John Stuart Mill on Christian Conduct

In his book On Liberty John Stuart Mill writes about how one's belief may not always correspond with one's conduct. And he uses Christianity and Christians to illustrate his point. He writes that to the Christian doctrine, a Christian gives 'homage; and to the worldly practical consideration, he gives his 'allegiance'. He cites examples from the Bible and concludes that contemporary Christians don't really follow them as such. He says " All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and the humble, and those who ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they are judged...that if one take their cloak, they should give him coat too;  that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor." (On Liberty 2008:47) As I see it, the implication of what he writes is that Christianity is of not much practical relevance or that Christians believe one thing but do another thing; to put it bluntly, Christians are hypocrites! 

Being an influential writer of an influential book, Mill could have made a negative impression about Christianity and Christians to many of his readers.  Mill was an atheist, and therefore he was not a friend of Christianity. What he said about Christianity or about any other religions therefore need careful consideration. He might have a bias, unwittingly, just as I might have a bias, unwittingly, about his belief or rather lack of belief. 

The above lines have been quoted from different texts of the Bible. Different section of the Bible requires different interpretative principle. Whether it's the Bible or the Nikayas (Buddhist Scripture) or Dante or Shakespeare it's of paramount importance that the line is interpreted within the context in which it is given. The context could be literary context or the historical context. Interpreting the line without the context is not doing justice to the text. And this is what I see Mill doing here.This is the first point I want to contend for. 

The second point is that Mill has misquoted some of the points and has added his own point. This then changes the meaning of the text. For those who are not aware of what the text really says, they would be inclined to take his words at face value. " That they should take no thought for the morrow" should be " That they should not worry for tomorrow" (Matt 6:34). The last line about selling all that's there to give to the poor is from the story of Jesus and the  rich young man ( Matt 19: 16-30) The injunction there is not for all the rich Christians to follow throughout the ages.

There are teachings of the Bible that Christians all agree in the meaning, but can't quite follow. " Do no tell lies" is a principle that not only Christians but all others would agree to uphold. (The question whether it's alright to lie to a drunkard when he is walking around trying to kill his wife is a different matter here.) But has Mill never ever told a lie? If he had, was it because he gave only lip service to his belief; that he did not take this principle seriously? If a Christian tells lies, it would be more like the reason why Mill might have lied though , in principle,  he would also agree that telling a lie is wrong.

Reference: 

1. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 47

Manmohan Singh & Narendra Modi

This is a comparison between Dr. Manmohan Singh, the outgoing PM of India and Mr. Narendra Modi, the incoming PM of India. The comparison is just my observation; and it is based on when the two gentlemen begins their assignment as the Prime Minister of the country. If we take the overall parameters, Mr. Narendra Modi fares better than Dr. Manmohan Singh. Dr. Singh performed very well as the Finance Minister of India, but as a Prime Minister he did not perform so well. My view is that had UPA II placed someone like P. Chidambaram as the PM, who delivers, Congress would not have fared this bad in the recently concluded election. 

1= Very Bad

3=Bad

5=Okay

7=Good

9=Very Good

Parameter	Manmohan Singh	Narendra Modi
Educational Qualification	9	7
Administrative Efficiency	1	9
Minorities Friendliness	9	1
Public Speaking Skill	1	7
Personal Integrity	9	5
Shrewdness	1	9
Political Experience	5	7
Leadership Skill	3	7
Teamwork	5	5

Religious Minorities And BJP's Moral Obligation

The architect of modern India made India a secular state. By 'secular' it means that the state will respect all the different religions in the country. States in the North East like Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland have more Christians than other religious adherents; whereas state like Jammu & Kashmir has more Muslim; and Punjab more Sikhs. People of these different states have followed certain religious practices even before present India is born. The territorial feature of India pre-1947 was never like what we have today. Yet the religious composition of these people have evolved to this pattern even before present India came into being though the states are carved out much later. And since these different people came to be part of India or rather was merged with India with their religious belief already embedded in their identity – as an individual and as a community – it is never going to be fair telling them that India will be a Hindu nation. Due to such diverse religious and ethnic historical baggages, it is just so reasonable that India continues to espouse secularism even today.

The founding fathers of RSS never believed in secularism. There is much literature to build a solid case that RSS leaders wanted India to be a Hindu nation. Hindutva is supposedly a way of life of an Indian based on Hindu religious belief.  For RSS and the sister organisations Indian identity is to be identified with Hindu identity; and this Hindu nation is to be a strong and a powerful nation. A superpower. This was envisioned in the formation of RSS and this continues to be the guiding principle even today. BJP is believed to be a political wing of this RSS. No wonder RSS cadres actively campaign for BJP time and again during assembly or parliamentary election; and BJP leaders are often drawn from those with RSS upbringing. Besides RSS, other right wing Hindutva based organisations like VHP and Bajrang Dal constitute the Sangh Parivar that provides massive electoral support to BJP. Thus this association between BJP and right-wing Hindu organisations like RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal is the main reason why the religious minorities are quite suspicious of BJP. Had such association between a political party and pseudo-religious & political organisation been absent, the predicament of the religious minorities would never have surfaced in the first place!

The infamous demolition of the Mosque at Ayodhya, the mythical birth place of Ram, in 1992 by the combined speech and act of political leaders of BJP and Sangh Parivar and the failure of the state to bring to trial those responsible for the damage, that effected riots leading to hundreds of dead on the street provides a glaring example why BJP and Sangh Parivar pose a threat to the religious minorities.  The killing of Muslims and Christians in states like Gujarat and Orissa by the members of Sangh Parivar and the lackluster response of the state's machinery to the violence are still fresh in the memory. The proven records of how BJP leaders are 'dictated' by RSS ideology as in the case of L K Advani being forced to resign as the President of BJP after his comment on Jinnah in Pakistan or the action taken against Jaswant Singh for his praising of Jinnah etc serve to reinforce the fear that RSS will remote control the BJP government. RSS says that it will not remote control the government, but looking at the past records, it is very difficult to believe the statement.

If BJP is to build a strong, peaceful and prosperous India, let it respect the freedom given to adherents of different religious persuasion as envisioned by the architect of modern India. Let Modi pursue economic liberalisation or set up a strong defence mechanism. One may disagree on how far these things are pursued or how they are pursued, but one can maintain 'let us agree to disagree' kind of a principle on such matters. But my religious belief is so basic to me. I don't want RSS to dictate my religious belief or take away my religious freedom just as I don't want to do the same to others. I would rather see India being torn to pieces – return to pre-1947 state with so many princely states – than let RSS and its cousin BJP take away my religious freedom. Given this kind of deep conviction and the social disorder it could trigger, if undermined, BJP leadership team has a moral and legal obligation to safeguard the basic religious fabric of the state; more so because that is what the architect of the modern believes in. 

( This was published in Hueiyen Lanpao on 21st May 2014. Link is here)

Family Pictures

Family pictures of Goa visit during the month of January, 2014.

Irom Sharmila vs AFSPA: the Right vs the Good?

The difference between sacrifice and suicide is that the former act is committed to the good of others whereas the latter is for oneself. Oftentimes great men and women are those who gave up their lives so that others may live a dignified life. They sacrifice their happiness and even life so that others or perhaps the next generation may lead a flourishing life. Irom Sharmila is committed to doing away AFSPA through fasting though this act of political protest may consume her life. Her vision for undertaking such a painstaking task is to let this generation and their children avoid being killed and brutalised for a political vision they are not willing to die for. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the government conceived of, and thus put her on house arrest for allegedly attempting to commit suicide.

Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) was initially designed and implemented to tacke the Nagas in the 1950s. Over the years, the Act has been extended to other parts of the country. One of the clauses that has been criticised again and again is the section 4(a) , which states that 'if  if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire - arms, ammunition or explosive substances'1 The clause is defensible at face value. After all the clause seems to mean only for those who are enemies of the Indian government.

If the army had engaged the armed underground militants or their primary sympathisers or informers, providing full immunity even for an action leading to the death of the 'enemy' would be defensible. Killing armed personels in a war or war-like situation is a defencible action; or killing primary sympathiser of the 'enemy' is fairly defencible as well. The ugly side of the Act emerges when the army personnels who act far beyond the limit set by the Act are given full immunity. The entire  community of the 'disturbed area' cannot be labelled as 'enemy' upon whom the army can legitimately use force. Yet this is exactly what the Act entails. It is important to categorise the civilian population  as primary sympathisers and secondary sympathisers. Civilians who act as active informants can come under the category of primary sympathisers; general population who support through taxation and ration alone must be placed under secondary category. Even in a full-fledged war, general population who show sympathy and support to the army through taxation and ration must be distinguished from the active informants, let alone the armed personnels. Given this need to categorise the civilian population, immunity given to the army when it is the engaging with the secondary sympathisers beyond the permissible limit set by the AFSPA is not morally permissible.

Irom Sharmila's hunger strike began in 2000 because of such killing of the general population who would not come under the category of armed underground militants or primary sympathisers. Her protest has been reinforced by the fact that Supreme Court probe panel has said in its report that individuals with no criminal record has been killed by the paramillitary forces in Manipur where AFSPA has been in place since 1958. Providing full immunity to the armed personnels for such kind of killing – or rather, murder – or rape or fake encounter has to be done away with to ensure a life of dignity and freedom to the general populaton of the 'disturbed area'.

The response to the protest against AFSPA is that it is necessary to maintain national security. The present avatar of the Act cannot be modified either because that would damage the confidence of the army personnel. Thus when the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir raised his voice against this draconian law, the army General put his foot down and let this quasi-military regime continue in the 'disturbed area'.

The question that one would pose at such moment is whether someone's vision of the good can justify another person's life being ruined and destroyed. In the name of national security, can the army rape and kill innocent civilians and get away with it? There are quite a lot of right of a person that can be legitimately suppressed and subdued for the greater good of the society at large. For example, if it would result in bringing down extreme income inequality it would be fair to tax part of the money earned by the rich to give to the poor. Income tax such as this in one sense violates the rich man's right to possess what he earns; yet for the greater good that might be achieved, this measure is justified. However, rape or killing of innocent people in the name of AFSPA is a violation of so basic  a right to a dignified life that the argument of a greater good that might come about cannot be plausibly used to justify such atrocities. In the name of AFSPA too many crimes against humanity have been committed, and it is time that this is put to stop. Unless this draconian law is repealed, the rumour circulating in the ground – such as, the army personnels continue to intentionally create low-intensity warfare at the expense of the local people – will continue, maintaining a disdain towards the army, let alone the army effort the maintain good relation with the local population bearing much fruit.

If army personnels committing atrocities on unarmed and innocent civilians ought not to be given immunity, by similar token, the armed underground organisations militant as well are not exempted from the moral demand to spare the unarmed and innocent civilians. To that end planting bombs in public places or selectively targetting innocent migrant workers cannot be justified as living up to a true revolutionary principle. Deliberate and systematic use of terror in a sustained manner on innocent civilians to achieve certain political objective is what constitutes terrorism. Therefore, state or non-state actors taking the unarmed civilians for granted in their quest for certain political end has to be labelled terrorist.

In his magisterial and possibly the most influential moral and political book of the previous century A Theory of Justice, John Rawls rightly argues that the right is prior to the good. I fancy that had Rawls been around today, he would have a word of praise or a visit to Iche in support of her fight against human right violation by the armed personnels of the biggest democracy in the world. The good of the larger polity cannot trump the right – the human right – of a section of the people. Doing so is morally wrong, and it is high time that Government of India sets its corrective measures into action.

(The article appears at Hueiyen Lanpao on 08/05/2014. The link is available here.) 

On Bodo-Muslim Violence in Assam

There is an article in The Hindu that is worth reading. One can read the article here. The author argues that the conflict in Assam is not really between Bodo i.e Indian citizens and Bangladeshi migrants. The author is from Assam; and moreover, he is the Director for Centre of North East studies in Jamia Millia Islamia, a reputed university. So I trust that he knows the ground reality, and his account needs to be heard. The account that he tells here is not really the one that we hear from the politicians. I think those politicians who shout that Bangladeshi migrants should be deported and those who shout back saying that even before the Bangladeshi migrants are deported they (supposedly supporters of Bangladeshi migrants) have to be deported first are both missing the point here. This appears to be mere electoral rhetoric!

I wish that the author would suggest specific and realistic formula to solve the problem. Being in a Centre that is studying the issues of the North East, he is in the best place to provide advice and suggestion to the government. It is true that government, led by Nehru in the past, has often failed to study the matter seriously, before it addresses the matter. No wonder North East India is in a mess today! And even at present Government of India seems to be at loss than ever before on how to address the different issues confronting the region. And I think Sanjoy Hazarika and his team are in  a position to place feasible and just solution before the government of India. 

One of the comments of the article reads ' The Mymensingha from East Bengal (present Bangladesh & part of Pakistan until its liberation in 1971) ) started moving into the adjoining districts of Assam in a big way in the late 1890s. From then until 18 July 1948 the movement was legal. Between July 1948 and March 1971 about three to four million Mymensingha from East Pakistan moved into Assam. The Shaikh Mujib - Indira Gandhi agreement of 1972 decided that these East Pakistani illegals would remain in Assam. The Assam Accord between Rajeev Gandhi and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta and others, followed by the amendment to the Citizenship Act in 1985 conferred Indian citizenship on this group of Mymensingha in Assam. Legally and technically only those who came from Bangladesh without valid documents, after March 24, 1971 can be called illegals'