Overcoming Gender Bias in Institutions

There are two institutions in our society that require modification for the purpose of better functioning. They are functioning okay as of now, but with modification the functioning will get even better. Not only will the institutions function better, such modification will also empower a significant percent of our population more than what it is now, and the cumulative effect of such modification will have a huge bearing on the overall Naga society. The two institutions about which I shall argue for modification are Church and the Village Council.

In our society there is hardly any church that allows women to be part of the deacon board. The deacon board has been 'all male group'. There is nothing inherently wrong in having only the male as members of the deacon board provided all the male deacon members are qualified and that there is no female in the given church who is as qualified as the males members, if not better. However, if there are females in a given village/church who are as qualified as the males, it is important to bring females into the deacon board. Churches/villages which are of moderate or small size struggle to get adequate number of people who are well qualified to take leadership. And given this challenge, bringing in females can very address this predicament. In the Bible, for example, we find Phoebe as a deaconess (Roms 15.1). If early church has a deaconess, why not today even in our churches! A church consists both male and female, young and old. And having, say, two females in a team of church leadership will enable the church to minister more effectively to the church members.

Another area of change that may serve us well is to bring in women into the village council. Traditionally it has been again 'all male group'. But traditions can be changed; rules can be rewritten. And it is we who must rewrite it whenever such rewriting is required. Other people will not come and change our rules. Nor do others know when and how to bring changes. Naga women have been peacemakers for generation. Known for sympathy and honesty, when men quarrel on money matters, women can bring transparency in money management. When villages quarrel over border dispute, women can be peacemakers. In term of brain power, there is no difference between men and women. And when many educated men in the villages are working in the cities, rendering many villages shortage of qualified men to administer the village, bringing in women into village administration can make village council more efficient.

Notwithstanding the more efficient functioning of these institutions that women can contribute to, women deserve to be given the chance to work for the larger society for their own good. Any given society that ignores women ignores 50% of the citizen of the society. And when there is the capability and there is no inherent reason why actualising and flowering of such capability is absent, society must not restrain women to flourish and develop their capability. Women are allowed to become an MLA or an MP or even as Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) or as President ( Pratibha Patil). Given that the world has gone far ahead in term of empowering women, it is high time that capable women are allowed to come into leadership team in different domain of our lives. There is no society that has expressed regrets by allowing women to serve their society with men side by side as partners.

Immovable property inheritance right for women is an area that requires more time to implement given the political matrix in the Naga areas. Considering the land ownership system at present, giving equal right to women on such issue will damage the society instead of bringing a more progressive outlook. For example, to allow a Gujarati man who married a Naga girl own land in village A in Senapati district is too much of a problem for the society at present. This is to bring more harm than good with the present system. However, one can envision our society functioning better and our women empowered to bloom if they are given room to share responsibility and work alongside men in the church as well as in the village Council.

Possible Outcome of Legalising Same-Sex Marriage in the US

US Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favour of same-sex marriage. Now same-sex couples would be or must be given recognition and affirmation as much as heterosexual marriage. Traditionally marriage is between two consenting adults of opposite sex. Now this definition is modified to indicate that marriage is between two consenting adults.  I can imagine certain questions emerging as consequences of such ruling now and in the years to come. 

1. If two same-sex adults can give mutual consent and get married, why can't consenting adults go for polygamy or polyandry? Questions and comments of these sorts can be posed: Why can't people be allowed to love who they want to love? Why should the state decide who all I marry? I am not harming anyone by marrying three girls/boys, so why can't marriage be just between consenting adults? Why not legalise polygamy/polyandry? 

2. Why must mutual consent be the basis? Why can't one party's consent be enough when the other party cannot say 'yes' nor 'no'? Meaning, why can't I marry my dog that cannot say 'yes' nor 'no'; shouldn't my consent be enough? Why can't I be allowed to love my dog or my lamb? Why should the state refuse to honour my feelings when I am doing harm to no one? Why must consent imply mutual consent? 

3. If one party's consent is the basis, then why can't I marry a lovely and a beautiful child? Why can't an adult marry a child who does not oppose the marriage? Well, those who oppose this and say that this child is physically not ready, they should ask if same-sex marriage also involve 'physical readiness'. If physical relations between same-sex is okay, why is it not okay between an adult and a, say, 13 or 14 year old child? 

4. Why can't I marry myself? I have no objection to myself getting married to myself; I give my consent. 

NB: Very often the argument of a liberal is based on the concept of freedom -- freedom of an individual to do things that harm no one. But taking freedom alone as the basis is quite problematic. As shown above taking freedom as the only basis can lead onto other outcomes in a subtle way. If mutual consent (by exercising freedom) is the basis, then why not mutual consent of few adults for polygamy/polyandry? And then onto other issues as listed above. For the state to legalise and therefore affirm and recognise and publicly laud, I would say the 'purpose' or 'function'  must also be taken into account. (This is Aristotle's line of arugment.) What is the purpose of a marriage? Does same-sex marriage or polygamy/polyandry or human-animal marriage or marrying oneself satisfy the purpose of marriage? 

From liberal point of view where freedom is the basis to decide what the state ought to legalise or not, same-sex marriage is fine. But if we include Aristotle's way of reasoning of taking into account the purpose/functioning, I think it's hard to justify same-sex marriage or the other kinds of marriage. (In fact, polygamy and polyandry would have stronger reason than same-sex marriage if both freedom and function are to be taken together as the basis for legalisation of whatever kind of marriage is to be legalised.) Thus, If freedom and functioning are taken together, I think the only marriage that fulfills the condition is the heterosexual marriage between adults. 

I am not in favour of legalisation of same-sex marriage nor am I in favour of criminalisation of same-sex relation as it is in India now. The state does not have to criminalise live-in relationship between consenting adults nor does the state need to legalise live-in relationship between consenting adults. The state ought not to criminalise same-sex relations because it has to respect the freedom of the individual. But the state also ought not to legalise same-sex marriage because the state must go beyond respecting freedom alone to affirm certain practices; the state must also look at the purpose/function/ telos of that practice. 

Psalms 15

In this Psalm, David asks the question who may dwell in God's sanctuary; one who is righteous and just. Then David goes on to provide the answer to his own question, and he says: 

"He whose walk is blameless"; meaning, not one who has not being morally upright at all time, but who might have been morally wrong yet is forgiven and is now not blameworthy, now blameless. He is a person who stands blameless now. 

"and who does what is righteous,

 who speaks the truth from his heart

and does not speak ill of others,

who does his neighbour no wrong

and casts no slur on his fellow human, 

who despises a vile man

but honours those who fear the Yahweh, 

who keeps his word

even when it hurts, 

who lends his money without interest

and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. 

He who does these things

will never be shaken." 

David does think that one who accepts bribery is wrong and does not merit to be in God's sanctuary. Yes, bribery blinds the eye. Bribery takes away the good from the one who deserves and gives it to the one who deserves not, and this why bribery is wrong. 

Yoga vs PraiseMoves

Sweeeet Children's Song

This is a song by children sung in praised of God. A beautiful song indeed. Throughout history beautiful hymns, choruses, paintings, poetries and other works of art have been produced by human mind because of their devotion to God. These are great contributions. I have never heard of any great song or painting or hymn being produced because of one's devotion to nothingness or the absence of God. And I do not see how that can be done. Theists and atheists alike have great minds and have invented great things. But because of atheism works of great art being produced is never heard, at least in my hearing. Whereas works of great art bring produced by one's belief in God and therefore the devotion to God has been so many. I fail to understand how atheism can be better or more true than theism! 

Civic Sense as Common Sense

With health comes wealth; without health goes wealth – goes the saying. If children are ill, parents would be in hospital with the kids rather than go for work. Taking children to the hospital is to spend money. So instead of being able to work and earn money, parents would rather be spending money in the hospital when children fall sick. However, when everyone is in good health, one can work better and there is no additional financial constraint at home. With financial constraint all kinds of problems arise at home. Health is vital for a happy family!

Sanitation or the lack thereof plays a key role in human health. Drainage system which gets clogged specially during rainy season will serve as a perfect nest for mosquitoes and other insects to breed and multiply. Open defecation by humans and animals specially in human settlements contribute to typhoid, cholera, malaria and other diseases.

Throwing around plastic bags and bottles create bottlenecks that prevent free flow of water of the drainage system. The result is that drainage water then spills onto the road and even onto the backyard of many houses. Animals can eat discarded plastic bags specially when the plastic bags have leftover sweets or food items. Such animals can die a painful death. If a sheet of paper or a piece of clothe is discarded in the forest, they will eventually degrade and waste away in few years time. But this not happen with the polythene/plastic bags. The nature of plastic cover or bag is such that even after hundreds of years, they will not degrade and waste away. It possibly takes a thousand year for a plastic bag to photo-degrade – the chemical agents breaking away into microscopic granules after ultra violet light from the sun hit on it. Given this nature, it is best if the plastic bags can be recycled. However, in the villages and smaller towns where there is no possibility of recycling the material, there are certain measures that must be devised to dispose off these objects as safely as possible.

It is not such a difficult task to responsibly to keep our environment clean. But to keep our environment clean, one must bear in mind certain civic sense. To that end there are certain dos and don’t s. One does not have to wait for the rest of the people to apply common sense before one applies it himself or herself. Even if the rest of the people do not act now, what matters is that you act from now onwards. Chances are that if you begin to act now, and consistently do that, more and more people will begin follow your example. After all mankind is essentially imitative!

Instead of throwing around water bottles or plastic bags or cover of sweets or waste paper near the roadside or the market, one should try to find a dustbin to discard them; and until one could fine a dustbin, keep them in your bag or pocket. For example, those who have purchased a paan wrapped in a paper should keep the paper in their pocket, even after the paan is put into the mouth, until they can put the paper in the dustbin or the kitchen fire. Better idea is for the shopkeepers to use a piece of banana leaf to wrap such small items and tie it with a thread! Leaves are biodegradable and are more environment friendly. Plastic bags or bottles can be buried by digging a pit in one's own garden if there is no dustbin around.

Brooming one's own courtyard is a good culture, but brooming other's courtyard is never in our culture. And since we do not broom other's courtyard/backyard, it is also against the culture to litter and dirty other's courtyard/backyard. This culture of keeping private property clean must go beyond to include the street and the roadside as well – one should never litter and dirty the street and the roadside. Just as we respect other's private property by not littering and dirtying it with waste material, we need to respect public property by not littering and dirtying it with waste materials. Out of respect if we can keep other's private property clean, we can definitely respect public property and keep it clean too. A civilised culture will respect public property. Let us keep our town, street, road, backyard and the environment hygienic and safe!

Christopher Lee, the 'Dracula', is Dead

Dracula of the novel and reel is immortal. But this Dracula is mortal because he is human. Death is a great leveler, they say. So whether one is a great actor or a great sage, death will finally catch up with all of us.  Of course, for someone like Sir Christopher Lee (1922-2015), the memories will live for ages to come. Every time one watches the movies he has acted in, his memories will be relived. Surely, he would be missed as an actor!

Considering that death is a pervasive experience, occurring to both young and old, religious or otherwise, male or female, it is a subject that should arouse everybody's curiosity. Yet the problem is that one cannot really ask someone about death because those who are dead remained dead. However, those of us who are still alive debate and ask questions about death. In this respect, there are those who believe that there is life beyond death; those who are religious believer like myself believe in life after death. But there are those who do not believe in life after death specially if one is an atheist. But the point is whether there is a gain for believing in life after death or rather a loss/absence of a gain for not believing in life after death? 

Those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God, as I do, believe that I shall see my dad who passed away few years back and my brother who passed away twenty years back. These are people very close to me. And those who have close ones who have passed away will surely understand the sentiment I am talking about. A critic may say that there is no empirical proof that I would see them and that unless there is empirical proof, such belief in unwarranted. Well, there are many things we believe without empirical proof! But the point is by not believing what does one gain? I see nothing! But then by believing I have a hope, a comfort! This hope is better than no hope. This hope cannot be provided by a belief that is devoid of any place for God. It is only religion that places the centrality of belief in a person like Jesus Christ that provides such a belief, such a hope. And I count this hope very much valuable for a meaningful life! 

Christianity: A Too Other Worldly Religion?

From time to time there has been those who say that Christianity is an other worldly religion, a religion that focuses on the life to come (or rather heavenly life, singing on the clouds playing harps! ). Such view of life thus fails to take adequate consideration of the life here on this earth, goes the argument. For example, two centuries back Rousseau levels such a charge against Christianity. Another contemporary philosopher Martha Nussbaum also says something to this effect. Reading Christianity this way may partly be blamed on Christian community itself given that there are also those within the community who have little or poor understanding of what authentic Christianity is. Yet, authentic Christianity is a religion far way from being such an other worldly religion that has nothing to do on this earth!

One of the most popular lines of the Bible is -- love your neighbour as yourself. The line itself acknowledges that one is to love oneself; and just as one loves oneself, one loves the neighbour. Loving oneself is not always easy specially when one has been as an ass or been unwanted. There are those who refuse to love oneself occasionally, and thus inflicts harm on one's own person. However, it is generally the case with everyone that most often we love ourselves. Because I love myself, I eat food that will be good for my health and not cause dysentery or cholera. Because I love myself, I groom myself well. Because I love myself, I value my properties as their being stolen would hurt me. These are various actions one performs because of one's love for oneself. But the biblical line also tells me to do similar things for my neighbour just as I do for myself. And this is hardly a too otherworldly outlook!

Christianity has two aspects to moral injunction as it is so with many other moral teachings. One aspect is to avoid doing bad deeds. This aspect underlines that one must avoid doing this action and that action because so and so actions are bad. To do such action is to be morally wrong. On the flip side, there is also this injunction to do good works. Do this or do that and the Lord will commend you. Failure to perform such good actions is also to be morally wrong. Looking at both of these aspects, one will realise that the injunction to perform certain actions or to avoid doing certain actions are both about social relationships. Whether it is good works or bad works, it is between human beings that our actions are played out. Given this nature of moral outlook, as Christianity presents itself, it is very much a this worldly religion.

But what Christianity teaches is that our actions have bearing not only in this earthly life, but beyond this three dimensional world that we know. Christianity teaches that a person is finally accountable to God and our decisions and actions now or the lack thereof determines the prospect of one's future life. This is like the story of a student who would pass or fail later depending on what she does now. If she works hard now, she will pass later; if she is laid back now, she would fail later. Thinking about the future must propel her to work hard now. In St. Paul's most detailed writing on the future hope as recorded in 1 Corinthian 15, Paul concludes by exhorting the audience to labour now here on this earth. If you have a vision to pass, you will have to necessarily work hard now; in the same vein, if you envision heaven, get to work now. This is hardly a view that teaches us to withdraw from the world.

Throughout history there have been Christians who have laboured for social and political justice because of what their love for their neighbour and the promise they look forward to. Earliest Christians used to pay from their own earning so that slaves would get freedom. Christian monk Telemachus travelled miles to put an end to gladiatorial sport in the Roman empire. William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for social and political rights for the enslaved and the marginalised because of their view of God and humanity. Mother Teresa cared for the poorest of the poor because of her devotion to God. Jesus does indeed call people to him, and to those who come to him, he gives them a new life and a new vision to go out to the broken world and serve the weary and the hungry. Loving Jesus must necessarily lead to loving the people here and now!

To Read Book List

In the months to come i.e till April 2016, I wish to have read these books.

1. The Right and the Good
Author: W.D Ross (Philosophy)
Area: Moral Philosophy

2. Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice
Author: Martha Nussbaum ( Philosophy)
Area: Moral and Political Philosophy

3. God and Government
Editor: Nick Spencer (Political Thought)
Area: Political Theology

4. Why Suffering?: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn't Make Sense
Authors: Ravi Zacharias (Philosophical Theology) and Vince Vitale (Philosophical Theology)
Area: Existentialism

5. The Fragility of Goodness
Author: Martha Nussbaum (Philosophy)
Area: Moral Philosophy

6. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Author: Michael Sandel (Philosophy)
Area: Moral and Political Philosophy

7. The Politics
Author: Aristotle (Polymath)
Area: Political Philosophy

NB: The list is not necessarily arranged in term of sequence.

Yoga, Yogi and The Controversy

June 21 will be Yoga International Day. With Modi's government planning to give a big push, the event is turning out to be controversial. The controversy surrounding the event is accentuated by the fact that Yoga is or is being made a Hindu religious practice and is or is being read as forcing down the throat of citizens including those who are not Hindus. 

Is Yoga a Hindu religious practice? The government says that Yoga day has nothing to do with Hindu religion. Many are not convinced as much as they are not convinced with the government's statement that cow slaughter ban (and so ban on beef consumption) in certain states is not about religion. These people believe that cow slaughter ban or Yoga push is part of government's plan to introduce Hindu belief and practice into the larger community life. Personally I am not quite sure whether Yoga is intrinsically linked to religion or not. Yes, at its beginning Yoga was connected to Hindu religion. There is not much non-acceptance at that point. The question is whether it still is the case. For example, if we examine the meaning of 'namaskar' or 'namastey', they have deep religious meaning. But today most people would say not associate them with religion but treat them as part of the cultural life. Question is whether Yoga has become more like 'namaskar/namastey', having lost its religious significance. 

It is said that '0' (zero) is India's gift to the world. This gift has nothing to do with religion; it's more territorial. Similarly, India can say Yoga is India's gift to the world. But if Yoga is inherently religious, then the issue is little different. Just as government of India ought not to promote Hindu religion and endorse it saying it is India's gift to the world, government also must not promote Yoga as India's gift to world if Yoga is inherently a Hindu religious practice. Doing so would tantamount to a state endorsing one religious belief over other religious beliefs. 

Given that Yogi Adityanath, a hardcore right wing Hindu political leader of BJP, spews venom against those who object to government's order that tries to make Yoga posture like Surya Namaskar (which then makes Yogo inherently part of Hindu religious tradition) compulsory PM must emphatically rebuke such remarks in public and clears the air that Yoga has nothing to do with religion. Instead of making a senior Minister speaks, it is high time PM opens his mouth against such repeated hate speech by Member of Parliament belonging to his party and clears the air. And unless PM speaks, it is unlikely religious minorities would be assured of their place in a political environment that is increasingly becoming less liberal. 

Yet in all of this, I can't help wondering why this government is taking up something which is rather controversial. Why can't PM give more energy and life to his wonderful campaign -- Swacch Bharat (Clean India)? Had PM come out with Swacch Bharat-II, that would convey to the citizens that he is determined to, or at least, attempted to sanitize and make India disease free. That would be more productive -- politically and socially. And so despite Sushma Swaraj and Rajnath Singh trying to clear the controversy, the suspicion remains! 

Meaning of 'Liberal '

The word 'liberal' has meanings according to the subject or the context one uses it. It is a word used in political discourse as much as it is used in theological discourse. It is also used in economics. And each one has a very different meaning attached to the word. 

In Political discourse, 'liberal' is to refer to the kind of political philosophy that gives much importance to individual's autonomy; individual's liberty or freedom. So whether one wants to eat beef or not is for the person to decide; the state/legal system has no business 'enforcing' what people should not eat or eat. Now if the state has no business enforcing what people should not eat or eat, then what all can it do? Well, many liberal thinkers would say that when it comes to issues regarding sovereignty, protection of private property etc., it's the state's business; and between citizens one of the things state needs to see is that no harm is done upon one party by another party. specially the stronger ones harming the weaker ones. Not all liberal thinkers have the same opinion with regard to the extent of liberty that must be allowed to an individual. For example, liberal thinkers may differ on whether affirmative action programme  should be adopted by a government or not. However, all liberal thinkers would insist on emphasizing on the importance of autonomy of the individual. 

In Theology, the word 'liberal' refers to the view that has deviated from the traditionally accepted view. This does not mean traditional view is static all the time; traditional view has so much of room to explore new ideas and incorporate them into the traditionally held view. For example, in Christianity traditional view is that Jesus is both human and divine. Without denying the divinity of Jesus, there is so much to explore on what it means to say that Jesus is human and then incorporate this new thought into the traditionally held view. However, if this new finding leads on to deny the traditionally held view i.e. Jesus is both human and divine, and begins saying that Jesus is not divine, that is to get onto liberal view. Liberal view is opposed to orthodoxy; and orthodoxy means correct belief. Of course, who determines what is correct belief and what is liberal view, the deviated view? This is rather complex  but there are certain belief that is pronounced in explicit terms what the official position of the church is. 

In Economics, 'liberal' is used in a way that is closer to political discourse. It is the view that advances that government's intervention in market should be minimal. It is to say that economic affairs should be left to the current of demand and supply. So government providing, say, railway services should be withdrawn and let the private company/ownership provide the service. Like government allowing private players to compete in providing telecommunication services to the people -- Airtel, Vofafone, Tata, Reliance etc. -- government should also allow private players to compete in different areas. Of course, to what extent government should be allowed to provide services and to what extent private players are allowed to take over may be different according to individuals. But the emphasis is that private players should be allowed to play a great role is what liberal economist would insist. 

Eating Insects To Fight Hunger

To combat hunger, eat insects -- that's the advice UN agency is sending out the world. Here is the link. Well, that's a very important lesson. Food habit depends on culture. In certain region of the world, Octopus or crocodile is eaten. Once when I saw 6-7 Octopuses being sold in a fish market in Delhi, I asked if anyone would even buy it. "Of course", says the seller. The next I came to the same shop, and the octopuses were all gone. Perhaps, there are octopus eaters in Delhi. 

But strange as it may sound to me people eating octopus or crocodile, it may sound strange to many to hear that I eat grasshopper or locust. I have several times eaten grasshopper as the main menu. They are crunchy and they are great! Locusts are not that great, compared to grasshopper. I have also encountered lot of people enjoying silk worm larvae; fry it and then take it. And it is so expensive! I could not try that though. But I have also eaten Hornet's larvae. In the picture below, one can see Hornet's larvae placed on the right. The worm on the left is larvae of giant moth. I have tasted that when I was young! And both of them are extremely delicious. Some may find it difficult to taste them. But if one thinks through, it's not quite difficult to understand why some people like them. They are edible and they are very clean and they are good for health. And yes, I have eaten dragonfly too. I think UN has given wonderful advice when it says that eating insects is a way to fight hunger.