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.

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.

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.

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."

Fear and Loathing in India

As once again Indians are trying to comprehend the sadness and shock from yesterday's multiple blasts in New Delhi, it is important to remember that out of the nine bombs that the terrorists had emailed the police about, only 5 actually exploded. They found 3 and defused them, and one remains undetected.

Here is the story from Sify of how the three unexploded bombs were found in 5 minutes and defused. It is a story of courage that gives hope to Indians who are currently grieving and also clueless about the perpetrators. The command and control structure of the group called Indian Mujahideen is yet unknown, which makes it dangerous and unpredictable.

On Hindu nationalist blogs and forums on the internet, the usual questions are being asked. One of them was 'why aren't the imams issuing a fatwa against these killers?' The answer to that is simple: people who can issue fatwas against innocent people are the same ones who will issue any fatwas at all. A fatwa is taking the law into your own hands. This makes one little different from a terrorist. In any case the equivalent of a fatwa is informally understood by extremists of every stripe when it comes to taking revenge.

It is best to trust the courage of our people and pray that we would ourselves would not stay our hand if we were to face a situation like the police faced in the above link.

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.

In Memoriam

41 people including 4 Indian nationals died in the Kabul bombing yesterday. As we shed a tear those who died, a section of the world's people rejoices.

It's good for those who sympathize with violent organizations like the Taliban to understand that an administration that can destroy people at will without a cause against them can as well destroy those it administers. This is true of every single totalitarian regime in the world. They have destroyed previous regimes with much collateral damage and unleashed a reign of terror that has dwarfed any before it- Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Burmese Junta, et al are examples and so will be, we can be sure, others like Bin Laden, the Hezbollah and the Hamas, were they to assume authority over nations.

The Taliban and its supporting arms in the Pakistani establishment and military are no exceptions. Those who applaud yesterday's suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul would do well to remember that.