The Art of Selfish Obfuscation

I came across this article in the conservative periodical, the Weekly Standard. The article makes the argument that while the inalienable rights as defined in the Constitution as the freedom to worship, free speech, presumption of innocence until proof of guilt and so on are natural and does not require human intervention to create them. On the other hand rights which are pushed by the political Left, such as the right to a job, right to income, right to the best available healthcare, etc are paid for by human blood, sweat and tears, and therefore need to be compensated. The article lauds the Left for having the best intentions, but portrays them as being naive in imagining that any of these provisions could or should be provided free by some of us who pay taxes. It goes on to explore the failings of many welfare states.

I emailed the author with the following note:

This is a good argument. I'm a centrist and hold no political ideology to be above moral absolutes. I have a gripe about this though.

Although the Left packages many goods as rights I don't believe they think these are inalienable rights. Rather, they think these are collective responsibilities. The Jeffersonian ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not have been inherently selfish, because it was drafted by people who wanted these things for their countrymen and not simply for themselves; but it has been understood in a narrow sense of "what is in this for me" by contemporary Americans. We only think of rights as being sacrosanct, and not of responsibilities. Or, some responsibilities. Our successive governments have not hesitated to rush arms and soldiers to foreign countries when there was no threat to the US from those countries- all at the cost of the taxpayers. We regard this as a responsibility. Somehow we do not think of taking care of the elderly and the sick among us as being a collective responsibility. There are other things you mentioned which do not merit such collective pooling of resources. But atrophy, disease, old age and intensive care are among the kindnesses a humane society cannot do without. The pursuit of happiness precisely this- to build such a community of responsible people. Without this we would simply become greedy and selfish, all the while justifying it with ideology and the oft-repeated excuse that there is no free lunch. There isn't, of course, but no responsibility is painless; and a society that cannot bear any pain to do something good is a society that is in decline.

I wonder if the distinction between the Left and the Right is not so much naivete or unkindness on either part as the article seems to imply, but a wrong understanding of our responsibilities and others' rights. Fighting someone else's war even on serious grounds presents moral dilemmas that noone should think of war as being a good choice under any extenuating circumstances. It is wrong, period. As wrong as it is to justify the Holocaust because as a result the Jewish people got a homeland or to justify the horrors of the British Raj because Indians received the benefits of the English language, law and a democratic government. These are excuses to justify our prejudices or selfish interests. I'm not saying that we should never fight wars- simply that even when we have no choice in the matter, we are doing something wrong. And our soldiers whom we pray for are killing people daily, which is wrong. It takes a toll on them for good reason. If it didn't we should be afraid, that somehow we have become numb to the guilt in our consciences that was intended by God to turn to Him.

To withhold care from the aged or infirm because of the financial strain on taxpayers would be irresponsible and simply adding to the me-first mentality that we have come to prize in our super-private society.

Where's the Love, Arundhati?

In the wake of the Maoists' killing of 75 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in India, so many thoughts come to mind. What makes the difference between the shrill desperate voices of rebels and the powerful redemptive works of people like Paul Farmer and organizations like the International Justice Mission?

Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.

A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.

A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.

I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.

Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.

Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?

Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.

One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?

The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.

The Question of Liberation Theology

It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.

There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.

Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.

Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.

You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).

To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.

It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?

In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:

"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."

Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).

If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?

If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.

Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.

As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.

Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.

In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.

A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.

The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.

The Demographic Myths of Our Self-Centered Age

The term 'demographic-economic paradox' refers to the inverse relationship between economic progress and birth rates. Education and wealth go up at the cost of birth rates. This has been observed in almost all developed and developing nations. Although countries like China and India have government sposnsored programs to restrict their populations, unbiased population metrics from the Western countries and industrialized Asian nations like Japan and South Korea confirm this.

In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.

After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.

The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.

India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.

Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.

Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.

As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.

This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.

If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.

Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.

It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.

Intellectual Friends and Our Scandal of Faith

In CS Lewis' satirical book, 'The Screwtape Letters', the senior devil Screwtape writes to his stalwart nephew Wormwood, who is focusing his energies on a person, the "Patient", to keep him away from God, refereed to by Screwtape as the "Enemy". The tenth letter, reproduced here, is a gem:

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly sceptical about everything in the world. I gather they ore even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party is those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realise it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult.

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack.

The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realises this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life.

Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical".

Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.

In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.

Dawkins on Haiti and Robertson- At Long Last

Ah, here it is, the long aawited piece on Christiaanity and Haiti by Richard Dawkins. Over ht past past many months, talking to agnostics, I've understood that no amount of reasoning is sufficient reasoning for the existence of God. A friend and relative who I have chewed the fat over this one issue admitted as much a month ago. He said even if there was a good indication of 'design' existing in the universe, if every avenue of scientific discovery was covered by Biblical history, explanation , theology and logic, he would still look for a reason to disbelieve rathern than believe. He strongly affirmed this as being objective, while I let him know that this was also a form of prejudice rather than true objectivity.

I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.

You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.

Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.

The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:

1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!

Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?

This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.

Syriana- A Late Review

I've had an overdose of political and espionage thrillers, thanks to Netflix's online streaming into our TV. I hadn't watched the 2005 landmark Syriana before, but I did a few minutes ago; and as usual I emerged with a feeling of having learned little.

Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.

I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.

But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.

Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?

So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.

What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.

Apology for Pat Robertson

I didn't want to add yet another blog article on Pat Robertson's insensitive and illogical comment on Haiti suffering because of its 'pact with the devil'. God's soverignity is absolute- and so is His love for all peoples, including Haitians. Don Wallace at the Parchment and Pen blog says it articulately.

As the author notes, many people see Robertson as the voice of Christians in this country. He goes on to say for the record that Robertson does not speak for him- and let me add for the record- nor does he speak for me or the millions of Christians who feel only pain for Haiti- and try to atone for it with their resources, prayers and time.

Gay Penguins and Our Response

A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.

Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.

As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.

In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.

But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.

Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.

Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?

I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?

In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.

An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:

As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.

Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:

First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.

Then he goes on to give a little room:

At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.

Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).

I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?

Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!

If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!

No Purity of Purpose in Terrorism

[An edited version of this article was published first in Blogcritics.com]

The LTTE chief Prabhakaran's death in Sr Lanka made headlines yesterday and brought the 35-year old Sri Lankan civil war to an end. Several thousands of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been killed in this war, a nation has been divided, wounded and extremist elements allowed to flourish. India has lost over 1000 of its soldiers in the peacekeeping force of the late Eighties as well as a former prime minister to the suicide bombing tactics employed by the LTTE.

A few years ago this prime minister's daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, visited one of the killers, Nalini who is now in an Indian jail. Despite the support that LTTE has enjoyed from some Tamil politicians, the news of Prabhakaran's death seems to have caused nary a ripple in Tamil Nadu, though security analyst B Raman warns us that it is too early to be complacent. It seems now that the wounds (at least in India) are being painfully and slowly healed. For how long, noone is sure.

A cursory look into the twists and turns in this civil war brings out the worst in people. You hear opinions such as 'Sinhalese are congenitally racist, 'Tamils are congentially racist', 'Christians created all the problems by evangelizing the Hindu Tamil community', 'the Hindu Tamils are to be blamed for their identification as Tamils and not Sri Lankans', 'the British are to be blamed for dividing the country', 'the Buddhists wanted to institutionalize their beliefs and culture', and so on. There are enough instances in this nation's history to illustrate these points.

Granted that many factors contributed to the civil war, what stands out most clearly is that the best of intentions cannot sustain a terrorist undertaking. The LTTE had decimated many other Tamil nationalistic and militant outfits, engaged in a reign of internal terror, used women and child warriors and suicide bombers, committed horrifying human rights abuses, targeted and abducted many civilians, engaged in piracy, arms and drugs smuggling and carved out a relationship with the grand daddy of them all, al Qaeda. A look into history may even justify the origin of a movement to represent Tamils equitably in the xenophobic and exclusionary Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan government. But a militia like this was only bound to degenerate. There is no purity of purpose in terrorism. And thus the oft-repeated maxim that'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is wrong. The LTTE was organized like a military, but it committed abuses that are in contradiction of the principles of nation-to-nation armed conflicts. Much less do we need to say about the allegedly 'stateless' entities in South Asia that practice terror.

Today the process of healing between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka is yet to begin in earnest. Hopefully the end of the war will mean an exploration into the beginning of hostility and an equitable solution in the democratic process.

Dubious Witness in a Skeptical World

Unlike most of my friends in America, my evangelical, Bible-believing, pro-life, pro-family Christian friends in India are not fully politically conservative in the American sense. And I applaud their ability to be objective in their thinking, separating the politically expedient promises from real ones, considering their pro-life views to be inclusive of all people, including the aged, the imprisoned, and of course the unborn. But something that struck me as I talked to some of them was that they seemed, as many are apt to do, to exclude from true faith those Christian leaders who failed their ideal.

I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?

I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."

As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.


Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:

1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.

If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:

1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?

Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.

The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.

Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.

A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."

Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.

The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.

These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.

And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.

Satyam's Great Fall

Satyam CEO's revelations on inflated cash have rocked the bottom of the already deflated stock indices in India. Some say that India's outsourcing industry itself will now be viewed with suspicion. While I do not think it will happen (what with the American financial institutions in trouble due to reckless lending and the double whammy from Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme still smarting, I do not thinkg the offshore outsourcing industry will be singled out as a miscreant), I do think that such events are serious blows to our credibility as a world-beating player in IT services. They come at a diificult time and any merger or acquisition that will see Satyam become part of another company will undermine the true value that Satyam has commendably built into itself- in terms of its delivery processes and strength in Enterprise Application Services.

On online forums, Indians are reacting with customary hyperbole, "Raju is worse than Kasab (the captured Pakistani terrorist from the Mumbai siege):, says one. Another asks, "Who is the idiot who is running their Finance department?"

Raju released a letter to the board of Satym and the SEBI chairman yesterday. A paragraph in the letter caught my attention:

The gap in the balance sheet has arisen purely on account of inflated profits over a period of last several years (limited only to Satyam standalone, books of subsidiaries reflecting true performance). What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of the company operations grew significantly (annualized revenue run rate of Rs 11,276 crore in the September quarter, 2008 and official reserves of Rs 8.392 crore). The differential in the real profits and the one reflected in the books was further accentuated by the fact that the company had to carry additional resources and assets to justify higher level of operations – thereby significantly increasing the costs.

While ethical standards in companies like Wipro and Infosys are considered to be high by the general public (and their managements have been conservative and transparent to strengthen this impression), this is a scenario that could unfold in any organization. If there is a small differential in the cash flow as reflected by the books and appears in reality, will a CEO contradict his published, audited books and go public with this discrepancy? Will that not affect the impression of the company in the minds of its investors, customers, employees and other stakeholders. In Raju's case he just postponed the problem until it grew bigger and dominated the company itself. If he had gone public when this problem first started, will it have taken a beating? It may well have, and that is what a CEO needs to commit in his/her mind. Wipro's ethical guidelines state that "anything grey is black", meaning that whatever the price, the company will stay on the right side of the law and ethics. Will this be put to practice in a situation like Satyam's?

I'm firm in my view that the laws of the land must take their course in prosecuting Mr. Raju and any others involved. But the fact is, as Solzhenitsyn said, "the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man."

Deafening Silence in Mumbai

In the aftermath of last week's carnage in Mumbai, the global media are exhibiting their usual callousness in reporting on the issue. There are some improvements: most (with some glaring exceptions) of the major newspapers are referring to the event as an act of terror and the perpetrators as terrorists. Except some who still keep the flag flying, they have given up on the term 'militants' in referring to those who kill civilians and destroy societies in India. This was not the case 5 years ago when a ragtag bunch of terrorists drove into the campus of the Parliament House in New Delhi, their car laden with explosives.

CNN covered the event consistently- which was another exception for the media and especially for CNN. Besides these there is barely anything that I can view without revulsion in Western media reportage on this event.

The headlines are quick to judge, condemn and at the least 'tut, tut'. This article in 'The Week' magazine talks about some of them. They are urging India to let the "new" Pakistani government cooperate with Indians, asking India and Pakistan to do some "non-reacting", noting that India as usual is accusing Pakistan prematurely and without evidence, rebuking India for fomenting religious tensions and creating "disenfranchised" Muslim youth, showing puzzlement why India would continue to gnaw at Pakistan's heels when the Pakistani government clearly said they were not involved in the event and showed their cooperative side by sending their spy chief to India to talk to the government. Others are talking of how this will affect the way foreign investors look at India's business climate, thereby inflicting a heavy wound on the economy. Some others are deriding (sic) India's handling of the situation. Others are claiming that this was an event perpetrated by Hindu extremists, notwithstanding the growing mountain of evidence as to the orchestrators of the act. All of them are asking India to begin dialogue on the Kashmir issue, to open it up to the US and other nations to solve multilaterally and to ensure that the Muslim community which is by and large economically and societally backward and undereducated, is given focus and care in being able to redeem itself. Some of the more honest ones speculate that this will divert Pakistan's attention to engaging India's anger when it should be focused on the Afghanistan border. After all that is more important than subcontinental tragedies that will inevitably be forgotten in a few weeks.

It is events like this that open one's eyes to the agenda, prejudices and stubbornness that characterize Western political minds when it comes to India. As Samuel Huntington observed in 'The Clash of Civilizations', India is the only major country that is isolated, alone and culturally set apart from the world. India has no true friend. The closes of its allies, Israel and the US, are proving to be opportunists as India has always suspected them to be. The most puzzling question is why India has not been as hardnosed and decisive as China has been in pursuing a tough, self-centered, independent foreign policy.

The other remarkable observation one could make (this is no surprise though, having been repeated ad nauseam in the past) is the alactrity with which Pakistan has removed itself from suspecting eyes. The Pakistani government is new, ostensibly helping the US find the last stalwarts of the Al Qaeda hiding in the Afghan border, and has washed its hand off the responsibility. It is a victim of homegrown terror and the media argue therefore that it must be trusted implicitly by India, never mind that the legilative branch of the government has no connection to the Executive, especially the military; and never mind the calls and emails of the terrorists traced back to Pakistan; and certainly not the confessions of the captured terrorist that he had trained in Pakistan with the terrorist group LeT to fight his dirty war. Some Pakistani journalists are making the case they have always attempted to make- that the solution to all of this is for India to clean up its own backyard. Granted that India has many societal problems, but how convenient to suggest that if only India started behaving, perhaps giving away Kashmir among other things, it would all be solved. Almost all these articles call for US intervention to investigate the cause. Clearly they are dissatisfied with the evidence that is coming out of India's cops interrogating the captured terrorist and the email/phone conversations traced to Pakistan from the terrorists' satellite phone, the contact names of LeT leaders on those phones and so on. And they seem to sincerely believe that India should disbelieve its own police force and trust the US to come up with a plausible explanation for the tragedy, which of course, must exonerate Pakistan.

The LeT had of course named former president Musharraf as its honorary head prior to 9/11. This was hastily removed later. Reports of the LeT and the ISI, Pakistan's spy agency being almost interchangable, are also of course old news and therefore to be conveniently forgotten. We must trust the Pakistani claims that the LeT has somehow fallen from grace and is now an enemy to Pakistan. the connections with the ISI and deeply rooted common individual elements in these two organizations must not be relevant any more, for whatever reason.

For any media eyewash in the US, this issue has to take the cake o nbeing the most blatant. Their deafening silence in speaking out what is the obvious truth is telling. The US newspapers claim that India and Pakistan "mistrust" each other. This patronizing psycho-babble clearly muddles American minds. To India and Indians this will remain a deeply personal matter, and will only serve to further convict them of US opportunism. There may be no permanent friends in politics, but it will serve India well to remember that there are no friends at all in politics, only situations that they can manipulate. Machiavelli would be proud then, never mid Gandhi.

Truth without Grace

Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.

In this column she makes this great point (among several others):

When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.

As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.

Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.

Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.

When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.

From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.

I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.

None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.

But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.

In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).

The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.

Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:

Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.

Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.

As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.

Thoughts on the Morality of War, Justice, Violence and Forgiveness

A friend recently brought up the question of war as understood by Christianity. Is a war ever just? Is fighting in a war ever justified? Would Jesus have been a pacifist? My friend took the view that as it is possible to interpret any religion so broadly as to seek to justify completely divergent views, religion should not matter in public discourse involving politics, law, foreign policy, state policy, et al.

There are many dimensions to this question. Let's try to think broadly over some of these:

1. War is a characteristic of the fallen world. It takes human lives, often the lives of innocent people. Is it ever justified?

2. Wars happen in countries which Christians call their home and love dearly. But is a Christian justified in fighting a war?

3. Even if a country declares war for a presumably just cause, wars inevitably create sin in the lives of Christian soldiers fighting them: they foster a hateful attitude towards the enemy, they create loyalties to the state rather than God (even if the state's intentions are presumably aligned with God's), they enable soldiers to kill and thus get used to talking human lives- and this makes for a conscience that will trouble the toughest minds, they coarsen men by their very nature of violence, as well as by the nature of most militaries in the world- the rowdy company, the bawdy jokes, the question R&R practices, and so on. In the light of this, are the armed services a career option for a Christian?

4. Even if a country declares war for a presumably just cause, all actions in a war by any country cannot be justified. It is safe to assume that every country that has fought a war has had to revert to dubious measures to win battles. If a Christian is compelled to go into the armed services, he/she cannot desert the services with honour. But in the light of the above dubious situations, how could he/she remain in the services?

5. War fosters military spending, fueling further wars. It creates, as is in plentiful evidence today, an industry that develops lethal weapons and profits by it- it is in the interests of this industry to create wars or rumours of war and profit thereby. Why should a nation encourage this at all?

You see, five questions. And we've only just begun. The question of Go/No-Go decisions on fighting wars based on a moral understanding is as old as the very first act of aggression, possibly that of Cain upon Abel.

On April 20, 1795, James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US Constitution and fourth President of the United States, wrote,

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . . "

Madison covers almost all these questions and concludes that war is to be most dreaded of all enemies to public liberty.l

A few months ago, I had written a review of the book 'Beyond Opinion' on this blog. In it, in the chapter titled “Postmodern Challenges to the Bible,” Amy Orr-Ewing writes that historically, Christians have taken four options as they understand war, retaliation, justice, and violence:

1. THOROUGHGOING MILITARISM: Any war, anytime, anyplace, and for any cause is just. Christians could work as mercenaries.
2. SELECTIVE MILITARISM: Only war that the state declares is just. Christians could serve as soldiers in their nation's armed forces.
3. SELECTIVE PACIFISM: Only war with which the individual agrees is just. Christians could volunteer to serve in their nation's armed forces for a particular conflict.
4. THOROUGHGOING PACIFISM: No war anytime, anyplace, or for any cause is just. No Christian should ever serve in the armed forces.

Orr-Ewing goes on to ask which of these positions was reflective of the church in its first three centuries of existence? If I remember right, I think Amy mentioned that the early church was inclined towards Option 3- Selective Pacifism. What then may have happened to those who were serving in the Roman army and were Christians? We do not know- they may or may not have quit. In today's world, in most countries, Christians are inclined towards Option 2. This holds true especially in America, as the US sees itself as a city set on a hill- at least many Christians in the US do, and understand that metaphor as being a fundamentally Christian nation.

A cursory reading of the history of wars and rebellions that the US has been directly or indirectly involved in will cast doubts on whether Option 2 is relevant any more in the US. The Amish people of course have always been thoroughgoing pacifists, but then the community's stance on war as its stance on many other issues is a mere blip in American Christian public life.

The four options Amy gives have been discussed onother blogs. Here is a blog that sets out the following explanation:

Before Constantine, the church’s response was entirely as pacifist that allowed Christians converts to stay in the army. Government was seen as the great beast of Revelation 13.

It was not until the time of Augustine (354-430 AD) that “just war theory” began to be articulated as he faced the Donatist controversy. “The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution of Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305)” (Wikipedia).

It was Augustine who applied Paul’s teachings in Romans 13 to those living under Christian ruling authorities.

If the early Christians were pacifist but were allowed to stay in the army, there are more questions that need to be faced squarely. Did these Christians fight wars? It would seem logical to believe that they did. Rome was an empire after all, and constantly deploying armies to quell unrest and hold out against the Huns who later laid siege to Jerusalem in AD 70.

The above blog also gives these broad ideas:

1. Atheist ideologies have led to more deaths and wars in the 20th century than in the previous centuries “wars of religion” combined.

2. War in the Old Testament is always limited in scope. See Deuteronomy 20 and 1 Samuel 15.

3. God’s judgment on rulers and nations stands today as well. We cannot trust in our military might. We must give God permission to go before us, and indeed He does.

4. Jesus never gave approval to violence. His ministry challenged the allegiances of every person. His teachings did not only apply to the “religious side” or “private world” of his hearers.

Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
Matthew 22:21 “Give to Caesar what is Caesar”
Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place”
John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world”
John 19:11 “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above”
1 Peter 2:21 “To this you were called . . . “

Let us try to answer our questions. These are what seem probable to me; I'm not concluding on these bases for good.

Answer 1. The only argument for war that could exist is the argument from choosing a lesser evil. Jesus asked us to turn the other cheek. This holds true for an individual. Does it hold true when you are protecting someone else's life? If a marauder came into your house and threatened your daughter's life, is it wrong to defend yourself with violence? This argument points to the fallenness of the world in whcih the Christian needs to live, despite his having "died" to the world in Christ. The only example of Jesus physically fighting injustice is of course that of his driving out the money changers and the merchants from the temple. Although Peter's use of a sword at Jesus' arrest was rebuked by our Lord, Jesus still tolerated his carrying out a lethal weapon like the sword. From these examples, it would seem that there may be situations in which a "just war" may be demanded of leaders in power.

Answer 2. If war is an option at all, then a Christian who has validated his reasons with the Bible is justified in fighting a war that he believes is for a just cause. He may be deluded, but judging by his convictions, he is justified. Thus Amy's Option 2 would seem to be right choice for a Christian.

Answer 3. Every military fosters a dark environment and this is to be considered seriously by Christians. I guess the same is true for many other environments, like secular college campuses; but the armed forces create an environment of looser sexual morals and a hardened view of battle.

Answer 4. It is true that no war has been completely clean. But this is equally true of every work situation. The Christian is faced with both individual and corporate choices that go against her convictions. The only answer to this is that the Lord intends for us to do the right things, nothing less. We often fail because we are afraid to pay the price. I have often failed inmy work situations because I was cowardly enough to evade the consequences. I do no think that this could be a reason for a Christian not to fight a just war.

Answer 5. Yes, wars often are not simply responses, and if they are they do not remain that way for long. They engender more wars, more wasteful public spending, create a defense industry that in turn promotes wars. War is a monster that feeds on itself and creates worse progeny. A good leader who declares a just war can easily turn into a monster whose legacy involves perpetuating wars, creating new enemies and laying waste to public finances.

I have another point to add. In our brief time in Dallas, TX in 2005, our church paused to remember 9/11 on its anniversary. We prayed that those who perpetrated the events may be brought to justice, but we also prayed that they would receive mercy from the Lord and would come to know Him and confess Him as their Saviour. This paradox of justice and forgiveness is Biblical- and only Biblical. We do not seek to stifle one to prosper the other. A Christian serving in the amred forces would do well to remember that, although in such an environment it is far easier to hate than to love your enemies.

I would happy to receive any comments on this article.

An Orissa in Afghanistan

The Taliban in Afghanistan, as the saffron brigade in India, kills a British aid worker because she was "spreading Christianity". Here is the news from IHT. It is a sign of the times that the popular sentiment in the West, though critical of the killers, is still indifference or an attitude that Christians should simply not tell anyone else about their faith. As for Asia, it is losing grips with reality and logic in that they attempt to kill the messenger when they cannot kill the message- and seek to justify these killings under the same sentiment expressed by indifferent Westerners. How long will we tolerate intolerance like this? We are eager to root out perceived intolerance in the form of evangelization, but we justify the brutishness of these cultures by our confused logic.

It is no surprise for a Christian, but familiar ground through history, and one accurately foretold by Jesus:

Luke 21:12- 19
"... they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."

Voices from Orissa

These are excerpts from newspapers from around the world with reports of the anti-Christian pogroms happening now in Orissa. It is incredible to see the responses of educated young Indian Hindus to these articles, many blaming forced conversions (which are alleged inducements given to the converts, such as food, education, healthcare, jobs and so on). Many of these comments justify the killings and the rapes as simply the only way to "reconvert" people to Hinduism.

To add perspective, I have included an astounding article from Shashi Tharoor, which while stating that the allegation of forced Christian conversions are supported only by anecdotal evidence (from dubious sources: addition mine), holds the killing and the killers unjustifiable even if those allegations were to be proved right.

In my view, a minority of Christian missionaries have indeed been aggressive and dismissive of Indian culture, Hindu deities and beliefs in their sharing the faith. None of that deserves such merciless treatment. Even if one were to claim that the killers were uneducated tribals and the trigger was the missionary denigration of their faith, India's shame is that the leaders, the cognoscenti, the politicians, the police, the courts, the people, the religious leaders, et al who have the power to change things... stood by and did NOTHING. What is their excuse?

Besides, unlike what Mr. Subhash Chauhan says (in the NYT article below), it is naiveté to assume that a sustained, month-long mass movement could arise out of spontaneous anger- especially when you consider that anti-Christian violence is nothing new in this region. As before in Gujarat and much before in 1984 when in the wake of Indira Gandhi's assassination, the anti-Sikh pogroms were aided and abetted by the Congress Party (leading to Rajiv Gandhi's infamous comment that when a large tree falls the earth trembles), a large scale pogrom like this could happen precisely because it was planned and executed by a statewide, powerful body which had a vested interest in killing Christians. If one could point to the swami Laxmanananda Saraswati's murder as having been carefully planned by a powerful body, how much more planned was an operation that rendered at least 100 people dead and 10000 displaced?

Articles from the BBC:

The Strange Case of Parikkit Nayak

I was told of a man named Parikkit Nayak, who escaped from the initial surge of violence. Two days later as he tried to flee from his village with his wife and two children, he was caught by a local mob.

They tied a rope around his neck and dragged him along the ground for 400m (1,312ft). Bruised and battered, he was then paraded through the village like an animal and asked if he would renounce Christianity. When he said no, he was cut to pieces with knives, while his young family had to look on.

Manoj, a Young Priest

I met a young priest named Manoj, now in temporary exile, who related the story of his father.

"They came to our house and held an axe to his neck. 'If you stay Christian', he was told, 'you will be killed.' He was taken to a local temple and forced to convert."

"To live in this world today," Manoj's father relates in a letter smuggled out of his village, "we have to live as Hindus."

The young Hindu woman

Even though she herself is a Hindu, she was gang-raped by her grandparents' neighbours because her uncle refused to renounce his Christian beliefs.

She says: "But we won't lie about it. Even if they throw money at our feet, we will continue to tell the truth."

From Sky News:

A Victim's Testimony:

One victim's lip quivered uncontrollably as she told us how she watched her brother being burned alive by the Hindu mobs. They came in their hundreds and just ransacked our homes, setting them on fire. If you didn't run away, you were beaten. They told us we could only stay if we converted to Hinduism. Otherwise, they said they would kill us.

A BJP Leader responds:

Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, a BJP politician who runs the South Indian state, blames Christian groups for the violence.

"While Christians and Hindus have co-existed peacefully in the state, there have been unconstitutional and illegal efforts by some Christian organisations such as 'New Life' to forcibly convert or to induce conversion to Christianity," he says, according to The Times of India, adding: "Efforts of such organization include publishing booklets like 'Satya Darshini' in which Hindu gods and goddesses were denigrated. Our constitution provides for freedom of religion but does not permit forcible or induced conversion."

From the New York Times:

Solomon Digal's family:

The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.

They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.

“ ‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’ ”

A Nun's Brutal Rape

Two nights after his death, a Hindu mob in the village of Nuagaon dragged a Catholic priest and a nun from their residence, tore off much of their clothing and paraded them through the streets.

The nun told the police that she had been raped by four men, a charge the police say was borne out by a medical examination. Yet no one was arrested in the case until five weeks later, after a storm of media coverage. Today, five men are under arrest in connection with inciting the riots. The police say they are trying to find the nun and bring her back here to identify her attackers.

Subhash Chauhan:" Hindus By Birth"

Given a chance to explain the recent violence, Subash Chauhan, the state’s highest-ranking leader of Bajrang Dal, a Hindu radical group, described much of it as “a spontaneous reaction.” He said in an interview that the nun had not been raped but had had regular consensual sex.

On Sunday evening, as much of Kandhamal remained under curfew, Mr. Chauhan sat in the hall of a Hindu school in the state capital, Bhubaneshwar, beneath a huge portrait of the swami. A state police officer was assigned to protect him round the clock. He cupped a trilling Blackberry in his hand.

Mr. Chauhan denied that his group was responsible for forced conversions and in turn accused Christian missionaries of luring villagers with incentives of schools and social services.

He was asked repeatedly whether Christians in Orissa should be left free to worship the god of their choice. “Why not?” he finally said, but he warned that it was unrealistic to expect the Kandhas to politely let their Pana enemies live among them as followers of Jesus.

“Who am I to give assurance?” he snapped. “Those who have exploited the Kandhas say they want to live together?”

Besides, he said, “they are Hindus by birth.”

Daud Nayak:

Trembling with fear, Daud Nayak, 56, submitted to a shaving, a Hindu sign of sacrifice. He drank, as instructed, a tumbler of diluted cow dung, considered to be purifying.

In the eyes of his neighbors, he reckoned, he became a Hindu.
In his heart, he said, he could not bear it.

Solomon Digal's Final Insult:

Here in Borepanga, the family of Solomon Digal was not so lucky. Shortly after they recounted their Sept. 10 Hindu conversion story to a reporter in the dark of night, the Digals were again summoned by their neighbors. They were scolded and fined 501 rupees, or about $12, a pinching sum here.

The next morning, calmly clearing his cauliflower field, Lisura Paricha, one of the Hindu men who had summoned the Digals, confirmed that they had been penalized. Their crime, he said, was to talk to outsiders.

From the Huffigton Post (Originally Appearing in the Times of India)- by Shashi Tharoor:

Of course, it is easy enough to condemn anti-Christian violence because it is violence, and because it represents a threat to law and order as well as to that nebulous idea we call India's 'image'. But an argument that several readers have made needs to be faced squarely. In the words of one correspondent: could the violence ''be a reaction to provocations from those religions that believe that only their path is the right path and the rest of humanity are infidels?'' He went on to critique ''the aggressive strategy being pursued by some interests in the US to get people in India converted en masse to Christianity, not necessarily by means fair.''

In his view, ''aggressive evangelism directed against India by powerful church organisations in America enjoying enormous money power, has only one focused objective -- to get India into the Christian fold, as they have succeeded, to a considerable extent, in South Korea and are now in the process of conquering Mongolia.'' Arguing that ''mass conversions of illiterates and semi-literates -- and they also happen to be poor, extremely poor'' is exploitative, he concluded: ''powerful organisations from abroad with enormous money power indulging in mass conversion'' are ''a destabilising factor provoking retaliation''.

I have great respect for the reader in question, but on this issue I strongly disagree. I cannot accept any justification for the thugs' actions, nor am I prepared to see behind the violence an ''understandable'' Hindu resistance to Christian zealotry. Put simply, no non-violent activity, however provocative, can ever legitimise violence. We must reject and denounce assaults and killings, whatever they may claim to be reacting to. Our democracy will not survive if we condone people resorting to violence in pursuit of their ends, however genuine and heartfelt their grievances may be. The whole point of our system of governance is that it allows all Indians to resolve their concerns through legitimate means, including seeking legal redress or political change -- but not violence.

Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that Christian missionaries are indeed using a variety of inducements (development assistance, healthcare, education, sanitation, even chicanery -- though there is only anecdotal evidence of missionary ''trickery'') to win converts for their faith. So what? If a citizen of India feels that his faith has not helped him to find peace of mind and material fulfillment, why should he not have the option of trying a different item on the spiritual menu? Surely freedom of belief is any Indian's fundamental right under our democratic Constitution, however ill-founded his belief might be.

And if Hindu zealots suspect that conversion was fraudulently obtained, why do they not offer counter-inducements rather than violence? Instead of destroying churches, perhaps a Hindu-financed sewage system or paathshala might reopen the blinkered eyes of the credulous. Better still, perhaps Christians and Hindus (and Muslims and Baha'is, for that matter) could all compete in our villages to offer material temptations for religious conversions. The development of our poor country might actually accelerate with this sort of spiritual competition.

What Belies These Articles

Tharoor's article above asks why it should matter if different religions compete in offering material incentives to people? The question, as does every question raised here, belies the fear within Hindu minds. This is not so much about forced conversions, missionaries denigrating their faith, Hindus being concerned about gullible people being fooled by Christian promises or the alleged hand of the CIA in these conversions. After all, if I were a Hindu leader, I would first try to dispel any perceived falsehood by spreading truth, creating grassroots level organizations to counteract ideological claims. I would try to combat any unjust prosyletizing through the legal and political system. Besides, I would also assume that those who claim to have converted into Christianity simply because of material incentives aren't really Christians after all! And if indeed they converted to Christianity due to such gifts, do I consider such fickle-minded folk to be really Hindus? They are simply indifferent to religion.

I'm sure you are shaking your head and thinking how foolish I am. Of course, you are right. This is not about whether these people are simpletons! What is the real reason for leaders dividing communities according to caste, religion, colour, ethnicity, regional allegiance and so on?

This is first and foremost about power. Just as the imperial power of Rome bowed before the babe in the manger in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, Christianity comes to destroy the power of those who seek it for unjust purposes- including those who use Christianity itself to further their own power. Why should we let the politicians have the benefit of doubt by letting them hide their fear of losing power behind their lies? The case of Solomon Digal lays it bare for all it is. Those who have things to hide hate the truth. They fined him for talking about his "forced reconversion." It is the Truth, of course, that sets us free. The smokescreen of lies that tries to hide this fact serves its purpose for the moment. It will soon be revealed for what it is.

As a Christian, I have hope in our God who is our saviour. He is the transcendant one who becams immanent for our salvation. I believe that his incarnation into humanity is the hope for Orissa and India. We too, being incarnational into the situations of those who were hurt and wounded in the cities and villages of India, serving Him, will certainly lead India to embracing Christ. History has proven invariably that violence against Christians will only serve to strengthen Christianity.

Not Done Yet

There is something else to be said loud and clear, and with no compromise. The Hindu nationalist organizations mock such display of sympathy from Christian organizations and individuals, but for the sake of truth and justice in the sight of our Lord, this must be said unequivocally. The saffron brigade claims that the murder of the swami Laxmanananda Saraswati was perpetrated by Christians. His organization claims that they received threatening letters from Christians before the murder. They had requested police protection from the State Government, but were given only 4 baton-wielding constables. As angry members of the Orissa assembly averred, this is clearly a ridiculous response from the Government in a state known for Maoist sympathies, and if the saffron brigade is to be believed, over half of this group in this particular state comprises Christians. The larger Maoist movement is not predominantly Christian, but Hindu- if at all those with such strong atheistic tenets could claim to have any religion. Maoism was described by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a few years ago as India's biggest threat. This is after considering competitors to that title such as Islamic extremists, Pakistan, China and so on. If so, the State Government protection given to the swami was criminal. We do not have yet any definitive statements on who killed the swami, except the outbursts by the swami's lieutenants which are good guesses at best. Whoever they were, as Christians, we need to pray for justice to be accomplished, that the killers would be caught, judged and punished appropriately. We can pray for them to accept Christ's mercy, but let's pray for them to be judged by the Indian judiciary. We also need to be uncompromising in our sympathies for this fallen leader and his near and dear ones. The appropriate gesture is mourning. Raising grievances about the swami's activities that may have been provocative are as out of place as the saffron brigade pointing to Christian missions as the cause of the Hindu violence against themselves.

A Final Word on Charities: from the Blogosphere

The above is an article on front organizations of the RSS that collect money from overseas for ostensibly charitable purposes. It is not surprising that this organization accuses Christians of appropriating foreign funds for religious conversion. After all it is easier to accuse someone else and appear innocent when you are misappropriating charitable donations yourself.