What really is Christmas?

This is a serious question. Everywhere, from all over the world, people are celebrating Christmas. Christians are celebrating, non-Christians are celebrating and even Christians, who deny that they are Christians, are celebrating Christmas. Of course the non-Christians are celebrating Christmas without even understanding what it is celebrated for. But why is a Christian who denies Christ is celebrating Christmas? Is it for fun-sake? Wonderful!

In Bangalore, in the colony where I live, my non-Christian colleagues and their families and children are celebrating Christmas today in the club. Christmas tree is decorated, presents are kept under the tree and distributed to the children by someone dressed as Santa and a few carol songs are sung and games are played and there is great rejoicing and wishing Merry Christmas to everyone present.

Is that Christmas? Do they even understand what Christmas stands for? None of them believe in Christ, that he came to save the world from sin or to give them eternal life or that it is the salvation plan of God the Father for human kind. They will get offended if such a message is given, saying that we are narrow minded people, restricting Christmas celebrations only to the Christians. They may even feel superior saying how Hinduism is so inclusive that they are enthusiastically celebrating Christmas, a festival of Christians, whereas Christians are exclusive and narrow-minded.

What is Christmas without Christ? Can there be a message of peace and hope and joy, if you have excluded Christ and are just observing a festival of exchanging presents or having a party and having a good time? That is definitely not Christmas.  

Christmas is the time when we remember that a child was given to us, so that we can be saved from our sins. The child was born of Virgin Mary, with the power of God and so when the child grew up to become a man, he was without sin. So he could offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the human beings. That was a great sacrifice because he was faultless and blameless and still people killed him out of spite.

Christmas is the time we thankfully remember that God came down to earth in human form, so that he can stand in the place of human beings, being tempted and put to suffering as a human being, yet remain without sin, giving us a model to live on. It is a time to remember what it cost God to come to earth, suffer and die so that we could live.

It is also a time to remember that fact that God raised Jesus three days after he died, when they crucified him. That gave human beings a hope that we will also be raised after we die and live with Christ forever. Death is not everything. It is not the end of everything. Nor do we have to fear death, being uncertain, as to what happens after death, where do we go? Jesus’ resurrection proved beyond doubt that he lives and we will also live in eternity.

God loved the world so much that he sent his only Son Jesus Christ, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. That is the whole point of Christmas, the birth of Jesus that we may have eternal life by believing in Jesus Christ. It is the way of reconciliation with God and to live eternally with God and Christ.

When we don’t believe a word of this great provision for the salvation of human kind, what is the point of simply celebrating just to have a good time and wishing each other Merry Christmas? It is so shallow and a mere lifeless chatter. We miss the significance of Christmas when we superficially celebrate it thus.

I hope one day people will recognize the significance of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and have real peace, enduring joy and happiness. I wish that day will come soon, may be at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Come early Lord. 

What made Nelson Mandela a Great Man?

Nelson Mandela, who is called the Father of the Nation in South Africa, is credited with dismembering the Apartheid regime in that country. He was loved not just by the South Africans of all colors, but equally by people all over the world.  What really endeared him to the world? This called for some investigation.

The first sign of greatness in the man, as discovered by me was, his humility. He had humble beginnings, a village boy, who played in the streams and meadows of the village Qunu, looking after sheep and calves in the fields, and running along with the other boys of the village. This simplicity and love of open spaces he carried with him till the very end. His disarming smile captivated every one. In his humility he was not ashamed of his humble home, but was proud, for he was the eldest son, by the third wife of the chief of Thembu tribe, an adviser to the local king. But, he went beyond these beginnings.

Second, he applied diligence and discipline to everything he ever attempted. As he trained for his long-distance running in his adolescent years, he enjoyed the discipline that went with it and the solitariness of the exercise. He felt that many had potentials but they failed to build their endowments, which is necessary even if one is mediocre.

In his age and country, it is amazing that Mandela continued his love for exercise till the very last. 

He loved a rigorous exercise and after a strenuous work-out he felt both mentally and physically lighter. He kept up his exercise regime even in the prisons, getting up early and going through on the spot running, jogging, sit-ups and push-ups. He believed that exercise was not only the key to physical health but also to peace of mind. It was an outlet for one’s frustrations and physical training became one of the inflexible disciplines of his life.

Third, Mandela had a tremendous sense of commitment, commitment to the cause, commitment to improve himself steadily throughout his life and commitment to his country. He learnt at every step and stage of his life.

The cause he was committed to was abolition of discriminatory practices of the white government towards the black people of South Africa. He was willing to sacrifice himself and everything that was dear to him for this cause of the oppressed. As he grew up, he understood the magnitude of the unjust laws under which the majority and indigenous population of the land was suffering. He started to help the oppressed black people legally as he started his own legal practice. It became his life goal.

Mandela was proactive. When he came in touch with the Communists in his country, who were also fighting the oppression of the white minority, he started to read Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to understand their philosophy. As he started to attend the political discussions of the African National Congress (ANC), a new world of ideas, political beliefs and debates opened up to him and he became thoroughly interested and enervated.

While preparing the “Freedom Charter” for his party, Mandela spent hours pouring over the American Declaration of Independence, French Declaration of Rights of Man, the Communist Manifesto, and so on. He was ever studying and kept his learning abreast. Abolition of racial discrimination and equal rights for all became his passion.

When he went on tour of the other African nations and later the Western world, Mandela used to lock himself in his hotel room and study the information about the country, its political history and leadership to understand more about the country he was visiting.

Self-improvement seemed to be the mantra of Mandela. Not only was he regular in his daily exercises, but he continued his studies in the prison too. He said it was a way to keep him from thinking negatively. He felt an obligation to improve and strengthen himself for the future, for whatever that may lay ahead. He continued to learn and be fresh in his mind and thinking.

Mandela’s commitment to the country was paramount. He understood that his commitment to liberate his people from Apartheid will involve personal sacrifice, but still he went ahead and plunged into politics of his day. It took him away from his family, his mother, wife and children; he was without a home life.

He had to be a fugitive and was underground for years to organize political activities; he was put in jail, forced to do rigorous manual labor, survived on scanty food, underwent innumerable slights and hurts; he went to jail in Robben Island when he was 46 years old in 1964 and came out only in 1990, when he was 71 years old. The best part of his life was spent in the jail. He said “Strong convictions are the secret of surviving deprivation.

He said, “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Fourth, he was pragmatic. He had great admiration for Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violence movement, but when he realized that situations were different and that non-violence was not working in South Africa with the white minority rulers, he changed his tactics to violent armed resistance including guerrilla fight. He himself got trained in it and organized training for young recruits of ANC abroad.

Fifth, Mandela was optimistic. He was always hopeful. He never for a moment doubted that one day he will walk free and so also his people. His sacrifices will not go waste. He wanted to create a society where the black, colored, white and Indians will live in equality and freedom. He wanted to transcend the color barrier.

Sixth, the sacrifices Mandela made in his personal life were really great and at any time he selected his struggle for nation above his family obligations. His mother died when he was in Robben Island. He questioned himself whether he did the right thing by putting his country above his family. His first marriage failed because his wife wanted him to select between her and politics. He had to be in politics and she walked away. Their four children suffered the most.

His second marriage to Winnie ended two years after he returned from his 27 jail year term. Winnie herself was haunted by the police to harass and intimidate her. May be as a result, she had become notorious in her conduct and political aspirations. He had to seek divorce. Their two daughters suffered as they had to grow up without their father. Finally he married for the third time when he was 80 years old, longing for a simple family life, which had eluded him all through. 

  

He said, he was a life-loving man but was forced to live like a monk. He also said, “I am not a messiah, but an ordinary man who had become a leader because of extraordinary circumstances.”

Lastly, he was a balm applied to society during post-apartheid period that saved South Africa from civil war or massacres or division of the country. He assured the whites that there will be no witch-hunting. He wanted everyone to live in peace in the country. National reconciliation was his primary task.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission with Desmond Tutu was constituted in 1996 and sat for two years, where people just vented their feelings, both the oppressor and the oppressed. And forgiveness was sought and given. His view was the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. “A man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hate,” and he must be liberated from that.

Mandela died on 5th December, 2013, when he was 95 years old. A great life ended and a great leader departed. He was a leader and a hero not just to his people but to the whole world.  What a great life! 

How do people cope up when they are oppressed?

When a tragedy like floods strikes how do people react to it?

Recently in the beginning of December, heavy rains descended on Chennai and the city went under the water. The deluge brought in its wake immense suffering and tragedies and loss. Cars and two-wheelers were either submerged or marooned. Water came up to the level of ceiling fans in the ground floor. Huts and makeshift houses of the poor built along the river banks were washed away, along with whatever belongings they had. Some elderly and some youngsters even died in the rising waters as they could not get out of their houses. So how do people react or cope up with such dire situations?

We learn from Chennai example that the milk of human kindness poured in abundant measure. Provisions and goods were rushed to the affected city from all over the country. Young volunteers at the risk of their lives tried to reach the unreachable areas to bring succor to the affected and isolated. Any and every one of worth was involved in relief operations. Hope in humanity shone like a star, bright amidst the gloom.

What happens when oppression is not due to the fury of nature, but from one’s own government? Where do people turn, when the fence that is supposed to safe guard them, becomes the predator? How do they cope with such situations? Where can they go? What can they do?

People in China faced such a dilemma, when Chairman Mao let loose the “Great Leap Forward” on them, with the ignoble goal of catching up with the West in 15 years. What was the hurry that the country should be developed within 15 years? Why not 30 years? Hasn’t China developed now? But it was a prestige issue.

Mao wanted to build a China, which would rule the world in technology and military power, all to be achieved within 15 years. May be he wanted to see such a China before his death. Was that the reason for urgency? The result of such megalomaniac ambitions was 45 million Chinese people died out of famine and other measures resulting from the Great Leap Forward, from 1958 to 1962, in just four years.

People became the pawns in the game. They were forced to work in steel factories, on dams and conservatories and on paddy and wheat fields; they were forced to work during the night also by the light of lanterns, torches and pressure lamps; private property was abolished; people had to eat in great communes and common kitchen; mud houses were demolished and used as manure for the land; pots and pans and agricultural implements were fed into country side furnaces to produce steel; people were forced to eat only vegetables as a sacrifice and a sparse diet was dished out to them; children were separated even while young, so that mothers could work. Family fell apart and life as they knew for centuries disappeared.

Nation was asked to pay a great price for development. Mao famously said, “Revolution is not a dinner party.”[1] People got a taste of it soon. Anyone who was foolish enough to oppose these moves or argue for his rights was punished by withholding the day’s food rations. That became the punishing rod in the hand so the party cadre. Soon flogging and beatings became regular in the communes; the higher ups when they came to know of it, encouraged them to use force to being people to their knees. Corruption became rampant. Targets to be achieved ruled the day.

The harvest was gathered and sent to Russia and other East European countries in exchange of technology and machinery. People who produced the grains were left to starve. All the same the party cadres, higher officials and Mao himself rolled in luxury. Provisions went to the party rulers first, then to the city folks and then for export. Villagers were left to fend themselves. Famine stared at their face, a man-made disaster.

How did people cope up with such a situation? Dikotter, who graphically describes the macabre situation in his book, says thus: “As famine spread, the very survival of an ordinary person came increasingly to depend on the ability to lie, charm, hide, steal, cheat, pilfer, forage, smuggle, manipulate or otherwise outwit the state.” And that is what they did.

When nothing could save them from hunger, they fell to eating the bark of the trees, cooking the leaves, even leather from old furniture, and mud. Still they died like fleas all over the country side. A few even dug the dead, cooked and ate their decaying flesh and organs.

Birth rate plummeted; women stopped menstruating due to heavy work and scanty food; children developed swollen bellies, indicator of undernourishment. Children, the sick and the elderly were considered as idlers and were abused. They were deprived of their dignity in life and in death. 

At the height of such tragedy, there was no human milk of kindness flowing for Chinese people. Mao advocated people to eat less and famously said, “When there is not much to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Is this the response from a responsible leader in the face of a national calamity? But we forget we are dealing with die-hard communists.

Not that the leaders suffered. Mao lived in opulence near the Forbidden City; his bedroom was the size of a ballroom. He enjoyed his daily swim in his private pool. He had the privilege of chefs and attendants all around at his beck and call. Chicken, egg, meat and vegetables came to his table from dedicated farms. Others down the line tried to copy his style of living, but the poor peasants and the factory workers went without even the basic requirements.

Was not Communism about proletariat and the workers? Then how come they are the ones who were ploughed in Mao’s communist China? Who is to ask him and face his wrath and end up dead or in the gulag? All checks on violence, namely religion, laws, family and community, were all broken and discarded. People became the means to achieve the ends laid down by their political masters. They died for their own good, they were told.

Opposition to Mao’s leadership became loud and the Great Leap Forward was discarded by 1962. A leader had to consolidate his power and position to survive. That is what Mao did. He launched the “Cultural Revolution” in 1966, which will exterminate all those who opposed him during the Great Leap.  When he died in 1976, with him also died the hysteria to develop China at the cost of its poor and rural people.

Hitler plunged the world into chaos for his ambition; Pol Pot copied Mao and wanted to develop Cambodia within 5 years; Stalin ruled Russia with iron fists. When such leaders come to power world witnesses untold suffering for the masses, whom they swear to serve. The watchman becomes the thief. The fence eats the crop.

Whether it is a man-made catastrophe like the famine that happened in China or a deluge due to nature’s fury as in recent floods of Chennai, people need a hope to cling to, a hope that will give meaning to their lives. A human life is not a waste; it has a purpose, a meaning and a dignity that extends even beyond the grave. In Chennai’s floods faith in humanity was restored, but still were hiccups heard of local politicians trying to get political mileage out of it.

It is only Christ who can really give unshaken hope to humanity, by his own selfless sacrifice and suffering on the cross and his rising from the dead, which give a meaning to our own sufferings and a hope beyond the grave. A new life, not soiled by selfishness, ambitions, pride and arrogance of human beings, but tempered by love and care and forgiveness, is the greatest hope for humanity, extended by Christ. Let’s embrace that with both our hands.

---

[1] Frank Dikotter, “Mao’s Great Famine,” Bloomsbury Publishing, London: 2010

Live-in Partnership in India: What do we make out of it?

It all started with the announcement of my young friend, who was my junior colleague at one point of my Service, that she is the proud mother of a boy child. I was taken by surprise and asked her when did she get married, for I didn’t even know that. She cheerfully answered she is not married but is living with her partner.

Not only that I felt shell-shocked but also felt bad for that youngster that she should settle for such a relationship. She was such an energetic, lively and upcoming youngster, when I met her and had a lot of promise in her. She was smart and beautiful too. Why would she do a thing like this? I couldn’t accept that. Her mother had not been able to accept it, though her father has been a great support, she said; so also her partner’s mother. I promised to go and see her and the child and also meet her partner.

I made that memorable visit on last Wednesday. The child of one and half months is pretty and is sure will grow into a handsome young lad in due course. Aunty, the partner’s mother was there lovingly taking care of her grandchild. My young friend was bubbly and happy and welcomed me into her hearth and heart. Her partner was at work. It all went on lovely.

Then came a time when we were alone; a time to ask questions and clarify my doubts. Why did she do this? Now that they have a child together, why not marry and settle down? She made it quite clear that she is not willing to do that, because things are going great just like this only. Why spoil it all by marriage?

What is her objection to marriage? Expectations change, she said. I have heard about that line of argument earlier. Yes, especially men, they are no longer required to be on their toes to satisfy the woman with her whims and fancies, but once married, they become confident and complacent and negligent too. But she was vehement to say it applies to the woman too.

By way of explanations she said, for example, she does not wait for her husband to come home so they could have meal together. They eat whenever it is convenient to each of them. May be what she really means is she is free from the obligations of a marriage and is without any responsibilities of a wife. But to get that freedom at present is she willing to trade off a life-long commitment and companionship? She seems to do so.

Of course, all these living-in relationship started with the West. There they do that to see if the partners have compatibility by living together for a few years before getting married. Marriage is always in mind, but it is postponed to see if they can pull it off and also to stabilize financially before plunging into married life.

The famous example being Angelina Jodie and Brad Pitt, the mega movie stars of Hollywood. They lived together for almost 7 years, had children of their own and adopted children and got engaged in 2012. Only in 2014, August they got married. May be she really wanted to test and see if Brad will be faithful to her and her little brood of children, before tying the knot. And it took her almost nine years!  

May be my friend also will settle down once she is convinced of the loyalty and fidelity of her partner. But who knows?   

In India this trend of living together without marriage is seen only in the major metropolitan cities like Mumbai, Bangalore and may be New Delhi and Chennai too. In the rural areas and suburban areas it is unheard of. Society does not approve of it and it is a taboo even today. Even in a metro like Mumbai, getting a rental accommodation for live-in couples is hard to come by. Then they tell lies that they are married, just to get a flat or house on rent.

Is it the fear of divorce or separation that drives women to accept such a relationship? Once bitten twice shy, they say; possible. It is again people with more education, open mindedness and women who are financially independent, who enter into such arrangements. May be they think they can afford to take a chance and experiment with their lives in this manner.

On the flip side, such arrangements, lack commitment to see one through the tough and tumble of life. Children require stability and emotional security. Why only children, the woman herself requires emotional security of a marriage; so also the man.  This live-in arrangement can dissolve at any time with no pang or remorse. One can come to have a callous heart. Can love to be found, in a family not bound securely in marriage?

That marriages are breaking is no excuse to live-in experiments. What we need to do is to see how we can stabilize marriages, starting with the selection and then the adjustments and the effort needed to make the marriage work. It is a difficult and life-long process, but worth the effort for all concerned.

God created man and woman and the institution of marriage for them to find emotional security and companionship in each other and also to bring up the children in a stable and loving environment, with both the parents playing complementary roles in nurturing them.

According to Bible, living together without marriage is sin, tantamount to adultery. As someone commented in America the divorce rate may be high, but marriage rates are also equally high. Marriage has not lost its attraction or its utility.

One might get out of a difficult marriage for a good reason, but the next time on, either be careful in selection and marry wisely or stay alone. This staying together without marriage is definitely not the solution to problems of fidelity or fear of a marriage ending in divorce or wanting to be free and live for the present. The moral boundaries of life laid down by God cannot be broken without suffering the consequences of such a choice.

Will the young people of 21^st century listen to such voices?