Insulated against social issues

 In quite a few of our Province discussions and meetings, there is a small group of individuals who point out that most of all we do, say and think about is inward looking!  In other words, what happens in the country or even beyond our gates hardly makes an impact on us or on any of our interventions.  We consciously keep ourselves away from anything social or humane matters.  We say all the right things, but still be comfortably untouched by the socio-political-justice dimension of our wider society. 

It is not a matter of jumping into politics or dabbling with political matters.  It is more about looking at those oppressed and marginalised as my brother and sister, because we have One Father.  

My personal take on this conscious denial of the fact is that we have always been - and prefer to continue being - an inward looking, in-house focused congregation and Province.  We set up base and wait for people to come to us.  One of the first things we do when we go to a new place and buy or get a plot of land, is to put up a compound wall.  The wall not only is to prevent others from coming in, but also from letting us move out! We stay insulated.  We build and then spend the rest of our lives and energies safeguarding what we built!  

There is also the fear of safeguarding our FCRA, society status, or our built up image of 'spiritual leaders'! Not that we do not do good work or noble apostolate; but only those who come to us get that assistance.  The wider reality of the society and nation is not our concern!  Living ministry outside our walls is something we dare not venture out for! 

God's inadequacies

 Watching the movie, Karuppu, reiterated even God's inadequacies in the face of human free will.  In a fantasy world, God can play the 'God mode' and 'set right' all things! But in reality, even God is limited! The movie attempts to 'liberate' God and assist him work 'outside the God-mode'. It even throws an open challenge to God to work in and as the human mould.  So far so good! 

However, the rest of the movie takes recourse to a fantasy, without making any serious effort at addressing an evil plaguing our Indian judicial system. The closest the movie comes to making a possible response or proposing a way forward, through the maze of the judiciary is citing fear.  Fear among the people, especially those directly involved in judicial matters: lawyers, judges, court staff... Fear primarily of the Divine.  But, that is a very lame attempt.  

For if those involved in the court process were God-fearing, the whole system would have never got corrupted in the first place.  And if everyone was so obedient to God, the courts would be redundant! 

In comparison to this movie, the other recent movie of Surya titled Jai Bhim is a much more powerful and sensible one. 

Nonetheless, the movie is a rather good trigger for discussion in a Theodicy class.  God is omnipotent, and almighty, all powerful; but before the human free will, God makes himself and is 'limited'. 

Travesty of Justice

To take my mind off the hundred and one things that were literally eating my brain, I watched the Tamil movie Karuppu, yesterday. Wrong choice!! It only added fuel and angst to my already preoccupied mind.

The movie is centred around the Indian judiciary system, or rather the inbuilt corruption and red tape that cripples the system so badly that while apparently everything is as per the process, the results are totally skewed and wrong.  The process itself, is so prolonged that even when justice is served, the intermediary costs are exorbitant.  The movie clearly indicates that even if God himself were to follow the legal procedure, he/she would be unable to do anything differently!  

Having to undergo the same judicial trials of matters concerning various issues of the communities, in the last four years, I could very much vibe with the sentiments of the victims, as I watched the movie.  The only difference being, the dozen cases that I'm involved in aren't anything serious or life-altering for me personally or for the community that I'm representing.  But that is not the case for most people approaching the courts for justice.  Their needs and demands are far, far, far more pressing, basic and absolutely human.  A decision - if at all, one arrives at it - is enough to break a family, shatter dreams, plans and even alter the lives of individuals and families irrevocably. Besides the corruption underlying the whole system, the duration these court cases take is perhaps the most agonising and traumatic aspect. 

During my 5 year tenure so far, there is only one case that has seen us walk out of the court for good. Only one.  That too after 17 long years! Presently there are 11 ongoing issues, with 9 of them being initiated within the last 5 years!  

Interchange Jesus and Daniel

 A couple of weeks ago there was this reading where we hear of the trial of Susanna and the smart judicial move of Daniel, the young prophet.  The same day Gospel narrated of the incident where Jesus defends the woman caught in adultery.  

Attributed to François-Guillaume Méneageot circa 1779

All through the Mass that day and for a couple of days I couldn't get a particular weird imagery that flashed across my mind: what if the two, Jesus and Daniel, were to be interchanged! Would the incidents unfold the same way as we read them in the Bible?  In other words, would Jesus have forgiven the two corrupt officials, rather than them being sentenced to death.  Would Daniel have scripted the woman to now throw stones at the men gathered to put her to death, or atleast the one(s) who forced her into prostitution or adultery?  

Perhaps this has been plaguing my mind, since I too am faced with a similar situation wherein I need to take a stand.  However, I have in a way made up my mind... after much tussle and inner turmoil.  

More than the final outcome of the incidents with the interchanged characters, I seek to understand the process or the rationale or the principles that would guide each of them to come to whatever conclusions they would arrive at. 

The 12 apostles - common folk

 The British judiciary has a style of functioning that whenever there is a trial, as part of the process 12 people are randomly chosen to be part of the jury.  Of course, not any 12 but those residential in the country (perhaps even the same county) and those who have been part of the British culture, or grown up in Britain since 13 years of age.  

Anyway, those criteria apart, there is no other qualification that decides whether they are part of the jury or not. They need not be holding prestigious positions in the society or specialists in law, leave alone be highly education. Mere common folk! 

The Jury, by John Morgan

In his essay "The Twelve Men", dealing with this British jury system, G. K. Chesterton wrote: "Whenever our civilization wants a library to be catalogued, or a solar system discovered, or any other trifle of this kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing around… The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity!”

Jesus too chose 12 men, all 'ordinary men standing around'... but it is interesting also to note, that it was those men standing around HIM; not total strangers.  Those 12 were already his disciples. 

Stand up (Cynthia Erivo)

I heard this lovely song this evening, and I first thought it was a Biblical song.  It felt exactly as if it was Moses of the Old Testament, singing this song about his task of leading the Israelites back to the Promised land.  

However, I then realised it mentions of a 'river' rather than the sea. That's when I looked it up. It turned out to be the title song of the movie 'Harriet'. The movie itself, is no less an Exodus tale: HARRIET tells the extraordinary tale of Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery and transformation into one of America’s greatest heroes. Her courage, ingenuity, and tenacity freed hundreds of slaves and changed the course of history.

The video of the song narrates the story by itself. The song is co-written and sung by Cynthia Erivo.  She is also the lead actress of the movie!! That's some real passion and heart. 

I'll need to watch this movie... 

I been walkin' With my face turned to the sun Weight on my shoulders A bullet in my gun Oh, I got eyes in the back of my head Just in case I have to run I do what I can when I can while I can for my people While the clouds roll back and the stars fill the night That's when I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I can feel it in my bones Early in the mornin' Before the sun begins to shine We're gonna start movin' Towards that separating line I'm wadin' through muddy waters You know I got a made up mind And I don't mind if I lose any blood on the way to salvation And I'll fight with the strength that I got until I die So I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on And I know what's around the bend Might be hard to face 'cause I'm alone And I just might fail But Lord knows I tried Sure as stars fill up the sky Stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Do you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river I hear freedom calling Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I can feel it in my bones I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you

Does God take sides?

Does God take sides? Is He partial?  

That's a common question asked mostly by young people or those who are at the receiving end. 

And the answer to that question, according to me, is YES! Certainly! 

There are enough theological and philosophical proofs to prove this point. 

God is always on the side of the weak and the marginalised.  My simple logic for this stance is that if he weren't, the strong would have trounced and annihilated the weak long long ago!! 

But for all apparent reasons, God's presence seems not to change the equilibrium.  The unjust, strong, corrupt, rich, dominant... seem to have their way... if not always, most of the time.  So what does God being on the other side mean?  

Two most practical and rational responses that I've come across are the following: 

1. In the Mahabharata, the Lord Krishna, is on the side of the Pandavas.  He does nothing divine or supernatural!  He does not fight, he does not strategise.  There's no magic he performs neither to defeat the enemy nor strengthen the Pandavas.  All that he does is steer the chariot!  
2. The second is the instance in the movie Avatar, when faced with insurmountable odds, the Na'ave people set out to wage war with the human, Jake asks Eva (the deity of the Na'ave) to support the Na'ave people.  And his better half states, 'Eva does not take sides.  She protects only the balance of life!'  

That mere presence, that balancing act is what actually God does being on the side of the less privileged.  The fight is not between humans and God.  It is between humans and humans!! 

Restarting...!

 It is after two years and two months that I'm getting back to writing a blogpost!  The last I posted anything on this blog was in January 2022. 

Much water has flown under the bridge!!!  Even for me to try to recollect, what has happened since then, takes me long.  Not that much has been achieved or great things happened, but certainly quite a few!  

Anyway, reviving this blog was something that was somehow cropping up in my thoughts and prayer during the season of Lent and all the more during the Holy Triduum.  So here I am putting my thoughts and resolutions (and prayers) to paper! 

For the last three months, I've been in and through so many legal procedures (courts, lawsuits, police complaints, reviews...) of different kinds, in different places and for different issues, that I've not been through in the whole of my life so far!  I never imagined myself reading through lawsuits and legal complaints, leave alone drafting and signing them myself!! But yes, that's an experience in itself.  

But what strikes me most is the fact that, even after us being such an extensive organisation with so many well-wishers us their expertise and help with these legal matters, we still are no better in most cases - literal cases!  What then is the state of those individuals who are really helpless when similar things (land grabbing, rental occupation and dues, unjust criminal cases, false accusations, blatant bullying, exorbitant bribes to close a simple ordinary open and shut case, being treated as a tennis ball between bureaucrats...) are dropped on their head? 

I dream of all the "illegal" methods used to bring to justice the crooked and corrupted... prefer the second half of Khosla ka ghosla! 

Justice and politics

Fighting for justice by breaking the law, one can still be truly just and noble. 

Standing against what is noble and good, by keeping all the laws, that's politics! 

The unknown saint

While listening to the gospel of the Emmaus episode, it occured to me: What if the whole finale of Jesus' story were to take place in a totally nondescript place? Jerusalem, as is today, back then too, was at the heart of the Jewish society.  Any and every event therein was bound to be known and talked about. 

Among the first things the disciples walking to Emmaus ask Jesus is 'Don't you know what has been happening in Jerusalem?'  That's an obvious and surprising question given the fact that everyone knows and is talking about the death of Jesus in Jerusalem.  It is like someone today, asking 'what is corona virus?' 

What if, like it happens very much in our times, Jesus were to be abducted by those who hated him and what he did in public;  tortured and then bumped him off in some remote place, unknown to anyone?  No public trial.  No journey to Calvary. No crucifixion in the open.  Just plain disappearance.  Not even does anyone of those involved in his kidnapping and murder try to circulate any rumours or theories - that would only increase speculation and search for truth.  Mere silence!  It is only those closest to him, Mother Mary, the apostles and those travelling with him that keep searching for him.  Asking about his whereabouts, having no clue what happened to him.  How would Christianity been moulded in such a context?  Would there at all be a religion called Christianity, arising from such a situation?

(Dedicated to the memory of those who silently but zealously work for the common good, often ending up paying very high personal costs - and even in death, continue to remain unknown!)

Individual humility and community solidarity

The grave injustice we read about in the first reading of the day, from the book of the Kings, about Naboth being killed by king Ahab for his plot of land reflects very much some of the happenings around the world today.  Someone poor and innocent is murdered merely for holding onto what is rightfully his.  The oppressor, who is much richer and powerful, gives in to his greed and commits a murder.  What's more heartbreaking is that the king and the queen, those in the highest of authority, prey upon those whom they are supposed to protect and strengthen.  Not only the rulers, but the whole system is against the poor and innocent.

What would one's response to such a tragedy be?  Or what can one do if one finds oneself in similar situations?  The Gospel seems a very absurd response:  show the other cheek!

...offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

Where then is justice and how can one live an honest and simple life?  One can answer that it lies in the following passage from the Kings, when the wrath of God prophecies against Ahab and Jezebel - but that does not save neither Naboth, nor Ahab!  However, the gospel passage itself has a response.  It is of individual humility and surrender.  But that's what one is to do when one finds oneself in such a situation: surrender; not react.  But as a community each one is to stand for the one being oppressed.  Every act of injustice is to be challenged without being aggressive or hateful... just state that the act is wrong!  Gandhiji, a non-Christian understood this perfectly well!  Christian ethics is always communitarian. 

That also means that when there is injustice being meted out to someone in the society, I need to take a stand on behalf of those oppressed. This is where our society fails itself:  we expect everyone else to support and stand by us when unjustly treated, but rarely do we stand by someone who is in a similar situation.  Individual humility (having done all one can do to prevent the injustice) and community solidarity:  Sounds utopian but actually possible and humane.  No violence, no hatred, no unprovoked anger.  

Chrysostom on the Eucharist and the other

Two significant quotes of John Chrysostom that I heard today:

Would you like to honor the body of Christ you receive in the Eucharist? Do not despise the poor when you see him clothed in rags... He who said 'this is my body', has said also 'You have seen me hungry and you did not give me to eat! Whatever you have refused to do for any of these little ones, you have refused it to me also!

What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger. Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well.

Punishment

The last day of lecture, on Thursday, witnessed a very one-sided debate on punishment and justice.  In the class we were just four of us students and the lecturer.  Everyone, except me, was for retributive justice by which they were discussing ways and means of prolonging the intensity of punishment in cases of gruesome criminal acts.  At the same time they were also trying to steer clear of not getting embroiled in human right issues.  So there was the discussion on prolonging life of criminals so that they serve longer prison terms (rather than be quickly bumped off) by means of technology.

I did my best in supporting restorative methods, by which I stated that the aim of punishment is not just to 'balance' the harm done!  Doing so would be the same as the crime already committed, but now legally sanctioned!  Therefore I suggested that there must be something that even the worst of criminals are good at.  Get them to do that for the good of the society.  This way, they get a chance (or are even forced to) make reparation for the harm done and the society too benefits.  However the harm done cannot be undone.  But the objection the class raised to this was that I was treating the person as a means to an end - ethically not justified!

After a long winding discussion which basically centred on how to intensify pain and suffering to balance the harm done, the professor stated that we need to first ask basic questions before we come to some decisions.  She said, which I firmly reiterated, that the question of what punishment is for needs to be clarified.  Unless such basic questions are clearly answered, our final decisions will always be lacking, even if they seem right.  

Lawsuits

When the parish priest was sharing about his pain of clearing the drive of snow or ice, especially on Sunday mornings, not for fear of people falling but for fear of the lawsuits they'd be filing if they fall in the drive, I was laughing.  Today while listening to the different cases that have come up for hearing, and the bizarre reasons for they being heard and judged upon, I understood his 'pain'.  And we were dealing with only the cases involving freedom of religion or belief, and that too the prominent ones!!

Here are two examples

Grainger v. Nicholson (2009). The latter was terminated from his post in a property firm by his boss (the former) after he refused to board a plane merely to hand over his boss his forgotten mobile phone. The reason: Climate change.  He argued that his principles went against the use of flights for such a silly thing as merely handing over a forgotten phone.  He won. 

Noah v. Desrosiers (2008).  A would be hair stylist successfully claimed indirect discrimination after she refused to remover her headscarf, contrary to the hair saloon's policy that stylists should display their own hairstyles to customers.  

I was thinking, in India even for serious crimes people do not approach the court. For it would take ages for it to come for hearing and even if it did, it would prolong or get so mauled that one would question one's own sanity.  Here in UK, the legal system is quite strict and lethal, so no one dares play games with it.  In India people resist approaching the legal system because it is more crooked and corrupted than the crime one wishes to report!

Of equity and equality

I had an interesting conversation with someone this afternoon about the British being more fond of equity than equality.  Equity is understood as fairness, being impartial.  Whereas equality is considered as something similar and akin.  The point of the discussion was justice.  In the light of this, the notion of equity makes more sense than equality.

I have to acknowledge, that my "Indian historical background" - the euphemistic phrase for 'British colonizing India' - didn't let me really listen well to the British fondness for fairness and equity.  Nonetheless, I did find the argument persuasive and relevant.  Moreover I was told that equity is a constitutional goal found in the official documents of the country, especially the Magna Carta.

We can never be all equal.  We can talk of equal opportunities and possibilities, but that's more about equity than equality.  Each of us is unique and different from the other. On no account can any group be said to be equal with another.  Of course, that does not give any one or any group ascendancy/superiority over another.

However, here's a nice pictorial presentation with a different message...

These pics say a lot about how we think - or are used to thinking!  

The sacrosanct soldier

For quite sometime now, I've wanted to confront the notion of the 'super great' British soldier that I've come across in the media and in group discussions back in the college.  A few months ago there was a large debate in media about some British soldiers being tried for violations of human rights while on duty on foreign soil.  There was a huge outcry against the trial itself. The basic argument was that they are men who braved all odds and circumstances, fought on behalf of us all, faced life-threats, were known for their gallantry... The same reasons even in college groups.

Today I got my chance!! In class there was a case study about a group of protesters being prosecuted because they shouted spiteful slogans during a march of British soldiers.  The protesters had sought permission earlier to protest and were all legal, except for going overboard in shouting inflammatory slogans in public.  I was for the prosecution. Others too were, but their main argument was that they shouted against 'British soldiers'!!  Even the professor spoke of how esteemed the profession of a soldier is and all that stuff!  I objected!  I said the act itself was unhealthy, irrespective of against whom it was carried out. And then I added...

The esteem and respect rightly accorded to a soldier for his bravery in battlefield is not to be treated as a license to do anything or get away with any offence.  While on the battle ground, he follows orders, and he is culpable only to the degree that he followed the orders.  However when he attacks a group of militants - that is the view from this side; for those on the other side, they are 'freedom fighters' - he is still right.  Kills them. All that is right and even justified.  But the ill-treatment he metes out to the residents or family members of the 'militants' of the place after the event is in no way justified.  He ought to give account and take responsibility for his misdeeds, no matter how great and bravely he fought the 'militants'.

There was no more discussion on that point! 

Law and Justice

Never thought of this distinction: law and justice.  Perhaps never bothered to think in those terms.  But there is a huge difference between law and justice.  I've not really bothered to find out the definition and intricate meanings of each but what struck me is that the law has got to do with action while justice is about the being. I may be splitting hairs here but I see a slight distinction.

The law is about the act, the actions one does and the subsequent things that follow.  So one breaks a law only when one has done the act.  So the act is central. However, when it comes to justice, the person is central.

This concept flashed  in the light of my reflection on human rights vs the human rights list.  I'm beginning to see more and more clearly that human rights is more about the human being rather than the rights.  Not that the rights dimension is nonsense or illogical; but that is not to be the focus of one's attention.  It is the person who takes the primary position.

Baptism for justice

The baptism of the Lord is a significant feast, as it really manifests what this Incarnate God is going to doing.  After all the glitter and celebrations of Christmas, the baptism reminds everyone of what ACTUALLY the Lord is going to do here on earth.

... bring forth justice to the nations...
a light to the nations,
to open the eyes of the blind,
to bring out prisoners from confinement,
and from dungeon, those who live in darkness. 

As Fr Gerry stated in the Mass this morning, it is all about justice.  

Trial by Jury

Yesterday I went for an Evensong (in an Anglican Church) along with Fr John Dickson.  It was in a chapel within a palace, which was built by a Cardinal and then taken over by the King.  Anyway, the Chapel was very old but beautiful, in its own way.  The choir, for which we really went, was made up of boys only. Honestly I don't think I'm a choir-person!  That rests the discussion.

On our way back Fr John was mentioning that here in England the trial is by jury and not by a single judge, as in India.  The jury comprises of a dozen or so chosen from among the ordinary people of the locality, picked up by the local council.  It is this jury that decides whether the accused is guilty or not of the crime.

And who forms the jury? Everyone or anyone!!  It basically is a means of letting every citizen take part in the justice system of the country.  Rather than leave it to a select few, everyone is expected to play a responsible role.  So individuals get a summon for jury duty for a week or so and they have to be present for the hearing and the case.  Ultimately give their verdict.

Sounds interesting!

Danger to philosophy...

Here's one of Rorty's concluding words in his book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (389):

But the dangers to abnormal discourse do not come from science or naturalistic philosophy. They come from the scarcity of food and from the secret police.  Given leisure and libraries, the conversation which Plato began will not end in self-objectivation - not because aspects of the world, or of human beings, escape being objects of scientific inquiry, but simply because free and leisured conversation generates abnormal discourse as the sparks fly upward.  

This point Rorty gets it perfectly right.  In times and places where food and justice are at stake, no philosophy is possible.  Survival is certainly of prime importance. Philosophy - or rather, philosophizing - is something for the 'good' times!

Jules sent me this picture, which somehow fits in with this thought: