What if Modi had Rescued 15,000 Gujaratis...?

After the flash flood came the war of words among the politicians! It was reported that Narendra Modi, the CM of Gujarat, had rescued 15,000 stranded Gujaratis from the flood hit Uttarakhand. Criticism poured in saying Modi should not have rescued only the Gujarat; he should have rescued Indians. BJP went onto a defensive mode and began denying that such a thing was never claimed by Modi or any BJP leader. Well, it was purely the creation of the anti-BJP camp in the media or whether the news was first planted by Modi, I don't know. But suppose Modi had acted like a Rambo and indeed rescued 15,000 stranded Gujaratis, is there any problem? 

Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarati. It is his job to care for the people of Gujarati. He is responsible for the welfare of the people of the state he rules. He is not the CM of Uttarakhand. And so his primary focus should be for the Gujaratis, not those from UK or UP or TN. He is also not the Prime Minister or Home Minister of India and therefore it is not required of him to be equally concerned for all the people of India. It is the office that is centered in Gujarat that gives him the power and position, and therefore his primary concern should be that of the people of Gujarat. 

So, is it really a problem if he had rescued 15,000 Gujaratis on the basis of 'Gujarati first'? I see no problem here. 

Suppose, two children are drowning and one is your child and the other a stranger, and you can save only one: which one would you save? Of course, your child. Suppose, a ship that carries 500 Indians and 500 Pakistanis hit an ice-berg; and Indian Govt has time and resources at that point of time to rescue only 500 passengers: would it save the Indians first or the Pakistanis or toss a coin? Well, Indians first! That's my take. The idea of solidarity: family, state, country... insists that the priority goes that way. Of course, if all the 1000 passengers could be saved, and if only 500 Indians are taken on board that is immoral; that is wrong. But when both the parties are deserving, but one is "your people" and the other party a "strangers", and you have resources to save only one party, then it's really fair to give priority to "your people".

My Experience as a UESI Staff Worker

I worked with UESI as a coordinator/staff for almost eight years. And until I joined as a staff member in 2003, I was an EU member, having even served in the ICEU committee as Secretary and President. It was through a friend that I got introduced to EU; and in a Bible Study led by Dr. David Jayakumar that I came to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. In 2011, I left the staff team for higher studies in Delhi University.

The last two years I have not fallen really ill even once. Compared to the frequency I fell ill during my days as a staff worker, this is a big change. As a (national) staff member, I remember falling ill at least two times a year. Point is that physical wear and tear as a staff worker is tremendous. I have not experienced myself how life is like to be in a government service or to be a software engineer in a private company. But I can definitely say the life of a PhD research scholar is much 'easier' than the life of a UESI staff worker. It drains you a lot physically and emotionally being a staff worker. In fact, I notice that even my clothes last longer now than they used to be!

In those eight years, I interacted and learned so much from some of the finest people I worked with. Had I not been in the staff team, I would have missed out those people. I want to point out specially Mathew Varghese in shaping me so much. It's not just the personal learning I got from him, but observing him and staying with him was tremendously helpful. I think it's fair to regard him as a man of fine character. Despite tough life one has to face as a staff worker, the eight years experience with extremely good people was something I would treasure all my life. Only as a staff worker one would get this rich and unique experience!

Maintaining discipline now and then has been different. I have taught QT so many times in DTC. Doing QT then as a staff has been so much more consistent than it is now. The tendency to react or get annoyed at rash driving was almost absent then; now it's not quite that way. Sitting idly on a hot and humid day or on a cold evening is getting more frequent now. As a staff worker that sort of 'vice' is rare because one does not get time to remain idle. One has to read a book or think of some plan or get in touch with a long lost friend or do something productive as a staff worker; it's about keeping oneself busy. Sadly, disciplining oneself is not easy unless one also puts oneself in such a situation where one is forced to be discipline. Being a staff worker helps a lot!

One change I would like to see in UESI is this. It's usual to appeal to 'emotional attachment'  to raise fund or encourage people to get involved. I think this is not a good approach. People must give or get involved, I think, because they are convinced of the vision: the vision to minister to the people in Universities and Colleges. Vision statement of UESI is clear. And I believe it is this vision that must be reminded and expounded. UESI is uniquely raised for the students in colleges and universities; it's unlike the organisations started by Billy Graham or Joyce Meyer. Appealing to this sentiment or some other sentimental attachment will drag UESI down from being a progressive organisation. And fleshing out the vision statement of UESI will include challenging students to ask why they study this subject instead of that subject or why a particular economic theory should be preferred over others as a Christian and so on. It's going to be about why this particular worldview engenders seeing things this way and not that way; and why this lifestyle over that lifestyle etc.

UESI is a man-made organisation, run by imperfect people. So it's going to be infected with this problem or that problem. In fact, every organisation, religious or secular, will be infected with all kinds of problem. Being such a huge organisation, one should not be surprised if the problem in UESI is even bigger than one might have thought. Whatsoever, my way of seeing is that as long as the vision remains, one should get involved as a grad or an EU member or a staff. At certain point of time if you felt called to change direction, so be it. But let's not get bogged down because of the petty differences and the quarrelling one experiences within the organisation. It's all part of becoming more mature....

Nick Spencer Interviews Michael Sandel

You’re well known for writing and lecturing about the ‘encumbered self’, as it were, and how our identities are profoundly formed by our attachments. So, the obvious place to start is to ask that question of you – in particular, your upbringing, the ideas passed to you by your parents: How, if you like, did your parents encumber you with an identity?

I grew up in Minneapolis, Minnesota in the upper Mid-West of the United States, which has a very strong civic tradition in its politics, and so I suppose that had some effect. I attended public [state] schools, and when I was young, after school I would attend Hebrew school, five days a week, until I was about 13 or so.

There was a very strong Jewish community [around me as I was growing up] and it wasn’t only defined as a synagogue community but as the broader Jewish community. So, I’m sure in some indirect ways of which I’m unaware there was some influence.

If Rawls and Kant shook you out of utilitarian presuppositions, whence came the growing disaffection with Rawls’ Theory of Justice? Because, moving on to the publication of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, obviously some time in the later Seventies you began to have problems with that. How did your mind change over that period?

Well, part of what I found exciting about Rawls and Kant was not only that they provided a devastating critique of utilitarianism but they, and in particular Rawls, gave eloquent expression to the version of liberalism that I as an American growing up during that period of time more or less subscribed to: the idea of certain fundamental rights, and of equality – that there’s no reason to assume that market outcomes yield a just distribution of income and wealth. These were the basic ideas that informed American political liberalism which I found, broadly speaking, attractive, and certainly the egalitarianism and the idealism of Rawls’ view I found powerful and compelling.

I found myself disagreeing along two dimensions, which were related: the aspiration to neutrality with respect to substantive moral views in politics I found tempting but unsatisfying; and then the idea of the freely-choosing individual self I saw the appeal of, but also questioned. Those aspects of Rawls’ theory pointed up what I came to think were limitations of liberalism as understood and practised in the United States.

As I read Hegel’s critique of Kant I found that it was actually very suggestive, for precisely these issues. Hegel criticised Kant’s conception of morality as being overly abstract and provided a historically situated conception of human agency, of the human subject; and I found this an exciting challenge to Kant and I saw parallel issues at stake in Rawls’ formulation – Rawls, after all, being partly influenced himself by Kant. I saw parallel questions to be raised about Rawls’ version of a Kantian ethic applied to political theory.

Then, the fact that I was studying Aristotle, who provides a very different conception from the modern Kantian/post-Kantian conception of politics, reinforced that line of thinking. So I wrote my dissertation on Rawls’ version of liberalism, and that dissertation became Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.

Which was received how? Rawls was then (and to some extent remains) profoundly influential, mainstream and orthodox, and here is someone questioning some of the very foundations of Rawlsian liberalism. Was it taken to heart as a critique?

Well, by some more than others. It provoked a wide range of reactions, some in agreement, some in strong disagreement. At about the same time, a number of other philosophers were raising similar questions about Kantian and Rawlsian liberalism – Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue came out just before Liberalism and the Limits of Justice did, and Charles Taylor was continuing to write, not only about Hegel but also about the contemporary debates over liberalism and atomism. He and Ronald Dworkin taught at a graduate seminar that I attended on liberalism and atomism, debating just these kinds of issues, so that was part of the experience that shaped my thinking. Michael Walzer a year or two later wrote Spheres of Justice, which from a somewhat different angle raised similar questions about the unsituated self in relation to justice.

So, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice was one among a handful of works that came out in the early Eighties raising some similar and overlapping questions about liberal individualism. This generated what came to be called ‘the liberal-communitarian debate’. The term ‘communitarian’ didn’t quite capture the view that I took myself to be advancing, but it was plausible insofar as I was questioning the idea that we can think about justice and human agency without reference to the particular moral ties that constitute a common life. So, in that respect it’s a perfectly understandable term to have applied to that debate.

Could you say something about why you think that Anglo-American political philosophy, or public philosophy, has been so heavily influenced by the liberalism that we’ve been talking about? Why has Rawls been so profoundly influential?

I think, for two reasons. One of them is that we live in pluralist societies. People are increasingly aware of that fact, and in some respects many of our societies are becoming more intensely pluralistic and diverse, with a great many different conceptions of the good life and, in some cases, of faith. There’s very little agreement, or convergence, on moral and spiritual questions in modern democratic societies, so it’s tempting to seek principles of justice in a framework of rights that can be agreed to without having to argue about people’s particular moral or religious convictions.

It’s an appealing project because it would seem to provide a way of avoiding the contention and the disagreement and the conflict that can arise if people have to base the fundamental framework of their collective lives on one or another particular conception of the good life. It is tempting to seek some such principles, and I think that Rawls has articulated the strongest case for their existence. A Theory of Justice is a magnificent work of philosophy, and one of the finest statements of liberal political philosophy that we have in the English-speaking world, probably since John Stuart Mill. So, there are plenty of good reasons why it should have a wide influence.

I think another reason it has particular appeal in the US and in other market democracies is that the idea of basing justice and law on what individuals freely choose is an idea that’s inspiring in its own right but is also seemingly compatible with the premises of market societies. In many ways, Rawlsian liberalism tries to provide a more egalitarian alternative to laissez-faire, market-oriented versions of liberalism, and yet it’s an alternative that in some ways leaves in place many of the underlying premises of the original. It accepts the idea that justice requires respect for the free choices individuals make and it gives that underlying idea a more egalitarian interpretation by insisting that the free choices we make in markets take place against fair background conditions. But its starting-point is a certain idea of free individual choice that is compatible with many of the deep assumptions of market freedom. And so it seems to offer – and in many ways does offer – a case for a decent welfare state that is nonetheless broadly compatible with the assumptions of a market society.

( Michael Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University)

Michael Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, - See more at: http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2010/05/28/freedom-and-justice#sthash.ILVVjeXY.dpuf

Michael Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, - See more at: http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2010/05/28/freedom-and-justice#sthash.ILVVjeXY.dpuf

- For full interview see at: http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2010/05/28/freedom-and-justice

Church, State and Public Justice

Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views

Edited By: P.C.Kemeny

Authentic Books

Page 254

The book presents the viewpoint of five schools on how matters of Church, State and Public Justice should be dealt with. It has the position of the Catholics, Anabaptist, Principled Pluralist, Classical Separation perspective and Social Justice perspective. After each position is explained, the rest of the schools provide comments and thus readers are given good materials to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each school.

I picked up this book because I wanted some clarification, and I would say I was provided sufficient information. As a student of theology my interest has been primarily on political theology and eschatology. I am quite aware of the already-and-not-yet tension when it comes to the idea of the kingdom of God. My question was when I pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" how much do I let the aspect of 'already' come into play specially in the domain of political thought. When I read the Anabaptist position in the book, presented by the well-known theologian Ron Sider, I could very well identify myself with him at many point. I thought that used to be me! But even before I came to chapter 4 of Ron Sider, I would say I have found my answer through the writing of Clarke E. Cochran, who outlined the Catholic perspective. One commentator pointed out that Ron Sider's position has a weak concept of the State. I agree. At least for me my understanding of Church-State relationship was at some point fuzzy because I had a weak understanding of the theory of a State. After having read more on Moral and Political Philosophy, I began to wonder how Political Philosophy and Political Theology should relate to one another. And I found that the position outlined by the Catholic position provides the most robust and thought through framework on how a Christian church need to relate with the State. This does not mean that I agree with all the detail in the chapter. In fact Dr. Cochran himself says that not all the Catholics have a uniform position on the finer details. 

Dr. Cochran outlines that Catholic church has four features on how Church and State can relate with regard to matters of public justice: 

Cooperation: This refers to the way the church works together with the government on matters regarding fighting poverty, providing international relief etc. 

Challenge: This takes the form of challenging government policy through agitation, lobby etc.  For example, Catholic Americans  may challenge the policy of the US government to invade Iraq. 

Transcendence: This is about seeking to propagate one's religious belief. This sort of thing transcends the mission of the state, but is part and parcel of being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Competition: This is when Catholic run institution like College compete with government funded institution.

The book would be useful for any Christian student of ethics, political science or political theology. In fact, if people of other religious traditions wish to know the kind of thing that Christians believe, and how the beliefs are applied in political institutions this book may shed light.But non-Americans can skip Chapter 2 which basically is an interpretation of how the framers of US Constitution intended to maintain separation between state and the church.

John Raws on Affirmative Action

John Rawls ( 1921-2002), in his book A Theory of Justice, argues for some sort of affirmative action. He  argues that unequal distribution of economic advantage is justified only if it results in benefiting those members who are at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Due to differences in natural contingencies -- talents, physical fitness etc., he says, members of a society will be unequal in their capability to earn money for themselves. Thus, one cannot really say that this natural distribution is just or unjust; they just are. Whether they are really just or unjust depends on how social institutions allocate the fruit of their labour. So, according to Rawls, taxing Bill Gates who is so talented to give to the poor disabled beggar on the street is just.

Rawls would argue that the talents that Bill Gates possesses is not really his doing. And since it's not really his doing, he cannot keep all the fruit of his earning to himself. Justice demands that political institution takes part of his earning and give it to those who are less gifted than Gates. Rawls would also argue something to the effect that Gates being born in the US is not his doing. He he been born in Afghanistan or even five hundred years back, he won't have made such money with Microsoft. The fact that he was born in a favorable place at a favorable time is not really his doing. And so he cannot really keep all his earning to himself! 

Well, I think Rawls has a point. The problematic feature is that Gates did work hard besides being favoured by natural contingencies. So it's difficult to calculate how much percentage is to be attributed to hard work and how much to natural contingency. Even if one grants the fact that the aspiration/drive to work hard is also influenced by the kind of family one is born into, I don't think one can totally take away the credit from Gates for having worked hard.

Rawls was an atheist, and so he gave the kind of argument he gave. But for a Christian like me, one can go further in providing reasons for affirmative action. I believe that God is the creator of the world. He created this world/resources for everybody, not just for those talented ones. Disparity will arise in term of income and earning capability due to various factors. However, there is a moral obligation on the part of the more gifted ones to share with those who are less gifted. The idea of solidarity as God's created being places moral obligation on those who are more gifted. Moreover, in a given setting if certain group of people through certain political measure or economic policy gather more riches for themselves, leaving certain other group of people deprived of their God given resources or their potentiality to gather riches for sustenance, the rights of the some people are deprived; the sharing of God's created resources is not fairly distributed. And so these people are being wronged. Justice demands that their due share which have been taken away from them by introducing political measure or economic principles be given to them. In short, Christian belief introduces the idea of right and moral obligation. Right for the dispossessed and moral obligation on the possessed is what Christian idea of justice would entail. This sort of belief provides additional arguments to what Rawls has argued for.

Awesome Beauty!

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