Who am I?

Who am I? What am I doing here on earth? Why was I born? What is my purpose on earth? What is the meaning of my life? I know I will finally die. Then what happens to me? Is there a soul in me? If so, does it outlive me? Where does it go once my physical body dies and perishes? Is there a life after death? If so where? What is the proof? And what do I do in that life after death?  

Wow, questions and questions! All seem to be existentialist questions, arising from the very fact that I exist. And if I exist there has to be a meaning for that existence. Or is that not necessary? To answer these various questions related to our existence on earth, philosophy and religion have arisen. These two branches of science try and deal with these questions.

I do address philosophy and religion as science because there is a lot of thinking, analysis, presuppositions, hypothesis and conclusions arrived at in these philosophical and religious musings. It need not necessarily be laboratory experiments that qualify a branch of knowledge as science.

Coming back to the questions, death seems to play a decisive factor in these quests for answer. Witnessing old age and sickness leading to death, Siddharth as a young Prince, understood the futility of life. He went on to become a Buddha when he propounded that the cycle of births and deaths can be conquered once we cut off the source of attachment to life, which is desire.

Easier said than done! Desire to get rid of desire itself becomes a desire and a bondage! What do we do then?

India is the land of Hinduism, for 83% of Indian people are Hindus. The basic tenets of Hinduism believe that the material world and the lives as we see are all an illusion and to break the cycle of repeated births and deaths into which souls have descended due to ignorance, is to attain liberation from this world and this life. Once the accumulated good deeds (karma) become more than the bad deeds (karma), the soul is released from the cycle and attains freedom.

The individual soul (atman), which according to Advaita Philosophy of Hinduism, is only an extension of the universal soul (Paramatman), on liberation, merges with the universal soul and lives eternally in that effulgent state. Of course, the soul loses its identity and with it any meaning for its existence. 

  

Till that happens, the soul keeps returning to earth as a life, now as a human being, now as an animal or a lesser being, according to the merits it has earned in all its many births. The whole of caste system in Hindu society is built on this Karma theory.

But how surely do we know about the previous births and the karma accumulated during such births? Who has seen it or where is the proof? Was it only a theory propounded by the Kshatrya (warrior class) princes, who in ancient India, labored to find answers to existential questions on earth and arrived at these conclusions, which became embedded in Hinduism as Upanishads?  

Even if we take karma operating as a mechanical force in lives to determine the birth of a soul in such and such a body, then doesn’t it become a mechanical force just as the evolutionary force, blindly grinding on towards nothing excepting existence? What is the meaning of such an existence? Why do we exist?

Well, an atheist would simply say that all this life is an accident that happened due to some chance by which our planet was formed and life originated, developed from simple to complex organisms. The only drive that keeps the lives going, according to this philosophy, is the desire to exist, reproduce and survive. The fittest survived and flourished. On death one simply ceased to exist. Then what is the meaning of life, nothing at all! 

Death is a great leveler. I just lost my batch-mate to cancer. She struggled, fought and finally succumbed. Being an atheist herself, she was able to accept the inevitable as another aspect of life and go on peacefully having determined in her mind that there is nothing beyond death.

In case there is a life after death, then what? Wouldn’t she have lost something?  

Bible teaches differently. It affirms the material world and all lives as real and good, created by a Creator God. We are created for a purpose. The purpose is to be in close communion with our Creator and reflect His glory and also bring joy to Him. Much like a painter delights in the painting he has painted. God loves His creations, especially human beings, the crown of His creation.

Life just did not evolve in an accidental manner by some fluke and develop into higher living forms like human beings over billions of years by trial and error, either due to evolutionary theory of the survival of the fittest or the karma theory of soul finding its body according to its accumulated merits earned in the previous lives.

Every life has a meaning and a purpose for which it is created by God. The goal of life would be to find that purpose and align with it and live one’s life. When our lives are aligned with the Will and purpose of God, we have an easy and a happy, fulfilling life. It could be any calling in secular life or a life devoted to God and His ministry.

Such a life will give us significance and meaning. It is not a life due to an accident or chance happening. It has a purpose and a goal, giving us significance. It also ensures security. We are not tossed and turned by every wave and wind in the world, or be at the mercy of some mechanical force, but have an anchor, the Creator God, on whom we can depend and who is faithful to those who love Him.

Our body which decays and dies and the soul that leaves the body at death, both will be resurrected to a glorified body with a beautiful soul, after judgment in the next world. Bible categorically says that there is a life after death, a spiritual world and in that life we will be clothed with a glorified body, with resemblance to our earthly bodies.

The proof is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who appeared to his disciples and followers, more than 150 people, for nearly 40 days after his death and resurrection. The eye-witness statements are recorded in the gospels and in the letters of His disciples, now called Apostles.

That was a foretaste of what is going to happen to us after our own deaths. But the souls will have to wait for the end of the world as we know it, which will end when Jesus Christ comes back once again, this time in power and glory and put an end to evil.

A new heaven and new earth will be formed by God and those who believed Jesus and God would inhabit it and live for eternity in the presence of God and Christ. Individuality will not be lost!

How do we even know that these are not speculations like the ones narrated before? How can we be sure of these? Where is the guarantee that these will happen as it is written in the Bible?

More of this I will deal with in the next blog.        

Why does a Kind and Almighty God allow Suffering in His World?

This is the popular question every unbeliever asks. Almost all the atheists propound this argument in support of their claim that there is no God. Their argument goes like this: If God is kind why does He allow natural disasters like tsunami and earthquakes which take away tens of thousands of lives? If you say it is the evil power in the world, Satan, who brings in suffering, then their question is, if so what is God doing? Why doesn’t He control the enemy? Is He powerless in front of this Satan? If that be the case then, they say, there is no point worshiping a God like that.

In case God has the power and still does not control the evil and the suffering in this world, then He appears heartless to them, who does not care for the suffering in this world. In such a case also, they hold, He is not worthy of worship. So God gets it from both the sides as it were!

Then what is the answer? Why is there suffering in this world? The whole world suffers, nature suffers, animals suffer and so also human beings. Not just due to natural calamities, but also in sickness and death, war and famine, oppression and poverty, unjust human laws and traditions. The list could go on. The strong oppress the weak; selfishness rules all the decisions. Why is the world so? Why doesn’t God, if there is One, do something about it? Or is there no One after all?

Different world-views offer different explanation for the presence of pain in the world and prescribe different solutions for the malady. According to Hinduism, suffering in this birth is the result of accumulated ‘karma’ or deeds in the past births of a human being. Because one birth is not sufficient for a man/woman to reap the consequences of a good act/deed or bad act/deed, a person takes many births to pay the penalty for the sins or wrong deeds of the past. This is called the ‘karma theory’ and the ‘reincarnation theory’ of repeated births that goes with it.

The remedy is to patiently undergo the situation where life has placed a person in this life and do religiously the duties of that station, as prescribed in the ‘Varnashrama dharma,’ by ancient Hindu scripts, and in so doing accumulate good deeds which in one birth or the other will overwhelm the bad deeds and lead one to liberation from the cycle of repeated births and deaths. The aim thus is to get out of this world, break from the bondage of ‘samsara,’ the cycle of repeated birth and death, and get liberated from life itself, so that life cannot enforce its sufferings on you.

Well, that is one view. In Buddhism, which came off Hinduism in protest against the religious dominance of priests of those days, karma theory is kept intact. Buddhism considers the world or the life of human being as full of suffering, due to sickness, old age and death. These are due to the bad deeds or karma one has accumulated during past lives.

The remedy suggested here is to get at the root cause of such suffering, which is seen as attachment to life or desires which lead to such attachments. If one can kill desire, then one can achieve detachment and the sufferings will not touch a person. Once a person reached this level, he is said to have achieved ‘nirvana,’ a desire-less status, and get released from the world of suffering.  

Well this is another view. Most of the eastern religions, influenced either by Hinduism or Buddhism point to the past deeds of a person as the reason for suffering in this world and the remedy prescribed is to get liberated from this world. Hinduism goes to the extent of calling this world ‘maya’ or an illusion. The material world is bad and the only way to achieve eternal bliss is to give up this world or get liberated from this world.

The dominant religion of the West once was Christianity. One can still claim so, in spite of relativism and pluralism that have eroded their religion of forefathers. Christianity based on Bible offers a totally different answer. The material world created by God is good, for He affirmed that it was good after each day of creation activity. A good and beautiful world was created, with vegetation, animals and all the support systems and finally man and woman were created to be His reagents on earth and to look after it.

Humans themselves were created in the image of God and were totally good. They were created as free beings, with a will of their own. They could use it to make decisions that faced them. The immediate decision that confronted them was whether or not to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, forbidden by God their Creator, but egged on by Satan to eat so that their eyes could be opened. A major decision, perhaps the first ever decision to be made by the first human pair.

Using their free will, Adam and Eve decided to eat the fruit in disobedience to God’s instructions. It seems to people of other faiths that the matter was simply that of eating an apple of a tree. And why should God get so upset about it to punish the whole human race thus? What they fail to notice are the finer details of the decision Eve made and let her husband Adam to follow.

She reasoned out that the fruit was good to look at, desirable to eat, and would give them a status at par with God. Why not be equal to God, was the question. Why not be the God of our own life? Why be under someone else’s control, but be on their own? Does it sound like the rebellious teenager who defies the parental authority with the question, “this is my life and I will do what I want with it! Who are you to ask?” That was what the first human pair did too. Question the authority of God and wanting to be their own masters.

Yes they made their choice, but that choice involved the opposite road to God’s path of wisdom and brought in sin, sickness and death to the world. We became the descendants of the “Fallen race,” according to the Bible. The world itself became ‘cursed’ and what was created as ‘good,’ became ‘marred’ by human sin of disobedience and wanting to be masters of their own life. That is how suffering entered the once perfect world that God had created.

So what is the remedy? We die in such a pathetic condition as ‘marred’ beings? Is there no where to turn to? Has God left us to suffer for ever like this and the world to go on in this manner? Does He not care?

Well, God created human beings as thinking and rational beings with a will of their own, so He would not take it and impose His solution on them. That would be to make a robot out of man. Rather He would take the punishment on Himself and suffer and in so doing alter the condition of the world, so that it would be restored to its perfect nature as it was in the beginning of creation, along with all the animals and the human beings. The communion and relationship with God that was lost due to sin will have to be restored.

So the solution of God of the Bible was not to get out of the world, but to be in the world and transform it, by being renewed by Jesus Christ, who being God, incarnated as human being, lived our life, showed us how to live our life and died as a sacrifice for us, paying the penalty for our sins, so that we could be reconciled with God.

Whoever has faith in this act of Jesus Christ, will receive forgiveness of sins. No need for such a person to take innumerable births to wash of his bad deeds or ‘karma,’ with good deeds. That job was done by Jesus; all that we have to do is to believe in Him, so that we are transformed in our inner beings and our lost connection with God becomes re-established and we become children of God. We come into the family of God, with communication restored.

Why then there is still suffering on earth? It is 2000 years since Jesus died on the cross. Why is there no full restoration? Full restoration will happen only when Jesus Christ returns, return to rule. Time is given till then for all the people on earth to repent and turn to Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation or redemption or restoration or reconciliation, call it what you might. That is happening now and full restoration or consummation will occur only with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That event will end the world as we know it and a rule of justice and righteousness will be established by the Lord Jesus Christ.

A truthful Christian or a follower of Christ will sincerely await His return and may even say, “Come Lord, come soon.”

Amen.

Does the Universe have a Moral Code?

The universe we live in, does it operate according to any moral code? Are we bound by any such moral code in our lives? The morals we have as human beings, for example, killing is wrong, taking another person’s belongings without his knowledge or his express willingness is wrong and so on, where do these come from?

The question boils down to whether the Creator of this universe, if there is one, is the supreme moral giver? If He created the world and all that is therein, then it is natural to expect that He would have laid down a moral code or rules according to which humans will live their lives. Such a God will have to be a moral Person Himself. He cannot be a whimsical or flippant or an immoral God. He will also have to play by the rules He has set for others and cannot break His own rules with impunity. Do we have a God like that?

Well, others may argue that there is no God who created this universe and the lives we see in it, but these have evolved over millions, if not billions of years, from smaller living beings to the more advanced and complex beings like humans. The theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest by natural selection will fall into this category. If that is so, how then did morals in such an evolved world come about? Did morals also evolve like the life forms?

These are the many questions we grapple with as we consider morals and moral states in the world we live in. Lots of morals have lost their meanings in our twenty-first century world, but still we say that corruption in political and business circles is wrong. Why? Where does that moral come from? We appreciate people who give away the fortunes they have earned, by hook or crook or by honest means, to philanthropy. Why is it appreciated? Giving to the poor and helping the helpless is considered good. Where does that moral code come from?

Let us take the argument of evolved morals. It is argued by the atheists mainly and also by the religious evolutionists that the morals we see in the world today have evolved along with human beings and the other creatures. How? They say that being honest in business transactions produced good will and trust and enhanced business. Thus it was advantageous for people to be honest and so that trait evolved, became strong, and got passed on to the next generation, as it helped the survival of the business class in particular and the community in general.

Speaking truth was preferred in the community for it helped integrate the members in trust based on mutual dealings of truth. It became an evolved trait as it helped the community to survive better. Sounds good; the only problem in this sort of argument is that there are traits among us humans and other animals, which are not really beneficial to the human race or the other species.

For example, in an evolutionary scenario, where survival of the fittest leads the pack from the front, how do we justify taking care of the sick, suffering and the old? Euthanasia would have been the norm, if evolution was the case. So how come we appreciate taking care of the vulnerable sections of the society, without resorting to mercy killing en-mass? It is a difficult stand to defend.

The failure of evolution to give satisfactory answers to such questions leads us to explore the possibility of a Creator God, who created the heavens and the earth and all that is there in and also laid down as to what is right and what is wrong. The question ultimately boils down to, can we be good without God?

In a situation where there is only the mechanical evolutionary force to grind us the living beings, then the cold and stark fact would be, the extermination of all weak beings, by nature or by human effort assisting nature. As we do not see that happening in our world, then we have to decide that there is something more than just a mechanistic natural selection operating in our lives.

A Mother Teresa is appreciated because she took care of the dying and the terminally ill and homeless on the streets of Calcutta. People of all religious hues in Calcutta and around the world see the beauty of her heart and elevate her even to the level of a demi-goddess, personification of love, humility and sacrifice. Why do we do that? Is it not because she reflected a love, that is unconditional and all-giving, which can be seen only in God?

A mother’s love for her child whom she bore for nine months and fed with her own blood and sweat, is it a reflection of something bigger, a greater love that could be shown only by the Creator of this universe? Is that why we are able to show such a love and also appreciate that type of self-sacrificing love, because it is a reflection of heavenly love? I agree, human love is always laced with a minimal of self-interest, but still it shows the type of ultimate love, a self-less love that can be seen only in God and definitely not a product of an evolutionary force?

Well, the next question would be is there a God who is so loving and self-giving as to be looked upon as a model, whose goodness we could reflect and learn from? Bible talks of such a God, who came in the form of human Jesus, and gave his life for the humankind, as a penalty for the wrongs of the world. God paid the ultimate price for saving humanity from sin and suffering and from the ultimate penalty of separation from the true God forever in eternity. If that was not love, then what is?

Bible also talks about a Creator God who created everything on earth including human beings and laid down the rules for man’s conduct in the form of Ten Commandments, which Jesus upheld and summarized to two important commandments: to love God and to love our neighbor. That is it; in these two all the commandments of God are covered.

This Creator God of the Bible, who is expressed in Jesus, is also a moral God. He is the Truth, he is the Love ultimate, He is honesty personified, He is faithful, righteous and just. No one, not even the opponents of Jesus, could find any fault in Him. The whole of Bible talks about the faithfulness of God to the many promises He has made and how He is truthful and just. He is so just that He had to extract penalty for the unjust worldly beings from His own Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus died on the cross paying that penalty.

There is a moral God, the Creator of this world and He has laid down the moral code for us His creations to follow in our lives. Only when we break these rules and stray outside do we face the difficulties that confront us in our lives.

Well, one might ask, why then do good people often suffer in this world? Why is suffering in this world created by a Good and Loving God? Now, that will be the topic for my next blog!

Nice to be back after a break for Christmas and New Year and getting in touch with you all!

Wishing you all, a very Happy and Meaningful New Year!

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?