We did what we could... right?

Disclaimer: I usually try to write well. I did not try this time. But at least it's honest.

It was all fun and fellowship. Laughing and talking. Joking around. Being on vacation means you have a lot of time and perhaps this was a good way to spend the time. By helping people. Going to pack food packets to distribute to migrant communities.

I should have left after the packing. But I didn't have any work to do after and they needed an extra hand. So I joined them to go and distribute. We reached the place and found, according to someone there, 6000 people. We didn't have food for 6000 people. We had even less water. They were boarding BMTC buses after standing on queues under the sun for a long time. The buses would take them to the railway station where they would board trains for their home states.

We distributed the food. But we didn't have enough water. We requested the people to share 12 bottles of water among 35 people. Some said they need more. Some said there would be fighting among the people and so they were better off being thirsty. They hadn't had any water since morning. After a while we ran out of chutney so it was just rotis. And no water.

Trying to explain to people that there is less water and you have to share felt like talking to a wall. I started losing my patience. Perhaps we shouldn't have taken on this assignment. It was more trouble than it was worth.

We did what we could... right?

I don't know if I will ever get the answer to that question. Of course the work was tiring and I had a raging headache by 4 when we finished distributing the food and water. At least the sparse quantities we had. We had water for us though. I wanted to hide and drink it. After explaining to a man that we had no water. A man who hadn't had water since morning and who said he had some ailment. After that I was drinking an entire half bottle of water. But I had no choice right? There were kids on a bus where we gave 15 bottles. They were probably looking at me drinking the water mere minutes after telling them we didn't have more. But... We did what we could... right? Like... I wasn't obligated to do it... right?

A raging headache at 4. No strength even to cry. I wanted to cry though. I sat under a tree and waited for us to leave. I had no strength left.

Of course I have the option to say I'm too tired to go for the packing work tomorrow. Do those people have an option to... you know.... not do this anymore... ? Like, can they say, "I can't even anymore?"

And the people were being unreasonable right? Hiding a bottle and a food packet and saying they don't have one? I mean they are preventing others from getting it. But am I preventing others from having enough when I spend 70 bucks on a coffee at a fancy cafe?

I can still hear the sounds of people asking for water. I can still hear me and the people with me shouting at them that we don't have and that there wouldn't be any left for others. They hadn't had water since morning.

But we did what we could I guess...

Now I can just hold on to a promise 'those who mourn are blessed for they shall be comforted' [Mathew 5:4] and mourn. Because we did all that we could.... I guess.

Random thoughts on my apathy and hypocrisy

The Hindu today ran an article titled, 'The long march home on the other side of the Vindhyas', and it shook me. I wanted to help them. I wanted to do something. I wanted this to not be the reality I faced.

And yet, I was instantly reminded of the various times that I have failed to love these migrant workers. A few times while travelling by train from Rajnandgaon to Bangalore, or the other direction, there were a number of migrant workers on the journey along with me. Most of them would not have reserved tickets, and so would be illegally on the sleeper coaches. I would often argue and demand for my seat, claiming that I had a reserved seat. And I would often be irritated by their presence.

Today, I wonder what moral right do I have to criticize others (including the Government) for their treatment of these workers. Yes, according to the Government rules, it may not be right of them to try and go home. But we all understand that they still are willing to walk more than 2000 kilometers only out of desperation. But then it was the same before the lockdown right? They were not supposed to board the sleeper coach with a general ticket, but they did so out of desperation right?

I remember talking to a guy on the train on one of my journeys. He was travelling to Janjgir - Champa, and he said that he had paid the full sleeper charge and had booked a month in advance but did not get a confirmed ticket. It was essential he reach home by then. And even I could see the rush in the general compartment made it impossible to get in there.

The sight of these migrant workers walking on the road shows how desperate the pandemic has made their lives. But the fact that these people would consider walking such a distance when I sure wouldn't, perhaps points to the fact that their lives were already plenty difficult to begin with. The fact that they would consider such an option to act upon shows the way they have lived all their lives. I had not seen it till today.

If my family or friends had been among those crowd of migrants, I wonder if I would just be feeling bad and praying for them. Or even writing such blog posts. I wonder if I'd be doing more if I had near and dear ones among those walking home. This goes on to show that I don't love these migrant workers as much as I love my family or friends. The Biblical command to love my neighbour (which includes the migrant workers) as myself seems impossible when I can't even love them as much as I love my brother.

When the lockdown was announced, I flew home. My parents booked the ticket, which cost a total of 4237 rupees. They paid for it. Today a guy three years younger than me is trying to reach home. By foot. With 700 rupees in hand. And the distance more than 2000 kilometers.

Hope as the antidote to hate in modern political discourse

With increasing usage of internet, there has been an increase in the number of political conversations happening online. This is certainly a good thing. Information can easily be transferred and published. Details about policies, news events, and happenings, all reach people the very same day. And the ability to engage with a huge crowd of people online has increased these conversations.

However, we can also see increasing polarization in the political discourse online. Along with the polarization, there is also a lot of hate in the very language used in political discourse. This is especially true on online platforms. Go to any decisive issue and see the comments on news articles. Tags such as 'fascist,' 'libtard,' 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'bhakt,' 'liberandu,' and so on and so forth, are very common these days. This trend seems extremely troubling. But here is the problem.

How do you ask a victim to not use hateful language against the accused as well as those defending the accused?

A lot of events sparking these debates are extremely traumatic for the victims of the events. Whenever there is violence against minority communities, it is natural for the community across the society to feel threatened. In such circumstances, we cannot expect the community to use loving or politically correct language. Or when there are crimes against women, it is natural to use hateful language against the perpetrators (often men) and those defending them.

How do you ask a person who feels threatened for his survival to not use hateful language against those responsible for the threat?

There is a narrative popular in India that the majority community has been overlooked for long and there is a definite danger to the future of the said community. Discussing the truthfulness of the claim is beyond the scope of this article. But under such circumstances it would be natural for the community to use hateful language. Minority communities have always felt threatened. They continue to use hateful language.

How do we counter the hate?

The easy answer to this question would be 'love.'

But such an answer shows a callousness to the very real issues people face. It fails to assure them with a solution and is basically a trite, meaningless, platitude.

So what then is the answer?

I propose hope as the antidote to hate.

To be more specific, I propose hope as presented in the Christian worldview to be an effective antidote to hateful language. This hope is built on the Biblical belief of regeneration. That is seen in the vision of the apostle John, recorded in Revelation 21:4: "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." In other words, if heaven is real, I don't need to worry about my sufferings so much. Or as the apostle Paul put it, "the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." [Romans 8:18]

If we are certain of this glorious future, we can face our present circumstances with joy. Which is what the early Christians did. The writer to the Hebrews says, "you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one." [Hebrews 10:34]

The example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer for hopeful resistance

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who spoke out against the atrocities of Hitler, even after repeated warnings from the SS. He gave up security in America and went back to Germany in 1939. He was finally hanged by the Nazi Government on 9th April, 1945 for conspiring against Hitler. But was he hopeful, and loving as a result of that hope? Bonhoeffer's response to a small incident when he taught a confirmation class in 1931 may give the answer. Before he entered class, some of the boys threw garbage at him as a prank. "But Bonhoeffer surprised them with his passivity" and eventually won them over. [Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Life from Beginning to End; Hourly History; Chapter 8] Richard V Pierard writes in Radical Resistance, "from his shining example we learn that spiritual power will surely prevail over the forces of evil - but we must take an active part in that struggle." His part in the struggle was strongly rooted in the hope that evil would be destroyed.

Disclaimer

I realize that such a hope is founded on Christian beliefs, which not all my readers would ascribe to. So I request my Christian readers to be hopeful in the midst of hate (which is very possible in the future considering the present regime), and may that hope translate to love in discourse. That would be the biggest testimony to the reality of our hope.

The pandemic of loneliness: A theological explanation and a missiological opportunity

I was listening to Albert Mohler today. And in 'The Briefing', a podcast where he analyses news from a Christian perspective, he mentioned the words that form the title of this post.

The New York Times ran an article on 9th April which mentions the fact that more and more Americans have been using the phone to call people and talk to them. This was in opposition to trends in recent years where texting was becoming the predominant form of communication. Mohler mentions the fact that the Coronavirus pandemic has brought to focus another huge problem - the pandemic of loneliness.

The phenomena is not unique to the American population. A quick Google search brought me results where Telecompaper ran an article on 23rd April about a rise in phone calls in the UK. And Euronews ran one on 25th which mentioned the same phenomena across Europe.

Though I couldn't find one particular to India, I found a couple of news items along similar lines. Reliance Jio, Airtel, and Idea-Vodafone, or in other words, all the big telecom companies in India, have extended their incoming calls validity in view of the lockdown. The Economic Times ran an article on 19th April, showing how many young professionals are dealing with increased anxiety due to loneliness. The article goes on to mention how these youngsters are finding ways to deal with the loneliness, which include spending lots of time on social media, staying connected with people through video calls, dating, or picking up various hobbies or projects.

All this goes on to show how people are craving the human touch, the human voice, or in other words, they are craving companionship. Mohler in his podcast, says that we as Christians, have a theological explanation for this. God made man in His image, and this craving for connection is certainly a part of our design. God said, "it is not good for man to be alone." Though written in the immediate context of the marital relationship, it can be applied to a larger theme.

But we don't just have a theological explanation, but also, according to Mohler, we can see a missiological opportunity in this. People are longing for human companionship. People want to talk. People are anxious. And they want to talk. As someone who generally avoids being in contact with people through the phone, it is particularly a wake up call for me. And perhaps all of us Christians need to reach out to people around us.

I am in no way discounting the work of trained counselors and psychiatrists. We definitely need such support. However, we can also do our part. We could call a friend whom we haven't spoken to in a long time. Or maybe a family relative whom we have drifted away from. There is a mission here for us. To love and serve our neighbour. It could be to just lend a listening ear. Or to offer comfort to people. To be a friend.

Ultimately, however, we realise that it is only God who can offer comfort to a lonely heart. And as we comfort people, we point people towards the ultimate comforter, Jesus Christ, who promised to be with his disciples "always, to the end of the ages." (Mathew 28:20)

The religious (Christian) alternative: An apology for faith

The world is going through, what can possibly be called, the most difficult time faced by this generation. A number of people are really suffering and there is a lot of hopelessness. Any attempt to present a religious answer during such times could be condemned as opportunistic or as exploiting the situation and not being sensitive. In spite of that risk, I would still like to present the religious alternative because I believe it offers hope and real answers, something that we all need now more than ever.

The Individual and the Community

A lot of my friends believe in the Marxist ideal of a classless society. And some of them shared posts on social media which talk about how capitalism is a huge problem. That is what got me writing this post. (Interestingly, the political left's preaching would not draw as much flak from the liberals as religious preaching though I digress.)

I personally support leftist policies to an extent. This is because I do agree with Marx that true human freedom can be found positively in our relations with other people; it can be found in community not in isolation. Though this flies in the face of the Western, especially American, liberal ideas of personal property and personal rights, Americans themselves would take pride in precisely those very moments when they sacrificed personal property and personal rights 'for the greater good of the community'. The Second World War is fondly remembered as a time when the nation came together for a noble cause. The soldiers are almost venerated. Sacrifice of personal life for the sake of the community was celebrated.

And so, I think we can agree that the community often brings out the best in us. We humans are, if I may use the expression, 'designed' to live for persons or ideas outside of ourselves. That is what brings out the best in us, and leads to 'the greater good.'

The Pursuit of Happiness

That leads me to my second point. Almost all political or religious philosophies deal in some way with man's pursuit of happiness. Whether it be Bentham's utilitarianism that seeks to maximize the happiness of the maximum number of people. Or Marx who wrote, "If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people." [1835, Reflections of a young man]

Every human desires happiness. We seek happiness in many things. There are many philosophies that offer happiness. Some philosophies talk about finding happiness within oneself, while some talk about locating it outside of oneself. For instance, the quote by Marx shows that he believed happiness to be found in community and not in isolation. Here again, I tend to agree with him.

Many of us experience happiness (or some form of it) while watching a movie, playing a game, watching a game, listening to music, spending time with a loved one, and so on and so forth. I believe that at the heart of happiness is losing oneself. We experience happiness in movies when we lose ourselves in the story, or in a game, when we become so invested in the game that we forget ourselves, or in a loved one when we give up our very lives for the beloved (Bruno Mars starts singing, I'd catch a grenade for you...)

The Problem of Self

Here is a problem though. From experience I find that the losing of self is not easy. It's eventual end is sacrifice. That is one area where Marxist ideals fail to translate to everyday life. As beautifully brought out by Orwell in Animal Farm, man eventually sacrifices the needs of the community for the needs of self. It becomes a loop. Sacrificing the community for the self creates problems for the self. To deal with the problems, man further sacrifices the community to deal with self.

The root of the problem is man's nature. Rivalry and competition are hindrances to the realization of a classless society. But rivalry can be seen in man even when he is very young. The moment a younger sibling is born, the older sibling sees the sibling as a rival for the attention of the adults. If the very nature of man tries to put self over others, imposing the foreign ideal of community will be resisted by the nature. This causes the problem where the two points we spoke about are in conflict: the pursuit of happiness impeded by the need to put community over self and the need of the community taking a hit due to the pursuit of happiness. If the nature of man seeks to put self over others, it can find happiness only in doing so.

The ideal scenario

The ideal scenario would be one where the pursuit of happiness and the idea of sacrifice (or letting oneself go) for the community converge. Here is where I believe Christianity can offer a solution.

Christianity sees man as inherently flawed as a result of original sin. This sinful nature is what is responsible for the rivalry and competition. The nature causes one to see oneself as God, and thereby deserving of being above others. For the ideal scenario, education is not what is needed, but rather reformation of the very nature. And that is what, according to Christianity, God offers.

Jeremiah 31: 33 says, "But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me..." Not education, but rather reformation of character. And 1st John 4:8 says, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." Note the idea of knowing God in the two mentioned verses and the logical inference is this. Knowing God leads one to love others. And knowing God is what God himself promises to do. Reformation of the very nature, or as the Bible puts it, 'being born again.'

Christianity, much like Marxism, believes in a classless society, albeit one ruled by God. Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, Christianity does not actively pursue a classless society but rather pursues man's ultimate joy, which is found in God. Allow me to demonstrate.

Imagine a wheel. The spokes of the wheel get closer to each other the more they get closer to the hub. Or imagine an orchestra. In an orchestra, the instruments are all in sync only when each of them is tuned to the standard tuning (external) and not merely to each other.

Christian belief sees God as that hub, or the tuning fork. When man draws closer to God, he is able to live in harmony within a society. The classless society thus becomes a by product when man pursues the ultimate joy that is found in God.

But what about sacrifice? We already saw that it is not easy. However, we have many examples through history of people dying for something or someone other than themselves. These are people who valued that something or someone a lot. One could not die for a stranger. But dying for the person who gives me the greatest joy is possible. (People do die for strangers but usually there is always an underlying strong belief in the idea of 'country' or something like that and love for that idea.) And so, if as the Bible says, God gives the greatest joy, sacrifice would not just be possible because it is worth it, but would be something to be desired because it would take one closer to God (Philippians 1: 23)

To conclude

This convergence of (i) the sacrifice of self for the community and (ii) the pursuit of happiness is found in Christianity. And this convergence is what drove the early Christians to have "all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.... they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people." [Acts 2: 44 - 47]

If the Christian message is true, and I believe it is, then I believe it to be a far better alternative.

P.S. I do not claim to be an expert on Marxism or any form of political studies. I am sorry if I have misrepresented any of the ideas.