Dog Meat Ban in Nagaland

On 3rd July, the Nagaland state cabinet decided to impose a ban on "commercial import and trading of dogs and dog market and also the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked". The ban does not include consumption of dog meat in the state if the meat is bought from other states or if it's given by a neighour. Basically, the ban is about trading and selling of dog and dog meat. 

Few years back, when Devendra Fadnavis was the Chief Minister of the state, Maharashtra government also imposed similar ban on beef. Fadnavis went beyond and even banned possession, and thereby consumption, of beef. After all unless one could possess, one could not consume it. But the Court struck it down saying to ban possession (and consumption) is to violate the Constitution. At present, if someone wants to consume beef, one has to bring in from another state. 

In Article 48 of the Constitution, the Directive Principe of state policy has a clause that says that the state shall take "steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle." Since the Hindutva brigade cannot appeal to their religious or dharmic sentiment to seek protection for cows, they seek to implement cow protection through appealing to this Directive Principle. Since the saffron/Hindutva brigade has reverence for cow for so long, the Directive Principle itself was framed this way in order to accommodate the sentiment.

At the same time, matter concerning food is also about life. And state itself exists to protect life. Article 21 of the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty...." Now to deprive someone from eating certain item as food which traditionally has been considered as food is to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, the Court could not allow the state to infringe on citizens' right to life. The fine balance, therefore, is to ban trading of beef yet not ban consumption of it. 

Given that the RSS/BJP folks have reverence for cow, one can understand why they tried hard to find reason within the Constitutional limit to ban or minimise beef consumption, and thereby protect and preserve cows. But why would Neiphiu Rio and the Cabinet wish to ban trading of dog meat, and thereby limit dog meat consumption? After all if none could sell, consumption is going to come down. Is it because of their love for dog, like the love of RSS/BJP for cow? Not quite. There is this line that says that dog meat consumption is bringing bad name to Nagaland. So basically, it is to stop defaming of the state that dog meat trading is banned; it is to uplift the name of the state that dog meat trading is banned. This is not entirely unreasonable because dogs are considered to be our best friends. However, to ban trading of an item that is traditionally considered as food item does not sound very plausible. A mature democratic society should not ban a food item particularly one that most of its citizens have been relishing for ages. Moreover, being a state located in the eastern region, which is cold, people need fat in their dietary habit. This has been obtained mainly through consumption of meat be it beef, dog, chicken or pork. The state may urge people to shed meat consumption and go for coconut oil, sunflower oil etc. But the way to do this is not by threatening citizens with imprisonment through a legislation or an ordinance, but through other means. If Rio thinks that dog meat consumption is not a civic virtue or it's not a habit of a civilized community, then for the state to ban it is also not the way a (liberal) democratic society should behave. By imposing a ban on dog meat trading, Rio took one step ahead and one step backward. 

In an age where states have been curtailing citizens' liberty inch by inch, I wish that Nagaland government had sought to bring glory to its name through other measures! 

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.

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. 

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.

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. ) 

Same Sex Marriage, Bible and N T Wright

Paul writes "... God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" ( Rom 1: 26-27, NIV) 

Did Paul mean the kind of same sex relations where there was no commitment for life long relationship or was Paul making a sweeping generalisation about same sex sexual relations as such? Was Paul leaving a room for same sex life long marriage while saying that same sex relations without life long commitment was unnatural and therefore wrong? 

Well, I think Paul was making a sweeping generalisation about all kinds of same sex sexual relations as such as Wright rightly explains the general narrative running through the Scripture. 

Is Modi a Victim of Intolerance of Rival Parties?

Arun Jaitley, who holds the post of Finance Minister, says that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a victim of intolerance. Read the news here . Jaitley made this statement after many historians, scientists, artists and writers lambasted Modi's government for creating intolerant environment in the country. These people were joined by prominent figures like RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, Industrialist Narayan Murthy and others. The BJP probably got the sting finally and therefore it was forced to deflect the controversy towards its political rivals. But what is the truth? Is it BJP or the Congress and the Left that have been intolerant all these months? 

Until yesterday, as per the paper, RSS was saying the population of Christians and the Muslims must be checked. Prior to that those who share similar ideology with RSS and BJP have made statements that do not epitomise tolerance. One BJP Minister was heard saying 'haraamzada' (Bastards) -- illigitimate child -- to refer to certain group of people. Another one said that those who oppose BJP should go to Pakistan. Still another said that if Muslim must stay in India, they must give up beef; and on one occasion a BJP leader was reported to have said Nathuram Godse, the murderer of Gandhi, was a patriot. Another leader said that those who opposed Surya Namaskar (Sun Worship/Adoration) should drown in the sea. These are all about verbal intolerance. I never hear any such fiery words coming out from the mouth of  leaders belonging to the Congress or the Left parties. 

But the worse thing is that people like Kalburgi and Pandsare were murdered for being  religious critics. Aklaq was murdered after being accused of eating beef, when what he ate was mutton. Rasool was set on fire and died few days later due to injury over rumour of slaughtering cows. All these murderers share similar ideology with that of RSS and BJP. All these killings coming after fiery speeches  delivered by RSS/BJP leaders cannot be dismissed as coincidences. These are classical cases of intolerance by RSS and BJP. Modi is not a victim of intolerance of rival parties. At worst Modi is a victim of intolerance of his party members or rather a victim of his own apathy towards intolerance by his party members. 

Arun Jaitley is plain wrong to shift the blame to his political rivals for intolerance that fills the air today. His party has not sacked anyone nor taken any disciplinary action against anyone for delivering such speeches. Instead of blaming others, he should have gathered up moral audacity to say that his party has been wrong and now that it is mending ways. Unfortunately BJP has been refusing to show moral uprightness. When the political rivals accused it of corruption and asked the party to sack corrupt members, one BJP leader said something to the effect that removing corrupt people is not in their nature. This is moral bankruptcy. And demonstrating moral bankruptcy in public by such a large political party is to self-destruct. 

Polygamy and the Bible

There Bible contains stories of different heroes and villains, so to speak. Figures like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David are heroes whereas characters like Esau, Jeroboam, Ahab and Judas are villains, so to speak. Many of the heroes mentioned in the Bible had more than one wife. Many of them had concubines. David had possibly eight wives and many concubines. Abraham had Sarah and Hagar at one point of time; and Jacob had both Leah and her sister Rachel as his wives, not to mention the two concubines. As was common during olden days, most of these heroes had multiple wives. Does the Bible condone polygamy?

The Bible has a grand-narrative, a grand-plot. But the Bible also has sub-narratives, sub-plots. These lives of these characters are part of the sub-narrative, sub-plot. Some characters play a more prominent role than certain other characters. So in the story, not only one would read about polygamy, conspiracy, murder, theft etc but also love, compassion, friendship etc. The story of Abraham or Moses or David would have both of these features. But the point is that the main hero of the grand-narrative is not Abraham nor David; it is Jesus Christ. David's life is not entirely good nor entirely bad; so is Abraham's life. Christians look to Jesus as the role model and also listen to his teaching. There can be certain lesson that one can learn from the life of Abraham or Jacob or David or even from the life of Judas or Ahab. But these figures are not divine and they are mortal!

So to know whether Christians endorse polygamy or not, or whether Bible condones polygamy or not,  one must not look at the lives of these heroes. One must go beyond these figures. Look to Jesus Christ for the answer. And in Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked about adultery, he gives an answer by going back to Genesis chapter first and second -- to what God has intended in the creation about marriage. It reads " ... a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one" ( Matthew 19: 5). Jesus means to say that God's intention is that two will become one; not three or four will become one. And by this he means one male and one female (v. 4).

Certain people, after having read about the lives of Abraham or David, thought that the Bible condones polygamy. But this is based on wrong reading of the narrative. Christians look to Jesus for moral lessons!

Why I-Phone?

IPhone 6 Plus costs above Rs. 50,000. That is a lot of money! 

For a long long time I used the kind of model that costs little over Rs. 1,000. The question was not whether I could afford a more expensive phone or not that made me use that kind of model. The question was what kind of phone do I NEED? Had I needed a phone that has more features, I would make effort to get such a phone. But if I did not need a phone that has more features and would cost Rs. 25,000, and my need would be serve by one that cost little over 1,000, the latter device would work for me. At present I used a particular model that costs around Rs. 2500. This model has WhatsApp facility, which makes conversation much cheaper. Without WhatsApp facility, one has to text message or make a phone call to be in touch. And that used to be expensive. With WhatsApp communication has become much cheaper. Given that WhatsApp has become a need, I got a phone that would have this feature. So if I got my my phone upgraded now, it was driven by my NEED. 

Because of certain reason if I require a phone that would cost Rs. 50,000 I would try to purchase such a phone. But unless the need/requirement arises, I would not want to spend money on buying a more expensive phone. 

There is a car that was purchased almost five years back. I did not go for SUV because I did not NEED such a car. Car became a 'need' because carrying young children with their mother on a bike is not safe. And traveling by bus to certain destination is too inconvenient. And it is turns out cheaper to use one's own car than using taxi/auto. Given these reasons, getting a car was more reasonable than not having one specially when one has a choice whether to have a car or not to have a car. I would have tried to get a bigger car even if it means I would have to pay much more provided I was in need of such a car. But I knew that such a car was not my need. What I needed was just a car. And a small car would fit my need.

With age, one may require a car that gives 'comfort' to the back. Fair enough! With age, one may require a bigger phone so that smaller screen may not be such a constraint on the eyes that are getting weaker. Fair enough! But to purchase things in order to show off is foolish. That is wasting resources. To lead a modest life in a world that is becoming more and more materialistic may not find many takers. But there will always be those who are against wastage; who are against showing off and who are against luxurious lifestyle. Being comfortable or being beautiful or being needs met do not have to veer towards leading a life that is so full of oneself -- not being able to think for others. 

When there are so many poor people out there; so many people who required help... because they are ill or because they are illiterate or because their crop failed and so on and so forth, if I had spent my riches just to get bigger phone, bigger car, bigger house etc. where would I have money to help others? If I lived a more modest life, then my riches could be shared with those who are in need. 'Wasting' money or rather spending money on things not really required is what I wish to avoid. And the reason I try to live this way is because the God that I worship teaches me to 'love my neighbour'. Not an easy teaching, nevertheless an important and a beautiful teaching!

Human Moral Imperfection and the Desire for Forgiveness

Do you ever struggle with guilt? The guilt that arises because you have done something that is bad or because you have failed to do something that is good. I think all of us would have done things that are bad or would have failed to do things that are good and therefore ought to be done at that point of time, and yet walked away without having to do it. Incidents such as these might occur over and over again. However, the guilt may not strike to every individual as much as it would strike to certain individuals. If you have ever struggled with guilt, it would serve as an evidence that you are not morally perfect; that you have at times being morally imperfect. 

But what about those who do not struggle with guilt? Can we say that they think that they are morally perfect. I don't think any grown person can really say that he or she is morally perfect. The guilt may not strike as hard it has happened to certain other people. In fact, the guilt may not just be there. But to feel guilty or to be aware of being guilty of certain bad actions is not necessarily the only outcome after having done a bad action or failed to have performed a good action. Some people just tell lies without any apparent sense of remorse even when there is no apparent compelling reason to tell a lie. By 'compelling reason' I mean a situation such as this. A friend of yours is hiding in your room. Some people came to ask you if she is hiding in your room. You sense that they intended to kill her with their machete. You are pretty confident that your friend is not wrong. In such a situation, telling a lie to save her would be a compelling reason to lie. So when we go out to the market the taxi driver may lie to us or the shopkeeper may just lie to us without any compelling reason. And when such people lie, they may not appear to have any sense of guilt. But that does not really mean that such lie is a good thing; a lie is still a lie. For such people, a lie is not followed by a sense of remorse. 

Upon probing if such a lie is bad or good, the one who lied would admit that such a lie is not a good thing. In fact if the truth is found out and the person is confronted, it is highly likely that the person would be put in a defensive mode or even be ashamed of the lie. But often a lie is not caught, and even if caught direct confrontation is avoided. And even when confronted some people would try to cover up with another lie. And this evading continues. But again evading the truth is rather like admitting implicitly that a lie is considered a lie and it is not good. 

But all of this is to do with individual's perception of good and bad. The idea of good and bad goes beyond what the individual understands for oneself. You jump the traffic light; the policeman will catch and imposes fine on you. You cannot really say that you are not aware of the traffic rule and therefore you should be let off the hook. Even when you are being honestly ignorant, you broke the law, and you must pay penalty. Now again we can argue saying that not every legislated norm is good. Fair enough! Definitely depending on the kind of government in power, laws sometime are legislated unfairly. For example, a dictator may refuse voting right to certain ethnic group just because they are different or he may even suspend the Parliament. The law is passed in such cases, yet given a free and fair condition to argue back and forth, one can establish a case that such a legislated norm is not right. So there are situations when one can say that laws are not good. However, it still remains that there are also quite a lot items of legal norms that are good and must be honored. Breaking such honorable laws, knowingly or unknowingly, entails moral imperfection on the part of the individual. Guilt may follow or not, but moral imperfection is a logical consequence of such violation of legislated norms! 

In so many literary pieces, one can read cases of men and women who have grappled with guilt because of having done something bad. For example, king David in the Bible felt terribly bad because of the kind of bad actions that he committed. First he committed adultery with a woman named Bathsheba. That was bad. But he realized that this act might possibly be found out. And therefore he had her husband killed in a battle. Being the king he was able to hatch such a plan! That was really bad. David struggled with guilt and he expressed the guilt. David did not think that he was morally perfect. Mahatma Gandhi felt terribly sorry over the fact that he could not be with his dad at his dying hour. He was with his had but then he had gone to be with his wife when his dad would have breathed his last breathe. And so when his dad passed away, he would have been sleeping with his wife. He felt that it was a moral failure on his part. Gandhi did not consider himself morally perfect. These are great figures, revered by thousands and millions of people across generations. They thought they had their moral failures. What about you? What about me? I don't think I am morally perfect. There are things that I had done and guilt did not strike immediately. There are things that I had done and guilt just struck so quickly. Examples. When I was in school, probably in the half-yearly exam of 9th standard, I did not get good result as I had thought of. I was afraid to show at home because I got bad marks. I fudged my result and put principal's signature myself. I showed at home that I got good result. Nobody at home came to know about it. I lied! I lied about my mark few years later again. My result did not show as I had anticipated. I fudged my mark sheet again.  I lied! Years later, I realized that what I had done was not right. Guilt struck me only years later, not immediately. But because guilt struck me so hard I discarded my fudged mark sheet and got hold of the real mark sheet. The time when guilt struck me so quickly was when I had watched porn videos. This is not something that took years for me to let the guilt surface in me. The guilt surfaced right after having spent sometime watching porn. And these cases show, at least to myself, that I am not morally perfect. But these are just a handful of examples. If I have to list about my moral failures, it's just so many. 

And I do think that each one of us has moral failures. In fact, to insist that one is morally perfect sounds rather like lying to oneself. But given this pervasive moral failure and therefore guilt, how do we get forgiveness or how do we sort this out? After all grappling with guilt for ages and ages is not good. It does lot of harm to oneself, if not to other people around us. For example, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, we read of lady Macbeth having to hallucinate because of her struggle with guilt. She had played a key role in getting the king murdered. And now guilt is catching up with her. Had she gotten rid of this guilt sooner, she would not have to face this predicament. But she did not get rid of this guilt. And now her life is in ruin because of her guilt. It is an extremely  wise way of living not to lie to oneself, and therefore it is important to get rid of guilt. 

If we broke traffic rule, we pay penalty. But what do we do if there is moral failure and therefore we struggle with guilt? Go and reconcile with whom I have wronged! But if I feel guilty because I have watched porn, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? If I felt guilty because I had fudged my marks, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? When king David committed sin, the first person he went to was God. He thought that since God is his Lord, to whom he is to be accountable to, he must first set things right with God. And so he asks for forgiveness from God. I believe that since God is the giver of my breathe and the moral law within, I owe my life to him and my reconciliation must take place with him first. Given this factor, I ask God for forgiveness. God is a loving God, and when I seek forgiveness, I believe, he forgives. When I see forgiveness from my mother, she forgives, because she loves me. Why won't God who loves me forgives me when I seek forgiveness! Anyone who loves you will forgive you, if you seek forgiveness. If I had stolen something from X, of course, it is good to settle with X. So if something of this sort is required to settle things, settle it. But not all of moral failure is of this sort. And when it is not of this sort, I think settling with God is what really matters! 

There is moral failure on my part from time to time. And each time I come to God. I don't want this moral failure. Yet there is a strong pull in me that drags me down and so sometimes I fall. But each time I get up and say sorry to God, he forgives me. I don't think I will ever be able to live a morally perfect life, a life that is morally perfect for, say, a year. But then the cross of Jesus Christ tells me that my sins are being forgiven and that I ought not to commit sins again. 

I imagine that the world would be a better place if all humans would address the guilt that one struggles with. If we grapple with guilt, then the possibility of not doing the same action is there. The possibility of not stealing again, the possibility of not killing again, the possibility of not lying again and so on. Given that guilt elicits in us a response that prevents us from committing the same bad action, I think, it is fair to say that awaking in us a feeling of guilt for the bad actions we have done in the past is good. Having a guilt free life is better compared to a guilt ridden life! The problem is thus not so much about not having a solution do deal with guilt because forgiveness is available so as to get rid of guilt; the problem is rather that many people do not wake from their 'moral slumber' and are not able to receive forgiveness.

Blessed are those who desired forgiveness because of their guilt and have received forgiveness! 

Is Cheating in Exam Good?

From High School till College, it has been known that cheating in exam is a worldwide practice. From United States to Netherland to India, it is there. Even in India it is there in Delhi, in Bihar and in Manipur. But using unfair means is unfair, wherever it is. Cheating is cheating, East or West. The individual student, parents and the concerned authority must all acknowledge that cheating in exam is wrong. To be declared pass is to acknowledge that a student has possessed the requisite knowledge required of a person at such a stage of learning. But clearing an examination by cheating and copying betray the degree the person possesses. A student who clears the exam by cheating deceives himself or herself, cheats the authority and the society at large.

If one has decided not to cheat, yet must pass the exam then the only option is to work hard. I have heard wise parents say, 'pass' or 'failed' is a different matter, but as a student hard work is a must. If you work hard and you failed, the problem is not yours. But if you refused to work hard now, and you failed later, the problem is yours. A child needs to be reassured that if he or she fails to do well in studies despite hard work, the parents will be there to understand the matter and stand with him or her. A hard working child need not fear the parents or the future. Fear of the parents, rejection by the society or a bleak future is one factor that gives rise to cheating in exam. Just as a child needs reassurance, he or she also has to be taught to be responsible for failure that may arise due to his or her laziness. To do away cheating in exam in a community responsible parenting is a must.

As one goes up the academic ladder, it gets more embarrassing to be corrected for the mistakes which one should not have made in the first place. Grammar, arithmetic, basic science etc. are all taught in High School. This is about laying the foundation in order to prepare the student for higher learning in various disciplines later. If a person is cheating at this level, he or she will struggle at the Bachelors. If he or she is cheating at the Bachelors level, the same person will struggle at the Masters level or even when one has got a job with the Bachelor's degree. At that stage, because of the learning you are supposed to possess at 15, but then refused to do so when you are young, life is difficult when you act stupid. However, if one has learned what must be learned at a younger age, one need not face embarrassing moments later.

It is always better to learn what is to be learned at that stage. Going back in time is not easy. As age catches up, different responsibilities emerge. Eyes refuse to cooperate; back refuses to support for long and the mind no longer remains fertile as it used to be. One of the first things that I decided when I came to faith in Jesus Christ as a student in 2000 was that I shall not cheat in exam any more. Over the years I have realised that academically this has been much more productive than I could have possibly imagined when such a decision was made. Certain people may try to justify cheating saying that it is better to cheat than to lose a year. But besides being legally and morally wrong, imagine a situation where a person makes such a justification at every stage of his or her life. Or worse, imagine a significant number of people use such justification for cheating! A whole bunch of generation will emerge with a flawed character. This is not good for the person and also for the larger society. Given such an adverse prospect for all, cheating in exam should be put to an end right away– by the individual candidate, the parents and the teachers.

(This article appears on the Hornbill Express on 2nd March 2015)

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 7

This chapter discusses the idea why Eudaimonism cannot account for a theory of right. The chapter is titled 'Why Eudaimonism Cannot Serve as Framework for a Theory of Right'. The previous chapter is here. The chapter discusses about the viewpoint of the Stoics and the Parepatitics. There are differences between the two. But for the purpose of arguing for the point Nick attempts to make, the distinction is not so crucial. However,  the same points that Nick raises create a hole or seems to create a hole in the philosophical skin of the eudaimonists of both strands.

A eudaimonist believes that virtuous activities are essential to living a life well. 'Eudaimonia' is translated 'happy', but it is not happiness in the sense of living a fun filled live. A happy life is about living a virtuous life doing the sort of things that a good person is supposed to be doing. So the function of the man is important besides the point that it is in accordance with having acquired a good habit. Even if you are doing the right thing, say, fighting a war instead of running away from the battle like a coward, if you are fighting the war because the king tells you that running from war without fighting will mean killing you and your family members, you are not really doing the 'good thing' out of having acquired the virtue of courage; you are just doing the right thing out of fear for your life or the lives of your beloved ones. For a eudaimonist, this is not living a life well. To live a life your life, cultivating courage is important, and also fighting the just war. 

Now Nick argues. If someone speaks ill of you behind your back, and your living well is not harmed at all, your right is violated, yet your living well is not harmed. This sort of example demonstrates that right theory cannot go along with the eudaimonist concept of living well. To have a a theory of life and a theory of right go together, one must move beyond the concept of a happy life as espoused by the eudaimonist.

Amos 2

In the first chapter of Amos, God speaks to the neighboring nations of Israel/Judah. In the second chapter, God speaks to Judah and Israel though there is small passage that is addressed to Moab. To Moab, God expresses his anger and judgment because of what she did to the remains of Edom's king. The bone of Edom's king, not the dead body as such, was burnt by Maob. Since it was a sign of extreme hatred and cruelty, God promises that Moab will be punished. 

To Judah, the kingdom of Amos comes from, God says that he will send fire to destroy the fortress because the people rejected God's law...because they refused to keep God's command. 

To Israel, God has different issues. Israel was morally corrupt. The poor people were oppressed and taken advantaged of. God had reminded them again and again that widow, orphan and the aliens were to be cared for because they were vulnerable. Instead the people of Israel oppressed them, and God was not please with it. They would take garment from the poor as a pledge for the money borrowed and yet used the same garment during their immoral activities. God had told them as a nation that the poor man's garment cannot be kept with the lender at night because the poor man needs it to cover himself; yet by keeping the poor man's garment with the money lender, the poor remained in cold throughout the night. This is oppression of the poor people. In spite of having done so much for the people of Israel, even those dedicated to serve the Lord were abused and dishonoured. Thus God says that he will crush the people and there won't be none to rescue them! 

The idea of taking advantage of the poor and creating life difficult for them is now no longer the way it used to be in Amos' era. Our social and economic context has changed a lot. The poor does not give his garment as a pledge for the money borrowed; it is now his field or house or something of that sort. God did allow taking of a pledge so that the poor man remains responsible for the loan taken. But God did not allow making his life miserable by keeping the garment with the money lender. When do we make the life of the poor man miserable when his house/field has been kept as a pledge? I think when the interest rate is so high so that instead of being able to pay back the loan, he is driven to sell the pledge to pay back the loan, it amounts to making his life miserable. What God is upset about is making the life of the poor man miserable. This may work out in different ways in different context. But in certain context, high interest rate is that which makes the life of the poor ones miserable. This is oppression of the poor men, and the Spirit of God is not pleased!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 4

This is chapter 4 and it is titled 'On De-justicizing the New Testament'. Chapter 3 is here. This chapter is more of a polemic, in that Nick challenges what he understood as an attempt by certain thinkers to undermine the idea of justice in the Bible. Nick is not yet advancing the idea that justice is a key theme in the New Testament. Nick is kind to those thinkers he disagrees with. But still he will argue for the point that justice is a central idea in the Bible in the next chapter.

Stanley Haurwas says that justice is a bad idea for Christians. What Nick understood Stanley as saying is that justice has been misused and abused by the larger society and it is beyond redemption. So even if Christians care for the oppressed, the language of justice should not be employed; let it be something else. Nick disagrees!

Another challenge comes from Anders Nygren. Nygren argues that the central idea of the Bible is love; not justice. It is this love of God that results in sending his son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of human sinfulness. This love, however, is not any other kind of love but gratuitous benevolence or rather agape. Agape is different from other kind of love like eros. Eros kind of love is to enhance one's own well-being; whereas agape kind of love is to enhance the well-being of the other. And this agape is the kind of love found in the Bible. God's forgiveness of human sin is not because he has to demonstrate justice, but because he loves human being. Where love abounds, justice is obsolete. Is Nygren correct in his understanding of the Bible?

Nick answers this question in the next chapter. But in this chapter he takes Nygren's own idea to argue that the idea is not coherent. Nick argues that forgiveness can come about 'only if you have wronged me, and only for the wrong you have done me'. I cannot forgive Godse for what he did to Gandhi. I can forgive for the wrong done to me only. The idea of forgiveness emerges only when one is wronged – when justice is violated. If the concept of justice is not there at all, there can't be anyone who is wronged and there can't be forgiveness. When God forgives me, it is because I have sinned against him; or rather because I have wronged against him, say, by breaking the covenant between he and me. And because I broke the covenant, I need his forgiveness to restore the covenant. Thus, Nygren cannot really speak of love and forgiveness by abolishing the idea of justice. Justice comes as a part and partial of love and forgiveness. The attempt to erase justice from Christian theological enterprise will fail.That's the central idea of Nick in this chapter. 

 

Amos 1

In the first chapter, the word of God came to Amos concerning Israel's neighbouring nations. God's thunderous judgment through Amos came on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Ammon. And these were the reasons why God was pouring out his judgment on different nations. Damascus was so cruel that she 'threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth' (v.3). Gaza and Tyre were merciless, engaging in selling people who they conqured to other nation. They were not selling just the soldiers who fought them but the 'whole community', which would include women, children and the aged. Edom is Esau's descendants and are related to Jacob's descendant Israel/Judah by blood. Discounting this relation, Edom stifled compassion and pursued his brother... For this the Lord will send fire and consume her cities and fortresses. To extend its territory, Ammon ripped open pregnant women and committed heinous crime. On all these nations, the Lord is giving his judgment and for the sins they committed He will pour out his wrath and thus kings and cities will face stormy days ahead. 

One common feature different nations committed here was war crime. War was not uncommon then. Yet God expects fair conduct in war. The issue whether war is ever just or not is not the point here. War takes place; that God acknowledges. What God takes issue with each nation here is army excesses. And for the war crime the nations committed, God pours out his punishment!

The concept of war crime then and now, as acknowledged by international bodies, are different. The modern version of war crime is more refined and broader. For example, use of chemical agent to target civilians would be considered war crime today. Chemical agent was not there in the past. God's anger today would include gassing civilians, not just tear open pregnant women's bellies. God's command not to murder remains unchanged throughout centuries ( killing is different from murder; murder is not justifiable by definition, killing can be justifiable), yet in certain areas God's expectation changes-- as in war crimes that nation-states are to abstain from. 

Amos: Introduction

Amos comes from Tekoa, a small town not so far from Bethlehem. He makes his living by taking care of sheep and sycamore-fig tree.  He comes not from a royal family or priestly class, but God calls him to speak forth primarily to the people of Israel, and also to Judah. He speaks forth God's word during the time of Uzziah of Judah (792-740 BC) and Jeroboam II of Israel ( 793-753 BC). 

During the days Amos speaks forth God's word, Israel's religious life do not please God. People lead a lifestyle far away from that which would please God. Amos speaks forth God's fury against corrupt lifestyle. God words through Amos is relevant even today for people who profess to believe in Yahweh. But how do we conduct our lives now in ways that God hates? Reading through the book of Amos will bring out similarities between their corrupt lives then and our corrupt lives now.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 3

This is Chapter 3, titled as 'Justice in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible'. The previous chapter is here. This chapter argues about the concept justice found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (I shall use only 'Bible'). The next chapter will argue from the New Testament.

Nick begins by stating the two positions as: justice as right order vis-a-vis justice as inherent right. In these posts, I am going to refer the proponents of the two positions as right order theorists and right theorists respectively. Right order theorists can endorse natural right; and one can say that this sort of right is conferred by God. But, Nick continues, right order theorists are not happy with the idea of inherent right or the idea that human right in an inherent right. So his attempt is to do an inquiry if the idea of inherent human right is found the Bible or it's not there. At the end of the chapter, he argues that one can fairly draw out the idea of inherent human right from the Scripture. But before he goes on to do that, he takes on Oliver Donovan and gives a counter-explanation from the Scripture about the nature of justice found in the Bible. This is how he goes about doing it. 

Nick argues that Oliver O'Donovan's understanding of justice found in the Bible is incomplete. O'Donovan's understanding does not take into consideration the concept of primary justice, says Nick; only the idea of rectifying justice is present in O'Donovan's thesis. How does one explain primary justice and rectifying justice? Primary justice is about the condition of a society where justice prevails. But when a robber breaks into a house and runs away with the loot, primary justice is impaired. Now rectifying justice will have to kick in by catching the thief and returning the loot to the owner. So rectifying justice is about seeking to rectify the primary justice that has been impaired. Now when O'Donovan gives the explanation of the concept of justice found in the Bible, Nick argues that O'Donovan thinks that biblical concept of justice deals only with rectifying justice. Nick finds O'Donovan's finding inadequate. Nick says the idea of rectifying justice can be there only when the idea of primary justice is there; it makes no sense to speak of rectifying justice without taking into account the idea of primary justice. And in the Bible one can find, says Nick, the concept of primary justice as well as  rectifying justice.

Thus in the Bible, Israel is called by God to live justly in its society. God also enjoins non-Israelite nations to live justly. Living justly is required not only of Israel, but of non-Israelite too. Why so? Because God is just and holy. This holiness of God (morality purity) is not something that obtains when God observes a law imposed on him from without; but holiness is rooted in God himself. He cannot be unholy just as God cannot cease to exist. (I am reminded of Plato's Euthyphro dillemma; but if one understands God's holiness as rooted in himself as Nick and others argue, the dillemma really dissolves. But this is not really part of the what the book says.) Nick does not delve much into this area, but goes on to the text to argue that Israel considers God rightly holding the people accountable for their actions. And when people sin, they seek God's forgiveness-- or must seek forgiveness. Thus God has right to hold the people accountable and that God has right to seek our obedience. Nick argues that that was the way biblical writers understand about God and human relations. I think this is a fair conclusion from the Bible one can gather. This is a key point about rights.

Right God has over the people are understood to be grounded by Israel's writers on God's excellence. "In that assumption by Israel's writers, that God has rights grounded in God's excellence, is to be discerned a recognition of inherent natural rights". This is another  key point Nick makes! I think the idea that God has inherent right is rather a strange but indisputable point.

From this concept of God possessing inherent natural right, Nick argues that human being as little gods possesses inherent right. Human being are created little lower than angels/ human being are created bearing the image of God; so humans have inherent right. 

Introduction of Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs

Besides other posts, I am going to be blogging about Justice: Rights and Wrongs, written by philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University. This is not a book review, but a summary of each chapter. I have read the book twice, and this is my third reading of the book. Most of the books I have read do not get the privilege of being read twice, let alone thrice. C S Lewis Mere Christianity, Vinoth Ramachandra's God's That Fail  and Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Things to do? are the only three books I have read twice, as far as I could remember right now. The Bible and Wolterstorff's book Justice are going to be the only two books I would have read thrice or more! Since this is my third reading, I want to believe that I have understood him well.

The book has 17 chapters, besides Preface and Introduction in the beginning and Epilogue at the end. So it's as if it has 20 chapters. This post will summarise Preface and Introduction together.

Nick begins to engage with the concept of justice after two life-changing events. The first one is on Apartheid South Africa in 1976, where he witnessed the Afrikaners denying justice to the 'blacks' and 'coloured' people. The second event in on Palestinian  issue in 1978, where he heard the Palestinians speak out against injustice meted out to them. These events energised him to speak out against injustice like no other events before. 

Nick is explicit that he is a Christian and his account of justice is a theistic account. Even so, his account of justice is based on inherent right that an individual possesses. He begins in the Introduction by stating that there are oppositions to the concept of rights as justice from within and outside the religious tradition he comes from. Some say that ethics of care is more appropriate; others argue against right-talks due to political and social reasons. Some say that the idea of right as justice gives rise to individualistic way of thinking and therefore it should be discouraged. Right-proponents are alleged to have said, 'this is my right; that is my right etc.' and focus so much on individual right, and thus fail to talk about care, responsibility, duty, obligation etc. Nick argues that it is one thing to care, but another thing to be cared; it is one thing to fail to do one's moral duty and thus wrong a person, but another thing to be a victim and be wronged. The language of care, duty, obligation etc cannot accommodate the story of the victim, of the one being wronged. Thus, doing away with the language of rights is to entail doing away with the story of the victim, and this is something we cannot afford. Theory of justice requires language and concept of rights, and we cannot do away with rights based concept of justice. This is Nick's defence of rights based idea of justice. 

Nick says that there are two primary conceptions of justice in the western tradition: justice as right order and the concept of justice based on inherent rights. Former is Plato's view and those who agree with him and the latter is his view and those who have argued something similar to his view even earlier. Aristotle's concept of justice as equality is possibly the third conception. Nick is going to argue for the concept of justice based on inherent right. But he will also be rejecting what proponents of justice as right order say about rights based justice which is that rights based idea of justice emerged much later. Nick will argue  that right-theorists position emerged much before Medieval period and therefore is not of recent origin and that this concept does not necessarily give rise to excessive individualism.

Affirmative Action & Electoral Politics

Introduction

Affirmative action is an approach devised to provide special opportunities to those groups of people who are disadvantaged because of various reasons. It is not a new approach. This concept was introduced in India by the framers of the Constitution to benefit those who are socially and educational backward. This policy of affirmative action being in place for over sixty years now has significantly contributed to the welfare of the people in the state. However, the fact that there is still social and economic inequality suggests that it is still in great need. The persisting inequality does not suggest that affirmative action as a political policy has failed; it rather suggests that it requires reform so it is more efficient. Critics of affirmative action have from time to time argued to do it away. The article will argue that affirmative action is required to establish a just and a flourishing society. 

The rest of the essay is available here, pp. 35-39.

NB: My article published in a peer reviewed journal no. ISSN: 2278-473X.