By Patricia Mukhim
Religion in this country is a sensitive subject. The partition of 1947 happened along religious lines. Politics and religion was churned into a deadly brew. So much blood was shed, so many lives were lost and several thousand rendered homeless! The scars of partition continue to fester. They flare up every now and again when terror attacks happen in different parts of this country and those of a particular faith become immediate suspects. So much so, the movie, “My Name is Khan,” had to be made to convince people across the world that terrorism cannot be equated with Islam. Yet the fact remains that even after the recent Patna blasts the first suspects were those connected to the Indian Mujahideen a fundamentalist Muslim group. It is presumptuous to believe that Muslims are joined in a brotherhood of terror-mongering but it is also co-incidental that in almost every terror attack the perpetrators nabbed anywhere are aligned with Islamic fundamentalists.
That said, religion in this country is a sacred cow. People in Meghalaya or elsewhere in the Christian majority states take pride in critiquing and ripping apart every other institution but leave the church alone. These days much has been spoken about the role of church or its absence in the present stand-off between the Government on the one hand and the pro-ILP pressure groups on the other. A very enlightened person the other day pointed out that Christianity has become just a religion and no longer a faith. He said that the message of love, charity, fellowship et al is meant for an exclusive group worshipping together in a particular church and that it does not extend to others outside that fold. Another person said that Christianity’s message of sacrificial love is too weak and enervating in the political situation of today. “How can I show love to an alien who is not a citizen of this country? It is asking too much,” the person quipped.
Then there is a young scholar who said he was appalled by the parochial tone of a particular preacher who almost egged on the congregation to go on a hate campaign. Whether this is Christian liberalism or religious activism is difficult to comprehend but the message of ‘love’ belted out by preachers and teachers today is reduced to loving your own ‘kind’ only. Perhaps in their books only those of their kind will find salvation. But I have my doubts considering that the church today has become a shelter not for the homeless, the poor, the orphan and the widow but a place where the overtly corrupt are given a position of respect and honour. Church leaders are too intimidated to even challenge these wealthy persons!
The article by Diana Pala which appeared in these columns a few days ago drew a lot of flak from apologists for the Catholic Church. And this is precisely why the church is going wrong. Its adherents feel that if they prise open the acts of omission and commission of church leaders and hold them accountable they are committing a mortal sin. Anyone who criticises the church publicly is considered a heretic. But should any institution run by human beings remain beyond the pale of criticism? And is the church not run by human beings? They may be consecrated beings but they are still creatures of flesh and blood driven by ambition and other human failings. There are many instances of religious megalomaniacs who have done incalculable harm to Christianity by clinging on to power at all costs. Many have lost touch with the battles faced by suffering humanity. For them Christianity has become an intellectual pursuit. Others run the church like a corporate house and have to constantly look at bottom-lines and balance sheets so that they can sustain themselves and their institutions. But I am also not in denial about the silent workers in the church who have strived zealously to spread education and health care to the last person in remote villages. Alas! They are a dwindling tribe!
Now coming to the point about the non-involvement of the church in the present political stalemate, there are many convenient excuses that have been trotted out. One of the commonest is that the church cannot be drawn into politics. This is a laughable alibi if ever there is one. What was the entire Catholic fraternity (from the top leaders to the laity) doing on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections in 2009? Were they not canvassing actively for Vincent Pala who is one of their own? No one bothered to check out Pala’s antecedents and the source of his wealth. There were only whispers about how a government employed engineer could muster so much power and wealth. But everyone of the faith fell in line when it came to electing him. Was that not a case of blatant partisan politics? Was it alright for the church to be siding with one person because he belongs to the flock? If so, then is it not better that the church too sets up its own political party? At least that would be more upfront like the BJP, which many believe is a Hindu fundamentalist party or the Indian Union Muslim League, for that matter.
Now, one would have expected the Catholic Church which stood as one to elect Vincent Pala, to also hold him accountable as the MP in the last four and a half years. But none of that happened! Pala continues to build his own earthly empire. His tenure as MP and minister made absolutely no impact on life in Meghalaya. He blamed the state government for failing to come up with projects. That’s a very weak excuse for non- performance. During the last assembly elections Pala teamed up with Mr DD Lapang to fragment the Congress votes in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills. He failed to get his men to win their seats. When a person claims to belong to the Congress party he is expected to remain its loyal member. The Congress would be naive if not foolish to pitch him up again as their candidate from Shillong Parliamentary Constituency. Unless of course there are no takers for the Congress ticket considering the party is in a downslide at the moment. I wonder if the church leaders gave Pala their mouthful over his shenanigans. I guess not! Money talks after all!
Some apologists for the church have retorted, “Why do we point fingers at church leaders only? Aren’t all of us the body of Christ and therefore the church? To this simplistic question my answer is that we the laity don’t get to stand at the pulpit and speak to a captive audience Sunday after Sunday. The priests and pastors have that privilege. Hence they also have the onerous task of leading not just in matters spiritual but also in matters of socio-political-economic concerns. Because man does not live by the spirit only! He also needs rice and if possible some meat and fish as well. Politics concerns the life of the human person. Anything that affects us as humans is politics. And if the church leaders take the absurd stance that the present contentions are too political for them to handle they are doing it to cover their fault-lines. If the Inner Line Permit is a live issue church leaders have a responsibility to educate their flock about it and leave them to make an informed choice. But being silent is equivalent to an insidious form of scheming because I am sure each of the knowledgeable church leaders has made out a case for themselves whether to stand for or against the ILP. So why not let us hear their views?