there are many, both old and young, who would find this teaching too hard to swallow. The cost of “sainthood” would not seem to be worth it, more so since the reward or result itself was uncertain or boring! You why should one aspire for sainthood? The answer is simple – Don’t!
True saints like Sts Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Avila never aspired to be “saints”. They didn’t cherish the idea of having their statues placed in alcoves in Churches. Their aspiration was merely the imitation of Christ, following in his footsteps. That was Christian discipleship
This makes much more sense than “sainthood”. This brings us back to Jesus’ teachings, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount. It is infact the turning point in biblical spirituality. The ritual is replaced by the spiritual. Old timers were so comfortable with ritualistic religion that they felt threatened by the paradigm shift espoused by Jesus. It was so much easier to give a donation to the temple coffers, or go through the motions of prescribed forms of dress, food and behaviour. Once one was accustomed to such rituals, one was also inured to them. The goal was achieved.
Jesus’ idea of spirituality was a journey, not an end in itself. It was a continuous process, and a constant challenge. He was giving a new commandment, to walk the extra mile (Mat 5: 42). He said that, “If you love those who love, you, what reward will you get? Do not the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not the gentiles do as much? You must therefore set no bounds to your love, just as your heavenly Father sets none to his” (Mat 5:46-48).
Right through the Sermon on the Mount Jesus repeatedly uses two phrases “You have heard how it was said ...”, followed by “But I say this to you …” He is telling us that what we had heard in the past was just not enough. There was now a new way.
The Pharisees, who were comfortable with their rituals, obviously resented this new teaching. That is why Jesus warns his disciples, “If your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the kingdom of Heaven “ (Mat 5:20). Jesus seems to emphasise living a good life, more than promising a just reward. “It is not anyone who says to me Lord Lord who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mat 7: 21).
Jesus is emphatic in his perception of those who will be rewarded with “sainthood”, the surety of a heavenly reward - those who served him in the image of the poor and needy. “In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me” (Mat 25:40). This emphasis on good deeds is reiterated in the letter of St. James, who says, “faith without good deeds is dead “ (Jas 2:26).
The Feast of All Saints is over. By the time you read this in print we will be at the end of the liturgical year, when the Sunday readings will wax eloquent on the last things, the Last Judgement and more excerpts from the Book of Revelation. The Church’s liturgy goes in annual cycles. No quarrels about that. But life is either a progression or a regression. We either move forward or backwards. We cannot go around in circles.
So let us not aspire to be a saint, a statue with acrylic paint. Rather let us be simple disciples of Jesus, the ideal human being. As we follow in his steps we will come to the gradual realisation that he is more than human. Let our march begin. We will be in that number.
A BISHOP’S CONFESSION
MEERUT: (2nd October): There are some people that you can’t keep down. They are different. So expect the unexpected. Like a bishop making a public confession about his own “sinfulness” before a mammoth congregation! The occasion – his sacerdotal golden jubilee. The man – Bp Patrick Nair, emeritus bishop of Meerut diocese in western U.P.
The organisers of his jubilee had asked him whom he would like to give the homily? Pat came Patrick’s reply, that he would do it himself; because if anybody else did it, it would be an eulogy, and he didn’t want anybody to tell lies. A dozen other bishops, a hundred priests, several hundred sisters, and thousands of villagers from the remote mission stations had come to praise and thank the Lord for Bishop Patrick Nair.
He said that the day he had been ordained a priest, 50 years ago, was the happiest day of his life; and the day he was made a bishop in 1974 was the saddest. The first priest that he looked up to was an Italian Capuchin, Albert, who, despite having cancer, kept serving to the end. He literally died “in harness” while driving his moped, when he just collapsed with exhaustion.
In his homily Bp Patrick dwelt on how he suffered from the sin of scrupulosity, even thinking that it was a sin to sleep or eat, as they were obstacles to his mission. It led him to depression and to contemplate suicide. He would have done so had it not been a sin. It was another priest friend who guided him out of the depths. He advised his fellow priests to always have a priest friend to whom they could turn for guidance and solace in an hour of crisis. It happens to everybody, so it is better to be prepared. Bp Patrick also expressed concern for the growing number of priests dying in road accidents. Was it a reflection of an irresponsible and reckless attitude to life, he queried? He also shared about how he became lonely at the top. Priests would visit him only to seek sanction for funds! He turned this on its head by going to visit them instead.
The most frightening day of his life was when the Papal Pronuncio told him that he had been elevated to the episcopacy. In vain did he express his unworthiness. But the Pronuncio would have none of it, telling him that he was shirking his responsibility, and going against God’s will. That did young Patrick in. He was now at peace with the humble submission to God’s will.
Spiritual crises were followed by physical ones. A keen sportsperson, Bp Patrick lost the vision of one eye on the basketball court. A voracious reader, he later began losing his vision in the other eye too, causing him great distress. He struggled to read, using a magnifying glass. The doctors didn’t give him much hope. Mother Teresa’s blood healed him. When she had an operation for a pacemaker, cotton swabs with her blood were discarded by the nurses. Some devout sisters collected those swabs, and gave one to Bp Patrick. He applied it to his eye, and viola, his vision was restored. The Lord works mightily for the humble of heart.
Besides sports, Bp Patrick is an accomplished singer and musician. Though he enjoys driving, he is even more passionate about cycling. He would tuck up his cassock and cycle all over town.
In his felicitation address, his equally humble successor, Bp Francis Kalist, said that Bp Patrick was known for his straight talk. The word “diplomacy” was not in his dictionary. He had a special love for the poor. Meerut diocese has just 6 English medium schools as against 46 Hindi medium ones. He encouraged local vocations to the priesthood and religious life, thereby building a vibrant local church. Bp Francis said that his predecessor had a deep prayer life and unflinching loyalty to the teachings of the Church. Above all he was a loving father.
Bp Fredrick D’souza of Jhansi, who was with him from his seminary days, said that Bp Patrick was so crazy about sports that even during CBCI meetings he would have his transistor radio on, and would update the other bishops on the cricket score.
Indeed Bp Patrick Nair has scored well on all fronts. He is now 78 not out. His “sin” was his salvation, and the salvation of thousands of others, whose lives he touched in the game of life.
The organisers of his jubilee had asked him whom he would like to give the homily? Pat came Patrick’s reply, that he would do it himself; because if anybody else did it, it would be an eulogy, and he didn’t want anybody to tell lies. A dozen other bishops, a hundred priests, several hundred sisters, and thousands of villagers from the remote mission stations had come to praise and thank the Lord for Bishop Patrick Nair.
He said that the day he had been ordained a priest, 50 years ago, was the happiest day of his life; and the day he was made a bishop in 1974 was the saddest. The first priest that he looked up to was an Italian Capuchin, Albert, who, despite having cancer, kept serving to the end. He literally died “in harness” while driving his moped, when he just collapsed with exhaustion.
In his homily Bp Patrick dwelt on how he suffered from the sin of scrupulosity, even thinking that it was a sin to sleep or eat, as they were obstacles to his mission. It led him to depression and to contemplate suicide. He would have done so had it not been a sin. It was another priest friend who guided him out of the depths. He advised his fellow priests to always have a priest friend to whom they could turn for guidance and solace in an hour of crisis. It happens to everybody, so it is better to be prepared. Bp Patrick also expressed concern for the growing number of priests dying in road accidents. Was it a reflection of an irresponsible and reckless attitude to life, he queried? He also shared about how he became lonely at the top. Priests would visit him only to seek sanction for funds! He turned this on its head by going to visit them instead.
The most frightening day of his life was when the Papal Pronuncio told him that he had been elevated to the episcopacy. In vain did he express his unworthiness. But the Pronuncio would have none of it, telling him that he was shirking his responsibility, and going against God’s will. That did young Patrick in. He was now at peace with the humble submission to God’s will.
Spiritual crises were followed by physical ones. A keen sportsperson, Bp Patrick lost the vision of one eye on the basketball court. A voracious reader, he later began losing his vision in the other eye too, causing him great distress. He struggled to read, using a magnifying glass. The doctors didn’t give him much hope. Mother Teresa’s blood healed him. When she had an operation for a pacemaker, cotton swabs with her blood were discarded by the nurses. Some devout sisters collected those swabs, and gave one to Bp Patrick. He applied it to his eye, and viola, his vision was restored. The Lord works mightily for the humble of heart.
Besides sports, Bp Patrick is an accomplished singer and musician. Though he enjoys driving, he is even more passionate about cycling. He would tuck up his cassock and cycle all over town.
In his felicitation address, his equally humble successor, Bp Francis Kalist, said that Bp Patrick was known for his straight talk. The word “diplomacy” was not in his dictionary. He had a special love for the poor. Meerut diocese has just 6 English medium schools as against 46 Hindi medium ones. He encouraged local vocations to the priesthood and religious life, thereby building a vibrant local church. Bp Francis said that his predecessor had a deep prayer life and unflinching loyalty to the teachings of the Church. Above all he was a loving father.
Bp Fredrick D’souza of Jhansi, who was with him from his seminary days, said that Bp Patrick was so crazy about sports that even during CBCI meetings he would have his transistor radio on, and would update the other bishops on the cricket score.
Indeed Bp Patrick Nair has scored well on all fronts. He is now 78 not out. His “sin” was his salvation, and the salvation of thousands of others, whose lives he touched in the game of life.
Monday, 21 September 2009
DE-CODING RELIGION
“The Da Vinci Code” is back in the news because its author, Dan Brown, has come out with another bestseller, “The Lost Symbol”. This time he attempts to de-code the secrets of the Freemasons. His earlier work was a cunning mix of fact and fiction, in his botched attempt to de-mythologize Christianity.
A Code can have two purposes. One is to encrypt the actual text, so as to make it unintelligible or inaccessible to the commoner. The other is to classify data/ text in an intelligible or systematic manner, to make it user friendly. So a Code actually has diametrically opposing intents! With what intent does religion use a Code - to encrypt or enlighten?
An article “Dress Code in Churches” carried by SAR News and published in various journals occasioned this piece. Its author, Predhuman Joseph Dhar, is a good friend. He is a Kashmiri Pundit who became a Catholic due to the ministry of Rev Jim Borst MHM. Dhar has several degrees and an amazing knowledge of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. But, like Dan Brown, he has mixed up fact and fiction in the article under reference.
He advocates a “dress code” for women in church. (Why are women always targeted?) To bolster his contention he uses Canon Law. He quotes canon 855 to say, “Women whose heads are not covered and who are improperly dressed are to be excluded from the Sacrament”. He then quotes Canon 1262(2) to read, “If they (women) should dare to enter the church immodestly dressed, let them be judiciously put out and prevented from assisting of any function whatsoever”. These “quotes” got my hackles up; they didn’t ring true, so I checked out “The Code of Canon Law” promulgated in 1983. As I had suspected, Dhar, like Brown, had been misquoting. Canon 855 refers to the giving of Christian names, and Canon 1262 refers to church donations. It does not even have a sub-clause 2. So why do people deliberately misquote? It suits Dan Brown because his books become bestsellers, while truth is usually quite boring! Why did my good friend Dhar do it? Perhaps to palm off his personal opinion (in this case a male chauvinistic one), by “legitimising” it with liberal dollops of “official sounding” quotes.
Let us move beyond Brown and Dhar to another renowned author, Steven D Levitt. His bestseller “Freakonomics” is subtitled “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”. Interesting. His book infact is more about ethics than economics; and how information/ knowledge is subject to various interpretations/ manipulations. He says that, “as the world has grown more specialised, countless experts have made themselves indispensable. Doctors, lawyers … financial planners… they all enjoy a gigantic informational advantage” (pg 7, emphasis mine).
What is this gigantic informational advantage? In simple terms it means, “I know everything about this. You know nothing in this field, hence you are totally dependant on me, and must live in awe of my prowess”. The dependant usually pays a heavy price to the “expert” because of this informational disadvantage.
An empathetic expert can help the disadvantaged, but an unethical or prejudiced one can exploit them. The expert seeks to retain its superiority, which would be diluted if it imparted knowledge or information. This is its coign of vantage. That is what happened at Kargil, where the Pakistani intruders controlled the vantage points above, and slaughtered the Indian soldiers going up the slopes, like swatting flies on a wall.
Information that is exclusive or inaccessible is indeed a coign of vantage. Had Levitt been an Indian he would have added four more “experts” to his list of those with gigantic informational advantage. They are the Bureaucracy, the Higher Judiciary, the Defence Establishment and the Catholic Hierarchy. Disparate elements with a common cause – keep them ignorant and powerless.
The Right to Information Act (RTI) has gone a long way in empowering the commoner, the aam admi. The price for obtaining priceless information is just Rs 10/-. The cookie has begun to crumble. The red tape is being cut. Bureaucratic babudom is now answerable to the aam admi. The Judiciary has succumbed to sustained social and media pressure, and Supreme Court/ High Court Judges have agreed to declare their assets. The Defence Establishment still uses the cloak of secrecy, under the guise of national security. What of the Catholic Hierarchy?
It is the quintessential coign of vantage. No information is forthcoming. Letters and complaints, especially on financial and sexual irregularities, are met with a wall of stoic silence. Why is the hierarchy afraid to come out of the water? Is it ashamed of its own nakedness? If there is nothing to hide, then there should be nothing to fear.
The coign of vantage is not limited to money or sex. Its most dangerous avatar is in its area of core competence – faith and morals. Its teaching ends with catechism classes for First Communion and Confirmation, when impressionable and imitative youngsters blindly swallow what they are taught. There is no attempt at ongoing adult catechesis. How many lay Indian Catholics have been taught about the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or papal encyclicals, including the latest one, “Caritas in Veritate”?
The hierarchy has failed miserably in its primary teaching office, of sharing the faith. It is comfortably ensconced with novenas, pilgrimages and pious devotions, which are non-controversial, undemanding and accentuate the coign of vantage.
As parents, my wife and myself are very open with our young adult children. We don’t fight shy of discussing sensitive or controversial issues. Why? Because we are secure in ourselves. Those who are insecure are afraid. That is the tragedy of the Indian hierarchy; it is terribly insecure. Hence it bolsters itself with pious devotions on the one hand, and burgeoning institutions on the other. Remove these bulwarks, and the hierarchy will collapse like a house of cards.
For centuries Catholics were told not to read the Bible. It was fraught with danger for the uninitiated! The advent of the printing press, the Reformation in Europe, the French Revolution, industrialisation and resultant economic independence, the exposure to other religions, natural and behavioural sciences, and now the IT revolution; have threatened the hierarchical citadel of knowledge and power. They feel even more insecure. A courageous and humble man like Pope John XXIII, however, perceived it as an opportunity rather than a threat. With the convening of the Second Vatican Council he ushered in a new Pentecost.
Unfortunately, most of the Indian hierarchy seem to lack the vision and humility of good Pope John XXIII. Like ostriches, they have preferred to bury their heads in the sands of time. They have clammed up in pre-Vatican II fortified positions. They may be secure inside their citadels/ ghettos, but they are terribly out of sync with the outside world. A lost opportunity.
We need a new Pentecost in the Catholic Church in India, to de-code religion, to rediscover Jesus, to demystify the truth in love and service; and to build a vibrant, responsible, adult church with Caritas in Veritate.
A Code can have two purposes. One is to encrypt the actual text, so as to make it unintelligible or inaccessible to the commoner. The other is to classify data/ text in an intelligible or systematic manner, to make it user friendly. So a Code actually has diametrically opposing intents! With what intent does religion use a Code - to encrypt or enlighten?
An article “Dress Code in Churches” carried by SAR News and published in various journals occasioned this piece. Its author, Predhuman Joseph Dhar, is a good friend. He is a Kashmiri Pundit who became a Catholic due to the ministry of Rev Jim Borst MHM. Dhar has several degrees and an amazing knowledge of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. But, like Dan Brown, he has mixed up fact and fiction in the article under reference.
He advocates a “dress code” for women in church. (Why are women always targeted?) To bolster his contention he uses Canon Law. He quotes canon 855 to say, “Women whose heads are not covered and who are improperly dressed are to be excluded from the Sacrament”. He then quotes Canon 1262(2) to read, “If they (women) should dare to enter the church immodestly dressed, let them be judiciously put out and prevented from assisting of any function whatsoever”. These “quotes” got my hackles up; they didn’t ring true, so I checked out “The Code of Canon Law” promulgated in 1983. As I had suspected, Dhar, like Brown, had been misquoting. Canon 855 refers to the giving of Christian names, and Canon 1262 refers to church donations. It does not even have a sub-clause 2. So why do people deliberately misquote? It suits Dan Brown because his books become bestsellers, while truth is usually quite boring! Why did my good friend Dhar do it? Perhaps to palm off his personal opinion (in this case a male chauvinistic one), by “legitimising” it with liberal dollops of “official sounding” quotes.
Let us move beyond Brown and Dhar to another renowned author, Steven D Levitt. His bestseller “Freakonomics” is subtitled “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”. Interesting. His book infact is more about ethics than economics; and how information/ knowledge is subject to various interpretations/ manipulations. He says that, “as the world has grown more specialised, countless experts have made themselves indispensable. Doctors, lawyers … financial planners… they all enjoy a gigantic informational advantage” (pg 7, emphasis mine).
What is this gigantic informational advantage? In simple terms it means, “I know everything about this. You know nothing in this field, hence you are totally dependant on me, and must live in awe of my prowess”. The dependant usually pays a heavy price to the “expert” because of this informational disadvantage.
An empathetic expert can help the disadvantaged, but an unethical or prejudiced one can exploit them. The expert seeks to retain its superiority, which would be diluted if it imparted knowledge or information. This is its coign of vantage. That is what happened at Kargil, where the Pakistani intruders controlled the vantage points above, and slaughtered the Indian soldiers going up the slopes, like swatting flies on a wall.
Information that is exclusive or inaccessible is indeed a coign of vantage. Had Levitt been an Indian he would have added four more “experts” to his list of those with gigantic informational advantage. They are the Bureaucracy, the Higher Judiciary, the Defence Establishment and the Catholic Hierarchy. Disparate elements with a common cause – keep them ignorant and powerless.
The Right to Information Act (RTI) has gone a long way in empowering the commoner, the aam admi. The price for obtaining priceless information is just Rs 10/-. The cookie has begun to crumble. The red tape is being cut. Bureaucratic babudom is now answerable to the aam admi. The Judiciary has succumbed to sustained social and media pressure, and Supreme Court/ High Court Judges have agreed to declare their assets. The Defence Establishment still uses the cloak of secrecy, under the guise of national security. What of the Catholic Hierarchy?
It is the quintessential coign of vantage. No information is forthcoming. Letters and complaints, especially on financial and sexual irregularities, are met with a wall of stoic silence. Why is the hierarchy afraid to come out of the water? Is it ashamed of its own nakedness? If there is nothing to hide, then there should be nothing to fear.
The coign of vantage is not limited to money or sex. Its most dangerous avatar is in its area of core competence – faith and morals. Its teaching ends with catechism classes for First Communion and Confirmation, when impressionable and imitative youngsters blindly swallow what they are taught. There is no attempt at ongoing adult catechesis. How many lay Indian Catholics have been taught about the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or papal encyclicals, including the latest one, “Caritas in Veritate”?
The hierarchy has failed miserably in its primary teaching office, of sharing the faith. It is comfortably ensconced with novenas, pilgrimages and pious devotions, which are non-controversial, undemanding and accentuate the coign of vantage.
As parents, my wife and myself are very open with our young adult children. We don’t fight shy of discussing sensitive or controversial issues. Why? Because we are secure in ourselves. Those who are insecure are afraid. That is the tragedy of the Indian hierarchy; it is terribly insecure. Hence it bolsters itself with pious devotions on the one hand, and burgeoning institutions on the other. Remove these bulwarks, and the hierarchy will collapse like a house of cards.
For centuries Catholics were told not to read the Bible. It was fraught with danger for the uninitiated! The advent of the printing press, the Reformation in Europe, the French Revolution, industrialisation and resultant economic independence, the exposure to other religions, natural and behavioural sciences, and now the IT revolution; have threatened the hierarchical citadel of knowledge and power. They feel even more insecure. A courageous and humble man like Pope John XXIII, however, perceived it as an opportunity rather than a threat. With the convening of the Second Vatican Council he ushered in a new Pentecost.
Unfortunately, most of the Indian hierarchy seem to lack the vision and humility of good Pope John XXIII. Like ostriches, they have preferred to bury their heads in the sands of time. They have clammed up in pre-Vatican II fortified positions. They may be secure inside their citadels/ ghettos, but they are terribly out of sync with the outside world. A lost opportunity.
We need a new Pentecost in the Catholic Church in India, to de-code religion, to rediscover Jesus, to demystify the truth in love and service; and to build a vibrant, responsible, adult church with Caritas in Veritate.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
BEWARE, ADULTERY IS A CRIME
For all you guys with extra libido, here’s a dampener. If you are having an affair with your neighbour’s wife, you could end up with 5 years in jail, even if it is a consensual sexual relationship. There is a rider though. If your neighbour has no objection to such a relationship with his wife, you can breathe easy. The cops can’t catch you!
Do you think I’m nuts? I’m not, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is. Here are some extracts from Section 497 IPC, in layman’s lingo. “Whoever has sexual intercourse with … the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to five years… In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.
Shocking, but not surprising! The IPC was drafted by McCaulay and enacted by the Governor General as Act 45 of 1860. In those days a woman was still considered the property of the man, and had no rights of her own. Hence it was the husband’s property that was being transgressed, and his rights violated. If he had encouraged or permitted his wife to have sex with another man, for whatever reason, it would have been with his consent, and therefore not a violation of his rights; and by consequence, not a crime.
What would we think of a man who allowed his wife to be used by another man – perhaps to curry favour, or avoid harassment? A despicable coward? Unfortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, did just that; not once, but twice!
When he went to Egypt, he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife Sarai. So he passed her off as his sister, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s household. In exchange, Abraham got top billing, and sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels and slaves. When Pharaoh later came to know that Sarai was actually Abraham’s wife he banished them from Egypt. (cf Gen 12:10-20). Abraham repeated the same dirty trick when he settled in the region of Gerar, and gave his wife as his sister to its King Abimelech (cf Gen 20: 1-7).
The Dictionary of The Bible by Rev John L McKenzie SJ also states that the “Hebrew morality of adultery rested upon the primitive conception of the wife as the property of the husband. Only the rights of the husband could be violated” (Pg 14). So why blame the IPC alone?
Recently there was a big shindig when the Delhi High Court struck down Sec 377 of the IPC that had criminalized homosexual acts. It is about time that Sec 497 was also modified; if the Govt does not consider itself to be a moral guardian. Just as with homosexuality, which most people consider immoral, so too with consensual adultery; it should not be treated as a crime. The provision for consent or connivance of the husband should be abolished forthwith. If at all adultery is still retained as a crime in the IPC, then both the man and the woman should be equally treated as criminals, not just the man.
Unfortunately, there are many other sections in the IPC that seem totally out of sync with the modern world. Here are some glaring anomalies. The punishment for fighting in public places and disturbing the peace is just one month (Sec 159). The punishment for obscene acts or songs in public is 3 months (Sec 294). For spreading a dangerous disease (Sec 269), food adulteration (Sec 272), drug adulteration (Sec 274), rash and negligent driving endangering human life (Sec 279) one incurs just six months of punishment.
However, mischief causing damage upto Rs 50/- (like breaking a window pane) would be punished by two years imprisonment (Sec 427). Mischief to kill or maim somebody’s animal worth Rs 10/- would entail two years (Sec 428), and if the animal is worth more than Rs 50/- it would mean 5 years in jail (Sec 429)! Should the IPC then be renamed as the Idiotic Penal Code? I hope that lawyers and Bar Councils will take up the various anomalies and incongruences in the IPC.
Other than the criminality of adultery, what about its morality? According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was a sin (Ex 20:14). It attracted death by stoning (Ezk 16:40). Murder and adultery are often referred to in the same breath, as in the Ten Commandments. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church clubs adultery with murder, blasphemy and perjury (cf CCC 1756 & 1856). It is classified as a mortal sin (CCC 1856), presuming that there is full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Here again there is a rider. “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” (CCC1860).
Fortunately the catechism departs from the Mosaic and IPC concept of the woman being the property of the man. It does not differentiate between the sexes. Be it a man or a woman, if (s)he is married and has sex with a third person, it is adultery (CCC 2380). It is considered an injustice, breach of marital commitment and a transgression of the rights of the spouse (CCC 2381).
Finally, what does Jesus think about adultery, and how does he relate to adulterous persons? He raises the bar in his Sermon on the Mount when he says that even “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28). By that token most men should end up burning in Hell!
While on the one hand Jesus is stern in his moral code, on the other he is full of compassion and empathy. He openly associates with tax collectors and “sinners”, a word synonymous with sexual offenders. The self-righteous Pharisees resented this. But Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. Go and learn the meaning of these words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners” (Mat 9:12-13). He did not hesitate to associate with the Samaritan woman who was co-habiting with her sixth partner (cf Jn 4:18), something that his disciples also didn’t understand.
The icing on the cake is when the scribes and Pharisees bring to him a woman caught red handed in adultery. (Those male chauvinists didn’t think it important enough to also catch the man red handed or red faced)! Would Jesus now subscribe to the Mosaic Law of stoning, or recommend compassion? It was a Catch 22 situation – damned either way. But Jesus is the super Human Relations guru who knows how to handle tricky and conflict situations. His classic reply is “ Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8:7). He then writes in the dust, and the accusers bite the dust, quietly slithering away. What had turned the tide? Antaryami Jesus had written the names of all those self-righteous accusers who had themselves had sex with that poor woman. Then Jesus says, “Has no one condemned you? Neither do I. Go away, and from this moment sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
I am a sinner, so I am really happy and comforted to have Jesus in my life, to guide and forgive me. But if you don’t believe in Jesus’ teachings, then beware of Section 497 of the idiotic penal code, while jumping into bed with your neighbour’s wife!
Do you think I’m nuts? I’m not, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is. Here are some extracts from Section 497 IPC, in layman’s lingo. “Whoever has sexual intercourse with … the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to five years… In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.
Shocking, but not surprising! The IPC was drafted by McCaulay and enacted by the Governor General as Act 45 of 1860. In those days a woman was still considered the property of the man, and had no rights of her own. Hence it was the husband’s property that was being transgressed, and his rights violated. If he had encouraged or permitted his wife to have sex with another man, for whatever reason, it would have been with his consent, and therefore not a violation of his rights; and by consequence, not a crime.
What would we think of a man who allowed his wife to be used by another man – perhaps to curry favour, or avoid harassment? A despicable coward? Unfortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, did just that; not once, but twice!
When he went to Egypt, he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife Sarai. So he passed her off as his sister, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s household. In exchange, Abraham got top billing, and sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels and slaves. When Pharaoh later came to know that Sarai was actually Abraham’s wife he banished them from Egypt. (cf Gen 12:10-20). Abraham repeated the same dirty trick when he settled in the region of Gerar, and gave his wife as his sister to its King Abimelech (cf Gen 20: 1-7).
The Dictionary of The Bible by Rev John L McKenzie SJ also states that the “Hebrew morality of adultery rested upon the primitive conception of the wife as the property of the husband. Only the rights of the husband could be violated” (Pg 14). So why blame the IPC alone?
Recently there was a big shindig when the Delhi High Court struck down Sec 377 of the IPC that had criminalized homosexual acts. It is about time that Sec 497 was also modified; if the Govt does not consider itself to be a moral guardian. Just as with homosexuality, which most people consider immoral, so too with consensual adultery; it should not be treated as a crime. The provision for consent or connivance of the husband should be abolished forthwith. If at all adultery is still retained as a crime in the IPC, then both the man and the woman should be equally treated as criminals, not just the man.
Unfortunately, there are many other sections in the IPC that seem totally out of sync with the modern world. Here are some glaring anomalies. The punishment for fighting in public places and disturbing the peace is just one month (Sec 159). The punishment for obscene acts or songs in public is 3 months (Sec 294). For spreading a dangerous disease (Sec 269), food adulteration (Sec 272), drug adulteration (Sec 274), rash and negligent driving endangering human life (Sec 279) one incurs just six months of punishment.
However, mischief causing damage upto Rs 50/- (like breaking a window pane) would be punished by two years imprisonment (Sec 427). Mischief to kill or maim somebody’s animal worth Rs 10/- would entail two years (Sec 428), and if the animal is worth more than Rs 50/- it would mean 5 years in jail (Sec 429)! Should the IPC then be renamed as the Idiotic Penal Code? I hope that lawyers and Bar Councils will take up the various anomalies and incongruences in the IPC.
Other than the criminality of adultery, what about its morality? According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was a sin (Ex 20:14). It attracted death by stoning (Ezk 16:40). Murder and adultery are often referred to in the same breath, as in the Ten Commandments. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church clubs adultery with murder, blasphemy and perjury (cf CCC 1756 & 1856). It is classified as a mortal sin (CCC 1856), presuming that there is full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Here again there is a rider. “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” (CCC1860).
Fortunately the catechism departs from the Mosaic and IPC concept of the woman being the property of the man. It does not differentiate between the sexes. Be it a man or a woman, if (s)he is married and has sex with a third person, it is adultery (CCC 2380). It is considered an injustice, breach of marital commitment and a transgression of the rights of the spouse (CCC 2381).
Finally, what does Jesus think about adultery, and how does he relate to adulterous persons? He raises the bar in his Sermon on the Mount when he says that even “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28). By that token most men should end up burning in Hell!
While on the one hand Jesus is stern in his moral code, on the other he is full of compassion and empathy. He openly associates with tax collectors and “sinners”, a word synonymous with sexual offenders. The self-righteous Pharisees resented this. But Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. Go and learn the meaning of these words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners” (Mat 9:12-13). He did not hesitate to associate with the Samaritan woman who was co-habiting with her sixth partner (cf Jn 4:18), something that his disciples also didn’t understand.
The icing on the cake is when the scribes and Pharisees bring to him a woman caught red handed in adultery. (Those male chauvinists didn’t think it important enough to also catch the man red handed or red faced)! Would Jesus now subscribe to the Mosaic Law of stoning, or recommend compassion? It was a Catch 22 situation – damned either way. But Jesus is the super Human Relations guru who knows how to handle tricky and conflict situations. His classic reply is “ Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8:7). He then writes in the dust, and the accusers bite the dust, quietly slithering away. What had turned the tide? Antaryami Jesus had written the names of all those self-righteous accusers who had themselves had sex with that poor woman. Then Jesus says, “Has no one condemned you? Neither do I. Go away, and from this moment sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
I am a sinner, so I am really happy and comforted to have Jesus in my life, to guide and forgive me. But if you don’t believe in Jesus’ teachings, then beware of Section 497 of the idiotic penal code, while jumping into bed with your neighbour’s wife!
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
SWAMINOMICS’ MORAL BLUNDER ON PAPONOMICS
When I first read Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar’s piece “The Pope’s moral blunders on outsourcing” (STOI 2/8/09) I was furious with the Pope for blundering into an area that is not his core competence – economics. I was inclined to believe Aiyar’s opening line that religion and business rarely mix well.
I belong to a Christian family that has been doing business for 150 years, hence am acutely conscious of how difficult it is to do business, while upholding religious or moral principles. On the other hand, being in the literary field, I also believe that it is important to go to the actual sources of information, to arrive at the truth. Accordingly I went to the Vatican website to see for myself the papal encyclical that Aiyar has quoted.
It was promulgated by the present Pope on 29/6/09, entitled “Caritas in Veritate”. That is the Latin title, which in English would read, “Love in Truth”. The title is misleading. It is infact a socio-economic treatise from a moral or spiritual perspective, in response to the current world economic crisis.
It was now my turn to be furious with Aiyar, for a blatant distortion of truth. I was shocked at how Aiyar has grossly misinterpreted the encyclical, and arrived at his own distorted conclusions. It seems to be a deliberate attempt at defaming and maligning the Pope, and thereby the billions of Catholics worldwide.
To begin with, Aiyar bases his arguments and conclusions on just one line from a 48 page encyclical. Even a dispassionate reading of that one line alone proves quite the contrary to what Aiyar has tried to deduce. Infact, Aiyar advances all his own opinions, and then quotes the Pope towards the end of his article. By then he has already prejudiced the reader into seeing the Pope’s statement in the light of his (Aiyar’s) own terribly subjective observations. Aiyar is entitled to his opinions, but he has no business to palm them off as the Pope’s teachings. Let us examine some of them.
He alleges that the Pope criticises western countries for outsourcing business to developing countries. He opines that this has an ethnic slant that echoes the concerns of the western white labour aristocracy. He wonders why westerners don’t protest outsourcing to other white countries like Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria. Why is the protest aimed only at black, brown and yellow nations, queries Aiyar? Colourful adjectives. But not from the Pope, who has made no such observations or insinuations. Aiyar goes on to say that the Pope has “parroted the bogus claims of the white labour aristocracy”. How has Aiyar arrived at such bogus conclusions?
The “offending quote” used by Aiyar from para 40 of the encyclical states; “The so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company’s sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders – namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society – in favour of the shareholders, who are not tied to a specific geographical area and who therefore enjoy extraordinary mobility”. Aiyar’s entire hypothesis is based on this one quote! It is infact the antithesis of what Aiyar labours to portray. If Aiyar were to read what the Pope had said before and after this particular quote he would have understood it in its correct perspective. The Pope expresses genuine concern for the stakeholders (black, brown and yellow workers included) and is infact urging restraint on the shareholders (the capitalists, who in the context of outsourcing would largely be the white Anglo Saxon). So Aiyar has got his colour fix all wrong.
This is what the Pope says in the next line; “Business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the stakeholders – the workers, the clients, the suppliers.” So the Pope is actually speaking up for the underprivileged, the colour of their skin notwithstanding.
As for the so-called white labour aristocracy, the Pope says; “National labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated” (Para 64). So Aiyarji, the Pope is actually advising the white labour aristocracy to expand their area of concern to all those black, brown and yellow workers, who may not be privileged aristocratic trade unionists!
Aiyar concludes his piece with another personal opinion, that it is a perversion of morality to penalise non-American workers in order to promote US jobs. I agree. So does the Pope. Aiyar ends by advising the Pope to have the courage to say so in his next encyclical. The Pope doesn’t need Aiyar’s advice, because he has said much more than Aiyar in support of the underprivileged and marginalized, in his present encyclical. Aiyar could perhaps take a leaf out of the papal encyclical for his next piece, and courageously admit that he was wrong about the Pope, just as he had earlier admitted that he was wrong in projecting Mayawati as India’s next P.M. We are all human, and prone to error. What say Aiyarji?
# The writer is a former National President of The All India Catholic Union, that represents 17 million Indian Catholics in public life.
August 2009
I belong to a Christian family that has been doing business for 150 years, hence am acutely conscious of how difficult it is to do business, while upholding religious or moral principles. On the other hand, being in the literary field, I also believe that it is important to go to the actual sources of information, to arrive at the truth. Accordingly I went to the Vatican website to see for myself the papal encyclical that Aiyar has quoted.
It was promulgated by the present Pope on 29/6/09, entitled “Caritas in Veritate”. That is the Latin title, which in English would read, “Love in Truth”. The title is misleading. It is infact a socio-economic treatise from a moral or spiritual perspective, in response to the current world economic crisis.
It was now my turn to be furious with Aiyar, for a blatant distortion of truth. I was shocked at how Aiyar has grossly misinterpreted the encyclical, and arrived at his own distorted conclusions. It seems to be a deliberate attempt at defaming and maligning the Pope, and thereby the billions of Catholics worldwide.
To begin with, Aiyar bases his arguments and conclusions on just one line from a 48 page encyclical. Even a dispassionate reading of that one line alone proves quite the contrary to what Aiyar has tried to deduce. Infact, Aiyar advances all his own opinions, and then quotes the Pope towards the end of his article. By then he has already prejudiced the reader into seeing the Pope’s statement in the light of his (Aiyar’s) own terribly subjective observations. Aiyar is entitled to his opinions, but he has no business to palm them off as the Pope’s teachings. Let us examine some of them.
He alleges that the Pope criticises western countries for outsourcing business to developing countries. He opines that this has an ethnic slant that echoes the concerns of the western white labour aristocracy. He wonders why westerners don’t protest outsourcing to other white countries like Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria. Why is the protest aimed only at black, brown and yellow nations, queries Aiyar? Colourful adjectives. But not from the Pope, who has made no such observations or insinuations. Aiyar goes on to say that the Pope has “parroted the bogus claims of the white labour aristocracy”. How has Aiyar arrived at such bogus conclusions?
The “offending quote” used by Aiyar from para 40 of the encyclical states; “The so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company’s sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders – namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society – in favour of the shareholders, who are not tied to a specific geographical area and who therefore enjoy extraordinary mobility”. Aiyar’s entire hypothesis is based on this one quote! It is infact the antithesis of what Aiyar labours to portray. If Aiyar were to read what the Pope had said before and after this particular quote he would have understood it in its correct perspective. The Pope expresses genuine concern for the stakeholders (black, brown and yellow workers included) and is infact urging restraint on the shareholders (the capitalists, who in the context of outsourcing would largely be the white Anglo Saxon). So Aiyar has got his colour fix all wrong.
This is what the Pope says in the next line; “Business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the stakeholders – the workers, the clients, the suppliers.” So the Pope is actually speaking up for the underprivileged, the colour of their skin notwithstanding.
As for the so-called white labour aristocracy, the Pope says; “National labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated” (Para 64). So Aiyarji, the Pope is actually advising the white labour aristocracy to expand their area of concern to all those black, brown and yellow workers, who may not be privileged aristocratic trade unionists!
Aiyar concludes his piece with another personal opinion, that it is a perversion of morality to penalise non-American workers in order to promote US jobs. I agree. So does the Pope. Aiyar ends by advising the Pope to have the courage to say so in his next encyclical. The Pope doesn’t need Aiyar’s advice, because he has said much more than Aiyar in support of the underprivileged and marginalized, in his present encyclical. Aiyar could perhaps take a leaf out of the papal encyclical for his next piece, and courageously admit that he was wrong about the Pope, just as he had earlier admitted that he was wrong in projecting Mayawati as India’s next P.M. We are all human, and prone to error. What say Aiyarji?
# The writer is a former National President of The All India Catholic Union, that represents 17 million Indian Catholics in public life.
August 2009
“WHERE WAS GREAT GRAND DAD?”
The months of May and June 2007 have been a time of turmoil for me. On the 9th of May I was sitting in Nanarao Park, in my home town Kanpur. I was not afflicted by the scorching heat, but by concern about my Great Grand Father, Manuel Xavier de Noronha (MX). No, he wasn’t kidnapped, but I was wondering where he was on that day in 1857 – 150 years ago?
That was the eve of the First War of Independence, which the British termed the Sepoy Mutiny. We were, 150 years later, commemorating the martyrs who had laid down their lives for the freedom of the country. Present with us was one of the descendants of Tantya Tope, who along with Nanarao Peshwa, led the revolt in Kanpur on the night of 4th June 1857. The memorial service was held in the shadow of the old Banyan Tree where the British hanged 150 freedom fighters, after they had recaptured Kanpur (then known as Cawnpore). That was the spot where the Bibighar once stood, the place where British women and children were quartered, and later slaughtered, by the freedom fighters.
Before that Nansaheb had granted safe passage to the British to sail along the Ganga to Allahabad. The British had embarked on their boats with their families, when the Indian troops fired on them, quite literally massacring them. The place came to be known as Massacre Ghat. On reconquering Kanpur, the British first made the mutineers /revolutionaries lick the blood on the parapet of the well where the British women and children had been slaughtered, before they hanged them.
And there I was sitting with other citizens, all eulogising the bravery of the freedom fighters, and condemning the cruelty of the Gora Sahibs. All very politically correct; but how true? As Dan Brown of “The Da Vinci Code” notoriety very correctly says, “History is written by the winners”. In 1857 the British finally won, and they wrote the history of the uprising, quite obviously from a very British point of view.
There were no Indian historians around, to record the Indian version. May and June saw many contemporary historians writing about the tumultuous events of 1857, and refuting the British versions. In their writings it is the British who were cruel and ruthless. Which ever side we take, there was bloodshed and killing, mostly of innocent persons, including women and children. I am a believer in Gandhian non-violence, and recall how Gandhiji suspended the freedom movement after the violence in Chaurichaura. Never mind the historians. Gandhiji always insisted that the ends do not justify the means. Violence has no winners – only losers, mostly the innocent.
Where was MX in all this? He had learnt photography from the Portuguese in his native village of Aldona in Goa. Family legend says that he led a caravan of 300 bullock carts. He travelled to courts of Rajas and Nawabs, taking their photographs. He reportedly charged the princely sum of Rs 200/- per photograph150 years ago! This was before the invention of celluloid or cameras. He fabricated his own cameras, and gold and silver nitrate solutions, for making the positives and negatives on plate glass. The negatives looked like ghosts, so he was sometimes beaten up for removing the “souls” of the royal subjects!
In the course of his travels, and three years after he left Aldona, MX’s caravan arrived in Cawnpore in 1857. He immediately got sucked into the vortex of the violence. He reportedly took photographs, which are unfortunately lost to posterity. What was MX’s role in 1857? What of the retinue of 300 bullock carts, or whatever remained of it after 3 years of intrepid adventure? How many people were with him? Were they Konkani speaking Goans like MX? Were they Catholics or Hindus? My father, who was born in 1897, (just 40 years after the war, and therefore a credible testator) told me that at that point in history Christians were identified with the British, and given protection by them. So where was MX? On which side was he, if at all he did take sides. There are two strands of written evidence.
The first is a souvenir published by the Aldona Association of Bombay in 1943. It mentions 3 persons on the village’s Roll of Honour. Two were patriots/ martyrs, and sandwiched between their names is that of MX. It states that he saved 80 lives during the 1857 war, and was mentioned in the writings of Rudyard Kipling (of Mowgli fame). Kipling does write about an elephant going berserk in the house of a Goan family in Cawnpore. That was MX’s family. But which 80 lives did MX save? Were they his native Goans, his fellow Indians, or the British? I really don’t know; which is why I am in turmoil.
The other shred of historical evidence is a letter dated the 3rd July 1880, written by one Col Mowbray Thomson, Resident with the ex-King of Oudh, and Superintendent, Government Pensions. He states that one Col. Wilson of the 64th Foot was mortally wounded in a skirmish with the Gwalior Contingent, and “Noronha behaved gallantly as well as compassionately in staying with him till he was safely carried off the field and into the Fort where he died a short time afterwards”. Gallantry and compassion are words that are seldom used in tandem, much less in war! So MX must have been an exceptional person. It would seem that human life was more precious to him than violence, no matter how highly motivated.
But the mystery of MX still deepens. He was born in Aldona on the 30th October 1825. So he would have been just 29 years of age when he left Goa; and 32 when he arrived in Cawnpore. He established business in Cawnpore in 1858 under the name and style of M/S M X de Noronha & Son. From photography he branched out into auctioneering, printing, brick kilns, running the post and telegraphs, generating and supplying electricity, real estate, etc. This is what we know about MX.
What we still don’t know is what happened to him and his retinue between 1857 and 1858? He did not return to Goa then. So where was he? The British ran away to Allahabad. Had he been a British supporter he would have been killed by the freedom fighters. Sitting in Nanarao Park, commemorating the martyrs, thoughts were swirling around my head. Then I got a brainwave. Nanarao Peshwa and Tantya Tope were Marathas, and spoke Marathi. MX was a Goan and spoke Konkani, akin to Marathi. So did Nanarao find in MX a kindred spirit, and grant him and his retinue protection? I would love to know the answer.
Perhaps the people of Aldona, and Goa, would find MX’s story inspiring and intriguing. But going by the records, MX had imbibed the spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship from his native village of Aldona. In the 1943 Aldona Souvenir, Dr. Thomas C D’Silva MBBS writes, “In trade and commerce, the Aldonense (Aldonkar today) has usually blazed the trail; he may be called the pioneer among Goans”. In the same souvenir, Luis Jose D’souza MA, MSc, writes: “At a time when the so-called Novas Conquistas (New Conquests) were as unknown to the Goans as Bombay was, the Aldonense with his characteristic daring and unsurpassed spirit of pioneering, penetrated the ‘unchartered area’. He went as a businessman…. Their means of transport were the oxen. Many of us still remember the caravans of oxen with bags slung across their backs and bells jingling from their necks, trudging their way wearily over hills through malaria-ridden jungles plying their trade…. They left us a legacy of daring, love of work, integrity of character, unsurpassed qualities of leadership, and above all a marvellous spirit of self-confidence”.
I don’t have all the answers to the questions about my great grand dad. But I know enough to follow in his footsteps. May his life and struggles be an inspiration to the youth of today, especially of his native Goa, in this sesquicentennial year of his arrival in what was then Cawnpore.
* The writer is a Gandhian social activist; community leader, and a businessman by profession.
JULY 2007
That was the eve of the First War of Independence, which the British termed the Sepoy Mutiny. We were, 150 years later, commemorating the martyrs who had laid down their lives for the freedom of the country. Present with us was one of the descendants of Tantya Tope, who along with Nanarao Peshwa, led the revolt in Kanpur on the night of 4th June 1857. The memorial service was held in the shadow of the old Banyan Tree where the British hanged 150 freedom fighters, after they had recaptured Kanpur (then known as Cawnpore). That was the spot where the Bibighar once stood, the place where British women and children were quartered, and later slaughtered, by the freedom fighters.
Before that Nansaheb had granted safe passage to the British to sail along the Ganga to Allahabad. The British had embarked on their boats with their families, when the Indian troops fired on them, quite literally massacring them. The place came to be known as Massacre Ghat. On reconquering Kanpur, the British first made the mutineers /revolutionaries lick the blood on the parapet of the well where the British women and children had been slaughtered, before they hanged them.
And there I was sitting with other citizens, all eulogising the bravery of the freedom fighters, and condemning the cruelty of the Gora Sahibs. All very politically correct; but how true? As Dan Brown of “The Da Vinci Code” notoriety very correctly says, “History is written by the winners”. In 1857 the British finally won, and they wrote the history of the uprising, quite obviously from a very British point of view.
There were no Indian historians around, to record the Indian version. May and June saw many contemporary historians writing about the tumultuous events of 1857, and refuting the British versions. In their writings it is the British who were cruel and ruthless. Which ever side we take, there was bloodshed and killing, mostly of innocent persons, including women and children. I am a believer in Gandhian non-violence, and recall how Gandhiji suspended the freedom movement after the violence in Chaurichaura. Never mind the historians. Gandhiji always insisted that the ends do not justify the means. Violence has no winners – only losers, mostly the innocent.
Where was MX in all this? He had learnt photography from the Portuguese in his native village of Aldona in Goa. Family legend says that he led a caravan of 300 bullock carts. He travelled to courts of Rajas and Nawabs, taking their photographs. He reportedly charged the princely sum of Rs 200/- per photograph150 years ago! This was before the invention of celluloid or cameras. He fabricated his own cameras, and gold and silver nitrate solutions, for making the positives and negatives on plate glass. The negatives looked like ghosts, so he was sometimes beaten up for removing the “souls” of the royal subjects!
In the course of his travels, and three years after he left Aldona, MX’s caravan arrived in Cawnpore in 1857. He immediately got sucked into the vortex of the violence. He reportedly took photographs, which are unfortunately lost to posterity. What was MX’s role in 1857? What of the retinue of 300 bullock carts, or whatever remained of it after 3 years of intrepid adventure? How many people were with him? Were they Konkani speaking Goans like MX? Were they Catholics or Hindus? My father, who was born in 1897, (just 40 years after the war, and therefore a credible testator) told me that at that point in history Christians were identified with the British, and given protection by them. So where was MX? On which side was he, if at all he did take sides. There are two strands of written evidence.
The first is a souvenir published by the Aldona Association of Bombay in 1943. It mentions 3 persons on the village’s Roll of Honour. Two were patriots/ martyrs, and sandwiched between their names is that of MX. It states that he saved 80 lives during the 1857 war, and was mentioned in the writings of Rudyard Kipling (of Mowgli fame). Kipling does write about an elephant going berserk in the house of a Goan family in Cawnpore. That was MX’s family. But which 80 lives did MX save? Were they his native Goans, his fellow Indians, or the British? I really don’t know; which is why I am in turmoil.
The other shred of historical evidence is a letter dated the 3rd July 1880, written by one Col Mowbray Thomson, Resident with the ex-King of Oudh, and Superintendent, Government Pensions. He states that one Col. Wilson of the 64th Foot was mortally wounded in a skirmish with the Gwalior Contingent, and “Noronha behaved gallantly as well as compassionately in staying with him till he was safely carried off the field and into the Fort where he died a short time afterwards”. Gallantry and compassion are words that are seldom used in tandem, much less in war! So MX must have been an exceptional person. It would seem that human life was more precious to him than violence, no matter how highly motivated.
But the mystery of MX still deepens. He was born in Aldona on the 30th October 1825. So he would have been just 29 years of age when he left Goa; and 32 when he arrived in Cawnpore. He established business in Cawnpore in 1858 under the name and style of M/S M X de Noronha & Son. From photography he branched out into auctioneering, printing, brick kilns, running the post and telegraphs, generating and supplying electricity, real estate, etc. This is what we know about MX.
What we still don’t know is what happened to him and his retinue between 1857 and 1858? He did not return to Goa then. So where was he? The British ran away to Allahabad. Had he been a British supporter he would have been killed by the freedom fighters. Sitting in Nanarao Park, commemorating the martyrs, thoughts were swirling around my head. Then I got a brainwave. Nanarao Peshwa and Tantya Tope were Marathas, and spoke Marathi. MX was a Goan and spoke Konkani, akin to Marathi. So did Nanarao find in MX a kindred spirit, and grant him and his retinue protection? I would love to know the answer.
Perhaps the people of Aldona, and Goa, would find MX’s story inspiring and intriguing. But going by the records, MX had imbibed the spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship from his native village of Aldona. In the 1943 Aldona Souvenir, Dr. Thomas C D’Silva MBBS writes, “In trade and commerce, the Aldonense (Aldonkar today) has usually blazed the trail; he may be called the pioneer among Goans”. In the same souvenir, Luis Jose D’souza MA, MSc, writes: “At a time when the so-called Novas Conquistas (New Conquests) were as unknown to the Goans as Bombay was, the Aldonense with his characteristic daring and unsurpassed spirit of pioneering, penetrated the ‘unchartered area’. He went as a businessman…. Their means of transport were the oxen. Many of us still remember the caravans of oxen with bags slung across their backs and bells jingling from their necks, trudging their way wearily over hills through malaria-ridden jungles plying their trade…. They left us a legacy of daring, love of work, integrity of character, unsurpassed qualities of leadership, and above all a marvellous spirit of self-confidence”.
I don’t have all the answers to the questions about my great grand dad. But I know enough to follow in his footsteps. May his life and struggles be an inspiration to the youth of today, especially of his native Goa, in this sesquicentennial year of his arrival in what was then Cawnpore.
* The writer is a Gandhian social activist; community leader, and a businessman by profession.
JULY 2007
UPTIGHT ABOUT TITHES
Tithing is the ancient Biblical practice of giving one tenth of one’s earnings to God’s representatives, the Levites. They were descendants of Levi, one of the 12 sons of Jacob, and therefore one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were by birthright an intermediary priestly class. According to the Mosaic Law the Israelites were to pay tithes to the Levites in lieu of spiritual ministry rendered, especially at the Tent of Meeting (Num 18:21). This was not only their pay; it was also their heritage (inheritance/ assets/ social security). They were not to have any other heritage in the Israelite community (Num 18:24).
What got me uptight about tithes was a recent article in a leading Catholic journal advocating tithing to the Church, in order to be a better Christian, and to get an “exceeding great reward” from the Lord. The author of this piece, who is reportedly a theatre personality, rather theatrically/ dramatically interprets the biblical promise to state that the “reward” would be a “rapidly increasing money supply”! That turn of phrase got my goat. This is typical of media savvy tele-evangelists who tirelessly remind their audiences to pay tithes to them; assuring them of prosperity in return thereof. This is referred to as the “prosperity gospel”, which is a far cry from the gospel of service and sacrifice preached by mainline churches, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Talk of “rapidly increasing money supply” is more appropriate to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, than to a proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Proponents of tithing take their cue from the incident of Abram (not yet Abraham the chosen one) giving “a tenth of everything” to Melchizedek (cf Gen 14:20); the A-M episode. It is seen as a worthy precedent of tithing, for which Abram is assured of a great reward, theatrically transliterated into “rapidly increasing money supply”!
This is investment at best, and inducement at worst. Invest 10% in God (church/ priest) and rapidly increase your money supply! If such be the motive for tithing, then it is a selfish financial motive, which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed a virtue or sacrifice. It is pure Laxmi Puja.
To arrive at a better understanding of tithing and its relevance today we need to first see the A-M episode in its actual context. We must look at Jesus’ own views on tithing and the Mosaic Law. We also need to study current church teaching as found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II) promulgated between 1962 – 65; The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25/1/1983; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992.
Let’s begin with Abram. What were the circumstances and context in which he gave one tenth of everything to Melchizedek? This incident occurs just after Abram (then a regional chieftain) defeats 4 regional satraps (kings) with his force of 318 men. By today’s military standards Abram would have been a Major in the Indian army, if he had just 318 troops under his command. Melchizedek encounters Abram when the latter is flush with victory, and blesses him. The former was the King of Salem (possibly modern day Jerusalem), and some sort of priest, unlike the latter day hereditary Levites. The Bible now matter-of-factly states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything”.
How much can be read into such a statement and incident, to make it a precedent for all time? In the very next line we read that King Bera of Sodom, whom Abram had saved, asks for his share of the war bounty. Abram returns Bera’s belongings, less expenses incurred in the campaign and wages for his men (cf Gen 14:21-24). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that Abram was giving a tenth of the captured booty to Melchizedek (JBC 2:23). The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Rev John McKenzie SJ also endorses this view, and goes a step further. It suggests that the A-M episode is actually an interpolation (a latter day insertion) as it is out of sync with the verses before or after it, where the interaction is between Abram and Bera (DOB Pg 563). So we are treading on very thin ice when using the A-M episode as a precedent for tithing.
I shall take one more step with Abram. It is about the “reward” and “money supply” mentioned in the very next verse – Gen 15:1.Though there is proximity of verses, there is a time gap, thereby making the two incidents unrelated. The verse begins with “Sometime later…”. When Abram does hear God talk of reward he replies in dismay, “What use are your gifts, as I am going on my way childless?” (Gen 15:2). There is therefore no connection between the tithe and the money supply.
What of Jesus’ approach to the Mosaic Law in general, and tithing in particular? He paid scant regard to the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. His Sermon on the Mount heralds the new covenant, giving the old covenant a decent burial. He unequivocally states; “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete (fulfil) them” (Mat 5:17). Moses’ “eye for an eye” is replaced by Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” (Mat 5:40).
Do I still hear some whispers about the greatness of the Mosaic Law? According to it, menstruating women and pork are both “unclean”. Should we then ban Whisper ads on TV wishing women a happy period? Should we remove pork salami from the Vatican’s breakfast menu?
Jesus came down heavily on practitioners of tithing on two occasions. Both concern the Pharisees, his arch enemies. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector the Pharisee boasts of paying his tithes (cf Lk 18:13). Jesus condemns this hypocritical self-justification. He is harsher still when he says, “Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law – justice, mercy and good faith. … You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels” (Mat 23:23). A little explanation is necessary. Tithing covered big things like cattle, grain, oil etc, not small condiments like mint (pudina) and cumin (jeera). But the overzealous Pharisees tithed these small things, while missing the larger picture. This is why Jesus refers to the tiny gnats and the huge camels. Overzealous proponents of tithing today who go for the peripherals and miss the core content of the Gospel are in grave danger of being pharisaic blind guides. Jesus’ attitude to the constricting Mosaic Law is summed up in his declaration that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
What do contemporary church documents say about tithing? Precious little. The CCC, which is the latest of the contemporary documents, refers to modern phenomena like drugs, tobacco and rash driving (CCC 2290), but it is silent on tithing. So too with Vat II and Canon Law. This is not to deny one’s responsibility for supporting the church and its ministers.
The Vat II “Decree on the Ministry & Life of Priests” (PO), Chapter III, talks of “The Means of Support for Priestly Life”. It states that priests are worthy of receiving a just recompense, for the labourer deserves his wages” (PO 20). The recompense should be enough to have an annual vacation (PO 20) and social security (PO 21).
Book V of Canon Law is entitled “The Temporal Goods of the Church” (Canons 1254-1298), Here is what some of them say. “The church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives (Can 1260). “The faithful are to give their support to the church in response to appeals…” (Can 1262). “The diocesan bishop… has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese” (Can 1263). This last canon does not apply to the laity. So the laity are obliged to support the church for “whatever is necessary”, but this cannot assume the form of a tax, levy or cess, like tithing. If I recall correctly, in India, only the Government has a right to levy taxes.
From the biblical and ecclesial let us also examine tithing from a socio-economic dimension. The following factors were inherent in tithing:
1. The priests were considered superior. They alone could enter the Tent of Meeting. Others were considered unworthy of entering into God’s presence. But when Jesus died on the cross “the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mat 27:51), signifying the removal of the obstacles between God and man. Vat II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG) emphatically states in Chapter IV, that the laity have an equal dignity, sharing in the “priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). So the question of superiority no longer arises.
2. In Mosaic times the Priests made the rules, the Kings actually ruled, and the Prophets interpreted the rules in specific circumstances. In modern society these three functions are now that of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively. Unfortunately, despite Vat II, the hierarchically dominated Catholic Church is loath to involve the laity in the democratisation process. When an incensed cleric once told the late Rev Amalorpavadas, the great champion of the laity, that the church was not a democracy, the latter retorted; “The church is more than a democracy, it is a community”. I wonder if in the remaining years of my life I will get to see the true democratisation of the Catholic community in India.
3. The third development, again a fruit of democracy and the French Revolution, is the modern welfare State. This is different from ancient monarchies that were primarily concerned with the welfare, longevity and stability of the king, for which the subjects had to pay their lagaan (taxes). India, as per its Constitution, is a secular, socialist republic. Being secular, it separates religion from governance. Being socialist, it has an obligation to see to the welfare of its people. To meet the demands of development and welfare, the Sate levies taxes. We pay direct taxes like Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Service Tax and Value Added Tax. We also bear the burden of indirect taxes like Customs, Excise, Central Sales Tax, Octroi, and personal taxes like House tax, Water Tax, Stamp Duty etc. An honest taxpayer could be paying up to 70% of his actual income and expenditure in various forms of tax that contribute to the exchequer, and thereby to society. An honest tax payer is fulfilling a great social need – the type of justice and mercy that Jesus found wanting in the tithing Pharisees (cf Mat 23:23). This makes tithing redundant.
Finally, let us examine “what is necessary” for the functioning of the church. Let us not err in equating the church with the clergy. Every baptised person is a member of the church. Who needs our assistance- the clergy and bishops; or the dalits, tribals, socially deprived, exploited and landless, whose cause we constantly trumpet before the Government? How many dalits and tribals can afford an “annual vacation”? How many have “social security”? The balance of convenience rests in favour of the poor and marginalised, rather than the clergy and the bishops, who are the landed gentry, not the tillers of the soil. If the bishop lives in a palace is it just to expect a tithe from a hutment or slum dweller? If lakhs of rupees are spent on the formation of a priest, is it fair to ask the illiterate masses to donate for his seminary training? If the clergy have the latest motor vehicles (no second hands for them), should the man who wearily trudges to church be expected to tithe for the Pastors’ Fund? Some mischievous youth call it the pastor’s fun!
Water always finds its own level – from up to down. The flow of funds in the church should be like water – from those who have to the have-nots, be they clergy, religious or laity. Since the hierarchical Catholic Church in India has the choicest pieces of land, prestigious institutions, and multi crore annual donations in foreign currency etc, I would count it among the haves, though there are worthy exceptions.
I would thus conclude hat the A-M episode cannot be taken as a precedent for tithing worthy of emulation. The Mosaic Law has served its purpose. Jesus equated tithing with religious hypocrisy. The contemporary teachings of the church do not advocate tithing. A modern welfare State has by and large assumed the role of the benefactor of the poor. The hierarchical church in India is not poor. On all these counts I cannot subscribe to the theatrical support for tithing. I am really uptight about tithing and advocacy of the same in any form.
* Note: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Dictionary of the Bible quoted above are standard reference books in Catholic seminaries. Biblical quotes are from The New Jerusalem Bible, again a scholar’s delight.
# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and has been active in organised lay ministry for the last 40 years.
What got me uptight about tithes was a recent article in a leading Catholic journal advocating tithing to the Church, in order to be a better Christian, and to get an “exceeding great reward” from the Lord. The author of this piece, who is reportedly a theatre personality, rather theatrically/ dramatically interprets the biblical promise to state that the “reward” would be a “rapidly increasing money supply”! That turn of phrase got my goat. This is typical of media savvy tele-evangelists who tirelessly remind their audiences to pay tithes to them; assuring them of prosperity in return thereof. This is referred to as the “prosperity gospel”, which is a far cry from the gospel of service and sacrifice preached by mainline churches, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Talk of “rapidly increasing money supply” is more appropriate to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, than to a proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Proponents of tithing take their cue from the incident of Abram (not yet Abraham the chosen one) giving “a tenth of everything” to Melchizedek (cf Gen 14:20); the A-M episode. It is seen as a worthy precedent of tithing, for which Abram is assured of a great reward, theatrically transliterated into “rapidly increasing money supply”!
This is investment at best, and inducement at worst. Invest 10% in God (church/ priest) and rapidly increase your money supply! If such be the motive for tithing, then it is a selfish financial motive, which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed a virtue or sacrifice. It is pure Laxmi Puja.
To arrive at a better understanding of tithing and its relevance today we need to first see the A-M episode in its actual context. We must look at Jesus’ own views on tithing and the Mosaic Law. We also need to study current church teaching as found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II) promulgated between 1962 – 65; The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25/1/1983; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992.
Let’s begin with Abram. What were the circumstances and context in which he gave one tenth of everything to Melchizedek? This incident occurs just after Abram (then a regional chieftain) defeats 4 regional satraps (kings) with his force of 318 men. By today’s military standards Abram would have been a Major in the Indian army, if he had just 318 troops under his command. Melchizedek encounters Abram when the latter is flush with victory, and blesses him. The former was the King of Salem (possibly modern day Jerusalem), and some sort of priest, unlike the latter day hereditary Levites. The Bible now matter-of-factly states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything”.
How much can be read into such a statement and incident, to make it a precedent for all time? In the very next line we read that King Bera of Sodom, whom Abram had saved, asks for his share of the war bounty. Abram returns Bera’s belongings, less expenses incurred in the campaign and wages for his men (cf Gen 14:21-24). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that Abram was giving a tenth of the captured booty to Melchizedek (JBC 2:23). The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Rev John McKenzie SJ also endorses this view, and goes a step further. It suggests that the A-M episode is actually an interpolation (a latter day insertion) as it is out of sync with the verses before or after it, where the interaction is between Abram and Bera (DOB Pg 563). So we are treading on very thin ice when using the A-M episode as a precedent for tithing.
I shall take one more step with Abram. It is about the “reward” and “money supply” mentioned in the very next verse – Gen 15:1.Though there is proximity of verses, there is a time gap, thereby making the two incidents unrelated. The verse begins with “Sometime later…”. When Abram does hear God talk of reward he replies in dismay, “What use are your gifts, as I am going on my way childless?” (Gen 15:2). There is therefore no connection between the tithe and the money supply.
What of Jesus’ approach to the Mosaic Law in general, and tithing in particular? He paid scant regard to the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. His Sermon on the Mount heralds the new covenant, giving the old covenant a decent burial. He unequivocally states; “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete (fulfil) them” (Mat 5:17). Moses’ “eye for an eye” is replaced by Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” (Mat 5:40).
Do I still hear some whispers about the greatness of the Mosaic Law? According to it, menstruating women and pork are both “unclean”. Should we then ban Whisper ads on TV wishing women a happy period? Should we remove pork salami from the Vatican’s breakfast menu?
Jesus came down heavily on practitioners of tithing on two occasions. Both concern the Pharisees, his arch enemies. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector the Pharisee boasts of paying his tithes (cf Lk 18:13). Jesus condemns this hypocritical self-justification. He is harsher still when he says, “Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law – justice, mercy and good faith. … You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels” (Mat 23:23). A little explanation is necessary. Tithing covered big things like cattle, grain, oil etc, not small condiments like mint (pudina) and cumin (jeera). But the overzealous Pharisees tithed these small things, while missing the larger picture. This is why Jesus refers to the tiny gnats and the huge camels. Overzealous proponents of tithing today who go for the peripherals and miss the core content of the Gospel are in grave danger of being pharisaic blind guides. Jesus’ attitude to the constricting Mosaic Law is summed up in his declaration that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
What do contemporary church documents say about tithing? Precious little. The CCC, which is the latest of the contemporary documents, refers to modern phenomena like drugs, tobacco and rash driving (CCC 2290), but it is silent on tithing. So too with Vat II and Canon Law. This is not to deny one’s responsibility for supporting the church and its ministers.
The Vat II “Decree on the Ministry & Life of Priests” (PO), Chapter III, talks of “The Means of Support for Priestly Life”. It states that priests are worthy of receiving a just recompense, for the labourer deserves his wages” (PO 20). The recompense should be enough to have an annual vacation (PO 20) and social security (PO 21).
Book V of Canon Law is entitled “The Temporal Goods of the Church” (Canons 1254-1298), Here is what some of them say. “The church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives (Can 1260). “The faithful are to give their support to the church in response to appeals…” (Can 1262). “The diocesan bishop… has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese” (Can 1263). This last canon does not apply to the laity. So the laity are obliged to support the church for “whatever is necessary”, but this cannot assume the form of a tax, levy or cess, like tithing. If I recall correctly, in India, only the Government has a right to levy taxes.
From the biblical and ecclesial let us also examine tithing from a socio-economic dimension. The following factors were inherent in tithing:
1. The priests were considered superior. They alone could enter the Tent of Meeting. Others were considered unworthy of entering into God’s presence. But when Jesus died on the cross “the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mat 27:51), signifying the removal of the obstacles between God and man. Vat II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG) emphatically states in Chapter IV, that the laity have an equal dignity, sharing in the “priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). So the question of superiority no longer arises.
2. In Mosaic times the Priests made the rules, the Kings actually ruled, and the Prophets interpreted the rules in specific circumstances. In modern society these three functions are now that of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively. Unfortunately, despite Vat II, the hierarchically dominated Catholic Church is loath to involve the laity in the democratisation process. When an incensed cleric once told the late Rev Amalorpavadas, the great champion of the laity, that the church was not a democracy, the latter retorted; “The church is more than a democracy, it is a community”. I wonder if in the remaining years of my life I will get to see the true democratisation of the Catholic community in India.
3. The third development, again a fruit of democracy and the French Revolution, is the modern welfare State. This is different from ancient monarchies that were primarily concerned with the welfare, longevity and stability of the king, for which the subjects had to pay their lagaan (taxes). India, as per its Constitution, is a secular, socialist republic. Being secular, it separates religion from governance. Being socialist, it has an obligation to see to the welfare of its people. To meet the demands of development and welfare, the Sate levies taxes. We pay direct taxes like Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Service Tax and Value Added Tax. We also bear the burden of indirect taxes like Customs, Excise, Central Sales Tax, Octroi, and personal taxes like House tax, Water Tax, Stamp Duty etc. An honest taxpayer could be paying up to 70% of his actual income and expenditure in various forms of tax that contribute to the exchequer, and thereby to society. An honest tax payer is fulfilling a great social need – the type of justice and mercy that Jesus found wanting in the tithing Pharisees (cf Mat 23:23). This makes tithing redundant.
Finally, let us examine “what is necessary” for the functioning of the church. Let us not err in equating the church with the clergy. Every baptised person is a member of the church. Who needs our assistance- the clergy and bishops; or the dalits, tribals, socially deprived, exploited and landless, whose cause we constantly trumpet before the Government? How many dalits and tribals can afford an “annual vacation”? How many have “social security”? The balance of convenience rests in favour of the poor and marginalised, rather than the clergy and the bishops, who are the landed gentry, not the tillers of the soil. If the bishop lives in a palace is it just to expect a tithe from a hutment or slum dweller? If lakhs of rupees are spent on the formation of a priest, is it fair to ask the illiterate masses to donate for his seminary training? If the clergy have the latest motor vehicles (no second hands for them), should the man who wearily trudges to church be expected to tithe for the Pastors’ Fund? Some mischievous youth call it the pastor’s fun!
Water always finds its own level – from up to down. The flow of funds in the church should be like water – from those who have to the have-nots, be they clergy, religious or laity. Since the hierarchical Catholic Church in India has the choicest pieces of land, prestigious institutions, and multi crore annual donations in foreign currency etc, I would count it among the haves, though there are worthy exceptions.
I would thus conclude hat the A-M episode cannot be taken as a precedent for tithing worthy of emulation. The Mosaic Law has served its purpose. Jesus equated tithing with religious hypocrisy. The contemporary teachings of the church do not advocate tithing. A modern welfare State has by and large assumed the role of the benefactor of the poor. The hierarchical church in India is not poor. On all these counts I cannot subscribe to the theatrical support for tithing. I am really uptight about tithing and advocacy of the same in any form.
* Note: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Dictionary of the Bible quoted above are standard reference books in Catholic seminaries. Biblical quotes are from The New Jerusalem Bible, again a scholar’s delight.
# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and has been active in organised lay ministry for the last 40 years.
UNDERDOG MILLION HEIRS
Alistair Browne (AB) was a white man – British. Chirag Din (CD) was his Muslim peon. Jailor Jaimie (JJ) was a robust Anglo-Indian, and Ummed Kumar (UK), though not from that country, preferred to be called a Hindustani. The time – July 1947, the town Kanpur; then known as Cawnpore, the Manchester of the East, for its vast industry.
AB was a manager in the British India Corporation Ltd (BIC) that produced the finest cotton and woollen fabrics with world-renowned brand names like Lalimli and Elgin. JJ, with his walrus moustache and khaki shorts, instilled the fear of the devil in the jail inmates. But he ensured that they had proper food, water, clothing and hygiene. UK’s family were auctioneers. They auctioned everything that the British families, the mills and the army found superfluous.
The foursome stepped out of Sutherland House, the BIC headquarters, not far from the jail, into AB’s Morris Cowley, and drove down to the Cavalry Ground in the Cantonments. They went to bet at the last United Provinces Derby. AB suggested that they put their money on the Million Heiress (pronounced airiss), as it was the dark horse with heavier odds. JJ also supported the underdog. UK was perplexed. Why the hell did the English use an H, if it was silent? Why was a light coloured pony called a dark horse? And why call a horse a dog? The English language was a nightmare to him. Oh God, another horse!
The Million Heiress came from behind to win by a nose. What a lead. The foursome basked in their winnings. AB lit his briar pipe, JJ his cheroot, UK his Charminar, and CD his bidi. They drove back to AB’s red brick cottage in the Lalimli Mills compound in a haze of smoke. Smoke spewed from the mills’ chimneys too. Smoke was then a good omen, a sign of progress and prosperity. CD served cha in the garden with its petunias, pansies, birds and bees, shrubs and trees. They talked of India’s impending independence.
AB: You Indians are going to be free in a month’s time. That Gandy guy is a sweet old codger. He has led you to freedom, but he won’t be able to keep you free.
UK: Mahatma Gandhi is the father of the Nation. We will always abide by his principles.
JJ: I have my doubts. The jail is a microcosm of society. I have seen how, under the slightest duress, the ugliest side of the Indian psyche emerges.
AB: It’s true. Now you have a common “enemy” in the British. Once we are gone you will fight among yourselves over caste and creed.
CD: Sahabji, we Muslims and Hindus have fought together for Independence.
JJ: You accuse the British of divide and rule, and there is some truth in it. But it is the British who have kept the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya locked. God help us the day the locks are removed.
AB: If not religion you Indians will fight over caste. We employed all castes in the mills, including your so-called “untouchables”. But no upper caste wants to work in the spinning section.
UK: Why?
AB: Because when the thread breaks the worker sometimes uses his own spittle to join the loose ends together. Catch any high caste touching that.
JJ: By the way UK I hear that you have been blessed with your first-born. Boy or girl?
UK: I was happy either way. It’s a boy.
AB: What have you named him?
UK: To commemorate our impending independence I have named him Bharat Bhushan.
Cut to the year 2009
Petunias and pansies grew around AB’s grave “back home” in Birmingham, England. There were no flowers in his erstwhile cottage in the BIC compound. Nor was there any smoke belching out from Lalimli’s chimneys. Marwari businessmen got the BIC for a song after the British left, and milked it dry, aided and abetted by militant trade unionists. A left jab and right hook floored the BIC. Sarkari babus siphoned off whatever remained.
JJ’s son had joined the Indian army, became a brigadier and won a Mahavir Chakra in the 1965 war. CD’s grandson was down to selling pouches of paan masala on the footpath outside Lalimli. The fabric had changed. Kanpur was now infamous for producing carcinogenic and unhygienic paan masala. Mahatma Gandhi had been assassinated, and then forgotten, but not his specs that were auctioned for millions to a liquor baron! The Babri Masjid had been unlocked and demolished. As Madame Defarge had predicted in “The Tale of Two Cities”, the blood red river of communal hatred now flowed unabated.
The Cavalry Ground was now cordoned off by the Armoured Regiment, and “free” Indians found their movements severely restricted in the Cantonments. The imperial Indian army still considered civilians a second class “native’ populace. Sutherland House had been demolished to make way for a high rise. But the brown babus were one-up on the gora sahibs. Since the DM and DIGs’ sprawling bungalows were next door, a high rise would be an invasion of their privacy, the new memsahib’s kitty parties and the babalogs playing.
UK had tried to inculcate patriotic fervour, social concern and business ethics in his son Bharat Bhushan (BB). But BB felt terribly out of place in “free” India. One was free to cheat, lie, rob electricity, evade taxes, file false cases or bribe one’s way to success; to shit and spit anywhere; to drive rashly and abuse the “other” who was not of one’s caste, creed or class. BB wondered if this was the freedom for which Gandhiji had sacrificed his life?
BB’s family decided to give their ancestral property to a builder for development, but got caught in a quagmire of disputes. In order to browbeat BB into submission the builders got false criminal charges filed against him, and had him jailed. But BB was prepared for it.
Conditions in jail were inhuman. Two hand pumps for 350 prisoners, and no running water. 250 inmates in a barrack meant for 100. Filthy abuse and filthier living conditions. Bribery and corruption at every step. Money makes the mare go. You want bidis, charas, smack, special food, better living conditions – just pay for it. Would JJ have approved?
Lars, a German prisoner, was comfortable in the hospital barrack. He got special food in a hot casserole, smoked expensive foreign cigarettes, and strutted around as Lord of the Rings; even poking fun at the policemen on duty. Free Indians are still in awe of the white skin, even if he is a prisoner. Small wonder then that Leo Tolstoy had written to Mahatma Gandhi that it was impossible for a handful of white traders to enslave India until or unless the Indians were willing to be enslaved. The slavish mentality to gora and phoren continues.
While in jail BB heard about Slumdog Millionaire winning Oscars for showcasing India’s poverty. And India applauded! 62 years after Independence, Indians were still enslaved to the white man. But they had not learnt from their erstwhile masters. BB was in jail because of bribery and corruption in the police and judiciary. There was no enforcement of the law of perjury. But in England, Jeffrey Archer, renowned author and Member of Parliament, had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. His crime – swearing a false affidavit. Had that law been implemented in India there would be more Indians in jail than outside it! When BB came out on bail he read that parliamentary elections had been announced. He also saw the Lead India 09 campaign advocated by a leading newspaper. It drew attention to the number of MPs who had criminal or corruption cases pending against them.
BB resolved to lead from the front, even if he was the dark horse or the underdog. If his father had put his money on the Million Heiress, the time had now come for BB to place his trust in the millions of heirs to Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy of Satyagrah and Ahimsa. Yes he would lead India in its second struggle for freedom from communalism, casteism, corruption and criminalisation during this parliamentary election. Jayho for the slumdog, but Jai Hind for the underdog.
* The writer is a Kanpur based Gandhian social activist, whose family has been in Kanpur for 150 years. He recently experienced 6 days in jail.
MARCH 2009
AB was a manager in the British India Corporation Ltd (BIC) that produced the finest cotton and woollen fabrics with world-renowned brand names like Lalimli and Elgin. JJ, with his walrus moustache and khaki shorts, instilled the fear of the devil in the jail inmates. But he ensured that they had proper food, water, clothing and hygiene. UK’s family were auctioneers. They auctioned everything that the British families, the mills and the army found superfluous.
The foursome stepped out of Sutherland House, the BIC headquarters, not far from the jail, into AB’s Morris Cowley, and drove down to the Cavalry Ground in the Cantonments. They went to bet at the last United Provinces Derby. AB suggested that they put their money on the Million Heiress (pronounced airiss), as it was the dark horse with heavier odds. JJ also supported the underdog. UK was perplexed. Why the hell did the English use an H, if it was silent? Why was a light coloured pony called a dark horse? And why call a horse a dog? The English language was a nightmare to him. Oh God, another horse!
The Million Heiress came from behind to win by a nose. What a lead. The foursome basked in their winnings. AB lit his briar pipe, JJ his cheroot, UK his Charminar, and CD his bidi. They drove back to AB’s red brick cottage in the Lalimli Mills compound in a haze of smoke. Smoke spewed from the mills’ chimneys too. Smoke was then a good omen, a sign of progress and prosperity. CD served cha in the garden with its petunias, pansies, birds and bees, shrubs and trees. They talked of India’s impending independence.
AB: You Indians are going to be free in a month’s time. That Gandy guy is a sweet old codger. He has led you to freedom, but he won’t be able to keep you free.
UK: Mahatma Gandhi is the father of the Nation. We will always abide by his principles.
JJ: I have my doubts. The jail is a microcosm of society. I have seen how, under the slightest duress, the ugliest side of the Indian psyche emerges.
AB: It’s true. Now you have a common “enemy” in the British. Once we are gone you will fight among yourselves over caste and creed.
CD: Sahabji, we Muslims and Hindus have fought together for Independence.
JJ: You accuse the British of divide and rule, and there is some truth in it. But it is the British who have kept the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya locked. God help us the day the locks are removed.
AB: If not religion you Indians will fight over caste. We employed all castes in the mills, including your so-called “untouchables”. But no upper caste wants to work in the spinning section.
UK: Why?
AB: Because when the thread breaks the worker sometimes uses his own spittle to join the loose ends together. Catch any high caste touching that.
JJ: By the way UK I hear that you have been blessed with your first-born. Boy or girl?
UK: I was happy either way. It’s a boy.
AB: What have you named him?
UK: To commemorate our impending independence I have named him Bharat Bhushan.
Cut to the year 2009
Petunias and pansies grew around AB’s grave “back home” in Birmingham, England. There were no flowers in his erstwhile cottage in the BIC compound. Nor was there any smoke belching out from Lalimli’s chimneys. Marwari businessmen got the BIC for a song after the British left, and milked it dry, aided and abetted by militant trade unionists. A left jab and right hook floored the BIC. Sarkari babus siphoned off whatever remained.
JJ’s son had joined the Indian army, became a brigadier and won a Mahavir Chakra in the 1965 war. CD’s grandson was down to selling pouches of paan masala on the footpath outside Lalimli. The fabric had changed. Kanpur was now infamous for producing carcinogenic and unhygienic paan masala. Mahatma Gandhi had been assassinated, and then forgotten, but not his specs that were auctioned for millions to a liquor baron! The Babri Masjid had been unlocked and demolished. As Madame Defarge had predicted in “The Tale of Two Cities”, the blood red river of communal hatred now flowed unabated.
The Cavalry Ground was now cordoned off by the Armoured Regiment, and “free” Indians found their movements severely restricted in the Cantonments. The imperial Indian army still considered civilians a second class “native’ populace. Sutherland House had been demolished to make way for a high rise. But the brown babus were one-up on the gora sahibs. Since the DM and DIGs’ sprawling bungalows were next door, a high rise would be an invasion of their privacy, the new memsahib’s kitty parties and the babalogs playing.
UK had tried to inculcate patriotic fervour, social concern and business ethics in his son Bharat Bhushan (BB). But BB felt terribly out of place in “free” India. One was free to cheat, lie, rob electricity, evade taxes, file false cases or bribe one’s way to success; to shit and spit anywhere; to drive rashly and abuse the “other” who was not of one’s caste, creed or class. BB wondered if this was the freedom for which Gandhiji had sacrificed his life?
BB’s family decided to give their ancestral property to a builder for development, but got caught in a quagmire of disputes. In order to browbeat BB into submission the builders got false criminal charges filed against him, and had him jailed. But BB was prepared for it.
Conditions in jail were inhuman. Two hand pumps for 350 prisoners, and no running water. 250 inmates in a barrack meant for 100. Filthy abuse and filthier living conditions. Bribery and corruption at every step. Money makes the mare go. You want bidis, charas, smack, special food, better living conditions – just pay for it. Would JJ have approved?
Lars, a German prisoner, was comfortable in the hospital barrack. He got special food in a hot casserole, smoked expensive foreign cigarettes, and strutted around as Lord of the Rings; even poking fun at the policemen on duty. Free Indians are still in awe of the white skin, even if he is a prisoner. Small wonder then that Leo Tolstoy had written to Mahatma Gandhi that it was impossible for a handful of white traders to enslave India until or unless the Indians were willing to be enslaved. The slavish mentality to gora and phoren continues.
While in jail BB heard about Slumdog Millionaire winning Oscars for showcasing India’s poverty. And India applauded! 62 years after Independence, Indians were still enslaved to the white man. But they had not learnt from their erstwhile masters. BB was in jail because of bribery and corruption in the police and judiciary. There was no enforcement of the law of perjury. But in England, Jeffrey Archer, renowned author and Member of Parliament, had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. His crime – swearing a false affidavit. Had that law been implemented in India there would be more Indians in jail than outside it! When BB came out on bail he read that parliamentary elections had been announced. He also saw the Lead India 09 campaign advocated by a leading newspaper. It drew attention to the number of MPs who had criminal or corruption cases pending against them.
BB resolved to lead from the front, even if he was the dark horse or the underdog. If his father had put his money on the Million Heiress, the time had now come for BB to place his trust in the millions of heirs to Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy of Satyagrah and Ahimsa. Yes he would lead India in its second struggle for freedom from communalism, casteism, corruption and criminalisation during this parliamentary election. Jayho for the slumdog, but Jai Hind for the underdog.
* The writer is a Kanpur based Gandhian social activist, whose family has been in Kanpur for 150 years. He recently experienced 6 days in jail.
MARCH 2009
THE SCIENCE OF LOVE
Is there something wrong in the title of this piece? Shouldn’t love be an art and not a science that is so cold and irrational? Maybe, maybe not!
I am now 58 years old, happily married, with one wife and two children. When I was young (I think I still am) I was always getting attracted to the opposite sex, and “falling in love”. Maybe I am an infernal fool and incorrigible romantic.
I have also spent many years working among youth, and been a matchmaker for starry-eyed or star-crossed youngsters. However, I have over the last 20 years, made a startling observation. Young people today seem afraid or incapable of falling in love. Independent, highly educated and career conscious young people have lost the art/ science of falling in love. As a consequence they are also afraid of getting married/ permanent bonding. They then end up telling their parents, “You find a match for me”. What they are really saying is, “You arrange my marriage, and remember that if anything goes wrong you, Mum and Dad, are responsible, because it was your choice, not mine”.
Such an attitude and approach is alarming. It needs to be addressed, if we are to help youngsters develop the joy of falling in love and choosing a life partner. Life today is far more complex and uncertain than it was a couple of generations ago. Hence the need for companionship, understanding and compatibility is far greater today. Making a choice therefore becomes that much more difficult.
Earlier, if one belonged to the same caste, ethnic background, religion or financial status, it was considered sufficient ground for compatibility. There is the old adage that “Incompatibility is the spice of life”. If that applies to husband and wife, the spice is sure to be garam masala. I do not subscribe to this view. For good personal bonding there must be compatibility, which is not the same as commonality. This must be laced with complementarity. Is this getting confusing? Let me explain. If both like to eat rice or listen to music that is a common factor – commonality, which is good. However, if both are talkative, disorganised or spendthrifts, it would be a recipe for disaster. Complementarity means that if one partner is talkative, the other should be a good listener. If one is disorganised the other should be methodical; if one is a spendthrift, the other should be thrifty.
Young people are perhaps also looking for the ideal person, a la Bollywood fairytale endings or Mills & Boon romances. That is reel life, not real life. There is no perfect person. If indeed such a person exists he/she would be so anti-septic as to be not affected or infected by love.
Almost all religions believe that marriages are made in heaven. Marriage is believed to be a sacrament or a permanent and divine bond blessed by God. This external force cements the internal bond of marriage. If one enters a marital relationship believing that it is blessed by God, who is present in that relationship, then it gives both partners the grace and strength to love unconditionally, to forgive and understand each other. This inner disposition will make it easier to make a choice and fall in love. Without this there can be no guarantee or certainty that a relationship will work.
So how do young people begin to discover a soul mate or life companion? In a career conscious world, both sexes would be working. They could be spending 10 – 12 hours a day in their work environment. Hence their maximum interaction with the opposite sex would be in the work place. That could result in office romances. Fine. But please read the statutory warning on the pack, before you puff. At work we are always on our best behaviour. We are performing. We are not our true selves. It could therefore come as a rude shock that the person one married was so different at home and at work. At work one cannot afford to lose one’s temper. At home one unwinds, and there is no inhibition about letting go of one’s emotions. Working and living together are also not the same. One thing would often have to be sacrificed at the cost of the other.
The same goes for school and college friendships. At that point one’s primary concerns are studies or recreation, where there could be a lot of meeting ground. But these are at a superficial level, and may not hold true for a lasting relationship.
Young people from broken homes, who have not experienced love themselves, would have a greater craving for love and acceptance. Those from a strong family background would be emotionally more stable. Mature parents should actually encourage youngsters to interact with the opposite sex, especially in groups. It is the best way to find a suitable partner.
Youngsters also need to understand that the sexes are not just physically complementary (as a lock and key), but even more so are they psychologically complementary. Despite much talk of the metro sexual or unisex look, a man would normally not be attracted to a “female wrestler’, nor would a woman be arm candy to an effeminate dandy. At this point indeed opposit4es attract magnetically. One should not make the fatal error of Professor Higgins in “My Fair Lady”, who cries out despairingly, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”
Man is the primordial hunter. I may sound old fashioned here, but I would still say that it is the man who should woo the damsel. And be sure that the lady will leave enough tell tale signs on the trail to lead you up the garden path.
Now for the scientific part. There must be an inexplicable chemistry between a couple. It is irrational and illogical. You cannot have a reason to love, for love is devoid of reason. Chemistry is followed by botany – say it with flowers or chocolate perhaps. If the relationship does blossom it would lead to physics – the physical touch or embrace. The next love science obviously is biology. That supposedly comes naturally, and does not bear elucidation, or graphic detail So we see that love is indeed a science, to be pursued artistically!
It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So go ahead and fall in love, and may the God of love be with you.
• The writer was the founder Secretary of the U.P. Regional Youth & Vocations Bureau.
JANUARY 2009
I am now 58 years old, happily married, with one wife and two children. When I was young (I think I still am) I was always getting attracted to the opposite sex, and “falling in love”. Maybe I am an infernal fool and incorrigible romantic.
I have also spent many years working among youth, and been a matchmaker for starry-eyed or star-crossed youngsters. However, I have over the last 20 years, made a startling observation. Young people today seem afraid or incapable of falling in love. Independent, highly educated and career conscious young people have lost the art/ science of falling in love. As a consequence they are also afraid of getting married/ permanent bonding. They then end up telling their parents, “You find a match for me”. What they are really saying is, “You arrange my marriage, and remember that if anything goes wrong you, Mum and Dad, are responsible, because it was your choice, not mine”.
Such an attitude and approach is alarming. It needs to be addressed, if we are to help youngsters develop the joy of falling in love and choosing a life partner. Life today is far more complex and uncertain than it was a couple of generations ago. Hence the need for companionship, understanding and compatibility is far greater today. Making a choice therefore becomes that much more difficult.
Earlier, if one belonged to the same caste, ethnic background, religion or financial status, it was considered sufficient ground for compatibility. There is the old adage that “Incompatibility is the spice of life”. If that applies to husband and wife, the spice is sure to be garam masala. I do not subscribe to this view. For good personal bonding there must be compatibility, which is not the same as commonality. This must be laced with complementarity. Is this getting confusing? Let me explain. If both like to eat rice or listen to music that is a common factor – commonality, which is good. However, if both are talkative, disorganised or spendthrifts, it would be a recipe for disaster. Complementarity means that if one partner is talkative, the other should be a good listener. If one is disorganised the other should be methodical; if one is a spendthrift, the other should be thrifty.
Young people are perhaps also looking for the ideal person, a la Bollywood fairytale endings or Mills & Boon romances. That is reel life, not real life. There is no perfect person. If indeed such a person exists he/she would be so anti-septic as to be not affected or infected by love.
Almost all religions believe that marriages are made in heaven. Marriage is believed to be a sacrament or a permanent and divine bond blessed by God. This external force cements the internal bond of marriage. If one enters a marital relationship believing that it is blessed by God, who is present in that relationship, then it gives both partners the grace and strength to love unconditionally, to forgive and understand each other. This inner disposition will make it easier to make a choice and fall in love. Without this there can be no guarantee or certainty that a relationship will work.
So how do young people begin to discover a soul mate or life companion? In a career conscious world, both sexes would be working. They could be spending 10 – 12 hours a day in their work environment. Hence their maximum interaction with the opposite sex would be in the work place. That could result in office romances. Fine. But please read the statutory warning on the pack, before you puff. At work we are always on our best behaviour. We are performing. We are not our true selves. It could therefore come as a rude shock that the person one married was so different at home and at work. At work one cannot afford to lose one’s temper. At home one unwinds, and there is no inhibition about letting go of one’s emotions. Working and living together are also not the same. One thing would often have to be sacrificed at the cost of the other.
The same goes for school and college friendships. At that point one’s primary concerns are studies or recreation, where there could be a lot of meeting ground. But these are at a superficial level, and may not hold true for a lasting relationship.
Young people from broken homes, who have not experienced love themselves, would have a greater craving for love and acceptance. Those from a strong family background would be emotionally more stable. Mature parents should actually encourage youngsters to interact with the opposite sex, especially in groups. It is the best way to find a suitable partner.
Youngsters also need to understand that the sexes are not just physically complementary (as a lock and key), but even more so are they psychologically complementary. Despite much talk of the metro sexual or unisex look, a man would normally not be attracted to a “female wrestler’, nor would a woman be arm candy to an effeminate dandy. At this point indeed opposit4es attract magnetically. One should not make the fatal error of Professor Higgins in “My Fair Lady”, who cries out despairingly, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”
Man is the primordial hunter. I may sound old fashioned here, but I would still say that it is the man who should woo the damsel. And be sure that the lady will leave enough tell tale signs on the trail to lead you up the garden path.
Now for the scientific part. There must be an inexplicable chemistry between a couple. It is irrational and illogical. You cannot have a reason to love, for love is devoid of reason. Chemistry is followed by botany – say it with flowers or chocolate perhaps. If the relationship does blossom it would lead to physics – the physical touch or embrace. The next love science obviously is biology. That supposedly comes naturally, and does not bear elucidation, or graphic detail So we see that love is indeed a science, to be pursued artistically!
It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So go ahead and fall in love, and may the God of love be with you.
• The writer was the founder Secretary of the U.P. Regional Youth & Vocations Bureau.
JANUARY 2009
PEACE IS A GRAVE MATTER!
The world is seeking an elusive peace. Many would believe that peace is the absence of war, strife, tension, problems, etc. That is utopian, for there is no night without a day, no rose without a thorn, and no peak without a valley. Others would have us believe in the peace of the graveyard, where nothing happens and nobody speaks. Such peace is for dead bodies, not for living members.
While watching TV I have come across a channel called “Peace TV”. The star performer is one Dr Zakir Naik, probably from Maharashtra. However, the address depicted on the channel is the Islamic Research Foundation based in Birmingham, U.K. This channel portends to propagate peace by promoting Islamic values. It seeks to portray the supremacy of Islam, and the scientific/ rational nature of the Holy Quran Sharif. It also studies comparative religion, with references to Christian and Hindu scriptures and scholars. Apparently quite innocuous. Not really.
I have carefully observed Dr. Naik’s programmes and have grave reservations about his style, content and purpose. Peace is a misnomer for his show; because he is constantly deriding and belittling Christian beliefs, doctrines and its scriptures. Since my knowledge of Hindu scriptures is rather limited I consider myself incompetent to comment on his approach to Hinduism. I would, however, hazard a guess that Naik will tread carefully when talking about Hinduism, because he cannot afford to antagonise the majority community in India. He would not be able to face the flak from the Bajrang Dal, VHP or even Raj Thackeray. So the soft target in India is the Christian community. He seeks to exalt Islam by deriding Christianity.
Let us first examine the content of Naik’s teaching. We have no quarrel in his expounding the virtues of Islam and Islamic scriptures. The problem arises when he begins quoting from the Bible, with chapter and verse. He picks and chooses texts that suit his trend of thought. He then goes on to “prove” that Jesus never claimed divinity, or that there is no reference to the Holy Trinity in the Bible. He quotes various anomalies in the Old Testament to prove its inaccuracies, thereby deducing that the Bible is unreliable and therefore cannot be the Word of God. He quotes from Genesis and God “resting on the seventh day”, and wondering what kind of a “God” is this, that gets tired and needs a rest!
An average biblical scholar would easily answer these allegations/ half truths, if he got the chance. But no such chance is afforded to Christian scholars of repute, by Peace TV. Naik also made a startling claim that Christian organisations/ evangelists have tons of money for evangelisation, and they are well trained in the art of communication, body language, etc! I wonder if Naik ever heard a sonorous Sunday sermon in our churches?
Another dangerous trend is Naik’s attitude to civil law. He advises Muslims in India not to have a court marriage, as by so doing this would be subjugating Muslim Personal Law to civil law. This is a dangerous mindset. Perhaps Naik is unaware that Goa, which inherited Portuguese laws, as against British in the rest of India, has a uniform civil code. Accordingly, all marriages – be they Christian, Hindu or Muslim, have to first be registered in the civil courts, before any religious ceremony can take place.
It is worth digressing at this point to see the contrasting attitude of the Catholic Church. As per Canon Law, the legal age for marriage for a boy is 16, and 14 for a girl (Can1083:1). Does this sound shocking in this day and age? But the church has a rider that “The Episcopal Conference may establish a higher age for the lawful celebration of marriage“ (Can1083:2). It further states that we should “dissuade young people from entering marriage before the age customarily accepted in the region (Can 1072). Finally it says that no one is to assist at a marriage “which cannot be recognised by the civil law, or celebrated in accordance with it” (Can 1071:2). It therefore accepts the supremacy of Civil Law; which is why, in India, the CBCI has stipulated 21 and 18 years as the lawful age for marriage of boys or girls respectively.
Naik selectively chooses texts to suit his line of thought. “To choose” in Greek is hairein, which is the root for the English word “heresy”. One who chooses conveniently is propounding heresy, which is what Naik is doing vis-à-vis Christianity.
What of Naik’s style? Peace TV shows him addressing vast audiences sitting in rapt attention. The settings seem Indian, but Naik always talks in English! Why? How many Indian Muslim masses in his audiences would understand English? So why does Naik talk in English? Who then is the real target of his Peace TV broadcast? Something to think about. Another amazing thing is that Naik quotes chapter and verse, not just from the Holy Quran Sharif, but even from the Bible and Hindu scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita, etc. Somebody from his audience asks a random question and Naik has the answer at the tip of his fingers; chapter and verse! Either the questions are stage managed, or the broadcast is slickly edited to portray Naik as a superhuman brain that can quote ad verbatim from various scriptures. As he speaks the text with chapter and verse appears as a sub-title on the TV screen. Gullible audiences just lap this up.
So what is Naik really aiming at? The supremacy of Islam, at the cost of other religions. His constant appeals for “zakat” and donations to his accounts in the U,K, also indicate that lots of money is involved. Running an international TV channel on prime time, devoid of advertising revenue, obviously costs a packet. Even the behemoth Catholic Church does not have such a set up. None of the preachers on GOD, Miracle, Astha or Sanskar channels can match Naik and Peace TV for techno-savvy wizardry and audio-visual effects. Naik is master of his medium.
But somewhere the bubble must burst. Naik was to address a gathering in Allahabad recently. But Shia and Barelvi Muslims protested, and Naik’s meeting was cancelled. It was to be rescheduled in Kanpur (my hometown) but again the aforesaid sections of Muslims protested, and the Government refused permission for Naik’s programme, citing a law and order problem.
For those not familiar with Islamic groups, the Shias are a breakaway group of Muslims, who are relatively progressive in outlook. The Barelvis are Sunni Muslims with their religious headquarters in Bareilly in UP. They are also a moderate group that have adopted Indian/ Hindu customs like burning incense and praying for the dead. Naik seems to belong to the Wahabee group that rules Saudi Arabia. (Remember that Churches cannot be built there, nor can one take a Bible, rosary or Christmas card there. They are so intolerant of “others”). In India the Deobandis are akin to the Arabian Wahabees. Deoband is a small town in Saharanpur district, also in U.P. It is from Deoband that strange fatwas emanate; like a woman raped by her own father-in-law being told that her husband has now become her son!
In view of the above, Christians in India should not allow Naik’s pyrotechnics to go unchallenged. I have already written a strong letter of protest to him at his email ID zakir@irf.net. I have requested the AICU leadership to take up the matter with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. I hope that the CBCI will also act accordingly. In fact I am amazed at how ignorant and lackadaisical our current crop of leaders is. May I request whoever reads this article to please watch “Peace TV” to ascertain the truth of what I am saying. Thereafter readers should express their views to Naik at the aforesaid email ID. A copy may please be marked to me at noronha@vsnl.com
“Peace TV” is a grave matter. Let us address it before we find ourselves in the grave, with or without peace.
* The author is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union (AICU)
NOVEMBER 2008
While watching TV I have come across a channel called “Peace TV”. The star performer is one Dr Zakir Naik, probably from Maharashtra. However, the address depicted on the channel is the Islamic Research Foundation based in Birmingham, U.K. This channel portends to propagate peace by promoting Islamic values. It seeks to portray the supremacy of Islam, and the scientific/ rational nature of the Holy Quran Sharif. It also studies comparative religion, with references to Christian and Hindu scriptures and scholars. Apparently quite innocuous. Not really.
I have carefully observed Dr. Naik’s programmes and have grave reservations about his style, content and purpose. Peace is a misnomer for his show; because he is constantly deriding and belittling Christian beliefs, doctrines and its scriptures. Since my knowledge of Hindu scriptures is rather limited I consider myself incompetent to comment on his approach to Hinduism. I would, however, hazard a guess that Naik will tread carefully when talking about Hinduism, because he cannot afford to antagonise the majority community in India. He would not be able to face the flak from the Bajrang Dal, VHP or even Raj Thackeray. So the soft target in India is the Christian community. He seeks to exalt Islam by deriding Christianity.
Let us first examine the content of Naik’s teaching. We have no quarrel in his expounding the virtues of Islam and Islamic scriptures. The problem arises when he begins quoting from the Bible, with chapter and verse. He picks and chooses texts that suit his trend of thought. He then goes on to “prove” that Jesus never claimed divinity, or that there is no reference to the Holy Trinity in the Bible. He quotes various anomalies in the Old Testament to prove its inaccuracies, thereby deducing that the Bible is unreliable and therefore cannot be the Word of God. He quotes from Genesis and God “resting on the seventh day”, and wondering what kind of a “God” is this, that gets tired and needs a rest!
An average biblical scholar would easily answer these allegations/ half truths, if he got the chance. But no such chance is afforded to Christian scholars of repute, by Peace TV. Naik also made a startling claim that Christian organisations/ evangelists have tons of money for evangelisation, and they are well trained in the art of communication, body language, etc! I wonder if Naik ever heard a sonorous Sunday sermon in our churches?
Another dangerous trend is Naik’s attitude to civil law. He advises Muslims in India not to have a court marriage, as by so doing this would be subjugating Muslim Personal Law to civil law. This is a dangerous mindset. Perhaps Naik is unaware that Goa, which inherited Portuguese laws, as against British in the rest of India, has a uniform civil code. Accordingly, all marriages – be they Christian, Hindu or Muslim, have to first be registered in the civil courts, before any religious ceremony can take place.
It is worth digressing at this point to see the contrasting attitude of the Catholic Church. As per Canon Law, the legal age for marriage for a boy is 16, and 14 for a girl (Can1083:1). Does this sound shocking in this day and age? But the church has a rider that “The Episcopal Conference may establish a higher age for the lawful celebration of marriage“ (Can1083:2). It further states that we should “dissuade young people from entering marriage before the age customarily accepted in the region (Can 1072). Finally it says that no one is to assist at a marriage “which cannot be recognised by the civil law, or celebrated in accordance with it” (Can 1071:2). It therefore accepts the supremacy of Civil Law; which is why, in India, the CBCI has stipulated 21 and 18 years as the lawful age for marriage of boys or girls respectively.
Naik selectively chooses texts to suit his line of thought. “To choose” in Greek is hairein, which is the root for the English word “heresy”. One who chooses conveniently is propounding heresy, which is what Naik is doing vis-à-vis Christianity.
What of Naik’s style? Peace TV shows him addressing vast audiences sitting in rapt attention. The settings seem Indian, but Naik always talks in English! Why? How many Indian Muslim masses in his audiences would understand English? So why does Naik talk in English? Who then is the real target of his Peace TV broadcast? Something to think about. Another amazing thing is that Naik quotes chapter and verse, not just from the Holy Quran Sharif, but even from the Bible and Hindu scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita, etc. Somebody from his audience asks a random question and Naik has the answer at the tip of his fingers; chapter and verse! Either the questions are stage managed, or the broadcast is slickly edited to portray Naik as a superhuman brain that can quote ad verbatim from various scriptures. As he speaks the text with chapter and verse appears as a sub-title on the TV screen. Gullible audiences just lap this up.
So what is Naik really aiming at? The supremacy of Islam, at the cost of other religions. His constant appeals for “zakat” and donations to his accounts in the U,K, also indicate that lots of money is involved. Running an international TV channel on prime time, devoid of advertising revenue, obviously costs a packet. Even the behemoth Catholic Church does not have such a set up. None of the preachers on GOD, Miracle, Astha or Sanskar channels can match Naik and Peace TV for techno-savvy wizardry and audio-visual effects. Naik is master of his medium.
But somewhere the bubble must burst. Naik was to address a gathering in Allahabad recently. But Shia and Barelvi Muslims protested, and Naik’s meeting was cancelled. It was to be rescheduled in Kanpur (my hometown) but again the aforesaid sections of Muslims protested, and the Government refused permission for Naik’s programme, citing a law and order problem.
For those not familiar with Islamic groups, the Shias are a breakaway group of Muslims, who are relatively progressive in outlook. The Barelvis are Sunni Muslims with their religious headquarters in Bareilly in UP. They are also a moderate group that have adopted Indian/ Hindu customs like burning incense and praying for the dead. Naik seems to belong to the Wahabee group that rules Saudi Arabia. (Remember that Churches cannot be built there, nor can one take a Bible, rosary or Christmas card there. They are so intolerant of “others”). In India the Deobandis are akin to the Arabian Wahabees. Deoband is a small town in Saharanpur district, also in U.P. It is from Deoband that strange fatwas emanate; like a woman raped by her own father-in-law being told that her husband has now become her son!
In view of the above, Christians in India should not allow Naik’s pyrotechnics to go unchallenged. I have already written a strong letter of protest to him at his email ID zakir@irf.net. I have requested the AICU leadership to take up the matter with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. I hope that the CBCI will also act accordingly. In fact I am amazed at how ignorant and lackadaisical our current crop of leaders is. May I request whoever reads this article to please watch “Peace TV” to ascertain the truth of what I am saying. Thereafter readers should express their views to Naik at the aforesaid email ID. A copy may please be marked to me at noronha@vsnl.com
“Peace TV” is a grave matter. Let us address it before we find ourselves in the grave, with or without peace.
* The author is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union (AICU)
NOVEMBER 2008
PEACE BECOMES GRAVER STILL
My previous article “Peace is a Grave Matter” about Peace TV and Dr Zakir Naik has evoked responses from all over the world. There have been some subsequent developments and broadcasts that merit attention.
A Jesuit priest in Rome has expressed disagreement with my presentation, saying that we should not give undue importance to the comments about Christians on Peace TV, as it will fade out in its own way. Isn’t that the same wait and watch attitude that the Catholic Church adopted towards Hitler? The silence of the shepherds led to the slaughter of the lambs!
Rev CM Paul SDB, one of India’s leading Catholic journos, now based in Rome, placed my article on his blog. It elicited a sharp response from one Moeenuddeen, probably an ardent follower or close associate of Dr Zakir Naik. I also received a much studied comment from Predhuman Joseph Dhar, a scholar, and a Kashmiri Pandit who has embraced Catholicism. It is worth considering these responses and developments subsequent to my article.
On 5th November, Naik made a seething attack on idol worship in Hinduism and veneration of sacred images in Christianity. On 7th November Naik tried to justify Islamic terrorism, equating the terrorists with Shaheed Bhagat Singh; whom the British considered a terrorist. On 16th November the Times of India carried a report on Naik trying to justify the actions of Osama bin Laden, who it called the “most wanted man in the world”. On 15th November, another speaker on Peace TV said that a Muslim in America could not swear allegiance to the American Constitution, as it contained provisions that were contrary to Islam.
Should the shepherds keep silent? Will it then be the “Silence of the Lambs”?
Let us first address the social issues. There is the adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. If a person migrates to another country he is duty bound to abide by its Constitution. If not, such persons should not migrate there in the first place. By this logic a person of any religious persuasion can cite religious beliefs to disobey the law of the land. This will lead to anarchy. Moeenuddeen states that following Muslim Personal Law does not, and will not, create any problems in India. He has forgotten the Shah Bano case.
In that case the Supreme Court had ruled that a Muslim woman who had been divorced by her husband was entitled to maintenance, as per civil law. The Muslims considered this an intrusion into their personal laws. To appease them Rajiv Gandhi then enacted a law – “Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act” in 1986 - by which Muslim Waqf Boards would bear the maintenance costs of the divorced women.
This created a backlash among the Hindus, as Waqfs receive substantial grants from the Government. In effect this meant that a Hindu tax payer would be funding the maintenance of a Muslim divorcee! It was considered totally unjust. In like manner Hindus resent a rapid increase in the Muslim population as the latter consider it against their religion to follow family planning, and also believe in polygamy (though the second fear is largely unfounded).
To placate the agitated Hindus, the politically naïve Rajiv Gandhi then allowed the opening of the locks of the Ram Janmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The rest is history. So assertion of religious laws does create problems – serious ones at that.
In like manner, giving a religious garb to terrorist acts, and then justifying them in the name of religion, is fraught with danger. We are now witness to militant Hindu leaders using religion (or the perceived threat to it) as a justification for violence and vengeance. In what way are Lt Col Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya and self – styled Shankracharya Amritanand different from the SIMI, HUJI, LET, Osama or others who seek to give a religious colour to their dastardly and inhuman acts? Such attacks are in no way justifiable, as sought by Dr Naik on Peace TV.
As for idol worship, P.J. Dhar states that this is integral to the Bhakti Marg in Hinduism. He says that Hindus do not consider the material objects to be God, but an indwelling of the Divine; just as Christians believe that God dwells in them. Christians do not worship (aradhana) sacred objects. They venerate (upasana) them, as a means of uplifting ones human sensibilities, through tangible means, to the intangible God. If we can take photographs of our loved ones, and erect statues of great leaders, can we not revere those persons or objects that draw us closer to God? Naik and Peace TV must respect the religious beliefs of others. Unfortunately, even Moeenuddeen rubbishes my earlier statement about the ban on religious objects in Saudi Arabia. He says that they are “intolerant of nonsense like the Rosary, Valentine’s Day, Halloween, New Year, Christmas cards etc”. At least he admits to “intolerance”. He also admits to ignorance, by placing Valentine’s Day and Halloween in his list of Christian nonsense!
Moeenuddeen has also objected to my reference to different Muslim sects and describing Dr Naik as a possible Wahabi. Subsequently the Times of India has also referred to Dr Naik as a Salafist Wahabi. We need to accept the diversity of the human race. Hence there are bound to be factions and sects in all religions – Hinduism, Christianity or Islam – God the Creator is both creative and innovative. We humans mint coins in billions, each indistinguishable from the other. God the Creator has produced trillions upon trillions of human beings, but no two have the same fingerprints. That being so, they will, quite naturally, leave different footprints on the sands of time.
Moeenuddeen, in his defence of Dr Naik, refers to his numerous “debates” with people of other religions. I have not seen these “debates”. However, religion is not something to be debated; wherein one seeks to be one up on the other. Inter religious interaction should be a dialogue, a humble listening to the other in a cordial atmosphere of searching for truth. In India we call this Satsang.
I would reiterate that Dr Naik and Peace TV are well within their rights to propagate the wonders and virtues of Islam. However, I strongly object to their divisive and derogatory approach to all other religions. If this does not stop one will be constrained to lodge complaints with the Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, and the British High Commissioner, Shanti Path, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (as Naik’s address is shown as Birmingham, England).
Let us hope and pray that good sense will prevail on Dr Zakir Naik and Peace TV. May we all strive for peace, aman, shanti, shalom, without causing grave injury to others.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union
NOVEMBER 2008
A Jesuit priest in Rome has expressed disagreement with my presentation, saying that we should not give undue importance to the comments about Christians on Peace TV, as it will fade out in its own way. Isn’t that the same wait and watch attitude that the Catholic Church adopted towards Hitler? The silence of the shepherds led to the slaughter of the lambs!
Rev CM Paul SDB, one of India’s leading Catholic journos, now based in Rome, placed my article on his blog. It elicited a sharp response from one Moeenuddeen, probably an ardent follower or close associate of Dr Zakir Naik. I also received a much studied comment from Predhuman Joseph Dhar, a scholar, and a Kashmiri Pandit who has embraced Catholicism. It is worth considering these responses and developments subsequent to my article.
On 5th November, Naik made a seething attack on idol worship in Hinduism and veneration of sacred images in Christianity. On 7th November Naik tried to justify Islamic terrorism, equating the terrorists with Shaheed Bhagat Singh; whom the British considered a terrorist. On 16th November the Times of India carried a report on Naik trying to justify the actions of Osama bin Laden, who it called the “most wanted man in the world”. On 15th November, another speaker on Peace TV said that a Muslim in America could not swear allegiance to the American Constitution, as it contained provisions that were contrary to Islam.
Should the shepherds keep silent? Will it then be the “Silence of the Lambs”?
Let us first address the social issues. There is the adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. If a person migrates to another country he is duty bound to abide by its Constitution. If not, such persons should not migrate there in the first place. By this logic a person of any religious persuasion can cite religious beliefs to disobey the law of the land. This will lead to anarchy. Moeenuddeen states that following Muslim Personal Law does not, and will not, create any problems in India. He has forgotten the Shah Bano case.
In that case the Supreme Court had ruled that a Muslim woman who had been divorced by her husband was entitled to maintenance, as per civil law. The Muslims considered this an intrusion into their personal laws. To appease them Rajiv Gandhi then enacted a law – “Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act” in 1986 - by which Muslim Waqf Boards would bear the maintenance costs of the divorced women.
This created a backlash among the Hindus, as Waqfs receive substantial grants from the Government. In effect this meant that a Hindu tax payer would be funding the maintenance of a Muslim divorcee! It was considered totally unjust. In like manner Hindus resent a rapid increase in the Muslim population as the latter consider it against their religion to follow family planning, and also believe in polygamy (though the second fear is largely unfounded).
To placate the agitated Hindus, the politically naïve Rajiv Gandhi then allowed the opening of the locks of the Ram Janmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The rest is history. So assertion of religious laws does create problems – serious ones at that.
In like manner, giving a religious garb to terrorist acts, and then justifying them in the name of religion, is fraught with danger. We are now witness to militant Hindu leaders using religion (or the perceived threat to it) as a justification for violence and vengeance. In what way are Lt Col Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya and self – styled Shankracharya Amritanand different from the SIMI, HUJI, LET, Osama or others who seek to give a religious colour to their dastardly and inhuman acts? Such attacks are in no way justifiable, as sought by Dr Naik on Peace TV.
As for idol worship, P.J. Dhar states that this is integral to the Bhakti Marg in Hinduism. He says that Hindus do not consider the material objects to be God, but an indwelling of the Divine; just as Christians believe that God dwells in them. Christians do not worship (aradhana) sacred objects. They venerate (upasana) them, as a means of uplifting ones human sensibilities, through tangible means, to the intangible God. If we can take photographs of our loved ones, and erect statues of great leaders, can we not revere those persons or objects that draw us closer to God? Naik and Peace TV must respect the religious beliefs of others. Unfortunately, even Moeenuddeen rubbishes my earlier statement about the ban on religious objects in Saudi Arabia. He says that they are “intolerant of nonsense like the Rosary, Valentine’s Day, Halloween, New Year, Christmas cards etc”. At least he admits to “intolerance”. He also admits to ignorance, by placing Valentine’s Day and Halloween in his list of Christian nonsense!
Moeenuddeen has also objected to my reference to different Muslim sects and describing Dr Naik as a possible Wahabi. Subsequently the Times of India has also referred to Dr Naik as a Salafist Wahabi. We need to accept the diversity of the human race. Hence there are bound to be factions and sects in all religions – Hinduism, Christianity or Islam – God the Creator is both creative and innovative. We humans mint coins in billions, each indistinguishable from the other. God the Creator has produced trillions upon trillions of human beings, but no two have the same fingerprints. That being so, they will, quite naturally, leave different footprints on the sands of time.
Moeenuddeen, in his defence of Dr Naik, refers to his numerous “debates” with people of other religions. I have not seen these “debates”. However, religion is not something to be debated; wherein one seeks to be one up on the other. Inter religious interaction should be a dialogue, a humble listening to the other in a cordial atmosphere of searching for truth. In India we call this Satsang.
I would reiterate that Dr Naik and Peace TV are well within their rights to propagate the wonders and virtues of Islam. However, I strongly object to their divisive and derogatory approach to all other religions. If this does not stop one will be constrained to lodge complaints with the Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, and the British High Commissioner, Shanti Path, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (as Naik’s address is shown as Birmingham, England).
Let us hope and pray that good sense will prevail on Dr Zakir Naik and Peace TV. May we all strive for peace, aman, shanti, shalom, without causing grave injury to others.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union
NOVEMBER 2008
“OF BRAVE HEARTS & CITIZENS”
Gnashing teeth. Rattling sabres. Gattling guns. Anger, followed by revenge. The mood of the nation. “Bravehearts” in Mumbai and across the country, post 26/11, are baying for the blood of the enemy – Pakistan. Capt Bharat Verma, Editor of the “Indian Defence Review” says that we should “Take the war to the enemy” – meaning Pakistan.
Film stars, celebrities and Army Generals on numerous TV talk shows squarely blame Pakistan’s ISI and our own “inept” politicians for what happened in Mumbai. With gusto and bravado these “civilians” who have little or no contact with the army and its civil administration in the 62 Cantonments of India, suddenly want to hand the reins of those who reign, to the NSG commandos. How naïve can we get? Capt Verma advocates a “surgical strike” at “enemy camps” deep in Pakistan territory, to “eliminate” the terrorist once and for all. I suspect that Capt Verma is a retired officer, who wants somebody else’s son to fight and die in his proxy war. Whenever I hear anybody talk of war, my first question to them is “Is your son in the army? Are you ready to sacrifice his life for the nation? If not, think again.”
On the other hand Maj. Gen Vombatkere VSM (Retd) former Additional Director General, Discipline and Vigilance, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, warns of the dangers of jingoistic war mongering. He says that there is no guarantee of surgical precision, when attacking a civilian target. There are bound to be heavy causalities of innocents, which war mongers rather casually refer to as “collateral damage”. Let alone deep strikes into enemy territory, it took 3 days for 200 commandos to eliminate just 2 terrorists holed up in the Taj Hotel at Mumbai. Even then they could not prevent collateral damage to life and property.
What of the other consequences, even if the mission is successful, asks Gen Vombatkere? What will be the reaction of the international community, which at the moment is sympathetic to India, and is turning the screws on Pakistan? What will be the consequences of a surgical strike? Will Pakistan take it lying down? Will it not result in military confrontation between two nuclear powers? Will there be any winners in a nuclear war, which destroys a hundredfold more than it saves? As Arvind Mahindra gallantly wrote in “The Times of India” – how many Bravehearts were around when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during the Second World War? Let them check out with Man Gen Eustace D’souza (Retd) who was there shortly after the bombings. Let them read the experiences of the late Fr Peter Arrupe SJ (former Superior General of the Jesuits) who ministered to the victims of these horrendous attacks. Let them ask Gp Capt Cheshire, who piloted the Enola Gray, that dropped those bombs. He repented by founding the Cheshire Homes for the handicapped and destitute.
A heavily painted Simi Grewal, who bared all in the movie “Siddarth”, now bares her fangs to emulate Bush in the war against terror. Not Bush, the most unpopular man in the world today! Has Bush succeeded in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did America earlier succeed in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan? War is a serious matter, and the consequences are fraught with even greater danger.
Other Bravehearts have held up Israel as a country that has withstood terror. Do they have peace? No. I had visited Israel (the Holy Land for Christians) on pilgrimage in 1980. It was swarming with army commandos. There was palpable fear in the air. Some would refer to Israel’s pre-emptive strike at Entebbe airport, Uganda, about 40 years ago. That was a very long time ago. Military tactics have advanced considerably since then.
In war, and especially in pre-emptive strikes, surprise is the most important element. With electronic surveillance, satellite imaging and an IT enabled world, the element of surprise no longer exists. You cannot “hide” troop movements, or the presence of enemy aircraft. Fire a missile, and in five minutes those that matter know all about it. In fact, warfare has become redundant. The role of the Defence Forces today is précised that – to defend, as you can no longer attack.
This is the crux of the matter. We need to concentrate on defending our country, our social fabric and economic interests, rather than tilting at windmills, a la Don Quixote. How can we defend and protect our national interests?
This time the public has found a convenient scapegoat in the much maligned politician. But who are these worthies, if not the ones that we ourselves choose? Some will say they are not our representatives, because we don’t exercise our franchise. If one doesn’t have the guts and gumption to stand in a line on voting day, then one has forfeited one’s right to criticise. I have another question for Mumbai’s Bravehearts. Where were they when Raj Thackeray’s goons were attacking North Indians? Where were their candles, banners and human chains? Is our bravery seen only when the enemy is out of sight?
For a start, could TV channels please stop having film stars, cricketers and fashion designers as opinion makers? The cricketers of course are back at what they are best known for – having a ball of a time, when the nation has been stumped by terror strikes and an economic crisis.
Oh cricket. During the recent ODI in my hometown Kanpur, 6000 cops were deployed. If the cop’s cup is brimming over with protecting cricketers and VIPs, who will protect society? Unfortunately, “policing” today is another name for “collection”. Take your cut, and allow the vehicle to pass. Never mind if the cargo is contraband, counterfeit or weaponry. Corruption at all levels has reduced us to a vulnerable state. Our “intelligence failures” are because our intelligence is obsessed with self interest.
It is time that the Bravehearts become responsible citizens; participating in the political process, promoting communal harmony and eradicating corruption. May Mahatma Gandhi’s path of satya and ahimsa be our guide. JAI HIND.
DECEMBER 2008
Film stars, celebrities and Army Generals on numerous TV talk shows squarely blame Pakistan’s ISI and our own “inept” politicians for what happened in Mumbai. With gusto and bravado these “civilians” who have little or no contact with the army and its civil administration in the 62 Cantonments of India, suddenly want to hand the reins of those who reign, to the NSG commandos. How naïve can we get? Capt Verma advocates a “surgical strike” at “enemy camps” deep in Pakistan territory, to “eliminate” the terrorist once and for all. I suspect that Capt Verma is a retired officer, who wants somebody else’s son to fight and die in his proxy war. Whenever I hear anybody talk of war, my first question to them is “Is your son in the army? Are you ready to sacrifice his life for the nation? If not, think again.”
On the other hand Maj. Gen Vombatkere VSM (Retd) former Additional Director General, Discipline and Vigilance, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, warns of the dangers of jingoistic war mongering. He says that there is no guarantee of surgical precision, when attacking a civilian target. There are bound to be heavy causalities of innocents, which war mongers rather casually refer to as “collateral damage”. Let alone deep strikes into enemy territory, it took 3 days for 200 commandos to eliminate just 2 terrorists holed up in the Taj Hotel at Mumbai. Even then they could not prevent collateral damage to life and property.
What of the other consequences, even if the mission is successful, asks Gen Vombatkere? What will be the reaction of the international community, which at the moment is sympathetic to India, and is turning the screws on Pakistan? What will be the consequences of a surgical strike? Will Pakistan take it lying down? Will it not result in military confrontation between two nuclear powers? Will there be any winners in a nuclear war, which destroys a hundredfold more than it saves? As Arvind Mahindra gallantly wrote in “The Times of India” – how many Bravehearts were around when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during the Second World War? Let them check out with Man Gen Eustace D’souza (Retd) who was there shortly after the bombings. Let them read the experiences of the late Fr Peter Arrupe SJ (former Superior General of the Jesuits) who ministered to the victims of these horrendous attacks. Let them ask Gp Capt Cheshire, who piloted the Enola Gray, that dropped those bombs. He repented by founding the Cheshire Homes for the handicapped and destitute.
A heavily painted Simi Grewal, who bared all in the movie “Siddarth”, now bares her fangs to emulate Bush in the war against terror. Not Bush, the most unpopular man in the world today! Has Bush succeeded in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did America earlier succeed in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan? War is a serious matter, and the consequences are fraught with even greater danger.
Other Bravehearts have held up Israel as a country that has withstood terror. Do they have peace? No. I had visited Israel (the Holy Land for Christians) on pilgrimage in 1980. It was swarming with army commandos. There was palpable fear in the air. Some would refer to Israel’s pre-emptive strike at Entebbe airport, Uganda, about 40 years ago. That was a very long time ago. Military tactics have advanced considerably since then.
In war, and especially in pre-emptive strikes, surprise is the most important element. With electronic surveillance, satellite imaging and an IT enabled world, the element of surprise no longer exists. You cannot “hide” troop movements, or the presence of enemy aircraft. Fire a missile, and in five minutes those that matter know all about it. In fact, warfare has become redundant. The role of the Defence Forces today is précised that – to defend, as you can no longer attack.
This is the crux of the matter. We need to concentrate on defending our country, our social fabric and economic interests, rather than tilting at windmills, a la Don Quixote. How can we defend and protect our national interests?
This time the public has found a convenient scapegoat in the much maligned politician. But who are these worthies, if not the ones that we ourselves choose? Some will say they are not our representatives, because we don’t exercise our franchise. If one doesn’t have the guts and gumption to stand in a line on voting day, then one has forfeited one’s right to criticise. I have another question for Mumbai’s Bravehearts. Where were they when Raj Thackeray’s goons were attacking North Indians? Where were their candles, banners and human chains? Is our bravery seen only when the enemy is out of sight?
For a start, could TV channels please stop having film stars, cricketers and fashion designers as opinion makers? The cricketers of course are back at what they are best known for – having a ball of a time, when the nation has been stumped by terror strikes and an economic crisis.
Oh cricket. During the recent ODI in my hometown Kanpur, 6000 cops were deployed. If the cop’s cup is brimming over with protecting cricketers and VIPs, who will protect society? Unfortunately, “policing” today is another name for “collection”. Take your cut, and allow the vehicle to pass. Never mind if the cargo is contraband, counterfeit or weaponry. Corruption at all levels has reduced us to a vulnerable state. Our “intelligence failures” are because our intelligence is obsessed with self interest.
It is time that the Bravehearts become responsible citizens; participating in the political process, promoting communal harmony and eradicating corruption. May Mahatma Gandhi’s path of satya and ahimsa be our guide. JAI HIND.
DECEMBER 2008
MY FRIEND MUNNABHAI DD
Traffic Inspector Prakash Maliekal D’souza was on pollution control duty in Chanakyapuri, the diplomatic enclave in New Delhi. He noticed a battered Maruti 800 with a wisp of smoke emitting from the exhaust. He promptly flagged it down for a pollution check. It proved negative, as the emission was just moisture condensation on a cold wintry evening.
Inspector D’ Souza noticed a rosary hanging from the rear view mirror of the car. The driver was a gaunt looking 50 year old with a salt-pepper beard. He wore a khadi kurta pyjama with a chain and a wooden crucifix around his neck. Something in the deep set eyes of the driver aroused D’souza’s curiosity. He asked the driver his name. Pat came the reply: “Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram”. This got D’souza’s goat. He didn’t find this funny, as he was at the fag end of his twelve hour shift. He asked the driver for his driving licence. His eyes widened. The name on the licence was “Munnabhai DD”.
D’souza couldn’t believe it. He asked the driver to step into the outpost cabin. He shut the door for the interrogation, telling his beat constable that he was not to be disturbed. He settled into his chair, stared long and hard at Munnabhai, and began to quiz him:
PMD: Why did you lie to me, and give a fake identity. Did you think that anybody would swallow that whopper – Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram? Do you think that we cops are fools?
MDD: Sorry. I’ve had a problem in the past with my name. It actually is Munnabhai. But ever since that Dutt fellow began his Gandhigiri, people know of only one Munnabhai, and think that I am pulling a fast one. To counter it I invented this other name. Which is more plausible?
PMD: OK I get your point. But what does DD stand for – Damn Donkey probably. (Pauses) Oh God, excuse me, are you by any chance a bishop? Bishops write DD. But you don’t look anything like those pink sashed guys who come in fancy cars to meet the Papal Nuncio here in Chanakyapuri.
MDD: (Lowering his eyes, and clearing his throat) Actually I have recently been appointed a bishop, and I was on my way to the Nuncio, to seek his blessing.
PMD: Oh my God. I mean (stuttering) Oh my Lord, I mean Lordship, please forgive me. (Hesitatingly) But quite frankly, you don’t look like a bishop.
MDD: What are bishops supposed to look like? We are supposed to be shepherds, like the Good Shepherd Jesus. What did Jesus look like?
PMD: I agree with you bishopji. Pardon me if I don’t address you as “Your Lordship”, or kiss your ring.
MDD Not at all. In fact this is a European honorific that the medieval church adopted in order to compete, or keep up with secular powers.
PMD: I am aware of that. As a cop I have long bouts of duty in the thana. So I do a lot of reading in my spare time. I regularly read the Bible, Christian magazines, and I have also done some self study of Vatican II and Canon Law.
MDD: That’s wonderful. Praise God. You are an unusual policeman, and an enlightened Christian.
PMD: And you seem to be an extraordinary bishop. But tell me, why are all bishops’ names suffixed with DD – Doctor of Divinity? Surely a bhai bishop like you could have avoided this honorific?
MDD: Ah my friend, I notice that despite your religious knowledge, you are labouring under a common misconception. DD is an abbreviation for Doulous Duli. This is Greek for “servant of the servants”. Far from being an honorific, it is a servile duty. I intend to be Doulous Duli in both letter and spirit.
PMD: This is amazing. What a revelation, and what a privilege to meet a “servant bishop” like you.
Just then the bishop’s gaze fell on the name tag of the inspector. It read “P.M. D’souza”. So he asked him jokingly:
MDD: So you are Prime Minister D’souza, are you? And you were making fun of me being Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram!
PMD (Going red in the face): No, no bishopji. My name is Prakash Maliekal D’souza.
Now it was the turn of the bishop to double up with laughter.
MDD: Come on inspector. You are trying to be one up on me.
PMD: I’m not making this up. My mother is Malayali, my father is Goan, and I was brought up here in Delhi itself. So that is how I got my name. And I feel proud to have a composite culture, as there is too much ethnic chauvinism in the Church. The Keralites are fighting over their rites. The adivasis and dalit Christians keep to themselves. It is very disheartening.
MDD: I agree with you. That is why I do not use my surname. I do not wish to identify with any particular group in the Church. There is no room for partiality or groupism in the Church.
PMD: I wish we had more bishops like you. Sometimes the Holy Spirit does make a correct choice. But, pardon me for saying this, I often wonder at the process and choice of who are appointed bishops. Is the Holy Spirit dead?
MDD: The truth is that God works through human instruments, and quite often the human elements prevail. We must pray for change in the Church.
PMD: (Cynically) Come on bishopji. We have been praying for years. But our prayers seem to fall on deaf ears. It is now 44 years since Vatican II, and its wished for renewal is mostly cosmetic. We ask for greater participation of the laity in the affairs of the Church. So they say, “Ok, count the Sunday collection”! We ask for women priests, we get altar girls! We ask for accountability and transparency in the Church’s administration, but we are stonewalled with silence. The Church badly needs a Right to Information Act.
MDD: (Sighing) I can sense your pain and frustration. I agree that the true spirit of Vatican II has not permeated the Church, especially in India. We have had only cosmetic liturgical changes, like replacing the Roman genuflection with our Indian anjalihasta (bowing with folded hands). But I agree with you, that there is a big task ahead, and that is a big ask.
PMD: Vatican II talked of de-institutionalising the Church. But in India the number of institutions has grown at double the pace of the Catholic population, after Vatican II. Bishops and priests are no longer spiritual animators or rectors. They have now become corporate honchos and social work directors.
MDD (sadly): I hang my head in shame. What you say is true. As a bishop my priority is to be a man of the people, and a man of God. Let us not despair. I assure you I will always be a Doulous Duli.
PMD: Vatican II talked of a preferential option for the poor and liberation theology. What happened? Our poor Catholics don’t stand anywhere in our elite institutions; and then we go with a begging bowl to the government asking for reservations for Dalit Christians. How many seats have we “reserved” for our poor in our own institutions?
MDD: Unfortunately the common image of the Church is that of the urban elite. The other side of the coin is that there are also a lot of missionaries in remote rural areas who are working with, and living among the poor.
PMD: May their tribe increase.
MDD: Bishops, clergy and laity must work together as one homogenous corpus (body) and not as an elitist corporate.
PMD: I wish we had more bishops like you.
MDD: Pray, brother pray. And also send your views to the Nuncio here in Chanakyapuri.
PMD: Bishopji, your car is not polluting the environment. Now I hope that your elevation as bishop will help to remove the hierarchical pollution that has crept into the Church.
MDD: Pray brother, pray
PMD: Bless me bishopji
Munnabhai DD placed his anointed hands on Inspector D’souza’s head, and then walked out into Delhi’s wintry night, polluted as it was. For a long time D’souza remained in a reverie, till the beat constable knocked to say that his reliever had come. But when would renewal and reformation come? Was this just a dream? Did Munnabhai DD actually exist?
# Epilogue: This piece was occasioned by two of the writer’s friends being appointed bishops recently. And yes, he had written to the Nuncio, proposing their names. So there is hope.
JANUARY 2009
Inspector D’ Souza noticed a rosary hanging from the rear view mirror of the car. The driver was a gaunt looking 50 year old with a salt-pepper beard. He wore a khadi kurta pyjama with a chain and a wooden crucifix around his neck. Something in the deep set eyes of the driver aroused D’souza’s curiosity. He asked the driver his name. Pat came the reply: “Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram”. This got D’souza’s goat. He didn’t find this funny, as he was at the fag end of his twelve hour shift. He asked the driver for his driving licence. His eyes widened. The name on the licence was “Munnabhai DD”.
D’souza couldn’t believe it. He asked the driver to step into the outpost cabin. He shut the door for the interrogation, telling his beat constable that he was not to be disturbed. He settled into his chair, stared long and hard at Munnabhai, and began to quiz him:
PMD: Why did you lie to me, and give a fake identity. Did you think that anybody would swallow that whopper – Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram? Do you think that we cops are fools?
MDD: Sorry. I’ve had a problem in the past with my name. It actually is Munnabhai. But ever since that Dutt fellow began his Gandhigiri, people know of only one Munnabhai, and think that I am pulling a fast one. To counter it I invented this other name. Which is more plausible?
PMD: OK I get your point. But what does DD stand for – Damn Donkey probably. (Pauses) Oh God, excuse me, are you by any chance a bishop? Bishops write DD. But you don’t look anything like those pink sashed guys who come in fancy cars to meet the Papal Nuncio here in Chanakyapuri.
MDD: (Lowering his eyes, and clearing his throat) Actually I have recently been appointed a bishop, and I was on my way to the Nuncio, to seek his blessing.
PMD: Oh my God. I mean (stuttering) Oh my Lord, I mean Lordship, please forgive me. (Hesitatingly) But quite frankly, you don’t look like a bishop.
MDD: What are bishops supposed to look like? We are supposed to be shepherds, like the Good Shepherd Jesus. What did Jesus look like?
PMD: I agree with you bishopji. Pardon me if I don’t address you as “Your Lordship”, or kiss your ring.
MDD Not at all. In fact this is a European honorific that the medieval church adopted in order to compete, or keep up with secular powers.
PMD: I am aware of that. As a cop I have long bouts of duty in the thana. So I do a lot of reading in my spare time. I regularly read the Bible, Christian magazines, and I have also done some self study of Vatican II and Canon Law.
MDD: That’s wonderful. Praise God. You are an unusual policeman, and an enlightened Christian.
PMD: And you seem to be an extraordinary bishop. But tell me, why are all bishops’ names suffixed with DD – Doctor of Divinity? Surely a bhai bishop like you could have avoided this honorific?
MDD: Ah my friend, I notice that despite your religious knowledge, you are labouring under a common misconception. DD is an abbreviation for Doulous Duli. This is Greek for “servant of the servants”. Far from being an honorific, it is a servile duty. I intend to be Doulous Duli in both letter and spirit.
PMD: This is amazing. What a revelation, and what a privilege to meet a “servant bishop” like you.
Just then the bishop’s gaze fell on the name tag of the inspector. It read “P.M. D’souza”. So he asked him jokingly:
MDD: So you are Prime Minister D’souza, are you? And you were making fun of me being Rahul Manmohan Chidambaram!
PMD (Going red in the face): No, no bishopji. My name is Prakash Maliekal D’souza.
Now it was the turn of the bishop to double up with laughter.
MDD: Come on inspector. You are trying to be one up on me.
PMD: I’m not making this up. My mother is Malayali, my father is Goan, and I was brought up here in Delhi itself. So that is how I got my name. And I feel proud to have a composite culture, as there is too much ethnic chauvinism in the Church. The Keralites are fighting over their rites. The adivasis and dalit Christians keep to themselves. It is very disheartening.
MDD: I agree with you. That is why I do not use my surname. I do not wish to identify with any particular group in the Church. There is no room for partiality or groupism in the Church.
PMD: I wish we had more bishops like you. Sometimes the Holy Spirit does make a correct choice. But, pardon me for saying this, I often wonder at the process and choice of who are appointed bishops. Is the Holy Spirit dead?
MDD: The truth is that God works through human instruments, and quite often the human elements prevail. We must pray for change in the Church.
PMD: (Cynically) Come on bishopji. We have been praying for years. But our prayers seem to fall on deaf ears. It is now 44 years since Vatican II, and its wished for renewal is mostly cosmetic. We ask for greater participation of the laity in the affairs of the Church. So they say, “Ok, count the Sunday collection”! We ask for women priests, we get altar girls! We ask for accountability and transparency in the Church’s administration, but we are stonewalled with silence. The Church badly needs a Right to Information Act.
MDD: (Sighing) I can sense your pain and frustration. I agree that the true spirit of Vatican II has not permeated the Church, especially in India. We have had only cosmetic liturgical changes, like replacing the Roman genuflection with our Indian anjalihasta (bowing with folded hands). But I agree with you, that there is a big task ahead, and that is a big ask.
PMD: Vatican II talked of de-institutionalising the Church. But in India the number of institutions has grown at double the pace of the Catholic population, after Vatican II. Bishops and priests are no longer spiritual animators or rectors. They have now become corporate honchos and social work directors.
MDD (sadly): I hang my head in shame. What you say is true. As a bishop my priority is to be a man of the people, and a man of God. Let us not despair. I assure you I will always be a Doulous Duli.
PMD: Vatican II talked of a preferential option for the poor and liberation theology. What happened? Our poor Catholics don’t stand anywhere in our elite institutions; and then we go with a begging bowl to the government asking for reservations for Dalit Christians. How many seats have we “reserved” for our poor in our own institutions?
MDD: Unfortunately the common image of the Church is that of the urban elite. The other side of the coin is that there are also a lot of missionaries in remote rural areas who are working with, and living among the poor.
PMD: May their tribe increase.
MDD: Bishops, clergy and laity must work together as one homogenous corpus (body) and not as an elitist corporate.
PMD: I wish we had more bishops like you.
MDD: Pray, brother pray. And also send your views to the Nuncio here in Chanakyapuri.
PMD: Bishopji, your car is not polluting the environment. Now I hope that your elevation as bishop will help to remove the hierarchical pollution that has crept into the Church.
MDD: Pray brother, pray
PMD: Bless me bishopji
Munnabhai DD placed his anointed hands on Inspector D’souza’s head, and then walked out into Delhi’s wintry night, polluted as it was. For a long time D’souza remained in a reverie, till the beat constable knocked to say that his reliever had come. But when would renewal and reformation come? Was this just a dream? Did Munnabhai DD actually exist?
# Epilogue: This piece was occasioned by two of the writer’s friends being appointed bishops recently. And yes, he had written to the Nuncio, proposing their names. So there is hope.
JANUARY 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)