United efforts

 During the National convention organised by FSMF on arriving at accountability standards for Civil Society Organisations in India, there was a reference made TWICE to an old advertisement that appeared both in print and in the television. It was the NECC ad titled, Sunday ho ya Monday, roz khao ande!  

The context was the need to have a unified narrative that is strong and clear.  The NECC ad was about the egg, not about one poultry farm or a particular shop.  It was about eggs!! It was a lead up to the 1980s. It was a difficult time for Indian poultry farmers and Mr B.V. Rao of Venkateshwara Hatcheries decided to unite all poultry farmers into a cooperative model, similar to the one of Amul in Gujarat, spearheaded by Mr Kurien.  He, then along with his team, came up with the NECC and the subsequent ads.  

A similar ad was run about milk, the benefits of drinking milk.  

I guess there is always a great benefit in seeing the unity and collectively working towards something good than making individuated scattered attempts.  That said, there are invariably several issues that prevent this from happening. But if one is willing to see and grow out of these petty dividing issues, the benefits are large and extensive.   

In Delhi

 I arrived in Delhi for the second time this year. The metro was unusually free of congestion, perhaps because it is a Sunday. But I wasted quite a lot of time waiting for the buses. I then decided to walk to the school. 

More than being frustrated with no bus coming my way, I needed to repair my sandal and so thought I'd find atleast a hardware shop or a cobbler. 

Walking along the stretch from the metro to the school, all I found was dry-cleaners, ice-cream parlours and pharmacies. I was almost certain that finding a cobbler in such a locale would be practically impossible. 

Lo and behold, I actually did find one. In my brief conversation with him, as he bent over and mended my sandal, I came to know that he has been working as a cobbler at the same spot for the last 40 years! Looking at his tools and work style I could gather he was honest about the duration. 

Although there were quite a few restaurants and eateries along the way, I choose to sit by a father and son duo preparing parathas and bought lunch from them. Hot parathas made right then and there. 

It struck me then that the population living in that particular stretch was a very posh one. Nonetheless, it was so posh that the people working for them were mostly from outside the state and really poor. So naturally, there were the posh spots and the down-to-earth spots catering to the two different sets of people around. 

I certainly do not claim to authoritatively speak about Delhi, but unlike Mumbai or for that matter, Hyderabad, in Delhi the dividing lines are clear and sharp. 

History of Surakshitha building

In 1993 Fr Sebastian M was the rector of Ravulapalem. By this time PARA was already established and registered as a society (1988). Fr Sebastian bought a plot of land behind the Salesian residence at Ravulapalem (a paddy field then) measuring 14 cents. This was bought in two bits of 7 cents each. His plan was to provide a boarding facility for students after their class 10 exams. The idea was to have the school teaching staff living on the ground floor and the students on the top floor. One for boys and gents, the other portion for girls and ladies. That was the intention and plan with which Fr Sebastian bought the two bits. 

Fr Pallithanam was under the impression that one plot was bought in the name of Ravulapalem and the other in the name of PARA. But when Prabhakar and I checked the land documents yesterday we realised both the plots were bought in the name of Ravulapalem society. 

Perhaps when it was decided to shift Surakshitha home out of the PARA premises, one of the portions of the land was "gifted" to PARA. Because Palli is sure that the building was built by PARA. 

Association or distinction

 Sitting opposite a couple of Hindu sanyasis at the Rajahmundry airport terminal, I said to myself... I'm not very different from them. Mostly a difference of religious affiliation. 

Yet in a world that is so divided, we barely think of the similarities and often focus or harp on the distinctions. We prefer to stand out than stand with. 

Our tendency to associate and seek the linkages is far weaker than our urge to disassociate. 

Makes me think if this divisive urge is inherent in the character of religion or have we forced upon it.

Religion: inside out

 Here's another piece of reflection from Johnson Kottaram, about religion which is quite challenging, and true! 

Faith or Faction? 

When religion leaves the quiet space of conscience and enters the public arena, it stops being sacred and starts being strategic. It no longer redeems; it recruits. 

 When Jemimah Rodrigues thanked Jesus after her cricketing triumph, it was an intimate moment of gratitude. But in a country charged with religious fault lines, her words became ammunition. 

 The devout saw divine favour; the hostile saw provocation. What should have united us in admiration divided us along belief. 

 This isn’t an Indian peculiarity; it’s a global malaise. 

 In the Vatican itself, Pope Leo XIV’s recent permission for ultra-conservatives to celebrate the Tridentine Mass inside St. Peter’s Basilica looks less like pastoral generosity and more like an act of appeasement—a cautious nod to figures such as Cardinal Burke who equate faith with form and liturgy with loyalty. 

 The altar, once a place of communion, becomes a negotiation table between warring factions. 

 Even the brilliant Mahmood Mamdani, admired for his intellect and moral clarity, finds himself reduced to a “Muslim voice” by opponents who cannot see beyond labels. 

 In every corner of the world, identity has begun to shout louder than integrity. 

 The problem is not faith; it’s its exhibition. When belief is worn like a badge, it stops being a bridge and becomes a barricade. 

 A faith that needs applause is already insecure. 

 Real spirituality works inward—it refines, questions, and softens. Public religiosity, by contrast, hardens. It demands allegiance, not understanding; conformity, not compassion. 

 Until we learn to keep faith where it belongs—in the inner sanctum of the self—it will remain a divisive force, beautiful in symbol but toxic in practice.

Bourgeois Salesians

 From the General Chapter 29 document... (AGC 445 p. 20-21)

... it is true that there are numerous confreres with great sensitivity. But we are not all like that. (...) we take care of the poor, but we are not 'with the poor' nor 'are we poor', and with little capacity for personal and and institutional testimony.  And where - alongside holy Salesians - there are 'bourgeois' Salesians who desire more social life than missionary life, attracted by careerism and with superficial attitudes, with distractions and various comforts and - what's worse - everything is considered normal. 

This observation says it all!  

Source, not exclusive container

 The first reading of the day where Ezekiel describes the temple, and the water flowing out of it, in different directions, with all length, depth, direction and final destination of the same. 

What struck me as I read this passage during Mass was that the Sanctuary - and I suppose, the Church, as a whole - is the source of life and growth.  It is not the container or the exclusive right over life and growth.  But that the power of the Church is such that whatever comes into its contact should be life-giving wherever it goes.  

In this instance he speaks of the water that flows from the sanctuary. But I'm sure, the sanctuary is not 'producing' the water! And by itself, water nourishes life.  But that water when it flows THROUGH the sanctuary is so blessed that wherever it flows, it brings abundant life.  

So, too should every wisp of breeze, every fly that glides through the Church, every person spending time 'in' the church, should actually be a blessing wherever it or he or she goes.  

A very naive and shallow interpretation would be to exalt the sacred space 'in' itself. No.  The beauty of the Church is in its empowerment, its giving-out, its life-giving power that flows OUT of it.  It would be very incestuous to believe that the power of the Church should be and is only within itself!  

The person, people as the Church

 The readings of the day, led me to a surprising twist at the end... much like a thriller movie with a very unexpected and unprepared twist to conclude with.  

The first and the second readings speak of the structure of the temple. The second one speaks of the waters from the sanctuary, flowing left, around, this way and that way... emphasising the life it spreads wherever it flows.  

The gospel of the day begins with Jesus in the temple; his rage at the commercialisation of the sacred space and his eventual chasing out of all the vendors. However, the concluding line of the gospel is a total surprise: He was talking of his body!  Rebuilding of the temple again! 

With all the emphasis all along on the structure of the temple, the building, the sanctuary, the edifice... the best is kept for the last - the person!  

The church as a person, the people!  While the physical structure of the church is part of the understanding, tradition and need of the living out of our faith, the highest form and integral part of the understanding, tradition and need of living out the same faith, is the person!! 

Personally for me, especially in my present role, this concept of the emphasis on the living person, much more than the physical infrastructure and all the amenities and functionality, is an endorsement of where our investment should most be!  

Of course, I don't think Jesus would differ in my subtle deviation when I say that the building up should be of the people of God, not myself!  I am not the temple - atleast not the most important or the best decorated or guarded.  Shouldn't.  

Faith as commitment

 I came across this beautiful but challenging narration about faith as commitment... (a reflection by Jijo Jose Manjackal)

It’s a bright morning at Niagara Falls, 1859. The mist is rising, the roar of the waters is deafening and thousands of people are holding their breath. 

A rope - just two inches thick - stretches across the mighty falls. And then he appears: Charles Blondin, the greatest tightrope walker of his time. 

He steps onto that rope one careful step at a time. The crowd gasps - some turn their faces away. Step after step inch after inch and finally, he reaches the other side! 

The people explode in cheers and applause. Blondin turns around and shouts, “Do you believe I can walk back again?” “Yes!” they roar.  

He smiles. “Do you believe I can do it pushing a wheelbarrow?” “Yes!” Then he points to the crowd and asks, “Who will get into the wheelbarrow?” Silence.  No one moved!

 Everyone believed but no one committed! Everyone cheered but no one chose! 

In our Christian life, it’s time to stop cheering from the sidelines and start choosing! 

Faith is not a feeling to admire it is a choice to commit. 

Sheep and the shepherd

 In the Christian tradition the imagery of the sheep and the shepherd dates back to Jesus himself. In the gospels we read the umpteen number of times Jesus speaks of these two characters while driving home a point.

While many exegeses and commentaries ha e been recorded, there is one quite common misinterpretation that I've not come across much. Of course, there are references quite close to it. It is about the character of the sheep. 

Shepherds today tend to look upon the sheep as dumb, naive and worth nothing but being bossed over. This is not the fault of the sheep. It is due to the prise and arrogance of the shepherd. Jesus' concern and action towards the sheep was purely out of love for the sheep; not out of pity for them, not out of a false sense of doling out charity just to boost his own ego, not out of looking down on them, not as a means of self-glorification. 

Jesus loved the sheep. Period. There was nothing about himself in any of his thoughts, plans, and actions.