By Rev Lyndan Syiem
Many questions have been asked of the Church through the pages of The Shillong Times over these past few weeks, especially regarding its silence on the arson and violence unleashed by the current ILP agitation. Beginning with the Editor herself, the ST’s regular columnists and letter writers have criticized the Church in Meghalaya for its perceived self absorption in the face of violence. It’s also being accused of pandering to its core constituency and protecting its own interests, thereby forsaking its larger societal role. While I concede there are some elements of truth in these criticisms, there are also a few pertinent points I wish to bring out in the Church’s defence.
But first of all, I must join in condemning the murder of Vikash Nandwal. It was cowardly to attack a defenceless man and no cause can justify such barbarism. While there is scope for debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the ILP, there can be no equivocation in condemning the barbaric attack. Whatever the outcome of this round of ILP agitation, burning people alive is no way to achieve goals. Now that the Church’s been asked, this is so obvious a violation of the sixth commandment. The Church holds the Decalogue as God’s moral law which governs human behaviour and upon which society is established. By definition we believe this; so by application we condemn the taking away of a precious human life that has been created in the image of God.
Having said this, let me however clarify that it is just not possible nor practicable for the combined leadership of the various churches to issue public condemnation at every gruesome murder (which regrettably are becoming prolific in our once-peaceful state). Of course, the Church is expected to show sensitivity when a particular killing so touches people’s collective conscience that grief overflows from the print media to the social media to a candlelight vigil. All this demands a pastoral word of comfort for the bereaved family and a public expression of solidarity with a society marred by this tragedy. This is the main reason for my letter, even as I also write on behalf of many individual members of the Church who have contacted me.
In calling for the Church’s intervention, many columnists acknowledge that the institution is very influential among the Khasi Jaiñtia people, as also among our Garo brethren. There are many good reasons: its dedicated pastoral care and social service, its empowerment of our tribal people, its development from foreign missionary import to an indigenized plant that reflects our ethnic identity. As appreciable as this firm rooting within tribal soil is, the Church cannot forget that Jesus challenged the entrenched Jewish exclusivism of his day and reached out to Samaritans and Syro-Phoenicians.
About the ILP itself, I see merit in the questions raised by many better-informed writers concerning its feasibility and efficacy. However, I am also conscious that the opinion of the church leadership on the ILP is not uniform but ranges from full support, to honest ‘I don’t know,’ to moderate disapproval. Thankfully, there is enough liberal space within the Church to accommodate a broad spectrum of views on such socio-political issues. Apart from faith, morals and organizational loyalty, churches do not normally impose political views on their ministers. This should explain to our persistent questioners why the Church, one section at least, has necessarily remained silent on the ILP issue.
I recently had opportunity to meet some of the church leadership and ascertained their views before venturing to write. The general feeling is that while illegal immigration is a problem, the ILP is essentially a government-society decision. Despite its influence the Church knows its limits, beyond which it cannot push. As Jesus advised, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” The Church is wise not to strain the