Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Is OT Israel the Same as Modern Israel?

Israel was the name given to Jacob. As Jacob journeyed back to his relatives, he wrestled with a man. As the wrestling ended, the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel..." (Gen. 32:28). Jacob was chosen over his brother Esau; and their father Isaac was chosen over Ismael though both of them were fathered by Abraham. Abraham was called by God so that God could make him into a great nation... and all peoples on earth will be blessed through him (Gen 12).  God told Abraham that "from the rivers of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates -- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perrizites, Raphaites, amorites, Cannanites, Girgashites and Jebusites" (Gen 15: 18-19) would be given his descendants. Well, this would include part or all of the present day Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Labanon and Jordan. 

As Israelites came out of slavery from Egypt and entered Canaan, they could conquer much of this land. But they were defeated by enemy kingdom and expelled from this land. Most of them in 721 BC ( Northern kingdom) and the remaining (Southern Kingdom) in 586 BC. Few decades later, some of them returned and began to settle in this land once more. They were expelled again in 70 AD by the Romans and more of them in 132 AD once more. In 638 AD the Arabs conquered it. To cut it short, modern Israel came to be established in 1948, and in 1967 captured Jerusalem. Today Jerusalem has Jewish population as well as Arabs thus making it a city that houses followers of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. 

Now, let's look at the theological part. God's blessing for Abraham was not that Abraham would keep all the blessings to himself; it was also because God wants all peoples on earth to be blessed through Abraham. Following the disobedience of Adam and Eve, God began the process of bringing humans back to himself. And this is how Abraham became God's instrument. But Abraham as God's instrument has a vocation. God addressed or symbolised Israel -descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - as his vine (Jer. 2:21); the royal Davidic king as God's son (Ps. 2). Jesus says that he is the true vine; that he is God's son and that through him all people irrespective of tribes and tongues are being gathered for God. Jesus faithfully fulfills the vocation even unto the cross. Jesus is thus the true Israel; the Davidic king who takes up to fulfill God's work. And those who are in Christ -- whether one is ethnic Jew or Gentile -- is the "Israel of God (Gal 6: 16). 

Jesus also fulfills the sacrifice that was required for the atonement of sin. So there is no need for a Temple in Jerusalem. For the forgiveness of sin, it is to Jesus one must come; not build a Temple in Jerusalem to revive the Old Testament rituals. 

Sure, modern Israel needs security. But Palestinians also need land to settle as well as security to live. All land is God's land, and people must find ways to live together on God's earth. No piece of land is more sacred than others nor is one people group more special than some other one in God's sight. 

NT Wright on Israel


Friday, October 6, 2017

Fertility Rates of Hindus and Muslims in India


The source of this data is from here

Literacy rate of the states as per 2011 record:

Bihar: 61.02 %
UP: 67.68 %
MP:69.32 %
Rajasthan: 66.11 %
Jharkhand: 67.73 %
Maharashtra: 82.34 %
Assam: 72.19 %
West Bengal: 72.86 %
Andhra Pradesh: 67.02 %
Goa: 88.70 %
Kerala: 94 %


The fertility rate of both Hindus and Muslims is lower in states like Goa and Kerala where literacy rate is relatively higher when compared to that of Bihar and UP (Uttar Pradesh) which also have higher fertility rate. 

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Rodney Stark's Projection of Christianity in China

In the book A Star in the East: The Rise of Christianity in China, Rodney Stark co-authoring with Xiuhua Wang, project the population of Christians in China this way: 

1980 - 10 Million
1990 - 19.7 Million
2000 - 38.7 Million
2007 - 61.1 Million
2010 - 76.1 Million
2014 - 99.8 Million
2020 - 149.7 Million
2030 - 294.6 Million
2040 - 579.5 Million 

This is arrived at by taking the growth rate of 7% per year. To arrive at this growth rate, he takes the figures of 10 million in 1980 and 60 million in 2007. To arrive at the figures of 1980 and 2007, the authors have based their estimate from various findings. 

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Is Hate Speech Protected by Free Speech?

Freedom of speech is a great virtue for a liberal democracy. Without free speech, liberal democracy is not truly a liberal democracy. The liberty to speak or not to speak is so essential to liberal democracy, and without this liberty liberal democracy won't be liberal democracy. 

But when we say free speech or liberty to speak, it can't mean being allowed to speak anything and everything. For example, free speech cannot definitely mean giving away vital information to enemy country. In the name of free speech, giving away such sensitive information may invite criminal charges.

In the name of free speech, can we tell lies? No. free speech also cannot mean telling lies anytime anywhere. 

What about hate speech? But before that we need to settle what hate speech is? One essential component of hate speech is to provide incorrect or incomplete information to generate hatred for the person or the community. So the intent is essential to determine whether it is hate speech or not as much as the content is important. Taken this away, free speech cannot mean being allowed to make hate speech as hate speech speech misleads others deliberately by providing incorrect information. And hate by definition is not a virtue; anything that leads to hate cannot be celebrated and honoured. So hate speech ought not to be protected by free speech. 

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Screwtape Letters 5

In this fifth chapter, Wormwood is happy that a great war has engulfed Europe. So Screwtape writes to him not to take pleasure yet as things can go against their interest. How could war go against the Devil's way? Aren't humans killing another humans the best that the Devil can hope to achieve? The author says that war can divert the minds of humans to external issues rather than concentrate on their self-centredness so though humans killing killings can serve the purpose of the evil ones, it can go against their interest unless they see that human souls are finally brought unto 'their Father Below'. 

Screwtape also advises Wormwood to carefully see whether it's best to make the patient an extreme patriot or an ardent pacifist. So that accordingly they will devise their scheme to lure him towards their Father Below. 

Well, how would being an extreme patriot or an ardent pacifist serve the purpose of the evil one? C S Lewis does not delve into the matter. But it may go something like this. The Nazi Germans were hardcore patriots. They love their countrymen and countrymen, and also hate others -- the Jews, Communists and Trade Unionists. Loving one's own countrymen and countrywomen is good, but hating others is a problem. And a hardcore patriot can make those they hate the scapegoat -- responsible for their ills. 

A ardent pacifist may stand against war, and even in the face of extreme evil, just let the evil men walk over all the innocent persons and enslave everyone. And this is is bad, and this pleases the evil one. 

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Muslims' Fertility Rate

Figures of Fertility Rate of some Muslims Countries. If the fertility rate is 2.1% it is able to replace its population. Lower than that will see its population not being replaced over a period time. 

1. Indonesia: 2.11% 
2. Pakistan: 2.62% 
3. Bangladesh: 2.17% 
4. India: 3.1% ( as per 2010 figure for Muslims)
5. Saudi Arabia: 2.09% 
6. Egypt: 3.47%
7. Turkey: 2.01%
8. Algeria: 2.7%
9. Morocco: 2.11%
10. Nigeria: 5.07% 
11. UAE: 2.32%

Source: CIA except for India. 

Friday, September 22, 2017

Screwtape Letters 4

The author concentrates on prayer once more. Prayer after all is a very important aspect of a Christian life. If prayer life is healthy, his or her spiritual life will be sound; and if prayer life is unhealthy, the spiritual life is affected. So Screwtape advises Wormwood to disrupt the prayer life and the quality of the patient's spiritual life.  This may be classified into three points: 

1. So the advice was that Wormwood should work to let the prayer of the patient be of the sort where the will and intelligence have no part; that it be a prayer which is mere repetitive and ritualistic, bearing no real content.


2. Let the patient also try to produce faith, courage through his own will. "When they meant to pray for courage, let them really be trying to feel brave." This way the patient will realise that his prayer has finally no utility as he would then be realising on his own will to produce virtues rather than rely on God to work in his life. 


3. Let the patient also focus the content of his spirituality and prayer to an object, say, an image of Jesus. So the prayer is not directed towards the God who is a spirit but towards an objectified entity. This way the distorted understanding of the patient will remain as it and his spiritual life will not grow. 

This objectification of God is not uncommon in many people's imagination. But CS Lewis must have written that objectification of God is what the evil one likes because God is spirit and objectification of God amounts to idol worship. God hates idolatary and the evil one likes it. Islam does not allow use of images or even statues. Having said that the question is whether using of the picture of the incarnate Jesus amounts to idolatary or not remains pertinent. Children learn better by using pictures and images. I think using Jesus' films, pictures or images does not amount to idolatary. We cannot construct Jesus exact images as there is no photograph of him. However, the fact that he lived and walked the shore of Galilee is a reality and therefore given this fact, it is theologically okay to use pictures and images of Jesus primarily for education. Islam does not have the concept of an incarnate God and therefore Christians do not necessarily share our views with Muslims in this regard. 


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Screwtape Letters 3

The chapters are small, and the book is not thick. Here is chapter 3, after having done Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. In this third chapter, Screwtape writes to Wormhood on how his patient needs to related with his mother. The patient apparently does not have good relation with his mother. So Screwtape encourages Wormwood to work on this matter so that the relationship between mother and son remains sour. 

So Screwtape advises that Wormwood should continue keeping his patient focussed on his inner life such that the patient will talk and focus on spiritual things while keeping obvious facts of life neglected. 

Screwtape also advises that Wormwood should make his patient concentrate on soulish things while praying for his mother. So the trick should be not to let the patient pray for her health, for example, but concentrate on the state of her soul after death. 

Wormwood is also to work that his patient dislikes more and more of certain habits of his mother. 

Glubose is the imp working on the mother, while Wormwood is the one working on the son, the patient. So Screwtape advises that they work together to make the relationship sour even more between mother and son. 

Friday, September 15, 2017

The Screwtape Letters 2

So the patient has become a Christian, and the older imp, Screwtape, writes to the younger one to try a different method to snatch the patient from their enemy's camp. 

This young Christian will now go to a church. And as he does that he would meet all sorts of people. Uneducated, loud, singing out of tune, poor folks are going to be there in the church. Wormwood must use this opportunity when the patient is still new to enemy's territory to let him think that he has class; to let him get disappointed with the people he meets. 

C S Lewis introduces the idea through the writing that when a person comes to faith, it takes an effort in transitioning. A new reader who enjoys reading a book may need to learn language; couple who love each other so much may need to work hard to learn to live together. It's like that a new swimmer has to work hard to keep herself afloat; or a new cyclist has to paddle hard to maintain balance. But once this stage is over, living in that reality becomes a way of life which is an effortless affair or requires little effort. The couple has adjusted to live together; the reader enjoys reading now having learnt the skill required to enjoy reading. A Christian life is something like that. Acquire humility, for example, and it becomes easy to accept others. Those who are new to the faith must watch out before virtues can become habits!

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The Screwtape Letters 1

The Screwtape Letters is a book written by C S Lewis. It is based on the imagination of C S Lewis where the senior evil spirit instructs the junior evil spirit on ways to tempt human being. The senior evil spirit's name is Screwtape and the junior's Wormwood. Both of them work for their Father Below so that their patient i.e the human, would remain in their side. 

In the first chapter, the Screwtape writes to the Wormwood to keep the patient away from argument. The reason is that argument leads a man to the side of the truth. So to prevent that Wormwood should infuse jargon and distract him from clear reasoning process. Wormwood should also prevent his patient from reading Science as if this would draw him away from Christianity. Just confuse this thinking -- must be the approach. If the patient gets into Science, for example, that would lead him into enemy's territory. 

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Call for Paper on ''Christianity and Culture'', Nov 15-16, 2017

Christianity and Culture

Organised by

Theological Research And Communication Institute (TRACI)
&
Union of Evangelical Students of India (UESI)

Date: 15-16th November, 2017


Concept Note:

If culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people that encompasses language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts, then it may be fair say that culture is about one's way of life. However, the collective way of life of a people's group does not remain static; it is dynamic. Like a river bed that shifts its position over a period of time, cultural elements shift over a period of time. As it shifts it may shed a harmful element and gain a beneficial one; or it may shed a beneficial element for a harmful one.

Christianity as a monotheistic religion believes in a God who incarnates and dwells with humans. The incarnate God – Jesus Christ – lived, taught, died and was raised in a given culture. This belief in Jesus Christ engenders Christians to say that the religion must incarnate to every culture. Therefore, rather than swallowing up the culture of a people's group, Christianity must pitch its tent where its feet is planted, and renews its culture. However, there is a web of complexity in how Christianity and culture interact.

The people who told the biblical story inhabited a culture, and the primary audience of their story shared the culture of the story teller. Christianity is thus not a religion developed in a vacuum; it is – like every other religion – born in a specific culture though the story invites global reading and appropriation. Thus transposing the story-idea from the culture of the story teller, and appropriating it in a context that is separated by time and distance is a daunting task.

The modern day messengers live within a given culture. The messengers are not free from the influence of their given culture. Thus the messenger may consider her given culture to be the biblically inspired culture as she communicates the message to a culture that is different from the culture in which the idea-story is born as well as the culture of the messenger. This poses a serious challenge to any messenger.

As the messenger transposes the message to a culture, the question whether the given culture needs renewal or subversion is the third challenge in this enterprise. The need for subversion has on various occasions being responsible for the messenger's culture erasing the given local culture that is not necessarily ugly or bad. On the other hand, there has also been occasions where the subversion has been for good.

The conference will engage on these various intersection of Christianity with Culture, and also explore how this has taken place in the past and how this may take place in our times. Writers are also urged to examine any particular cultural elements that will require subversion or renewal, and whether there are principles or guidelines on how renewal or subversion must take place.
Some possible topic/sub-themes for engagement are listed below, though it is not an exhaustive one, and related topics may be explored:

  1. Old Testament and the Ancient Near East Culture.
  2. Understanding the Gospels and the Writers in their Cultural Context.
  3. Situating Jesus the Jew in his Hellinised Cultural Context.
  4. Paul as a Cultural Critic or a Cultural Preserver.
  5. Theology, Art and Imagination
  6. Christianity, Christians and Moral Norms
  7. Bible and the Renewal of Language/Dialects
  8. Biblical Theology for Guru, Baba and Yoga.
  9. Juxtaposing Theology, Rituals and Disgust with Kosher, Cows and Octopus
  10. Case study of Cultural Subversion: Past or Present.
  11. Theology and Women: Past, Present and Future
  12. Evangelism and Culture
  13. Cultural Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism
  14. Hollywood and Bollywood on Language, Morals and Music.


Submission Guideline:

  1. Papers for the conference must conform to the word limit of 3500-5000 words along with an abstract of 150-300 words.
2. Provide 3-6 key-words at the end of the abstract.
3. Do not quote from Wikipedia.
  1. Authors are requested to follow Chicago Manual Style for the purpose of referencing.
  2. Authors are requested to use TIMES NEW ROMAN font throughout the text.
  3. Paper should be submitted only in MS-Word format.
  4. Plagiarism or articles submitted or published elsewhere will not be accepted.
  5. Editors of the conference publication may edit the manuscripts for clarity and reduce the length of the paper if it exceeds the word limit.
    *Submission of the Abstract by September 25th, 2017
    *Intimation of Selection of the Paper by September 30th, 2017.
    *Submission of Full Paper by October 30th, 2017.
    *Date of the Conference: November 15-16th 2017.

Registration Procedure: For those intimated to write Full Paper, soft copies of Full Paper along with Registration Form must reach by October 5th, 2017. Those who are presenting paper may stay in the official Guest Room.

Papers presented in the Conference will remain as the property of the organisers, and will be published in the form of a book/booklet with an ISBN No.

Limited scholarship to meet the 3rd AC train travel cost is available specially for those who are coming from outside of Delhi NCR.

Venue: TRACI, E-537, Greater Kailash, New Delhi

Inquiries and Papers to be sent to: jeremiahduomai@gmail.com ( +91-9821949211) 

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Thomas Pogge's Lecture: Foreign Drivers of Domestic Injustice

Today Thomas Pogge delivered a lecture at the Department of Political Science, Delhi University. The lecture was titled " Foreign Drivers of Domestic Injustice". The post is a summary of his lecture.

Inequality of the kind that is a result of one's inborn condition is an expression of justice. Now not all inequality is injustice particularly if it's a result of one's choice.  But condition of inequality that is perpetuated and compounded because of being born into a specific economic class, social caste etc. is a case of injustice.

In India the gap between those at the highest rung of the economic ladder and those at the bottom is extremely wide. It's the widest in the world after Russia. But those at the top would want to perpetuate this gap. Now we need to ask why there are few at the top rung and many at the lowest rung of this economic ladder, and how they are able to sustain this gap. After all addressing injustice would mean working towards moving those at the lowest rung to the higher rung. Because only by going up the economic ladder, one can have better housing, education, healthcare etc.

Now those at the top rung are able to pull resources together to lobby the political powers and get tax laws work in their favour. The poor are unable to gather resources that way, and even if they try to make such an effort, the benefit they will get out of such lobby is not worth the effort. However, those at the top rung have such resources and even if they pull together 1% of their resources to lobby, the benefit they get out of such effort would yield them a benefit of, say, 10%. This way those at the top rung influences policy and frame rules and laws in their favour.

But how do foreign players perpetuate domestic injustice?

There are countries in the world that serve as parking lot for the rich's money. As the rich folks park their money in countries like Panama, Singapore, Mauritius etc., these folks evade paying taxes at home. This is illegal and yet it is done. Many a time the politicians at home refuse to take action or refuse to call these nations to stop this practice because the rich folks lobby with the government and are able to persuade the government not to act. Moreover, many politicians park their own money. This is one way foreign hands perpetuate and compound injustice in certain other countries.

There is also another way where foreign hands compound inequality at the domestic level. Rich countries invest money in research work and when finding is made, the medical knowledge/formula gets patented. Country like India requires cheap medicine to meet the requirement of its poor citizens. In the past Indian pharmaceutical companies were able to reproduce this medicine cheaply for its citizens by learning from those who have produced it. However, now with intellectual property rights becoming more rigid abroad, rich pharmaceutical companies abroad through their political leaders bargain hard with countries like India so that India would also have a much more rigid pharmaceutical laws. This rigid pharmaceutical law would in turn criminalise reproduction of patented medicine without permission. At the same time, there are rich Indian who would also like to export their produce to other countries. So, in exchange for a more rigid intellectual property rights at home, which would then not allow Indian pharmaceutical companies to reproduce cheap medicine, India would ask foreign countries to reduce its import duty so that Indian rich businessmen and businesswomen could export their produce to this foreign countries. The result is that the poorer section of the community in India become the casualty of such arrangement that came about through negotiation.

Thus, the rich ones will continue to seat at the top, while the poor ones suffer at the bottom... because the trading laws and policies have been framed to suit the interest of the rich while compounding the problem of the poor. This is how injustice is perpetuated.






Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Problematic Feature of Premillennialism

Premillennialism is the eschatological view that Christ second return will precede the millennium. So this view says: Christ returns, and then 1,000 year reign follows. Within this scheme of reading the Bible, there are two major views: Historic Premillennialism (HP) and Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). There are significant differences between the two. But the two schools share the view that Christ returns will be followed by the 1,000 year reign. This is the position that they arrived at when they read a Scripture passage like Rev. 20. In this post, I am going to raise a problematic feature that is common with premillennialism.

But before that, let me lay out the scheme:

1. Christ first coming on earth.
2. Church age began with Pentecost (and we are living in this era now).
3. Church age will conclude as the tribulation breaks out.
4. Jesus will then return, and then the battle of Armageddon ensues  (Rev. 16.16)
5. Jesus will defeat Satan and the latter will be bound for 1000 years; resurrection for the believers.
6. Jesus reigns for 1000 years with the resurrected, including those who survive Armageddon battle.
7. At the end of this 1000 year reign, Satan will be released once more ( Rev. 20.7-8)
8. The battle of Gog and Magog will ensue
9. Jesus will defeat Satan once more, and the latter will be cast into the lake of burning sulphur.
10. Judgement,
11. New heaven & new earth.

Now one may ask the question: Who will Jesus defeat in point no. 9? Answer: Satan and his army (Rev. 8-9). But who all will be in the army? Those people that Satan had deceived.

Here is the problem: when Jesus literally reigns for 1000 years, he probably was a bad ruler and therefore people are unhappy with his reign, and therefore Satan was able to gather them to be part of his army.

This is a very serious theological problem for the premillennial scheme of things. For the amillennial and postmillennial scheme of things, this problem is not there because they interpret Rev. 20 differently.





Saturday, June 17, 2017

Aryan Migration to India

(This is an article that is taken from The Hindu. It is originally titled "How Genetics is Settling the Aryan Migration Debate". The link is here.)

The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did.

This may come as a surprise to many — and a shock to some — because the dominant narrative in recent years has been that genetics research had thoroughly disproved the Aryan migration theory. This interpretation was always a bit of a stretch as anyone who read the nuanced scientific papers in the original knew. But now it has broken apart altogether under a flood of new data on Y-chromosomes (or chromosomes that are transmitted through the male parental line, from father to son).

Lines of descent

Until recently, only data on mtDNA (or matrilineal DNA, transmitted only from mother to daughter) were available and that seemed to suggest there was little external infusion into the Indian gene pool over the last 12,500 years or so. New Y-DNA data has turned that conclusion upside down, with strong evidence of external infusion of genes into the Indian male lineage during the period in question.

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way.

The paper that put all of the recent discoveries together into a tight and coherent history of migrations into India was published just three months ago in a peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’. In that paper, titled “A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals”, 16 scientists led by Prof. Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, U.K., concluded: “Genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society. This was part of a much wider process of Indo-European expansion, with an ultimate source in the Pontic-Caspian region, which carried closely related Y-chromosome lineages… across a vast swathe of Eurasia between 5,000 and 3,500 years ago”.

In an email exchange, Prof. Richards said the prevalence of R1a in India was “very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India.” The robust conclusions of Prof. Richards and his team rest on their own substantive research as well as a vast trove of new data and findings that have become available in recent years, through the work of genetic scientists around the world.

Peter Underhill, scientist at the Department of Genetics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, is one of those at the centre of the action. Three years ago, a team of 32 scientists he led published a massive study mapping the distribution and linkages of R1a. It used a panel of 16,244 male subjects from 126 populations across Eurasia. Dr. Underhill’s research found that R1a had two sub-haplogroups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Ninety-six per cent of the R1a samples in Europe belonged to sub-haplogroup Z282, while 98.4% of the Central and South Asian R1a lineages belonged to sub-haplogroup Z93. The two groups diverged from each other only about 5,800 years ago. Dr. Underhill’s research showed that within the Z93 that is predominant in India, there is a further splintering into multiple branches. The paper found this “star-like branching” indicative of rapid growth and dispersal. So if you want to know the approximate period when Indo-European language speakers came and rapidly spread across India, you need to discover the date when Z93 splintered into its own various subgroups or lineages. We will come back to this later.

So in a nutshell: R1a is distributed all over Europe, Central Asia and South Asia; its sub-group Z282 is distributed only in Europe while another subgroup Z93 is distributed only in parts of Central Asia and South Asia; and three major subgroups of Z93 are distributed only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Himalayas. This clear picture of the distribution of R1a has finally put paid to an earlier hypothesis that this haplogroup perhaps originated in India and then spread outwards. This hypothesis was based on the erroneous assumption that R1a lineages in India had huge diversity compared to other regions, which could be indicative of its origin here. As Prof. Richards puts it, “the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” thanks to the arrival of large numbers of genomic Y-chromosome data.

Gene-dating the migration

Now that we know that there WAS indeed a significant inflow of genes from Central Asia into India in the Bronze Age, can we get a better fix on the timing, especially the splintering of Z93 into its own sub-lineages? Yes, we can; the research paper that answers this question was published just last year, in April 2016, titled: “Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences.” This paper, which looked at major expansions of Y-DNA haplogroups within five continental populations, was lead-authored by David Poznik of the Stanford University, with Dr. Underhill as one of the 42 co-authors. The study found “the most striking expansions within Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago”. This is remarkable, because roughly 4,000 years ago is when the Indus Valley civilization began falling apart. (There is no evidence so far, archaeologically or otherwise, to suggest that one caused the other; it is quite possible that the two events happened to coincide.)

The avalanche of new data has been so overwhelming that many scientists who were either sceptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India have changed their opinions. Dr. Underhill himself is one of them. In a 2010 paper, for example, he had written that there was evidence “against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India” in the last five or six millennia. Today, Dr. Underhill says there is no comparison between the kind of data available in 2010 and now. “Then, it was like looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand; you could see some corners but not all, and not the whole picture. With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light.”

Dr. Underhill is not the only one whose older work has been used to argue against Bronze Age migrations by Indo-European language speakers into India. David Reich, geneticist and professor in the Department of Genetics at the Harvard Medical School, is another one, even though he was very cautious in his older papers. The best example is a study lead-authored by Reich in 2009, titled “Reconstructing Indian Population History” and published in Nature. This study used the theoretical construct of “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) to discover the genetic substructure of the Indian population. The study proved that ANI are “genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans”, while the ASI were unique to India. The study also proved that most groups in India today can be approximated as a mixture of these two populations, with the ANI ancestry higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. By itself, the study didn’t disprove the arrival of Indo-European language speakers; if anything, it suggested the opposite, by pointing to the genetic linkage of ANI to Central Asians.

However, this theoretical structure was stretched beyond reason and was used to argue that these two groups came to India tens of thousands of years ago, long before the migration of Indo-European language speakers that is supposed to have happened only about 4,000 to 3,500 years ago. In fact, the study had included a strong caveat that suggested the opposite: “We caution that ‘models’ in population genetics should be treated with caution. While they provide an important framework for testing historical hypothesis, they are oversimplifications. For example, the true ancestral populations were probably not homogenous as we assume in our model but instead were likely to have been formed by clusters of related groups that mixed at different times.” In other words, ANI is likely to have resulted from multiple migrations, possibly including the migration of Indo-European language speakers.

The spin and the facts

But how was this research covered in the media? “Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study,” screamed a newspaper headline on September 25, 2009. The article quoted Lalji Singh, a co-author of the study and a former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad as saying: “This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide”. The report also carried statements such as: “The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part. At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers there. But at some point in time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.” The study, however, makes no such statements whatsoever — in fact, even the figures 65,000 and 40,000 do not figure it in it!

This stark contrast between what the study says and what the media reports said did not go unnoticed. In his column for Discover magazine, geneticist Razib Khan said this about the media coverage of the study: “But in the quotes in the media the other authors (other than Reich that is - ed) seem to be leading you to totally different conclusions from this. Instead of leaning toward ANI being proto-Indo-European, they deny that it is.”

Let’s leave that there, and ask what Reich says now, when so much new data have become available? In an interview with Edge in February last year, while talking about the thesis that Indo-European languages originated in the Steppes and then spread to both Europe and South Asia, he said: “The genetics is tending to support the Steppe hypothesis because in the last year, we have identified a very strong pattern that this ancient North Eurasian ancestry that you see in Europe today, we now know when it arrived in Europe. It arrived 4500 years ago from the East from the Steppe...” About India, he said: “In India, you can see, for example, that there is this profound population mixture event that happens between 2000 to 4000 years ago. It corresponds to the time of the composition of the Rigveda, the oldest Hindu religious text, one of the oldest pieces of literature in the world, which describes a mixed society...” In essence according to Reich, in broadly the same time frame, we see Indo-European language speakers spreading out both to Europe and to South Asia, causing major population upheavals.

The dating of the “profound population mixture event” that Reich refers to was arrived at in a paper that was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2013, and was lead authored by Priya Moorjani of the Harvard Medical School, and co-authored, among others, by Reich and Lalji Singh. This paper too has been pushed into serving the case against migrations of Indo-European language speakers into India, but the paper itself says no such thing, once again!

Here’s what it says in one place: “The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,900–4,200 years before present was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the de-urbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent.”

The study didn’t “prove” the migration of Indo-European language speakers since its focus was different: finding the dates for the population mixture. But it is clear that the authors think its findings fit in well with the traditional reading of the dates for this migration. In fact, the paper goes on to correlate the ending of population mixing with the shifting attitudes towards mixing of the races in ancient texts. It says: “The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts.”

So irrespective of the use to which Priya Moorjani et al’s 2013 study is put, what is clear is that the authors themselves admit their study is fully compatible with, and perhaps even strongly suggests, Bronze Age migration of Indo-European language speakers. In an email to this writer, Moorjani said as much. In answer to a question about the conclusions of the recent paper of Prof. Richards et al that there were strong, male-driven genetic inflows from Central Asia about 4,000 years ago, she said she found their results “to be broadly consistent with our model”. She also said the authors of the new study had access to ancient West Eurasian samples “that were not available when we published in 2013”, and that these samples had provided them additional information about the sources of ANI ancestry in South Asia.

One by one, therefore, every single one of the genetic arguments that were earlier put forward to make the case against Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers have been disproved. To recap:

1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased.

2. The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old.

3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.

Connecting the dots

Two additional things should be kept in mind while looking at all this evidence. The first is how multiple studies in different disciplines have arrived at one specific period as an important marker in the history of India: around 2000 B.C. According to the Priya Moorjani et al study, this is when population mixing began on a large scale, leaving few population groups anywhere in the subcontinent untouched. The Onge in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are the only ones we know to have been completely unaffected by what must have been a tumultuous period. And according to the David Poznik et al study of 2016 on the Y-chromosome, 2000 B.C. is around the time when the dominant R1a subclade in India, Z93, began splintering in a “most striking” manner, suggesting “rapid growth and expansion”. Lastly, from long-established archaeological studies, we also know that 2000 BC was around the time when the Indus Valley civilization began to decline. For anyone looking at all of these data objectively, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the missing pieces of India’s historical puzzle are finally falling into place.

The second is that many studies mentioned in this piece are global in scale, both in terms of the questions they address and in terms of the sampling and research methodology. For example, the Poznik study that arrived at 4,000-4,500 years ago as the dating for the splintering of the R1a Z93 lineage, looked at major Y-DNA expansions not just in India, but in four other continental populations. In the Americas, the study proved the expansion of haplogrop Q1a-M3 around 15,000 years ago, which fits in with the generally accepted time for the initial colonisation of the continent. So the pieces that are falling in place are not merely in India, but all across the globe. The more the global migration picture gets filled in, the more difficult it will be to overturn the consensus that is forming on how the world got populated.

Nobody explains what is happening now better than Reich: “What’s happened very rapidly, dramatically, and powerfully in the last few years has been the explosion of genome-wide studies of human history based on modern and ancient DNA, and that’s been enabled by the technology of genomics and the technology of ancient DNA. Basically, it’s a gold rush right now; it’s a new technology and that technology is being applied to everything we can apply it to, and there are many low-hanging fruits, many gold nuggets strewn on the ground that are being picked up very rapidly.”

So far, we have only looked at the migrations of Indo-European language speakers because that has been the most debated and argued about historical event. But one must not lose the bigger picture: R1a lineages form only about 17.5 % of Indian male lineage, and an even smaller percentage of the female lineage. The vast majority of Indians owe their ancestry mostly to people from other migrations, starting with the original Out of Africa migrations of around 55,000 to 65,000 years ago, or the farming-related migrations from West Asia that probably occurred in multiple waves after 10,000 B.C., or the migrations of Austro-Asiatic speakers such as the Munda from East Asia the dating of which is yet to determined, and the migrations of Tibeto-Burman speakers such as the Garo again from east Asia, the dating of which is also yet to be determined.

What is abundantly clear is that we are a multi-source civilization, not a single-source one, drawing its cultural impulses, its tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. The Out of Africa immigrants, the pioneering, fearless explorers who discovered this land originally and settled in it and whose lineages still form the bedrock of our population; those who arrived later with a package of farming techniques and built the Indus Valley civilization whose cultural ideas and practices perhaps enrich much of our traditions today; those who arrived from East Asia, probably bringing with them the practice of rice cultivation and all that goes with it; those who came later with a language called Sanskrit and its associated beliefs and practices and reshaped our society in fundamental ways; and those who came even later for trade or for conquest and chose to stay, all have mingled and contributed to this civilization we call Indian. We are all migrants.

Tony Joseph is a writer and former editor of BusinessWorld. Twitter: @tjoseph0010

My Response

The Hindutva brigades have woven into their narrative the idea that Christians and Muslims are ''aliens'', and therefore they are not true Indians. The research finding, as highlighted by this article, debunks the narrative that this saffron brigade likes to parrot. The saffron brigades are themselves ''foreigners'' to this land. Unfortunately, due to lack of credible challenge to their narrative, the saffron brigades have become more and more like a different version of Taliban. So this article is a good read and will hopefully challenge the narrative set by the Hindutva brigades.

The argument " I came first, you came later" by picking on ancient narrative, which is now proved to be bogus, is not the right approach to build a community, a nation.  Each one who has come here to make a home should be allowed to call this land as his or her home. Our focus should be on how to build a community that can flourish together despite the diversities. We need  not cultivate uniformity, not least by using false narrative or coercion, to build a nation; what we need to be focussing on how to live together while maintaining our diversity.


Saturday, June 10, 2017

Highlights of Arun Shourie's Speech at the Press Club of India

Following the raids by CBI on the residence of Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy and the NDTV office, heavyweights in the media protested the effort by Modi government to muzzle them. These raids are an after effect of Cow politics. This video is the root cause of the raid. In the protest meeting, Arun Shourie, who was with the BJP earlier, and had also served as the Editor of a reputed newspaper Indian Express spoke along with the others. This post highlights few points raised by Mr. Shourie. For full text go here.

1. Government used to use two tools to tame the media. First, it domesticates the media with government's advertisements. After all a dog with bones in its mouth cannot bark. Second, it spreads fear. Third, which is now being used, is "overt pressure".
2. Stand up for one another. This is not the time to be judgemental of one another.
3. Government is watching you through Hiren Joshi. It is sensitive to criticism through newspaper or Facebook.
4. Do not give to the government. Do not think that this will serve your purpose. Boycott them.
5. This is a government run by two and half men. So making friendship with other Ministers will never serve your purpose.
6. Annoy the government with your publication. Do your homework. Republish contents of Alt News or SM Hoax Slayer or Factchecker that compare the "claims of government with facts".
7. Bypass government's scrutiny in disseminating information. Let other mediahouse know, and let international media house know what this authoritarian government is up to. Keep doing this, and this government which worships cows will be left holding dead cows.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Controlling Citizen's Food Habit is to Undermine Democracy

The obsession of RSS and BJP in controlling what citizens are allowed to cook in the kitchen continues to play it out. The latest notice is this regard is the order that says cattle can only be purchased for agricultural activities, and not for slaughter (for food). The order is applicable throughout the country.

In 2015 the BJP led Maharashtra government imposed a ban on possession and consumption of beef, going beyond the usual criminalisation of cow slaughter. This would mean even if someone had purchased from a neighbouring state and had brought the meat in, this would invite a criminal case against the buyer. The BJP led Haryana government also followed suit in implementing complete ban of beef. Thankfully, the High Court struck down the Maharashtra's government order saying it cannot control citizen's food habit as it violates citizens' rights.

Since its electoral victory in 2014, Modi's government has been exploring ways to protect cows. The rationale for honouring cow is that it gives milk, and therefore it has to be honoured as “our” mother. Past experience has shown that a direct ban on beef consumption would be struck down by the Court. Therefore, this time it devised a subtle way to protect the cow by allowing cattle to be purchased only for agricultural activities. How many millions of rupees will the government spend in setting up such an infrastructure that will facilitate such selling and buying requires serious examination specially when there are 35 farmers in the country who commit suicide each day. However, let this inquiry be reserved for another day.

One of the side effects of making laws to protect cows is the harmful effect it engenders on human lives. Every now and then in the name of cow, people are being slaughtered. Since these humans are slaughtered in the name of cow, the government that makes laws to protect cows failed to prosecute the criminals as if prosecuting these criminals will impede their agenda. Corruption, usually understood, is taking money to hijack justice. In this case, however, cow is the token used to hijack justice for those murdered. Whether it is money or cow, anyone hijacking justice is a party to corruption.

But there is also another dimension that makes the whole agenda undemocratic. Is controlling citizen's food habit a democratic exercise? Defenders of cows argue that beef consumption hurt their sentiment, and therefore beef consumption needs to be banned. The irony in this argument is that these people do not seem to care for the sentiments of those whose relatives have been murdered in the name of cow. But to respond to the question, one may need to raise a counter-question: How much of my liberty will you curb to restrain me from hurting your sentiment?

Food habit is about basic aspects of our lives. Food consumption is a very essential aspect of our animality just as breathing air is. This liberty is thus the most important liberty of all liberties. This is the reason why in the name of sentiment, curbing this aspect of liberty is wrong. This is the kind of liberty that engenders entitlement, or rather fundamental rights. Imposing ban on food choices by the state in the name of honouring someone's sentiment is to place democratic value upside down. Since democratic states are built on the pillar of liberty, undermining liberty is to undermine democracy; and undermining democracy is dangerous.

In a state like India that is composed of diverse ethnicities, religions and historical narratives, to impose a homogeneous cultural pattern from the top is to invite resentment and destructive forces to emerge. If cow is an endangered species, like tiger is, then its preservation is a moral obligation and the state has reason to ban beef consumption. But in the absence of such a reason, curbing someone's food choices in order to nurture someone's sentiment does not sit well with how democratic state should make laws.
NB: This article appears on The Hornbill Express on 2nd June, 2017.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Conversion and Reconversion

The political algorithm is bringing change to India' religious equation. There emerges news report that around 43 Muslims have converted to Hinduism in Uttar Pradesh. Here is the link. Some may want to call it reconversion though. They may say that these people's ancestors were once Hindus. 100 years back or 500 or beyond, one cannot be sure, their ancestors were Hindus. May be true. But what we know is that they were Muslims and now they are Hindus. Someone quipped: Which Hindu caste did they convert into?

At the same time, there are Hindus who are threatening to become Muslims. Here is the link. These people argue that they have been discriminated against by those in power. And so as a mark of protest they are considering joining the Islamic camp.




Monday, March 27, 2017

Heterodox Christians

When we say " I am a liberal", what immediately comes to mind in the Christian circle is that one is referring to someone whose theological position has deviated from orthodoxy, such that the person now does not consider Bible as the authoritative text in matters related to conduct and doctrine. The person may say or write that she considers resurrection of Jesus Christ as figurative, and not literal and so on.

But when we say "I am a liberal" in political discourse, what is being meant is that the person believes in freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc., and that the state ought not to impose what to believe, eat, dress etc. upon citizens.

In this interview of Dr. Hobson by Albert Mohler, Dr. Hobson identifies the two strands and considers the former as bad tradition and the latter as good tradition within Christianity. 

It seems to me that the former way of using the word "liberal" should be discarded. I think this strand should be called "heterodox Christianity" instead of "liberal Christianity"'. "Liberal Christianity" as Dr. Hobson uses should be referred to that version of Christian political thought that advances freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.

The word "liberal" is from "liberty" which at one point of time began to be considered, and still is, a political virtue alongside fraternity, equality etc. So I believe that it is a mistake to use "liberal" for doctrinal deviation. I think the word "heterodox" is more appropriate for doctrinal deviation.

In Indian tradition, those religious schools or denominations that accept the authority of the Vedas are considered as "orthodox", and those like Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka ( Pronounced as "charvak" as it is in "charcoal") are considered as "heterodox" because the latter schools do not accept the authority of the Vedas.

I think because of this confusion that the use of the word "liberal'' has caused, many Christians detest liberal version of democracy, without really knowing what liberal democracy is as a political philosophy. However, the other spectrum of liberal democracy is conservative democracy. And in a democratic state like India preference for conservative democracy is to strangulate Christianity because freedom to practice one's religious values is being stifled. And one could get killed for consuming beef because cow is considered sacred by many Hindus, but not so by Christians and Muslims. 

Even in the West where religious diversity is now ever growing, it seems to me that it is liberal democracy and not conservative democracy that has to take deeper roots. But if we think that being a liberal is a bad thing, because it is associated with doctrinal deviation, then it seems to me that evangelical Christians may detest political liberalism though it is something that we need to endorse and work it. Therefore, I want to submit that "heterodox Christians" should be the term employed to refer to those whose theological view has deviated from doctrinal orthodoxy.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Nicholas Wolterstorff's Unconvincing Case for Same Sex Marriage

Wolterstorff is one of my heroes. He is a philosopher, and I am a student of Philosophy; He writes on justice, and my PhD dissertation was on justice; and he is a Christian, and I am a Christian too. I have learned so much of moral and political philosophy from his writings. And when I learned of his support for same-sex marriage within the church, I was so disappointed; and when I listened to his lecture in youtube, I was even more disappointed.  One of the reasons for my disappointment with his lecture was because of the unusual pattern that I observed in his work. I have found his work to be dense. His engagement of Scripture is always rigorous. Yet in the lecture, the usual rigor is missing. It was rather a shallow piece of engagement, an uncharacteristic mark of his scholarship.

Let me summarise his line of reasoning. Is expression of homosexual orientation like kleptomaniac expression of stealing someone's belonging? Well, the issue is not with the orientation; the issue is with the expression. Stealing someone's belonging is wrong; no doubt about that. Is a homosexual practice wrong or right? To figure that out, we have to go to the biblical text. The holiness code of Leviticus contains explicit teaching against same sex practice. But the same chapters also include injunction not to stitch two different fabrics of cloth together. Shortly put, the Old Testament holiness code is not really the proper guideline for the Christians. For this reason, one must go to Romans 1 in the New Testament. However, the text in Romans that speaks of homosexual relation as unnatural refers to the kind of practice that evil people practice; it does not refer to the loving, caring and nurturing kind of relationship that we find today in many same sex couples. Moreover, the church tradition that speaks of procreation as a purpose of marriage does not mean to include procreation as an essential purpose of marriage. After all, couples who are way beyond their fertile age also get married.

Without delving into the text in Romans, let me go elsewhere to argue against same sex marriage within the church. ( My point is not to be extrapolated onto the polity and the law. For that we have to see how Bible interacts with Political Philosophy.) In Genesis, it is said, " For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife." If we take the narrative in Genesis 1 and 2 as God's original intent, what we find is a heterosexual marriage. The text did not say " For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his partner". ( We cannot expect the text to say "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to her partner.) Wolterstorff has written a great deal on the idea of "image of God", drawn from the Genesis text. Now I don't know why he just skipped the creation narrative that speaks of one male and one female and jumped onto some other text. I find this surprising.

If we go to Revelation, we again find this symbol. In Revelation 21, the new Jerusalem is pictured as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband, Jesus Christ. The symbol is not of Jesus uniting with his partner. It was a symbol of the uniting of the bridegroom and the bride, a male and a female. Isn't marriage as God showed John symbolised by the union of a male and a female? Well, in Revelation that is what we find. It is not the image of a male and a male. Given the culture, John might as well have been shown that way. But John was not shown that way. He was shown the Holy City dressed as a bride for her bridegroom.

If the creation narrative and the eschatological narrative show marriage as a union of bridegroom-bride or man-woman, same sex marriage is a distortion of God's intent for marriage. I won't dispute the fact that some same sex couples can be loving  just as some heterosexual couples can be uncaring. But this observation should not distort what the Scripture teaches. The Scripture teaches, as the church has understood throughout her history, that God's intent is for heterosexual marriage; not same sex marriage.

Given that Nick is committed to engaging with the biblical text, I would love to see him engaging the issue from a different perspective.  

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Why Congress Lost and BJP Won in Manipur

In the recently held Assembly election in Manipur, INC (Congress) got 28 seats -- three short of a simple majority, and BJP got 21 seats. NPP and NPF got 4 seats each. With crucial support from NPP and NPF and from smaller parties, BJP went on to form the government. From being nowhere five years back, BJP has come up to form the government in 2017. But is the rise of BJP due to the remarkable leadership of Modi or is it due to Congress poor leadership, or both? 

After the election result was announced, Naga People's Front (NPF) immediately announced that it was willing to support any non-Congress party to help form the government. The Congress government led by Ibobi Singh tried to polarise the people as much as he could just before the election. This was preceded by hostile policy towards the Nagas for the last fifteen years. The Nagas dominate in 11 Constituencies ( out of 60), and the only Congress candidate that won convincingly in the Naga dominated area was the Dy Chief Minister Gaikhangam. Given the hostility between the Congress led by Ibobi Singh and the Nagas, it was not surprising that NPF showed its willingness to support any non-Congress party in the state. Congress lost its opportunity to form the government by its repeated hostile policies towards the Nagas though it was just three seats short of simple majority. 

The other aspect, and more important than the rest, why Congress failed was because of corruption by Ibobi Singh. The corruption under Ibobi Singh has reached its height that the Devil's own younger brother might find it difficult to beat Ibobi. There has been no Chief Minister in the history of Manipur who as been as corrupt as Ibobi Singh. Even in 2012 he won only because there was no credible opposition, and this takes us to the third reason. 

Unlike 2012, in 2017 given that the BJP is ruling in New Delhi, people in the state realise that there is another party that can match Ibobi in term of money and muscle power. So people wanted to give chance to another party who might possibly be more honest in term of governance though BJP might be equally corrupt as Congress during election. Had Congress provided an efficient and a transparent government, BJP would not have won this many seats. And unless Congress leaders cease being so corrupt, BJP will displace Congress from one state after another. Time for Congress to wake up! 

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Why was Revelation Written Using Symbols?

Somehow somewhere at one point I heard that John wrote Revelation using cryptic symbols in order to avoid detection and persecution by the Roman empire. I was led to believe -- I don't know by whom -- that given the persecution Christian community then was facing, John had to make his message difficult to decipher; and only the faithful could read it and decipher, the rest would get lost with all the symbols and the numbers. I was mistaken.

As Jesus finished speaking to the people about the parable of the sower (Matt 13), his disciples came to ask, " why do you speak to the crowd in parables?" Jesus replied, " The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven is given to you all, but not to them". Then he went on to say, drawing from the book of Isaiah, that he spoke in parables because:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand..."

"But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear."

"He who has ears, let him hear."

This is to mean that Jesus used parables to draw the attention of the listening believers, while leaving the unbelieving listeners clueless as to what he was saying with the parables.

John also used the phrase " he who has ears, let him hear", drawing from Jesus and from the Old Testament writers like Isaiah and Ezekiel. So just as Jesus' use of parable was to obscure the message from the unbelieving listeners, but open up a very vivid dimension of the message for the believing listeners, John used symbols and numbers to "open the eyes of true believers while leaving the hardened unbelievers in deeper darkness" (Beale & Campbell. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. 2015. p. 16).

So the cryptic symbols in Revelation is not to obscure the message to the readers, but to obscure the message for the hardened heart. The Pharisees listened to the parables of Jesus one after another, yet most of them failed to KNOW Jesus though they understood the parable in certain sense and plotted to kill Jesus. As parables were to Jesus in his communication -- vivid, clear, contextual; symbols were to John in his communication.





Saturday, February 11, 2017

Are Muslims Really Hindus?

The other day RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat says that Muslims are also Hindus by nationality, and that they are Muslims by faith. The news item can be read here and also here. Mohan Bhagwat meant to equate "Hindus" with "Indians". I thought this is problematic. 

1. If Muslims are Hindus by nationality, and Muslims by faith, then what is Mohan Bhagwat by faith? An atheist or what is he? 

2. If being "Hindus" and being "Indian" are same, then can we say that most of the Nepalis living in Nepal are also Indian? After all most Nepalis are Hindus. 

3. So many Indians give up Indian passport and take US passport, Canadian passport etc. None of these people are Hindus anymore, according to Bhagwat, since "Hindus" refer to nationality and these people are US nationality, Canadian nationality etc. 


Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Submission of PhD Dissertation in Delhi University

Writing the dissertation is a daunting task. But the submission can be a great headache too if the dateline is so close. In this post, I shall share the processes so that readers may be aware of the processes involved and then take appropriate measures. 

1. Once your pre-submission seminar is over, you have 89 days to submit the dissertation. But collect thesis submission form from the BRS office. The form will have details of what all to submit and what kind of signatures you require to take for submission. 

2. Once the pre-submission seminar is done, and perhaps two months later you have got your dissertation ready, first thing to do is to get the plagiarism test done. For this you have to convert your dissertation (Front pages, introduction, chapters and references/bibliography) into PDF. Then write this PDF on a CD and take it to the Central Library (First Floor) to get plagiarism test done. This test will take an hour. You may get the result after an hour. But in my case, I got it done on Friday noon. But because they have run out of the form, I was given the result on Monday. So if you are running short of time, keep this in mind. (The shops in Patel Chest will be able to help get these works done). (Day 1). (Clearance from the Central Library was not required by the Examination Branch in my case. I did get the Clearance though!)

4. Once the Plagiarism test comes out okay, go for printing. (For plagiarism check, up to 20% similarity is okay.) Give it for printing on the day you get Steps 2 and 3 done. To print the dissertation and get binding done, it will take around 4 hours. Even if it is late, give it to them if they would take it. The book is supposed to have Plagiarism test certificate, originality certificate, students approval form etc. The computer experts who help you in formatting the Thesis know all the certificates to be included. 

5. Meanwhile get your dissertation (chapter wise) and abstract written in 3 CD as well. Also take photocopies of your PhD registration, joining report etc. (Day 2)

5. Get the book, and get them signed from your Guide and HoD. You will also have to get the form that you get from the BRS office in Step 1 signed too. Also get the CDs signed from the Guide, and also students approval form and others.  (Day 2). Steps 2 may take one entire day or even more because your Guide and the HoD may not be available on the same day. 

6. Then after that go to BRS office to get the signature of BRS Chairman on the form that you received in Step 1. I would suggest that you go on day 2 itself, if it is before 5 pm. BRS Chairman may not be available on the same day but you can leave the form with the staff. The Chairman may not even be available for the next 2-3 days. So give it on day 2 itself because he may be available on day 2 till 5 pm, and not be available on day 3 and 4. 

7. Once you have got the BRS Chairman's signature, go to the Examination Branch to submit the documents. Till 3 pm, the dealing official would be available. After 3 pm, the gate keeper will not allow entry.

8. The Examination Branch is rigorous in examining that all the documents are in order. They gave me three more forms to sign. One requires just the student's signature, and about this I am not saying anything here because one can do that at the spot itself. But the other two require Supervisor's and HOD's signatures. So it is better that you get these two forms ready in advance. Since Supervisor and the HOD may not come to the Department everyday, getting their signatures sometimes is very difficult. One form that you need to keep it ready (this was not given by the BRS) is about publication. You can get the format of the form here. You can take the print out of the form yourself, then get it filled and along with the print out or photocopy of the published research paper in a refereed journal, you have to submit it. The other form is the Supervisor's certificate for exclusion of self-published work. You can get the form here. If the Supervisor has not included any of her/his publication in your work, write "NA" (not applicable).

9. If your documents are complete, you will have to deposit examination fee. (To check if you all have all the documents, see here.) To deposit the examination fee, one will have to get written " no due" on thesis submission form from Window 5, and then go back to Window 1 to pay the fee. I was asked to pay Rs. 5000. I think those who do not get Fellowship pay less. Once the fee is paid, go back to the Examination Branch to submit the documents. Now you are down with submission. (The examination fee receipt is the proof that you have submitted your dissertation.)

(With this post, I hope to make submission process little easier. But it will usually take at least a week. Since the Supervisor and the HOD are not available in the Dept everyday, things get delayed. We cannot blame the Supervisor and HOD for not being available everyday. They have Committee Meeting, Seminar, Paper correction etc. But with this p)

NB: These processes and requirements may change with time. I submitted my dissertation in 2017.