By Kitkupar Cajee Shangpliang
While we are still at the discussion table, talking about some universities in Meghalaya allegedly instituted and running on shaky grounds – this write-up could hopefully lead to providing some solution points for our educational governing bodies (public and private, church and non-church) to consider. We have seen allegations and counter allegations, against and for – around the issue concerning the Martin Luther Christian University co-sponsored by the prominent local Church body of the Presbyterian denomination. So, after a series of meetings, information, misinformation and public debate – what next?
And since this issue has already become public, the question of why this public conversation, now, should not arise. Also, because of lack of platforms, serious listening and messaging by our leaders, public inputs like this one are becoming inevitable.
This write-up is not the view of an educationist but of one who believes in common sense and in the potentiality that church institutions still have, to contribute to the education scene here vis-à-vis nation building. This write-up will therefore, not dwell on the nitty gritty of many allegations and counter allegations, nor will it talk about the praises and the criticisms for and against MLCU – but it will rather focus on how the local Church could and should emerge from this, stronger and wiser, to gather enough courage to welcome new ideas and act on innovations. Let us imagine a future, where all people can breathe the fresh air where the Church will be in perfect position to start a new education project. But before we get there – the need now is to clear the air, once and for all, here and now, ASAP.
The decision makers should therefore, be very clear why they do this – they ought to do this for the sake of the ‘Call’ and pursuing that in the interest of a particular denomination and its legacy working in the field of education, the larger interest of the Christian community and the nation (depending how the reader understands the context). And no one has the right to dilute that – not even the owners and originators of the project idea. To move forward, there are a few fundamentals we cannot afford to miss.
What goes around comes around. The Bible says ‘we reap what we sow’ and no one can change that rule – not even faith leaders. By this standard, the setting up of any institution based on the untruth (as alleged) will suffer its own consequences – perhaps, similar to what we have seen in the last few months. At this stage, the indicators would point out that the system and its associates will need more than introspection. And if the understanding of corruption of various kinds, shares close proximity with the cancer eating the specific part of a human body alive – it inevitably suffers other parts of it as well. Like the person with cancer- the healing process, how painful, uncomfortable and obvious it may be, is needed.
It is interesting to see how the corporate world has seen and practised the culture of transparency and accountability while our congregations have merely assumed that the tenets of accountability have been kept. Having said this, we are also encouraged to see a number of clergy with high moral and accountability standards. But speaking in general, is it high time to put on paper clear cut HR policies that also include checking ‘conflicts of interest and disciplinary actions – all in the interest of accountability.
The only way forward is only in truth and transparency. This obviously suggests that the conspiracy of silence and the culture to hide things are both temporary and will never work. They have not worked in the past, anyway. Key leaders of today, from US President Obama to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have seen the culture of transparency working, hence, attempted to make open their conversations. Progressive leaders know that seeking the truth is what eventually works – and in seeking it, one has to be truthful with and to oneself.
Unlike organisations that do not have the freedom or the guts to critique their own actions – the institution or the church that has the nerve to critique itself is a growing organisation. Optimistically speaking, “What transpired among church members over the last six months or so, is a good sign” – as long as we keep in check the ego wars and do this only for the sake of the ‘Call’. But matters have to come to a close sooner than later – and matters will never come to a close, if our congregational leaders shy away from the uncompromising truth.
So the governing committee of the concerned Church has to be firm to decide with a bias towards transparency and nothing less. While it may be appropriate to swing decisions to minimize damage, rescue some personalities and paint a good picture, it is better and biblical to have enough courage to call a spade a spade. The existence of institutions like the Church in this context is to be willing to go through that process of healing. The concept of truth here includes the biblical truth that shall set all of us free and the truth that can set even the wrong doers free.
And while many leaders in general understand this, there are many reasons that could stop them from going for it. Long lasting relationships and friendships could be some reasons – but what makes them think twice, is any move that could cause direct or collateral damage to the Church today. This may not be true. History tells us that the Church has survived and the Church in the Khasi Hills is no exception. It will survive, if the pendulum of decisions turn in the interest of truth and more so, because ‘HE’ is with us.
Today, all decisions made in favour of transparency and truth might make the organisation look as if, it is losing – in fact, it is not. The institution will win by losing – if we only have the courage to be true to ourselves and to HIM who called us. This is not a call to arrest innovations. It is the wish of concerned members that this entanglement will not lead to the end of all innovative ideas in the future – because as people who need to grow, visions and ideas are part of our DNA. And positive change is inevitable for the church to stay relevant.
The last thing we want to see is a bunch of pessimists, a decade from now hitting again on the failure of such projects and validating their stance against any kind of innovation. Leaders today, should understand that organisational pessimism and fear to stay relevant cannot be the consequence of this alleged failure.
As we look back in time, we have many questions to ask. Would it have been better if the MLCU was an offshoot of the existing Synod College, doing comparatively well today? Are the people who signed those initial papers too smart or too naïve? Are all those allegations by the restless members valid? If this education project was one of the multi-consequences of the revival of faith that happened in 2005-06 – why this turn of events? When one is both leader and escapist – history tells us that the person in some cases responds by intentionally attracting public sympathy, hiding behind the shadow of ignorance or human error. Did that happen?
In principle, MLCU was a welcoming innovation and in some ways still standing unique from the other traditional universities. While the difficult questions are being asked to the management and its sponsors, they did not seem to irresponsibly target the students or its faculty. Why then did the students and employees did not see that side of the story?
As sentiments run deep in the veins of many faithful who speculate at the possible consequences of this imbroglio – the reputation of the church in managing facilities, projects, assets and properties has taken a beating. But the Church will get through this – as it had got through similar situations in the past. And for all the complex problems, the Christian faith offers a simple solution of trusting in God and no one else.
The faithful by now should be praying that their leaders have the discernment to listen to the still small voice not necessarily to the oratory skills of the few. Many would like to see that a church body whose forefathers contributed to the education scene here by introducing the alphabets, bounces back with renewed force.
If this is the movement that the Church needed, it need not be anti-system – but a movement that intentionally bugs the bad system (an anti-virus of sort). After so many public opinions on this public issue, the masses were swayed – and it was easier for opportunists to drive people away from the core issue which is the ‘(alleged) wrong, committed at the start of it all’. As all would like to believe, the enquiry body mandated by the Church apex should go for the kill and not just clear the cobwebs. This generation needs a church institution that puts God and people over systems and traditions. The youth today need leaders who are tough and gentle, truthful, willing to say sorry and forgiving. Have we lost them? Don’t think so.
(The writer is a social communicator and song writer)