Trivialising religion

Justice Kurian Joseph of the Supreme Court has objected to having a meeting of Chief Justices of various high courts and judges of the Supreme Court from 3rd April to 5th April as this period coincides with Good Friday and Easter Sunday. His role as a pious practitioner of religion has taken precedence over his role as a judge. He has every right to insist on leave of absence from the meeting, but is it proper for him to insist that such meetings should not be held during any religious festivals or observances? He seems to have overstepped rational limits in requiring days of religious significance to be free from official functions.

Justice Joseph has every right to be an avid practitioner of his religion. The following report in The Indian Express points to his zest for religious faith. No one can question his personal faith.

"A member of the Kerala-based Syro-Malabar Roman Catholic Church, Justice Joseph is a regular at church functions, mainly as a representative of the Catholic laity. In 2012, he was one of the resource persons for an annual conference of the Canon Law Society of India. Its office-bears and members are generally bishops and priests —canon law is the system of laws legal principles enforced by the Pope.

Last year, when the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India held a conference on church and media, Justice Joseph was one of the speakers.

On May 27, 2012, when the Faridabad archbishop was consecrated, Justice Joseph, then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh, did the first reading during mass.

While serving as a high court judge, Justice Joseph preached Bible on Christian TV channel Shalom TV. Then, he would religiously read a passage from the Bible and interpret the verses. This weekly programme was held every Saturday evening."

By protesting against a meeting on days of religious significance, the judge has inadvertently and overzealously trivialised religion. Religious observance can never be an excuse for conducting or cancelling an official meeting. Work is worship. Christianity values work as much as any other religion. 

The honourable judge has questioned why such meetings are not held during Diwali or Eid. The reason is pragmatic. The idea is to ensure that a large number of potential participants do not stay away. This need not be mistaken as preference or persecution of any religion. Interestingly, Good Friday is not a government holiday in 10 states and union territories including the National Capital Region that is Delhi.

The mystery called Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking is accredited to be one of the all-time greats among physicists. His explanation of black holes and theory of expansion of universe is phenomenal. He has recently hypothesised the nagging possibility of the Higgs Boson aka the God Particle becoming extremely unstable and devouring the universe.

PTI reports:

"The elusive ‘God particle’ discovered by scientists in 2012 has the potential to destroy the universe, famed British physicist Stephen Hawking has warned.

According to Mr. Hawking, 72, at very high energy levels the Higgs boson, which gives shape and size to everything that exists, could become unstable.

This, he said, could cause a “catastrophic vacuum decay” that would lead space and time to collapse,Express.co.uk reported.

“The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become megastable at energies above 100bn giga-electron-volts (GeV),” Hawking wrote in the preface to a new book called Starmus.

“This could mean that the universe could undergo catastrophic vacuum decay, with a bubble of the true vacuum expanding at the speed of light.

“This could happen at any time and we wouldn’t see it coming,” said Mr. Hawking.

The Higgs boson, also known as the God particle, was discovered in 2012 by scientists at CERN — who operate the world’s largest particle physics laboratory.

Hawking said the likelihood of such a disaster is unlikely to happen in the near future, however, the danger of the Higgs becoming destabilised at high energy is too great to be ignored."

Scientists are no doubt entitled to indulge in outlier thoughts. They need however to be cautious enough to avoid floating panic theories. Serial decay and origins of the universe are postulated in many religious scriptures. Scientists are not entitled to the luxury of ridiculing such scriptural thoughts and at the same time propagating their fancy theories on termination of universe. Stephen Hawking is not doing himself or science any favour by flip-flopping on his theories regarding black hole and expansion / contraction of universe. Sanity of thought presupposes a modicum of stability of views. Though foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, foolish inconsistency cannot be the hobgoblin of scientific minds.

Political trespass

In best of times, the line dividing economics and politics is imperceptibly thin. During surcharged times as at present, the distinction gets even more blurred and economists charge into political terrain as if it is their own. No wonder therefore that even a sensitive economist like Amartya Sen deems it perfectly in order to comment on prime ministerial fitness of aspirants. Narendra Modi is a no-no because he is not ' secular enough'. So there are degrees of secularism which an economist can measure and advise you. Sen certainly deserves the Nobel!

Rahul Gandhi? Sen cannot comment on him because he is not aware of the latter's political instincts! That Rahul is inexperienced, callow and politically inert is known to everyone including perhaps the famous economist. But apparently these qualities do not in limine disqualify him for prime ministership because he is adequately secular! Sen's sycophantic encomium that Rahul Gandhi was a keen student in England is laughable.

In economics, secular means 'in the long run'. It will be healthy if economists confine themselves to pontificating on secular trends in economic sense rather than religious sense. Equally perplexing is the publicised view of Sankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt that Modi should be our prime minister. Political India will suffer if theoretical economists and religious leaders freely wade into politics. 

Temples and toilets

Jairam Ramesh's wise crack on toilets and temples is an anachronous imitation of Nehruvian logic. Nehru saw divinity in dams and steel plants and he made successful attempts to build them.

Jairam Ramesh's party has been in power at the centre and in many states for many years. What prevented it from improving sanitation and making open defecation unnecessary?

Temples, mosques, gurudwaras and churches on one hand and toilets on the other do not exist on either / or basis. Aam aadhmi believes in places of worship and have taken steps to build them. The government and ministers like Jairam Ramesh only pay lip service to sanitation and only keep talking about it. Let them spend their energy on improving sanitation instead of lining their pockets.

The Ayodhya judgment

"Ayodhya" means 'without bellicosity'. The judgment delivered by the three member Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has been variously interpreted as "Solomonic Resolution" (by the NewYork Times) , "Force of faith trumping law and reason" (by Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu) and "Annulment of respect for history and seeking to replace it with religious faith" (by Romila Thapar, a distinguished historian).

The three judges have delivered three separate judgments. On a cursory reading of the judgments, the one delivered by the senior-most judge Sibghat Ullah Khan seems to be the most coherent. His pronouncement highlights the solemnity and gravity of the issue that desiderates resolution. "Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. We are required to clear it.----- Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However, we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when the occasion for the same arises." The prelude could not have been more apt !

Siddharth Varadarajan argues that the judgment is based on "an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the 'faith and belief of Hindus' ". In other words, the criticism is that the judgment is not evidence-based. Justice Khan has in fact based his conclusions on solid evidence. He says,"Both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title. Hence by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession". Joint possession has been proved because "Much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped alongwith offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque". In view of this finding, Justice Khan has held that Muslims as well as Hindus were in joint possession of the premises in dispute. Such hard evidence cannot be dismissed as matters of faith.

All three judges have stated that as per the faith and belief of the Hindus the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid was the birthplace of Ram. Siddharth Varadarajan's comment that "For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else" smacks of rebellion without cause. Multiplicity of opinions is not ipso facto negation of a preponderant opinion. Further, reference to faith and belief should not be condemned as reliance on the same. It may be true that Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Rama. This does not mean,as Siddharth Varadarajan argues, that the court's reference to Ram's birthplace is vitiated.

Siddharth Varadarajan's scepticism regarding the finding of the Archaeological Survey of India that there was a massive Hindu religious structure below the masjid is suggestive of selective acceptance of evidence. In his espousal of a particular view, he has accused the judges of not having  relied on evidence (when in fact they have, as already shown above) while he seems to be oblivious of his own discomfort with evidence.

P.P.Rao, a distinguished jurist wonders how the court can divide the disputed land into three portions when none of the petitioners asked for division of land. Justice Khan has clarified this aspect quoting an earlier judgment. He has opined that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.

Justice Khan has amply explained why he has not delved deep into history and archaeology. He did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. As the Supreme Court has held in Karnataka Board of Wakfs vs.Government of India , there is no room for historical facts and claims in a title suit of civil nature.

Vatican's offer to Anglicans : A nuanced buyout?

Theologically Anglicans and Roman Catholics are as different as chalk and cheese. So it was very surprising when Pope Benedict XVI recently offered an option to Anglicans worldwide to flock to Roman Catholicism while still maintaining part of their spiritual heritage. This offer is open to both clergy and the laity. Some people describe this as the most significant event in Christendom from the days of the Reformation.
This religious putsch is as sensational as any business takeover. But this is not revolutionary because even earlier many Anglicans, individually of course, have been allowed to convert to Catholicism. (There was one stray case of an Anglican diocese collectively converting to Catholicism, namely the Amritsar diocese in the year 1975.) The Pope who was a professor in a German University earlier is executing a nuanced merger of sorts with considerable elan and elegance. Many puritanical Anglicans have been cheesed off in the recent past by the growing number of female priests and openly-gay clergy. The Vatican is taking advantage of this growing discontent in the 'opposite camp' and making an open offer with carrots. The Church of England which governs the Anglicans permits married persons to become priests and bishops. Though the Vatican is not in favour of married clergy, as a special case it is permitting the married Anglican priests to convert and continue as priests after re-ordainment. This offer is extended to vicars and not to bishops.
Many business mergers fail due to cultural incompatibility between the merging parties. Management of heterogenous cultures within the same business unit is a challenge that has overthrown many otherwise capable leaders. Presence of married priests in an organisation that values celibacy as a prerequisite for its clergy is bound to create disaffection and discord. Theological differences between Roman Catholics and followers of Reformation cannot be easily papered over. Irrespective of whether this bold initiative of the Pope succeeds or fails, it will have lasting lessons for management experts who are for ever puzzled by their own inability to arrive at a set of dos and don'ts to facilitate a smooth merger.

Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy

Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy , Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh who was killed in a helicopter crash on 2nd Sept. was of course a politician. His government was notoriously corrupt. However, certain facts about him stand out.

1) He had his schooling in the Besant Theosophical High School run by Kalakshetra Foundation. This should have had atleast some impact on his value system.

2) He was a broadminded Christian equally at home in Bethlehem and Tirumala, as noted by The Hindu.

3) He was a medical doctor and he always empathised with the poor.

We have lost an assertive and confident politician.

Detention of Shah Rukh Khan

SRK was detained (?) at Newark airport for 2 (?) hours. Was he detained or was he only frisked? Was it over a period of two hours or a much lesser duration? Is it also true that he was not allowed to make telephone calls?

SRK figured in the list of 50 most influential persons in the world published by Newsweek sometime last year. Assuming that the airport immigration officials were unaware of SRK's identity (which is quite possible), they could have easily verified through Google search or any other method they were comfortable with. Is it possible that SRK did not suggest anything like this?

SRK was in America ,inter alia, in connection with his soon-to-be released movie "My name is Khan" where he acts as a Muslim who is not a terrorist. There are cynics (?) who claim that the "detention" was arranged by 20th Century Fox as a trailer.

If he was detained only because his surname is 'Khan' and the immigration officials made no sensible attempts to satisfy themselves about SRK despite his attempts to prove his identity, the episode can only be termed as religious prejudice masquerading as 'security consciousness'.

Judas:Image makeover

The Gospel of Judas now disclosed by National Geographic will become an important part of Christian literature.Apparently a product of Gnostic philosophy,a la the Gospel of Mary Magdalene--a trigger for the Da Vinci Code-- ,it rehabilitates Judas.A traitor is converted into the most faithful.Gnostics are said to have possessed a secret knowledge of how people could escape the clutches of their material bodies and return to their spiritual origin."The codex is a Genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature" is an interesting quote found in the NYTimes.