Poumai Naga Folksong

Is it ever Justifiable to Steal?

I believe that the God revealed in the Bible is the creator of the world. And he has created the world in such a way that the material goods will be distributed without anyone having to starve. We human, however, distort and corrupt this plan of God through our greed and hate repeatedly. And so when some powerful people gather riches leaving the widows and orphans starving and naked, this is against the will of God. When even the basic needs of some people are not met, it is normally because the material goods have not been shared appropriately as some people refuse to follow God's plan of distributive justice. If the rich follows God's word, the hungry and the naked would no longer remain in that condition.

Listen to what some older Christians said. In his book Justice: Right and Wrong, Nicholas Wolterstorff made this quote of Basil of Caesarea (329-379) "that bread which you keep, belongs to the hungry; that coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked; those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoeless; that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy. Wherefore, as often as you were able to help others, and refused, so often did you do them wrongs" ¹ In the same page, Wolterstorff quoted Bishop Ambrose of Milan (339-397) “Not from you own do you bestow upon the poor man, but you make return from what is his”. Vinoth Ramachandra, in his book Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, writes quoting John Chrysostom ( 347-407) “ This also is theft, not to share one's possession... For his own goods are not his own, but belong to his own fellow servants...I beg you remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.” ² This lines are clear that when some rich people store riches, and left, say, the widows and orphans starving and naked the rich are actually keeping which don't belong to themselves. And this is the way Christians of old understood with respect to the way material goods are to be distributed.

Vinoth Ramachandra continues in the same book “ It is morally permissible for an extremely impoverished person to take what he or she needs for sustenance from a person who has plenty. If I have food in my house which you need for our survival, but which is not indispensable for mine, then it rightfully belongs to you, it would not be an act of charity on it. If I offered it to you, it would not be an act of charity on my part as much as granting you your own rights under God.” Then Vinoth goes on to quote Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274), the great medieval theologian, “ In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common... Now according to the natural order established by Divine providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succouring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law to the purpose of succouring the poor."  Vinoth continued “ Reasoning from the principle of stewardship whereby material things are seen as held in trust for the common welfare, Aquinas continued: ' Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succour his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft nor robbery' ”. ³

I need not add further word. But from the explanation given above I believe it is justifiable that there is a certain kind of situation when it is morally permissible to take what belongs to others or rather what actually belongs to me but in others' custody.

The moral of the point is that the rich people owe so much to the poor.

1. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (2008). Justice: Rights and Wrongs, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 62
2. Ramachandra, Vinoth ( 1996). Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, p. 45
3. Ibid., p. 46

Daniel Duomai at 18 months!

Democracy: Government off the People, fool the People and buy the People?

The write up is to be situated in the context of the election that was held in Manipur, a north eastern state of India, on 28th January 2012. The election was probably the most corrupt eonein the history of Manipur's democracy. There would have been not a single candidate that did not use unfair means to get votes. At then end it was the Congress that emerged victorious. And the reasons are many, but one key reason was that no one else could match the money power of the Congress party.

It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. There were candidates who did not visit their constituency due to threats to their life. ( I am not going to get into that now.) But even such candidates got elected. How was that possible? They sent in their workers to the constituency with bundles of money. And voters were purchased. All candidates used money power to purchase voters. And buying voters likewise is illegal. And it is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be fought on the basis of candidates' merits. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchased voters , therefore, are using unfair means to get elected. Period. 

The voters who took money in exchange for her vote too is wrong. Even if the money was distributed, the voter need not take it. So the voter too was a party to the malpractice. And I appreciate those voters who were able to say NO to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something we all need to copy.

I would further say that even if money has been taken by a voter from a candidate, there is no valid reason to be obligated to vote for the candidate. As of now if voters have taken money from Mr. A, they are obligated to vote for Mr. A. So the the one who offers more money will get more votes! But such obligation will perpetuate the ongoing corrupt practice. And if we have to blunt the power of money to purchase voter, we have to do away with the obligation. Therefore, to achieve an end which is good i.e making the power of money to buy voter redundant, I believe it is okay not to be obligated to vote for the person from whom one has taken money. 

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the who gave you the money". It is rather saying "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gave you money".  So the actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money". The third punchline is to provide additional cushion to fight unfair way of using money power during election.

India Should Vote in Favour of the Resolution on Sri Lanka

LTTE used terror among its own people and also against others in its quest for Tamil Eelam. But now LTTE is dead! The Government of Sri Lanka has defeated the Tamil Tigers. Whether Tamils in Sri Lanka deserve an Eelam or not, I have no idea. What I learnt, however, is that Sri Lankan army violated human right in all sorts of ways to end the bloody conflict. And that I cannot endorse. All sorts of human rights violation, whether by state or non-state actors, I condemn.

It is for this reason that I believe India should vote in favour of the resolution on Sri Lanka at United Nations Human Right Council. Whether DMK/AIADMK put pressure on the Government of India or not, my view is that India should vote in favour of the resolution. If a team to investigate on the human right violation is formed, and after impartial investigation if Sri Lankan government officials are found to be guilty, proper sentence should be given to those who are guilty. Such an example would prove successful in serving as a deterring factor even in future for other nation-states that may violate human right.