Christian Ethics vis-a-vis Political Ethics in light of Already & Not-Yet Eschatological Tension

If one reads the Bible, there is no doubt that the Bible does not condone adultery; it is considered a sin. There is also no doubt that the Bible does not condone fornication, whether it is between individuals of same sex or between individuals of different  sexes. There is also no doubt that the Bible does not condone sex between individuals of same sex. Lest, someone says Bible only prohibits, let me also state that the Bible considers marriage (and sex within marriage) as honourable. 

Frequently we come across individuals who believe that because the Bible considers these mentioned activities as wrongdoing or sin, these activities must also be criminalised. Meaning, these activities must be banned by the state, which implies that whoever does such things must be caught and appropriate punishment be given (by the state). Is this thinking quite correct? Just because Christians believe certain action to be wrong or sinful, must that action be criminalised? When I eat pork, which the Muslim considers as sin, should I be handed over to the police? When I eat beef, which is anathema for Hindus, should I be handed over to the police? Not really! Well, the point is that we need to differentiate between sin and crime. 

In a liberal democratic society, just because one religious community considers an action as sin, the state cannot just come in and take action against the sinner. If the society is an Islamic society, eating pork may be a sin as well as a crime. In such a society what is a crime or not may be defined according to the teaching of the Quran. However, in a liberal democratic society, no religious texts should really define what is a crime or not. There has to be something more. There may be an overlap between a sin and a crime. So raping someone may be a sin as well as a crime; so also may be stealing, killing etc., but not eating pork, eating beef etc. Eating pork or eating beef may be a sin for someone but they should not be criminalised. The state must determine what is a crime depending on the sentiment of one religious community while undermining the sentiment and the liberty of other religious communities. This is an important feature of a liberal democracy. Similarly, for fornication, adultery or homosexual act, just because the Bible is against such activities, we cannot ask the state to criminalise the acts. If we are to seek criminalisation of these activities, we have to be able to provide other reason beside appealing to the teaching of the Bible. If we don't do that, the Hindus will seek to criminalise beef consumption based on their belief; so will Muslims seek to criminalise pork consumption based on their belief. And when they do that, we would have no good reason to argue against their effort. 

This kind of reasoning will be appreciated more easily by those who belong to the religious minority in a particular situation. A member of the religious majority may not appreciate this kind of reasoning because they know that they will never bear the brunt of such a policy. This is the reason why many members of the religious majority dislike liberal democracy. 

In the past, many countries would write their laws reflecting the religious nature of the majority of the people.  Things began to change in the 17th century. There are different reasons for that, which I am not going to get into now in this post. Now with people migrating back and forth, and therefore the religious composition of a state/country having become more diverse, being a Christian/Buddhist/Islamic country is becoming more problematic. We still see many Muslim majority states/countries having Sharia law in place. However, even with these states, the tension will get worse and worse, because as more and more people from these states travel abroad, they learn from others; plus, as more and more people from other countries come to their country, they find that there are many people who have a different way of living. Moreover, with social medias like Facebook and Youtube becoming so common, learning both bad and good things about others began to take place, and they influence our way of living. So today the question is whether these Muslim states will open up gradually and accept multiculturalism or they will close their doors because they found other cultures polluting their way of life. 

In the biblical scheme of things, readers realise that though God's kingdom of earth is inaugurated through the dead and risen of Jesus Christ, the consummation of his kingdom is awaited. We are now living in between the tension where the kingdom is already come but not yet fully realised. In this period, people are given the choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ; it is the time when both the wheat and the weed grow together. Therefore, for the Christian to force people not to commit sin through state's legislation is not the right approach to call people to live a life of holiness. God gives choice; and we have no business threatening people with imprisonment if they live an adulterous life. I may persuade a friend or even a stranger not to live an adulterous life; however, it is a different matter if the state criminalises and sends an adulterer to jail. In similar vein, Hindus or Muslims persuading me not to eat pork or beef is okay; but it is a different matter if I were sent to jail for eating pork or beef. Spending much energy and money seeking a legislation that will criminalise activities that I consider as sin, which others don't, is not the way to do public theology for a Christian. The more appropriate approach is to share the message of Jesus Christ to a person who may be living a life that I consider as immoral, and when this persons accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and God, he or she will submit to the ways of Jesus Christ. 

NB: While discussing about sexual behaviour, it is important to make a distinction between criminalisation and legalisation. To criminalise an act is to say that if an act is performed, the one performing the act will be imprisoned or treated as an offender in the eyes of the law. When one argues that an act should not be a criminal act, it does not mean the act is praiseworthy or honourable. So when one says that adultery should not be a criminal act, it does not mean that the state should praise or honour adultery. In similar vein, when one argues that homosexual act should not be criminalised, that does not  necessarily mean that same sex marriage should be legally accepted. In the post, I argue that sexual behavior like fornication, adultery and homosexual act should not be criminalised; I am not saying that the state should honour these activities. In effect, I am not saying that same sex marriage should be legally accepted. 

On Demonitisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God and Government: Chapter 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi's Odd-Even Policy is About Right to Clean Air!

I have been living in Delhi for almost two decades now. And so I call Delhi my home. And naturally I share with Delhi's achievement. shame and hurt. It has not been difficult to identify myself with Delhi because Delhi does not really 'belong' to anyone as it is so with other cities. Mumbai belongs to the Marathis, so to speak; and Kolkata to the Bengalis; and Chennai to the Tamilians. However, Delhi does not have any particular group of people who 'exclusively' own it; anyone who settles down can call it home. That is the plus point of Delhi. 

Prior to 2000, the quality of air was bad. There were so many private buses (in blue colour) that were not very commuters friendly. They made traffic system chaotic and were the worst polluters. Eventually they got phased. CNG run buses were then introduced. Yet they were not there in great numbers and getting CNG itself was a big hassle. Unlike today there were no air-conditioned buses;fly-overs were not that many. Thanks to Shiela Dikshit government. Metro train came to rescue Delhi traffic system. Traveling time was reduced and people could avoid travelling in over crowded Delhi buses, which was particularly very annoying during summer. 

With economic condition getting better, more cars have been added to Delhi's road each day. Whether the air quality was getting worse primarily because more cars are on the road each day or whether it was due to something else, there has definitely been the need to do something about the air quality in the city. Given the deteriorating condition, the government policy to introduce odd-even formula is a very good news. As a citizen of Delhi, this policy does cause inconvenience. I cannot just take my car anywhere any day I want. For example, the other day my wife, my two children and I got seated in the car to go somewhere in the evening. As I started the engine, it struck me suddenly that my odd numbered car was not supposed to be driven that day. So we dropped the idea and came back into the house. It was difficult trying to explain to the little children why we dropped the idea specially when they were looking forward for a ride. Office goers too have to carpool or use public transport system or use two-wheeler. 

But the traffic on the road is how comparatively less congested than other days. The volume of vehicle on the road has drastically come down. How effective is this scheme in curbing pollution is to be seen. Yet I think the inconvenience is worth given that travel time has now come down. People are now more serious about the harmful effect of breathing bad air. This odd-even scheme may not achieve so much in improving the air quality. But it is still an effort worth reinforcing. with other schemes. To that end, more trees should be planted. People should avoid buying SUVs unless it is need driven. I seriously wonder how many people buy SUVs in Delhi out of need. I can understand if one is living in hilly terrain! Using public transport system should be encouraged. Purchasing big cars or additional car as a status symbol must be avoided. If all these different ideas are taken together, it will be like drops of water in a mug; and they can effectively address the issue of air quality in the city. 

Someone filed a case in the Court saying that odd-even scheme violates his right to drive his cars. In a way it does. But the children of this same person also have the right to breathe clean air and so do my children. And when rights come into conflict this way, one must see which right should take precedence. And in this situation, I believe the right to breathe clean air must take precedence over the right to drive around one's car everyday. Dragging the government to the Court over this odd-even policy is thus a bogus action. 

Maintain Dry Status, Please

Political leaders in the state have been deliberating on the pros and cons of lifting dry status in the state. As per the paper report, there is no sustained argument in support of maintaining status quo. Instead the policy makers appeared to support lifting of dry status and make alcohol consumption legal. Given that the impact felt on the larger society will be tremendous, there requires sustained debate on the subject involving law makers, civil society, religious leaders, researchers etc. One of the MLAs stated that removing of dry status will ensure production and availability of only quality-controlled liquor to the public. This kind of reasoning is without empirical support. The empirical support would rather point to the opposite direction.

Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and other states legalise alcohol consumption. But even in these states there are plenty of 'toxic' liquor available, and thriving. Just last month – June, 2015 – in Maharashtra 104 people died after consuming illicit alcohol, and over 40 continued to remain hospitalised. In January, 2015, in Uttar Pradesh at least 25 people died after taking local made liquor, and over 100 hospitalised. Prior to that over 40 people died in the same state after consuming local made liquor during a religious festival. Few years before that 130 people died after consuming illicit liquor in West Bengal, with dozens more landing in hospital. In 2008, 180 people died after taking local made liquor in Karnataka. These are small samples of deaths caused by country-made liquor. It is reported that in Maharashtra in certain areas, within just one Ward – let alone district – death through alcohol poisoning occurs every month.

Given that people in the state are equally money minded, if not more, illicit liquor will thrive. State machinery will find it impossible to ensure the quality of alcohol being brewed by the local vendors. If dry status is lifted, the state will have thousands of local brewers, and the state machinery will never be in a position to monitor the quality. When the state machinery is unable to effectively check petrol adulteration, can it monitor and regulate the quality of possibly thousands of local liquor brewers? Empirical findings prove that illicit liquor thrive so much more in states where liquor is legalised compared to dry states. The MLA is mistaken to believe that removal of dry status will engender quality-controlled liquor.

The paper reported that the government expects to make Rs. 300-500 crores through alcohol related business once dry status is lifted. This needs critical evaluation. Tripura, whose population higher than that of Manipur, makes around Rs 124 crores out of alcohol related business last year. It is highly unlikely for Manipur Goverment to generate revenue 2-4 times more than Tripura by removing dry status. If such a monetary figure is to obtain, it can do so only if a significant percentage of population is driven to drinking. But with more drinkers, social cost increases. At present Supreme Court normally directs government to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for undue death. Placing monetary value on a person's life is problematic. Despite the problem, if one takes this figure, it would take the death of 600-1000 people that government must compensate to neutralise the monetary gain of Rs. 300-500 crores. In a small state, such number of death is unlikely. And God help us that such thing never happens! But even if dozens of death occur in, say, a far flung village in the hill, the chance of the event not being reported is so high. Media coverage in the sate is far below the desired level. And with many villages several miles away from the nearest police station, there is no measure the state government will step in to investigate the disaster and prevent further incident of such sort.

Once dry status is lifted, more men will come home and beat up their wives and children. Domestic quarrelling and beating are much more common in homes where the husband drinks compared to those where no one drinks alcohol. Poor productivity in offices and field will be more widespread. Local fights between drunkards will be common scene. Drunk driving will increase manifold resulting in higher number of accidents and increasing medical care cost to the injured. But the cost for such hospitalisation is not born by the 'bad' boy himself; the cost falls is born by the entire family. Kidney-liver damage will rise substantially, adding financial pressure on the wife specially. With more illicit liquor brewers thriving than it is under dry status, more families will fall under the spell of alcohol related illnesses. It is not just the money spent to buy one drink, which in many cases would have been earned by the wife selling vegetables on the roadside, but the physical abuse on the wife that gets more frequent and the tense environment in which the children are raised which is followed by apathy towards children's education and moral progress. Hundreds of homes will get wrecked by removing dry status. The big question is: Has the government calculated such social cost and converted them in monetary value? What is the net monetary difference between the gain and the loss?

State exists for the flourishing of the citizens. And given this function of a state, it is high time that it cracks down on alcohol business prevailing under dry status. Lifting dry status will rather be going towards the opposite direction the state ought to pursue. Instead of facilitating and developing the skill and excellence of a human person, by removing dry status the state will impregnate the health and minds of the citizens with illness and darkness. Policy makers have moral obligation not to lead the citizens toward such dark abyss. Therefore, maintain dry status, please.

(This article appears on The Herald on 11th July, 2015) 

In Defence of Dry Status

One of the repeatedly stated reasons for lifting of dry status is that the prohibition is not really effective as it was anticipated when the legal provision kicked in. Reason such as this, however, requires further inquiry. In any given decent society, actions like murder or rape are criminalised with heavy penalty. However, no political society has been able to curb such criminal actions with cent percent efficiency. This does not entail that murder or rape can now be legalised because the state machinery has failed to effectively prevent such actions. It rather implies that the state needs to wake up from its slumber and get to work. True, alcohol consumption is unlike rape or murder; after all there is no apparent violation of anyone's right by one's liquor consumption as it is so with rape or murder. However, the given reason that dry status is not quite effective in curbing drinking is not a valid reason for lifting of the dry status; if at all it must imply a lesson, then it is that the state machinery is a failure. Given this factor, maintaining dry status or otherwise would have to depend on the social benefit or social cost that alcohol consumption elicits.

If there are black marketers today making profit from the business, at the expense of the general public, it is not proper for government to fit into the shoe of these black businessmen. With legal provision, government can indeed make black money white. Yet, the moral reason remains; and therefore, the so called white money may not really be white. There are black businessmen making hefty profit for selling heroin, ganja, pseudoephedrine and other tablets. State cannot be venturing in to fill the shoe of this thriving black market and make these businesses legal.

The reason why government had introduced dry status in the first place was due to social cost, and even today if government is to lift dry status, this factor must determine its course of action. Public health experts everywhere are unanimous in voicing that social cost is far higher than the social benefit that the state can dole out through revenue that it generates from liquor business. Kidney-liver damage, poor parenting, accident from reckless drunken driving, local fights, spouse quarrel, lower work productivity etc. are going to be rapidly increasing with far more easy access to liquor. If the state machinery is helpless in effectively maintaining prohibition, to consider effective monitoring of import-export and prevent further social degeneration it is not being realistic.

On behalf of the citizens, political leaders must legislate and pursue a wide range of goal that includes health, education, social harmony etc. Political goal is not about making more money, but about human development and therefore human flourishing. It is not state's business teaching husband how to express love to his wife, but it must be of state's concern if husband would come home drunk and beat his wife and children. If the state needs more money to ensure protection and care of its citizen and also its infrastructural development, it must explore other measures to generate revenue – the kind of measure that will not damage human development. Tourism may serve a fine example for such measure. Any measure that will radically increase physical abuse, health hazard, social tension etc. ought not to be pursued. The state has a moral obligation to steer clear of such policies by virtue of the moral ideal upon which the state is based and also has envisioned for its citizens. The state is not an amoral institution and ought not to be one because human being is an inherently moral animal. Therefore lifting of dry status which certainly will have massive social cost ought not to be considered at this point of time.

What good is money if its pursuit results in damaging human lives?

Increase Spending on Road Connectivity

If the state government employs more people, more money would be utilised to pay salary to the employees. With less number of employees, the government would have more money to spend in other areas. Since public good like roadways and sewerage system are essential to sustainable development, with more money available government can increase spending in these areas. Given this simple arithmetic, government should not employ more than what it requires to run the administration.

One of the twists to the arguments is that those who are responsible to run the administration benefit privately when more people are employed as government servants. Such overcrowding in government departments harm the people in general, yet those responsible for the recruitment get far richer than they used to be. The income of the officials through bribery runs in terms of several millions for many of the recruitment programmes into government service. The rate is 'fixed' for a constable or for a Sub Inspector for the police department and even for a primary teacher or for a graduate teacher in schools. Since private companies hardly invest in the state, and government employment is the considered the only source of stable and decent income, educated unemployed are coerced into paying bribes to get employed. Given the massive amount of money involved in such day-light robbery', those in responsible position are tempted to recruit more than the required number. (This is day-light robbery because it is taking what ought not to be taken during the day as opposed to robbers taking what ought not to be taken during the night.) But this overcrowding of government departments results in harming the larger community. This is a practice that should come to an immediate halt.

Government employment is not the answer to solving the economic bottleneck facing the state. A government employee can at the most sustain his or her family. Since government will never be in a position to provide each individual in a family a job in its different departments, it has to expand its vision beyond providing jobs in the tertiary sector or the service sector. Even when private companies come in, white collar job will never be sufficiently available nor can tertiary sector alone sustains the economy.

To provide jobs in the secondary and the primary sector, and induce overall economic growth in the state, state government in the North East region, notably Manipur, has to increase spending on road connectivity. With proper roadways, those in the hills can provide agricultural produce to those in towns and city at a much cheaper rate. This will benefit both the parties – dwellers in the rural area as well as dwellers in the urban areas. Healthcare providers and teachers will find it much easier to provide services to far flung villages when road connectivity is in place. Inefficient service sector plaguing the rural area is largely due to bad roads. As of today, most cases of medical emergency require dashing off to the state capital. When a patient from a village has to be carried on bamboo stretcher specially during rainy season till pucca road, which for certain villages will be for half a day's walk, it may be too late. To think that a corrupt politician is responsible for the death of such patients every year is haunting! For states like Manipur, Nagaland or Mizoram which is largely composed of rugged hilly terrain, unless government spends in massive amount for road connectivity, much of the hilly terrain will remain cut off from the outside world. Thus, ensuring development and healthcare largely rest with government machinery. This spending can come only from the government; no private individuals will have money big enough to effect change in this respect unlike one can do so in education and healthcare.

A democratic state exists on certain moral principles. And it is a moral obligation of the state that public good such as proper road connectivity is provided to all the villages in the state. More important than employment in the public sector is road connectivity to ensure overall development in the state. For too long government has failed to live up to its moral obligation. To fulfilling this moral obligation, it is high time that government increases its spending on roadway programmes. 

( The Hornbill Express, 29th December, 2014) 

Against Anti-Conversion Law

Is BJP's suggestion to introduce anti-conversion bill in the Parliament a good idea? Well, I don't think so. Here is one of the reasons. Suppose, a person from India goes to Cambridge University and receives the finest education available. He then realises that her religion, say, Christianity is not a good religion. He renounces it and becomes an atheist. Well, because anti-conversion bill is in place, there seems to me two options available before him: live as an adherent of this religion which he now believes is bad till his last breathe or go to jail and rot there. 

Or, say, an atheist from India after having done proper study of the matter in Cambridge University realises that Christianity is true and right. Should he convert or still live with the belief that he now considers is mistaken? Well, it would be a bad law if he is not allowed to exercise his freedom of conscience and so freedom of religious belief. Why imprisoned a person in the religious belief that he is born with? Why not let people explore and exercise their choice? If the religious belief is good and right, it will eventually prevail; it has nothing to be afraid of. 

What needs curbing is forceful conversion or conversion through allurement. Let the right to propagate one's religion and so the right to choose religion remain as it is. 

On AFSPA

There are those hardcore Indian nationalists who have defended Armed Forces Special Powers Act. In the name of national security, criticism of the Act has even been prevented. Those who criticise the Act are portrayed as compromising their love for the motherland, and only those who defend the Act are protective of the country. Thankfully, P. Chidambaram has been vocal about the untenability maintaining the Act as it stands today. He has once again raised the matter, which can be read here. He has done that in the past too as a Home Minister but could not alter the status of the Act due to Army folks putting their foot down to any proposal to get the Act amended.

Two comments. First, the Act would not have generated such controversy had the army personnel acted strictly within the guidelines provided by the Act. However, the matter is such that the army personnel would rape or kill through fake encounter again and again and again and again and again...and then get away with all of these by invoking the Act. The Act does not provide immunity for rape or torture or fake encounter killing. However, as it happens in the ground, the army personnel would go about doing anything and then get away with it. The Act has been misused! But if there is the understanding within the army and the government that the Act virtually contain allows the army anything to do and get away with it, then let it be spelled out explicitly. But this cannot happen! A state will never admit that the it gives the army personnel to commit such crime against the civilians, deliberately and systematically for over fifty years! But if it is not willing to be transparent, why continue to maintain the Act as it is? 

Second, the army cannot defend its action publicly. The covert acts that have been deliberately and systematically committed on civilians, and invoking AFSPA whenever dragged to Court, cannot be allowed to continue. How can crimes against humanity be allowed to continue in the name of AFSPA? The debates at the level of ideas and the way democratic form of governance, which includes defending human rights or right to liberty of any individual, are sustained and needs to progress, are not the job of army personnel; this domain lies with the civil authority. To let the army put its foot down against the wishes of the civil government and let the Act continue as it stands is not a healthy way of governing the state. Every body contributes to sustain the state, and each one has its role. The army must perform role to sustain the state, and so must the civil authority. There is even this rumour in the North East that the army deliberately create low intensity warfare to receive high funding. Given this rumour and its history of being a victim of army excesses, allowing the army to have final say in policy matter is unhealthy.

This draconian Act should not continue as it stands today.

Religious Minorities And BJP's Moral Obligation

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

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

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

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

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

Can Indian Secularism Tolerate Beef & Pork?

Securalism in India has been considered to be an inclusive one. It is the kind that does not try to kick all the gods upstair so that the citizens could have a godless polity; but  it is rather the kind that attempts to accomodate all the gods into the system. In a premier institution, Jawaharlal Nehru University, a group of students who called themselves The New Materialists plans to organise a beef and pork festival in the campus on the 28th of September. The plan has been opposed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal etc., all belonging to the Hindutva camp. 

Hindus do not eat beef -- or are not supposed to eat it. And Muslims are not to eat pork. Yet a large section of the Indian population are neither Hindu nor Muslim. And among this crowd a large number enjoys eating beef and pork. So whose right is being deprived of when such a controversy surfaces: those who find eating such meat offensive or those who are refused permission to eat such meat openly? The issue is not unrelated to the BJP's agenda, on and off though, that it would seek to ban cow killing all over the country. This would mean that no one would be allowed to eat beef. If ever BJP happens to take up such a Bill in the Parliament  I would not be surprised if some politicians from Kashmir or Nagaland or Mizoram or Meghalaya etc say that they would prefer that India splits into pieces than give up beef once and for all! 

As more and more people try to assert their rights, I believe this tension will get louder. One's food habit or one's religious belief is very close to each party. And I don't think hiding the controversy under the political carpet would help Indian democracy. People must debate about how custom and polity must take shape... and debate in a civil way. And in this regard I first want to hear from the defender of the cows and pigs why they think such animals are precious so much so that its worth depriving some people of exercising their age old food habit in public.

Calling a Northeastern 'Chinki' Can Land You in Jail for 5 Years. Oh, Really?

The Ministry of Home Affairs recently passed an order which it communicated to all the States and Union Territories that anyone found calling someone from Northeastern part of the country 'chinki' can be jailed upto 5 years. The culprit can be booked under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The fact of the matter is that the MHA order too is highly flawed. Everybody from the North East does not come under the category of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe. And when the victim is outside of that category, how can the Law book a culprit under the SC/ST Act. I don't see how this makes sense! Isn't this a case of Ministry of Home Affairs too being ignorant of the kind of composition of people in the North East India? If it is not ignorant then I consider the order to be a bluff. 

However, will this order really solve the problem of prejudices among the Northeastern people? To some extent, I would say. If the government is really serious about solving this problem once and for all, then it needs to introduce some more concrete measure. Since the government has deliberately kept the Northeastern region under 'wrap' for ages, it has to take extra measure to address the problem. And these are some of the measures that I believe will help. 

1. Let the government waive 100% tax on any film producer that includes main actors from the Northeastern region. The government can also take similar step for any film that attempts to highlight the case & story of Northeastern people. 

2. Hire more people from the Northeast in government agencies to carry and highlight the different faces and colours that people in India are made up of. 

3. Include special chapters in the syllabi of schools and high schools about North East. For example, why should study of History be only about Guptas, Mauryas and Mughals or about Gandhi, Nehru and Tilak?

4. Bring in deserving people in significant positions. 

5. Connect the region with proper roads and railway track so that the region too can develop.

Lokayuta in all the states

It is high time Lokayuta comes in place in all the states. Karnataka has system in place and so Chief Minister who has been indicted by the Lokayuta has been replaced. There has been uproar in Gujarat too because the ever controversial Chief Minister Modi wants to have his way. Uttarakhand is another state where Lokayuta is in place, but since Chief Minister is left out of the reach of Lokayuta one cannot hope for much result. Chief Minister does not handle matters of national security like Prime Minister and therefore there is no reason to leave the post out of the reach of the Lokayuta. 

Many North Eastern states is out of the reach of CBI. When have you heard of CBI going after a Chief Minister in the NE? Manipur CM Ibobi, who is also known as Mr. 10% for he asked for such cut for every project, needs to get Lokayuta in place as soon as possible. Civil societies should rather press for setting up the anti-corruption commission than getting into some not so pressing matters like putting in place Inner Line Permit. It will be good that Governor and civil society press for inclusion of Chief Minister in the reach of the Lokayuta specially in a corrupt state like UP and Manipur. 

Giving in to the demand of state's politician as argued by BJP in Gujarat will render Lokayuta impotent. Governor should be given more power to see that not any party is spared if corrupt practices are entertained. It must be mentioned that even Team Anna members must also be investigated if there is any suspect of corrupt practices. They cannot ask the Government to be accountable while oppose any kind of investigation against them.

Some statistical figures from India's 2001 Census.

Name of Religion	Literacy Rate ( Total )	Literacy Rate ( Male )	Literacy Rate ( Female )	Percentage of Population	Sex Ratio
Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Buddhists Jains Other religions India	65.1 59.1 80.3 69.4 72.7 94.1 47 64.8	76.2 67.6 84.4 75.2 83.1 97.4 60.8 75.3	53.2 50.1 76.2 63.1 61.7 90.6 33.2 53.7	80.5 13.4 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 100	931 936 1009 893 953 940 992 933

Terrorism and militancy

Today's The Hindu carries a leading news item about an obscure outfit that carried out bomb blast that derailed some coaches of Guwahati-Puri Express in Assam. The derailment as a result of the blast injured 93 passengers. Looking at the picture, it was pleasantly surprising that no one died. The outfit known as Adivasi People's Army is reported to have claimed responsibility for the blast.

Of the many Underground groups in India, not all of them terrorized civilians to achieve their political objective. The bombing of a train that carried civilian passengers like this cannot but be termed as terrorist act. Since the group is an obscure one, it is not known what their political objective is. But irrespective of whether their demand is legitimate or otherwise, carrying out an attack on civilians like this is immoral and outrageous.

Sometimes, some people termed all Underground groups as a terrorist group. But that is not a correct way to read the matter. Some groups demand are not legitimate; some deserve better treatment. Some use guns judiciously; some indiscriminately. I would label a group as terrorist only when it deliberately employs violence towards civilians or non-combatants as part of its policy for reasonably long period of time to achieve its objective. The definition is not without problem, but that's the best one could arrive at.

It is also important to note that terrorist activities are not only employed by underground groups. Even government can deliberately use violence against civilians to achieve its objective. Such violence by state also has to be termed as terrorism. Thus, it is not only non-state actors that must be called as terrorists; even state must be called terrorist whenever it terrorizes people. And whenever leaders of a nation-state employs terrorism, they need to be brought to court for trial.

Do Dalits who are Christians and Muslims deserve reservation?

Constitutional Act reserves 15% and 7.5% of seat in Governement sector for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST). The Act, however, loses its power when a Scheduled Caste person changes her religion to Christianity or Islam. Christians and Muslims have been campaigning for several years now that the Act be amended so that it would allow even a Christian or Muslim who is from a Scheduled Caste background to avail the reservation. As of now the Scheduled Caste person loses the economic privilege once she converts.

I believe the present reservation policy is flawed. Since the reservation policy was introduced with the intention of bridging the 'social and economic' gap it is high time that the government reserves seat based on economic status, and not on caste and tribe. If the present policy continues those members of the society that truly deserve reservation will be left underprivileged. Today there are so many SCs and STs who are millionaires and who do not really need reservation. But it is the children of these people who get into best private schools and thus get into the best government positions through reservation policy. The truly underprivileged class are not able to send their children even to decent schools and therefore going up the social and economic ladder just remains a distant dream. Thus, Christians and Muslims who are from poor Dalit/SC background should not be denied reservation. Let even those who are from Brahmin background get reservation, provided they are really poor.

But under the present policy should reservation be extended to Christians and Muslims who are from Dalit background? I don't find the arguments against the extension of the privilege convincing enough. In fact, the opposition for such extension should be coming from those who are covered by the reservation policy because they would then have more people to compete among themselves. But that's not the case! One argument is that if Dalits who convert come under reservation then there will be mass exodus to Christianity or Islam. But the question that emerges is is it that the religion they now follow is so weak and poor that given a chance to maintain the same government sanctioned economic status they are willing to abandon their religion? If yes, then one may surmise that Christianity and Islam offer something to people which other Indian religions do not offer. Is it social status that these two offer?

Christians and Muslims are not supposed to practice caste system. Whether Hinduism sanctions caste sytem or not has been debated. Individual like B.R.Ambedkar, the architech of Indian Constitution, left Hinduism after having pursued the subject matter as part of his doctoral thesis. Having come from a Dalit background he suffered humiliation for several years, and after more than two decades of trying to change from within he embraced Buddhism because he believed that caste system in ingrained in Hindu religious belief. But there are others, from 'high caste' background, who argue that caste system is not intrinsic to Hindu teaching. But this subject whether caste system in intrinsically woven into Hindu metaphysics or not can be pursued some other time. My point, however, is that if the Dalits thought that they are going to be socially better of if Government relaxes its laws why can't the Govt do that? The Government cannot tell people to change the metaphysical belief of a religious community, supposing it's there in the metaphysical teaching of the Hindus, but it can change its laws so that it can facilitate certain group of people to be better of. When the Dalit community gets better of, does not it augment common good?

Isn't there also the argument that Christianity and Islam are foreign religion, and therefore... ? Well, are they really foreign religion? Next time...

Manipur inching towards Hell... and Chidambaram is scratching his head.

I could not sleep last night as I was worried about my relatives trapped in Imphal. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened nor will this be the last unless Government of India addresses the problem once and for all. Government of India has been holding cease-fire with the Naga nationalists, NSCN, and two parties have been engaging in a dialogue for years now. Both the parties long for peace, but solution still eludes them. The Government of Manipur, however, refuses the ceasefire to be extended to Manipur, even in the areas where only Nagas have been living since time immemorial. The crux of the problem is that Manipur sees extension of cease-fire as a step towards its territory being redrawn.

It's something like this: Go back to 1955 when present Malabar region was still part of Tamil Nadu (Madras state). The Malayalis there wanted to join Kerala, but Tamil Nadu refused to part with it. The Malayalis then argue that because they are a minority in this state they are more or less oppressed in term of job opportunity, development opurtunity etc. ; and the Tamil Nadu still refused to part with it. Tamil argue that if they want to join Kerala they can give up the land and go, but that the Malayalis of Malabar refused saying it's been their land since time immemorial, and they have to go with their land. Now a Malayali leader from Malabar region wanted to visit his village after so many years, but Tamil Nadu refused to let him enter the region saying it will lead to fragmentation of Tamil Nadu. So the Malayalis of Malabar protested; to which the government of Tamil Nadu used state's machinery to contain the crowd and in the process killed two and injured many dozens.

In reality the situation is little different. Tamil Nadu here has not much to lose by giving up Malabar region. But if Manipur gives up Nagas' land some 55% of the land will go away. So Manipur has so much to lose; though in another way it will not lose much because not even one Manipuri (Meetei) lives in this Nagas land. Here it must be added that Kukis will claim that they also have a stake in Nagas land because they have also been staying for ages. And it is true that they have been staying for years specially at the edge of the borders, but not too inside Nagas areas.

The GoI has nothing to lose by redrawing the state boundaries. But it is not able to do so because the Manipuris (Meeteis) say that such initiative will lead Manipur to seek secession from India. On the other hand Nagas argue that until all Naga inhabited area comes under one unit, as agreed with GOI, justice is not delivered. As of now Manipur has sent its police commando at the Manipur-Nagaland border to obstruct the entry of the Naga leader. Following the killing of the two protesters against this move of the Manipur Govt., the Nagas have blocked the Highway so that essential items cannot be imported to Imphal. And without vehicles plying on the Highway Imphal will literally starve. Reinforcement sent by the Government of Manipur have been driven back by the Naga public. But the Nagas who are in Imphal either as student or government servant etc are also trapped. Meanwhile the commando team at Manipur-Nagaland border have resorted to looting houses for food as their ration supply has been cut off. And all the males in the locality have run away from the clutches of probably the most notorious-trigger happy commando team in the world. (But they may argue that they have to be trigger happy because only then they can kill the militants for which they have been actually trained. Question is whether they can do the same to unarmed civilian protesters.)

My analysis is that had Manipur Govt shown enough respect for the cease-fire between GOI and NSCN, and allowed the Naga leader, Th. Muivah, to enter Manipur situation would not have been this bad. Even if it has refused entry to Muivah had the commando not killed two protesters situation would not be this bad. Now by any chance, if any Naga civilian is killed either by the commando team or by Manipuris who are also now near hungry and angry, civil war will erupt. But the Naga public are also fully fired up that it appears that unless they get justice they will never budge, and peace will not prevail.