SLUMDOG millionaire, human rights and poverty

With eight Oscars in its kitty SLUMDOG millionaire has once again generated much discussion. Having won awards one after another it’s now difficult to sustain any conspiracy theory. Personally I find the movie quite better than so many Bollywood movies that have already been made. I don’t know why some people make an issue out of it when they are silent on those movies that have unwanted scenes. Is it that some people find it insulting because that part of India they want to hide has been exposed? Or is it that their pride has been punctured because what we Indian could not do, a foreigner has been able to do – using our weakness to our advantage. After all making money more than ten times its actual cost is an achievement, and it is even likely to cross that figure.

The most important theme to me, however, is the portrayal of human rights of our nation India. I am not sure if the director had any such motive when the movie was being filmed. The intriguing thing about human right is that it has been used to support different causes. From denouncing military torture to supporting gay rights to fight to take one’s own life etc. The idea of the right to eat, however, is not propagated anchoring upon human right. And quite obviously because those who do not have food to eat are not even aware of any ideological concept as human right.

Human right is that basic right and freedom which every human being in entitled to. If poverty is understood as that which deprives people of food, and chains people to hunger then issue of poverty is very much an issue concerning human rights. Nature has made human being to eat, and when one has no food to eat it is against law of nature. Human right is the recognition of the right of an individual ‘given’ by the law of nature. This right is not given by any government or any state so that it can be taken away whenever government or state demands it. Rather government or state just recognises this right ‘given’ by the law of nature. It is for this reason that I believe poverty is a violation of human rights of those who are poor: who are deprived of food for survival.

It is for this reason that one medieval thinker said something like this: “ ... 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, then it is lawful for a man to succour (help in time of difficulty) his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery”. Because in such situation the right to live of the hungry man trumps over the right to private property of the rich. This is so radical, yet this contains a profound truth. This also calls for radical transformation in the thinking of the rich.
The SLUMDOG millionaire exposes the deprivation of human right of many people of India. I don’t suppose that the producer had motive to portray India in poor light. And even if he had any such motive we should have the heart to accept reality. The wise move for us as Indian is to accept such reality and proceed to rectify such gross violation of human rights. Criticising the movie and refusing to accept reality is to turn blind eye to the gross violation of human rights in India.

Winner of Husband of the Year Award, 2008!

Prayer in Schools

I am a Christian, and I don’t want my children to follow other religion. ( Btw, I am single.) I shall teach them about Jesus Christ whom I worship, but I shall not force them to worship whom I worship. And I am sure everybody can agree with me thus far.

What would you do if your child is forced to worship ‘god’ that you don’t worship? Would it be okay with you if your child is forced to pray to ‘god’ that you don’t believe in? I am sure no one can agree with that. Suppose, BJP comes to power in India, and makes a rule that all the Govt owned schools recite Gayatri Mantra, whether the child is a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Sikh and so on, what would you say? I shall protest if such a law is passed by any government. If they perform such thing in a school funded by their religious group, I would have no quarrel, but if anyone makes such a law for all even in Govt funded school, I would strongly protest.

How would an atheist feel if their children are forced to pray “Lord’s Prayer” in Govt school in some western countries? Or what would Jewish parents feel if their children are supposed to pray to Lord Jesus in school because the Christians in that country have successfully made prayer to Jesus a law? They don’t want their children being forced to pray Christian prayer. If I don’t want to be forced Gayatri Mantra upon me here in India, I should not want “Lord’s prayer” to be forced upon atheists or Hindu in the West or East. Should I?

Christians will say that they are praying to real God. And Muslims will say the same. An atheist will say that no such being is there. We can debate the question in civil public square free and fair on who is right and who is not. But until it is agreed by all the parties that a particular position is right, I don’t think prayer to any particular should be made in Govt. funded school.

ON KNOWING

I don’t think ‘knowing’ is always a blessing. If you are ignorant, you don’t have responsibility. But if you know, you can’t shy away from shouldering responsibility. And if you shy away from responsibility knowing fully well that you have to be there, guilt will come trying to strangle your mind to insanity. Sometime, therefore, I wonder if it’s even more blessed to be insane. Because if one is insane one never knows the ‘painful’ side of life… that suffering which comes through responsibility. A person who is insane never knows suffering nor joy. For him life just is.

Was it not because Alyosha had ‘known’ so much that the Father said he would never be a happy man? ( in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Karamazov Brothers) It’s not just with great power that great responsibility comes, but it’s with great knowledge too that great responsibility comes. And somehow, I fear, that the challenge that comes from within is greater than the challenge that comes from without. The angst that impinges upon one’s soul as one ‘knows’ the reality in greater precision. Ah! But the angst within swells because of the pressure applied from without.

Had I been a Martin Heidegger I would have patted my own back, told myself to be strong, and move to and face death head on. Had I been a Carl Sagan I might have looked up to the stars to send aliens to come and metamorphose me to be able to face the future. But I am more like Immanuel Kant… more like Socrates… more like Paul. Oh yes, I know Jesus, yet I must say I ‘know’ him not. When I KNOW Him I shall never be fearful of being responsible. Till then I pray and wait.

Some forwarded mails

To all those who have shown concern I want to acknowledge that because of your kindness:

1. I stopped drinking Coca-Cola after I found out that it's good only for removing toilet stains.

2 I have stopped going to the movies for fear of sitting on a needle infected with AIDS.

3. I smell like a wet dog since I stopped using deodorants because they cause cancer.

4. I also stopped answering the phone for fear that they may ask me to dial a stupid number and then I get a phone bill from hell with calls to Uganda , Singapore and Tokyo.

5. I also stopped drinking water outside for fear that I will get sick from the rat shit and urine.

6. When I go to parties, I don't look at any girl, no matter how hot she is, for fear that she will take me to a hotel, drug me, then take my kidneys and leave me taking a nap in a bathtub full of ice.

7. My free Nokia phone never arrived and neither did the free passes for a paid vacation to Disneyland.

NB: If you do not send this e-mail to at least 9810572550 people today, you will lose someone so dear to you.

I HAVE RECEIVED SUCH EMAILS, I AM SURE YOU HAVE RECEIVED SOME OF THEM TOO, IF NOT ALL. PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD THESE EMAILS. THEY ARE JUNK MAILS.

Letter to Hindutva fringe group leader

I am greatly appalled by your audacity to moral police our country. We all know that India is a land of great diversity. Each community living in each state has their own set of culture. The components that make up a culture so often overlap with the components that make up other culture. However, sometimes those components may not overlap. Your Hindutva culture is different from Mizo culture in so many respects. And I am sure you won’t say that Mizo’s culture is less Indian, unless you want to destroy that unity of India. Your culture may prohibit women exercising freedom, but Khasi’s culture will give equal freedom to women , if not more. And if you respect India, you will respect Khasi’s culture. (By the way, Khasis are from Meghalaya). It seems to me that when you force your culture upon us all, you are harming the unity of India.
There are other social issues that you can take up. There is the issue of terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, human trafficking, child labour etc which deserve more attention than the issue you are raising. These are issues that affect the entire nation, and no good citizen will fail to agree that they need to be rectified, though I may say that very few are working to get these things rectified. You have time and energy and manpower. If you all start taking these issues seriously I believe India will truly shine. Not only during election campaign!

Finally, I request you to show more respect to others’ sisters. The ones you humiliate are not your sisters. Just as I don’t want my sister to be mistreated, I am sure you don’t want your sister to be mistreated by stranger. Each girl has parents to discipline. At a different level the police force is there too.

Yours faithfully,

An Indian citizen

Why not 'greater' Nagaland?

History says that when Nagas came to settle in the land in which they now live there was no one. Since then Nagas have always ‘owned’ the land. With the advent of British things changed.During the zenith of Jadonang’s civil disobedient movement in 1929 in Naga Hills, the Naga Club submitted a historical Memorandum to the Simon Commission in Kohima, in which the Naga Club demanded for excluding them from the proposed ‘Reformed Scheme’ of India and to leave them alone like they were before. When British they left India after 1947 Nagas were is in pretty much disarray, let alone being left alone for self-determination. At present the Nagas have been placed under different administrative units. Most Nagas are in Nagaland. But there is a good number in Manipur and Myanmar too. Assam and Arunachal Pradesh also house Nagas.
In 1952 India sent its military might to crush the Nagas public demand. Things became so bad in 1954. With the passing of time crack developed among the Naga leaders. In 1956 T.Sakhrie was murdered for having cooperation with the Indian union and anti-NNC activities. Unfortunately, this sort of killing of political opponent has been a matter of reality till recently.
Today Nagas are divided over whether to remain in the Indian union or secede. Politician like S C Jamir, who is the governor of Maharashtra, would prefer to remain as part of Indian union whereas Th. Muivah, General Secretary of NSCN, would prefer otherwise. Both of them think that they are doing what they do for the welfare of the Nagas. Though there is difference of opinion on the matter, I don’t think any single Naga have doubts about the fact that Nagas have the right to be outside of the Indian union. The question, however, is what good will the right bring to us if we are granted this right.
Since this Naga problem is as old as present India itself, I think it’s important for Indian civil society to realise that Nagas will never accept the present situation. Even if one party agrees the other party will never agree. India will continue to bleed if the political issue is left unadressed. However, I believe that if the Nagas, at least those who are in India, are brought under one administrative unit, the secessionists would also be willing to lay down their arms. This does not mean that all Nagas migrate to Nagaland. It rather means that the land in which Nagas have been living for ages merge with the present Nagaland.
I am not sure if this analogy would capture the sentiment of the Nagas. What would Malayalees in general feel if Palakkad is to be included in Tamil Nadu? Or what would Tamilians in general feel if Kanyakumari is included in Kerala? And what would people living in the particular districts feel if there was such a transaction? I don’t understand why this should be hard for Government of India or government of Manipur or Assam or Arunachal Pradesh to understand or bring some feasible solution.
To my Naga brothers and sisters, I would also urge that Sadar Hills be given allowed to be formed, may be with some redrawal of boundaries or give and take between villages. After all, the earth is the Lord’s (Ps 24:1). Even if Nagas came to settle first, as Christian charity, let Kukis also be given land to build homes and prosper.

Karl Popper on theory of evolution

Karl Popper (1902-1994): Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. His parents, who were of Jewish origin, brought him up in an atmosphere which he was later to describe as ‘decidedly bookish’. Popper obtained a primary school teaching diploma in 1925, took a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1928, and qualified to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school in 1929. In 1946 he moved to England to teach at the London School of Economics, and became professor of logic and scientific method at the University of London in 1949. He was knighted in 1965, and retired from the University of London in 1969, though he remained active as a writer, broadcaster and lecturer until his death in 1994. (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Today is Charles Darwin 200th birth anniversary, perhaps the most controversial scientist ever lived. When only 16 his father sent him and his brother to Edinburgh for the best medical education Great Britain had to offer.When he finally broke the news of his distaste for medicine to his father, he was enrolled to take a degree in Divinity at Christ College, Cambridge University, from which he graduated. However, he became an agnostic in the later part of his life and died as one, contrary to the report that he died as a convert having recanted his theory. Dawin was a mild English gentleman who was disturbed when his scientific theory aroused much controversy specially as people misused his theory to support various causes he would not even dream of. He died on April 18, 1882.

Trying to define Science is as slippery as trying to define Religion. For both enterprises definition that would satisfy all has been elusive. American Physical Society defines Science as “ the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.” Though this is a widely accepted definition it is not free from being problematic because the definition allows even Social Science enterprises like Sociology, Economics and Psychology to fit into the definition. And no wonder some people argue that these disciplines should be included in Science. After all if study of animals and plants are part of Science why not study of human being? Though the argument seems valid we are not quite convinced that these academic disciplines should be part of Science. Philosopher of Science has widely accepted three parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. One, the theory should be falsifiable; two, it should be able to explain the observed data; three, it should have predictability strength. Sometimes one might also like to include elegance, coherence etc. But the first three are very essential.

Karl Popper initially rejected theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; and he countered saying that the ‘fittest’ organisms are defined as those who survive, but that makes the argument tautological. ( tautological means that the truth of the predicate is present in the subject itself) Later on, Popper recanted what he had said. But why the change? Because there are independent parameters for determining which members of species are ‘fittest’. “ Biologists employ optimisation analyses to predict which combination of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural population of organisms, determine in which they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally, biologists wait until the next generation of organisms come out and measure their characteristics again." So theory of evolution is testable, in the sense that using the theory they predict the outcome of the research. It is also falsifiable in the sense that if human being is found alonside dinasaur, in the absence of alternative explanation, we might have to discard the theory or make some drastic refinement. One reason why Intelligent Design theory is considered invalid is because it is not falsifiable. How can one emperically falsify that God is not behind that 'irreducible complexity'? One can never do that emperically, and so ID theory cannot be scientific.

Theory of evolution meets the criteria to be a scientific theory more or less like Big Bang theory meets the criteria. In fact, Big Bang theory has more rival theories than theory of evolution. Theory of evolution has been the reigning champion for some 150 odd years now, though with some refinement like neo-darwinism emerging to give a more explanatory power of the observed data. Intellectual honesty and responsibility requires that until a better rival theory emerges we use the available theory, however weak it is. Suppose we expel theory of evolution from Science which academic discipline takes up the study? Humanities or Social Science? Both cannot do justice to the issue at hand because the nature of the subject requires study of various branch of Science. This is also one reason why definition of Science should not be too narrow. Study of continental shift, Big Bang, evolution etc have met essential parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. Since theory of evolution is falsifiable, as a believer in Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth, I am not afraid of the truth. If it is wrong Science will disprove it. If it is right, how much ever attack it receives from its critic, it will remain firm.

This issue has been very divisive among evangelical Christians, should I say along with issues like role of women in the church and charismatic gifts. The latter two is confined within ourselves. Theory of evolution, however, takes the debate outside of the Church. And if we are not careful it’s going to harm the cause of Christ.My humble suggestion is that those of us who are keen to have a say in the matter need to read up theologians who interpret the Bible, philosophers who provides the framework of the debate and scientist who engages in empirical research. Should I also include historians who provide detail how various schools emerged and how different individuals have participated in the debate! This does not mean I have also done sufficient reading... But I am trying to. God bless.

C S Lewish on good theology!

Did not C S Lewish say, "good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered?" If he was here I am sure he would say, "good theology must exist, if for no other reason, because bad theology needs to be answered. " After all Theology was once called the Queen of Science. Whether one realises it or not it still is, and ought to be!

A failed survey

United Nations Surveyer: "Would you please give your opinion about shortage of food in the rest of the world?

The survey failed because: In Africa, people didn't know what "food" was, In China, they didn't know what "opinion" was, In Europe, they didn't know what "shortage" was, Filipino leaders didn’t know what "honest" meant, France didn't know what "please" was. In America, they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.

N T Wright

Nicholas Thomas Wright, popularly known as Tom Wright, is the 4th highest ranking Bishop of the Church of England. He is one of the most well known New Testament scholars within and outside the Church. He started his student’s life as a president of Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, which is equivalent to being the president of an ICEU (of UESI) in India, studying Classical Literature, Philosophy and History. Later on he went to teach New Testament at Cambridge, Oxford, McGill etc till his moving into Church ministry in 2003. He received his Ph. D and D.D from Oxford.

Wright has been known to be audacious and intelligent. He does not shy away from speaking his mind; whether it is about theology or history or politics. Many conservatives are angry with him for having challenged Augustine and Luther on the doctrine of Justification. On the other hand his defence of (bodily) resurrection of Jesus from the dead is welcomed by all. His 800 odd page Resurrection of the Son of God (RSG) is so far the most voluminous work on resurrection by any scholar. His Christian Origin Series, of which RSG is one, challenges liberal’s account of Christian origin. He is also the one who coined the term "the third quest for Historical Jesus", and he is an expert on Historical Jesus.

He is very eloquent. And his message is very clear. Those individuals who are interested in grafting ‘saving of soul’ into the big picture of the Bible should read or listen to him. Some called his book Simply Christian as the 'Mere Christianity' of 21st century. He has been one of those theologians from whom I have learned so much this recent time. Go on Rev. Wright... go on!

His website: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

Young Earth Creationism and Dispensational Premillenialism

Christians have throughout history difference of opinion on various issues. Sometimes a particular view would be condemned officially, sometimes different views are allowed. The latter is possible when Scripture is not clear about the issue. For the Catholic Church it is easy to declare the official position since Pope, through the magisterium, has the ultimate say in matters of faith and practice. That does not mean there is no diversity of theological opinion among Catholics. There is so much of room to differ. For the Protestants it’s so messy since there is no unifying head as such to correctly interpret the text. Protestants are, therefore, more prone to cultic groups emerging within them.

Nowadays Young Earth Creationism and Dispensational Premillenialism are two positions widely common among Christian laity specially in the Protestant Churches. Young Earth Creationism is that view which believes in the ‘literal’ interpretation of days of Genesis, and consequently the age of the earth as some 6,000 years. ( Augustine said he interpreted Genesis literally, but Augustine’s approach was to read the text from the author’s perspective, not from his perspective). Dispensational Premillenialism is the view which says that rapture will be followed by seven year tribulation, at the end of which Jesus will return with the saints to defeat the Evil one and reign with the saints for one thousand year on earth, followed by the final defeat of the forces of evil to usher in the new heaven and new earth.

Both Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Dispensational Premillenialism (DP) are very recent invention. Since YEC strongly advocates for some 6,000 years old earth. The implication is that current textbooks used in all the universities of the world are mistaken because all of them underscore for 4.5 billions years old earth. This also means to say that Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Shintoist, atheists, most Christians and host of other people are all wrong in their scientific enterprise. This claim is incredible. But are all these people really wrong? YEC proponents say they are.

I have no hesitation in saying that YEC is built on wrong interpretation of the texts: Bible and nature. They have been more successful in shooing away seekers than bringing them in. Since their interpretation is bizarre their target audience is most often children and old people, whose intellectual defence mechanism is not robust. Strangely, though the position is theologically and scientifically bizarre this is extremely popular among Christians in the West. And it is now being exported to India too. But I believe once it takes root it will damage mission in India more than anything else.

Dispensational Premillenialism was invented by one J N Darby in the late 19th century. Recently popularized by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Left Behind Series this has now become the most popular millenial position among Christian laity. But let us be clear. This position is the least common one among theologians of all shape and size. Old Testament Scholar as well as New Testament scholars have made it clear that Dispensationalists interpretation of text is mistaken at various points. But I think most lay Christians don’t read theologians! Apart from hermeneutical error proponents of this position have supported Israel at the expense of the Palestinian. This I think is the most bizarre implication of having wrong theology. No doubt God is not through with Israel yet. Romans 9-11 is clear about that. But that does not mean Israel occupies the unique position even now as it did before the advent of Jesus.

On both counts the Catholic church has a well balanced theology. Protestants need re-formation of theology!

Sanjay Dutt and Politics

Like father like son, they say. Sunil Dutt was an actor, and so is his son Sanjay Dutt. Sunil Dutt shifted to politics in the later part of his life. And recently his son Sanjay announced his plunge into politics, towards the twilight of his entertaining career. India has seen many actors moved into politics. Some did well, some flopped.

I have asked myself what for these actors moved into politics. Is it because they don’t sell anymore? Or is it because they want to serve the public? Or is it because they want a change in life? If an actor moves into politics because he does not sell in his old profession, choosing politics as his next career may not be a wise move. This is so because being a politician requires one to be extremely responsible. And for same reason desire for change in life should not be the reason for one person to move into politics. Politicians can ruins thousands of lives as much as they can build thousands of lives.

One reason these ‘stars’ would give for such a move is that they want to serve the common people. What a noble reason! In India there are three kinds of people who are worshipped: Bollywood actors, cricketers and politicians. Being a fine actor Sanjay Dutt is almost worshipped by thousands of fans all over India. His movies are sold out. If he had wanted to serve the people of India he could have used movies to educate millions of Indians. There are so many social issues he could project through his movies and bring transformation in the lives of people. Dowry, caste system, terrorism, communalism, unemployment, brain drain, rape, and all sorts of issues can be projected through movies.

The question is whether he would be able to serve more people better as a politician or as an actor. I have no doubt that even if has reached the twilight of his career as an actor he could serve the people thousand times better than by being a politician. Govinda Ahuja, Dharmendra Deol, Vinod Khanna and Sanjay Dutt would have all contributed more to India and her citizens by sticking on in Bollywood.

Big boys of Bollywood, do want to serve the people of India? Reel world is the right place for you!

Sincerely yours,

_______

Nicene Creed (325 CE)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

NB: This is one doctrinal affirmation Christians of all denominations accept. Many of the Baptists I was raised with do not know about this affirmation because of their lack of encounter with other denominations. There is a tendency to think that Baptist is the only valid denomination among many people who are not exposed to other denominations. As many students come out from Manipur and Nagaland to study in Delhi they seem to be at a loss which church they should attend. Sometimes they end up attending a cult group. One of the ways to test whether a congregation is a cult group or not is to ask whether the particular group accepts Nicene Creed.