The Ways of the way of life

How many times have you heard this statement: "Not a religion, but a way of life." Chances are, several times. I first heard this from my dad about Christianity. I've heard this of Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Islam and any number of shamanistic, tribal or animistic religions as well, Hinduism currently topping the number by a wide margin, most often implying that by virtue of it being a way of life it is somehow better to link your lot with it than any other worldview.

Which religion isn't a way of life? After all religions are worldviews and they all expound on the condition of man (sinful, unenlightened, ignorant, fulfilling Karmic law, unfulfilled potential and so on), the ways to change the condition (redemption, self-realization, cycle of births, acquiring wisdom, meditation), ways to live the earthly life (ethics, morals, laws, situational ethics, choosing the least evil), who God is (the Triune God, Allah, Brahman, Impersonal Reality, various deities), purpose of life (devotion to God, self-fulfillment, completion of just earthly duties). They may not all have a holy book but they all have sacred writings (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Upanishads, Buddhist treatises, Guru Granth Sahib), some form of organization (hierarchical, conciliar, congregationalist, loosely bound), key men who have founded or nurtured them (Jesus, Mohammed, Sankara, Buddha).

And so this pithy polemic that they are ways of life is best left unsaid. Indeed Christianity in its earliest days was not known as Christianity but simply as "the Way", clearly referring to the Jesus' definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". But this did not mean simply that it was A Way, but that Jesus himself was The Way.

Hinduism is on trial this week in the Indian state of Orissa. If indeed it is not a religion but a way of life then it is very loosely defined. Is the violence being unleashed on Christians part of this way of life? Most Hindus would disagree though some may disingenuously say that the violence was just the natural response to the slaying of a respected Hindu leader and not normal Hidu behaviour. One must be careful whe one uses this statement. After all the proponents of Hindutva insist that they are being taken for a ride because they are a peace-loving people. History does not prove that exactly, what with the wars among the Hindus before the Muslims invaded India. Indeed the explosive birth of Buddhism in India was precisely in the aftermath of one of the bloodiest battles of the ancient world, Kalinga (ironically enough, in Orissa), fought among Hindus. Besides the long history of discrimnation, reprisals and brutality based on Jati and Varna (known to the world as the Caste System) reduce such notions to nought. And one must ask the question, if indeed Hinduism is a religion of peace, how does one account for the current cycle of violence? Blaming "forced conversions" is a fig leaf for the insecurities that social ills engender in Indian society that contemporary Hindus feel and do not want to acknowledge.

How is a convert forcibly converted? From Wikipedia, "A forced conversion is the conversion to a religion or philosophy under duress, with the threatened consequence of earthly penalties or harm. These consequences range from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death. Typically, such a conversion entails the repudiation of former religious or philosophical convictions".

But these kind of conversions are not the forced conversions alleged by Hindu nationalists against Christians. These are not reprisals for not converting but positive reinforcements (implicit or explicit) for converting. A poor tribal Hindu is in need of a job. Christian social workers and missionaries not only preach the Gospel to him but help him get a job. The local Hindu Nationalist leaders are agitated. They are losing a lower caste Hindu from the ranks of their indentured servants; and they are threatened by the advent of a faith that challenges their supremacy. Besides they see economic progress coming to a convert from whom it had long been denied. They bogey of forced conversions is then raised.

Perhaps a more reasonable question could be asked: Do the missionaries deny the assistance to a poor Hindu that they give a poor Christian convert? If the answer is yes, then shame on the missionaries! God causes his rain to fall on the wicked and the just. How could we then distinguish between two human beings on the basis of their faith, much less their character?

A missionary helps people in need but especially those he comes into close contact with. A new convert has the opportunity to interact much more with him than a non-convert. Why is it so hard to give him the benefit of doubt in such a situation? Besides, even in such a case the response of the nationalist leaders gives their game away. An organized political resistance to such preferential and unjust treatments would have gone a long way, and indeed Hindus have a history of organizing themselves well against social evils. Even in their current response they are organized well, and this could have been applauded but for their evil intent and methods- violence, intimidation and terror.

The current spate of violence is being understood among the nationalist circles as the response to the killing of Swami Lakshmanananda. The mob has its own twisted notions of justice. But keep in mind that the government, the police and the nationalist leaders themselves have nothing to say or do to contain the violence. Even the questions being raised in the Orissa state assembly seek to understand from the incumbent party why Hindus are not being protected. There is no mention of the Christians who are being slaughtered in the aftermath. Have the lawmakers forgotten to serve the people who are in most need? Every Christian leader has unequivocally condemned the killing of the swami, burying for the moment their deep grievances about his actions against them. Is there noone among the Hindu leaders to shed a tear for the victims of the nationalist rabble? While the more bloody Gujarat riots are recalled to mind, it is important to know that the evidence for implicating leaders is not so much evidence for instigating the rabble but that for standing by and doing nothing.

It is time to ask a basic question: if Hinduism is indeed a way of life, then whose way of life is it? Will the real Hindu please stand up? Is he the face of the mob in Orissa? Or the complex avatar, Ram, often called the perfect man worthy of emulation (Maryada Purush)? In both cases, the answers raise more doubts than solutions, and present that ancient way of life as one not worth following.

The Other Extreme

My last post clearly pointed out China's Olympic ambitions to be driven top down and not bottom up or at a grassroots level. Yet the Western media that intends to rain on China's parade goes to such an extreme it is embarrassing to agree with them on any point they make about this. The Telegraph carries this report on Liu Xiang, about the apparently brutal treatment he has received from the Chinese government in his training; and that the whole thing is pretense by the Chinese to establish national supremacy in sports. It goes on to say that "he was sent to his Olympic death by a regime that knew his injuries were terminal. " The readers' comments also betray this feeling.

It's time to ask a simple question: granted, the Chinese government hothouses its athletes. The West doesn't; rather Western athletes do well out of their initiative and then the Olympic committee gives them additional facilities to improve their skill. This is more humane.

However the media would have us believe that the Chinese athletes are running at the barrel of a gun. Is it possible for a sportsperson to achieve a medal in such a way? The Chinese gymnasts, underage or not, clearly loved their craft. Noone can force talent with intimidation. And any joy of sports will disappear with intimidation.

The other complaint that most people have is: the Chinese athletes are handpicked from kindergarten, and the rest of China is sports-unaware. It is true that the rest of China does not practise Western gymnastics or artistic diving which are truly Western sports. But every culture has its own games- India has kabbaddi and kho-kho, China has its own. These are not Olympic sports; so China, in its desire to dominate an event accepted rightly or wrongly as the showpiece of global athleticism, focuses on a few people to excel in these sports.

The critics ask how this benefits the rest of China. We do not know yet but we can guess. In the US, there are now more people out running or riding a bike because they are inspired by the Olympics. The ad on NBC urges them that it is time to at least 'begin'. Similarly China (and of course India though we haven't realized it) needs sporting heroes. Especially local heroes that people can look up to and feel inspired to exercise. The West does this more democractically. China does this by central planning.

How successful will this be? We do not know. Going by the experience of the erstwhile USSR, not much. After the communist government collapsed, Russian sports, especially Olympic sports, shrank to become a shadow of its former self. The medals had not inspired people enough to excel. Still they are a major sporting nation. And China seems to be the boldest of them all- they are treading grounds which the USSR or the old Eastern bloc never did. Hopefully this will spread inspiration among the people and the Chinese government will then find it easier to pick athletes who have come up from among the ranks of the common people.

While putting this in perspective, that the West hasn't done too badly, given its democracy and the level of health among its people, the media should quit whining about Chinese success and just urge its readers to get out there and play.

Rediscovering Our Souls

'America discovers its soul again', said the headline. It was interesting. I saw the headline on Google news and I was skeptical, coming as it did from the website of Variety. I decided to check it out and sure enough, it disappointed. It was about Isaac Hayes, the controversial musician whose 'soul' hits in the seventies helped define the genre. Hayes passed away two days ago. Clearly the death of a well-known artist is something to write about, the fans and the curious rightly express their sorrow on the comment forms. But something about that title piqued my interest and let me down as well.

What is the soul of a nation and when does it discover it? In India I have sat through lectures in schools, speeches and meetings in public fora that talked about India's soul- invariably it was connected with the legacy of India's past, when great sages wrote glorious epics, ethical treatises; mathematicians, kings and warriors were also saints. During these discussions it was implied that in our struggle for independence from Britain this soul was rediscovered to an extend and through the sacrifices made by a few, it was bared to the public to view and wonder and admire. In the wars we fought against Pakistan and China too, some of this soul was rediscovered. It is true that adversity brings about heroism and we relate the heroism to our ideals, especially those found in our past.

How about the United States? Here is a nation that strives to preserve its short history as a nation in public memory. In incredible contrast to India which does not record its culture, accomplishments or history adequately, the Americans have built monuments and museums in every major city to document and present well their history-prehistoric, colonial, national, anthropological, social, technological, political, religious and other history. The US has the most widespread, biggest and well-maintained public library system I have seen. Everywhere you go you see reminders of how Americans defined the concept of America by sheer individual grit, enterprise, discipline and romance. The moon shot, the wars, the music, the sports...

China- a nation that drives the agenda of defining its soul from top down. In contradistinction to the US, this is a nation that does not necessarily have its people defining the concept of China for themselves; but the Chinese government actively promotes this- and from what we see it has achieved much more success than other such experiments elsewhere, like the erstwhile USSR or Eastern Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Olympics. At the time of this writing, China leads the medals table with 9 golds versus 3 US golds and 4 South Korean ones. The documentaries aired about the 16-year old gymnasts who perform incredible feats on the uneven bars reveal China's astonishing desire to excel and outcompete other nations in sports. The athletes trained in human hothouses from kindergarten for the sole purpose of winning Olympic gold medals turn out to be world-beaters, even as 98 percent (as a recent Guardian report suggested) of the population remains indifferent to actually participating sports, compared to academic achievement.

Wherein lies the soul? What makes Americans and America? What makes me an Indian? Or the Chinese? We each struggle to define ourselves in the light of our circumstances and our dreams. Who can deny that it is our dreams that frame our lives? Human desire and passion are stronger than that of nations. The more we are true to ourselves and God the more we are free to be what He wants us to be. As Solzhenitsyn said, a single word of truth can outweigh the whole world.

Postscript on Aug 12: By now it is commonly known that the little girl who sang 'Ode to the Motherland' in the Olympic opening ceremony was lipsynching to another girl who remained in the background because she was considered 'not cute enough'. Another example of driving the agenda from top down. And sure enough, the Western press has pounced on it, and rightly so. So often I feel that China has enough power economically, culturally and politically to create a unique position for itself in the world. All too often it seems they are desperately trying to look good in Western eyes. They are playing the game the way of the West. China's own game should have been good enough. The arguments the Chinese leaders gave in defense of the Olympic lipsynching event are eye-opening, as found here in the New York Times

Do Svidaniye, Aleksandr Isayevich

Goodbye and Godspeed, prophet for our times.

As tributes to Alexander Solzhenitsyn from great leaders and admirers resound and fade in the wake of his death yesterday, one looks back at a life of honesty and reflects on his insights that a world in confusion today could benefit from. Reclusive and reluctant to give interviews, the man who has been described as the greatest writer of the 20th century, had this wonderful conversation with the German magazine 'Spiegel'. Original link here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,496003,00.html

He was critical of the way in which the erstwhile Soviet Union collapsed and privatized its key industries, referring to Yeltsin's rush to sell them out to oligarchs as a "fire sale of Russia's national patrimony". He refers to Gorbachev's administration as politically naive in that their movement away from communism was not so much good governance as a thoughtless renunciation of power, fuelled in conviction by admiration from the West. After initial criticism of Vladimir Putin, he was appreciative of him and two grew closer as Putin consolidated the Russian leadership and began to engage the West on Russian terms.

Solzhenitsyn was critical of the US war in Iraq (or its stated objectives, we don't know for sure), and stated that democracy cannot be imposed from outside. This was his point of reasoning in the Russian context, that the Bolshevik revolution was not something Russian, rather it was (as any Communist movement is) a foreign system of life and governance that seeks to eliminate cultures and the shared meanings of the past.

It is notable that the eulogies that are pouring in scarcely mention his faith. Solzhenitsyn who was reluctant to discuss his faith in great detail mentions it in the above interview as the "foundation and support" of his life. He viewed both Communism as well as Western liberal democracy and capitalism as being divergences from two thousand years of Christian teachings on honour, righteousness and sacrifice. He himself turned from being a fire-breathing young communist to being a deeply rooted Russian Orthodox Christian during his internment in the Gulag system. The difference between him and what the media makes him out to be (without his faith) is the difference between existentialism and Christianity.

When the Gulag Archipelago was published, it created a sensation in the West and the USSR, where it was circulated underground. Its meticulous research, numerous first-hand testimonies and the history of the origins of the Gulag prison system left no room for the Soviet leadership to manouevre, to explain away the atrocities. The West laid out a red carpet welcome for him, but did not expect the scathing criticism it received from him in his Harvard Commencement Address on its pursuit of pleasure as being antithetical to the ideals of Western civilization, Christianity and the purpose of democracy. In an earlier interview, he says, "Man has set for himself the goal of conquering the world but in the processes loses his soul. That which is called humanism, but what would be more correctly called irreligious anthropocentrism, cannot yield answers to the most essential questions of our life."

He continues to indict both capitalism and communism as being far from God. "Communist propaganda would sometimes include statements such as "we include almost all the commandments of the Gospel in our ideology". The difference is that the Gospel asks all this to be achieved through love, through self-limitation, but socialism only uses coercion. This is one point. Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive. "

A Malayalam movie 'Neyththuukaran' some years ago featured a scene in which two adolescent grandkids of a Communist Party leader are shown caught up in the fantasy of the movie Titanic in the backdrop of their ailing grandad and the shocking (to him alone) news of veteran Communist EMS Namboodirippad's death. Sponsored by the Communists, this is meant to expose the shallowness of the liberal West-influenced, pleasure-seeking lifestyle that Indian youth espouse today. Sadly it misses the fact that communism in Kerala, as elsewhere, has failed the ideal (if ever there was one) of a society which knows no economic discrimination. Neil Postman's book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' compares George Orwell's authoritarian world of 1984 to Aldous Huxley's pleasure-seeking scenario in the Brave New World. He writes:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

He then states that his book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right. Solzhenitsyn's words to us concerning both these worlds, having lived in them, toll like the proverbial bell. We ignore his jeremiads today in the West, in India, in China, to our peril.

Solzhenitsyn believed and stated that democracy as practised in the West was not the basis for freedom. In his Harvard address, titled 'A World Split Apart', he mentioned: "In early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice."

It's important to listen to hs thoughts on death: "No, I am not afraid of death any more. When I was young the early death of my father cast a shadow over me -- he died at the age of 27 -- and I was afraid to die before all my literary plans came true. But between 30 and 40 years of age my attitude to death became quite calm and balanced. I feel it is a natural, but no means the final, milestone of one’s existence."

Besides his words of woe to the miserable tyranny and promiscuous license that the different world governance systems have devised, he reflects on his own fallibility in the Archipelago: "If my life had turned out differently, might I myself not have become just such an executioner?" and "If only it was so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good from evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of their own heart?"

There is so much we need to learn. Aleksandr Isayevich was one of those who help us to see the truth clearly and has lived through the oppression of those who tried to kill it. Have we been in greater need of such men?