I watched the movie 'The Visitor' sometime ago. After this I read some of the review on this movie. They were all glowing tributes. I was impressed but puzzled by some premises in the movie.
My first question on watching it was if there was any political message in reality in the story. It was made in 2007 during the Bush administration, a period in which filmmakers of a liberal political bent created some very good movies. This one, which tells the story of how Tariq, an illegal immigrant from Syria, a political refugee, came to be deported, tugs at our heartstrings for what it means to him, his girlfriend, his mom and his new friend, widower Professor Walter Vale. It tells the story poignantly, but one is left wondering if there really is any strong admonishing for policymakers who tackle immigration, besides the fact that they (and everyone else in the US) need to show kindness to the alien and the refugee among them. Tariq is eventually deported due to existing immigration laws- the movie does signal the need for change in these, but I'm not sure if it is actually arguing for a relook at the policies with regard to political refugees only. Tariq is a political refugee but I think the movie wants to create a case for a relook at all refugees- economic, political and any other kind. I do not think it creates the case. USCIS officials are portrayed as they are in reality, employees who do their job and may not necessarily be aware of the circumstances of every person they deal with. I know this from experience- from trying to get the status updates on petitions for legal immigrants or people awaiting legal immigration status. I have lost money that I paid upfront to this agency and after they acknowledged the receipt of my petitions they simply lost the petitions and dropped the ball. This portrayal is accurate. The bureaucracy is stifling and long overdue for a radical revamp. Beyond this the movie takes no swipe at any administration or laws.
The movie does portray the sad state of those immigrants who are detained. It is almost as if civil liberties do not apply to them. This must engage our attention. Ultimately the thorn is America's side when we talked about our freedoms may be our failure to care for the marginalized, primarily those cannot afford to fight for basic rights. Laws cannot be different for them from those of us who are privileged.
My second question was, who is the 'Visitor' in the movie? Tariq and his girlfriend are illegal squatters in the professor's apartment in the movie. After his initial shock in finding them there (he returns to his New York City apartment after a long gap), he eventually lets them stay on, shows them more than hospitality, becoming their friend and helper, hiring them an attorney to help them in their plight. He too benefits from this relationship, learning how to play the djembe, finding a release from his bereavement from his wife's death. In a scene, the professor takes Tari's mom and girlfriend to Ellis Island. The mom asks him if he's been to the Statue of Liberty before and he says he hasn't. The girlfriend lets him know he and Tariq often went there, and in the boat Tariq liked to jump up and down on seeing the statue, pretending as if he were coming to America for the first time. This begs my question, who is the real visitor. Those who are born into liberty often tend to lose real freedom by keeping themselves from all that is implied by freedom. Tariq and the other refugees though are fully alive to this liberty and through their music, hard work, strong relationships, social intimacy and genuineness, keep its spirit alive. The professor seems to be a newcomer and therefore a visitor to this liberty. He is the one coming into his apartment after a long gap, like a long lost acquaintance. The squatters are about to leave, but the professor shows them kindness.
This may be the movie's lesson. In the end the professor (in a very understated and convincing performance) tries his best but there are limits to his powers of persuasion and influence. Though he fails he has won the hearts of his friends. As a Christian I think the movie encourages us to take a look at what the Bible has to say about this topic. Here are some verses:
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt...”
Matthew 25:31-46 – “...I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”
There are reminders in both OT and NT that not only are we to show kindness to aliens, but we ourselves are aliens in this world or have been aliens in another country. There is a sense in which we need to seek liberty by being like aliens, because true liberty does not come from this world.
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Film Review- Born Into Brothels
Last night we watched the 2003 Orscar winning HBO documentary 'Born Into Brothels' on Netflix Streaming. I had seen a similar documentary on an organization that did undercover sting operations to expose and bring to justice coerced prostitution in India and elsewhere. This one dealt with children of prostitutes living in Sona Gachi, one of Asia's largest red light districts.
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Ways of the way of life
How many times have you heard this statement: "Not a religion, but a way of life." Chances are, several times. I first heard this from my dad about Christianity. I've heard this of Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Islam and any number of shamanistic, tribal or animistic religions as well, Hinduism currently topping the number by a wide margin, most often implying that by virtue of it being a way of life it is somehow better to link your lot with it than any other worldview.
Which religion isn't a way of life? After all religions are worldviews and they all expound on the condition of man (sinful, unenlightened, ignorant, fulfilling Karmic law, unfulfilled potential and so on), the ways to change the condition (redemption, self-realization, cycle of births, acquiring wisdom, meditation), ways to live the earthly life (ethics, morals, laws, situational ethics, choosing the least evil), who God is (the Triune God, Allah, Brahman, Impersonal Reality, various deities), purpose of life (devotion to God, self-fulfillment, completion of just earthly duties). They may not all have a holy book but they all have sacred writings (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Upanishads, Buddhist treatises, Guru Granth Sahib), some form of organization (hierarchical, conciliar, congregationalist, loosely bound), key men who have founded or nurtured them (Jesus, Mohammed, Sankara, Buddha).
And so this pithy polemic that they are ways of life is best left unsaid. Indeed Christianity in its earliest days was not known as Christianity but simply as "the Way", clearly referring to the Jesus' definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". But this did not mean simply that it was A Way, but that Jesus himself was The Way.
Hinduism is on trial this week in the Indian state of Orissa. If indeed it is not a religion but a way of life then it is very loosely defined. Is the violence being unleashed on Christians part of this way of life? Most Hindus would disagree though some may disingenuously say that the violence was just the natural response to the slaying of a respected Hindu leader and not normal Hidu behaviour. One must be careful whe one uses this statement. After all the proponents of Hindutva insist that they are being taken for a ride because they are a peace-loving people. History does not prove that exactly, what with the wars among the Hindus before the Muslims invaded India. Indeed the explosive birth of Buddhism in India was precisely in the aftermath of one of the bloodiest battles of the ancient world, Kalinga (ironically enough, in Orissa), fought among Hindus. Besides the long history of discrimnation, reprisals and brutality based on Jati and Varna (known to the world as the Caste System) reduce such notions to nought. And one must ask the question, if indeed Hinduism is a religion of peace, how does one account for the current cycle of violence? Blaming "forced conversions" is a fig leaf for the insecurities that social ills engender in Indian society that contemporary Hindus feel and do not want to acknowledge.
How is a convert forcibly converted? From Wikipedia, "A forced conversion is the conversion to a religion or philosophy under duress, with the threatened consequence of earthly penalties or harm. These consequences range from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death. Typically, such a conversion entails the repudiation of former religious or philosophical convictions".
But these kind of conversions are not the forced conversions alleged by Hindu nationalists against Christians. These are not reprisals for not converting but positive reinforcements (implicit or explicit) for converting. A poor tribal Hindu is in need of a job. Christian social workers and missionaries not only preach the Gospel to him but help him get a job. The local Hindu Nationalist leaders are agitated. They are losing a lower caste Hindu from the ranks of their indentured servants; and they are threatened by the advent of a faith that challenges their supremacy. Besides they see economic progress coming to a convert from whom it had long been denied. They bogey of forced conversions is then raised.
Perhaps a more reasonable question could be asked: Do the missionaries deny the assistance to a poor Hindu that they give a poor Christian convert? If the answer is yes, then shame on the missionaries! God causes his rain to fall on the wicked and the just. How could we then distinguish between two human beings on the basis of their faith, much less their character?
A missionary helps people in need but especially those he comes into close contact with. A new convert has the opportunity to interact much more with him than a non-convert. Why is it so hard to give him the benefit of doubt in such a situation? Besides, even in such a case the response of the nationalist leaders gives their game away. An organized political resistance to such preferential and unjust treatments would have gone a long way, and indeed Hindus have a history of organizing themselves well against social evils. Even in their current response they are organized well, and this could have been applauded but for their evil intent and methods- violence, intimidation and terror.
The current spate of violence is being understood among the nationalist circles as the response to the killing of Swami Lakshmanananda. The mob has its own twisted notions of justice. But keep in mind that the government, the police and the nationalist leaders themselves have nothing to say or do to contain the violence. Even the questions being raised in the Orissa state assembly seek to understand from the incumbent party why Hindus are not being protected. There is no mention of the Christians who are being slaughtered in the aftermath. Have the lawmakers forgotten to serve the people who are in most need? Every Christian leader has unequivocally condemned the killing of the swami, burying for the moment their deep grievances about his actions against them. Is there noone among the Hindu leaders to shed a tear for the victims of the nationalist rabble? While the more bloody Gujarat riots are recalled to mind, it is important to know that the evidence for implicating leaders is not so much evidence for instigating the rabble but that for standing by and doing nothing.
It is time to ask a basic question: if Hinduism is indeed a way of life, then whose way of life is it? Will the real Hindu please stand up? Is he the face of the mob in Orissa? Or the complex avatar, Ram, often called the perfect man worthy of emulation (Maryada Purush)? In both cases, the answers raise more doubts than solutions, and present that ancient way of life as one not worth following.
Which religion isn't a way of life? After all religions are worldviews and they all expound on the condition of man (sinful, unenlightened, ignorant, fulfilling Karmic law, unfulfilled potential and so on), the ways to change the condition (redemption, self-realization, cycle of births, acquiring wisdom, meditation), ways to live the earthly life (ethics, morals, laws, situational ethics, choosing the least evil), who God is (the Triune God, Allah, Brahman, Impersonal Reality, various deities), purpose of life (devotion to God, self-fulfillment, completion of just earthly duties). They may not all have a holy book but they all have sacred writings (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Upanishads, Buddhist treatises, Guru Granth Sahib), some form of organization (hierarchical, conciliar, congregationalist, loosely bound), key men who have founded or nurtured them (Jesus, Mohammed, Sankara, Buddha).
And so this pithy polemic that they are ways of life is best left unsaid. Indeed Christianity in its earliest days was not known as Christianity but simply as "the Way", clearly referring to the Jesus' definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". But this did not mean simply that it was A Way, but that Jesus himself was The Way.
Hinduism is on trial this week in the Indian state of Orissa. If indeed it is not a religion but a way of life then it is very loosely defined. Is the violence being unleashed on Christians part of this way of life? Most Hindus would disagree though some may disingenuously say that the violence was just the natural response to the slaying of a respected Hindu leader and not normal Hidu behaviour. One must be careful whe one uses this statement. After all the proponents of Hindutva insist that they are being taken for a ride because they are a peace-loving people. History does not prove that exactly, what with the wars among the Hindus before the Muslims invaded India. Indeed the explosive birth of Buddhism in India was precisely in the aftermath of one of the bloodiest battles of the ancient world, Kalinga (ironically enough, in Orissa), fought among Hindus. Besides the long history of discrimnation, reprisals and brutality based on Jati and Varna (known to the world as the Caste System) reduce such notions to nought. And one must ask the question, if indeed Hinduism is a religion of peace, how does one account for the current cycle of violence? Blaming "forced conversions" is a fig leaf for the insecurities that social ills engender in Indian society that contemporary Hindus feel and do not want to acknowledge.
How is a convert forcibly converted? From Wikipedia, "A forced conversion is the conversion to a religion or philosophy under duress, with the threatened consequence of earthly penalties or harm. These consequences range from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death. Typically, such a conversion entails the repudiation of former religious or philosophical convictions".
But these kind of conversions are not the forced conversions alleged by Hindu nationalists against Christians. These are not reprisals for not converting but positive reinforcements (implicit or explicit) for converting. A poor tribal Hindu is in need of a job. Christian social workers and missionaries not only preach the Gospel to him but help him get a job. The local Hindu Nationalist leaders are agitated. They are losing a lower caste Hindu from the ranks of their indentured servants; and they are threatened by the advent of a faith that challenges their supremacy. Besides they see economic progress coming to a convert from whom it had long been denied. They bogey of forced conversions is then raised.
Perhaps a more reasonable question could be asked: Do the missionaries deny the assistance to a poor Hindu that they give a poor Christian convert? If the answer is yes, then shame on the missionaries! God causes his rain to fall on the wicked and the just. How could we then distinguish between two human beings on the basis of their faith, much less their character?
A missionary helps people in need but especially those he comes into close contact with. A new convert has the opportunity to interact much more with him than a non-convert. Why is it so hard to give him the benefit of doubt in such a situation? Besides, even in such a case the response of the nationalist leaders gives their game away. An organized political resistance to such preferential and unjust treatments would have gone a long way, and indeed Hindus have a history of organizing themselves well against social evils. Even in their current response they are organized well, and this could have been applauded but for their evil intent and methods- violence, intimidation and terror.
The current spate of violence is being understood among the nationalist circles as the response to the killing of Swami Lakshmanananda. The mob has its own twisted notions of justice. But keep in mind that the government, the police and the nationalist leaders themselves have nothing to say or do to contain the violence. Even the questions being raised in the Orissa state assembly seek to understand from the incumbent party why Hindus are not being protected. There is no mention of the Christians who are being slaughtered in the aftermath. Have the lawmakers forgotten to serve the people who are in most need? Every Christian leader has unequivocally condemned the killing of the swami, burying for the moment their deep grievances about his actions against them. Is there noone among the Hindu leaders to shed a tear for the victims of the nationalist rabble? While the more bloody Gujarat riots are recalled to mind, it is important to know that the evidence for implicating leaders is not so much evidence for instigating the rabble but that for standing by and doing nothing.
It is time to ask a basic question: if Hinduism is indeed a way of life, then whose way of life is it? Will the real Hindu please stand up? Is he the face of the mob in Orissa? Or the complex avatar, Ram, often called the perfect man worthy of emulation (Maryada Purush)? In both cases, the answers raise more doubts than solutions, and present that ancient way of life as one not worth following.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Rediscovering Our Souls
'America discovers its soul again', said the headline. It was interesting. I saw the headline on Google news and I was skeptical, coming as it did from the website of Variety. I decided to check it out and sure enough, it disappointed. It was about Isaac Hayes, the controversial musician whose 'soul' hits in the seventies helped define the genre. Hayes passed away two days ago. Clearly the death of a well-known artist is something to write about, the fans and the curious rightly express their sorrow on the comment forms. But something about that title piqued my interest and let me down as well.
What is the soul of a nation and when does it discover it? In India I have sat through lectures in schools, speeches and meetings in public fora that talked about India's soul- invariably it was connected with the legacy of India's past, when great sages wrote glorious epics, ethical treatises; mathematicians, kings and warriors were also saints. During these discussions it was implied that in our struggle for independence from Britain this soul was rediscovered to an extend and through the sacrifices made by a few, it was bared to the public to view and wonder and admire. In the wars we fought against Pakistan and China too, some of this soul was rediscovered. It is true that adversity brings about heroism and we relate the heroism to our ideals, especially those found in our past.
How about the United States? Here is a nation that strives to preserve its short history as a nation in public memory. In incredible contrast to India which does not record its culture, accomplishments or history adequately, the Americans have built monuments and museums in every major city to document and present well their history-prehistoric, colonial, national, anthropological, social, technological, political, religious and other history. The US has the most widespread, biggest and well-maintained public library system I have seen. Everywhere you go you see reminders of how Americans defined the concept of America by sheer individual grit, enterprise, discipline and romance. The moon shot, the wars, the music, the sports...
China- a nation that drives the agenda of defining its soul from top down. In contradistinction to the US, this is a nation that does not necessarily have its people defining the concept of China for themselves; but the Chinese government actively promotes this- and from what we see it has achieved much more success than other such experiments elsewhere, like the erstwhile USSR or Eastern Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Olympics. At the time of this writing, China leads the medals table with 9 golds versus 3 US golds and 4 South Korean ones. The documentaries aired about the 16-year old gymnasts who perform incredible feats on the uneven bars reveal China's astonishing desire to excel and outcompete other nations in sports. The athletes trained in human hothouses from kindergarten for the sole purpose of winning Olympic gold medals turn out to be world-beaters, even as 98 percent (as a recent Guardian report suggested) of the population remains indifferent to actually participating sports, compared to academic achievement.
Wherein lies the soul? What makes Americans and America? What makes me an Indian? Or the Chinese? We each struggle to define ourselves in the light of our circumstances and our dreams. Who can deny that it is our dreams that frame our lives? Human desire and passion are stronger than that of nations. The more we are true to ourselves and God the more we are free to be what He wants us to be. As Solzhenitsyn said, a single word of truth can outweigh the whole world.
Postscript on Aug 12: By now it is commonly known that the little girl who sang 'Ode to the Motherland' in the Olympic opening ceremony was lipsynching to another girl who remained in the background because she was considered 'not cute enough'. Another example of driving the agenda from top down. And sure enough, the Western press has pounced on it, and rightly so. So often I feel that China has enough power economically, culturally and politically to create a unique position for itself in the world. All too often it seems they are desperately trying to look good in Western eyes. They are playing the game the way of the West. China's own game should have been good enough. The arguments the Chinese leaders gave in defense of the Olympic lipsynching event are eye-opening, as found here in the New York Times
What is the soul of a nation and when does it discover it? In India I have sat through lectures in schools, speeches and meetings in public fora that talked about India's soul- invariably it was connected with the legacy of India's past, when great sages wrote glorious epics, ethical treatises; mathematicians, kings and warriors were also saints. During these discussions it was implied that in our struggle for independence from Britain this soul was rediscovered to an extend and through the sacrifices made by a few, it was bared to the public to view and wonder and admire. In the wars we fought against Pakistan and China too, some of this soul was rediscovered. It is true that adversity brings about heroism and we relate the heroism to our ideals, especially those found in our past.
How about the United States? Here is a nation that strives to preserve its short history as a nation in public memory. In incredible contrast to India which does not record its culture, accomplishments or history adequately, the Americans have built monuments and museums in every major city to document and present well their history-prehistoric, colonial, national, anthropological, social, technological, political, religious and other history. The US has the most widespread, biggest and well-maintained public library system I have seen. Everywhere you go you see reminders of how Americans defined the concept of America by sheer individual grit, enterprise, discipline and romance. The moon shot, the wars, the music, the sports...
China- a nation that drives the agenda of defining its soul from top down. In contradistinction to the US, this is a nation that does not necessarily have its people defining the concept of China for themselves; but the Chinese government actively promotes this- and from what we see it has achieved much more success than other such experiments elsewhere, like the erstwhile USSR or Eastern Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Olympics. At the time of this writing, China leads the medals table with 9 golds versus 3 US golds and 4 South Korean ones. The documentaries aired about the 16-year old gymnasts who perform incredible feats on the uneven bars reveal China's astonishing desire to excel and outcompete other nations in sports. The athletes trained in human hothouses from kindergarten for the sole purpose of winning Olympic gold medals turn out to be world-beaters, even as 98 percent (as a recent Guardian report suggested) of the population remains indifferent to actually participating sports, compared to academic achievement.
Wherein lies the soul? What makes Americans and America? What makes me an Indian? Or the Chinese? We each struggle to define ourselves in the light of our circumstances and our dreams. Who can deny that it is our dreams that frame our lives? Human desire and passion are stronger than that of nations. The more we are true to ourselves and God the more we are free to be what He wants us to be. As Solzhenitsyn said, a single word of truth can outweigh the whole world.
Postscript on Aug 12: By now it is commonly known that the little girl who sang 'Ode to the Motherland' in the Olympic opening ceremony was lipsynching to another girl who remained in the background because she was considered 'not cute enough'. Another example of driving the agenda from top down. And sure enough, the Western press has pounced on it, and rightly so. So often I feel that China has enough power economically, culturally and politically to create a unique position for itself in the world. All too often it seems they are desperately trying to look good in Western eyes. They are playing the game the way of the West. China's own game should have been good enough. The arguments the Chinese leaders gave in defense of the Olympic lipsynching event are eye-opening, as found here in the New York Times
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Twist of Karma- the Hindu American Foundation's Two Faces
Amazing enough that the Hindu American Foundation which has often complained about Protestant missions in India now lobbying hard against the Bush Administration restricting some religious visas.
The link is here. Some of HAF's members in the past have complained about missionaries coming in to India on visitors' visas and preaching in a church. India, of course, doesn't grant religious visas to missionaries.
It's pretty typical that the HAF would like to enjoy the liberties for adherents of the Hindu faith in the US that they would not grant those of other faiths in India. Thus they would fight against having Christian artifacts, paintings, the Ten Commandements and so on placed in American public buildings, ignoring the fact that it is commnplace in India to have Hindu artifacts in Indian public buildings. The same goes for other minority faiths in the US. The Islamic community would lobby hard for privileges that would never be allowed other faiths in countries that have accepted Islam as state religion.
It certainly speaks highly of the US as being a truly open, clear-thinking community; and the HAF should do well to think hard about the value of these liberties which they would deny their non-Hindu brethren in India.
The link is here. Some of HAF's members in the past have complained about missionaries coming in to India on visitors' visas and preaching in a church. India, of course, doesn't grant religious visas to missionaries.
It's pretty typical that the HAF would like to enjoy the liberties for adherents of the Hindu faith in the US that they would not grant those of other faiths in India. Thus they would fight against having Christian artifacts, paintings, the Ten Commandements and so on placed in American public buildings, ignoring the fact that it is commnplace in India to have Hindu artifacts in Indian public buildings. The same goes for other minority faiths in the US. The Islamic community would lobby hard for privileges that would never be allowed other faiths in countries that have accepted Islam as state religion.
It certainly speaks highly of the US as being a truly open, clear-thinking community; and the HAF should do well to think hard about the value of these liberties which they would deny their non-Hindu brethren in India.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Life in a Metro- Confusion of a Postmodern Society
Despite innumerable disappointments we still watch Hindi movies once in a while because people around us raise our hopes about the quality and depth of the new movies. While we have seen that there is a trend upward, none have so far been convincing enough. The reason is this: Hindi movies, even when they deal with serious subjects, are prone to project image over substance. Thus in movies made by ad-men (as several are these days) there are slick production values, Armani-suited, grim, business-like, svelte people (who may look more convincing than the saas-bahu dramas of old), but this is all there is. The story is well-told, the music and songs toned down or placed in the background instead of the actors belting them out; what I find missing is the idea of the movie- what ties it all together. Of course there are exceptions. The Namesake as with all Mira Nair movies had a subtle but very present message about Indian life in the US. But if there is anything one could remark about the message of the movie Life in a Metro, which we watched yesterday, is that it is existentialist. It has pop-rock songs that are sung by minstrels that appear on the streets at major milestones in the story ( a departure from the usual 'musical' genre where protagonists sing in order to convey what is in their heart) and less in-your-face emotion, but as to the actual message, it falls flat.
For a Christian this movie serves only to be shocked at the absence of any moral compass in the lives of the protagonists, much less an idea of what may be beneficial to their lives. The film portrays young, upwardly mobile middle class Indians living in Mumbai as having extra-marital affairs, casual sex (no overt acts are portrayed on screen) and completely lacking any guiding principle to navigate them through life. A young man asks a married woman if she loves her husband and if she doesn't she should just "follow her heart", as if her heart is somehow the standard of moral uprightness or lasting joy. A 20-something girl calls her elder sister on the phone to ask if it's okay to have pre-marital sex, and the sister's response is a question: "Are you sure you know what you are doing?" No guidance, there. No surprise, as the elder sister is herself caught in an extra-marital affair. The calls ends, as the younger girl tells her, "Don't worry about it- I need to go." A cheating husband justifies his infidelity by reminding himself that there is no emotional attachment to his affair and if it hurts noone it should be okay. Of course, the movie does portray the events as being hurtful to him and others around him, but it still doesn't show us a way forward. The most believable character is an everyman with a roving eye who is fond of a feminist who sees him as a friend, but he is willing to go with an arranged wedding his family proposes. To his feminist friend's question as to how he could love someone he has never met, he says, "Well, you need to start loving in order to have love. So why not do that after you marry?" This is the closest this movie gets to any actual thinking. I liked that line, but the movie does not expand on this theme at all. It just gets buried under heaps of nonsense that follows. In the end the cheating wife and husband reunite for whatever reason (perhaps the Indian customs they had been accustomed to forces them into that), and we see the young lover roaming the streets. The movie sympathizes with him and nothing more is said or done about it. The focus is so much on sex and infidelity though the sexual acts are not portrayed on screen. Commitment in marriage is portrayed as a burden to be borne and not as an act of nobility. There is no reason given as to why people are together except for the demands of the society, besides of course in some cases the "dictates of the heart".
Several years ago and possibly even now, Indians thought Americans were in general footloose people with broken marriages and uncontrolled passions. This was primarily a thinking that came right out of Hollywood movies. Alma and I are in the position of thinking that about Indian city-dwellers. The past ten years have seen a dramatic shift in values in India, especially among the youth. We get a glimpse of this in the movies, but the jury is still out there on how realistic they are. While I'm sure they are embellished, they also portray something of the truth. This movie could not have done well 10 years ago as most people would have found it unbelievable and less than proper to exhibit in movie halls. Today the acceptance of the movie makes one wonder, if this is where India is headed. If that is indeed the case, it's more dangerous than we can imagine. In the US the objective moral values from Christian faith and thinking have a profound influence on society. In India I have not yet found such a compelling moral compass. We need a voice crying in the wilderness to make straight the way of the Lord.
For a Christian this movie serves only to be shocked at the absence of any moral compass in the lives of the protagonists, much less an idea of what may be beneficial to their lives. The film portrays young, upwardly mobile middle class Indians living in Mumbai as having extra-marital affairs, casual sex (no overt acts are portrayed on screen) and completely lacking any guiding principle to navigate them through life. A young man asks a married woman if she loves her husband and if she doesn't she should just "follow her heart", as if her heart is somehow the standard of moral uprightness or lasting joy. A 20-something girl calls her elder sister on the phone to ask if it's okay to have pre-marital sex, and the sister's response is a question: "Are you sure you know what you are doing?" No guidance, there. No surprise, as the elder sister is herself caught in an extra-marital affair. The calls ends, as the younger girl tells her, "Don't worry about it- I need to go." A cheating husband justifies his infidelity by reminding himself that there is no emotional attachment to his affair and if it hurts noone it should be okay. Of course, the movie does portray the events as being hurtful to him and others around him, but it still doesn't show us a way forward. The most believable character is an everyman with a roving eye who is fond of a feminist who sees him as a friend, but he is willing to go with an arranged wedding his family proposes. To his feminist friend's question as to how he could love someone he has never met, he says, "Well, you need to start loving in order to have love. So why not do that after you marry?" This is the closest this movie gets to any actual thinking. I liked that line, but the movie does not expand on this theme at all. It just gets buried under heaps of nonsense that follows. In the end the cheating wife and husband reunite for whatever reason (perhaps the Indian customs they had been accustomed to forces them into that), and we see the young lover roaming the streets. The movie sympathizes with him and nothing more is said or done about it. The focus is so much on sex and infidelity though the sexual acts are not portrayed on screen. Commitment in marriage is portrayed as a burden to be borne and not as an act of nobility. There is no reason given as to why people are together except for the demands of the society, besides of course in some cases the "dictates of the heart".
Several years ago and possibly even now, Indians thought Americans were in general footloose people with broken marriages and uncontrolled passions. This was primarily a thinking that came right out of Hollywood movies. Alma and I are in the position of thinking that about Indian city-dwellers. The past ten years have seen a dramatic shift in values in India, especially among the youth. We get a glimpse of this in the movies, but the jury is still out there on how realistic they are. While I'm sure they are embellished, they also portray something of the truth. This movie could not have done well 10 years ago as most people would have found it unbelievable and less than proper to exhibit in movie halls. Today the acceptance of the movie makes one wonder, if this is where India is headed. If that is indeed the case, it's more dangerous than we can imagine. In the US the objective moral values from Christian faith and thinking have a profound influence on society. In India I have not yet found such a compelling moral compass. We need a voice crying in the wilderness to make straight the way of the Lord.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Indian Christian Identity
I've had this thought for about a week now. I speak English about 90 percent of the time, and 9 percent Malayalam. Hindi speaking is very less but it's there, especially as my coworkers speak mostly Hindi, regardless of which part of India they are from. But the more I think of my Southern Indian friends who do speak Hindi the more they seem Northern Indian than Southern. You know, they are more comfortable eating bhel puri than a vada, more comfortable wearing a kurta than a mundu, and often more comfortable speaking Hindi than Tamil or any other Southern language. I guess Northerners may consider this to be progress, and certainly it is progress to have a common language to speak across India. It binds the nation together and helps us bridge our differences. The brouhaha in 60s' Tamil Nadu against Hindi teaching in schools was very sad and pitiable.
That said, I have not seen a Southerner who is comfortable enough with his/her regional tongue while being fluent at Hindi. I don't think it's because of limited linguistic ability. So many Southerners are excellent speakers of English and their regional language. The larger question is, why is it that our national identity has to necessary erase some of our smaller identity as people of a region or small community?
I grew up in Cochin where we have the Southern Naval Command. The Navy officers that I have spoken to hardly interact with the locals, the involvement of the Navy in the community is minimal. Some can't stand the typically rural, unsophisticated attitude of the Keralite. The locals always refer to the officers as 'those Navy guys' and not with any real identification with them as our armed forces. The Keralites in the Navy or other branches of the armed forces usually adopt a more Northern attitude in terms of food, language, habits (movies, clothes..) and so on. Their involvement with Kerala is quite less, perhaps limited to their immediate family. A Keralite Naval officer in Cochin stepping into a grocery store would stand out like a sore thumb by his very presence.
This is true of Keralites raised outside Kerala and some Keralites raised within Kerala in a more sophisticated manner- in elite schools and colleges. Many of the schools (one of which I attended) restrict students from speaking in Malayalam and encourage them to speak English. When I went to Madras to attend college, our interaction with locals was considerable but we did it on our own terms, mostly by speaking English and occasionally Tamil. We didn't make much effort to learn the language well- we just learned a few necessary words and sentences without really understanding the grammar or syntax. Elite residential schools let kids have a well rounded education, teaching them academics with sports, swimming, school pride and so on. Even so I haven't see or heard of s school in India that teaches kids allegiance to a local community. Their world revolves around the culture that the school has built up. Put them outside that circle or likeminded other circles, and you will notice either disinterest or discomfort. Either way you disctinctly see a lack of courtesy. I can say this without getting on a moral high horse because I too have similar problems.
When I became a born-again Christian in the final year of college, I learned to pray in English, but even today I have not tried praying in Malayalam much- the words do not come naturally and appear contrived. I've often wondered if our Gospel has been compromised culturally. I don't mean that we need to incorporate bhajans in our worship or consider Hindu deities as objects of our worship, I just feel that there is a large divide between myself and so many Indians who are culturally a world away.
CS Lewis who fought in the British army during WWII mentions in his writings that patriotism is felt when one fights for one's people. For Lewis that may have been Belfast, Northern Ireland or places like Hertfordshire and Worcestershire where grew up. The idea of 'Great Britain' or the 'British Empire' are ideas of lawmakers. Similarly the idea of America is strong in the minds of most Americans but they see no dichotomy between their idea of America as a little Iowa town they were raised in and that of the United States. The transition is seamless. For me, the idea of India is filled with the familiar and beloved places I've experienced in India- Kerala, Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi. For the armed forces, it is the idea of 'Bharatmata', something which I simply cannot conceive. I suspect Lewis would call this concept a politician's term. When the army fights it fights for Bharatmata, but many of the officers do not identify with the neighbourhoods of their state, but rather they identify with the military culture to which they now belong. It probably does not matter to Bharatmata, because they fight either way. But I think it matters to the Bharat that they grew up in, to their city or village, or their school. Their kids are usually not comfortable speaking a regional language but they are quite good Hindi speakers. The exceptions I have seen to this are the Sikhs. They seem to have bridged the gap between the identity of Punjab and that of India, or more preceisely that of their India, the military or corporate or elite India, whichever. But it beats me how they manage this. An army officer from rural Punjab can still be one of the boys back home while effortlessly being an army officer with all the ramifications the post brings, the etiquette, the lifestyle, and so on. I'd be very interested in understanding how a Sikh who became a Christian would view his Indian-ness. (Sadhu Sundar Singh, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you!)
Perhaps this is a good reason they are good soldiers- their patriotism is very sincere, not a nebulous concept, but it can be pointed to. They can trace it back to the wheatfields they were raised in. They don't lose it when they are in Delhi at a parade or in Bombay in a mall. Sometime back Praful Bidwai the journalist wrote of Sania Mirza that she is Indian first and Muslim second. Margaret Alva once responded to a heckling critic that she is Indian first and Christian second. Both Bidwai and Alva are clearly wrong and misguided. That level of discomfort with faith and conviction is sad. Perhaps it shows that their conviction is pretty shallow (I hope I'm not being judgmental). Perhaps it also goes to prove how divided we are as a people. We are unable to embrace the tension between exclusivistic convictions and retain our identity. If ever we can achieve 'national integration', that elusive red herring the Government chases after, it's when we can learn to embrace this tension and rejoice in it.
My Dad told me this story about a former president of the Madras Stock Exchange (we'll leave him unnamed). He was a Tamil Brahmin and an alumnus of Loyola College. He narrated humourously to my Dad the story of how he and his pals as backbenchers made light of the Lord's Prayer recited daily at Loyola. The Tamil version begins 'Paramandalangalil irukkira engal pithave' ('Our Father who dwelleth in Heaven') which, to anyone who understand both languages, is a far more grand, majestic and intimate way to address Father God. Our friends the backbenchers used to quietly mutter 'Panaimarangalil irukkira Engal Pirave' ('My Dove which sits on palm trees'). He laughed heartily when he said this to Dad who he knew came from a Christian background. Much as I think this playful utterance was just childhood's naughty foible, I also think that this narration to my Dad while an adult lacked decency. If a Christian had similarly remarked about the 'Asathoma Jyotir Gamaya' he or she would be looked on as un-Indian. It is this difference that is difficult for a Christian, especially a conservative, exclusivist, born-again one such as myself, to understand. A Hindu or Sikh serving in the military is generally accepted as doing his duty and doesn't need to prove himself to be a true Indian. A Christian or Muslim serving in the armed forces is often in the position of proving his or her patriotism by his her valour or sincerity.
In that sense, the Sangh Parivar is right. India, while politically, legally and consitutionally secular, is essentially Hindu in character. While Hinduism too is exclusivist and has non-negotiable tenets, it also holds that the practitioners of other faiths should not evangelized as it is their dharma to believe what they do. But they are firm in their belief that they will be rebirthed again and again until they come to the stage where there is self-realization with the Brahman. Any opposing view is not met with approval. This is why many Indians can let us Christians be, and let us practise our faith, but when we evangelize our faith they feel some order is violated.
To me that is strange. If my dharma involves the witness of the Gospel, what is that to the others? But then to them, a piece of our Indian-ness is lost. That's the tension we feel when we attempt to combine these two facets of our identity. Islam loses it when it attempts to enculturate its faith with the customs and language of the Middle East. Its attempts to have a unique Indian identity is severely compromised, only because it attempts to supplant Indian-ness with Arab-ness. In contrast, Christianity lends itself to every tongue and tribe and nation, and still remains uncompromising in its convictions. A new believer in Christ may not feel any tension when she gives her life to Jesus. But eventually the tension surfaces, of remaining a part of our own people and living our life by the Spirit. This tension then is not something within Christianity but within India. Indians are so divided that we often strive to disinguish ourselves from other Indians. We have a Christian subculture, a Brahmin subculture, a Hindi heartland subculture, a 'Metro' subculture and so on, which are so different from one another.
Indians get mad when an evangelist talks about the evils of the caste system. They feel wronged because they think the caste system is not rightly presented or they think it's none of the evangelist's business to dissect their faith when he or she should be worrying about the problems in his or her own country or community of faith. I don't know how we got to this über sensitive state. But isn't it magnificent to know that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour when he or she is unlovely? That's why I'm convinced that our divisions are not possible to conquer without His saving grace. It is He who has broken the ground of division between the Jew and the Gentile. As the hymn says, "Who will not fear, O Lord, And glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy, And all the nations will come before Thee." India needs Christ and anything less is a compromise.
That said, I have not seen a Southerner who is comfortable enough with his/her regional tongue while being fluent at Hindi. I don't think it's because of limited linguistic ability. So many Southerners are excellent speakers of English and their regional language. The larger question is, why is it that our national identity has to necessary erase some of our smaller identity as people of a region or small community?
I grew up in Cochin where we have the Southern Naval Command. The Navy officers that I have spoken to hardly interact with the locals, the involvement of the Navy in the community is minimal. Some can't stand the typically rural, unsophisticated attitude of the Keralite. The locals always refer to the officers as 'those Navy guys' and not with any real identification with them as our armed forces. The Keralites in the Navy or other branches of the armed forces usually adopt a more Northern attitude in terms of food, language, habits (movies, clothes..) and so on. Their involvement with Kerala is quite less, perhaps limited to their immediate family. A Keralite Naval officer in Cochin stepping into a grocery store would stand out like a sore thumb by his very presence.
This is true of Keralites raised outside Kerala and some Keralites raised within Kerala in a more sophisticated manner- in elite schools and colleges. Many of the schools (one of which I attended) restrict students from speaking in Malayalam and encourage them to speak English. When I went to Madras to attend college, our interaction with locals was considerable but we did it on our own terms, mostly by speaking English and occasionally Tamil. We didn't make much effort to learn the language well- we just learned a few necessary words and sentences without really understanding the grammar or syntax. Elite residential schools let kids have a well rounded education, teaching them academics with sports, swimming, school pride and so on. Even so I haven't see or heard of s school in India that teaches kids allegiance to a local community. Their world revolves around the culture that the school has built up. Put them outside that circle or likeminded other circles, and you will notice either disinterest or discomfort. Either way you disctinctly see a lack of courtesy. I can say this without getting on a moral high horse because I too have similar problems.
When I became a born-again Christian in the final year of college, I learned to pray in English, but even today I have not tried praying in Malayalam much- the words do not come naturally and appear contrived. I've often wondered if our Gospel has been compromised culturally. I don't mean that we need to incorporate bhajans in our worship or consider Hindu deities as objects of our worship, I just feel that there is a large divide between myself and so many Indians who are culturally a world away.
CS Lewis who fought in the British army during WWII mentions in his writings that patriotism is felt when one fights for one's people. For Lewis that may have been Belfast, Northern Ireland or places like Hertfordshire and Worcestershire where grew up. The idea of 'Great Britain' or the 'British Empire' are ideas of lawmakers. Similarly the idea of America is strong in the minds of most Americans but they see no dichotomy between their idea of America as a little Iowa town they were raised in and that of the United States. The transition is seamless. For me, the idea of India is filled with the familiar and beloved places I've experienced in India- Kerala, Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi. For the armed forces, it is the idea of 'Bharatmata', something which I simply cannot conceive. I suspect Lewis would call this concept a politician's term. When the army fights it fights for Bharatmata, but many of the officers do not identify with the neighbourhoods of their state, but rather they identify with the military culture to which they now belong. It probably does not matter to Bharatmata, because they fight either way. But I think it matters to the Bharat that they grew up in, to their city or village, or their school. Their kids are usually not comfortable speaking a regional language but they are quite good Hindi speakers. The exceptions I have seen to this are the Sikhs. They seem to have bridged the gap between the identity of Punjab and that of India, or more preceisely that of their India, the military or corporate or elite India, whichever. But it beats me how they manage this. An army officer from rural Punjab can still be one of the boys back home while effortlessly being an army officer with all the ramifications the post brings, the etiquette, the lifestyle, and so on. I'd be very interested in understanding how a Sikh who became a Christian would view his Indian-ness. (Sadhu Sundar Singh, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you!)
Perhaps this is a good reason they are good soldiers- their patriotism is very sincere, not a nebulous concept, but it can be pointed to. They can trace it back to the wheatfields they were raised in. They don't lose it when they are in Delhi at a parade or in Bombay in a mall. Sometime back Praful Bidwai the journalist wrote of Sania Mirza that she is Indian first and Muslim second. Margaret Alva once responded to a heckling critic that she is Indian first and Christian second. Both Bidwai and Alva are clearly wrong and misguided. That level of discomfort with faith and conviction is sad. Perhaps it shows that their conviction is pretty shallow (I hope I'm not being judgmental). Perhaps it also goes to prove how divided we are as a people. We are unable to embrace the tension between exclusivistic convictions and retain our identity. If ever we can achieve 'national integration', that elusive red herring the Government chases after, it's when we can learn to embrace this tension and rejoice in it.
My Dad told me this story about a former president of the Madras Stock Exchange (we'll leave him unnamed). He was a Tamil Brahmin and an alumnus of Loyola College. He narrated humourously to my Dad the story of how he and his pals as backbenchers made light of the Lord's Prayer recited daily at Loyola. The Tamil version begins 'Paramandalangalil irukkira engal pithave' ('Our Father who dwelleth in Heaven') which, to anyone who understand both languages, is a far more grand, majestic and intimate way to address Father God. Our friends the backbenchers used to quietly mutter 'Panaimarangalil irukkira Engal Pirave' ('My Dove which sits on palm trees'). He laughed heartily when he said this to Dad who he knew came from a Christian background. Much as I think this playful utterance was just childhood's naughty foible, I also think that this narration to my Dad while an adult lacked decency. If a Christian had similarly remarked about the 'Asathoma Jyotir Gamaya' he or she would be looked on as un-Indian. It is this difference that is difficult for a Christian, especially a conservative, exclusivist, born-again one such as myself, to understand. A Hindu or Sikh serving in the military is generally accepted as doing his duty and doesn't need to prove himself to be a true Indian. A Christian or Muslim serving in the armed forces is often in the position of proving his or her patriotism by his her valour or sincerity.
In that sense, the Sangh Parivar is right. India, while politically, legally and consitutionally secular, is essentially Hindu in character. While Hinduism too is exclusivist and has non-negotiable tenets, it also holds that the practitioners of other faiths should not evangelized as it is their dharma to believe what they do. But they are firm in their belief that they will be rebirthed again and again until they come to the stage where there is self-realization with the Brahman. Any opposing view is not met with approval. This is why many Indians can let us Christians be, and let us practise our faith, but when we evangelize our faith they feel some order is violated.
To me that is strange. If my dharma involves the witness of the Gospel, what is that to the others? But then to them, a piece of our Indian-ness is lost. That's the tension we feel when we attempt to combine these two facets of our identity. Islam loses it when it attempts to enculturate its faith with the customs and language of the Middle East. Its attempts to have a unique Indian identity is severely compromised, only because it attempts to supplant Indian-ness with Arab-ness. In contrast, Christianity lends itself to every tongue and tribe and nation, and still remains uncompromising in its convictions. A new believer in Christ may not feel any tension when she gives her life to Jesus. But eventually the tension surfaces, of remaining a part of our own people and living our life by the Spirit. This tension then is not something within Christianity but within India. Indians are so divided that we often strive to disinguish ourselves from other Indians. We have a Christian subculture, a Brahmin subculture, a Hindi heartland subculture, a 'Metro' subculture and so on, which are so different from one another.
Indians get mad when an evangelist talks about the evils of the caste system. They feel wronged because they think the caste system is not rightly presented or they think it's none of the evangelist's business to dissect their faith when he or she should be worrying about the problems in his or her own country or community of faith. I don't know how we got to this über sensitive state. But isn't it magnificent to know that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour when he or she is unlovely? That's why I'm convinced that our divisions are not possible to conquer without His saving grace. It is He who has broken the ground of division between the Jew and the Gentile. As the hymn says, "Who will not fear, O Lord, And glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy, And all the nations will come before Thee." India needs Christ and anything less is a compromise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
