On Demonitisation

Modi sarkar demonitised Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 denominations on 8th November, 2016. It was stated that such step will address three factors: Curtail terrorist funding, unearth undisclosed cash and flush out counterfeit notes. 

I am very doubtful about the success of the first objective. For the second, one would have to wait and watch. And for third there is no doubt that it would be dealt with pretty well. 

The reason why I remain doubtful about meeting the first objective is because terrorists will find ways to exchange their notes. Moreover, they will in few months time begin to accumulate money once more.  If Govt. has to curtail funds to the terrorists, it has to go to the root cause of the problem. And to do that govt. would have to win over the heart and mind of the people who are funding the terrorist. Okay, this cannot be applied to Pakistan. But this can be applied to the supporters of the Naxalites and those in the North East. 

The fact that there are more frequent attacks occurring in Jammu and Kashmir demonstrates that demonitisation does not even have an iota of effect in curbing insurgency. 

For the second point, one would have to wait and see how much money will come back to the Reserve Bank of India. And how much of undisclosed money has been detected. The cost of this exercise has been massive ( 1.25 trillion rupees, says news report), and if the amount of undisclosed money is very small, then the whole exercise would be in vain. So let us wait for the final figure to arrive. 

Regarding counterfeits notes, there is no doubt banks would be able to flush out quite effectively. But this process can be efficiently done without having to demonitise all the big notes at one go. 

The main criticism against the whole process of demonitisation is with regard to the unpreparedness of the concerned authority. The massive cash shortage has hurt the economy. Though it cannot be quantified now, there is no doubt that the blow to the economy will be massive. Had the concerned authority taken adequate steps by way of having got more notes ready or kept the size of Rs. 2000 similar to that of Rs. 1000 so that fitting it into the ATM will be quite easy, the damage would not have been this bad. 

Overall, I would say let's wait and see whether there is net gain or loss. This will show whether demonitisation has been a useful measure or not. This is the first point. The second point is with regard to the prepareness of the concerned authority. And in this regard, my view is that there is no preparation. The way this has been carried out is a disaster. 

A Beautiful Duet

David Phelps and his daughter Maggie Phelps

Rawl's Primary Goods

Rawls writes about primary goods in section 11, titled 'two principles of justice' in book A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971). He says that primary goods are '"things that every rational man is presumed to want" ( p. 62). He classifies primary goods into two categories: Social Primary Goods and Natural Primary Goods. 

Social Primary Goods include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth ( and self-respect) whereas Natural Primary Goods include health and vigor, intelligence and imagination ( p. 62). 

Whatever kinds of plan of life that a person has, these goods normally are useful for the person to achieve his or her end. 

Samples of APA Style

In APA style, for "location" the names of the city and the state are to be used. For example, if the book is published in New York, it is to be cited at " New York, NY". The name of the state is to be in shortened form. But  states outside of the US do not always have shortened form. These are the samples on how to fill the "location" for books published outside of the US.

" London, England: Taylor & Francis." You can find it here.

And another sample: " Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France". Link is here.  

Was it Justifiable For Mother Teresa to Accept Money From Shady People?

Just few days back two prominent figures were extremely harsh on Mother Teresa. I did not expect such adjectives from Justice Katju and Arindam Chaudhari. Part of the problem, I think, is that they did not try to understand things from the other side. She was accused of accepting donations from people of shady characters, and also that her use of money was not transparent. When I try to put myself in her shoes, this is way I see things.

Take a government employee whose office hour is 9am - 5pm. This person is wasting his time shouting at the clients, gossiping, loitering, sleeping, arriving late, leaving early and doing things he should not be doing during office hour. But at the end of the month, he gets full salary. When he goes to the shop to purchase potato and hands over the Rs. 100 note, he does not say this 90% is from my hardwork and 10% is for arriving late, leaving early and all the useless thing I do but should not be paid for. The rich businessman does not say this 85% is through fair earning, and 15% is through making the 100 employees work additional one hour each week for which I am getting the money. I believe our politicians' earning would be mostly contaminated money!

If a politician had donated to a Temple or a Gurudwara saying this money on my right hand is from bribery and cheating and the money on my left hand is through honest earning, it would be unreasonable not to reject the money given by the right hand. But the politicians do not come like that, and they donate contaminated money, and how could the priest separate which percentage is pure and which is impure.

Mother Teresa had the hungry and the diseased to feed. It is the government and God who must examine how the donors earned the money. Investigating what percentage is white money and what percentage is black money is not her job. If she would not accept any contaminated money, she would have to close down her institution. Because there is no one whose entire earning is entirely pure. Our efforts and earnings are contaminated by greed, anger, jealousy, malice etc. though there is love, grace, compassion, friendship etc.

But even if it was justifiable for her to accept donations from people of shady character, she must be honest in the use of the money. And as a registered NGO, her institution must be accountable to the government. There was no RTI ( Right To Information) during her time, and her critics would have no way of getting the audited statement if she had refused to share. But she had no reason to show the audited statement to any of her critics. She was not accountable to her critics. If she was unfaithful, it was for the government to take action on the institution. Let the government bring forth accusation if there were financial irregularities. 

Her critics accusing her of refusing to share the financial detail is not a reasonable charge nor is it reasonable to criticise her specially using very strong adjective for accepting donation from people who had gone to jail or involved in cheating and so on. 

SHG as Loan Shark?

In the absence of a robust formal financial institution, the non-formal money lenders that charge around 5% – 20% per month are filling the vacuum to meet the need of those struck by unwanted circumstances causing tremendous hardship to those already burdened. Sometimes, these lenders could even be a Self Help Group.

Loan shark refers to a money lender who charges extremely high interest rate. Observing the current interest rate that money lenders charge in different places in the North East, it seems appropriate to use such a term.

In almost all districts of Arunachal Pradesh, either Self Help Groups or private lenders would give loan at 10% per month or rather 120% per annum. In fact not only in Arunachal Pradesh, the same practice is found in Mon district of Nagaland, Sonitpur district of Assam and in other parts of North East India. In Senapati district of Manipur it is comparatively lesser i.e. 5% per month or 60% per annum.

Since the government has not criminalised such practice, loan sharks consider it morally okay to charge such extremely high interest rate. The demand by those who are in dire needs of money possibly because of illness in the family or for children’s education or similar pressing reason made the loan sharks justify that they are coming in only to fill the gap.

Filling the gap is required, but the problem arises when it turns exploitative. If it is to fill the gap and to meet the demand of the needy, and not to exploit the needy, the interest rate should be much lower. Interest rate that is higher than 2.5% per month or 30% per annum cannot be justified because a high interest rate imposes back breaking burden on the needy. Such high interest rate deprives a needy family the chance to recover from economic instability within a reasonable time span. Taking loan on high interest rate breaks the economic backbone of those who are already crippled by circumstances.

“Human wants are unlimited”, says our school textbook. It is natural to want to get richer and richer. To work harder to improve one’s economic condition is not bad in itself. But when the desire to get richer is actualised through exploitation or taking advantage of someone’s helpless condition, it turns into greed – a negative quality that is responsible for so much of world’s problem throughout human history.

Charging 10% or even 5% per month for loan given to a needy is an expression of greed and selfishness. Whether it is an individual or a group of individuals that give loan at such rate must cease. Even if the legal system does not criminalise loan sharks, the larger social and political community needs to maintain a moral norm to set the prevailing condition right. And this moral consciousness has to emerge from within a small community to become part of the public consciousness.

To address this pressing social exploitation, government also must work towards widespread establishment of formal financial institutions. Compared to the interest rate charged by the current money lenders, banks charge far less interest rate. Whether it is private banks or otherwise, the interest rate may be kept not more than 18% per annum, though there are different rates for different reasons for borrowing money. Micro-finance companies may charge around 28% per annum, at the most.

Thus the gap between the formally established financial institutions and the private run lending system is too wide. Given the tremendous hardship borrowing money by needy families from private lenders elicits, charging of high interest rate must be addressed by the concerned authority as well.

(Apilang Apum is a PhD Candidate, Economics Dept, Rajiv Gandhi University and while Jeremiah Veino Duomai is a PhD Candidatem Philosophy Dept., Delhi University)

Link: http://www.arunachaltimes.in/self-help-group-as-loan-sharks/

Was John Stuart Mill Being Inconsistent?

I doubt that the stringent and sweeping protection of individual liberty that Mill advocates can be convincingly defended on utilitarian grounds -- Robert Adams ( Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics, p. 329).

Mill's robust celebration of individuality is the most distinctive contribution of 'On Liberty'. But it is also a kind of heresy. Since it appeals to moral ideals beyond utility -- ideals of character and human flourishing -- it is not really an elaboration of Bentham's principle ( of Utilitarianism) but a renunciation of it, despite Mill's claim to the contrary -- Michael Sandel ( Justice: What's the Right Thing to do?, pp. 51-52).

Mill may be liberals' most celebrated philosopher because of his defence of individual liberty in his essay 'On Liberty'. Yet by defending Utilitarianism, I think, he has compromised consistency in his thought. As Sandel points out, to defend individual liberty Mill points to excellence.

Religion in Arunachal Pradesh

Share of Christians in the total population has reached 30.26 percent and it may have reached 40 percent among the Scheduled Tribes.

a)     Share of Christians in the population of Arunachal Pradesh has increased substantially from 18.72 percent in 2001 to 30.26 in 2011.

b)    Detailed data for the religious profile of the Scheduled Tribes in the State is not yet available. In 2001, 90.79 percent of 2.06 lakh Christians in the State were from the Scheduled Tribes; and, share of Christians in the ST population was 26.47 percent.

c)     If we assume that the same about 91 percent of the 4.19 lakh Christians counted in the State in 2011 are from the Scheduled Tribes, than the share of Christians in the Scheduled Tribes now turns out to be around 40 percent.

d)    Share of Christians in many of the individual tribes is much higher and is reaching the level of nearly complete Christianisation.

Wancho and Nocte of Tirap are likely to have been almost entirely Christianised.

a)     Share of Christians in Wancho and Nocte of Tirap district had reached 73.54 and 42.35 percent, respectively, in 2001, when Christian share in the total population was 50 percent.

b)    In 2011, share of Christians in the district has increased to 74.45 percent and their share in the ST population is likely to have reached 83 percent.

Nyishi, Nissi and Nishang of East Kameng, Papum Pare and Lower Subansiri also seem to be reaching the level of almost full Christianisation.

a)     After Tirap, the highest presence of Christians in the western districts of East Kameng, Papum Pare, Lower Subansiri and Karung Kumey. In 2011, they have a share of 47.19, 47.18, 41.43 and 55.59 percent, respectively. In 2001, the Christian share was 25.45 and 29.98 percent in East Kameng and Papum Pare, respectively, and it was only 24.51 percent in Lower Subansiri, which then included Karung Kumey.

b)    Share of Christians in the ST population of these districts in 2001 was somewhat higher at 28.84 and 26.43 percent, respectively, in East Kameng and undivided Lower Subansiri; and, it was much higher at 49.50 percent in Papum Pare.

c)    The substantial increase in the proportion of Christians in the total population since 2001 indicates that their share in the ST population is likely to have increased to above 50 percent in in East Kameng and Lower Subansiri and to around 67 percent in Papum Pare.

d)    The main Scheduled Tribes communities in these districts are from the Nissi group, and are listed under the heads of Nyishi, Nissi and Nishang in the Census of 2001. Our analysis indicates that these communities may have now been fully Christianised, at least in these three districts.

Many of the tribes of the Adi group in West Siang, East Siang and Dibang Valley are likey to have been fully Christianised.

a)   In the central districts of West Siang, East Siang and Dibang Valley (including Lower Dibang Valley), the presence of Christians in 2011 is relatively low at 26.69, 18.40 and 15.20 percent, respectively. But, in 2001, they had a much smaller share of 19.36, 15.34 and 10.63 percent, respectively.

b)    In the ST population of these districts, the share of Christians in 2011 is likely to be even higher at around 35, 20 and 25 percent, respectively.

c)   The main Scheduled Tribes communities of these central districts are from the Adi group. In 2001, the proportion of Christians in some of these communities, especially among Adi, Abor, Bokar and Bori in West Siang; among Adi Gallong and Galong in East Siang; and, among, Adi, Abor, Adi Gallong, Galong, Adi Minyong and Adi Padam in Dibang Valley was much higher than the average of all STs. In many of these communities, the share of Christians in 2001 was already above 40 percent and in some it was even above 70 percent. With the considerably increased share of Christians in these districts, many of these communities are likely to have been fully Christianised by 2011.

Many of the smaller tribes of the Tangsa group in Changlang have been fully Christianised and Christians may have reached overwhelming majority in the main Tangsa community.

a)     Share of Christians in the population of Changlang in 2001 was 17.49 percent; it has risen to 24.27 percent.

b)    The share of Christians among the Scheduled Tribes of Changlang was much higher at 39.86 percent; it is likely to have increased to around 55 percent in 2011.

c)     The share of Christians in the main Tangsa community of Changlang was already 42.83 percent and it was much higher at above 77 percent in the relatively smaller communities of Mossang Tangsa and Nocte, above 90 percent in Rongrang Tangsa and nearly 100 percent in the Yobin. With the considerably increased presence of Christians in the population of the district in 2011, many of these communities of Changlang are likely to have been fully Christianised and, in the main Tangsa community, they are likely to have acquired an overwhelming majority.

Tawang and West Kameng in the west and Lohit in the east seem to have largely escaped Christianisation.

a)    West Tawang and West Kameng districts in the west and Lohit lying to the west of Tirap and Changlang in the east continue to have a considerable presence of Hindus and Buddhists. We shall describe the demographic spread and growth of Hindus and Buddhist in Arunachal Pradesh in a separate post.

b)    Other Religions and Persuasions are a significant part of the religious demography of this State; we shall discuss their composition, distribution and growth also in the following post. ( For full article, go here.)

NB: The article is taken from the blog of Centre for Policy Research)

David Phelps and Maggie Beth Phelps

Awesome duet by David Phelps and his daughter Maggie Beth Phelps

Census Data of 2011: Christians in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu has a considerable Christian population. Of the total 2.78 crore Christians counted in India in 2011, 44 lakh are in Tamil Nadu, where they form 6.12 percent of the population. Their number and share in Tamil Nadu is the highest of all major States except the adjoining Kerala. Tamil Nadu and Kerala account for more than 1 crore of Christians in the country.

Christians in Tamil Nadu are spread across nearly all the districts, but their presence is relatively higher in a few pockets, which are also spread across different parts of the State. Their highest presence is in the south, particularly in Kanniyakumari. This district alone accommodates one-fifth of all Christians in the State.

The share of Christians in the State as well as in many of the districts has been rising slowly for several decades. But their growth has been very rapid in Kanniyakumari, where their share in the population rose from 30.7 percent in 1921 to 34.7 percent in 1951 and has risen to 46.8 percent since then. There has been an accretion of 2.4 percentage points during the last decade alone.

Besides Kanniyakumari, the growth of Christians has been remarkable in Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur districts that surround Chennai city. These two earlier formed the single district of Chengalpattu; the share of Christians in the undivided Chengalpattu district has risen from 2.35 percent in 1951 to 6.35 percent in 2011.

The number and share of Muslims in Tamil Nadu is almost similar to the Christians. But they are spread even more uniformly across the State. Their highest concentration is in Ramanathapuram, where they form 15.4 percent of the population.

Tamil Nadu is one of the rare States where Christians have grown faster than the Muslims in the period following Independence. Between 1951 and 2011, the number of Christians has risen from 14.3 to 44.2 lakh, while that of Muslims has grown from 14.4 to 42.3 lakh. In the same period, the share of Muslims in the population has grown from 4.79 to 5.86 percent and of the Christians from 4.74 to 6.12 percent.

Tamil Nadu is also unusual in having several districts and many more taluks with considerable presence of both Christians and Muslims. In general, the areas of high presence of these two communities tend to be different. In conformity with that trend, the share of Muslims in Kanniyakumari—where Christians have a very high and rapidly growing presence—is low.

(The rest of the article can be read in the blog of Centre for Policy Research.) 

God and Government: Chapter 4

This chapter is written by David McIlroy, a practising barrister. It is titled " The role of government is classical Christian political thought".

One of the points the author underscores, drawn from ancient Christian thinkers, is that Government is accountable to God. And

Another point the author underscores, as the previous authors have also stated, is that Government is limited. He goes to say that "it is now almost universally recognized in Christian thought that the Church's role is not to take over or dominate government either." This I understand to be saying that Christians are not in favour of a theocratic government.

What rather surprises me is the assertion that even in ancient times, Christian theologians asserted a limited form of government. However, it seems to the present form of limited government and the ancient form of limited government could have been different.

Christian political thinkers also make a distinction between state's law and church's morality. Or rather difference between 'shallow justice' and 'deep justice. The state may legislate certain form of moral norms, but this is not necessarily going to be similar to that of the church. The church may consider certain action immoral, but this necessarily cannot be legislated as illegal. So state's law can be termed as 'shallow justice' because it does not touch upon all aspects of ethical issues; and the church's law may be termed as 'deep justice' because it goes much deeper than that of the state.

The state in its legislation must take into consideration the common good. It must see that it's resources are distributed towards meeting the need of the poor too.

God and Government: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of God and Government. The summary of the first chapter is here. The second chapter is titled "The nature and role of government in the Bible". It is written by Julian Rivers, who is a professor of Jurisprudence at Bristol University.

The Bible is ambivalent about government. Jesus says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". But what is Caesar's and what is God's? The answer is not clear. But what is clear is that God is the ruler of all; and government is the product of human activity, as the previous chapter underscored. 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Rom 13:1-7 make it clear that government has legitimacy and therefore one must submit to government's authority. Of course this does not mean that the government is the ultimate authority and that whatever government says is good. There are clear examples when what government says is bad. But the point is established that government has legitimate authority upon people.

The government authority, however, is limited. It is so because there are other parallel authorities. Other authorities like the church, family and the individual's autonomy limit government's authority.

There are four areas in which the government's authority is limited. "equality, legality, diffusion and accountability". What do they mean?

Bible underscores equality of all humans. The Bible thus talks about equal distribution of land and other resources. But does it endorse an egalitarian distribution? The Bible provides a devastating critique against hoarding of material possession by the rich at the expense of the extreme poor, but does not provide answer how equal distribution could be realised. There is practical room for government not to enforce egalitarian distribution of wealth. After all such a government is not really feasibly, so to speak.

Government does not function independent of its own law. It is subject to law. This way its authority is limited.

Government also diffuse powers to local institutions. This limits government's authority. Israel was a tribal federation, not an absolute monarchy. The prophets were able to critique the king because they were not co-opted into the king's court though there were prophets who are patronised by the king. Too much of centralisation of power should be limited.

Government should be accountable. This is to be achieved by different departments being accountable to one another. Judiciary, executive and so on should be able accountable to one another.

God and Government: Chapter 1

This is a summary of the book God and Government, edited by Nick Spencer and Jonathan Chaplin and published by SPCK in 2009. I shall try to summarise the chapters as the author underscores in the text. And then whenever possible, I shall give my own comment.

The first chapter is titled " Government as an ambiguous power" written by Nigel Wright, who served as the Principal of Spurgeon College, London.

The author argues that the Church should maintain a critical distance from political institutions. This way the church would be able to critique the institution whenever required. However, an individual Christian must be part of the political institution as he or she feels called. Elijah was a prophet who maintained a critical distance from the political office of the day, and he spoke the voice of the one in heaven. He carried the 'official' voice from God. However, Obadiah was an individual who worked as part of the institution in the king's court. By working this way, he was able to secure a safe place for so many faithful folks. As led by the Spirit and one's conscience, Christian must find one's place.

God created the world and the humans. Since these are God's creations, they are good. However, something has gone wrong. It is important to bear this tension in mind as one looks at human institutions. Whether it is government or institutions, they are the product of human activities. Given that humans bear the tension of being good and bad, the product of human imaginations and activities will bear this tension. Through human cooperation, laws and agencies to foster human well-being arise. They are there to pursue human well-being. But because humans bear the tension of being good and bad, as an individual and as a collective body, our activities -- individual or collective, will not necessarily always be bad or good. On one hand government will be good; on the other hand government need not be good. The tendency to work for the enrichment of those in power, not taking into the interest of all the members of the society will surface over and over again. This is where the Church has a critical role to play.

The Church has a redeeming role to play. The government has a role to maintain stability and order. The government may advance criminal justice by using coercion and also develop institutions for promoting peace. This is essential. However, this aspect of preserving the order cannot redeem humans. But what this allows is that it gives the Church that peaceful environment to proclaim Christ and his redemptive work. This also serves as an important point in the separation of church and state. The church is free from the clutch of the state, and it is free to maintain a critical distance. At the same time, the Church does not have a grip over the function of the state though it may influence. The Church also does not seek any special privilege that people of other religions do not enjoy. This is about loving the neighbours!

Muhammed Ali is Dead

Muhammed Ali, perhaps the greatest boxer is no more. Whether you are the greatest boxer or an amateur boxer, you are going to die, and so am I. Great boxer, small boxer, death equalises all. Death is truly a great leveller of all players. Sad as it may be when dead occurs to our beloved ones, it is an event that we all must face. No one can bluff death.  

Ali became a Muslim at one point of his life. His daughter says that he did try to convert people to Islam when situation allowed him.  This is not surprising because Islam is a monotheistic religion, like Judaism and Christianity. A monotheistic religion will teach that there is only one God, and all other gods are not worthy of worship. And therefore a monotheistic religion will invite all other people to come to worship this one true living God. When Ali tried to share about Islam, he did what he thought was the right thing to do.

Now the question is: Is this the one being called the true living God truly the true living God? How does one come to know of this truth?

Islam relies on the testimony of prophet Muhammed that the Allah as the Quran underscores is that true living God. If this testimony is untrue, then the whole belief will collapse. Christianity has a different take on the matter. Christianity relies on the testimony of the disciples of Jesus Christ. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and others. So Islam relies on one testimony and Christianity relies on the testimonies of more number of people. The testimonies of the disciples say that they saw Jesus being raised from the dead. And being raised from the dead, Jesus is the Lord of all; Jesus is the one true God who deserves our worship.

Well, given that the testimonies are based on the account of so many people, I would say that Christianity is more reliable than Islam.

All of us will die eventually. If there is life beyond this world, how important it is to listen to the reliable testimonies and make decisions wisely. Even if one believes that there is no life beyond this life, it is wise to listen to the testimonies of those who say that there is more than this life here on this earth. After all, if there is indeed more than this life, and one has not taken due effort to listen to the testimonies and so one has missed out this fact of life, then it is indeed a great loss. The testimonies of the disciples of Jesus are to me very convincing. Now one may say such testimonies are generally nonsense. Well, just try... just read the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.   

Some Facts About Christianity in India and Beyond

1. Do Christians have a holy city? 

Ans: No. Christians have no holy city. Muslims may consider Mecca a holy city, but Christians have no such city. 

2. Do Christians have a sacred language?

Ans: No. Hindus have Sanskrit and Muslims have Arabic but Christians have no such language. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written common Greek. Bible is translated in different languages. There is no language that is more special than other languages. 

3.  Do Christians have a particular way to name the children? 

Ans: No. Christians from Africa can have African names; while those from Japan will have Japanese name and so on. Muslims may carry "Mohammed" and other similar names to every culture Islam is planted, but Christians have no such theological reason to do so. 

4. Do Christians have some outward cultural signatures for others to identity?

Ans: Not really. For example, if you are a Sikh, you may cover your head or you may be unshaved. Or if you are a Muslim, you may keep a beard. Christians have no such cultural signatures with which others can identify. 

5. Do Christians have a particular food culture? 

Ans: Not really. A Muslim will refuse to eat pork; a pious Hindu will refuse to beef. Christians have no theological reason to refuse this or that. It is for the individual to choose. 

6. Then what is it to be a Christian? 

Ans: To follow Jesus as Lord and God. 

7. Do Christians pay money to the tribals to convert? 

Ans: Two questions: First, are you willing to shell out money to convert Bangladeshis/Bhutanese to your religion? Hmm...Well, if one is a "common man" one would rather save up money to buy a house or a car or go on a holiday than pay money to others to convert. Second, would you change your religion if you are offered money? Hmmm... I guess many might say no...but if the amount of money is extremely big or one's need is extremely urgent, then one might. But how much money would be required to make you change your religion? 

Now ask your self whether Christians have that much money to distribute to the people... Of course not. 

Conversion is about a person choosing to follow Jesus. Christians are exhorted to share this message, but using money to 'buy' people or forcefully converting people is absolute no no. 

7. But don't Christians help the poor tribals? 

Ans: Yes, that happens. Imagine a parent that has two kids. One is ill and the other is well. Would you give the same amount of care to the sick and the healthy? Or will the sick one get more attention? The poor members of any given society are like the sick child. Any society that refuses to care for its 'sick' members has some problem. Christians care for the poor because they are poor and they need help. 

If you also join in in serving the poor, that would be wonderful! 

8. Why do Christians propagate their religion? 

Ans: Jesus says he is the Lord of all, and there is no other person like him. Because he is the Lord of all, he invites all people to him. This is demonstrated by his resurrection from the dead; the only person who has ever conquered dead. This happens in human history. All other great religious figures are dead and gone. Jesus is risen from the dead. If Jesus is the Lord of all, then all those who worship someone else must stop doing that and begin to worship Jesus. Propagation of religion is just about telling people that Jesus is the only one Lord. Take it or leave it. That's about it. 

Some Pictures

Giving the Talk 

Add caption

With the Professors

Write and Win Prize of $ 500

OmniPapers, with the support of our founder Emily Johnson, announce an international essay contest! It’s a perfect opportunity to show your creativity and writing skills with a chance to win $500!

Write an essay on the topic “The ideal higher education model for my country”.

• The language of your essay should be English.
• The number of words should be between 1,000-1,500.
• Save and send your essay in Word Doc or PDF formats.
• You can write it in academic or non-academic style.
• One student can submit only one essay!

Eligibility: The contest is open to all students from worldwide, but participants must be 20-25 years old.

Prize:

1. $500 – the 1-st place
2. $200 – the 2-nd place
3. $100 – the 3-rd place

Submission Process: 

Send your essays to info@omnipapers.com. Also, don’t forget the subject line of your message should be “OmniPapers Writing Contest”. You are welcome to send your essays anytime between March 22 and June 30, 2016. Winners will be announced on July 11, and they’ll be notified by email. We’ll also publish their works at our blog.

More details needed? Ask your questions at info@omnipapers.com

To go to the official site, click HERE. 

Endless Hallelujah by Matt Redman

On Capital Punishment

Is Gay Right a Human Right Issue?

Is gay right is a human right? Someone argued here that gay right is a human right issue. He argued that since it is a human right issue, it should be decriminalised. I agree that it should be decriminalised, but I disagree with the reason provided for why it should be decriminalised. 

Human rights are rights that each person possesses by virtue of being a human person, and violating human right amounts to dehumanising the person. If a person is forced to have sex against her or his consent, that can be a violation of her or his human rights. But if a person is not allowed to have sex, will that be a violation of her or his human right? Or if I put it in a slightly different way: if a person chooses to restrain from sex, would she or he be violating her or his human rights? I would answer the latter question in negative; celibacy is not a violation of one's human rights. I shall come back to the former question later. 

But one may argue that there is a difference between choosing to remain single and being forced to remain single. After all, there is a difference between choosing to fast voluntarily and being forced to starve. If I choose to fast voluntarily, that is not a violation of human right; but if I was forcefully starved, that would be a violation of human right. Now is this analogy quite right? Is state's position -- or rather lack of it -- in not positively legitimising gay sex akin to not positively providing food where and when there is starvation? I think there is a difference. No one can survive without food; one can live well without expression of homosexual activity or heterosexual activity. But one may still argue that the state not legitimizing same sex union is different from forcing a person not to have same sex relation. And I do think that there is a difference. Let me take the latter case first i.e the state forcing a person not to have same sex relation. This is also the question that I paused in the second paragraph.

The state forcing a person not to have same sex relation would mean that the state criminalises people who have same sex relation; meaning, the state considers homosexual activity a crime.

Now if gay right is a human right, what would that mean? Now if gay right is a human right, the state has to take steps to positively and actively promote and legitimise it. This is what being an item of human right would mean. If starvation is a human right issue, then the state should not only starve people, but when there is starvation the state has to actively work and ensure that starvation is wiped out. Now this is problematic.

But are these two the only options -- The state criminalising homosexual activity and the state legitimising and advancing gay marriage saying that it is a matter of human right?

Now if same sex union is a human right, then those religious communities that teach the members of the community against homosexual practice cannot do that. Because saying that homosexual practice is morally wrong and should refrain from that would be a violation of human right of someone. So I would say that to argue for expression of homosexual taste. based on human right is a wrong-headed argument. In my previous post, from a different perspective I argue why same sex marriage should not be legalised, but also why it should not be criminalised; I argue that it should be a non-criminal act yet not a legalised act that the state affirms, recongises and celebrates. It should rather be treated like live-in relationship which is neither a criminal activity nor a legal union.

I agree that homosexual practice should be decriminalised. But to argue for that based on human right is, I think, a mistake. Human right is a thin idea. To put different kinds of right into the category of human right is to do disservice to human right. I think decriminalisation of same sex relation should rather be argued based on the idea of a liberal state.

So the third option is consider it as a non-criminal act, and leave it at that. This is to say that the state is not criminalising it nor is it legalising it. The state does not legitimise gay union no more or no less that it does with adultery or fornication. This way it leaves room for religious communities the freedom to shape the moral consciousness of the members and also the gays to be single or otherwise and also it leaves the state not too morally stringent that it curtails individual liberty nor too morally loose that age old civilisational scaffold like marriage and religious teachings are undermined. 

Same Sex Relation: To Criminalise or to Legalise or a Third Way?

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian Parliamentarian, recently started a petition that seeks to make an amendment in the section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The section reads " whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Tharoor argues that it impacts the LGBTQ community, and also the heterosexual couples. The campaign to seek amendment has also been sought even by the Naz Foundation. Tharoor mentions that rape and pedophilia should not be legitimised, but different forms of sexual expressions between consenting adults must be made legal. Here is the quote: Section 377 should be amended so that all consensual sex between consenting adults irrespective of gender and sexuality is legal. I have an issue with the word 'legal'. 

The headline in the Petition says " Decriminalise Homosexuality". However, the content of the petition is not really about decriminalisation of homosexual practice; it is about legalisation of homosexuality practice. It is because of this inconsistency that I did not sign the petition. Let me explain further what I am saying.

It is one thing to decriminalise homosexual act; it is another thing to legalise it.  This is not the case in all situations. But this is so particularly for matter involving sexuality. Let me explain the differences with examples.

In certain sates of India, beef consumption is banned. So if you consume beef in these states, you are consuming an illegal food item. And it is taken as a criminal act, and you can be jailed for that. However, fish consumption is legal. The state will not send anyone to jail for consuming fish. The government does not say that fish or cabbage or potato or tomato and so on are legalised food items. It is understood that beef consumption is an illegal act and consuming other food items like those mentioned above are legal acts. Here only two categories are employed: illegal act or legal act. The idea here is that if it is not an illegal act, then it is a legal act.

When it comes to sexuality, employing just two categories will not work. I would argue that we need three categories: illegal act (or criminal act), non illegal act ( non criminal act) and legal act. Rape is a criminal act; it is illegal. You rape, and you can go to jail. As of now homosexual act also falls in this category. You have sexual relation with a person of same sex, you can be jailed. But fornication between one adult male and one adult female is not a criminal act. Society or parents may find it unacceptable, but if it was consensual then the two individuals cannot be sent to jail. I would call this as non illegal act (or non criminal act). The third category is the sexual relation between husband and wife. This is a legal act. This third category -- marital sexual relation -- is different from the first category and the second category because it takes place within the state (or concerned authority) sanctioned institution. Marriage is a formal recognition of the union that involves authority's sanction, witnessed by friends and families and often accompanied by celebration. The couple is honoured by providing certificate of marriage. Because marriage is an institutionalised union, sexual relation within marriage cannot be equated with fornication; the legal standing between the second category and the third category has to be different. If we do not treat them differently, we are compromising with the most basic institution called family. And this is a very serious issue.

Given that family, which traditionally is composed of male-female equation, is the basic building block of a civilisation, I would not want the state to legalise same sex union. Or to put it different, I do not want same sex union to be recognised, celebrated and honoured by the state. Immanuel Kant would invoke the universalisability principle to examine the moral imperative of an action. He says that we should act on that maxim that it can be acted on universally. I would apply the maxim here like this. If everyone begins to marry the person of same sex, human species would extinct. If the state legalises same sex marriage, it would mean it recognises, celebrates and honours same sex marriage. Given that same sex marriage, if universalised, can result in the extinction of human race, the state should not recognise, celebrate and honour it.

I am okay about decriminalising homosexual act, which would mean it would no longer be placed alongside criminal act like rape; instead, it would be placed alongside non-criminal act like fornication. A liberal state would have to allow individual to exercise liberty to a great extent unless it infringes on the autonomy of other people. I may not appreciate it nor consider it right. However, a liberal state would have to allow citizens to exercise liberty, and this is different from recognising, celebrating and honouring a conduct. However, I would insist that the state should not legalise it.

When it concerns food items, the state will not dish out certificate and say that this is a legal food item. That's why if it is not illegal, it would mean that it is legal. With sexuality, the government does give certificate. Here it is about people coming together to make an institution. Here the nature of the matter is different from that of the consumption habit. And because of the nature of the matter, it requires three categories; unlike food matter that works with only two categories.

God's Justice: An Article

An article by Tim Stafford explaining the nature and the basis of Justice as found in the Bible: 

Forty years after the historic Lausanne Covenant, American evangelicals remain muddled and divided on the question of evangelism and good works. The word “justice” acts as a catalyst, either attracting or repelling. It divides us.

For the past three years I have been involved in a writing project bringing together 55 scholars and activists from the global church, the majority from non-Western countries. The aim was a study Bible with notes on the theme of justice—introductions and verse-by-verse notes for every book in the Bible, aiming to show how each part of the Bible contributes to the historical story of God’s justice...( the rest of the text can be read here) 

India's Hindutva vs. Pakistan's Sharia Law?

Yesterday's bomb blast at Lahore, Pakistan, killed around 70 people. The culprits belong to the Pakistani Taliban. The bomb blast targeted the Christians in Pakistan. This is one of the many incidents where religious minorities have been killed in Pakistan. Few days back there was a huge rally in support of the assassin Qadri, who murdered a politician after the politician spoke out against killing of religious minorities. Christians, Hindus and Sikhs have all been murdered by religious fanatics in Pakistan. Even in India, some elements within the Hindutva brigades are attempting to make India a Hindu version of Pakistan. The killing of Muslims here and there are signs of such attempts. 

In India, Hindutva brigades' attempt to make India a Hindu state is a dangerous effort. This will spell trouble for the religious minorities. Christians and Muslims will be at the receiving end. 

From time to time we hear of Christians and Muslims being thrashed in Sri Lanka and India. We hear of similar thrashing and even killing of Christians and Muslims in India and Pakistan. We hear of thrashing and killing of Muslims in Myanmar. Nepal and Bhutan appear more peaceful. The question is: must the Indian subcontinent continue to witness such religious butchering? What is the solution?

Many political thinkers today advance the concept of a liberal state. It's a kind of political arrangement that provides space to different cultures, ethnicity, religion etc. to live side by side. The state does not impose one version of the good life, but leaves it open to the citizens to choose. Only on those matters where there is overlapping consensus, the state enforces. So on matters like taxation, private property, racial abuse etc. the state will enforce regulation. Certain other things, the state will inculcate, but not enforce. And on certain things, the state will remain silent. So John Locke, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Amartya Sen et al are all political liberals of different stripes. Locke/Rawls are contractarians, Mill a Utilitarian and Sen is more an Aristotelian; and yet all of them are political liberals. How much should the state enforce and how much should the state leave it open  is a matter of debate. But giving much value to liberty and equality is part of a liberal state. So as much as possible, the state leaves it open for an individual to choose this or that rather than being restrictive as much as possible. This is a feature of a liberal state. 

A nation-state that has a historical baggage of diversity will falter over and over again if political liberalism is ignored. Communal riot of different scale will be frequent experience if we refuse to entertain room for the other. After all people do not want to be bullied; people want freedom. And if certain belief or practice are being shoved down the throat of a another person/community just because the other party is more powerful and bigger, specially when it is about religious matter, it will most frequently be a fight to the end. In a liberal state, citizens are allowed to debate and dialogue but not use coercion. 

If Pakistani Muslims succeed in containing religious minorities, as opposed to providing room to the religious minorities to flourish, they have no moral right to speak up when in India Muslims are harmed. But if Muslims are harmed in India by the bigger religious community, Hindus have no moral right when in Bangladesh religious minorities are harmed. The solution lies in political liberalism; not in creating a religious state where religious minorities will be rendered as second class citizens. 

!00 years later, things may change. But for now, I believe political liberalism is the way forward to forge communal harmony. Politicians may engineer riot to come to power, and get away with it because they have connection. But citizens should be careful -- and so must our political leaders be -- not to give in to baser instinct and trump the liberty of the religious minorities to pursue their version of the good life. 

For a Christian, the fact is that God respects our choices. Whether one will worship the one true God or the Devil, the choice is given to every individual. Until Jesus returns, this choice to be wrong or to be right is given. So in this mid-term, when the kingdom is already inaugurated and yet it is not fully realised yet, there has to be given the choice to each individual to choose to be right or wrong. So the idea of a Christian state is not what Christians must seek. 

Was Jesus a Tamil Hindu?

From time to time, there has been this idea being marketed that Jesus lived and died in India. The Bible explicitly mentions Jesus before 12 and after 30. There is no explicit mention of what happened in between. This has led some people to claim that during the 'silent years of Jesus', he came and lived in India. There has even been claims that say Jesus was buried in India. The latest theory that is making the news, apparently first written seventy years before, is that Jesus was born a Tamil Hindu, and Christianity is a Hindu sect and Jesus spent his later years in the Himalayas and died there. Could it be true? Does the Bible give evidences that point to the contrary? Well, I think there are evidences that suggest that Jesus never lived in India.

First point. In his 30s, as recorded by Luke, when Jesus began to do his ministry, he had his own critics. On one occasion, in his hometown i.e Nazareth, the village he grew up, when he began to teach, he faced his critics. The critics said, 'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son...' This suggests that the people of Nazareth knew him as a carpenter. Had Jesus done such work just once or twice, he would not be known as a carpenter. It is plausible to say that because of his consistent engagement with this work, he was known that way. He was not known as a fisherman or a tax collector because he did not do that kind of job. Carpentry would have been his 'profession' just as fishing was Peter's. But someone at 15 would not be a 'carpenter', at 15 one would be just an amateur. It is reasonable to suppose that one could become a fisherman or a carpenter only when one has attained at least 18 and then continued engaging with the work for years. From 18-20 to 28-30 did Jesus engage himself as a carpenter for which he then came to be known as a carpenter? Possibly! The biblical text suggests that Jesus grew up in the Middle East, and not in India.

Second point. In his teaching ministry that he started around 30, he used lot of parables. The parables he told suggest that Jesus knew the 'ways of life' of the people there. If Jesus had lived in Siberia, he would have used parables from such region. One could make that out from reading the parables. Parables of the lost sheep, vineyard, fishing net, mustard seed etc. suggest that he grew up in Israel, not just in his early years when he would be too young to learn much but also in his adult years. Moreover, his conversation with the religious leaders and his teaching suggest that he was very much well-versed in the Old Testament. Only a person who continuously received teaching even well onto adult years would have knowledge of such sort. For example, when one reads Buddha's discourse it is not very difficult to know that such thought would have come about only after years of learning and meditation. Just a year or two of learning would not produce such insight. Similarly, to have such insight and understanding, Jesus would have immersed in so many years of studying the Old Testament. And that is possible only if he lived and grew up there in Israel.

Third point. In ancient India, there emerged two figures, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira, who came out of Vedic Hinduism. These two moved away from Vedic theology, but their teaching has traces of Vedic theology. Even if they tried to move away, they were successful only up to certain extent. Had Jesus received heavy dose of Vedic teaching in the Himalayas, it is quite possible that we find traces of Vedic theology in Jesus' teaching. But this is not so. Instead it is the Old Testament background that we find all over in Jesus teaching, and complete absence of Vedic theology. Had Jesus been heavily influenced by Vedic theology, even if he wanted to get away, like that of Gotama and Mahavira, it would still be visible in his teaching. The absence of Vedic theology suggests that Jesus never came to the Himalayas/India. 

NB: This article is a slightly modified version of what has been posted here. 

To Be a An Authentic Veg, Eat Non-Veg!

Ethical vegans make a concerted lifestyle choice based on ethical – rather than, say, dietary – concerns. But what are the ethical concerns that lead them to practise veganism? In this essay, I focus exclusively on that significant portion of vegans who believe consuming foods that contain animal products to be wrong because they care about harm to animals, perhaps insofar as they have rights, perhaps just because they are sentient beings who can suffer, or perhaps for some other reason. 

Throughout the essay, I take this conviction as a given, that is, I do not evaluate it, but instead investigate what lifestyle is in fact consistent with caring about harm to animals, which I will begin by calling consistent veganism. I argue that the lifestyle that consistently follows from this underlying conviction behind many people’s veganism is in fact distinct from a vegan lifestyle.

Let us also begin by interpreting veganism in the way that many vegans – and most who are aware of veganism – would. A vegan consumes a diet containing no animal products. In conceiving of veganism in terms of what a diet contains, there seems to be an intuition about the moral relevance of directness, according to which it matters how direct the harm caused by the consumption of the food is with regards to the consumption of the food.

On this intuition, eating a piece of meat is worse than eating a certain amount of apples grown with pesticides that causes the same amount of harm, because the harm in the first case seems to be more directly related to the consumption of the food than in the second case. Harm from the pesticides seems to be a side-effect of eating the food, whereas the death of the animal for meat seems to be a means to the eating food... To continue go here. 

(This is an article by Xavier Cohen, an undergraduate student from Oxford University. This paper was originally published by the Journal of Practial Ethics, where it was awarded the Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics for an undergraduate essay. )