Indian Christian Politics: Chenchiah’s vision for Social Revolution (from the archives)

In continuation of my attempt to resurrect some articles from The Guardian,, the following is an excerpt from an article titled “Indian Christian Politics” in The Guardian, October 11 (1945) 325. The scheme for ‘social revolution’, which Chenchiah proposes, was actually formulated at the Bangalore Conference Continuation held that year, 1945 (note the pre-independence date). Here’s the concluding part of the article:

At the Bangalore conference Continuation held last summer a group of Christians who had the tragedy of our political life on their minds pondered deeply over the issue of their deliberations ended in a call to the youth of the country to lead a social revolution as well. They formulated a programme of action and recommended the technique of ‘cells.’ This has the advantage of putting action before talk and service before power. It links religions in patriotic endeavour. It puts the revolutionary leaven right into the masses. In their scheme the cell is the actor and not the audience. This scheme is as follows:

1. No caste–members of the cell should express their renunciation of caste by eating together, openly.
2. No class–members of the cell, those who are in position to do so, should set apart a portion of their net income as a fund to be owned by the members of the cell in common for meeting unemployment and ill health.
3. Productive work. Every member of the cell to devote himself every day to the production of food by gardening or of cloth by spinning.
4. Common Ownership–The essentials of life, food, clothes, should be lifted from the category of private ownership and experiments should be made in the enjoyments of these as common property.
5. Cooperation–The members should extend the principle of cooperation to every friend of economic activity.
6. Replacement of Money–Money should be replaced whenever possible by the social and moral effort which it represents.
7. Religious Unity–Members to secure harmony among followers of different religions by bringing to bear their religious inspiration on the furthering of social revolution.

This article is written in the hope that the adoption of this programme will bring all cates and classes into a fellowship of brotherhood and break the ground for larger programmes of the people’s government. Should we desire to avoid the bloodshed and red trail which revolutions find inevitable in their opponents, we have to prepare the people for the changes that are decreed and ordained for the political evolution of the world.

Why this ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature (from the archives)

In continuation with the effort (in this space) to resurrect some hidden gems from The Guardian, here’s a short article by V. N. Sharma (a Christian writing in 1951) who critiques the use of the term “Indian Christian” and vociferously calls for abandoning it altogether. I especially liked the part where Sharma says, “we… are Indians first and Indians last and our faith in the Lord paves the Way to behold the Truth and gives us the courage to live That in our own daily life.”

Why this ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature?

I have been wondering why the followers of the Christ in India allow themselves [to be] called ‘Indian Christians’ when we see such a nomenclature is unknown in other lands, Christian or non-Christian. A Christian living in Germany does not call himself or herself a ‘German Christian’, and the same rule applies to the followers of the Lord in other lands either in Europe, America or other continents. This nomenclature is particularly peculiar to our own people in India; the historical origin of this might be that the Christian missionaries who propagated the Gospel of our Lord wanted that the sons of the soil would come under the category of ‘Indian Christian’ as apart from their own kith and kin. Those historical events do not exist now and there is no necessity to follow this ancient path at present, if I dare to call this an ancient path at all. Whether we follow the Catholic way or the Protestant way, we are only Christians, born in this ancient land of India and working for the realisation of the eternal truths which this great land of our birth proclaimed in the world at large and for which the Lord stood in His earthly life. As such we, the humble followers of the Christ are Indians first and Indians last and our faith in the Lord paves the Way to behold the Truth and gives us the courage to live That in our own daily life. This, I feel, is our mission ins this life and through this alone we can secure His blessings for His glorification on this earth.

Let us not be enamored with false classification of ‘Indian Christians’ as if we are different form others that we need the state legislation to uphold this slavery of false nomenclature. I have been discussing this question with a number of friends and most of them agree with my thesis that this is a state of false protection so as to separate ourselves from other communities in India. Let us, if you all agree, raise up against this ante-diluvion classification. Let us ask the Government in power to classify us only ‘Christians’, and not ‘Indian Christians’. There are no ‘Indian Hindus’, ‘Indian Jains’, ‘Indian Buddhists’ as they go only under the denomination of their own religion. I know even the Muslims in India prefer to call themselves as Muslims and not ‘Indian Muslims’ even though some of our Muslim friends prefer to call themselves on reasons which I need mention on political grounds etc.

I do hope the elders of the Christian community will bestow some thought on this fundamental matter and set right the greatest harm this artificial designation so far done to us all.

Mylapore. V. N. Sharma

Source: “Why This ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature?” V. N. Sharma, The Guardian, October 18, 1951, 477.

The role of the Christian Community in India (from the archives)

Of late I have been delving into the archives of The Guardian, a newspaper run by Christians in the early part of the 20th Century. The newspaper was a weekly that would talk about issues related to Christians in India, especially political and social issues. Some of the articles are really excellent, both as examples of early history of Christianity in India, but also as examples of how Christians in India can also think. Time to time, I hope to put up either excerpts or the full articles. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I have.

The following excerpt is from an article written by J. R. Chandran. It talks about what the role of Christians in India should be, especially in relation to Communalism. It was written in 1956, so while some of it is quite applicable even today, some of it is quite dated, like the mention of Government service (which in that day was a very valuable thing, unlike today). I particularly liked his appeal to resist desiring sops from the government, just because you are of a particular (Christian) religion.

Christians in New India

We [Indian Christians] should avoid the error of communalism. When our national leaders are fighting against communalism, we should not add to their problems by making special claims for our own community. It is natural that we should think of the economic stability of our community and be concerned about the educational facilities of our children and the employment of our young people. It may be that if there are communal minded people in responsible positions, we may not always get justice. We should not concern ourselves too much about what happens to our children and our young people. We are to be concerned about the whole pattern of justice. We should not expect any exclusive privileges for ourselves, nor should we seek to get all our children absorbed in Government services. We should become more industrious and seek means of employment in private business and industry so that our dependence of Government services will be considerably reduced.

Source: J. R. Chandran, “Christians in New India,” The Guardian, August 9, 1956, 317.

Christmas in Montreal; the failed quest for true meanings

The true meaning of the season?

Wow! it’s 2009! This year the “season” has been very different for me as I am currently doing a short-term study programme in a foreign land… in Montreal (Canada) to be exact.

Christmas in Montreal began immediately after Halloween (literally November 1). The shops had Christmas decorations for sale, everything went for sale in the name of Christmas and the local government began decorating the streets with candy sticks and Christmas bells. As the days went by, it was Christmas trees, and Santa clauses, and you get the idea if you have watched enough Hollywood movies.

I was confronted time-and-time again with “happy holidays” greetings that some how lacked the charm of “merry Christmas and a happy new year.” (not that this is ‘more’ spiritual).

And yes, it snowed. And while the charm of a white Christmas was lost to the countless commuters complaining about the cold and the snow, it was special to see the Christmas trees lined up with actual snow and not “white” cotton! But I still couldn’t figure out how this glorified “white” Christmas could better help me (or anyone) experience the “true meaning” of Christmas.

So I at last know (first hand), why (and how) the “season” is such a big deal in western countries, though it is sad to see it (sometimes) violently stripped off of any of its religious meaning. In fact, in Montreal there was a huge political storm (just before Christmas) when some residents complained about the public “Christmas” tree in the city and the new elected Minister defended the tree by saying that there was nothing “religious about it,” and that he believed in the holiday season it represented! (whatever)

For what it’s worth, I know Christmas does not recall the actual birth of Jesus, but is actually an adaptation of a non-Christian festival (in those days called pagan) and adapted by the all-powerful church to make it more palatable for the people. So perhaps we’re on the verge of another cultural take-over… and what would we lose… and who would lose?

“Namaste London” and Indian culture

I found an interesting movie review of “Namaste London” not for its dealing with the movie, per se, but especially for its dealings with the issue of identity.  The author of the post (rightly, in my view) points out the error in the need to justify identity by demonising the other. Here are some excerpts:

[Namaste London] is yet another movie that tries to picture Indian culture as the all good-good and the most ‘sanskari’ culture in the world. Ironically, it is so fragile that it has fallen prey to the demon of western culture….

…[The main character] has to prove that the West, its culture and its people are inferior to us. I wonder if we need to demonise other to prove our worth.

I am an Indian. I love my country, I love my culture. I have confidence in the strength of my culture; and do not feel the need to demonise the West to show me the worth of it.

Derrida on “God”

I’m a growing fan of Derrida. Now this is not a presumptuous statement; as if to suggest I understand him. It’s just that as I delve more into his understanding of “religion”, I am coming to understand that in a simplistic sense, I agree with a lot of what he is saying. The following are a few quotes from his interview with Yvonne Sherwood and Kevin Hart, in Derrida and Religion: Other testaments.

…God is not some thing or some being to which I could refer by using the word “God.” The word “God” has an essential link to the possibility of being denied. On the one hand, God is far beyond any given existence; he has transcended any given form of being. So I cannot use the word “God,” I mention it. It is a word that I receive as a word with no visible experience or referent.

This comes back to what I said about prayer. When I pray, if I say “God,” if I address God, I don’t know if I am using or mentioning the word “God.” It is this limit of the pertinence of the distinction between mention and use which makes religion possible and which makes the reference to God possible… What are we doing when we name God? What are the limits of this naming? Now we know that in many Abrahamic traditions God is nameless, beyond the name. In Jewish traditions, God is the empty place, beyond any name. But we name the nameless. We name what is nameless. And when we name “what is not,” what is or is not nameless, what do we do?… To mention the word “God” is, in a certain way, already an act of faith. I’m not sure that there is pure faith, but if there is it would consist in asking the question, “When I use the word ‘God,’ am I referring to someone or mentioning a name?” (37-38)

What do I understand from this?

Well, keeping in my the principle of deconstruction; which simply put, begins by questioning the relationship between the word (language) and the referent (object), by stipulating that when we refer to a “glass” we are actually referring to a word “glass” or even the concept (again words) denoting “glass” rather than actually representing the actual glass… it thus makes sense to say that when we say God we don’t actually “have” God but refer to the word God.

And yet, through the act of faith, we believe that our use of the word “God” actually refers denotes God himself, and not just names God, but also “calls” him (another Derrida thought, later in the same interview).
In effect, Derrida is not questioning whether God exists, but questions our use of the word God and yet accords it much possibility when combined with faith in the nameless God who allows himself to be denoted (named) by our idioms, names.

IPL (Indian Premier League): a problem for national identity

For the two! people who’ve been following my blog, I guess you are familiar with the larger questions this journalic space features: issues pertaining to identity. And I think it’s interesting to think about issues of identity with the newly formed and marketted IPL cricket tournament currently being held in India.

As it is quite well known, each of the 8 teams has been allowed to ‘buy’ and use foreign players. Also, each of the 8 teams has bought national players (even those who play for different states). In fact, other than the big few (ie. Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman etc. who are fixed within their city/state teams), the rest of the teams are a mixture of local, national and international talent. We thus have strange anomalies where a true Punjabi (Harbhajan) is playing for Mumbai while a Mumbai player (M. Karthik) is playing for Punjab.

Our Indian identity need not be rooted in our state-wise affiliations (ie. Maharashtrian, Kannadiga etc), but as something much larger and fluid. A Punjabi can play for Mumbai because he is truly Indian. And an Australian can play for Hyderabad because he has been welcomed as one of their own.

Interestingly, however, many of the teams are rooted to a particular city. Therefore we have the Delhi Daredevils, Mumbai Indians, Chennai Kings, etc. and yet we have a Jharkhand player (Dhoni) leading the Chennai team; and this is supposed to evoke some sort of bonding.

What is most interesting however, that despite these obvious problems above, I have still found myself rooting for my home-team, ie. Bangalore. Simply because I currently live there. Ethnically I have no association with Bangalore, and have only recently moved… but somehow my loyalty is with Bangalore. Sadly, ‘my’ team is doing very poorly, and I tried to formulate other surrogate loyalties… like Rajasthan and Delhi. But alas, my heart, currently, belongs to Bangalore alone.

What does all this have to do with the problem of national identity?

Well, for one, the “INDIAN” premier league, despite its international flavour, is an Indian tournament rooted in India, for India, and running with Indian money. Yet, many of the international players have commented on the positives of sharing the dressing room with previous adversaries… most recently Ponting, who spoke positively about being in the same dressing room as Ganguly and his nemesis Ishant Sharma. In effect, here we have the possibilities of International comradarie and breaking of barriers.

Then again, this tournament is Indian, in that it features many states/city based teams. Yet, each of these teams are brought together as a conglomeration of various state players and urges loyalty simply on the basis of your current location.

And here’s my point: The IPL provides a positive example of how Indian identity exists. It is hard to demarcate our identity in terms of state or ethnicity, and yet we remain truly Indian. And for those visitors who join the party, who come into India, even they get to see what India is, what being an Indian is, from the inside, and the Indian identity is able to even incorporate the outsiders for a while. As a result, our Indian identity need not be rooted in our state-wise affiliations (ie. Maharashtrian, Kannadiga etc), but as something much larger and fluid. A Punjabi can play for Mumbai because he is truly indian. And an Australian can play for Hyderabad because he has been welcomed as one of their own. In both senses, being Indian is not so much a boundary, but rather an idea that attracts us all to its core.

What’s in a name: Article Watch

I recently read this post and it’s perfect in keeping with the theme of this blogsite… the question is of ‘identity’… of Indian identity that transcends religious/local identities. The author writes about the recent clash of some Maharashtrian groups against North India. The author rightly (I think) challenges (through a biographical style) both regional identities and more importantly violence to assert regional identities. Vandals are vandals; not activists! is a helpful call.

Anyway, the post is linked below. Do read it.

http://www.mixedbag.in/2008/02/13/where-are-you-from/

Excerpts,

I never thought about my caste, religion or region before I went to college, and stayed in a hostel in Maharashtra. To tell you the truth, I still don’t know my caste, and I really don’t care. I’ve seen people (in that college) shocked when I’ve told them that.

*It’s strange that most media reports call them Workers, or Activists. Karyakarta. Not Vandals, Miscreants or Hooligans. This also holds true for the Nandigram war in West Bengal, the Gujjar agitation in Rajasthan, and several such incidents in the past. A legacy of our communist leanings, that we justify violence as a political movement.

When a mob goes on a rampage, who do you hold responsible – the one who incited the violence, or those who committed it? Both.

Against Ghetto Christianity: A theological lesson from Calvin and Hobbes

ghe·tto (gĕt‘ō) n.

A part of a city, not necessarily a slum area, occupied by a minority group. The term was first used for the enforced concentration of Jews into specific residential areas in European cities from the Middle Ages, but has now spread to include other ethnic groups in unofficial ghettos, especially black minorities in the USA. Lifestyles within the ghetto differ distinctly from those of the ‘host’ population and the prejudices of the host confine the sub-group to particular locations. Although ghettos are characterized by social disadvantage, most ghettos display a spread of socio-economic groups and the better-off may move to the affluence of the ‘gilded ghetto’. (from Geographic Dictionary)

In India, and maybe elsewhere, there is a concept of the “mission compound.” This is described as a smallish collection of houses with Christians residing. The problem with the “mission compound” in Christianity is that it reflects a problem within a form of Christianity in India. Like any community, (including many Hindu communities I might add), we tend to limit our involvement to our own community concerns; almost to protect ourselves. However, as this cartoon from Calvin and Hobbes reminds us, any wall of protection can trap us from within.

For Christians living in a world where we are few in number, we need not fear our neighbours, even in the Indian context (in which we are falsely called minority communities), because God is our protector. We need not build walls to protect ourselves from others, because that would limit our engagement with others.

Jesus’ way of dealing with people was the incarnation, and it was the opposite of the mission compound. He CAME to earth (leaving heaven); and dwelt in our context (Philippians 2). That’s the model for us to live with and be involved with others.

But this mentality is worse when reflected WITHIN Christianity; when we desire to protect ourselves from our own people, like Christians from other denominations etc. While it is true we need to be clear on what we believe; still we also need to remember that learning; theology; our quest for God; is a co-operative affair. The church means that we live and learn together; we fulfil God’s task together. (Body of Christ, image). In protecting ourselves from what we fear as false doctrines, we are in danger of losing all sight of the larger vision of God’s plan/purpose. Ghetto Christianity isolates us from fellow Christians who may challenge (spur) us, and even teach us and help us.

How then, can we protect ourselves from others; forces against us from outside and forces against us, from within?

Firstly, we look to God for protection from forces outside (Psalm 121). We need not fear persecution; in fact, we know that our Lord warned us of it long ago (Matthew 5). The example of Jesus is worthwhile. Entering the world is a risky affair, we may lose our lives, but that is the cost/cross Jesus bore, and so must we. Like Paul, we recognise the value of living in context… Jew for Jew, Greek for Greek… knowing that only through an active engagement with the lives of people, with God’s living power within, can we impact our contexts. If we hide our faith, people will never know who/what our God really is.

Secondly, we can protect ourselves from wrong doctrines etc… not by limiting our involvement with others, but rightly learning together. The cooperative exercise of the Church, encourages us to learn from others, to check the mistakes we make, and others make. No one church; one organisation; one pastor; has all the answers. Because we rely on cooperate teaching, we encourage a system where many people are able to check answers from the Bible, many people are able to gauge whether what the pastor (local church) says is the best way to say things. All this, within the context of love, can really help us to correct doctrinal and personal flaws. And thus we are able to keep each other in check.

I know the mission compound mentality is still prevalent here; but maybe Calvin reminds us (visually) that it’s not the best solution for us all.

Monkey business! India vs Australia Cricket… what else?

Today The Hindu (newspaper) carried an article by former Australian cricket captain Steve Waugh (click here to see article) who stated that the current conflict between Australia and India about cricket and more was about “cultural differences”. Especially he noted that to call a person a monkey in India is not an insult as deep as a racial slur. I agree. But I was thinking why.

In India, we don’t naturally believe in the scientific worldview… hence… evolution theories may be partially believed but not really committed to. There is no need to believe or not believe in evolution within the Hindu mindset… and hence the idea of man’s descent from “apes” is just not important… and affects nothing… especially if “all is God and God is all” in the first place.

I still think it was wrong to throw out the supporters in Mumbai for making “monkey sounds” for Symonds without having a dialogue whether it was actual racism or not

In effect, the crisis that Darwin had on western (scientific) Christianity entirely misses the Hindu-Indian (even Christian Indian???) mindset and thus, to say a person is a monkey… points not to “race” as it would in the western world where monkey clearly refers to a crisis of evolution; where, since we are descendants of monkeys… and since evolution is thought to be “BETTER”, thus, the one most resembling a monkey is lesser evolved etc. (This was used (terribly) on many African communities for a long time, even till recently).

In India… the idea of monkey is closer to monkey (naughty)… or monkey (unruly)… or even monkey (funny). These are the typical meanings… where the myths (from the ancient literature of India, not just religious… like the Panchantra etc) depict monkeys in various lights. But invariably… the monkey is never refers to a lower species or even… and this is important… a reference to species.

Of course, in the context of cricket, while I don’t think the Indian fan is always without blame (we were horrible in Eden Gardens against Sri Lanka, and the throwing bottles on players is unacceptable), I still think it was wrong to throw out the supporters in Mumbai for making “monkey sounds” for Symonds without having a dialogue whether it was actual racism or not.

I mean Symonds has the right to be hurt… but he and his countrymen must have understood but now… in a postmodern world… that symbols… actions… even racism… mean different things in different countries. But instead of seeing that the action of “monkey” was not meant to be on Symonds race (which is a serious allegation), but on symonds looks and behaviour (which is a slur on character, or personality not race… hence not racism).

The Indian cricket governance did something wrong right then and there… by not addressing what racisim “really is”. In effect, if Harbhajan did use “monkey” to Symonds… he is subject to the tag of racist because the Indian cricket governance did not deny that it was racism in the first place.

In actuality, Harbhajan could have been riling up Symonds because he knew it would get him irritated, but it is almost impossible for a person like Harbhajan, whose main source of identity comes from community not race… (ie Sikhism)… to refer to Symonds as lesser evolved. That western concept is not dominant in our common psyche, and hence I argue, not a racist comment… but an insult, nevertheless.

So what? Well… nothing… whatever is happening now between the two countries is so sick anyway… both sides, Australian and Indian are acting like brats. It’s like they’re playing school cricket, all of them, in terms of attitude at least. I don’t even care that India lost or Australia equalled the record… in cricketing terms it would matter. But in this test… cricket seems to be the least important thing!