Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922)

Ramabai was born as the sixth child to Anant Shastri Dongre and Lakshmibai. Her father earned his living by rendering Vedic recitals in temples, teaching and narrating Puranas in public platform and other similar activities performed by a devout Brahmin. The family lived under severe economic strain. With famine sweeping the region the economic hardship increased. It was in this condition, when Ramabai was just 16, her father passed away. Within few days her mother too passed away under the continued paid of starvation and the emotional trauma of having lost her husband. Even her elder sister died of cholera within a short time leaving behind only her brother and herself, since her other siblings have died in early years. But before her parents died she has mastered Sanskrit under her mother.

For years she led an intellectual nomadic life with her brother. In 1878 when Ramabai was 20 she reached Calcutta with her brother. It was her that Ramabai was honoured with the title 'Pandita' by Calcutta University for her learning in Sanskrit. Tragedy, however, struck her again when her brother Srinivas succumbed to Cholera in 1880. Shortly Pandita Ramabai married her brother's friend Bipen Behari Das, a lawyer from a non-Brahmin (Shudra) background. Worse was to come when her husband died of cholera two years later leaving her with their daughter Manorama.

When she was 25 she travelled to England to study medicine. There got converted to Christianity and got baptised in the Church of England. Three years later she travelled to the US where she spent two years publicising her plan to open a home for high-caste Hindu widows in India.

In 1889, when she was 34, she started a widow's home called Sharada Sadan in Bombay which eventually was shifted to Pune and came to be known as Pandita Ramabai Mukti Mission. She spoke out against gambling, drinking and other social evils that destroy homes. She has acquired a fighting spirit from her parent as she went about encouraging widow's remarriage despite opposition from conservative Brahmin. After all even her father faced social boycott for having insisted on educating his wife when such virtue was considered an anathema. Just as she led an independent life she taught women to be independent and confident. Pandita Ramabai also introduced kindergarten system of education to India for the first time.

In 1882 she started one Arya Mahila Samaj for the cause of women's education. She also wrote two books: Stri Dharma Niti in 1882 and The High Caste Hindu Women in 1887. The former representing a reformist approach to Hindu womenhood and the latter critiquing the deplorable condition of Hindu widows. She went on to suggest, in Lok Stithi, that Hindi should be enriched and developed by incorporating from other language wherever necessary. Her contribution to literature would be incomplete if her work in translating Bible to Marathi from original Hebrew and Greek is not given due recognition.

The way she withstood personal loss, the manner in which she critiqued Hindu religious traditions that legitimized patriarchal oppression and her long quest for the truth which she found in Christ Jesus are some lessons one can learn from her life. In 1989 the Government of India in recognition of her contribution to the advancement of Indian women issued a commemorative stamp.

I want peace in the Land of the Nagas

As Government of India (GOI) engages with National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in a dialogue to solve the six decades long political imbrolio I am hoping that something concrete would emerge out of this meeting. I have seen and heard so many lives being lost in this political fight as Naga freedom fighters waged a battle against Indian Union. So much of resources being diverted towards killing the political opponent instead of being used to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Many Indians are simply illiterate about the history and never bother to read the issue seriously. However, as one whose life is affected in various ways I have oftentimes get frustrated with the GOI and also the Naga freedom fighters.

Present India was formed out of many princely states. Some joined the union voluntarily; others were more or less arm-twisted. A section of Nagas still did not want to join the union, and they have been fighting since then. History is complex and it is not black and white. If one's reading of Nagas' history ends up as "India being all right" or "Nagas being all right" I would say the reading is flawed.

At present I want that India shows more sincerity and seriousness. Dragging the matter and waiting for the present Naga freedom fighters to die will not really solve the problem. If this dragging continues I don't see the problem being solved even for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, India seems to be using this tactic. I also wish that Naga leaders would be more realistic and tone down some of the demands. We are not living in the 1950s or 60s. We have entered 21st century and so political and economic game must be played differently.

Nagas have come a long way. Fighting a giant like India for sixty years say that the matter is complex and serious. If Nagas should tone down its demand India must seize the opportunity. Dragging the matter will only result in more bleeding. For many Naga freedom fighters if "integration of naga areas under Indian union" is not going to be feasible they would prefer to wage a bloody battle even onto next generation. They would argue that they have been fighting for sovereignty for 40-50-60 years and if even "integration" is not possible why on earth have they been fighting for. For India to resist such a "compromise" would be politically insensitive to the wishes and aspiration of the Nagas.

I want to see both parties toning down its stand. I don't want bloodshed anymore. I want to live peacefully. After all isn't my "fathers" fighting so that his children can live peacefully!

M F Hussain and religious fundamentalists

Now that M F Husain has been ousted from India the Hindutva fundamentalists must be happy. Added to the so called insult to the Hindutva ethos by the paintings, Mr. Husain is from a Muslim background too. And VHP/Bajrang Dal/RSS have not fond of Muslims. I don't think these Hindutva groups will go all out to destroy the paintings and the person had it been some Sharma, and not Husain.

Muslims have a very valid reason to feel sad, and all India should indeed be sad. After all Mr. Husain was a good artist, and losing him was like losing the Sachin Tendulkar of painting. On the other hand making a person's life miserable is not only found among Hindutva members. Muslims have also made certain lives miserable. Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushdie are names that immediatley surfaced whenever we hear of such story. If Muslims can make lives miserable for Nasrin and Rushdie why can't Hindutva members make lives miserable for Husain? Instead of justifying Hindutva members, I guess, it's wiser to condemn both the parties. But this is a lesson for the Muslims. I think Muslims should protest against their fellow Mullahs whenever a fatwa is issued on any writer/painter for hurting their religious sentiments.

But this also opens up another tricky question. Should Christians protest when poster of Jesus with cigarette in one hand and a bottle of alcohol on the other hand is displayed? I think here it is important to ask whether the poster was made for artistic value or to provoke the Christians. If it is for the latter reason I think it's abusing freedom of expression. As a Christian I won't ask book like Da Vinci Code to be banned though it has anti-Christian elements. I would rather write articles/books critiquing the idea of the book. Nor would I endorse any Christian group issuing a threat to the writer, even if such threat was there.

Iit's important that we don't destroy an object or person for writing against a person we admire or worship. I think Shiv Senas were wrong to protest the way they did against Laing's writing on Shivaji. I also think Muslim fundamentalists were wrong in issuing fatwa to Rushdie or Nasrin for writing things unpleasant to them. I think Hindutva members behave like anti-national elements when they destroyed paintings of M F Husain.

Creationism vs Intelligent Design vs Biologos

With respect to creation-evolution discussion Christians take various stand. All Christians believe that God is the creator and sustainer. There is, however, difference of opinion on how God has brought about his creation and how God sustains/conserves the world. It is little unfortunate that some Christians believe that their position is the only true Christian position and others have compromised.

Creationism is that branch which includes belief that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. They would interpret Genesis text of the Bible in a very literalistic sense. They deny that God would have used evolutionary process to create the world. They claim that this understanding is derived both from the Bible as well as Science. Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Henry Morris, Carl Wieland, John MacArthur et al are some names who belong to this camp. This group is also popularly called Young Earth Creationist.

Intelligent Design is that branch which argues that certain features of the organism and universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. They do not commit themselves to the idea that this designer could be god. They argue that certain organism like bacterial flaggelum cannot come about by Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer et all key proponent of the school.

Biologos is that school that believes life, bio, comes through the word, logos. ( The word was with God and the word was God). They are committed to the idea that God is the creator and that all features of the universe is designed by God. The design of the world/organism could have come about through Darwinian mechanism mutation and natural selection. Whether it is through such mechanism or not, let Science settle it is their argument. They do understand the Genesis text in literalistic sense following the traditional interpretative principle of Origen/Augustin et al. Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Denis Alexander et would belong to this camp.

I disagree with the Creationist interpretation of the Genesis text. I also find it so hard to believe that the earth is just some 6,000 years old only. But then Creationist will argue that the Bible says so and Science does not provide evidences that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Formation of petroleum, stars, mountains etc do not provide sufficient evidences for old earth, according to the group.

Intelligent Design folks split creation into two tier: those which can be explained only by inferring a designer and those that need not infer to a designer. So that God leaves mark only in certain organism and features of the universe. Those that can be explained through natural mechanism do not bear fingerprint of God. Of course, this designer could be an alien too. This need not be God.

To me the position which does justice to the Bible as well as to Science is Biologos. They believe that “the heavens declare the glory of the living God”. Not one part of the creation is there which is not created by God. Evolution seems to be right, but leave it to Science to determine whether it’s true or not. What we are concerned is that God is the creator. This is very much in echoing what Billy Graham, John Stott et all have said.

Why I am not in favour of Intelligent Design

When I read Phillip Johnson’s REASON IN THE BALANCE it occurs to me that he is arguing against too much of naturalistic elements in American public life. By ‘naturalistic’ he meant atheistic elements. Since Johnson is a leader of ID movement one may fairly infer that ID folks are workinga to expel atheistic/naturalistic elements using Science. Though such conclusion may differ with ID motive that’s the way I have heard many people say, and their perception is not different from mine.

I understand ID’s argument to be based on the premise that Darwinian mechanism viz random mutation and natural selection, are not sufficient to give rise to certain component of the universe or of living organism, and such complex component is best explained to have caused by an intelligent designer. All Christians agree that the universe is designed. All Christians also agree that all living organisms are designed. The question “how?”.

I don’t think Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection pose any threat to Christian thought. For me the choice is not random mutation and natural selection or intelligent designer. I see it quite perfect to say the intelligent designer would have used random mutation and natural selection to cause the universe or living organism.

Another problem I see with ID is that though it does not claim to have religious tone it is perceived that way by most people that I know of, at least here in India. I don’t think most ID proponents can honestly say that there is no underlying religious current. After all wasn't it designed primarily to counter atheistic elements? If Christians in the West like Dembski, Behe, Johnson et al can bring in religious tone ie Christian tone, into Science what would be the state of Science if Hindus bring in Vedic tone into Scientific enterprise in India? University Grant Commission, India, is planning to introduce Astrology into universities and colleges in India soon. I am against such move by UGC. Just because definition of Science is vague and parameters for a scientific theory to be valid is not neatly set, one should not bring in Astrology or even ID into Science. I can understand study of Astrology /ID under Religion or History etc, but it does not merit entry into Science Department. This does not at all mean that Religion/History is inferior to Science. It’s just that each discipline should remain within its own domain.

Disappointed with the snubbing of Pakistani cricketers in the 3rd edition of IPL

Politics and sports are never meant to be totally separate entities, or at least that is not the way so far. Soviet Union in the past have boycott Olympic games held in the US and vice versa during cold war era. India has canceled cricket tours to Pakistan in the past because of sour political relationship. Good political relation between nations also foster sport relation. But the other way round is true too. Sports can also heal sour international relations.

The rejection of Pakistani cricketers by all the teams in the 3rd edition of the IPL is extremely unfortunate. It reflects the mentality of Indian public in certain way towards Pakistan and her citizens. Pakistan has its share too. The political leaders of both nations often than not indulge in verbal bashing to get the sympathy of their respective citizens. Zardari's welcoming comment about Kashmir had to be recanted because of public pressure from Pakistan. There has been Indian politician too who talked about 'wiping out Pakistan from world map'.

26/11 was bad. But relations cannot remain sour forever. We should not also expect Pakistan to take the first. Looking at the deeeeep political crisis Pakistan is in, I think India should take the first step towards reconciliation. It's been seen that even when Pakistani players have wanted to shake hands with Indian players after a match, Indian player walked away with that unfriendly attitude. I would have greatly appreciated any team that buys Pakistani cricketers for the IPL. I can't believe that there is no good player in the Pakistan team. The main problem here is our Indian perception of Pakistan. And I think it's time we grow up!