Religion in Arunachal Pradesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Jesus a Tamil Hindu?

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

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

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

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

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

Yoga vs PraiseMoves

Sweeeet Children's Song

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

Yoga, Yogi and The Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Did Jesus Live In India?

From time to time, there has been this idea being marketed that Jesus lived in India. The Bible explicitly mentions  Jesus before 12 and after 30. There is no explicit mention of what happened in between. This has led some people to claim that during the 'silent years of Jesus', he came to India. There has even been claims that say Jesus was buried in India. Could it be true that Jesus would have spent some of those 18 years in the Himalayas studying under a Vedic guru?  Does the Bible give evidences that point to the contrary? Well,  I think there are evidences that suggest that Jesus never lived in India.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

RSS' Mohan Bhagwat and Mother Teresa

The saffron brigades have once again made an unkind remark on the Christians in India. This time specifically by saying that Mother Teresa's work is not as worthy or valuable as theirs because the former had conversion as the motive while the latter's motive is just to serve. 

There are so many Christian educational institutions and healthcare centre in the country. Millions of people have benefited from the services provided by these institutions. The motivation for these institutions is the love of Christ Jesus; no doubt there But what is the purpose for their existence? Why is there an educational institution -- to provide education or to convert people to Christianity? Why is there a hospital -- to provide healthcare or to convert people to Christianity? For RSS, the answer is clear -- to convert people to Christianity. 

Christianity is a missionary religion and so there are so many organisations that work to bring people to Christ. But institutions that are set up to provide healthcare, social service or education are there to provide for what they are set up. Mother Teresa set up a home to care for the poorest of the poor, and that institution is to care for the poorest of the poor. There are those who may ask why the cost is so low there when it's just so high outside or why such a  well qualified person is working there when an outside job would fetch so much more money. Well, you have to tell the truth there-- the love of Christ motivates. If a person is impressed by the answer and want to follow Christ, he is welcome to do so. However, these institution or the workers will not say ' become a Christian, and you will be given a job or better service'. Christians don't do that and ought not do that. 

What is there that is so difficult for RSS to make sense of this aspect of 'service'? Hatred or ignorance? The religion that RSS follows teaches against hatred. So though there may be a few of them who are driven by hatred, this may not be pervasive. So I would think that it's due to ignorance -- Ignorance of what Christianity is or who Christ is. But ignorance is not a bliss. The longer time RSS spends in ignorance, the more frequent its blunder will be. RSS may as well be doing so much of community service. But understanding why Christians too are providing service will not be harmful. I think it would rather help every one. 

God and Science

Justice Katju in his blog on 25th Feb. 2015 made certain comments against God's existence. Being a self-confessed atheist, he has made similar comments even before. In this particular post, he made five points. Point number 4 has been asked for ages, made famous by Dostoyevsky's novel the Brothers Karamazov. In the novel one of the characters, Ivan, asked something to this effect: If there is a God why all this suffering? Why war, starvation, natural disaster etc that killed millions of people? Is God bad or is God not powerful enough to prevent these things? This particular one Justice Katju raised is different from the other four, which I think are more similar to one another. These four questions are about God and Science, and the reasons for atheism.

He says religion believes in God and Science in matter -- matter which is in motion in accordance with certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research. The apparent point is that religion's God cannot be discovered unlike Science's matter. But does Science really deal with matter alone? How about energy? One may answer 'but you see E=mc^2' . Besides, energy's presence can be inferred! Scientific research can't be done without 'inference to the best possible explanation'. One does not have to see the Big Bang, but from the present data you infer to that conclusion... because that conclusion explains best the data being observed. But this way of reasoning is not confined to scientific inquiry alone. This is done in Philosophy and this is done in Theology. You don't have to be able to touch God, taste God or see God. From the observable things, you infer God's existence. This is what cosmological argument for God's existence is about! This is what teleological argument for God's existence is about.

But yes, there is a difference between scientific inquiry and a theological inquiry. But there has to be a difference because the disciplines are different; the questions they deal with are different. The nature of the answer to the question ' What is the meaning of my life?' has to be different from that of 'what  all elements constitute water?'  Scientific inquiry will not deal with the former kind of question and theological inquiry will not deal with the latter kind of question. Science has been able to cure small pox. Justice Katju thinks that Science will answer more and more of the questions in time... just as it is learning how to harness atomic energy or solar energy in time. Alas, Political Science will not help us in achieve World peace nor will Economics help us get rid of world's poverty. Geography will help us understand more and more about weather and Astronomy will help us understand more and more about the galaxies. But Physics will help us produce more and more powerful Nuclear Bomb and Chemistry Napalm. Science cannot domesticate human heart! This is the reason to look to scientific progress as THE answer to human predicament will be a disappointment.

A person can be a scientist and also a religious believer. Why not? The two are not mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can be complimentary. Science and Religion interact at certain points, but the two also deal with two different kinds of question. True, that scientific inquiry deals with matter. But is human life all about matter, collocation of atoms and their dancing? Is parents love for the child just dancing of atoms and nothing else?  This does not mean that material aspect of human life is false. Human being is made up of matter. Yet this explanation of human life is not a complete picture of human life. We need a different layer of explanation to capture the wholeness of human life and the reality of this world.

But regarding the question against God raised in Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky also gives his response in the same novel. Not a straightforward answer, but an answer, nevertheless, to the challenge of Ivan. I think that's the kind of response Dostoyevsky would give to justice Katju... and I wonder the kind justice has not provided a rejoinder to the response of Dostoyevsky! 

Politicising the Womb

In recent times, there has been an attempt by certain social and political figures to use womb to further the religious faultline that is now reappearing after NDA returns to New Delhi. Sakshi Maharaj, a Member of Parliament from Uttar Pradesh and who was selected by the then General Secretary of BJP Amit Shah to contest the election, had recently said that Hindu women should have four children. It was this same person who had said that Nathuram Godse, the one who murdered Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is a patriot. VHP working President Praveen Togadia went further by urging Hindu couples to produce 8-10 children each in order to ensure that the religion he adheres to survive for years to come. These two are joined by other members of the Saffron brigades who urge Hindu women to produce more children. Given that the preliminary leak of the Census 2011 report suggests that the Muslim's percentage in India has gone up in contrast to Hindus' percentage having gone down, one should not be taken by surprise if the rhetoric heats up.

It is true that Muslims have higher birth rate than most other religious groups, and that Muslims are more conservative about use of family planning measure and that their children specially the girls get married at an age lower than the girls of other religious groups. However, it cannot be established that the growth is due to deliberate plan to emerge as the biggest religious group in the Indian sub-continent or the world and dominate over the rest; nor is it due to imagine threat or insecurity the community perceived from others. The growth can be mainly attributed to religious doctrine, ignorance, lack of access to family planning measure etc. The point that the sharp increase is possibly best attributed to porous border with Bangladesh, however, cannot be missed here. But this is also unavoidable because right within Bangladesh there are 111 Indian enclaves. The people in these enclaves are Indian, but since they are right within Bangladesh Indian Govt. has not set up Police Station, Post Office, etc. for the people. So legally they are Indian, but practically they are more like Bangladeshi. Similarly, there are 51 Bangladeshi enclaves within Indian states – Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya and West Bengal. These people are legally Bangladeshi but practically more like Indian. Given this kind of situation in the border, strict regulation of crossing the boundary is never easy. If the saffron brigades do not want to see Muslims from across the border coming into India, resulting in Muslims' population increasing, then the more appropriate measure is to tell Modi to settle the border issue quickly. Urging the Hindu women to reproduce more to compete with the religious minority specially the Muslim is more of a crude and irresponsible call.

In sharp contrast, the Pope tells his flock not to produce so many children, but shows responsible parenting. All religions would insist that having so many children is not necessarily wrong. However, responsible parenting requires that you produce children not more than you can raise. Having produced so many children, and yet failed to provide decent education or home for them is not an ideal situation. It is even worse if the untrained and uncorrected children grow up to make life difficult for the parents and the society. There are possibly those who are, due to poverty in training or resources, unable to demonstrate responsible parenting and the result boomeranged on them. But the point that the Pope makes deserves paying attention to across different religious lines.

At a time when communalisation of politics is on the rise, politicising the womb not only disrespects the women but also prepares the ground for polarising the religious communities further. Interpreting the call in the light of what all have been happening – undermining secularism, forceful reconversion to Hinduism, praising assassin Godse, pseudo-scientific remark from Vedic era etc. this is another salvo from the quarter close of the ruling dispensation that tries to threaten the rights of the religious minorities and well-being of the larger society. If RSS and its affiliate are given free hand, our society is doomed. In all of this, one can take comfort in the fact that an idea that is destructive will eventually self-destruct. If politicising the womb is a bad idea, the idea and those who advance it will not be able to sustain it for so long. The larger society will eventually realise the futility and chaos that such idea give rise to. After all sustaining a civilisation and taking it forward requires an idea that does not threaten the rights of the other to flourish.

(This article appears @ the Hornbill Express on 2nd February, 2015) 

Religions and Politics in Indian Sub-Continent

One of the repeated calls of Saffron Parivar – RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc. – against Christianity and Islam is that they are foreign religion. The objectionable remark made by Food Processing Minister Niranjan Jyoti in Delhi where she tried to polarise the citizens as followers of Ram or bastards (Ramzadon ya haramzadon) points to this. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat statement that all Indians are Hindus, thereby implying that Indians who are not Hindus are foreigners offers another glaring example. The state also perhaps unwittingly reinforces this idea when those from Scheduled Caste lose their entitlements to certain benefit, say, reservation in state/Central scheme, once they convert of Islam or Christianity. Conversion to Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc. do not merit losing the reservation benefit. The Scheduled Tribes are exempted from this implication though.

From time to time one hears the rhetoric that the religious majority in India is not allowed to exercise its religiosity openly; that the religion is under siege. This is also the kind of rhetoric emerging from the Buddhist Sinhala community in Sri Lanka. The solution to get out this siege then is to pedestal the religion of the majority above the rest. The proposal by Union Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to declare Bhagavat Gita as the national holy book of India has to be interpreted as a call for such measure. On the flip side, by associating nationalism with religion, the rhetorical device becomes a perfect political tool to subdue the religious minority and hound them into a ghetto. Religion of the minorities are labelled as foreign and unpatriotic, if not traitorous. In Sri Lanka, Muslims and Christians become the victim of such scheme in the hand of Sinhala Buddhist nationalists. Even in India, during Vajpayee's tenure, religious minority received battering in significant measure specially in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. In Myanmar and Nepal too, such voices emerge from time to time, sending messages of intimidation to certain religious minorities.

With widespread use of modern technology, information of any kind now quickly spreads to different corner of the globe. The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 at Ayodhya, UP, by the volunteers of Sangh Parivars brought about religious riots between Hindu and Muslims across different Indian cities. The effect was felt in Pakistan and Bangladesh too, resulting in Islamic hardliners destroying hundreds of temples and homes. A Danish political cartoon on prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) evokes sharp response even in Indian subcontinent as well. Nearer home, Christians and Muslims are not in minority in all the states in India. Sangh Parivar violent mischief can backfire in states where these communities are in majority. Given this volatile and complex environment, it is the responsibility of every religious and institutional leader to uphold and instil democratic values. To that end, forceful conversion or attempt to convert others through inducement should be restrained. Those in the government must also ensure that non-Hindus are not pushed to second class citizens of the country.

On the other hand it is important to take note that Christianity in the sub-continent is almost 2000 years old. If one is to insist that Christianity is of foreign origin because Jesus Christ was born in present day Israel, one must also insist that Guru Nanak of Sikhism was born in present day Pakistan, and Gautama Buddha in present day Nepal; and Parsis came from Iran. Besides, the tribals in the North East have never been exposed to Hinduism. There was no point in Indian history when every individual followed Hinduism. Any attempt to rewrite history that India has always belonged to the Hindus will be based on concoction of history. Christians must resist religious bully with pen and truth.

It is high time that everyone realises that Christianity is here to stay. Jesus Christ was born in a hostile political environment. The Roman empire, however, could not keep him buried in the tomb; the tomb lies empty. Tertullian in the third century says that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. History has proved the words right. Whether it is the might of the state or the jaw of the lion, the church is the kind that does not crack under persecution. The church means no harm to anyone; the church prays and works for truth and peace to prevail!

(This article appears in The Hornbill Express on 15th December, 2015)

Conversion and GharWapsi

I am not against GharWapsi ( homecoming) programme per se. If those Hindus who have converted to Christianity at some point of time want to 'return home', I would respect their decision. And I would have no objection to Christians converting to Buddhism or Islam or Sikhism. Each individual must be given the freedom to choose whatever religion she wants to follow. The problem with 'homecoming' programme of the kind that Saffron brigades undertook in Agra recently involved bully and allurement. Had the Saffron brigades used persuasion to convince the Agra Muslims that Hinduism is the better religion, there would be no reason to make hue and cry about the episode. However, possibly to create hype that there is a 'homecoming wave',  the Saffron brigades had invited the media, and eventually the truth beneath the surface emerged. Conversion or reconversion in a fair and transparent manner must be allowed in a democratic setting. 

I am not quite happy with the terminology 'Gharwapsi' (homecoming). Not every present Indian were Hindus in the past. The people of the community (Nagas) I come from were never Hindus. Today one third of the Nagas are in Burma, and two third in India. Animism, Buddhism and Christianity are the main religions among the Nagas today. And Animism and Buddhism are not equivalent to Hinduism despite the Saffron Brigades claiming otherwise. The assertion that everybody in the world was at one point of time Hindu is nonsense. It is as nonsensical as the assertions that plastic surgery, missiles, cloning etc were all practised in India's ancient past. 

In the entire controversy, one can notice well meaning scholars sometime not just getting Christianity right. It is fine for a person to reject Christianity as much as it is fine for one to reject Marxism. However, it is important to correctly understand what Christianity is. One will not learn about Christianity by reading Da Vinci Code. To learn about Christianity one would have to engage with the writings of C S Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Locke, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine  et al.; and most importantly the Bible. From the Indian sub-continent one writer to engage with, to know Christianity, would be Sri Lankan thinker Vinoth Ramachandra.  A religion that has thrived for 2000 requires a least that much of respect. After all there is something worth engaging with that it captured the heart and mind of over two billion people today. 

Is Christianity Foreign Born?

Traditionally it is believed that Christianity came to India in the first century. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus Christ, is believed to have arrived in Kerala in 52 AD and spread the message of Jesus Christ, resulting in certain native of Kerala and Tamil Nadu eventually becoming Christians. This makes Christianity 2,000 years old in the Indian subcontinent. Given that it is such an old religion, it is surprising that the Hindutva brigades still consider it foreign born. 

If Christianity is foreign to India, similar logic implies that Hinduism is foreign to Nepal or Sri Lanka. Buddhism has to be considered foreign because Buddha was born in Nepal; Sikhism too has to be considered foreign because Guru Nanak was born in Pakistan. But would Russian consider Hinduism or Christianity foreign because these religions were not born there? Would Americans or Australia try to wipe out Christianity because it came from Asia? Such thought would be bizarre. Sane people would not answer the questions in affirmative! The Hindutva brigades have bizarre ideas! 

But are the Hindutva brigades willing to say that Hindus in Nepal, Sri Lanka, US, UK, New Zealand etc. should leave Hinduism because Hinduism was not the religion of their ancestors and Hinduism is a foreign religion there? If they insist that ISKCON should be allowed to propagate Hinduism to these people, then they should allow Christianity to prevail here in India. To insist that Christians are second class citizens in India because Christianity is foreign born, while insisting that Hindus in the West must be accorded first class citizens though it was born elsewhere, is bigotry. 

Religious Conversion and Reconversion

BJP is back to power again and somehow debates on religious conversion, reconversion and other related matters are making news once more. Islam and Christianity are once again beginning to be portrayed as religions that convert people from one religion to another religion. As a Christian I want to emphatically admit that Christians do 'propagate Christianity' praying and hoping that people will eventually come to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and God. I believe that Islam too engages in similar activities, persuading people to become a Muslim. The Constitution of India allows a person to propagate one's religious belief. For this same reason, if a Hindu undertakes re-conversion processes, persuading converted ones to return to their traditional faith or even persuade a-religious person to join Hinduism, it's the same as what Christians and Muslims are doing; and I am quite okay about it. Propagating one's religion involves trying to convert people or reconvert people.

However, in this process of conversion or reconversion, there has to be certain ground rules. No party must forcefully try to convert anyone. Conversion must take place only through persuasion, explaining and living out the beauty and truth of that particular religion. Forceful conversion is neither morally nor legally right. Those who force others to convert or reconvert must be legally sued.

Someone may ask why there is a need at all to try to convert others. Or rather, why must I try to convince the other person that my religion is true and beautiful, thereby implicitly implying that yours is not true and beautiful. Why can't each one just practice one's religious belief and leave others alone? 

Religion has been an important feature of human lives throughout human civilization. And if one reads religious history, one will realise few things: 1. Many religions have died out in the past and many new ones have emerged. 2. A religion does not remain static in term of its belief and practices. 3. Certain religion has evil practices. 

To give examples, let me cite from history. 1. Manichaeism is now gone and so is Mithraism. But then over a period of time, religions like Bahaism and Mormonism emerge. 2. Buddhism was established by Gotama, yet it has mutated into various shades; and so Islam or Christianity. The beliefs of the different sub-groups are not entirely the same and the practices too are not all similar. 3. Religious culture of Aztecs include human sacrifice. 

From this brief account, one realises that religions evolve. Even within my own religious tradition, there was time when Bible was not made accessible to all or following the cultural practices of the day, slaves were owned by Christians or people of certain background were not accepted as equals. However, things changed. Hinduism has also undergone lot of changes in its historical evolution. Women were not allowed to read the sacred texts in the past; it is changing now. All these changes occur because there has been intra and inter-religious debates and discourses in human history. Without such dialogues and discourses, a religion will fossilized and required reformation will not take place. Political practices, religious beliefs, economic traditions etc are human enterprises, and as human individuals and civilisations interact, our lives and our social-religious-economic-political enterprises will change. Some religion may not be able to keep up with the changing political and economic scenario, and they may die out. Some may evolve very well and emerge triumphant as some religions have been in recent days. For example, one query what many religious and political scholars ask is whether Islam will be able to peacefully adapt to the ever growing tradition of liberal democracy without losing its identity, and if it does how will it take place? This interaction is inevitable; and in the process, Islam may even have things to learn from other religions. 

Because of this sort of ever increasing interaction, religious dialogues and discourses across cultures will take place. And once this takes place, conversion and reconversion are going to be happening. Just as I live within a particular political tradition, I live within certain religious tradition. Yet I have to have an openness to learn about better political tradition or even be willing to perform reform within my own political tradition; and this same thing applies to my religious belief too. I think my view is right, yet I am open to interaction and learning -- that's the kind of attitude I think we must possess. But having such an open mind is to be open for conversion and even to convert others -- religious, political, social etc. As long as forceful conversion and other immoral practices are kept out, friendly dialogues and intercourse resulting in even conversion must be left open to establish a progressive society.

Mahatma Gandhi and Hinduism

This article is a reproduction of the lecture that Dr. Arvind Sharma (Prof. of Comparative Religion, McGill University, Canada) delivered yesterday at the department of Philosophy, Delhi University. The lecture was titled "Hinduism and Gandhi". There was no note given. So the words are mine, but the idea is his. 

There are four elements in Hindu belief. They are: 

1. Sources of Dharma

2. Concept of Varna

3. Concept of Asramas 

4. Concept of Purusharthas

These four elements can be further expanded thus: 

1. Dharma 

A. Sruti (Canonical Texts)

B. Smriti ( Tradition/What is Remembered)

C. Acarya ( Models/Teacher)

D. Atma-tusti (Conscience/Inner Self)

2. Varna 

A. Brahmins

B. Kshatriyas

C. Vaishyas 

D. Shudras 

The Shudras are classified into two categories: 

i. Included Eg. servants

ii. Untouchables 

3. Asramas (Four stages of Life)

A. Bramacharya (Student Life)

B. Grahastha (House-holder)

C. Vanaprastha ( Forest-Dweller)

D. Sanyasa (Ascetic)

4. Purusharthas (Goals of Life)

A. Dharma 

B. Artha (Wealth-Power)

C. Kama (Pleasure, as in Kama-Sutra)

D. Moksa (Liberation)

The order is generally classified in Hinduism this way though not everyone agrees entirely. Gandhi gives importance to these elements as a Hindu. He refuses to take the radical step of Ambedkar to bring change. Yet he re-arranges the order significantly and brings reformation within Hinduism. This is how he re-arranges the order: 

Dharma : He places 'atma-tusti' in the first place. 

Varna: He lifts the 'untouchables' and places them in the status of 'touchables'. 

Asramas: He lives like a forest-dweller; thus renouncing certain thing like sex. Yet he was a house-holder. (This would have been the reason, says Dr. Sharma, why women-folk were not afraid of being close to Gandhiji or the husbands were not hesitant to let the wives associate with him closely. This is significant considering the fact that on certain occasion women-folk outnumbered men in participating for Freedom March with Gandhiji). 

Purusharthas: His primary focus was on Dharma. 

PS: From this lecture I understand that Dr. Sharma attempts to drive home the point that there is sufficient resource within Hinduism to bring change in the social order. One does not have to go outside of the Hindu tradition to bring reformation. My observation as well as that of some others is that in this scheme of thing the status of women is not given due importance. It would be interesting to observe how Gandhiji would address of concerns of women within this tradition. 

Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path

One of the earliest texts of Buddhism, Digha Nikaya, records some of the deeds and teachings of Gautama the Buddha. In it the Buddha also teaches the four Noble Truths, namely:

1. Suffering (Dukkha)
2. The origin of suffering (Dukkha Samudaya)
3. Cessation of suffering (Dukkha Nirodha)
4. The Path leading to the cessation of suffering ( Dukkha Nirodha gamini patipadi), which is the Noble Eight Fold Path ( ariya atthangika magga), and consists of:

a. Right View

b. Right Thought

c. Right Speech

d. Right Action

e. Right Livelihood

f. Right Effort

g. Right Mindfulness

h. Right Concentration

The eight steps can be categorised under three heading: Morality ( c-e), Concentration (f-h) and Wisdom ( a-b). The reason for categorising in this sequence is because morality is cultivated in the initial phase in order to prepare oneself for Concentration which is then supposed to lead one onto higher wisdom eventually. 

This aspect of morality is quite different from that of Christianity. In Christianity moral purity is not really to earn salvation/liberation. The Bible teaches that one cannot really earn salvation/liberation by observing moral norms because it is really impossible to attain moral perfection. And only by being morally perfect one can be in union with God since God is pure. Therefore, in Christianity moral 'perfection' in God's sight is something that God gifts to a person as the person comes to put his/her faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. And as a result of this new status, the person observes moral norms as his/her response to maintain the relationship with God.

Awesome Beauty!

Is God the giver and maker of such good and beautiful voices?

Buddhism is Not an Atheistic Religion

Gotama, as it is spelled in Digha Nikaya, was concerned with ending suffering. His teaching has no room for the gods to help a person is realising nibbaba ('nirvana' in Sanskrit). The existence of heaven and hell are not his concern. All of this does not mean that Gotama denies the existence of gods, heaven and hell. If atheism means denial of the existence of gods, then Gotama was not an atheist; and Buddhism not an atheistic religion. 

In the 16th Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, called Mahaparinibbana Sutta: The Great Passing (The Buddha's Last Days), an account relating to the gods takes place. Gotama was almost at the end of his life. Just then when Upavana was standing near to him, fanning the dying Gotama, Gotama asked him to move aside. Ananda, Gotama's close disciple, asked the Lord why this was done. Gotama said, Ananda, the devas from ten world-spheres have gathered to see the Tathagata... attain final Nibbana" Gotama continued saying that the devas (gods) are complaining that their vision is being blocked by the monk standing in front of the Lord. Upon inquiring what kind of gods have come, Gotama said that sky-devas,  earth-devas and devas who are free from craving are there. 

Traditional Buddhism also believes that a person can be reborn in Hell or in the world of hungry ghost or the asuras (demons) or peerless devas etc. Considering this sort of beliefs, it is not correct to label Buddhism as an atheistic religion.

Amartya Sen, Religious Identity & Conflicts

In his essays and lectures, Amartya Sen emphasizes again and again that all individuals belong to different groups. The fact that Paole is a teacher does not entail that being a teacher is his only identity. Besides being a teacher, he is also affiliated to diverse groups that give him some sort of identity. He is a hockey player, political activist, poet, Christian, childless parent, Indian etc. Affiliation to different groups give him identity which if a particular identity is prioritized over others, Sen argues, his identity would be wrongly misconstrued. This multiple affiliation by an individual leads Sen to argue that mono-categorisation of a person's identity is unhelpful and can easily play into the hand of a religious fundamentalist. Is Prof. Sen correct? 

I think as a non-religious person Sen fails to see how much religious worldview shapes the identity of a person. Key questions like where am I headed? How do I obtain moral learning from? What is the purpose of my life? etc are very significant matters in the life of a person. For a practising Christian or a Muslim these questions are answered through the sacred text. Unlike a non-religious person for whom where there is no particular source from where all these answered can be derived, a Christian or a Muslim search deep into their respective Scripture to get the answer. Departure from this practice would make him or her a non-practising Christian or a Muslim. 

Once a Christian or a Muslim learns an ethical pattern from the Scripture, he or she will apply the learning in all the domain of his or her life. Thus religious affiliation effects the person to live out his or her religious conviction. This religious affiliation takes priority over even national affiliation or family affiliation. This is the nature of religious affiliation. Religious affiliation does not always come into conflict with national or family affiliation. But sometimes it does. For example, even when former USSR adopted atheism as its official religion, faithful Christians refused to comply with the state's law.

Does this entail that a clash of civilisation is inevitable? No. But that is not the point of inquiry here. In this post I seek to underline that religious identity of particularly the Christians or the Muslims is the most primary identity and will continue to remain so.

Did Eating Pork Trigger Buddha's Death?

Pali Canon has three main sections: 

1. Vinaya Pitaka

2. Sutta Pitaka

3. Abhidhamma Pitaka

And Sutta Pitaka consists of five collections, among which Digha Nikaya (DN) is the first. This Pali Canon is traditionally considered to have been settled at the first Council at Rajagaha three months after the death of Gotama the Buddha. In Pali it is Siddhattha Gotama, Sutta (discourse) and Nibbana whereas in Sanskrit it is Siddhartha Gautama, Sutra and Nirvana. For this reason I shall use the Pali version instead of Sanskrit!

Mahaparinibbana Sutta: The Great Passing The Buddha's Last Days of the Digha Nikaya records an interesting event. The Buddha was now around 80 years old. And after having stayed at Bhoganagara, Buddha told Ananda that they leave for Pava. At Pava Buddha gave a discourse on Dhamma to Cunda, the smith, who came to seek an audience with the Buddha. Then Cunda invited Buddha and his order of monks for a meal. Cunda went home and had a fine meal prepared with an abundance of ' sukara-maddava'. ( Sukara= pig, Maddava= gentle/soft.) Maurice Walshe, in his translation of the DN to English, uses the phrase "pig's delight" to translate "sukara-maddava'.

Butddha  came the next day with his order of monks to Cunda's house. After being seated for a meal, Buddha said, " Serve the 'pig's delight' that has been prepared to me, and serve the remaining hard and soft food to the order of monks." Buddha and the monks are to eat just once a day; gluttony as it is in other religious/philosophical tradition was not considered proper. And after a moderate meal Buddha told Cunda, " Whatever is left over of the 'pig's delight' you should bury in a pit, because, Cunda, I can see none in the world with its devas, maras, and Brahmas, in this generation with its ascetics and Brahmins, its princes and people who, if they were to eat it, could thoroughly digest it except the Tathagata". ( 'Tathagatha' refers to Buddha himself here.) 

Having eaten the 'pig's delight' Buddha had a "bloody diarrhoea'  and he had severe pain as if he were close to death. Buddha, of course, as an 'enlightened one' was not upset with Cunda for the meal. Rather he taught his disciples that if anyone would serve a meal after which a Tathagatha attains supreme enlightenment or nibbana, that giver's deed would be profitable and fruitful. Sometime later the same Sutta records  Buddha traveling to different towns, but it also records Buddha as repeating " I am tired and want to lie down". One may infer that the 'bloody diarrhoea' had token its toll on Buddha's health, considering that he was in his 80's. However, even before eating of this 'pig's delight' Buddha was well aware that his time was near. Ten pages before the record of his eating of 'pig's delight', Buddha had told Mara, the Evil one, similar to the Serpent of the Bible, that three months from then on he would take the final Nibana. So when the time arrived for Buddha to pass away, whether the 'pig's delight' triggered the death or not, he would have entered his last phase on this earth. 

Besides the above point, the other matter that emerges is whether Buddhist can eat meat/pork or not. Commenting on this point, Maurice Walshe writes that Buddha tells that monks were not to eat meat if they knew or suspect that the animal was killed specially for them. Buddha had in fact rejected  proposal to forbid meat eating as such. Since the monks were living on alms, if they had refused meat they would be embarrassing the household that offered them food or otherwise starved if they refused meat altogether. Eastern Theravada Buddhists have been mostly non-vegetarians! 

NB: Quotations in the post are from The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya, trans. by Maurice Walshe, (Wisdom Publication; Boston), 1995.