Solidarity in Times of Vandalism: Why the Minorities need to work together

There has recently been a lot of anxiety amongst the Christian communities in India owing to the desecrations and violence targeting Christian churches especially in the city of Delhi. There have been five attacks on churches in the capital of India since December 2014, the latest being the vandalization of the Church, and desecration of the Blessed Sacrament in the church of St. Alphonsa in Vasant Kunj earlier this week.

In the face of earlier attacks on churches the focus of Christian leaders turned towards the Prime Minister. These leaders report that the Prime Minister did not say anything that would reassure them. What makes it worse is that Prime Minister Modi has chosen to keep absolutely mum over these incidents. Public silence in this case can only be interpreted as his unwillingness to restrain the Hindu Right and make sure that law and order is maintained. This silence is not surprising however. We need only think back to his role in the pogrom in Gujarat in 2002. It took days for the State machinery to get things under control, and significantly Modi has been held responsible for allowing the violence to continue. Old habits, it appears, die hard.

I doubt that this tendency towards silence played on the mind of a member of a prominent Catholic business family when he suggested in conversation with me that Modi was a good administrator and “should be given a chance.” It is the limited perspectives of the elites of the community that one should also mourn. That this individual did not see managing genocidal violence as part of good administration says a lot about the milieu in which he moves.

What is worse is the fact of complicity of the state in fueling the acts of violence. A number of the victims in Gujarat indicated that the police refused to help them, claiming that they did not have orders to do so. Further, the police failed to place leaders of the violence under preventive detention. In the case of the violence against Christians, this chilling pattern is re-emerging. There has been news of visas being deliberately withheld from Catholic Bishops who were to visit from the Vatican to attend a liturgical conference organized by the CCBI (Conference of Catholic Bishops of India). More recently, persons peacefully protesting the violence against Christians and the lack of state action were set upon by the police, beaten and dragged into police custody.

These events are in fact very much in keeping, not only with the history of Modi, the BJP, but also the supposedly secular Indian nation-state. The hostility of the Indian state to the minorities of India, is a matter of record. In fact, in a scenario resembling the recent denial of visas to visiting Bishops,  soon after India achieved Independence the Indian state took an aggressive stand against Christian missionaries of foreign nationality in India. That issues did not escalate, as seems to be the case now, is largely because the Indian and Hindu nationalism of the time was more focused on destruction of the Muslim communities in India. Christians were, at the time, seen as “harmless”.

While the Muslims in India were being harassed and butchered across the country the Christian communities in India were by and large silent. On the contrary, these Christian groups in India played along with the logic that it was “the Muslims” who were to blame, rather than Hindu nationalists. Indeed, even in the face of these attacks, some Christian leaders are still shortsighted enough to suggest ‘“We are peace-loving people. If it had been another community, Muslims, khoon kharaba ho jaata” (Blood would have been shed)’

These Christians failed to see that the problem is not Muslims, but in fact Indian nationalism itself. They fail to see that playing the ‘good’ minority, as opposed to the allegedly troublesome Muslim minority, is not going to help. Rather, it plays straight into the hands of the cussed nationalisms in India. In fact, one could argue that playing into the hands of Indian/ Hindu nationalism has been a part of the agenda of the Catholic Church in India. Whether it was the foreign missionaries at the time immediately prior to Indian independence, or the largely upper-caste hierarchy of the Catholic Church subsequently, working towards creating good Indians has been a part of the Indian Catholic programme. This has been done in a variety of ways, either through the misguided policy of inculturation, which sought to make Catholicism in India more 'Indian', i.e. upper-caste Hindu-like, or by urging a strong sense of patriotism, which normally translates to an unblinking acceptance of nationalist rhetoric. This irrationality has ensured that we swallowed the Indian nationalist narrative, saw the Indian Muslim as the trouble-maker and tried to place as much distance between them and ourselves.

There is little distinction between Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism. The difference is largely a matter of degree, since both are built on the idea of the upper-caste Hindu as the de facto Indian. Contrary to the spiel that we have been fed since the beginning of the Indian nation-state, these nationalisms do not tolerate difference. The tolerance is merely cosmetic. When push comes to shove, as has happened in so many cases, the minority group is made to feel the pinch.

It was in light of this reality that for some decades now the Christians in India were asked to mobilize along with Muslims in India, and see the latter groups as allies rather than enemies.  There was, unfortunately, no real interest demonstrated by Christian groups. I can recall efforts in Goa that attempted to involve the hierarchy and the laity of the Catholic Church. Where the hierarchy was interested, the laity were not. The hierarchy too, had its own reservations as to how far they would, or could, go. All too often, and not just in Goa, the interest lies in engaging in superficial ‘inter-religious dialogue’, rather than lending shoulders to political battles. A significant political battle that we in Goa could lend support to is the need that the Sunni Muslim communities in Margão have for a burial ground. The existing burial ground is too small for the existing population and all efforts to secure a larger ground have met with resistance, largely from Hindu nationalist groups, but often supported by Catholic bigots.

Too often, Christians in Goa are so in the thrall of racist stereotypes about Islam and Muslims that we fail to see the diversity that exists within these groups. Despite the complex history of Islam within coastal south India, of which Goa is part, Islam itself is written off as a violent religion. Additionally, we are blinded by the nativist logics that see Goans as either Hindu or Catholic. Muslims have no space in this vision of Goa even though Islam has had a long presence in the territories that are today Goa, and many Catholics in Goa would have had Muslim ancestors. The reason we are blinded to these histories and realities is that Goan histories have been written almost exclusively by persons from upper caste backgrounds who want to privilege their putative Hindu pasts. They wish to embellish their pasts as Hindu, largely because they have long seen the writing on the wall, India works best if you are upper-caste Hindu. Indeed, as I illustrated elsewhere, it is the caste bias among Catholics in India that has ensured that the superficial inter-religious dialogues that take place are often biased in favour of Hinduism, rather than Islam.

Making alliances with Muslims does not necessarily mean working with all kinds of Muslim organizations. It would first require us to first embrace Muslims and their worlds, get to know them and understand them better. It is only after having effected this embrace that we can become alive to the diversities and differences among them. It would mean learning to identify those Muslim organizations that are no different from the RSS and working with those organizations that are open to democratic ways of social organization.

In the final analysis it may perhaps be the lack of internal democracy within the Catholic Church in Goa that stands in the way of effecting solidarity with Muslims groups. There is no doubt that the Catholic Church in Goa is appallingly lethargic and I would like to suggest that the reason lies in the manner in which it is organized and the manner in which internal dissent is dealt with. A group that is itself compromised, and comes out against Hindutva only when its direct interests are pinched is hardly going to be able to provide leadership to other beleaguered communities, or even associate meaningfully with them. It appears that our many years of lethargy is beginning to show and our pigeons are now coming home to roost. May God protect us.

(A version of this post was first published in the O Heraldo on 6  Feb 2015)

Reading Angelo: Art and the Goan

I have to confess that until recently I was not a great fan of Angelo da Fonseca, an artist who has been substantially feted in recent times. Indeed, mention his name and the project that spurred his work and I would experience more than mild irritation. A good amount of this response changed not too long ago after visiting the ongoing exhibition of his works held at the Xavier Centre of Historical Research (XCHR). This exhibition combines a large number of his works that were earlier exhibited in smaller groupings whose content was determined according to the Christian liturgical calendar. Thus where the contents of earlier exhibitions followed a Christmas or Lenten theme, this time round one saw the exhibition of a wider gamut of Fonseca’s works.

My earlier responses to Fonseca did not follow from a consideration of his work, but were largely a response to the project of inculturation he was committed to. Since even before the 1960s and the dramatic changes of the Vatican Council II, there had been a movement to depict Christ, his mother and the Saints in forms that were not restricted to Aryan stereotypes. There was a clamour in some sectors to depict the universal Christ in universal tones. People wanted to see Christ not merely as a blond blue eyed man, but in darker skin tones, outside of northern European locales. 

In itself this was not a bad idea. After all, Christ emerged from out of Palestine, the likelihood of his being blond and blue eyed are slim. The problem with the project of inculturation, however, was that in South Asia, this project became a project of brahmanising Christ. Christ and his story were depicted within forms that one can relate directly to brahmanical Hinduism. It is as if Christ lived within an entirely Hindu upper-caste milieu. Such a project has a number of problems, first it devalues the natal culture of many Christians. Born from the encounter of Europe with subcontinental South Asia, these Christians have internalised many European forms that have become local. Further, representing Christ in brahmanical forms perpetuates a casteism that is arguably not a part of the Christian message.

Viewing the art works on display at the XCHR my usual irritation was displaced by an amazement for the details I saw in Fonseca’s art. Take, for example, the little squiggle at the end of a line that he uses to represent the Holy Spirit in his representation of the Annunciation. Or the very realistic little lilies in another image.

It was obvious as one progressed along the exhibition that Fonseca was creating a style that drew as much from the European tradition, as well as from Mughal miniatures. Not all of his figures were brahmanical, rather the bearded and turbaned Saint Joseph often came across as Muslim, Mary, in a pheran and head scarf Kashmiri. This complexity is of course not surprising given his training under Abanindranath Tagore.

Even if one disliked the brahmanical references, one had to appreciate the clever way in which Fonseca interpreted these forms. For example, traditional European depictions of Saint Anne often have her seated while instructing her daughter Mary. Fonseca takes this form but instead uses the Shiva-Shakti model, where a miniature Shakti sits on the left thigh of Shiva. Brilliant!

One of the problems with Indian nationalism is that it casts the woman as the bearer of the national image. Thus, she is expected to be demure, always in a sari, and her pallu draped decorously over her head. Some of this odious nationalism emerges in Fonseca’s art. The grief of Mary as she wails either at the foot of the cross, or with her dead son in her arms is a spectacular feature in Western art. None of this sort of anguish is visible in many of Fonseca’s depictions of Mary at the scene of and after the crucifixion. And it is not as if real south Asian women do not make dramatic, heart-rending spectacles of their grief. The nationalist image of the woman, even when suffering, is of a demure little thing. This is where one regrets Fonseca’s nationalist inspiration.

Despite the luxurious display of so many of his art works, the exhibition is a little disappointing because it fails to offer blurbs that could allow the viewer to gain a deeper appreciation of the art works, the little details that the uninitiated might miss. Never mind non-Christians, a good number of Catholics are unfamiliar with traditional iconography, and with Fonseca one has the bewildering mixture of multiple styles. One would have imagined blurbs to be essential.

Similarly, there is a little bank of photographic images of Fonseca, sometimes with family. These are left marooned in a sea of his art works, leaving us no way in which to engage with them. These images could have been the subject of an independent exhibition, or juxtaposed to demonstrate, as an artist friend pointed out to me, how the face of Fonseca’s Madonna’s often resembles that of his wife.

Regardless of these small shortcomings, The ‘Angelo da Fonseca RETROSPECTIVE’ is an exhibition worth visiting. What is heartening is that the XCHR also provides prints of some of Fonseca’s works available for purchase. One wishes this little initiative well because it bears the seed of great promise, allowing Fonseca’s images to be spread wider afield, entering homes as objects of veneration, supplementing the existing bank of Aryan Christs that rule the roost today.

The ‘Angelo da Fonseca RETROSPECTIVE’ will be available for public viewing at the Xavier Centre of Historical Research, Alto-Porvorim from 13 November 2014 to 12 January 2015. The Exhibition will be open from Monday to Friday from 10 am to 5 pm.

(A version of this post was first published in the O Heraldo on 14 Nov 2014)

Reflections on a Papal Transition I : Reading Pope Francis for Meaning: Culture vs. Power

There has been a great amount of enthusiasm subsequent to the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the chair of St. Peter. This enthusiasm has been generated as a result of a number of his actions that seem to suggest a desire to embrace a life of simplicity even as he occupies a position that has long been associated with pomp, luxury and power.

As welcome as these actions may be in the context of the way in which the Vatican has worked, there is need to be cautious about the manner in which the same actions are interpreted outside of this immediate context. As I will go on to argue, a blind imitation of the Papal embrace of poverty and simplicity could in fact work against the very poor and disempowered that Pope Francis seems to seek to privilege.

Two particular choices that Pope Francis made did not go unnoticed by the world. The first was his opting to not wear the ermine lined mozzetta (the red-hued cape) when he made his first appearance, and secondly his preferring to wear his black shoes, rather than the traditional red shoes of Popes past. These two actions have been among others that have been hailed as a non-European Pope’s indication of his rejection of what are seen as outdated, and European, symbols of the Papacy. In the context of the continuing contestations around the meaning of the II Vatican Council, it is possible that these actions will be seen as a Papal approval of the discarding of earlier traditions of the Church and making space for vernacular cultures. While making space for vernacular cultures is an action that should be welcomed, we should take care to ensure  that the vernacular does get swallowed by the national. Furthermore, we should eschew any moves that suggest that all older traditions of the Church are colonial European relics and have no space in decolonized space. Too often this has been the case with the Church, especially in India (and Goa is no exception but in fact an exemplar of the rule), where older traditions of the Church have been cast aside as colonial and instead of promoting the vernacular culture that has digested European introductions into local culture, symbols that are in conformity with national (i.e. upper caste Hindu) culture have been introduced.

What needs to be recognized, not just for India, but in places as diverse as Africa and Latin America, is that the “European” is welcomed by the disenfranchised and those outside of power. This European-ness, is welcomed not because of some self-loathing, and Euro-aping fetish of the majority of these populations, but because the European is the de facto culture of power. It is the nuances of this culture which ensures that these people can move outside of their poverty and disenfranchisement. One need only take the example of so many working (and other) class Goans, Catholic or otherwise, who have managed to better their lives essentially through their adoption of European manners, and European passports. What is perverse about the rejection of European-ness is that all too often, these projects are enthusiastically supported by upper-class elites whether within the Church or outside of it, who maintain their European manners, even while the wish the lower-classes to live without them.

Another papal action that has stirred the world is Pope Francis’ rejection of the luxury of the papal apartments, and his opting to stay in the relative modesty of a suite in the Vatican hotel for visiting prelates, the Domus Sanctae Marthae. It is the relative modesty of the suite in Domus that must necessarily be stressed, for it drives home the fact that this poverty that Pope Francis adopts is in the context of the overwhelming luxury that characterises the papal suites. The suite in the Domus is still a far cry from the poverty of St. Francis, or indeed much of the world’s poor. Indeed, it is the relative poverty of Cardinal Bergoglio’s choices even when he was Archbishop in Buenos Aires that must also be stressed.

I make this argument to recognize the relativity of Pope Francis’ actions because too often, the actions of persons like Pope Francis are used to justify, rather than fight poverty. Rather than challenge the structures and situations that cause poverty, the papal actions will be used to encourage the poor to accept their fate, and the miserable handouts that come their way. In a world that is disfigured by poverty, it needs to be stressed that beauty and luxury were created for a purpose. They should be seen as gifts from God, and as such are both earthly visions of paradise. The challenge must therefore lie not in rejecting in, but in ensuring an approach to beauty and luxury that recognizes these conditions as privileges that must necessarily be shared.

Rather than opt for these problematic ways in interpreting the actions of Pope Francis, I would suggest that all of the actions that have been acclaimed, and that I have problematized thus far, could be more acceptably welcomed if we stressed the possibility for communion that pervades these actions. Pope Francis’s actions have sought to affirm a collegiality of the Pope among the Bishops, and of an approachable guide among the laity. What Pope Francis can also be argued as doing therefore, is righting the scales of power, to create the possibility for equality. Rather than take away dubious cultural meanings from his actions thus far, we would be better served by embracing the collegial, and egalitarian message his actions contain.

(A version of this post first appeared in the Gomantak Times dated 4 April 2013)