Wednesday 13 February 2013

Secularism Hanged !


India is known to be a secular country which does respect all religions, their worldviews. The ‘neutrality’ can be seen to be the best options available for a secular state. Many events in Indian politics have shown that this neutrality of the government is in theory rather than in practice. One could argue that it is better to be in papers than nothing at all. Confidently some may argue that a ‘kind totalitarian’ is better than a ‘ruthless secular state’. However, it is unthinkable for a modern man to think of monarchy, or totalitarian regime however kind and loveable the rulers are. It is a [?] historical impossibility to throw away the democratic elements of our polity. It is then important that we constantly purify the brutal aspects of theoretically democratic and practically undemocratic elements of the State.

One issue to show how sometimes most respected secular states can fail to establish its own secularity is the case of Afzal. Afzal Guru was hanged recently in Tihar Jail in India without the knowledge of his wife and his son. What is important here in the case of Afzal Guru is to pay attention to the verdict: “In its over300 page judgement the apex court said, ‘The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.’”[1]

The invoking of the collective conscience is important because it means that whole nation is traumatized at what happened in December 2001 – an Attack on the Parliament when the B.J.P. was ruling the country. Afzal Guru was seen to be the culprit although there were no evidences to suggest that he was either directly or indirectly involved in the attack. The judges invoked the ‘collective conscience of the society’. The collective conscience of the society does not definitely include the Muslims of the nation but mostly of the Hindus. The point is when one raises voice against the verdict or the brutal hanging of Afzal, those citizens will be seen not to belong to the ‘collective conscience’ and therefore not as members of the country. Should I consider myself to be part of the collective conscience? It was invoked because the case was one of the rarest of its kind in the country – an attack on the pillar of the nation and Democracy.

In order to satisfy the majority collective conscience, the government / Court has executed the verdict soon after the refusal of the mercy petition by the President of the country. The B.J.P. leaders had earlier raised slogans like “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai", which means (in stirring rhyme), "Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still alive.”[2] The B.J.P cannot raises slogans like this in the coming election, because Afzal is no more. The congress will gain popularity also among the Hindus. While all others will keep silence since it will be against the collective conscience. What has been done openly by the B.J.P is done quietly by the Congress: the difference between both kinds of ‘Hindutva’ is the mode of operation – open and secret.

Going beyond evidence and to invoke collective conscience is not new. In the Ayodhya case the honorable judges invoked ‘faith and belief’. To this many like Ashgar Ali  have responded who said: “Tomorrow other judges motivated by their faith may use this judgment as a precedent and deliver other judgments invoking faith….Thus, stretching the argument … in a democracy after all numbers count and so faith of majority community will play greater role than faith of minority community and court of law will thus become majoritarian in their attitude and all the legal values and protection of minorities and their faith in the constitution may be ultimately subverted.”[3]

This raises the question whether a secular state can really be secular forgetting one’s own faith at all in the functions. Will it be possible for the citizens or the responsible office holders to use ‘the veil of Ignorance’ of John Rawls? It seems not... Our deep and ultimate concerns keep coming in different ways.
Although there were gaps in the evidences and arguments, the country needed a perpetrator who will be hanged and in whom the vengeance can be thrown. It can mean that what is stake is the ‘scape goat mechanism’. Girard says: “In the evolution from ritual to secular institutions men gradually draw away from violence and eventually lose sight of it; but an actual break with violence never takes place.”[4]

For the unity and to satisfy the collective thirst for revenge a perpetrator was hanged and our thirst is quenched. May be joining with Arundhathi Roy, one may rightly ask: “Now he has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?”[5]




[3] Asghar Ali Engineer (2010): “Ayodhya judgment – triumph of faith or constitutional legality?” accessed on 19th October on http://www.csssforum.org/default.as… As quoted in http://www.lebret-irfed.org/spip.php?article450
[4] Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1972 [4th 1984]), p. 307.

Monday 11 February 2013

Courageous, Inspiring and an act of Humility – The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI


Courageous, Inspiring and an act of Humility – The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

The letter of the Pope Benedict XVI who announced his resignation this morning shows that he has made this difficult decision after contemplation and prayer.
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI
[1]

No one would disagree that this is an act of courage that inspiries milions of the followers who will recognise his act of humility. His resignation, although not unprecedented in history, is unprecedented in the courageous act of the present pope. Six hundred years ago, Pope Gregory XII resigned to end schism in the Church however the new pope was not elected till his death.[2] When Pope Benedict XVI was elected the Pope in April 2005, He chose the name 'Benedict' to the surprise of many. He was said to be too old to be the spiritual leader of th Church. But many also thought he would resign when he will not be able to continue his office. He has come out with that courageous act. His resignation has surprised many. The seven years [almost 8 years however since it is not completed we could say only   seven years: it reminds me of the Biblical significance of the number seven] have been the most difficult time for him, but he has withstood them with courage.

His acknowledgment of his defects and seeking pardon [in the letter] is the highest expression of a true Christian and a disciple of Christ. He will be remembered not only in Church History, but also in World History but also in the hearts of many faithful of different religions and denominations.


[2] Pope Celestine V would have been the first to make such a decision of courage. Cf. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/11/pope-resignations/1908819/ But he was imprisoned by the new Pope.