Rising to Life with Jesus Breaking out from Babylon

Rising to Life with Jesus

Breaking out from Babylon

by Rev Dr Praveen P. S. Perumalla, PhD, Church of South India - Ecumenical Mission in Solidarity (CSI-EMS) Liaison Officer

sian experiences are not limited to any A geographical limits. They are experiences of encounters with the oppressive systems; whither it is colonial, internal colonies, racial or caste oppressions. In the process we discover an intellectual stream at work that challenges perverted authorities over its commitment to social justice. It is public intellectual. A women’s movement in 1980’s and early 90’s in the Telugu language States of South India known as anti-arrack movement had introduced women as public intellectuals. It is not that they were scholars but, they had collectively demonstrated their ability to raise critical questions with the State government at different levels of governance starting from the State capital to the village Panchayat. They had not left any social institution untouched by their questioning such as family, education, business, political parties and governance, etc., Their questions are instruments to analyse lack of social justice in the government policies as the government revenue accrued is through auctioning of arrack. The patriarchal State governance based on contract system is exposed by the women analysing market-led contract system in shaping society. The hour has come to identify public intellectuals, recover its potency to experience Rising to Life with Jesus.

Why Public Intellectuals?

The idea of nation is dipped in particular colour, quoted with ideology, taken out as a brand of cultural nationalism in India. In the light of this brand the Indian citizens who stand in the tradition of public intellectuals are portrayed as anti-nationals, communists, and their knowledge to bring alternatives is projected as seditious activities. Indifference in the very conception of nation-state seems to be nurtured in the branding of cultural national vs anti- national. It uses religious category in amended legal framework and creates people without a nation within the nation. In an exercise of updating Citizens Register under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in the State of Assam in India, it is reported that 1.9 million Indian Citizens are turned into people without a nation within the nation. Indifference is evident in exclusion of minorities through changes in legal framework. Replacement of Planning Commission by the National Institute for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog has direct implications over the budgetary proceedings, resulting in non-allocation of funds to the minorities, which was mandatary under the Planning Commission. Such a rationality lacks legitimate political will for social justice and welfare of the marginalised communities. Consequently, the SC, ST sub-plan provisions in the Central budget as well as State budget are eroded.

Revising the Indian past using communal lens and re-writing school text books in religious lines is yet another face of deviation from the secular nature of the Indian educational system. A blatant neglect of increasing rate of poverty, violence against women and minorities, increasing malnutrition among women and children creating a cycle of chronic deficiency and deaths among young children and among the women, unemployment, weakening of industrial and agricultural sectors is vivid in a shift of political debates side lining sustainable developmental goals. The foreseen agenda to implement National Register of Citizens (NRC) and intended financial bill by name Financial Sector Development Resolution (FSDR) Bill 2019 creates a fear of turning Indian minorities, secularists, and all those who do not comply with the cultural nationalism ideology into people without a nation within the nation. With such a context of a deliberate move away from human rights, welfare of the minorities, secular fabric of social life and social justice, it is public intellectuals that nurtures to create breathing spaces.

Cutting Across the Boundaries by the Public Intellectuals

Perpetuating indifference and hate are not limited to particular national boundary. The forces behind create and propagate cultural nationalism across the boundaries. They strive hard to stall every step towards secular and democratic organisation of society that includes constitutional initiatives. There had been attempts across the Asian continent to stall secular and democratic reasoning by forcefully imposing cultural nationalism on its citizens and naming the nations after a

Swimming against the stream, public intellectuals had been progressing well in advancing democratic and secular values in their respective nations. A case in point is Nepal. Nepal was under the control of kingdom identified by its dominant religion as Hindu, therefore, Hindu country. It was the public intellectuals of the Nepal who questioned the kingdom authority in the light of prevalent democratic, secular values elsewhere in Asia. Many of them had visited India to learn from the works of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and making of the Indian Constitution, interacted with the public intellectuals in India. Today we see the fruit of public intellectual glory in the making of Nepal Constitution, giving Nepal a democratic identity of a nation with adult franchise.

What constitutes Public intellectuals?

Public intellectual streams are very well identified across the globe. Their origin in Asia as well as in Europe is traced to be of similar time frame. It was in the fifth BC that Public intellectuals are located in two different philosophical traditions in the person of Socrates and in India in the person of Buddha. This paper is limited to Public intellectuals to India only. Romila Thapar, a well-known Historian, had rightly identified teachings of Buddha bringing out an understanding of Public intellectuals. She says that the Buddha had identified changes is the then society with the annexing of families to be one of the unites of society. This was followed by claims of ownership of land as private property. These changes are said to be brought about confusion and conflicts in otherwise egalitarian society of equals, equality in access to all resources. In response, people of that time and place gathered together and elected from among themselves one person- the mahasammata, the great elect- to govern them, provide them with laws that annuls the chaos. Such was an explanation on the origin of governance as a social contract, expounds Thapar (The Public Intellectual in India: 2015, p.7). This part of Buddha teachings brings out public intellectuals of the time explicit in their ability to raise critical questions that generated new ways of analysis and understanding of society and alternatives as a way forward. Thapar had presented yet another philosophical steam that opposed the democratic secular steps in society by creating a counter myth, as follows. The Brahmanical sources had reversed the Buddha’s notion of the ‘great elected one’ into the idea of a king, who was divinely appointed, bestowed with all power upon him. The Buddha’s idea of the rule of ‘the great elected one’ leaves no room for violence, (either in the form of sacrifice or killing) which is explained as a righteous governance. Whereas, the Brahmanical idea of the king is full of killing in the battle field to establish kinship. The Bhagavad Gita, religious scripture of the Hindus, is said to be a reflection on the question of condemning violence by the Buddhists and the Jains. This Gita is said to justify killing as an ethical action by the king to expel evil. If it is so, who defines evil? Referring to Lord Krishna’s statement which says that the women, Vaishya and Shudra are born of a papa-yoni, meaning ‘a womb of evil. Therefore, such people are said to be of low birth (The Public Intellectual in India: 2015, p 8-9).

The Biblical tradition does point to the changing society in which demand for a king comes from the Israelites. But God’s word discourages them from imitating the worldly system of kingship and invites them to strengthen kinship relationships. Because of the stiff- necked demands of the Israelites, God allows them to have a king with a strong instruction….

When you have come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, “You must never return that way again.” And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel. Deuteronomy 17: 14-20.

It can be inferred from the above discussion that the public intellectuals view social contract as a moral ethic of responsibility towards the community and creation of law to lead people from every form of chaos into a peaceful living; without asking for the sacrifice of the minorities for the sake of peace for the majority. Any violation or deviation on the part of the authority, whether of the State or religion, such an authority is subjected to analysis of their political obligations (The Contract of Mutual Indifference, Norman Geras, 1998:27).

Social Contract and Mutual Contract: A Problematic Concept

Social contract and mutual contract are not the same and this paper limits the scope of discussion to the kind of problems posed by both of them.

Firstly violence on selective minority groups is inadequately registered by rest of the minorities as well as by a wider society, which is expressively shown in lack of the latter group’s critical interventions. How to do we make different quarters of the civil society rise to arise for the occasion?

We need to draw from our experiences, whether they are success stories or stories of failure. Thapar offers remarkable responses by the public intellectuals in the 19th century in their response to the anti-Semitism that can be characterised by suspecting Jews in every matter. This time, it was French army that suspected its own army captain, who was Jewish by name Dreyfus, for leaking army secrets to the Germans. The acts of anti-Semitism resulted in wrongly impeaching a dignified army officer which was brought to the public notice in the writings of Emile Zola, which carried huge support from writers, artists and

academicians, all of whom jointly came to be called ‘intellectuals.’ Subsequently Dreyfus was declared innocent after examining anti-Semitic mood of the time critically. Ever since public intellectual is recognised as distinctive, a ‘Dreyfus Affair’ ((The Public Intellectual in India: 2015, p 5).

Similarly, in response to the CAA, NRC, in Assam, it is said that around 700 activists, film makers and academicians had represented over the matter in writing to the government of India as a greave concern. The list goes on if only one pays attention to the active mode of public intellectuals. Dreyfus Affair is vibrant in different parts of Asia, including in Palestine/ Israel.

When Thapar had a story to tell about public intellectuals in the context of anti-Semitism that is affirmative and universal, somebody else had a story to tell from the holocaust annals. It is Narman Geras who raised the question along with many about the silence of society over the anti-Semitism, holocaust experiences of the Jews.

The violation of some by others, their public humiliation, dispossession, deportation, enslavement, torture, murder, in the sight or with the knowledge of many more others who could but do not act to stop it, who stand by, look on or look awaythese are the poles of extremity from which we begin (p.27)

Referring to the Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec and other sights of death camps for the Jews and others, Norman joins with the holocaust survivors to raise the question of how fellow human beings are silent spectators over the torture and humiliation in public. His question does not correspond to the public intellectuals for the following reasons, as presented by Norman. His question has no claim over universalism like public intellectuals. His question is not referring to any philosophical categories of the past that can be carried forward into future, unlike the public intellectuals. Further, his question does not carry any political analysis with an intention to call forth political obligation. Instead, it is a question of moral responsibility towards fellow beings. Norman names such a phenomenon ‘mutual indifference.’

If you do not come to the aid of others who are under grave assault, in acute danger or crying need, you cannot reasonably expect others to come to your aid in similar emergency; you cannot consider them so obligated to you. Other people, equally, unmoved by the emergencies of others, cannot reasonably expect to be helped in deep troubles themselves, or consider others obligated to help them (p.28)

Norman calls such a dead wood response towards fellow humans at the time of troubles as mutual indifference. The responses by one’s self when the others are put to public humiliation and torture before one’s eyes is based upon counting what extent the fellow human beings are useful or helpful to one’s self.

Baas Wielenga and others had reflected upon the thesis by Norman and located indifferent behaviour of many to the dire poverty and violence suffered by the masses. Baas say that mutual contract is the central point in creating either indifference or not. “If I don’t come to aid of someone who needs help, how can I expect from others to come to my aid when I need it.” Therefore, Bass concludes saying that the modern society is based on contract of mutual indifference. Based on mutual indifference fellow citizens see the humiliation and tortures suffered by fellow and yet they go for shopping, entertainment, keep busy in making profits, selling and buying, as though nothing has happened. Indifference is a negative emotion of rejection, agreeing to the kind of violence by the fellow citizens. How to overcome it? There is no shortcut answer to the above loaded question but to fall back on our learning from our failures.

An imagination of Martin Niemöller seems to be in place. As a member of the Confessing Church, he raises a critical question, which in my opinion can be counted under public intellectuals for it refers to the past in view of the present, holding universal applicability. At the same time his question also points at movement for an individual to go beyond one’s self from mutual contract into a realm of solidarity.

The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would

have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now.

Martin Niemöller 6 January 1946 at Frankfurt.

The experience of Babylonian captivity is not that hard compared to the Egyptian slavery. The tendency is to find one’s own way to prosperity and comfort without giving room for solidarity. A response to indifference as an experience of breaking out of Babylon is traced from the prophetic book of Jeremiah 9: 22-24.

Thus says the LORD: Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the LORD; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the LORD. (NRSV)

Prophet Jeremiah is identified as a weeping prophet, for the book of Jeremiah has poetry of lamentations. These poetries are prophetic utterances about Israel, which is common for the eighth and seventh century prophets. The uniqueness in Jeremiah is adopting Mosaic tradition through incorporating Deuteronomic works, explains Walter Brueggemann, particularly from Deuteronomy 32 as well as Ephraim tradition of Hosea (An Introduction to the Old Testament 2003: 177-190). There is an image of God’s love for the Biblical Israel, at the same time God’s wrath over betrayal of God’s word. Therefore, the book of Jeremiah dwells upon Torah and not upon the Temple in Jerusalem cult. Jeremiah Chapter 9 includes prophetic oracle, call to repent and embarrass Torah. An important word in 9th chapter is ‘Know God’ (v3, 9, 24). To know God is contrasted with not living according to the teachings of Torah. “…because they have forsaken my law that I set before him, and have not obeyed my voice, or walked in accordance with it” (v13). The prophetic books of eighth and seventh century BC addressed injustice as pertinent issue. The book of Jeremiah is said to be a work from seventh century BC. The issue of justice is very much part of the prophetic book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 9: 6 says “Oppression upon oppression, deceit upon deceit! They refuse to know me, says the Lord.” Therefore, to know God is practice justice. To keep the teachings of Torah is to keep justice. There is material dimension, moral responsibilities and faith dimension to practise justice. Material deprivation because of injustice is idolatry. In the midst of injustice, the suffering brothers and sisters of Israel sought for solidarity from the fellow Israelites. But, a quarter among Israel was indifferent to the pathos of their fellow Israelites. It is something like experiencing death in the midst of life. Similar experience of indifference is reflected upon from the Holocaust history by Baas who explains “(t)hen death confronts us not as a border experience at the end of life, but as an abyss beneath us in the midst of it (“Covenanting Against Indifference.” (Unpublished) Sep’ 2000). In the words of Jeremiah…

“Death has come up into our windows, it has entered our palaces, to cut off the children from the streets and the young men from the squares.” Jeremiah 9: 21

The prophetic book of Jeremiah address indifference among the Biblical Israelites to the sufferings of their fellow Israelites by allowing injustice to prevail. Therefore, death to prevail in the midst to life. The call of Deuteronomic work that guided Jeremiah calls back Israelite into a fellowship of love and equality where kinship relationships are visited again with a commitment.

The theological theme “Rising to Life with Jesus and Break Out from Babylon” enables us to recognise God’s work in the stream of Public intellectuals in Asia; reminds us to strengthen the stream of Public intellectuals against the currents of dominant myths, call for legitimate governance. Engage for the sake of democracy and secularism inspired by liberative texts and Public intellectuals, cutting across the borders, create networks of peace in the continent. Deal with the social leprosy of indifference nurtured by mutual contract. Cultivate sisterhood and brotherhood in neighbourhood to defeat the powers of death under our feet.