Skip to main content

Why the Archbishop should have left politics alone



The recent appeal of the Archbishop of Delhi, Mr. Anil Couto for a ‘secular nation’ has not been taken in good spirits by the nation at large and has sparked controversy being the subject matter of much debate. In a letter where Archbishop identifies the contemporary political atmosphere as ‘turbulent’, he has in a pious request asked people of all casts and creed to observe a day of fast and offer penance for the country. As soon as the content of the letter went public, the religious leader was under attack from all the corners by people who thought that the statement was unwarranted.

It did not take much time for pseudo liberalists of our country to come to his defense with initially ‘not so rightist’ political parties backing his letter solely for political mileage.  In a day or two, a well reasoned defense from the intelligentsia of this country also saw the light of the day which advocated his right to freedom of speech and expression to make such statement which is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. According to them such criticism of Archbishop's statement is an attack on his fundamental right which i actually what is troubling them and is inherently communal in nature. It is a beautiful paradox that these liberalists usually advocate the right to criticize and call it the ‘heart of democracy’ but only till it is exercised by them, as soon as conservatives find their voice to criticize the same right becomes a ‘threat to democracy.’

If we look at the statement of the religious leader from the narrow perspective of the right of an individual to speak freely, then surely he has every right to do so and there is nothing wrong with that, but if we look at the possible implications and consequences of it then the predicament becomes apparent. Such statements actually portray a linguistic/ religious/ caste group as against one party because of the views of one person who is in authority (who is actually acting outside his designated sphere while giving such opinion). It is quite possible that many (maybe most) people do not subscribe to his view that right now there is a threat to ‘democratic principles’ of our constitution or ‘secular fabric’ of our nation but their honest opinion is lost in these sacred rhetorics. I for one cannot see any 1984 or a perspective emergency in sight in near future i.e., a 'threat' to democratic principles nor I consider criticism of 'godman' anti-democratic.

What actually was the effect of that statement was against our democratic principles i.e., dividing people politically on the lines of religion. What is more interesting is that maybe such division may not exist in reality but statements like this create a smokescreen that people are divided on the basis of religion and are guided by ‘fatwas.’ This is not about the right of a person to say anything but about the responsibility of the person in authority. Such religious leaders need to realize that there is a line they ought not to cross, that they are not the representatives of their community in the political sphere but only in the religious sphere where they should ideally confine themselves.

Another interesting point that comes out is that where the Supreme Court in cases like that of  Abhiram Singh is trying to find ways to stop politicians from using religion as a tool, such people are posing a new challenge by doing politics under the mask of religion. Maybe or rather surely, comments coming from Union Ministers that the letter is aimed at creating a 'civil war situation in the country’ and comparing it with sedition are nothing short of political exaggeration equivalent of making a mountain out of a molehill, but the reality is that world and our country would surely have been a better place without him speaking on the contemporary political atmosphere.

 The fears of Archbishop are not completely unfounded and this country is facing a conscience crisis but such statements are not at all going to help the cause but instead will harden the communal division pitting religion against a poltical party which I don’t think is a healthy practice. Another point that deserves attention is that the letter comes from the Archbishop of the National Capital of the Country. Such averments would have had much more credibility if it would have been from a leader from any other part of the country but imagining about the security, protection and life that Mr. Couto enjoys in the surely secular place such as Delhi, him talking about the turbulence in atmosphere certainly raises some eyebrows.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thanos is a utilitarian!

Image Courtesy- TeePublic If a close analysis is undertaken of all superhero movies, then a common denominator underlying all plots will be discovered. Every superhero tale has a moral dimension, but it is quintessentially limited to the protagonist. That is to say, the superhero alone has the might of the right with him. Invariably accompanying him is the badness of the villain. Badness in the sense, the values that he stands for and things he fights for. This element is indispensable because goodness is relative. You need to give something worse to the viewer, to which he can compare the alleged good part and arrive at the conclusion which storyteller wants to sell; the superhero was indeed good! This is the cliché tale of every superhero movie and Marvel Entertainment has been no different about it. Start watching Marvel Universe movies starting from Iron Man (2008), Captain America, Thor, Avengers, and all their sequels and you will possibly get my point. But in Avenger

Ms. Marvel adds the jewel of South Asia to MCU’s crown of diversity

For Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) ‘superhero’ has a standard definition. They are intelligent, sedulous, good looking, sacrificing, male, white and the hope of humanity. The conception is so immutable that even though recently there have been number of female characters portraying such characters, we still don’t have a word for female super'hero'? Merriam Webster says it is ‘superheroine’, as it logically should be. But it hasn’t really caught up and also it does not have that ‘superhero waali feeling’ as is also the case with ‘superhuman’, which misses the concept of ‘protagonist’ altogether. Even the storyline of these superhero movies is quite standard. A city in the US is in danger. It falls in the hands of a superhero, as defined above, to save millions of lives because it is his destiny to do so. A fight ensues between the superhero and the villain amongst the high-rise buildings of a metropolitan American city. It is the fantasy story of an ordinary westerner which is

Why you should read 'Crime and Punishment'

The book Crime and Punishment,  written by Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky is based on a random murder of an old moneylender by a former student of law. But the book is not a crime thriller, for the murder takes place in the first part in a seven-part long storyline. Regarded as Dostoevsky’s magnum opus and one of the best literary works of Russian literature, Crime and Punishment  offers a view into Raskolnikov’s mind (the murderer and the protagonist). The novel can be best characterized as a psychological thriller. In his book, Dostoevsky grapples with questions like- what pushes a man into committing a hideous crime as murder in cold blood?   Unlike the ideal state of the human mind and soul, as is often depicted, Crime and Punishment shows the turbulent state of the mind of Raskolnikov and the contradictions within his soul- completely naked. In the plot, Raskolnikov, a bright young student, has to drop out of university because of the lack of money to support his studie