THE SS TROOPERS

Normally I enjoy tempting and teasing people into reading what I write. But this time I will lift the veil of mystery in the very first para! SS stands for Socialism and Secularism. The Troopers, not unlike the Nazi Secret Service (SS), are those who are advocating the removal of SS from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.

“Oh it was actually a mistake. This was an old version of the Constitution, and the words inadvertently got omitted from the Republic Day ad”. Thus spake the wise, but not so simple, mandarins of the Central Govt.  So why make such a shenanigan over a slip up? As the old saying goes, “A slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind, and he who remarks is most unkind”. The moot question though is – was this a minor slip up, or a deliberate act of provocation? Subsequent events point to the latter.

Soon after the Opposition decried the “slip up”, NDA partners like the Shiv Sena stridently proclaimed that SS was not required in the Constitution. Other right wingers went so far as to say that if these words were not in the original Constitution adopted in 1949, then the 42^nd Amendment that incorporated them in 1976, was an afterthought; and therefore not essential to the Constitution. Hence SS could be dispensed with. Now does not this seem like a deliberate act of provocation, to elicit a sharp reaction, a debate, and then a course correction?

This same pattern was earlier followed for “conversions”. First came the “Ghar Vapsi”, followed by swift denials by the Govt. Even swifter came the demand for a debate on conversions and the need for enacting a strong anti-conversion law! Are we seeing the light?

Namo and his core strategists are not easily prone to error, more so at the Republic Day, where they were showcasing India before Buddy Barak. One is therefore constrained to conclude that there is a method in the madness.

Why had Indira Gandhi incorporated the SS in the Constitution? Those were the days of the Emergency. She wanted to nationalize the banks, bring in the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and remove the right to property. Socialism therefore, was the garb under which she undertook these reforms. Perhaps she also perceived a threat from growing religious fundamentalism. Hence the countervailing force of Secularism. In hindsight one must admit that the SS played a critical role in transforming India from a feudalistic society to a modern one.

Back to basics now. The Preamble of the Constitution states that India is a “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic”. What follows is even more significant. It seeks to secure for all its citizens:

“JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and opportunity;

And to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation”.

Hence, if we see the Preamble as a whole, we find that the SS is essential and integral to the goals that the nation has set itself. Of the four above, it is again noteworthy that the last three – Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, are infact the clarion call of the French Revolution. 

What is the origin and actual meaning of Secularism? I trace it to the Pharisees who tried to entrap Jesus by asking him if it was proper to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus’ response to this was, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mat 22:21). During the French Revolution, where the monarchy and religious hierarchy were equally despised, secularism took the form of separation of Church and State; something that France and much of Europe zealously guards to date. This is different from our Indian brand of secularism. As Vice-President Hamid Ansari recently stated, it means the Indian State has no religion; hence it treats all religions equally.

Is this true of our country? Are we really secular? To a large extent, yes. But there are glaring aberrations. When the State spends crores of rupees on Kumbh Melas or Haj subsidies, it can hardly be termed “secular”. If Govt programmes begin with religious rituals like bhoomi pujans, if Hindu deities are found in every police station and Govt premises, and temples can spring up at will on public land, then such acts are a threat to Indian secularism.

Such seemingly innocuous acts of State sponsored religion send out a subtle message to religious minorities in India – that they are second-class citizens in the land of their birth. This sense of discrimination in turn nurtures feelings of resentment, leading to anger and violence. That then stimulates a vicious circle of violence. The Govt, be it at the Centre, in the States or even Municipalities, needs to be attentive to these rumblings, and actively promote secularism in both letter and spirit.

Some recent events unfolding across the country are also indicative of growing intolerance, something that even Buddy Barak was constrained to comment upon. We have rationalists being killed, writers being threatened, derogatory and abusive language being used, and Hindu women being exhorted to have more kids. Right under the PM’s nose we have had five churches in New Delhi being vandalized. Yet Namo maintains a stoic (sorry, strategic) silence. BJP stalwarts like Arun Jaitley have dismissed these developments as stray incidents in an otherwise tolerant India. My foot! As the old saying goes – one incident could be an accident, two incidents could be a co-incidence, but more than that is pre-planned.

What goes for Secularism is equally true for Socialism, if we really want our country to be founded on the principles of Justice, Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.

Our Prime Minister needs to be reminded that economic development can never be at the price of social discord. If we sow the wind we will reap the whirlwind, as both Indira and Rajive Gandhi’s gruesome assassinations remind us. Namo may have vikas (development) as his mantra, but it can never be achieved by the vinash (destruction) of India’s delicately woven social and religious fabric. The SS Troopers are not going to let go so easily, so those who do value SS need to dig in their heels for the long haul ahead.

FEBRUARY 2015

THE SS TROOPERS

THE SS TROOPERS

Normally I enjoy tempting and teasing people into reading what I write. But this time I will lift the veil of mystery in the very first para! SS stands for Socialism and Secularism. The Troopers, not unlike the Nazi Secret Service (SS), are those who are advocating the removal of SS from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.

“Oh it was actually a mistake. This was an old version of the Constitution, and the words inadvertently got omitted from the Republic Day ad”. Thus spake the wise, but not so simple, mandarins of the Central Govt.  So why make such a shenanigan over a slip up? As the old saying goes, “A slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind, and he who remarks is most unkind”. The moot question though is – was this a minor slip up, or a deliberate act of provocation? Subsequent events point to the latter.

Soon after the Opposition decried the “slip up”, NDA partners like the Shiv Sena stridently proclaimed that SS was not required in the Constitution. Other right wingers went so far as to say that if these words were not in the original Constitution adopted in 1949, then the 42^nd Amendment that incorporated them in 1976, was an afterthought; and therefore not essential to the Constitution. Hence SS could be dispensed with. Now does not this seem like a deliberate act of provocation, to elicit a sharp reaction, a debate, and then a course correction?

This same pattern was earlier followed for “conversions”. First came the “Ghar Vapsi”, followed by swift denials by the Govt. Even swifter came the demand for a debate on conversions and the need for enacting a strong anti-conversion law! Are we seeing the light?

Namo and his core strategists are not easily prone to error, more so at the Republic Day, where they were showcasing India before Buddy Barak. One is therefore constrained to conclude that there is a method in the madness.

Why had Indira Gandhi incorporated the SS in the Constitution? Those were the days of the Emergency. She wanted to nationalize the banks, bring in the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and remove the right to property. Socialism therefore, was the garb under which she undertook these reforms. Perhaps she also perceived a threat from growing religious fundamentalism. Hence the countervailing force of Secularism. In hindsight one must admit that the SS played a critical role in transforming India from a feudalistic society to a modern one.

Back to basics now. The Preamble of the Constitution states that India is a “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic”. What follows is even more significant. It seeks to secure for all its citizens:

“JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and opportunity;

And to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation”.

Hence, if we see the Preamble as a whole, we find that the SS is essential and integral to the goals that the nation has set itself. Of the four above, it is again noteworthy that the last three – Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, are infact the clarion call of the French Revolution. 

What is the origin and actual meaning of Secularism? I trace it to the Pharisees who tried to entrap Jesus by asking him if it was proper to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus’ response to this was, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mat 22:21). During the French Revolution, where the monarchy and religious hierarchy were equally despised, secularism took the form of separation of Church and State; something that France and much of Europe zealously guards to date. This is different from our Indian brand of secularism. As Vice-President Hamid Ansari recently stated, it means the Indian State has no religion; hence it treats all religions equally.

Is this true of our country? Are we really secular? To a large extent, yes. But there are glaring aberrations. When the State spends crores of rupees on Kumbh Melas or Haj subsidies, it can hardly be termed “secular”. If Govt programmes begin with religious rituals like bhoomi pujans, if Hindu deities are found in every police station and Govt premises, and temples can spring up at will on public land, then such acts are a threat to Indian secularism.

Such seemingly innocuous acts of State sponsored religion send out a subtle message to religious minorities in India – that they are second-class citizens in the land of their birth. This sense of discrimination in turn nurtures feelings of resentment, leading to anger and violence. That then stimulates a vicious circle of violence. The Govt, be it at the Centre, in the States or even Municipalities, needs to be attentive to these rumblings, and actively promote secularism in both letter and spirit.

Some recent events unfolding across the country are also indicative of growing intolerance, something that even Buddy Barak was constrained to comment upon. We have rationalists being killed, writers being threatened, derogatory and abusive language being used, and Hindu women being exhorted to have more kids. Right under the PM’s nose we have had five churches in New Delhi being vandalized. Yet Namo maintains a stoic (sorry, strategic) silence. BJP stalwarts like Arun Jaitley have dismissed these developments as stray incidents in an otherwise tolerant India. My foot! As the old saying goes – one incident could be an accident, two incidents could be a co-incidence, but more than that is pre-planned.

What goes for Secularism is equally true for Socialism, if we really want our country to be founded on the principles of Justice, Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.

Our Prime Minister needs to be reminded that economic development can never be at the price of social discord. If we sow the wind we will reap the whirlwind, as both Indira and Rajive Gandhi’s gruesome assassinations remind us. Namo may have vikas (development) as his mantra, but it can never be achieved by the vinash (destruction) of India’s delicately woven social and religious fabric. The SS Troopers are not going to let go so easily, so those who do value SS need to dig in their heels for the long haul ahead.

FEBRUARY 2015

THE ORIGINAL AAM AADMI

STOP! Don’t flip the page. This is not about the AK assault rifle that hit Delhi with a bang and ended with a whimper. It is also not about the Aam Aadmi Pope, a clever term coined by Dr James Kottoor. The original Aam Aadmi, now that the term has become au currant, is Jesus himself. In a sense, we are all aam aadmi. But when an extraordinary being dons the mantle of an ordinary mortal, the term Aam Aadmi (in Caps – no pun intended) assumes an entirely different connotation.

Since we are close to Lent, a small Lenten reflection would be in order. Did Jesus actually need to fast without food or water for 40 days in the desert, before beginning his public life at the age of 30? Was it just a drama to overawe people, or was it an essential prelude, an immediate preparation, before an intense 3-year public campaign, for which he needed to keep his powder dry? The answer is blowing in the wind, if by that we understand the Holy Spirit that blows where it wills (cf Jn 3:8).

Infact, our Lenten observance will largely depend on how we view Jesus’ desert experience. Did he actually require preparation? If yes, then how much more do we? Was he an almighty omniscient God who “descended” from heaven to become an avatar (incarnation) among us lesser mortals? Or was he like one of us, who went through a learning, experiencing and discerning process; till he finally ascended to the godhead? Those unfamiliar with theology and spirituality may find these questions disturbing. Infact, if we arrive at the correct conclusions, they are truly comforting and inspiring.

We are so inured to calling Jesus the “Son of God” that we forget that Jesus always referred to himself as “Son of Man”, a nomenclature that he used 82 times in the Gospels. Interestingly, no other person used the term, neither the four Gospel writers, nor in the other books of the New Testament (NT). The term is also not found in the Old Testament (OT). Ironically, “Son of God” is often found in the OT, long before the advent of Jesus; and refers to a superior being. It is ofcourse extensively used by others in the NT. Exegetes (biblical scholars) tell us that the NT writers were in a time and space where their listeners had seen the flesh and blood Jesus, and knew only too well that he was an aam aadmi. So there was no need to state the obvious. They therefore over emphasized what was not so apparent – that he was a divine being.

As a “good Christian” I too mouthed the theophany of the Nicean Creed that Jesus was “true God and true man”; but this was just a neat formula. That was until I read the book “The Conspiracy of God” by Rev John Haughey SJ, about 35 years ago. It transformed my understanding of Jesus, and thereby my life. It also largely impacted my own book *Beyond 2000 – The Other Side”, written for the third millennium of Christianity. It was a Christological treatise, trying to answer the eternal question put to Peter, and to each one of us, “Who do you say that I am?” A seemingly innocuous but personal question could be conveniently answered with an academic theophany like – True God and True Man/ Son of God/ The Messiah. An academic or generalized answer does not suffice. Jesus expects a personal answer.

The Annunciation is synonymous with the incarnation – the Word becoming flesh. The Ascension was the Other Side of the story – the flesh becoming the word, man becoming divine. Between these two extremities there is a short biography spanning just 33 years, the life of Jesus of Nazareth. If we can comprehend those 33 years, not just the three years of public ministry; then we will begin to understand who Jesus really is. In turn we will understand ourselves, the meaning of life, and our mission here on earth. We can then say with St Augustine of Hippo – Help me know thee, help me know me.

We need to explode the myth that Jesus was some kind of a superman who just donned a mantle – a readymade garment. He assiduously avoided any cult following, or to be labeled a “wonder worker”, invariably warning those whom he had healed to not broadcast it. That is why he correctly discerned Satan’s temptation to prove that he was the Son of God by jumping off the top of the temple (cf Lk 4:11). We too should not be deceived into believing that Jesus’ fast in the desert was a fast one!

Why did Jesus use the previously unknown term “Son of Man” to describe himself? In his native Aramaic dialect the words were “Bar Nasa” – bar meant son, and nasa meant man. Notice how phonetically close it is to the word we use for a human being – insan? They obviously have the same etymological roots in Hebrew and its sister Semitic languages. The Aramaic word nasa simply meant a man, and not a particular person or category. It stood for the common man, yes, the aam aadmi. So Jesus was actually calling himself an aam aadmi, because that is how he saw himself. It was his self-understanding.

The word aadmi in turn comes from Adam whose etymological roots in Hebrew are uncertain. It possibly meant ruddy or earth colour, what we today call terracotta. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for earth is damah, phonetically akin to Adam. The ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations also had a tradition of man being fashioned from earth. The Quran too replicates the biblical account of Adam’s creation. So the word aadmi has probably traveled to India via Islam and the Bible!

What happened between the Annunciation and the Ascension? What happens to us between birth and death? If we can use “connecting rods” to join these two life tracks then we will be truly on track, our lives running parallel to Jesus’ own. The major connecting rod is the Word of God which needs to be welded in place by the working of the Holy Spirit. In his introduction to Rev Haughey’s book the charismatic Cardinal Seunens wrote, “In the past we have given in to the tendency to present the mystery of Jesus in terms of a Divine Theophany – God coming to us under human appearance, rather than from among us in the mystery of the Incarnation. We must meet the authentic Jesus, a man among men, conditioned by the relativity of time and space as men always are”.

The problem with the superman Christology is that we tend to see Jesus the Son of God as somebody “up there” who inspires awe, and by default makes us down here feel so grossly inadequate that we cannot aspire to that utopian state. So we wallow in self-pity and our own “sinfulness”. There is no serious attempt to aspire for perfection or to imitate Jesus. This phenomenon is what Haughey calls “pedestalisation” – putting a statue high up on a pedestal, and consequently beyond our reach. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Rather it is the handiwork of the eternal schemer, the original tempter in the desert. St Teresa of Avila, considered one of Christianity’s greatest mystics, in her book “Interior Castle” says that he operates like a noiseless file – so subtle. Again, so different from popular perceptions of the Evil One.

Haughey sees through this game plan when he says that “the pedestalisation of Jesus is the main reason for the anemic condition of Christianity”. This profound observation radically changed my understanding of Jesus, and transformed my life.

The Bible reminds us that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin (cf Heb 4:15). He learned obedience through what he suffered (cf Heb 5:8). He was infact learning throughout his 30 years of hidden life. In the desert he was like a cow chewing the cud, to fully digest all that he had ingested in the previous 30 years. He emerged fortified and with clarity for the tumultuous 3 years of public life that beckoned him. Small wonder that the Evil One was desperate to distract him through food (Pride of the senses), power (Pride of the intellect) and subversion (Pride of the spirit), the last of which has no cure. That is why we also read that the Evil One left him for just a little while (cf Lk 4:13). From the desert to Calvary, and after almost every act of healing in between, the taunt was to proclaim or prove that he was the Son of God, a tactic that should not be lost on us. So let us also not be lulled into complacency, believing that we are the children of God, the chosen few, the born again and have therefore ascended to a higher level.

Haughey asks another critical question. Which is correct – Jesus could not sin, or Jesus did not sin? If Jesus could not sin then his life was just a charade, and a deterrent to a godly life. However if, despite human nature and all manner of temptations, Jesus did not sin, then he is indeed the Aam Aadmi, worthy of inspiration and imitation. Do we see the subtle difference? There is a very thin dividing line between truth and error. It is like going off on a tangent where the subtle digression is hardly noticeable, but the gap progressively widens. So there is a constant need for a Lenten review, and a course correction before it is too late.

Would Jesus, limited by time and space, have known about nuclear physics or microbiology? Infact he frankly admitted that even the son did not know the hour of the Second Coming, the parousia, the end of time (cf Mat 24:26). But he did know about carpentry and farming. He understood human nature as he himself had lived and experienced it. He was therefore able to communicate in an idiom that touched his listeners (so different from our boring Sunday sermons). That is why his audience said that he was not like other speakers, for he taught with the authority born of personal experience (cf Mat 7:28-29).

Jesus the Aam Aadmi kept evolving. His learning curve was based on both the study of the Jewish scriptures and his own authentic “hidden” life of 30 years. Though there are passing references to Jesus growing in maturity and increasing in wisdom (cf Lk 2:50-52) his definitive learning is manifested at the age of twelve, when he was “lost” in the temple. To the contrary that is when he “found” his true Father in Heaven telling his carpenter father Joseph of Nazareth that he was doing his Father’s business (cf Lk 2:49). I have already referred to Jesus learning through his desert experience, so I won’t repeat it.

Another important learning experience is his baptism by John where he receives a confirmation of his divine origin and specific mission. The same may be said of the Transfiguration. It is often described as an epiphany (manifestation) to his disciples. What we forget is that it was simultaneously a continuing affirmation to Jesus, to press on regardless. Another significant affirmation is the raising of Lazarus, just days before his own excruciating death (cf Jn 11:1-44); a sign that he too would rise again. During the agony in the garden he is again affirmed by a comforting angel (cf Lk 22:43). His last lesson is on the cross itself when he feels abandoned by the Father, and expresses his thirst – one that could not be quenched by material things. He gets the final message from his Father, that abandonment (banishment from Eden) is what all human beings experience, and the only solution lay in dying on the cross, and not coming down as the Evil One was taunting him to do (cf Lk 23:35-38). This was Jesus’ Last Temptation, and had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene, as some voyeuristic novelists would have us believe. He overcomes it with his last supreme act of will when he proclaims that his mission is accomplished saying, “Into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46). It is at this point of ultimate fusion of the human and the divine that the centurion is inspired to proclaim, “Truly this man was the son of God” (Mk 15:39). Note that Jesus did not resign like other aam aadmis, nor did he accept the escape route offered to him by the Tempter.

Where do we figure in this salvific history? For that I turn to Peter, my favourite biblical persona. His experience of Jesus also evolved, from addressing him as “Sir” (Lk 5:8), “Teacher” (Jn 1:38), “Master” (Lk 8:45) and finally “the Christ, the Son of God” (Mt 16:16). We see that his personal relationship with Jesus kept evolving from an admirer to a disciple, then to a servant and ultimately to total surrender and assimilation. Jesus’ final message is also addressed to Peter in a personal way. At the Ascension he asks him, ”Do you love me more than these … feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (cf Jn 21:15-17). This Lent we too are called to answer the same personal question and accept an unambiguous mission.

Is it an onerous task? Again Haughey seems to have the answer. He says that if Jesus himself was constantly led by the Spirit, then more so do we need that guidance. But the problem is that we try to imitate the historical Jesus of Nazareth who healed people, walked on water, multiplied loaves,etc, and we find ourselves inadequate to the task. So we end up thinking Christian discipleship is utopian, like the pedestalers. Walking in the footsteps of the historical Jesus is fraught with danger, because like footprints in the sand, they get swept away by time and tide; and we in turn will get lost or disillusioned like the pedestalers. Instead, Haughey advocates being led by the same Spirit that led Jesus.

An apt example would amply illustrate the point. St Francis of Assisi followed the historical Jesus in both letter and spirit, to the extent of receiving in his own body the wounds of Jesus – the Stigmata. But Pope Francis is being led by the Spirit of the Ascended Christ. As we enter the desert this Lent we have three choices (i) To pedestalise Jesus the Son of God, and wallow in adulation or self-pity (ii) To follow the historical Jesus with the heroic virtue of St Francis of Assisi, aptly called the alter Christi (another Christ) or (iii) Be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit that led Jesus the Aam Aadmi to the point of fusion with the godhead, to ascend to the divine, by loving and caring, as Jesus had instructed Peter to do.

(This development of thought is expressed in greater detail in the writer’s book “Beyond 2000 – The Other Side”)

FEBRUARY 2014