Modi’s Verbal Politics Made Flesh

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was recently invited to be the chief guest at a national seminar on “Religious Witnessing” organized by the Syro-Malabar Church in New Delhi. The seminar was to mark the recent canonization of Kuriakose Elias Chavara and Mother Euphrasia. Modi’s comments at this event seem to have sent leaders and members of Christian groups, as well as secular liberals, into paroxysms of delight. This frenzy possibly has its roots in the unnerving stony silence that the Prime Minister’s Office maintained for months after the recent vandalisations and desecrations of churches in the national capital. This silence was a matter of concern for many and one can understand why the leaders of the Christian communities were relieved that Modi has finally taken initiative on the matter. The delight from various quarters has also been fuelled by the manner in which the media has framed Modi’s statements as a “reaching out” to Christians, and a commitment in favour of freedom of religion.

For my part, I fail to see what the excitement is all about. Not only were Modi’s statements at this event a case of too little, too late; they are also dangerously ambiguous. Rather than supporting non-Hindu religious groups (Christian or otherwise) in the country, his statements in fact underline the Hindutva logics that have resulted in the recent vandalisations and desecrations.

“We cannot accept violence against any religion on any pretext and I strongly condemn such violence. My government will act strongly in this regard,” Modi is reported to have said. So far, so good. But it is what comes later that should, if not give cause for alarm, warn us that the Prime Minister has not swerved from the path of the Hindu Right.

The other statements that we should give closer attention to include the folowing: “[m]y government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” In addition, the Financial Times reported Modi as having said, “[m]y government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence.”

The devil, as they say, is in the detail, and it is this detail that I have italicised above. In phrasing his supposedly soothing words to the Christians in the country, Modi has also suggested that it is not just supposed majority groups that incite hatred against others but minoritised groups too! These are hardly the salving words one extends toward communities that have been at the receiving end of mob violence. Rather, it suggests that these groups may have done something to invite the violence. This position is, of course, in keeping with the position of the Hindu Right that argues that it is Hindus who are under attack, and that all forms of violence from the Hindu Right are merely the result of righteous anger. The VHP is reported to have said as much, indicating that Modi was not referring to the Hindu Right, but in fact delivering a lecture on the good behaviour expected from Christians in the country.

In light of these facts, one can assume that when Modi assures that “We will act strongly against such violence” what he is doing is in fact playing out the standard tactics of the Hindu Right. These tactics include the march toward an authoritarian state. Authoritarian states have a peculiar relationship with violence. They would ideally not like to exercise mob violence continuously, knowing full well that violence once unleashed can be hard to control. Further, the leaders of the violence could develop their own agenda and pose a challenge to the existing leadership. Thus, what they would like is to strategically exercise this violence, allowing it brief and controlled reign from time to time. The fact of past violence is used as a threat to repressed groups. One need only look at the playing out of the genocidal violence in Gujarat in 2002 to understand the first part of the equation that I have just elaborated. And it is not just Gujarat; one could argue that in India, mob violence does not simply happen, but occurs because the state allows for it to take place.

In the light of international outcry, and the Presidential rebuke from Obama the anti-Christian violence is now an embarrassment to the Modi regime. In this context, it is now perfectly comprehensible if heads will roll for the anti-Christian violence in Delhi. Also, bear in mind that this assertion of the intolerance of the state against violence will just as easily be turned toward members of besieged faith groups. This fact was in evidence both in the recent protests in Delhi, but also in 2008, when Christians in Mangalore protesting against attacks on their churches were arrested and attacked by the police.

That this assertion of an inclination toward law and order has little to do with securing the security of non-Hindu groups becomes evident in Modi’s statements about the freedom of religion. In assuring that he stands behind the right to freedom of religion, he also felt the need to add that there ought to be no coercion or undue influence in the course of adopting the religion of one’s choice. This latter caveat is critical, because coercion and undue influence is exactly what Hindu nationalists allege against both Christian and Muslim missionaries. Hindu nationalists of all stripes have since Independence used this allegation of coercion and undue influence as a way to place legal restrictions on the freedom of faith. As a result, the various Freedom of Religion legislations in India make conversions actions that can be monitored by the state executive. In doing so the Indian state makes a mockery of the right to freedom of religion. Modi has simply confirmed a repressive practice of the Indian state and is being applauded for it.

The final straw is the manner in which Modi chose to frame the entire incident. From the Hindustan Times we hear that his statements that supposedly assure Christians that their place in the country is secure were framed by Modi pointing out that “equal respect” for all faiths was an ancient Indian value that was also integral to the Constitution. “This principle of equal respect and treatment for all faiths has been a part of India’s ethos for thousands of years. And that is how it became integral to the Constitution of India. Our Constitution did not evolve in a vacuum. It has roots in the ancient cultural traditions of India.” 

What nobody seems to have realised is that Modi’s entire statement at this event was couched in references to Hindu scriptures and ‘Indian’ traditions alone. There was no recognition of the fact that the Constitution of India was in fact born via inspiration from universal modern values. The fact that equal respect and treatment is marked out as a feature of “Indian ethos” only underlines the Indian nationalist allegation that religious violence was brought into the subcontinent via the Christians and Muslims. Adding insult to injury is the fact that this history of the subcontinent is entirely fabricated. Historians, such as Romila Thapar, have indicated that rather than being an idyllic period, ancient India was marked by vicious religious violence between various brahmanical sects, and also between the Jain and Buddhist groups and brahmanical groups.

One can understand that Christian leaders, especially Bishops and their spokespersons, are obliged by protocol and a sense of caution to make polite noises in recognition of the Prime Minister’s statements. But let us be under no illusion. Modi’s words are not statements that assure security to non-Hindu religious groups in India. He has not moved an inch from the position of the Hindu rightist groups to which he owes his primary allegiance. If anything, his statements are another public relations exercise from camp Modi.  Further, the Christians are not the audience of this public relations exercise. Rather, they are merely the tools through which the international image conscious Modi government can indicate to the world that all is well in Hindu nationalist run India.

(A version of this post was first published in O Heraldo on 20 Feb 2015)

Minority Report: Strategies for secular survival in a majoritarian world

For some time now, a group known as the Catholic-Christian Secular Forum (CSF) has, ironically enough, been a matter of concern for some Indian Catholics who see themselves as secular. The reasons for this concern are numerous and this column does not intend to discuss the problems that the CSF poses; there will be plenty of time for that, especially since the CSF does not look like it is going away. While flagging the CSF as a concern for Indian Catholics committed to crafting a secular society in the face of rising religious extremism in the country, this column will only highlight that one of the central problems with the CSF lies in the manner in which it seeks to build up the idea of the Church in India being a persecuted church.

There can be no doubt that like the Muslim communities in India, Christians too are being persecuted by segments of both State and society. However, while this may be a problem, it is not the full picture, and we need to bear this fact in mind, as we combat, and combat stiffly, this persecution. The problem with the CSF lies in the fact that, just like segments of Muslims and Hindus in the country, they seek to create a minority complex among Christians in India. Nothing can be more detrimental to the creation of a secular spirit than the creation of a minority complex, since this complex engenders a siege mentality within the group. Once cultivated sufficiently, we are unable to see social relations except in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. Every action is read as being an action of ‘them’ against ‘us’. Most importantly, the creation of this siege mentality ensures that internal questions of democratic reform are suffocated to allow the dominant forces within these groups to run the show without brooking any argument.

To this extent then, Fr. Thomas Sequeira, who recently stepped down as the deputy secretary general of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) had it right when he is reported to have said that Christians in India should not entertain a minority complex. Unfortunately however, after this sage bit of advice his argument seems to have capsized into the sea of majoritarianism that constitutes the dominant political thought in our country today. Fr. Sequeira went on to suggest that while the Christians should not entertain a minority complex, but they should nevertheless “consider their minority status as an invitation to join the majority community for the nation building.”

Let us exclude for the moment the fact that the word ‘nation’ has a specific history and meaning, and assume that what Fr. Sequeira did in fact mean, was ‘country-building’. Indeed, in other parts of the interview Fr. Sequeira uses the word country, in the same context as he earlier used ‘nation’. Even if we exclude this possibility, we are still left with the problematic equation that Fr. Sequeira has drawn up, one in which the relationship is between one minority, the Christians, and one majority, the Hindus. Erased completely from this equation are the other groups outside of Hinduism, such as the heterogeneous Muslim communities, as well as the minorities within Hinduism.

This formulation of the equation unfortunately, may not be the result of a minor error. On the contrary it is reflective of a larger position within the tendency of the leadership of the Catholic Church in India to see itself. It sees itself as largely in conversation with the Hindu majority, the Muslim (and other) groups either falling as a second-rate priority or none at all. We need merely look at the manner in which Fr. Sequeira reportedly illustrated the argument he was making. He suggested that his native state of Goa was a good example to show how people in villages, and especially in the panchayats, think beyond religious consideration to work together for the common good, resolving issues of electricity, water and urbanization. Given the manner in which in a number of cases Muslim communities in Goa have been targeted by panchayats, it is difficult to believe that Fr. Sequeira was thinking of the happy interaction between all kinds of Goans, and not just Catholics and Hindus in happy dialogue.

An interaction with those Catholic religious engaged in dialogue with Muslim communities in India, will reveal the kind of frustration that they experience as a result of a failure to find any support from their religious communities. As it turns out, a good number of Catholics (religious and lay alike) do in fact see the Muslims as a part of the problem, rather than as victims of a complex problem. Allow me to suggest that the reasons they may see the Muslims as the problem, is not only because of the upper-caste positions that the hierarchy  and lay-leaders of the Church often adopt, if not actually being drawn from these caste locations, but also as a result of the uncritical adoption of Indian nationalist rhetoric.

One such possible example can be gleaned from the article reporting Fr. Sequeira’s observations. The article reported that Fr. Sequeira suggested that Christians have to work to remove the perception among certain sections of Indians that the Church indulges in conversion works. His suggestion was that what the Church was in fact engaged in was an attempt “to strengthen our country.” Fr. Sequeira is not wrong in making this suggestion. Owing to developments in missiology since the early twentieth century, there has been a genuine attempt by the Catholic Church to engage not merely in conversion, but in standing witness to Christ by ameliorating the condition of those in need of aid. Thus in the words of Pierre Charles S.J., one of the foundational missiologists of our time “you may entertain the secret hope that your educational effort may produce religious results, but you should not make that hope the primary motive of your enterprise...” To do so, Fr. Charles suggested, would leave the missionary in a morally rather unpleasant position.

 

This could be what Fr. Sequeira was referring to when he refers to the work of the Church in India as developmental, and not as conversion work. However, at the end of the day, we must recognize that the Church is founded on carrying the faith to others and thus welcomes (after due diligence and examination) persons into its flock. Thus while the church may be engaged in strengthening the country, its premise must continue to be hoping for gains to its cult. To skirt around this issue is to agree to the Indian nationalist position, built on Hindu minoritarianism, that conversions are unacceptable, as they pose a threat to nationalism and the majoritarian idea of the Indian community imagined as ideally Hindu.

Fr. Sequeira however emphasized that “[R]ecent cases of Christian persecutions have not discouraged the Church to carry on with its work among the poor and the deprived” suggesting therefore, that the Church embraces persecution, rather than shies from it. If such be the case then, it would behove the CSF and other Christian groups to understand that the persecution that various minority groups in India are witness to is not reason to retreat into minoritarianism, but on the contrary a reason to expand into the realms of the secular, contesting the right of a majority to dictate terms in a democracy.

(A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times  20 June 2012)

Breaking Secularism´s cast(e): The curious case of the poor Indian Muslim

In an opinion piece in The Hindu on the 3 March 2011, Vidya Subrahmaniam wrote of her discussion with a group of Muslims in Deoband about the reported validation that Maulana Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi, the controversy shrouded new Vice-Chancellor of the Dar ul Uloom at Deoband. These are her words;

‘I raised the Modi issue and was instantly put down: “We are not saying that Muslims should forgive Modi or forget 2002. But all of you in the secular media want the Gujarati Muslim never to get out of his grieving. Hindu or Muslim, the Gujarati is a businessperson, and that is what Vastanvi was trying to say.” The words stung but they were true. The Congress and the secular media wanted the Gujarati Muslim forever to fight Mr. Modi but neither was there to protect him.’

Subrahmaniam should be credited for her perspicacity and sensitivity. This fact should be obvious to many an observer of the unfolding of Indian secular democracy, but has by and large remained unspoken.

The fact is that in addition to being pilloried as a result of the Orientalist and subsequently nationalist histories of India, the Indian Muslim is held hostage by another force that masquerades as its friend, the ‘secular’ Indian. The key article of faith of the secular Indian in contemporary times has been to moan the fate of poor blighted Muslim. Reams of paper, rivers of ink and oceans of tears are spent in this cause, to the extent that the cause of secularism – in this case the welfare of all minority groups in Indian – has become less of a concern, and has been replaced by a singular concern for the Muslim.The problem with the Orientalist and subsequently nationalist understanding of India is that it has understood India to be originally Hindu. All those who came ‘after’ are seen as the non-Indian, or less Indian. In the terms of scholarly debate, they are the ‘Other’ to the Hindu ‘Self’. Given the locus of dominant Indian nationalism in North India, the Muslim was seen as the ‘Other’ to the Hindu state, and blamed for all the shortcomings of nationalism, most significantly of all, Partition. Ever since, the Indian Muslim has been bludgeoned to the desperate condition they find themselves in today. The argument here is not that concern for them is misplaced. The argument is that by focussing on the Muslim ‘Other’ alone, what these secular Indians do is reaffirm the central place of the Hindu in the national imagination. The problem with Indian secularism is not the Muslim, it is the central place of the Hindu in the national imagination. This problem can be rectified only when we start realising that India is more than Hindu and Muslim, but includes tons of other minorities as well, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Adivasis, Dalits to name just a few. Displace this binary relationship, recognise the pluralism of the Indian reality, and we would have progressed multiple steps towards combating the problems confronting Indian secularism.

The question that remains unanswered in all of this however is why does the ‘secular’ establishment in India fail to grasp this seemingly obvious fact? Why does it persist in this obsessive focus on the Muslim and reaffirm the central place of the Hindu? The answer is once more hinted at by Subrahmaniam in her observation that ‘The Congress and the secular media wanted the Gujarati Muslim forever to fight Mr. Modi but neither was there to protect him.’ In her formulation of the problem, Subrahmaniam falls into the regular trap of identifying the Congress as secular, and the BJP as communal. We would grasp the nuances better if we harked to the words of Khalid Anis Ansari, a scholar researching the Pasmanda movement.

Ansari points out that ‘…there are a few differences between BJP and Congress … even when in the ultimate analysis they defend the same caste/class interests. For one Congress is dominated by anglicised and elite Brahmins, the BJP on the other hand is controlled by Brahmins from the rural or middle class backgrounds.’

In this formulation, Ansari helps us get to understand the obsession with the Indian Muslim. If one reads the ‘BJP’ and ‘Congress’ as symbols for opposing camps in Indian politics, and not merely – as normally done – as representative of the electoral parties, then one can see Indian politics as the struggle between the anglicised and elite dominant castes, and the rural and middle class dominant castes. The first group sold on the idea of western modernity, is empowered by its access to western cultural capital and drawing its power from international hierarchies, seeks to make a modern ‘secular’ India on these ideas. The other group as yet unable to acquire this western cultural capital, drawing its power solely from local hierarchies, seeks to delay this transition to western modernity until they too are in the seat of power. In the battle between these two dominant caste elephants, it is the Muslim grass that suffers. As Subrahmaniam rightly realised, the Muslim is by and large a pawn in the battle for access to State power. The ‘Congress’ claims to uphold Muslim interests, and the ‘BJP’ in response attacks them. In response to these attacks the ‘Congress’ calls the ‘BJP’ communal, and restricts our understanding of ‘secularism’ to essentially the Muslim cause. In the meanwhile secularism as a larger ideal of the protection of minority interests against majoritarianism falls by the wayside. What complicates this picture is that the battles are not between religious groups, but between caste (and especially dominant caste) groups. As such when the ‘Congress’ espouses the ‘Muslim’ cause what it is primarily doing is espousing the cause of the dominant Muslim castes. Further, it is quite capable of absorbing those people into its upper echelons who can walk the walk and talk the talk, be the Muslim, Christian or Hindu. All that is required is the ability to behave like an anglicised dominant caste. The power of the ‘BJP’ on the other hand, given its rural and middle-class character, is largely based on the assertion of ‘traditional’ caste structures. Thus this group too can make peace with non-cosmopolitan Muslim (or Christian) dominant caste groups toward the larger end of preserving rural social orders and traditional hierarchies.

Two lessons emerge from Subrahmaniam’s observations. The first that the solidarity that large portions of the secular lobby in India show to the Indian Muslim are motivated by the desire to wipe out their contender for power. Second, is the lesson that these political divisions in India, are not so much about religion as they are about caste power and caste battles. It thus appears that we would make some progress towards secularism if we complicated the picture of secularism in India to look beyond the Muslim, and also accounted for the manner in which both groups seek to establish the norms for gaining power in this diverse country.

(First published in the Gomantak Times 9 March 2011)

Faith, Conversion and Practice: On how to convert and not annoy your neighbour

Some time earlier this month, on the 10^th of this month to be precise, a rather small news item appeared, that has subsequently not got the attention that it perhaps ought to have. Extracting the news item from The Hindu from where I obtained this report, ‘Churches across Karnataka have come together to form the Karnataka United Christian Forum for Human Rights with the objective of promoting unity among churches, protecting human rights and promoting peace in the community.’ The churches that seem to have become a part of this Forum include a rather venerable list of established churches, and (forgive the expression) strange bed-fellows. The list of member churches extends from ‘The Roman Catholic Church, The CSI Church, The Methodist Church, The Mar Thoma Church, The Jacobite Church, The Believers Church, The Karnataka Baptist Church, The Assemblies of God, The Federation of Christian Churches Organisation, and small historical churches like Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Salvation Army and others’.

The formation of the Forum is one that is very clearly responding to the vicious attacks mounted by Hindutva forces. However the churches have also realized that perhaps not all of the attacks have been without some sort of aggravation. Some inkling of this is provided from the report when it indicates that the ‘the CME resolves not to condemn or denigrate gods and deities of other religions, or elements of tradition held sacred by other communities, both in preaching and publications. “The beauty of our faith is tarnished and not enhanced when we denigrate someone else’s faith,” it said, and added that churches should respect their beliefs and practices, and work together for the common cause of salvation and integrity of human community.’

It is true that among some of the churches, especially the evangelical Christian groups, there is a tendency to denigrate the practice and belief of other faiths, especially in the Indian context, that of Hinduism. Having lived in Bangalore city myself, I can vouch for the kind of embarrassment that ensues when one hears the operation of these Christian groups, denigrating, both in English and Tamil/Kannada, Hindu faith practices. It is true that from time to time this kind of denigration happens within the fold of the Catholic Church as well, but this sort of preaching is however more often than not the exception rather than the norm.

Among the Christian family in India however it must definitely be admitted that the evangelical churches do display a militancy in their quest to harvest souls, that borders on the intolerant and the obscene. The kind of militancy that they show seems to echo that of the Christian fanatics in Islamicate Spain. Needless and annoying, as the Forum has reportedly stated, “our faith is tarnished not enhanced when we denigrate someone else’s faith”.

Regardless of what doctrine may teach us about the singularity of the teachings of the Church, it is not impossible to reconcile our actions towards propagation of the faith with a respect for the faith and faith practices of non-Christians. Reading the works of an Indian social-scientist, who is also Christian, made me realise that the kind of emphasis that the evangelical groups seem to place on conversion is in fact a continuation of a Western-style colonial practice. For those convinced of the uniqueness of Christianity, it would perhaps be worthwhile the exercise to demonstrate through daily practice this uniqueness, rather than denigrate the operation of the faiths of this (or any other) country. To be sure, the presence of other faiths and their practices, inform our mystical encounters with the divine, and to that extent only enhance the practice of our own spiritual traditions.

The central issue that remains however is that of the right to convert. I do not believe that a self-restriction on the manner in which one propagates one’s faith, or even converts people hampers the exercise of one’s right to convert. The question is whether right-leaning Hindu groups and individuals are willing to concede to other religions the right to proselytize at all? Regardless of internal Christian debate on how to exercise one’s right to convert, one often gets the impression that what a number of individuals and groups in India want, is a total freeze on conversion from Hinduism (such as it is) to other denominations. Indeed, it must also be said, that no matter what the statements by these Christian groups, they do not under any circumstances provide an excuse for the kind of violent behaviour that we in the country have been at the receiving end of in the past months.

In Goa the situation with regard to conversions and boisterous Christian groups seems to be rather different. Here, it is the Catholic Church that seems to bear the brunt of pilferage as members of her flock are being picked up, left, right and centre (forgive the apparent political pun, it is entirely unintended!). This sort of pilferage seems to have allowed for individual parish priests to stand mute spectator to the harassment of some of these Christian groups. In addition, it also appears that some of these Christian groups same the same plight as the Muslims of Salcette, who are being denied a right to a burial ground.

Regardless of how odious the operation, practices and beliefs of these Christian groups might be it would make sense for the Catholic hierarchy in the State to come out with an official statement as regards the ideal response at the parish level vis-à-vis these Christian groups. It would make sense not only because one expects a higher standard of right-practice from the Catholic Church but also because it would build a solid foundation for rights practice within the State. In the case where the Catholic Church in Goa is still dominant, it would be shameful to maintain a silence in the face of the many goings-on in the State.

In the Goan situation, it appears that in the face of the Chrisitian in-fighting, a forum like that in Bangalore is not soon going to appear on the horizon and indeed there may, God-willing, no need for such a formal organization. And yet it would be wonderful if the spirit of this group animated all religious groups in their interactions with each other and among themselves.

(Published in the Gomantak Times, 23 Sept 2009)

Possibilities of a Christian politics in support of Gay Rights: Loving the Magdalene – II

Over the 25th and the 26^th of July I was in Pondicherry, to participate in a workshop around the theme of public consultation and citizen participation in urban governance. Fortuitously, on the 28^th of the same month the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) organized in Madras a symposium on ‘The Indian Church and repealing of the Section 377 of IPC’. Since my return journey home would have to take me through the city of Madras, it occurred to me that it would be worthwhile to tarry a while longer in the south and listen in on some of the discussions that would take place at the symposium.

The decision was not made in vain. Over the course of the day long seminar, a variety of positions on the issue of Section 377 (which as we know relates to the issue of homosexuality) were presented, some of which reaffirmed my faith in the capacity of institutional Christianity to respond with the caritas it affirms as its central tenet.

Those conscious of sectarian divisions, should note that the NCCI is an organization of Protestant and Orthodox churches in India. The Catholic Church in India is not a member, though the Council seems to include representatives from the Catholic tradition in its events. This particular symposium hosted a Jesuit priest who works with the youth. The key note address delivered by Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, the CSI Bishop in Madras displayed a profound change from the Catholic position. As previously discussed in this column, the Catholic response to the Court decision on 377 has been to acknowledge that while religious morality cannot be the basis for criminalization, homosexuality itself is immoral. This position is in keeping with the Vatican’s counsel of the need to reach out in love to homosexual people, even though acting on homosexual desire is an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. The position of the CSI Bishop however was an unconditional embrace toward the members of the LGBT community. This trend continued in two other papers presented by the theologians associated with the Protestant Churches. In the discussions that followed later however, it was clear that these positions were not universally accepted. Christian acceptance could be extended to the eunuch, but to the homosexual?

Dr. George Zachariah, a theologian at a Lutheran institute, presented a paper that was very closely argued, and a delight to listen to. His argument offers a significant axis around which a Christian response to the entire issue of homosexuality can turn. Given that the debate around sexuality is about the place of sex in human life, he quoted from Marvin M. Ellison to argue that “The primary norm for sexual and social relations can no longer be marriage or even heterosexuality, but rather justice-love in all relations”. This term of justice-love was understood as “the pursuit of right relatedness as mutual respect, care and the sharing of goods and power”. Based on this logic, Dr. Zachariah argued that the gay-friendly or queer perspective “does not reject family or marriage; rather it proposes a justice centered ethical framework to examine power and powerlessness in intimate relations”. He recognized that “power relations shape all aspects of life” and that the ‘romanticising of family life ignores power, abuse, exploitation and oppression among intimates’. Justice in marriage and married life therefore, “involves respect and care as well” and further, that “we need to distinguish between marriage as an experience and marriage as an institution”.

Zachariah brings to us a valuable key to understanding the family without collapsing it into the patriarchal model of the family. I do not however, want to pursue this aspect of his argument further, but return to his original question and take a different route from there. For a queer (and Christian) politics, what is the place of sex? Returning to Ellison’s formulation, the place of sex in a queer-friendly Christian politics would be the realization of justice-love.

This formulation, that centers the realization of justice-love in the Christian experience to my mind clashes with the dominant understanding of queer/ gay/ LGBT politics. A good amount of LGBT politics is premised on the centrality of sexuality as defining one’s identity. Thus it is imperative for this politics to argue, as indeed some activists at the symposium did argue, that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a genetic condition. It turns out however, that this position is not without challenge. In such a situation, what is the gay-rights defender’s position? Does the choice of homosexual over heterosexual love place this person afoul of a Christian politics? Using this notion of a commitment to justice-love, clearly it does not. On the contrary, the commitment to justice-love would make the sex of the person we love immaterial, placing the human-being at the centre of our eroticism. It demands that this eroticism be respectful of the individual, not treating, as we are encouraged to by the culture of consumerism, the individual solely as an object that will gratify our physical desire and emotional needs. Eroticism via justice-love compels us in this context to the virtue of a giving and an emptying of ourselves for the beloved. In these thoughts, I believe Marvin Ellison would agree with me.

A commitment to justice-love engineers another powerful move. It prevents us from making sexuality the sole marker of our identity. It compels all of us to fight for the rights against discrimination of all sexual minorities, whether we are a member of a sexual minority group or not. One of the problems with LGBT activism that places sexuality at the centre of identity, is that it fetishizes sexuality (and sex), such that whether we like it or not, our life is defined by our sexual behaviour. With our identity defined by sexuality, it could turn out that sex-seeking becomes one of the centers of our existence.

The problems of such a sexual-identity based politics do not extend merely to making sex-seeking the centre of our existence. It encourages a limited view of politics, such that we seek the liberation of sexual-minorities alone, to the exclusion of other minorities. Thus, it would lead to a politics of ‘me first, then others’. The battle against 377 is perhaps an example of this. Some of the arguments and strategies mobilized by the LGBT activists are deeply problematic, in that they seem to have employed strategies that may have difficult implications for other groups. For example, we know that the result of PILs has resulted in an unaccountable judiciary that has very often trampled on the rights of the poor. Has recourse to the Court in the case of 377 via PIL not justified the problematic politics of the PIL? Further, when arguing that 377 is a colonial British imposition, has it not latched onto the power of a certain anti-colonial nationalism that is unforgivingly cruel to those people (like the various varieties of Indian Christians) that are more obviously touched by colonialism?

It turns out therefore, that it is possible for an individual to be both true to Christian values and be in favour of the ending of discrimination against sexual minorities. A queer Christian politics does not threaten the institution of the family, as many fear queer politics will do. On the contrary it liberates the family from the constraints of a patriarchal imagination. More importantly however, it turns out that a Christian spin on queer politics could wind up liberating queer politics itself. And this perhaps, is the sweetest thought of all!

(Published in the Gomantak Times, 5 Aug 2009)