Anti-Conversion Laws In India

From Marbaniang, Domenic. Secularism In India: A Historical Analysis (2009).

THERE WERE bills and acts in relation to religious conversion even before the independence. Instances are the Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936 and the Udaipur State Conversion Act of 1946. These laws aimed at eliminating the rural and tribal rights of freedom to conscience and religion.[1] After independence, there have been at least five states (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat) that have enacted laws to either curtail or cease conversions. The following section is an account of the Freedom of Religion Acts enacted by States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat to check the tide of religious conversions and problems arising from it. The Gujarat Law and parliamentary affairs minister Ashok Bhatt, recently, has referred to these laws as anti-conversion laws.[2]

1. The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1968

This anti-conversion law was enacted in face of allegations that the Christian Missionaries were using lure and force for religious conversions. In 1954, the Niyogi Committee set up by the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh accused Christian missionaries of creating ‘a state within a state’ and observed that the ‘philanthropic activities of Christian missionaries are a mask for proselytization.’[3] The Sangh Parivar also alleged that the missionaries were promoting political dissent in the State.[4]

The Madhya Pradesh Assembly rejected the Freedom of Religion Bills of 1958 and 1963. However, this bill was passed in 1968 as ‘The Freedom of Religion Act.’[5]

The Madhya Pradesh ‘Freedom of Religion Act’ requires that a convert produce a legal affidavit that s/he was not under any pressure, force, or allurement to convert but was converting by own will and desire after evaluating the religion properly.[6] Also according to this law, anyone who writes or speaks or sings of ‘divine displeasure’ (with an intention to induce forced conversion by means of threat) can be imprisoned for a period of up to two years and fined up to five thousand rupees.[7]

Evidently, this law is an open violation of the right to freedom of religion that includes the freedom to propagate one’s religion. What is ‘divine displeasure’ in one religion may not be ‘divine displeasure’ in another religion. However, without propagation of religion, this cannot be known to a person belonging to another religion. Moreover, if there is no propagation of such fundamentals of religion, which distinguish one religion from the other, then there can be no conversions. Therefore, a law prohibiting the preaching of a fundamental tenet such as ‘divine displeasure’ is an attempt to prevent the citizen from a proper exercise of his/her right to freedom of religion.

2. The Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968

 The state of Orissa enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act in 1968. It stated that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.”[8] Contravention of this law was punishable with imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to Rs 5,000. In the case of a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the punishment was up to two years of imprisonment and the limit of the fine raised to Rs. 10,000.[9]

The Orissa High Court, however, struck down the Act as ultra vires of the Constitution[10] on the ground that the state legislature did not have the right to legislate matters of religion.[11] The same year, the state of Madhya Pradesh also enacted the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act as seen above. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in contrary to the Orissa High Court, negated the challenge of some Christians that the Act violated their fundamental right as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution. The decisions of both the Courts were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reversed the decision of the Orissa High Court.[12] The Supreme Court ruling by a full bench said:

We find no justification for the view that Article 25 granted a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed of one religion only, but covers all religions alike and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religions.

What is freedom for one is freedom for others, in equal measure; and there can be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.[13]

Ruma Pal notes that this decision of the Supreme Court has been justifiably criticized for its failure in distinguishing between conversion by force and conversion by persuasion.[14] Even advertisements make use of the art of persuasion. The right of freedom to choose one’s own religion has no meaning if the very means of choice were removed. Choice between religions is unthinkable in the absence of an intellectually persuasive propagation of religion. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that disregards the fundamental right to freedom of propagating one’s own religion is unjustifiable. As H.M. Seervai notes:

Art. 25(1) confers freedom of religion—a freedom not limited to the religion in which a person is born. Freedom of conscience harmonizes with this, for its presence in Art. 25(1) shows that our Constitution has adopted a “system which allows free choice of religion.” The right to propagate religion gives a meaning to freedom of choice, for choice involves not only knowledge but an act of will. A person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him. To propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of that religion.[15]

Thus, the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968 cannot at all be considered a Freedom of Religions Act since it takes away the very means of freedom to choose and practice one’s own religion.

3. The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978

This Act was enacted to prevent the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh from converting to other religions. It reads:

3) Prohibition of forcible conversion.

No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from indigenous faith by use of force or by inducement or any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.

4) Punishment of Contravention of the Provision of Section.

Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section 2, shall without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two (2) years and fine up to ten thousand (10, 000) rupees. (i) whoever converts any person from his indigenous faith to any other faith or religion either by himself performing the ceremony for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking part directly in such ceremony shall, within such period after the ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to which the person converted belongs, of the fact of such conversion in such forms as may be prescribed.[16]

Evidently, the meanings given to the word ‘inducement,’ namely ‘the offer of any gift, or gratification, either cash or in kind and also include grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise,’ in the law can dangerously affect social work by religious groups, even though their intentions are charity-oriented. Such ambiguity within the law is a clear indication of the State’s intention to restrain individuals from using their right to freedom of religion.

4. The Tamil Nadu Anti-Conversion Act of 2002.

The Tamil Nadu Anti-conversion Act of 2002 stated that ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another either by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means.’[17] The immediate provocation for this Act, supposedly, ‘was the threat of hundreds of Dalits of Koothirambakkam village, near Kancheepuram, to change religion because their decades-old demand that their right to enter and worship at the common village temple be protected by the government had not been conceded.’[18]

There had been great protest against this ordinance from various corners. Police arrested 10 people who were planning a mass conversion on December 6, 2002 in protest to the new anti-conversion law. About 3,000 Dalits were to be converted to Christianity and Buddhism, without applying to the local magistrate to approve their conversion in accordance to the new law, on this day according to this plan.[19] Apparently, the Dalits saw this law as violating their fundamental rights and also ridding them of the opportunity to rise. However, President of the Maharashtra branch of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Ashok Chowgule, congratulated the Tamil Nadu government on the ordinance. He said conversions cause social tensions.[20] The State Council of the All-India Democratic Women's Association also opposed the bill as being unjustified and opposed to the rights of minorities and Dalits ensured in the Constitution.[21]

On May 7 2004, the Prohibition of Conversion Act Protest Committee appealed to the electorate to vote for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA). The DMK was said to have in its manifesto a promise to repeal the Anti-conversion law.[22] However, soon after the defeat of the BJP led coalition in the 2004 elections, the Tamil Nadu Government led by Jayalalitha repealed the law in June to the chagrin of many Hindu Fundamentalists and Nationalists.[23]

5. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.

Soon after its victory in Gujarat the Narendra Modi government decided to accord "top priority" to the commitment given in the BJP poll manifesto and enact a law against religious conversions in the state.[24] Accordingly, the Gujarat Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Act in March 2003.[25] It was called the Dharam Swatantrata Vidheya[26] (Freedom of Religion Act). Narendra Modi called the Act as one of the main ‘achievements’ of his government’s one year in office.[27] Evidently, anti-conversion law is a significant part of BJP agenda. The law prohibited conversion by force or inducement.[28]
All the above anti-conversion laws violate the Constitutional provision of fundamental rights to the citizens of India. Thus, it has been seen that the various anti-conversion laws are a direct contravention of the provisions given in the Constitution.

Also, the opposition of conversion is, evidently, an attempt to destroy the citizen’s right to freedom of religion and desecularize Indian society. Though it is known that this attempt is futile in this globally connected world of information explosion, yet many of the Sangh activists are actively busy in trying to stop conversions, reconvert non-Hindus to Hinduism, and make India a Hindu nation. Back in 2002, L.K. Advani, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India, told the parliament that ‘India can never be turned into a Hindu nation.’[29]

True to Advani’s statement, India can never be turned into a Hindu nation because of the educational, economical, social, and political foundation that the British and the early leaders of Independent India laid.

NOTES

---

[1] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[2] ‘Anti-conversion Laws Yet To be Framed,’ The Times of India, Nov. 7, 2004, Ahmedabad.
[3] Subhash Agarwal, ‘Law, Order, & Religious Conversions’, The Financial Express, Sept. 25, 2003.
[4] Hansel D’Souza, ‘Christians Awake! The Secular Citizen’, June 1995, http://www.hvk.org/Publications/cihp/an1.html
[5] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[6] Ibid, p. 146 & R. Domenic Savio, ‘A Descriptive Study of Prarthana Bhavan, Sanjay Koyala Nagar’, (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Acts Academy of Higher Education, 2004), p. 81.
[7] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 142.
[8] Section 3 of the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act, 1968. As cited by Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, Religion and Personal Law in Secular India (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), http://iupress.indiana.edu/textnet/0-253-33990-1/0253108683.htm
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[11] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[14] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[15] As cited by Ruma Pal, op. cit.
[16] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, pp. 141-2.
[17] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004, http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=2469800
[18] Frontline, Dec.3, 2004, p.10.
[19] ‘Crackdown Over India Mass Baptism’, BBC News, South Asia, Friday, 6 December, 2002, 04:56 GMT .
[20] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004.
[21] ‘Anti-conversion Bill unjustified: AIDWA’, The Hindu, Nov. 12, 2002. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/11/12/stories/2002111204290500.htm
[22] http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/08/stories/2004050803510400.htm
[23] http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/09/stories/2004060905050500.htm
[24] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[25] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[26] BBC News, Tuesday, 25 February, 2003, 17:25 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2798771.stm
[27] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[28] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[29] BBC News, 5 December, 2002, 19:08 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2546023.stm

The Opposition in Democracy

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." (Prov.18:17)

The Opposition is a vital part of modern democracy. It ensures that the government elected by the people is working on behalf of the people and fulfilling the goals it set before them. It also ensures that the ruling party practices transparency and accountability. The Opposition has the right to question the actions of the government and demand an account or rationale for its actions. It may be wrong in its assumptions, but it has the right to voice its questions, without which democracy will be annihilated. To try to silence the voice of the Opposition by any means whatsoever is to kill the soul of the nation which is liberty, unity, fraternity, and justice; for where the right to freedom is exterminated, democracy is dead. A government that labels the Opposition as traitor for questioning its actions is against the people. The Opposition provides an opportunity for the people, who are the real judges in a democracy ruled by the law and not a mob, to see the other part of the story instead of falling for the rhetoric of the first. A good government will answer the questions raised by the Opposition because they are questions raised on behalf of the people. Ultimately, it is the people who will decide whether the government was right in its decisions or not. But, there is a Moral Law that is higher and foundational to all manmade laws; and, one cannot kick against the pricks and not be hurt.

The Moral Basis of Indian Law

Now, while the debate exists in the philosophy of law about the relationship between political laws and the moral law, attempts to base the laws on anything other than the moral law sooner face problems of justifiability. While it may be the case that reductionism of politics to ethics is not totally feasible, resort to anti reductionism is only self-defeating. And, then authority arguments that try to derive validity of laws from higher laws, which in return try to derive their validity from a much higher one (e.g. Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law), will have to strike ceiling at some point ( See Marmor, A. Philosophy of Law, Princeton, 2011). For instance, the judges under Hitler's regime could not be absolved upon the relativist presumption that they were only conforming to some law of a sovereign nation. The question of validity and justice could not be anchored in such "sovereign" authority alone.

However, this doesn't mean that authority doesn't count. In fact, authority does often prescribe laws in many cases, but the laws are only instrumental towards a much larger cause. Thus, we have law-givers such as Solon, Moses, and Manu. However, the validity of the prescriptions are based on a deeper intent. The intent or the spirit of the law is what matters. It also means that where laws fail to serve the intent, they must fade away and give place to the new.

Plato's elaborative study of justice as an ethical virtue in the analogically larger Republic is based on the same understanding that ethics and politics are inseparable. Similarly, his disciple Aristotle didn't see any reason to separate the both. In the Biblical tradition, the entire Mosaic Law was based on the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, which were the essence of the Law. Jesus pointed out that they all hung on the two Great Commandments: To love God absolutely and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Of course, Paul, later submitted that the Law was only a revealer and a restricter. It revealed human sinfulness and it was meant to restrict the lawless (it was given for the lawless). Jesus pointed out that certain laws (for instance, the law of divorce) were only permissive because of the hardness of human hearts, but didn't reflect the original intent of human creation.

Looking, now, into the Indian Constitution, one asks what is Indian Law based upon ultimately. The Preamble makes the democratic nature of the Republic clear. And, so it is the people's government for sure. But, the moral philosophy is indicated in words like "humanism" and "scientific temper", featured later on under Fundamental Duties. While the temper is scientific, the philosophical ground is humanism and its philosophy of man is condensed in the section called Fundamental Rights. The Law exists to ensure the protection of these fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Consequently, any law that is inconsistent with these rights is automatically annulled.

The Fundamental Rights are not prescriptions to the people but declarations of humanism. These declarations are prescriptive only to the laws, since the laws are expected to conform to them. Thus, they not only inform but also serve as reference points, as absolute foundation, for the laws. As such, we may refer to them, with regard to humanism, as the intent, or spirit of the laws; perhaps even as the Law of the laws since they serve as the measure of all laws.

But, how do we know that these declarations are true? Perhaps, it is similar to asking about the laws of logic, "How does one know whether they are true?" The answer is: by using them or trying not to use them. One cannot deny them, but then one cannot deny anything without using them. Similarly, one cannot deny the Fundamental Rights without himself losing the rights.

Do Race and Religion Define Nationality? Semantic Analyses

To define nationality in terms of race and religion will immediately lead to confusion.

For instance, if we define the term "Indian" (a nationality identifier) as "a person who belongs to the ancient races of the mainland of Hindustan and follows one of the ancient religions of the land, e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc", then we immediately land into the following problems:

1. A Japanese Buddhist will not be considered an "Indian" because though he follows an ancient religion of the land, Buddhism, he doesn't belong to one of the ancient races of India.
2. Suppose, the same definition is accepted by the Japanese, i.e. they define "Japanese" as "a person who belongs to the ancient races of the mainland of Japan and follows one of the ancient religions of the land, e.g. Shintoism", then because he doesn't follow the religion of Shintoism but follows Buddhism, he will be no longer considered "Japanese" anymore.
3. However, if he is neither Japanese nor Indian, then what is he?

But, let's define "Indian" as "a person who is a citizen of India", then the confusion disappears.

Yet, it doesn't mean that "Indian" loses its meaning as an ethnic identifier. For instance, in the term "Indian American", the ethnic identity (Indian) is retained within the national identity (American)¹. Similarly so with "African-American" and "Chinese American".

As such, it is important to distinguish between political nationality and ethnic identity. They both can go together, but must not be confused with each other. However, a political nation that serves the interests of a particular ethnic group will soon fall to unrest and tyranny. Similarly, a political nation that serves the interests of a particular religious group will also fall to unrest and tyranny.

The ethnic distinguisher should only be functional. For instance, though we may speak of, say, "Indian Americans" in the form of Ethnic-Identity+Political-Nationality, we don't speak of "Indian Indians" and "American Americans" in the same form. However, we can still speak of "Indian Tamils" (or "Tamil Indians") or "Sri Lankan Tamils" or "Pakistani Punjabis" or "Indian Punjabis". Of course, terminology identifying Americans who accept Indian citizenship or Germans who accept Indian citizenship hasn't developed much. It is not yet popular to speak of "German Indians", for instance, as Germans who have accepted Indian citizenship. The phenomena may not be large enough to warrant the development of such a terminology, perhaps.

But, with regard to religious identity, given either the political identity or the ethnic identity, it is not impossible to talk of say "Indian Christians" or "Thai Hindus" or "Tibetan Buddhists", and similarly of "Indian Christians in America" and "Gujarati Jains in Dubai". However, where race and religion are made defining components of nationhood, no meaningful talk can become possible. The result is chaos and unrest. Consistency demands that these identifiers be kept separate and not made definitive of something altogether different from any of them.

NOTES

---

¹ "American Indian" refers to the native Americans.

---

FEW QUOTES FROM

Ernst Renan (1823-92), What is a Nation?

Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality. Indeed, historical enquiry brings to light deeds of violence which took place at the origin of all political formations, even of those whose consequences have been altogether beneficial.

Yet the essence of a nation is that all individuals have many things in common; and also that they have forgotten many things. No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgundian, an Alan, a Taifale, or a Visigoth, yet every French citizen has to have forgotten the massacre of Saint Bartholomew,' or the massacres that took place in the Midi in the thirteenth century. There are not ten families in France that can supply proof of their Frankish origin, and any such proof would anyway be essentially flawed, as a consequence of countless unknown alliances which are liable to disrupt any genealogical system.

But what is a nation? Why is Holland a nation, when Hanover, or the Grand Duchy of Parma, are not? How is it that France continues to be a nation, when the principle which created it has disappeared? How is it that Switzerland, which has three languages, two religions, and three or four races, is a nation, when Tuscany, which is so homogeneous, is not one? Why is Austria a state and not a nation? In what ways does the principle of nationality differ from that of races?

Ethnographic considerations have therefore played no part in the constitution of modern nations. France is [at once] Celtic, Iberic, and Germanic. Germany is Germanic, Celtic and Slav. Italy is the country where the ethnographic argument is most confounded. Gauls, Etruscans, Pelasgians, and Greeks, not to mention many other elements, intersect in an indecipherable mixture. The British isles, considered as a whole, present a mixture of Celtic and Germanic blood, the proportions of which are singularly difficult to define.

The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera. The noblest countries, England, France, and Italy, are those where the blood is the most mixed. Is Germany an exception in this respect? Is it a purely Germanic country? This is a complete illusion.

What we have just said of race applies to language too. Language invites people to unite, but it does not force them to do so. The United States and England, Latin America and Spain, speak the same languages yet do not form single nations. Conversely, Switzerland, so well made, since site was made with the consent of her different parts, numbers three or four languages. There is something in man which is superior to language, namely, the will. The will of Switzerland to be united, in spite of the diversity of her dialects, is a fact of far greater importance than a similitude often obtained by various vexatious measures.

Religion cannot supply an adequate basis for the constitution of a modern nationality either. Originally, religion had to do with the very existence of the social group, which was itself an extension of the family. Religion and the rites were family rites. The religion of Athens was the cult of Athens itself, of its mythical founders, of its laws and its customs; it implied no theological dogma. This religion was, in the strongest sense of the term, a state religion. One was not an Athenian if one refused to practise it. This religion was, fundamentally, the cult of the Acropolis personified. To swear on the altar of Aglauros" was to swear that one would die for the patrie. This religion was the equivalent of what the act of drawing lots [for military service], or the cult of the flag, is for us. Refusing to take part in such a cult would be the equivalent, in our modern societies, of refusing military service. It would be like declaring that one was not Athenian. From another angle, it is clear that such a cult had do meaning for someone who was not from Athens; there was also no attempt made to proselytize foreigners and to force them to accept it; the slaves of Athens did not practise it. Things were much the same in a number of small medieval republics. One was not considered a good Venetian if one did not swear by Saint Mark; nor a good Amalfitan if one did not set Saint Andrew higher than all the other saints in paradise.

A nation is a spiritual principle, the outcome of the profound complications of history; it is a spiritual family not a group determined by the shape of the earth. We have now seen what things are not adequate for the creation of such a spiritual principle, namely, race, language, material interest, religious affinities, geography, and military necessity. What more then is required? .....
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion. Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate, for the ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (by which I understand genuine glory), this is the social capital upon which one bases a national idea. To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more - these are the essential conditions for being a people. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices to which one has consented, and in proportion to the ills that one has suffered. One loves the house that one has built and that one has handed down. The Spartan song -'We are what you were; we, will be what you are" - is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of every patrie.

A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. It presupposes a past; it is summarized, however, in the present by a tangible fact, namely, consent, the clearly expressed desire to continue a common life. A nation's existence is, if you will pardon the metaphor, a daily plebiscite, just as an individual's existence is a perpetual affirmation of life. That, I know full well, is less metaphysical than divine right and less brutal than so-called historical right.

Is the Idea of a Christian Nation Rational and Biblical?

JESUS made a distinction between what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God (Matt.22:21). He also spoke of His Kingdom as "not of this world" (Jn. 18:36). The New Testament clearly marks off the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man as two separate realms. Of course, even in the kingdom of man, political authority ultimately comes from God (Rom.13:1,2). But, that doesn't certainly make politics "Christian". For instance, Nebuchadnezzar's authority came from God (Dan.2:37), but that didn't make his kingdom a Christian kingdom or his way of doing politics "Christian". Similarly, Cyrus was called the "anointed" of God (Isa.45:1), but that didn't make the Medo-Persian empire Christian.

It is always a threat to both politics and religion to fuse both of them together: not only do the people suffer, but they lose their freedom of religion as well. It doesn't matter which religion it may be, the loss of liberty is certain and when liberty is lost, politics loses a fundamental pillar.

Let's say, for instance, a "Christian nation". The next question would be "Catholic" or "Protestant"? History is not silent about the fact that whenever one of the traditions came to power, the other suffered. But, again, it's not just limited to "Catholic" or "Protestant". The same is the case also with, say an "Islamic nation". The next question would be "Shia" or "Sunni"? Again, say a "Buddhist nation". The next question would be "Theravada or Mahayana". And, one is aware what ramifications that has. Religion and state simply cannot ensure liberty. Not that liberty is lawless; but, when religion is enforced it loses its religious spirit.

"But, what about Jewish nationalism in the Old Testament?" one may ask. Clearly, there religion and state look indivisible. Jewish nationalism certainly was an issue when the Jews asked the question about whether it was right to render taxes to Caesar or not. Jesus' answer was that one must render what was due to the other, in this case what belonged to Caesar must be rendered to Caesar (Rom.13:7). In other words, it didn't matter what religious or ideological affiliation a state may have, religion and politics were still separate. Even in the Old Testament, there is a case when a king was struck with leprosy when he tried to mix up the two realms of authority (2Chr.16:18); also, there is a case where the monarch interfered in a religious matter when it became a political issue (1Kgs.2:27).

There will always be some ideological or religious/theological approach to politics. It is impossible for politics to be scientific, after all. Even science cannot be segregated from philosophy (much to the chagrin of the logical positivists or the 50s era); we do have a discipline called "Philosophy of Science". The logical positivists thought philosophy died under the sword of science, without considering the fact that science was still a servant to philosophy; it did what ideologies such as communism, humanism, or some religion said. Science provided the weapons, but ideologies decided how to (or whether to) use them.

Thus, it was possible for Daniel to offer a Biblical perspective of history and politics to Nebuchadnezzar while still serving as a servant in the Babylonian kingdom (Dan.2:37,39). His theology of politics didn't prevent him from involvement in politics; however, when a law made by the king conflicted with his theology, he chose to abide true to faith (Dan.6:7,10). But, in no way did he try to impose religion upon the state. He knew the Kingdom of God would come, but it was not going to be by any human hands (Dan.2:34,45). To Daniel, a proper biblical theology of politics and theology of history strongly conformed to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in both politics and history.

Thus, we do have a "Christian theology of politics" or let's call it "Christian politics", not in the sense that it was a politics in which Christians are engaged, but in the sense that it is a Christian view of politics - and, there have been various theologies of politics (e.g. Augustinian, Thomistic, Lutheran, Anabaptist, etc). Similarly, there are also various Islamic approaches to politics.

Luther's political theology of politics and the church being two separate realms doesn't allow the concept of a "Christian Nation" anymore. Politics is secular (this-worldly).

However, what if we keep the ideas of "nation" (as people of a country - not according to race or religion, but according to citizenship) and of "state" (as a political system) separate, then can one speak in terms of "Muslim nation", "Christian nation", and "Hindu nation" -- without meaning "Muslim state", "Christian state", and "Hindu state"?

Let's say "America is a Christian nation but not a Christian state, because Christianity is not the state religion of America". Well, if "nation" has nothing to do with politics at all, i.e. one doesn't use the term "nation" in the sense of a political nation, then there is no reason why one can't speak of a "Christian nation" or even of a "Hindu nation". However, generally that is not the case. When one talks of nation, the idea of a political nation does come into the mind. And, of course there is nothing like a religious nation (if it were there, it would not respect political boundaries and so the political adjective becomes meaningless). A nation can only be political, and nationality is political, not religious. To use the term "Christian nation" or "Muslim nation" or "Hindu nation" is to categorize nation under a particular religion, as a religious nation. That is a contradiction in terms and so is illogical and unbiblical as well. On the other hand, one can safely use terms like "Indian Christians" or "American Christians", since such terms carry the idea of individual religious affiliations of citizens in a country.

Civil Disobedience, Law, and Justice

CIVIL OBEDIENCE obligatorily relates to Justice. Civil obedience is mandatory when the laws are just. However, civil obedience is not mandatory when laws are unjust. In fact, civil disobedience is obligatory when laws are unjust. The officers and judges during Hitler's reign might have argued that they were obeying their laws; however, since those laws were not just; therefore, they were guilty of crimes against humanity. Similarly, we find civil disobedience in the Bible when Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego refused to bow before the golden image (Dan. 3:14-16), when Daniel opened the windows and openly prayed in defiance to a law prohibiting the same (Daniel 6:10), and when the Apostles refused the authorities' command to stop preaching the Gospel.

But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Act 4:19-20 NIV)

The Formula:

• Law+Justice+Obedience = Peace & Order
• Law-Justice+Obedience = Crime & Destruction
• Law+Justice+Disobedience = Anarchy
• Law-Justice+Disobedience  = Resistance

Evidently, the state of civil disobedience is a state of unrest and struggle. There can only be peace when the laws are just and people obey just laws. However, civil disobedience to unjust laws certainly signifies peace within the heart, where resolve submits to conscience. (Rom.2:15) When, from the fountain of a pure conscience, just actions follow, peace prevails within, and peace flows without.

Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. (Psa 119:165 NIV)

However, when the heart is allowed to be hardened in compliance to godless authority and laws, judgment comes (2Chr. 36:14-16).

---

Some Quotes

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt."
― Mahatma Gandhi

"Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies...Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke....Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing....Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent....Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention...Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation....Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but [are] branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force)...."
― Mahatma Gandhi

“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe. ”
― Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Raja-niti Vs Loka-niti (Sarvodaya's Quest for True Democracy)

Raja-niti refers to the politics of party and power ("raja" means king and "raj" means rule). It is the common word used for "politics" in India. In contrast to it, the Sarvodaya philosophers, especially Vinoba Bhave, in the Gandhian line promoted what they called as "Loka-niti", i.e. the politics of people. For the Gandhians, centralization of power in any form (dictatorial or "democratical") is a threat to swaraj (self-rule).

"...any state, with separated and strongly developed organs of legislation, execution, and judiciary in well organised large societies, cripples the free-play of individual's faculties and curbs his initiative by enlarging the regions of state control. Progressively it attains the position only next to air in its all-pervading nature. No matter whether such government is an elected representative of its people or a dictatorially established one against the will of the people, it unfailingly produces the evils of centralization and hence necessitates its own eradication for the sake of real democracy.... When the modern centralised state threatens the liberty of individual, of which it professes to be the guardian, it becomes the symbol of violence and a tool of exploitation, and as such loses its right to existence. That is why, according to Vinoba "power must pass into the hands of the people at all levels. Government must continually recede into the background or wither away." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, p.102)

The philosophical basis of such a concept is a strong belief in goodness within man, in humanism, in the human spirit which is free, individualism, and a leaning towards communism. Of course, communism everywhere has only led away from "community-rule" to more dictatorial and totalitarian regimes - its tragedy. Indian thinkers may ascribe communism's failure to its fundamentalist anti-religious and its dialectical materialist understanding of people and politics. In contrast, "Sarvodaya" (well-being of all, which includes all living beings) begins from freedom of the spirit and rejects deterministic materialism. But, how does that justify Lokaniti?

"Sarvodaya exhorts the people to accept Lokaniti--the ethic of the people in social life--by eschewing Raja-niti. In his "Last Will and Testament" Gandhi had expressed a wish to transform the National Congress that stood "as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine" into a Loka-Sevak-Sangh--an organisation for the service of the people. He believed that it would attain the democratic goal in India by the avoidance of "unhealthy competition with political parties and communal bodies." This remained merely an unfulfilled dream.... Vinoba's Land-gift and Village-gift movements have been conceived to fulfill Gandhi's dream of village-republics (Grama-Swaraja). Through this movement Vinoba hopes to bring political liberty along with the legislative and executive powers from Delhi to the small five hundred thousand villages of India. It can be achieved through the transformation of Raja-Niti into Loka-Niti.

"Loka-Niti in contrast with Raja-Niti strives to establish the real values of democracy. It is the respectable and equal position of every citizen that constitutes the core of democracy. His liberty irrespective of caste, class and sex, is the life-breath of its successful rule. It is the fact of 'humanity' and not the ability, either physical or intellectual, that guarantees the right to security in every sense of the term, under its domain. But the model of democracy has the other and even more valuable side, namely, that of obligations. Every conscientious citizen is alert in shouldering his responsibilities and abhors external compulsion of every kind. Loka-Niti acknowledges the fact that more the citizen become vigilant about the interest and rights of his neighbours, the less the need of a third intervening agency to set order in human relationships and the better for the mutual co-operation of citizens. Then no coercion need spoil the harmony of the corporate life. Naturally, wakeful self-reliance and willing service, instead of grim authoritarianism and the alluring power, will prove the advancement on democratic lines. For this Gandhi had warned--"Swaraj government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for the regulation of every detail of life." He also detected the dangers of increased governmental power: "I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although apparently doing odd by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." It is for the same reason that Vinoba Bhave warns the people against reliance on State, time and again. The shower of help by government, animated by welfarism should be a cause of anxiety for a real democrat since it blunts the sharpness of critical consciousness and tightens the knot of external authority, thus working for 'illfare' of the people. To the Sarvodaya thinkers the remedy lies in self-control which alone ensures self-rule.... In the society of self-ruled individuals, needless to say, no electioneering and struggle for power with the whole paraphernalia of propaganda machinery and machiavellian machinations can find any place." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, pp.100-102)

Loka-Niti tries to balance self-rule with community-rule in a way that a citizen can both be self-aware and neighborly-aware, and is able to "love his neighbor as himself". Citizens don't look to the state for welfare, but themselves practice welfare conscientiously, mutually, and liberally.

Of course, the quest doesn't end here, though the ideal looks certainly sublime. There are psychological questions regarding the individual human by himself and in society that the philosophy needs to address. There are theological questions as well, regarding God, world, sin, and salvation that need to be addressed. In any case, a political theory can't hang on thin air; it must address the issues relevant to the individual, rational, moral, social, and spiritual man.

Democracy Is Not Meant to Be Mobocracy

Basically, there are two kinds of government or rules: the rule of people and the rule of law.

The rule of people is manifest in democracy (mobocracy) where majority rule or in dictatorship where the whim of a single man pilots the state. Obviously, the rule of law is preferred above the rule of the mob. - The Rule of Law Vs The Rule of People

Today, women protested against the Delhi Law Minister, Somnath Bharti's "raid" in the night hours against women being accused of running a drug and prostitution racket. The police didn't want to cooperate with Bharti since they stated that this was an illegal move. However, the idea of a "people's government" was hot on fire, and it seems Bharti was zealous to be sensitive to the complaints. The AAP justify Bharti's move by stating that since the police weren't responding to the local people's complaint, and usually crime flourishes under the patronage of the police, the Law Minister had to take a move. Of course, the police must answer why it hadn't properly responded if the complaints had been made. Investigations need to be fair. Of course, a letter from an Ugandan official seems to have come in that affirms drug and sex trafficking going on by duping African girls into it.

However, the more severe issue of concern is the breach of the existent law, made by the government itself out of public pressure;. To what extent can such breaches be justifiable? There are dangerous pits on this track.

Propaganda, caricaturing, and dehumanization have many times led to mob crimes. We must be careful to avoid these. If the rule is handed over to people (in majority), then the minority will soon become victims of rumor, dehumanization, ghettoisation, and mob crime. The goal of a law-abiding nation cannot be reached by breaching the law.

We must understand the dangers of giving into the demands of propaganda propelled, passion driven masses. We must not forget that Socrates was poisoned because the majority voted for his death, Jesus was crucified because the majority wanted Him to die and wanted Barabbas the murderer to be released. Justice should not be blindfolded by the demands of the people. This will only end up in another instance of hooliganism. If the law is evil, then let's get rational about correcting it first in a rational manner; why use brute force, especially against the defenseless? We must remember the sagacious warning of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The Upper and Lower Story Problem in Theologically Secularizing Politics

Francis Schaeffer had geniously pointed out the problems with compartmentalizing theology. He observed that Thomas Aquinas' division of theology into natural and revelational was what propelled a history that ended up in the secularization of theology: the lower story (nature) ate up the upper story (grace). The basic problem was the failure to establish a proper connection between the lower and the upper story. He talked of the division as a house made up of the lower and upper story, but having no connecting stairs. The problem seems similar to Plato's division of the reality into ideas and instances; but, there doesn't seem to be a stair between them.

Contrary to such compartmentalization, the Bible tells us about Jacob (the Patriarch Israel) who dreamt at Bethel that a stair connected earth to heaven and the angels of God ascended and descended to it. The vision speaks volumes; but one fact is that God is not just a disconnected transcendent; He is connected to this world. The universe is not a closed system; God does interfere with human history; He is sovereign over it.

However, when we speak about God in the secular, we do not disconnect Him from the God of the universal Church. There is one God, God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Further, the separation of Church and State is not compartmentalization of authority. God's authority is singular. His Lordship is universal. The compartmentalization is with regard to the Church - "What is Caesar's must be rendered to Caesar and what is God's must be rendered to God" when it comes to matters of religion versus politics. In other words, the Church is the House of God; the secular world is not. God's presence in the world is redemptive and reconciliatory. His Spirit is what prevents the mystery of iniquity from overtaking history (2Thess.2). Hell will break loose on earth the moment the Spirit is taken out of the path. God's presence through the Spirit is to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). Interestingly, it is in the political arena (of civilian concerns regarding law, justice, and peace) that these concepts gain distinct relevance. The Law is both social and personal. And, the Law is written in human hearts on tablets of flesh (Rom.2:15). However, political authority is based on a different covenant, which is prior to both Israel and the Church.

It is based on God's Covenant with Noah after the Flood. There He established violence and terror as the tools of human government to execute temporal justice on earth. In fact, "fear" had to become an important factor in the survival of humans. Thus, even the animal world was brought under the purview of fear.

"The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands." (Genesis 9:2)

Then, with regard to human government, he declares:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Gen.9:6)

Of course, the promise of the Covenant is that God will never destroy humanity by means of a global flood, as He had done in Noah's time; and the Rainbow was given as the sign of the Covenant with the nations.
The authority of the Church, however, is not physical. It is spiritual; the tools are also spiritual.

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete" (2 Cor.5:2-6)

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph.6:12)

While fear is the element of crime-prevention in the political world, love is the binding element of the community of believers in Christ.

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Rom.13:3-4)

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35)

Perhaps, we can say that political authority reflects the judicial face of God while ecclesiastical authority reflects divine mercy and love. Significantly, it was the religious powers of Jesus' day, deprived of political power, who used the secular political authority of the Romans (who wished not to meddle with religious matters) to crucify Jesus. The Bible tells us that in Jesus Justice and Love kissed each other. The Bible does point to a future time when the kingdom of the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and He will reign for ever and ever (Rev.6:15). It also talks about the saints who will reign with Him and judge the angels. But, as long as the kingdom of the world remains (secular politics), the world is still under the Noahic Covenant. It may accept or reject God, but the authority is still sacred; its violation certainly gets historically punished (through sword (war), famine (economic collapse), or pestilence (diseases)). We cannot bypass the Covenants by which God deals with humanity if we desire to understand history from a Biblical perspective.

Is it Ethical for Kejriwal to Refuse Police Protection?

Kejriwal is a bit theological when He brings his faith in God to issues of personal security.

But, what about the police concerns? Obviously, there is no atheistic prong of approach taken. Nobody seems to have hurled a skeptical or agnostic concern arguing that we don't know if God exists and if He does whether He is interested enough in the affairs of mortal men. Not that India is not ripe for atheism; but, I think it has tried and abandoned atheism in the far distant past. We are a people, despite the various religious traditions, who believe in the Supreme God. In the past few decades we have also learnt to not mix organized religion with politics. When religion is politicized, religion is polluted, instantly. History stands as witness to this fact that where politics became custodian of a particular strand of religion, the religious spirit was violated. However, this doesn't disallow politicians from being religious. It is better for a politician to be a believer in the God of mercy and justice than to fall prey to the merciless ethics of a Nietzschean universe (Nietzsche pronounced God as dead in the 19th century and painted hopes of the rise of a Superman who would be above ethics; Hitler's desire to fulfill it is still a dark blot on the timeline of history, a disgrace to humanity). But, of course, a politician's faith must not in anyway compromise the freedom of spirit in the right to faith - God Himself allows us that freedom; if not, humanity would be one soup of religion.. We've noted elsewhere (God and Politics in Secular India) that God and politics are not strangers; and, there is a way of speaking of God as being secularly involved in history (i.e. unecclesiastically: the New Testament supports the division of religion and state). Certainly, Kejriwal's faith in God is strong. Is it fatalism? He will need to answer that. But, his actions are certainly too vociferously anti-fatalist: he believes that the future of India CAN BE CHANGED. Perhaps, his confidence in God is an affirmation of divine sovereignty. God is in control and nothing escapes His omniscient ordering of the world. He has publicly argued in the Parliament that nothing can harm him if it's God's will to keep him on earth and nothing can save him (not even the biggest legions of security) if it's God's will to take him away.

So, it's not atheism or fatalism that the police is bothered about. Certainly, it's their sense of duty and responsibility. They are meant to ensure the protection of the city; and, one important step in this order is to protect the head of the state. But, Kejriwal is revulsive to this idea. He doesn't want to be seen as the head; he has repeatedly affirmed that it is the people of the nation who are the rulers. He hates the notion of a government ruling over the people. So, his argument is quite cogent. The police cannot aristocratize security - he doesn't believe in the VIP culture, after all. But, shouldn't security be prioritized? Is the security of the soldier in combat less important than the security of the leader? What would a doctor say about this (I mean an ethically responsible doctor, not the one sold to avarice)? If the lives of two humans are in danger, one a politician and the other a "common man", and he has to prioritize, whose would he save first? Is it a matter of aristocrizing or prioritizing? But who decides the value of anybody's life? To Kejriwal, the life of the common man is more important.

But, there is another hook. The police claim that they have received intelligence about threat to the life of Kejriwal and so are constrained to prioritize security. Kejriwal is not just skeptical about this; he is more pronounced about his convictions. Let's quote a few lines from the Hindustan Times here:

Hours after reports emerged that terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM) was planning to abduct Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister refused to accept any form of security cover and said the Delhi Police were playing politics along with the central government.

“Is delhi police n central govt playing politics with my security? (sic)” Kejriwal tweeted. “Police officials met me in afternoon. Informed me abt threat. Asked me not to disclose it to media. Den dey themselves went and told media,” he sent out another tweet minutes later.

He said the police had themselves compromised his security. “By announcing this, haven't police made me vulnerable. Now anyone can attack and it wud be said that Bhatkal's men did it.”

Kejriwal, who had earlier turned down Z-category cover by the Ghaziabad Police, reiterated that he won’t accept any cover despite the IM threat. “I am not afraid of my life. As i said, i strongly believe in God. Will not take any security,” one of his tweets read.

Denying the Z-cover security earlier, Kejriwal had said, “I don’t need security, the aam aadmi (common man) needs security”. He stressed his demand for security to the ‘aam aadmi’ again on Sunday. “I wud urge police to stop playing politics. Rather than giving security to me, let them deploy these men for aam aadmi's security,” he told his Twitter followers on Sunday.

Obviously, if it is true that the police have received such intelligence, then it becomes their responsibility to act in accordance to such intelligence. Certainly, if anything does happen to Kejriwal, the police will become answerable; and they must have the confidence to say that they had done everything that could be done to ensure protection. But, perhaps Kejriwal also wishes to say that if the innocent little ones in the city are not protected, if a young girl on the streets of Delhi is not protected, if the poor find no protection from the police, he doesn't want their protection either. God is enough for him.

____________________________

Few Pertinent Quotes on Politics and Religion by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it. This saying of Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law. The Church is not to be a national community like the old Israel, but a community of believers without political or national ties. The old Israel had been both — the chosen people of God and a national community, and it was therefore his will that they should meet force with force. But with the Church it is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore it must patiently endure aggression. Otherwise evil will be heaped upon evil. Only thus can fellowship be established and maintained.

By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy with his own coin, and preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence.

By his willingly renouncing self-defence, the Christian affirms his absolute adherence to Jesus, and his freedom from the tyranny of his own ego. The exclusiveness of this adherence is the only power which can overcome evil.

Jesus is no draughtsman of political blueprints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of non-violence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept. And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ's victory as well as his sufferings.

The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts. For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on out traditional ethical concepts, while for the Christian who bases his life on the Bible, it merely confirms the fundamental wickedness of evil. The "reasonable" people's failure is obvious. With the best intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world's unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party.
Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.

Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God — the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?

We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds: we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?

There remains an experience of incomparable value. We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the suspects, the maltreated — in short, from the perspective of those who suffer. Mere waiting and looking on is not Christian behavior. Christians are called to compassion and to action.

...there are three possible ways in which the church can act toward the state: the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its actions are legitimate and in accordance with its character as state, i.e., it can throw the state back on its responsibilities. Second, it can aid the victims of state action. The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community. "Do good to all people." In both these courses of action, the church serves the free state in its free way, and at times when laws are changed the church may in no way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.

Politics and Lies

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18:38 KJV)

Since the Fall of man, man has resorted to the tools of violence and deception in order to rule man. While the use of arms for protection of justice can be justified, the use of deception is a symptom of the inherent human vileness. Religion, superstition, education, media, propaganda, disinformation, riots and a host of tools have been politically exploited to keep the masses under bait.

Hitler coined the term "Big Lie" for a propaganda technique that he himself used.

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." - Hitler, Mein Kampf

In brief, the principle states, as someone put it: "Tell a lie, speak it loudly, repeat it often, and the majority of the masses will believe you."

The masses lose out for the power of appeal. Sometimes it is the appeal of authority (someone who is well knowledgeable would know better, they think; but, fail to register that that same person could be deliberately lying or have been deceived himself). Sometimes, it is the appeal of the masses (the majority cannot be wrong, they think). Sometimes, it is the appeal of a famous personality or a celebrity (the appeal here would be more of a psychological nature, because one often tends to like what is liked by the person he/she adores).

In the olden times, lie was woven into religion through myths and legends that tried to establish the superiority of the royal family, the division of family lines, the inferiority of certain people, and taboos that protected power. In modern times, when science has destroyed many of the mythical grounds, there are other lying techniques ready at hand that deceive and delude men to support a political leader or party.

The Bible predicts that this is how the Antichrist, who will be an agent of the Devil, the Father of Lies, will come.

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Th 2:9-12 KJV)

Modern Universities, Arts & Media, Politics, Markets, and Religion are all marching forward to the gate of deception that will soon happily welcome the Son of Perdition.

But, everyone who is of the truth hears the voice of the Lord; everyone who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God. (Joh 18:37; 3:21)

Philosophical Roots of Law and Politics

About four decades ago, the American theologian Harvey Cox, had already defined secularization as an inevitable process.[1] Almost a decade prior to that, Bryan Wilson, in his book Religion in Secular Society (1966) had considered it to be irreversible.[2] However, history has a different tale to say. The scepter of philosophy is hard to cast away. Somewhere or the other it holds its reins and pulls history on. In the 1920s a small group of scientists, mathematicians, sociologists, and economists, (not philosophers) had gathered together in Vienna to develop a unified philosophy that embraced science and attempted to destroy philosophy.[3] Their new philosophy came to be known as Logical Positivism. It, of course, suffered a natural death soon. But, what the empiricists then did not realize was that philosophy may be philosophically denied but not scientifically annihilated. In less than a decade, the world saw the angry reins of philosophies on the chariots of the nations as political philosophies collided, clashed, and combatted with weapons that science had produced to shock humanity with the Second World War. There had to be some other stronger ideology that had to deal with the issue of justice corrupted by corrupt philosophies such as Nazism that tried to base themselves on the evolutionary model provided by the scientific community. The Nuremberg Trial tried Judges who had committed the crime of obeying the unjust laws of their own regime. Some legal philosophy, and not science, had to decide the question of right or wrong during these trials. The definitions and directions were laid down in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.[4] The Trial, of course, was subject to much criticism; however, it did open a new chapter in legal history when it defined justice not merely as a domestic political affair but in relation to the notion of natural human rights; thus, the head of a state can’t just merely dictate any law under the pretense of positive lawmaking; he was accountable now to the international community. This also entailed individual responsibility of any person whosoever, irrespective of the laws prescribed by a particular nation. Thus, the ILC’s Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind declared in Article 2(1):[5]

A crime against the peace and security of mankind entails individual responsibility,

Article 3 continues:

An individual who is responsible for a crime against the peace and security of mankind shall be liable to punishment . . .

A deeper probe would question the basis of such a law that claimed superior and absolute status above all laws and demanded conformity to it. From the scientific perspective, didn’t the principle of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest look quite natural? In that sense, wasn’t Nazism quite close to nature? But, what science defined to be a principle of nature and what philosophy recognized to be just and right were two different things. The very reversal of the evolutionary natural principle is uplifted as the virtue of greatness: viz., benevolence and compassion. However, only a philosophically valid method can determine if a philosophical contention is tenable.

The above elaboration was essential as there is a tendency among educators to neglect the primary things altogether and focus on more tangible areas that cater tangible results only. However, the age long scheme cannot be broken so easily. The practical man can’t go on for long without the theoretical man; and, there certainly will come a point when the practical man will have to turn to the theoretical man. The British thinker G. K. Chesterton, over a century ago, had dedicated a whole chapter to this issue in his book What’s Wrong With the World (1910). He called it, “Wanted: An Unpractical Man”. One can’t talk of politics without considering the philosophical roots. Chesterton’s observation is appropriate:

Now our modern politics are full of a noisy forgetfulness; forgetfulness that the production of this happy and conscious life is after all the aim of all complexities and compromises. We talk of nothing but useful men and working institutions; that is, we only think of the chickens as things that will lay more eggs. Instead of seeking to breed our ideal bird, the eagle of Zeus or the Swan of Avon, or whatever we happen to want, we talk entirely in terms of the process and the embryo. The process itself, divorced from its divine object, becomes doubtful and even morbid; poison enters the embryo of everything; and our politics are rotten eggs.

---

[1] Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1975) p. 18.
[2] Néstor Da Costa, “Secularization and Sacralization,” http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/projects/summerinstitute/alumni.html, Accessed on November 27, 2012.
[3] Kelly James Clark (ed), Philosophers Who Believe (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.11
[4] Online Text available at Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp. Accessed on November 28, 2012.
[5] As cited by Christian Tomuschat, “The Legacy of Nuremberg”, Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), (Oxford University Press, 2006), p.841. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu. Accessed on 28 November 2012.

Academics, Politics, and the Gospel

"not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing" (1 Cor.2:6).

Two great forces control the modern world: the University and the Parliament (to put it the other way, the school and the scepter). How credulously falls the world before the sublimity of the educated; how feebly it creeps before the iron-fist of the rulers! But, the world has God universally despised and denied. To many the God-idea is outdated. But, then, how long shall the world-ideas last??

When Paul was writing his epistle to the Corinthians (around AD  57), Nero, "the emperor who fiddled while (later) Rome burned", held the reins of the Great Roman Empire. He was forced to commit suicide on June 7, AD 68. A few days before his arrival at Corinth (sometime between 50-52), Paul had been at Athens, the ancient capital of philosophy, and had talks with the Stoics and the Epicureans. They had taken him to Mar's Hill from where he preached his famous sermon on "The God of the Altar to the Unknown God". Only a few responded positively, while the rest ruled him away, because they thought it was silly and unscientific to have mentioned the resurrection of the Christ. Well had Paul begun, when he writes this epistle, that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1Cor.1:18), and that "since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (v.21).

Paul chose not to imitate the method of the world, whose cup of wisdom and scepter of power would soon fall and crash with the tides of time, and then finally extinguish before the majesty and might of the eternal Word of God. He writes: "my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (2:4). But, that doesn't mean that the message didn't contain wisdom, for can wisdom lie anywhere than in the message of God: "we speak wisdom among those who are mature," he writes "yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing" (v6).

The glaze and the glory of this world is short-lived. Blessed is he who has apprehended the wisdom and the might of God and the age to come!

Government of the Poor

"The king who judges the poor with truth, his throne will be established forever" (Prov. 29:14).
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE POOR IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT'LL ENDURE.

The Government that protects the poor, fights for their cause, gives them justice (economic, social,and political) is the Government that is functioning right; the Government that is functioning right is the Government that is healthy; the Government that is healthy is the Government that lives and thrives on.

Struggle for Separate States

Nationalism and patriotism have been admirable concepts. There must now be a new term to describe "zeal for separate state"; perhaps, it should be "State Nationalism," for the term "Cultural Nationalism" has weak political bearings. The independence struggle symbolized a unity against foreign rule. The modern freedom fighter seeks independence from his own brother. Well, we do have much talks about brotherhood, though in practicality "brother" is nowhere, while hoods are everywhere. The Gorkhas of Darjeeling dream of a Gorkha Land; the Bodos, of a Bodo Land; the Karbis of a separate Karbi state; in Andhra, it's been a 40 year old struggle for Telangana; in Assam, again, for Dimaraji state; in Jammu and Kashmir, for Ladakh; in Uttar Pradesh, for Harit Pradesh and Purvanchal; in Bihar, for Mithilanchal; in Madhya Pradesh, for Vindhya Pradesh and Bundelkhand; and in Maharashtra, for Konkan, Marathwada, and Vidarbha [For a full list click here]

There are various reasons advanced for separate states. Whether such bifurcation of states is commendable or not is a matter of administrative judgment. Even the human cells bifurcate (mitosis) while the human body grows. Well, that doesn't mean that such divisions should regularly occur in the nation; for that would leave the whole as composed of city states. Yet, where the rationale is proper administration and healthy supply in the system, one must always remember that the soundness of the State is the goal, and such soundness can only be a reality when each member of this massive organism has the means and opportunity to exercise his or her fullest potential. This also means, accepting our differences; yet, preserving the feelings of love and unselfish generosity towards our neighbors. What about the migrants? Don't they serve as the blood vessels that link the whole nation through interspersing of cultural values and riches of our heritage? What about the wicked and corrupt, the pests of society, some of whom also serve in the administrative system? I believe that if the cells, molecules, and organs in the body preserve their integrity and immunity, the whole system will automatically be disease free. It first starts with spiritual renewal and faith in God, who gives the transcendental meaning in the life of each individual.

The Kingdom in Secular Politics

The word secularism comes from the Latin saeculum, meaning ‘a generation or this age,’ and corresponds to the Greek aeon. Its meaning extends on to connote also this ‘wordly;’ thus, its Lower Latin form saecularis means ‘worldly.’ Basically, secularism is the ideology that facilitates practice without reference to religion of any kind. When applied to politics, it is the state policy of being indifferent to political theologies, the policy of keeping politics free from religious interferences.

In his book, The Secular City, Harvey Cox differentiates secularization from secularism. According to Cox, secularization ‘implies a historical process, almost certainly irreversible, in which society and culture are delivered from tutelage to religious control and closed metaphysical world views.’ Quoting the German theologian Friedrich Gogarten, Cox announces secularization as the legitimate consequence of the impact of biblical faith on history. It is not untrue that biblical faith has had a powerful impact in the reformation of cultures world-wide and the shaping of modern history. According to Cox, the biblical doctrine of Creation is the ground of freedom from animism, totemism, pantheism, and magic. This has led to the development of natural science. Today, sacrifices to wind, rain, and sun are laughed to scorn as science and religion are separated from each other. Further, the Exodus narrative is seen as the desacralization of politics. It signifies insurrection against a duly constituted monarch who claimed divine rights to governance. This not only frees politics from priest-craft but has also become the basis for modern political liberation movements and revolutions. Cox further contends that with the Sinai Covenant and its prohibition of idols, values are deconsecrated. The devaluation of idols is the precursor to the devaluation of absolutes. With the revelation of idols as mere projections of human mind, their absolute value is broken down. Thus historical relativism is considered to be the end product of secularization. Consequently, traditional values are no longer regarded as absolute. This emancipatory impact of biblical faith, according to Cox, is irreversible and must not be feared since it emancipates man for a proper relationship with nature, state, and society. It is, however, the ideology of secularism that needs to be checked for secularism, in contrast to the process of secularization, is an ideology that is atheistic; thus limiting the individual’s mind to the natural alone.

But when viewed in the political context of religious pluralism, political secularism can be an aspired policy of the state. Evidently, religious politics of any kind can be destructive to religious freedom. The history of Christianity is proof enough of the atrocities committed by Christian rulers against Christians who were considered to be heretics because of their liberal or reformative views. Religious freedom can only be realized in a truly secular state. But, as Cox notes, a secular state itself can become guilty of imposing secularism as an ideology on its citizens; for instance, when it declares practice of religion as anti-scientific or criminal. This kind of approach has been observed in hard secular atheist states were communism has held power. Total indifference towards religion, however, is impossible since man is not just a political animal; he is also a religious being. Yet, it is within politically sanctioned freedom of religious practice that religion itself can find true realization.

There are at least two things to note about the development of secular politics in relation to the Kingdom of Christ:
1. Political Irreligiosity
2. Religious Individualism

Political Irreligiosity
Modern secularism has dethroned the gods from the realm of politics. The dethronement of the divine from the human hemisphere was a gradual process appearing first in Classical Greek philosophy. Thales (5th Century B.C.) is considered to be the first who ‘shifted the basis of thought from a mythological base to one of scientific inquiry.’ The first philosophers, known as sophos, challenged the mythological and superstitious assumptions of traditionalism, thus unshackling philosophy from the control of religion. The impact of the rational and secular spirit of Classical philosophy, however, could be seen in the development of city-states that de-emphasized the role of gods in politics and separated government from religion, magic, and superstition. With the fall of Greece, however, this secular influence over politics disappeared. Roman politics was highly coloured by religious sentiments and beliefs.

Secularism resurfaced during the Renaissance (A.D. 1359-1600) as humanism and individualism gathered momentum. However, it was during the Protestant Reformation that the theory of the separation of church and state took root. Religious persecution under Papal political influence led Reformation thinkers to denounce the authority of the Church over political matters. In 1523, Martin Luther published his “On Temporal Authority,” in which he argued for the division of the church and the state. Luther specified two distinct realms or powers: weltliches Regiment (German word for ‘the kingdom of the world,’ ‘the State’) and geistliches Regiment (German word for ‘the kingdom of God,’ ‘the Church’). The state was connected with God’s continual work of creation and the Church with God’s continual work of redemption. God, Luther stated, is the head of both the kingdoms. Therefore, subjection to the ruler’s edict was only necessary as long as the edict conformed to God’s divine will as shown in the scriptures.

With the American and the French Revolutions, the idea of human rights gained ascendancy. The first amendment of the American constitution declared that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ The American and British constitutions had a great impact on the development of constitutions like that of India. The secularization of politics meant the dethronement of the gods from politics. There are still elements that try to disrupt the secularity of politics through religious provocations; however, secularized society finds such religious provocations as quaint. Yet, the Nazi style of breeding ethnic or communal animosity on non-religious basis does have powerful effect on the masses. This, nevertheless, shows that it is not the gods but communal sentiments that are behind them.
Religious Individualism

The secularity of politics is based upon the recognition of man’s fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Freedom of religion is a right recognized by the Bible. It is based upon the biblical doctrine of human liberty. Therefore, the Bible never teaches forced conversion.
The Bible emphasizes truthfulness and spirituality of worship as acceptable before God (Jn. 4: 23). Sure, religion was more a social phenomena in the Old Testament; however, the individuality of spirituality was always highlighted (Gen. 4: 7; 6: 8; Ex. 32: 10; Ps. 51: 6-17). Similarly, one finds in the New Testament that God is individually concerned about His children (Lk. 15). Religious individualism, however, is not the same as religious privatism. Religious privatism does respect the freedom of conscience; however, it regards religion to have nothing to do with public life, often to the extent that talk of religion at public places or by means of public media seems disgusting. Unfortunately, religious privatism is one of the byproducts of social secularization. Religious individualism, on the other hand, respects both the freedom of conscience and the freedom to religious speech or religious preaching.

The individualization of religion must be seen as the effect of the Gospel of the kingdom of God. It is based upon the preaching of individual responsibility for salvation through personal commitment to Christ. It is religious individualism that makes religious reformation possible and assists the true development of the spirit of religion. True secular politics does not judge one’s national allegiance by means of one’s religious allegiance. Thus, though one may be a Hindu or a Christian in heart, he could still be a true Indian at the same time. This could only happen when the socialist nature of religion is replaced by an individualist one and the strength of the nation is measured, not by religious plurality, but by political stability, law and order, and economic growth of all classes. The kingdom of God operates individualistically and transcending all national barriers since God is primarily concerned with the individual person and not the nation to which that person belongs. Therefore, individual freedom of conscience and religion must be seen as in tune with the dynamics of the kingdom of God. It is the preaching of the kingdom that holds people individually responsible before God.
However, both the above facets of political secularism must only be seen as having pre-judgment significance. At the second advent of Christ, all acts of freedom will be judged. Secular politics will cease to exist since all knee will bow before Christ and all tongue will confess that He is Lord (Phil. 2: 10, 11). That Christocratic rule will not be enforced by might of sword but by the final revelation of God. The final judgment will separate the people of the world from the people of God. It will mean the salvation of the believers and the condemnation of unbelievers. This eschatological perspective is significant since one is not entitled to judge anyone before the Day of Judgment. In other words, religion now is an individual issue. No human is judge in religious matters pertaining to the conscience (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 28). A believer stands or falls before his God (Rom. 14: 1-10). Thus, in the modern scheme of things the secularist promotion of religious individualism must be seen as veritably biblical.

In summary, social secularization is seen as the emancipation of politics and society from religious dictatorship. Political secularism not only frees politics from domination of religion but also promotes religious freedom. Social secularization is individualistically liberating, as Cox saw it. This is clearly evident in the modern secular city where a person enjoys more individual freedom than in the villages or even towns. The social adhesive provided by religion and tradition is weak in the cities. This is all the result of freeing society from dominance of religion. This, however, does not mean that social relationships have come to an end. It only means that they have taken newer forms and meanings. Also, instances of religious fundamentalism or even atheistic fundamentalism must be seen as anachronistic. They look odd amidst the secularized status quo. The extent of such secularalization must not be regarded as anti-Christian, but as assisting the cause of Christ’s kingdom by giving the Church an opportunity to reach individuals with the Gospel with the result that individuals are now freer to make a rational commitment to Christ.

References
Cox, Harvey. The Secular City, New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1975.
Perry, Marvin. Western Civilization, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, 4th edn.
Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's, 1981.
Zacharias, Ravi. Deliver Us From Evil, USA: Wpublishing Group, 1997.

Published in Basileia (Itarsi: CITS, Oct, 08). Copyright © 2008 by Domenic Marbaniang