Why do Christian organisations have such name ... ?

There are thousands of churches and para-church organisations in India. And all of them have a tag. Suppose we are to remove their name saying it's for God that we are working and so name is not required, there will be chaos. There are perhaps individuals and organisations for whom name is so important, but that is the general case. And because of such people or group it's not required that we abolish names for all the churches and organisations.

But I wish that some organisations do not name it the way it is named. I don't find any such group in India, but it's there in other part of the world. For example, take Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I don't understand why it has to have 'Billy Graham' attached. From the culture I come from I can't appreciate it. I do have much respect for Billy Graham as a person. And he appears to be a kind and humble man as I read his biography. There are also others like Ravi Zacharias International Ministry, Benny Hinn Ministries, Luis Palau Association etc. all named after one person. Even Langham Partnership International is called John Stott Ministries in the US. Is this some US culture! ( I want to mention that I learn the ABC of Christian theology from reading John Stott's writings. And I admire him much.)Why can't one take some neutral name like Stand To Reason, Reason To Believe, Biologos Foundation, Grace Ministries, Indian Evangelical Mission, Youth With A Mission, Union of Evangelical Students of India etc?

Having ministries institutionalised is not bad. One of the reasons why some religious systems don't have proper teaching is because the system is just too loose and everybody is on her own. If proper teaching is to be dessimated to the adherents of the particular religious system one cannot do away institutionalisation. One cannot teach Mathematics or Philsophy without having such acamedic pursuit institutionalised. Loose system will result in poor dessimation of ideas. To say we are working for God and we don't require any name or institution is, I think, not a realistic opinion however sincere one may be.

Do Dalits who are Christians and Muslims deserve reservation?

Constitutional Act reserves 15% and 7.5% of seat in Governement sector for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST). The Act, however, loses its power when a Scheduled Caste person changes her religion to Christianity or Islam. Christians and Muslims have been campaigning for several years now that the Act be amended so that it would allow even a Christian or Muslim who is from a Scheduled Caste background to avail the reservation. As of now the Scheduled Caste person loses the economic privilege once she converts.

I believe the present reservation policy is flawed. Since the reservation policy was introduced with the intention of bridging the 'social and economic' gap it is high time that the government reserves seat based on economic status, and not on caste and tribe. If the present policy continues those members of the society that truly deserve reservation will be left underprivileged. Today there are so many SCs and STs who are millionaires and who do not really need reservation. But it is the children of these people who get into best private schools and thus get into the best government positions through reservation policy. The truly underprivileged class are not able to send their children even to decent schools and therefore going up the social and economic ladder just remains a distant dream. Thus, Christians and Muslims who are from poor Dalit/SC background should not be denied reservation. Let even those who are from Brahmin background get reservation, provided they are really poor.

But under the present policy should reservation be extended to Christians and Muslims who are from Dalit background? I don't find the arguments against the extension of the privilege convincing enough. In fact, the opposition for such extension should be coming from those who are covered by the reservation policy because they would then have more people to compete among themselves. But that's not the case! One argument is that if Dalits who convert come under reservation then there will be mass exodus to Christianity or Islam. But the question that emerges is is it that the religion they now follow is so weak and poor that given a chance to maintain the same government sanctioned economic status they are willing to abandon their religion? If yes, then one may surmise that Christianity and Islam offer something to people which other Indian religions do not offer. Is it social status that these two offer?

Christians and Muslims are not supposed to practice caste system. Whether Hinduism sanctions caste sytem or not has been debated. Individual like B.R.Ambedkar, the architech of Indian Constitution, left Hinduism after having pursued the subject matter as part of his doctoral thesis. Having come from a Dalit background he suffered humiliation for several years, and after more than two decades of trying to change from within he embraced Buddhism because he believed that caste system in ingrained in Hindu religious belief. But there are others, from 'high caste' background, who argue that caste system is not intrinsic to Hindu teaching. But this subject whether caste system in intrinsically woven into Hindu metaphysics or not can be pursued some other time. My point, however, is that if the Dalits thought that they are going to be socially better of if Government relaxes its laws why can't the Govt do that? The Government cannot tell people to change the metaphysical belief of a religious community, supposing it's there in the metaphysical teaching of the Hindus, but it can change its laws so that it can facilitate certain group of people to be better of. When the Dalit community gets better of, does not it augment common good?

Isn't there also the argument that Christianity and Islam are foreign religion, and therefore... ? Well, are they really foreign religion? Next time...

Free Will vs Determinism according to a Pragmatist

The determinist argues that there are no alternative choices. What will be, will be; que sera, sera. But those who argue for free will will say that there is a certain amount of 'loose' play in the universe. Future is not really determined by the present. How to we resolve the dispute?

For the pragmatist truth is man-made. Truth is that which works. Truth must lead to successful action; it must fit into the schemes of life. So to resolve the dispute of free will vs determinism, a pragmatist asks which position would work better for life.

Thus came a pragmatist and applied her usual method: which one fits in life better? She asked the implication of a determinist view. As expected the reply came that all events are determined. The pragmatist surmised that such view provides no room for 'choices'. In life criminals are punished; and good people are rewarded. But without the option of 'choices' such judgment are meaningless; even wrong. So according to determinist view events in life like 'regrets', 'applauds', etc are all rendered superflous, surmised the pragmatist. But such implication of a determinist view does not help the world become a better place.

Choices imply that there are at least two alternatives and one can select this or that. And this is something we face in life everyday. What clothes to wear; what time to sleep; when to shut one's mouth etc. But if choices are not there, the alternative position is to opt for a mechanical explanation like that of a programmed robot. But we have choices. And so determinist view does not fit into our real schemes of life. If we want to bring change into our lives and history embracing Free Will will pay more than Determinism. And so a pragmatist chooses Free Will over Determinism.

Naga Headhunters

How Christianity Transformed a Village

It was in 1942 that one white missionary, Dr. Broad, came to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to an obscure village. The name of the village was Phuba (Phyabu in local language), in present North East India, which was then 8 hours of walking from the nearest conveyance available. Similar kind of preaching by missionaries continued on and off in 1943. In 1944, seven families decided to follow Jesus Christ. And among those 7 families, one of them was  my paternal grandparents.

The obvious thing for these 7 families was to set up a new pattern of life in a new village. So in February 12, 1944, they moved some 3 kilometres away and set up a new village which is now called Phuba Thapham (Khyoubu, the village is shown in the picture). In this new village, they gave up drinking completely. And this was a very significant step for them; and this continues to be significant even today whenever someone becomes a follower of Jesus in that particular context. This was so because drinking was so much part of their life. In fact, the local dialect for someone of my place who was and is not a Christian is "drinking people". Since people would be drunk for many hours of the day, they were not hygienic. They did not have time for learning too and therefore literacy rate would probably have been around 1%. Roughly 40%-50% of the children that were born would die due to lack of medical facility and unhygienic way of life. But often the villagers would attribute death to the work of the spirits. So it was common to give filthy names ( of filthy words) to the children thinking that spirits would not take away children with such names.

Here I wish to mention that those who converted did not receive "rice" from anyone. They were not all rich, but the reason for them to convert was not because they were offered "rice" by anyone. 

In the new village they quit drinking. They lived hygienic life. The children mortality rate went up.  My dad was 12 years old then when his parents shifted to this new village. The same year my paternal grandfather went around to neighbouring villages to preach the Gospel and help those who converted to set up new homes. In 1946, after WW II, the Allied troops were pulling out from the region. My grandfather and many others served as porters for the troops who were going back home. While returning to the village in rainy  July after his service as a porter my grandfather developed a certain sickness. Few days later he passed away leaving behind 3 sons and 2 daughters.  But the new church and the village these 7 families have started by then have more than 5 times the original number. My grandmother lived till 1994.

In 1948 my maternal grandfather came as a missionary- teacher to the village, with his family members. Besides teaching Bible to the youth group of the village,  he was the first man who taught women of the village how to read and write. The following years he taught people of this village how to build orchard and also how to plough the fields using buffaloes. He also taught them how to cultivate many items of vegatables and pulses. Till then villagers relied mostly on wild plants for food. (Even today plants in the forest continue to be an important source of food items). After roughly 10 years of fruitful service to this obscure village my maternal grandparents left the family with their children, leaving behind my mother who by then had got married to my father. This grandfather died in 1979; and grandmother is still alive.

Today the village has over 1800 members; more so because new converts came to live in the village and mortality rate decrease significantly. The literacy rate would be somewhere around 98%.Seeing the significant differences between Christian and non-christian almost every family  in the mother village has become Christian now. Some people criticise Christianity for destroying the tribal way of life. Well, I would very much prefer this life to the life then. My parents would say the same. And my grandparents would not disagree with the preference, I know! 

Is Lokpal Bill the answer to our problem of corruption?

I accept that there is corruption. One just has to ask A. Raja and Suresh Kalmadi about it. I also endorse Lokpal Bill which seeks to establish a body that will be free from government control and that would investigate corruption charges. I certainly believe that Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta in each state will empower the citizens against corruption. No wonder politicians are scared of such a Bill because they would then have to be accountable!

But can the rule of law on its own root out corruption? I have serious reservations. Stringent rule of law can arrest illegal practices, but it cannot arrest immoral practices. If it's only the rule of law, decline in corruption would be due to the fear of being in jail. But as long as one is not caught, corrution can go on. Alas, there are many 'corrupt' ways a politician can deal things which can never be caught as corrupt practices by the rule of law. For example, when Karnataka CM Yeddyurappa was charged of making out-of-turn land allotment to his sons and daughter, the BJP chief defended the CM saying that his acts were not illegal, though they may be immoral. So the 'immoral' CM was not prosecuted nor was he made to step down. But can't the same argument be extended to developmental projects which the government launches? I have given this project to this constituency though that constituency deserves more! Well, “it's okay to be immoral if one is not being illegal” will not actually work if we are serious about pursuing common good.

So, besides a stringent rule of law like Lokpal Bill we need moral teachings as well to weed out corruption and bring about human flourishing. But where from do we derive these moral norms that will provide us a sturdy foundation for human flourishing? That's a 1.72 lakh crore rupees worth question!

Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.

This is a picture of a 39 years old lady by the name Irom Sharmila. She has been fasting, ( without food and water) since November 4, 2000. Her demand is that the Government of India  withdraw Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, (AFSPA) from Manipur and the neighbouring north eastern states.

But what is AFSPA? 

AFSPA was first introduced in the "Naga inhabited areas" of Assam and Manipur in 1958 to tackle the Nagas who were, and are, demanding independence. Since then it has been extended to other states of the north east and Jammu & Kashmir. The Act gave power even to a non-commissioned officer of the Indian army to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting or is suspected of acting in contravention of any law...  in areas declared as 'disturbed'; and the official responsible for such death is granted legal immunity and cannot be prosecuted. Countless number of people have been subjected to gross violation of human rights under the Act and the officials who committed such atrocities never ever faced trial. Amnesty International has criticized the Act, but till date it is  still in place.

For many years I have endorsed the Act. My logic was that if the Act is lifted, the extremists will take over and the territory of the Indian Union will shrink. I believe that is still the position of the Government and so the Act still remains. My view on the subject began to shift after I picked up writings on Human Rights. I began to ask myself if it is morally right to violate human rights to protect part of a territory that a state claims as its own.Or putting it differently, is it morally right for mainstream Indians to violate human rights of the north eastern people to retain the latter's territory as part of India? So the question that I began to ask  myself  was whether protecting the state's territory is more important or protecting human rights is more important. 

If I worship Bharat Mata (Mother India) protecting her territory would be part of my expression of my allegiance to her. But I don't worship Bharat Mata. Rather I worship Jesus Christ, through whom all human beings are created and who allows states to be formed to protect human lives and bring about common good of all. Therefore I cannot endorse people of certain regions violating human rights of other regions to protect the interest of the former. Or putting in differently, I am of the view that human rights  of certain people trumps the interest of the state to protect its territory. Human rights of the citizens cannot be subservient to the interest of the state!

Even in an instance when the state's agent violates human rights the agent has to be brought to the court of law. AFSPA being imposed in a region for over 50 years as a state's policy, and 'guilty officials' never being brought before to the court to face trial of human rights violation is something I cannot endorse. I used to think Irom Sharmila was subverting the interest of the Indian Union; and I still do think she is. But  now I believe she is doing so because of her greater concern for human rights. I won't be surprised if she says, "It is not that I do not love India, it is just that I love humanity more". And though I am late to realise, I  would say Sharmila has got things in right perspective. With her I say "repeal AFSPA"!