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'. 

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! 

Bible as a rule book?

A couple of days ago I was in a group that was discussing the Bible.  One point mentioned therein was that the Bible is not a rule book.  While some felt that it basically boils down to that, others weren't sure.  I feel the book is certainly not a rule book.  It is more of an inspiration and a guide book.  A recommendation of instructions, at the most.  But not merely a list of do's and don'ts. 

Imagine a game without boundary or rules.  Without instructions of any kind.  It would be too confusing to everyone.  The players could do anything and everything.  The spectators watching the game would not understand head or tail of it - there wouldn't be anything to understand! 

The Bible too is like a motivational guide, if I were to speak in non-religious terms.  I do things or behave in a particular manner, not merely because the Bible-says-so, but because inspired by what I find in the Bible, I choose to be or do so.  I feel inspired by what it says and internally fell the thrill of living by those values.  

Best interests of the child

The English law going by the policy of 'best interest of the child' in deciding matters concerning children and their welfare.  The policy has been in place following the abuse of parents and guardians of their own wards and hence seeks to protect the children from any and every sort of abuse.  However, the recent deaths of two infants in a span of one year, which also generated a lot of debate in the media and in real life, hint at a loophole in this otherwise efficient policy. 

The question one needs to ask when seeking the best interests of the child is, who decides what is best for the child?  Unfortunately this is where the law falters.  It certainly does not consider the child itself as the best 'interpretor' of its own welfare.  So who is the ultimate adjudicator? The law 'assumes' that it is the one.  However, this self-claim is not without a double-face.  In reality it takes on this role only in 'controversial cases'.  Any normal person will understand that the parents of the child are the ones who'd be the first in interpreting what is best for the child.  Hence this right is of the parents. The law should intervene only and only in cases where the parents have repeatedly proved themselves incapable of making sound judgements towards the wellbeing of their child.  Not once in a way mistakes but repeated lapses. 

If parents are not awarded this right to be the primary interpretors of the best interests of the child then the law should take it upon itself the welfare of every child; each and every one, not just one stray or 'controversial' case.  Thus the law should makes sure the child gets the best education - that would imply there that there is only one school in the whole neighbourhood - only the best.  Because it cannot be partial to some by sending them to some lesser standard source of education and favourable to others by getting them into some 'grammar school'.  So too in each and every decision involving the well being of the child, the law should have a say - not the parents. 

(In the English culture, that the child itself is not considered capable of making 'right' decisions for itself, is not a surprising fact... but the fact that it gradually is given the skills to learn the criteria and that potential respected, is better placed than in some other parts of the world.)

Benefits of stealing

Ever thought that instead of getting punished you might end up getting paid, that too for hurting yourself in the process?  Well, in Europe such possibilities are very high.  Read this short news article from The Times of today.

People forget what a taxing, stressful occupation burglary is.  Take the chap in Cavan, Ireland, who tried to rob a shop during the small hours. Pitch black. And then the cops turn up. Frantic to make his escape, the burglar cut his scrotum on the sharp edge of a shelf. Quite rightly, the burglar is now suing the shop owner for genital trauma. The owner, called Kevin, has been told by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board that it will cost him £600 to contest the case. Hopefully he will be forced to sand down those edges and fit them with rubber or plastic moulding so the next time a burglar robs his store he can do so without sacrificing a testicle.  

Openness to God

The text preceding the vision Zachariah has of angel Gabriel announcing the birth of a son to him, describes Zachariah and his wife to be devout Jews, following the Scriptures scrupulously, blamelessly.  Yet when the angel appears to Zachariah, he finds it hard to believe the words of the angel.  There is nothing of such description about Mary preceding the annunciation.  She is not described as 'following the commandments and ordinances blamelessly', yet when she is told that she is to become the mother of God, she accepts and the angel - same, Gabriel - departs.  No punishment.

Wonder why Gabriel was so harsh on Zachariah and not on Mary?  After all, Mary too asks, 'How is this possible? Since I do not know a man?'  Gabriel only replies her that God will see to it.  While in the case of Zachariah, he is silenced!  He is struck dumb!

I guess there is more of what has not been truly recorded.  Perhaps Mary, even though she did not follow the letter of the law to its perfection, she was more open to the spirit of Yahweh.  Zachariah, on the other hand, was very much concerned about keeping the letter of the law.  He did not expect God to spring surprises on him, certainly not with something outside the text.  Being a priest, he should have been more open to His spirit than Mary who was not so well versed in the Scriptures.  Just goes to show that openness to God is what is more appreciated than perfect adherence to rules.   Apart from this there seems no valid reason for Gabriel to be kind to Mary and harsh on Zachariah. (Unless Gabriel was partial, or Zachariah dumb-stricken by surprise, more than punished by Gabriel).

When parents can't decide

For quite a few days I've been following up the news about the case of little Charlie Gard, the struggle his parents are going through to convince the court and the medical team to permit them to take their child to the US for treatment.  Honestly I don't see the logic of preventing the couple from taking their child to the US for treatment.  One of the points of contention is that the treatment spoken of is only experimental and it has not really been medically proved.  But precisely so, I argue, that since all possible options have been tried, in vain, this possible option should be permitted.

The main reason for not granting the parents to take their child to the US for treatment is that the proposed new treatment would only add to the suffering of the little baby.  Hence the court now directs the hospital to take the child off the life support.  (read the whole debate argument from the legal perspective here).

However, this particular case where the state takes into its hands, the decision about the well-being of the child, rather than let the parents decide is a bit too outrageous for me. This is peculiar to the UK.  The predominant law which permits the state to intervene is often invoked - and rightly so - in care cases, when the child is at risk from its own parents.  However, in this rare case, when there is an international panel of medical experts claims that there is a possibility of treatment available outside the UK, the court should consider that option.  Somewhere I feel there is also this stubborn belief that the UK has the best doctors!!

Hope love for life and trust in God, will show everyone involved the right way. 

Breaking laws

Laws – civil or ecclesial – rest on years of experience and wisdom. Only the one who has understood and lived the law to its fullest has the right to break it. For he has mastered the spirit and thereby found that precious thing for which the law, in the first place came into existence. The rest of us are invited to first live by the law and in the process discover the real meaning, spirit and depth, rather than reject it outright.

Humanly speaking for someone used to living by the rules is not burdensome, this logic works. But for those who perceive any rule or law as restraining and going against one's freedom, this takes time to sink.  From another perspective, any attempt to question the law need not be considered as an attempt to overthrow the law or rule.  It could be that the person questioning is only keen to really understand the law.  Thus the occasion could also be used as an opportunity to discuss the spirit of the law.  

Stuck to the 'law' of Jesus

Reflection for the readings of April l, 2017

Opinions are always divided. Convictions too are varied. Some people who heard Jesus were convinced about him being a prophet, or the Messiah. The Pharisees were convinced otherwise. While the conviction of the people was based on what they had experienced of Jesus themselves, the Pharisees' conviction arose from their knowledge of the law. They preferred to keep the law than to let it be questioned by a personal experience.

Today, as disciples of the Lord, we too can be like the Pharisees. We too can be so caught up with following what Jesus said rather than seek for a genuine personal experience of Him and thereby live the 'law' to its fullest.

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.  

Rules and norms

Rules are valid only in a society which accepts rules and in which the situation is such that rules are applicable. Where rules don't apply, rules don't have power. When the situation is anything but normal, no rules apply.

To create tranquility, security, and order and thereby establish the normal situation is the prerequisite for legal norms to be valid. Every norm presupposes a normal situation, and no norm can be valid in an entirely abnormal situation (Schmitt 1966, p. 46).

However crazy it may seem, but the inverse of it is also valid.  That rules, standards and strict policies are needed to bring an unruly situation under control and establish normalcy.  To create a peaceful society, one needs rules!

Manners and morals

Initially I thought that manners are offshoots of morals.  That manners and etiquette are byproducts of morals.  Therefore they serve the same purpose as morals, albeit on a less grievous or serious tone. Both are needed for the smooth running of society.

However, I'm beginning to doubt if that's true.  That manners and morals are related, is true. But does being well-mannered mean one is morally sound too - or the vice-versa.  If one has his morals right, would he or she be well-mannered automatically?  I don't think so. 

One could be well behaved and polite and courteous in society, but in reality be an immoral person. Take for instance, the politician (one can practically include every politician, anywhere in the world). On the other hand, take a tribal or one belonging to the indigenous population. Or even a simple person from a rural setting.  Most often they have their morality or ethical practices very sound.  They are not really corrupted by the malicious mind of civilization and technology.  However, his 'manners' may appear crude or unpolished.  

From another viewpoint, would it be right to call someone who goes about swearing (not at anyone in particular, though) and behaving in an uncouth manner, immoral?  Or would it be right to say that his moral compass is skewed?  Manners are contextual while morals are universal (or are they?).  Manners change as per place, time, persons, occasions.  Morals don't (at least not as fluidly as manners).  

While both manners and morals are rooted in society, culture, tradition, and history, they may not always be on the same side.  

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!

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.

Punishment for hoarding scrap

With just one more day for December 30, the last day for handing in all old currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000, there is rather ridiculous 'threat' doing the rounds.  Namely that those holding back these old notes will be punished!

Well the Times of India, is conducting an online poll for the same with the question

Is it fair to punish people for holding old Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes after Dec 30? 

The options given: Yes or No.
As of Dec. 29, 1800 hrs (GMT), the percentage reads: Yes: 59% and No: 41%
Really???

It is akin to asking 'Is it fair to punish people for hoarding old newspaper?' And people responding, yes they are liable to punishment! For what? Hoarding scrap? 

Punished for working

Came across the following news item on Daily Mail today.

A construction worker was photographed working at a site 90 feet in the air, without protective gear.  He was eventually photographed by those working in the neighbouring high-rise offices and health and security officials notified. Not only was he reprimanded, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and fined £ 1,400 and ordered to pay costs of £ 2,939.18.  But why did he dare do that? Because he wanted to speed up the work, since the project was three weeks behind schedule. And what was the point of accusation? He could kill or injure himself and/or others, if he fell.

Wow!  Contrast this with the numerous workers around the globe outside the Western world.  Involved in hazardous tasks day in and day out, if they were to be penalized as this young man, they'd be imprisoned for generations to come!!

We really live in different worlds!

Private Judiciary

The other day while lamenting the number of court cases and the issue of delayed justice, Fr Pandi blurted out one possible solution.  Something that never occurred to me earlier.  He was speaking of many political and authoritarian big-wigs taking the judiciary for a ride.  Cases where the truth is evident to everyone but none give any verdict and the case gets dragged on and on for several years. Even when the final decision is announced it is a sham.  In the process, those who cannot afford the court fees and expenses get trounced waiting for justice... lives are lost, livelihood destroyed, dreams shattered and noble aspirations turn bitter in the process.

Fr Pandi suggested, "Why not privatize judiciary?"  Well that's one viable option.  If various departments and business establishments can be privatized, why not judiciary?  Though it is the state's responsibility to ensure justice and speedy trials, when it fails and at times fails miserably, why not let organisations or institutions with integrity take charge. The state then can demand greater transparency and can be the final point of reference in case of retrials and undue delays.

Of course, that 'integrity' and 'transparent' words are huge blackholes!!

Life is more valuable...

Is it against the law on the sabbath to save life? (Mk 3: 4)

Jesus had a thing for breaking the conventional rules and regulations of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He did this to bring home the point that the rule was meant for the well-being of man and not as a mere law to be kept. As long as the laws help us grow in our relationship with others and God, they are beneficial; otherwise they are an obstacle. Law binds whereas love liberates.

Life is more valuable than any doctrine about life.

Demystifying 'community'

On February 12, 2013 The Hindu carried an interesting article by Sanjay Srivastava on it Op-Ed page, titled "Pathology of the hurt sentiment".  It shed some interesting light and presented some refreshing facts about community and feelings. As I read the article then, something struck me but I couldn't figure out what.  So I preserved that page and it has been rolling on my table (which is often clean of any papers except my planner) since then.  I picked it up again today and it occurred to me that perhaps there is some lesson for me about our Salesian or religious community in this article. So here are the excepts that led me to this insight:

A community is not a monolithic object and not all members of a community enjoy equal rights and privileges.  In fact, very frequently, the idea of not hurting public sentiments only serves to mask the fact that it is the attitudes of the most privileged that are being protected from criticism.  There are, actually, not only communities, but also individuals with different interests, and relationship to power and privilege.  

A note about the past, history... tradition:

When public commentators are urged not to hurt public sentiments, it is an an implicit plea to allow past practices and beliefs to dictate contemporary life. 

Continual glorification of the past is, in fact, a frequent indicator of contemporary cultural nervousness. 

Demands for respecting public sentiments are not only premised on the idea that there is a homogenous public out there, but that sentiments and beliefs are themselves unchanging.  Further, that the slightest questioning of an established way of thinking will lead to civilizational chaos, disharmony and social disarray. 

The idea of 'community' is, in the final analysis, both an objective reality as well as fiction.  For, we might, for instance, pray in a similar manner to many others (and the act forms an actual religious community), but to think that all members of a community must continue to believe in ideas that might have been prevalent a hundred years ago is to present a fairytale version of what community life should be about.  

Some bells about radical life of witness, community life, upholding tradition, preserving our heritage, identity, and the upcoming Salesian Brothers' Congress are ringing in my ears!