Observations on the JSOC and OSC tensions prevailing in Kerala

Some observations on the escalation of tensions between the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Syrian Church. (I will be biased in my opinion but would prefer to position my bias/preferential option to those who are oppressed and afflicted at the moment. Whenever there is a change and if the oppressed becomes the oppressor, this opinion will also change accordingly.)  

 

1. The court has not ruled out reconciliatory talks and confidence building measures between the churches. The door to talks and settlements is not closed.

2. This is a jolt to the ecumenical relationships between churches. The OSC has bishops and priests in high ranking positions of ecumenical bodies. How then can the church not compromise for the larger good, as ecumenical acceptance is itself also a compromise?

3. A forced unity can never be Christian. It is a very imperialistic move from the OSC which does not bode well for churches in India.

4. The court has not suggested alienation of people/church members from their beliefs or spirituality. Such forced alienation, eviction and use of force is anti-democratic and un-Christian.

5. Jesus’ teaching that the first will be last and the last will be first should never be laughed off as an unrealistic and utopian dream (which is what an unbridled expansion will mean). If we do so we risk preaching a defeated Christ and a defeated cross, which goes against the theology and belief of all churches.

6. By being generous and compassionate the OSC will only gain a larger acceptance in society, among other churches and among their own church members.

7. The thought of the annihilation of a church, a people or a particular tradition is very dangerous and can lead to irreparable damage among all Christians.

8. The court cases also came about because of a deep-seated enmity among two churches. The aim was not just winning but showing the opposition to one another.

9. Tomorrow whoever else does something like this will also have to face the criticism of other churches and civil society. The opposition is not to the OSC as a church but to the thought of acquiring and amassing wealth and property which does not completely belong to someone.

10. Evil has to be opposed but it need not come at the expense of not having a relationship with one another. The wide ranging criticism of a church should change to the criticism of wrong policies.

11. People from both churches can join to oppose injustice in society and even in churches. There is already a natural association which is in relationship with common concerns and issues. This will be a healthy development.

12. How long can we accuse one another and try to do away with each other? Even as we worship the same God, it is necessary that we allow the continuing of several denominations as it helps us to witness to Christ Jesus in a better way.

13. Clergy and laity of both churches who should be contributing effectively to the Christian world are blinded by the faith to the denomination than true faith in God. This leads to the stunting of growth of very promising minds.

14. It is still not too late. We can stop throwing stones at one another and sit at a table and start talking. By hurling accusations at one another, we are rubbing salt on the wounds instead of working on the healing process.

15. Forceful occupation done by countries and powerful institutions has never worked anywhere. The enmity lasts for generations, leading to greater mistrust, hatred and unending conflict.

May God show a way for peace to prevail and for people to be given the churches that their ancestors or they themselves have built. Hope all of us can come together in prayer and wait for a great healing from God.

(Picture credit www.newsreaderboard.com)

1916- 1986- 2016 Mary Roy and Mary John Akhouri: Overturning 100 years of discrimination

Mary is a very important name in the church and it includes St. Mary, first among saints, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Mary the sister of St. Martha among others. Mary brings to mind several things. It is a name that the church will never be able to wipe out. The name brings not just assurance, hope and obedience but rebellion, sacrifice and victory from oppression. Along with Mary John Akhouri who has managed to wake up the senses of the church and civil society in Kerala, India and the world, is Mary Roy who single handedly fought against an oppressive law and a patriarchal church and society which supported the law.

We are still looking at the merit and faults of denying a decent burial to Mary John Akhouri in the church of her choice and as per her last wish. But there is also another interesting aspect to this time and year. 2016 is an important date because it comes exactly 100 years after the act of 1916 which was discriminatory towards Syrian Christian women in India because it gave only 1/4th the share of ancestral property going to the son, to the daughter or Rs 5,000 whichever was less. In 1984 Mary Roy who also belonged to a Syrian Christian family and was separated from her husband and was going to be evicted from her house in Ooty, filed a case in a court of law, which came out with a favourable verdict in 1986. This was followed by several other cases which culminated in the 2010 verdict of the court granting the right to one part of the property to Mary Roy. 100 years after a discriminatory law and 30 years after a favourable court verdict for Syrian Christian women. This is what 2016 offers and the passing away of Mary John Akhouri and her wish to be buried in her parish brings to focus not just inter religious weddings, church membership and funerals but the key factor of rights of women.

I mentioned in an earlier write up that we have to have a lenient view to several parties involved in the recent issue. But how can we reason within the church that Mary John Akhouri deserved better? For this Mary Roy offers help to us. The Travancore Christian Succession Act of 1916 was clearly discriminatory and it was tweaked to be even more so by the powerful Syrian Christian community. “Under Section 24 of the Act, a widowed mother has only a life interest terminable at death or remarriage, over any immovable property. Under Section 28 female heirs who had already received Streedhanam (dowry) were not to be given any share in the case of intestacy because the daughters have only a right to get streedhanam and it was fixed as ¼ of the share of a son or Rs.5000/- whichever is less, daughters could get shares in the intestate’s property only in the absence of male heirs. Even the unmarried daughters had only a right to get streedhanam which was to be calculated as aforesaid. Thus the Travancore Act contained several discriminatory provisions blatantly violating Article 15(1). The reason for the denial of the share in the family property was that the daughter was going to the matrimonial home and only the sons are contributing to the growth and betterment of the family.”

Venu Menon writes that the Supreme Court verdict brought about by Mary Roy’s court case brought the Syrian Christians under the more liberal Indian Succession Act, 1921. “The judicial order sent shock waves through the community, especially the patriarchal authority that influenced the lives of Christians. The verdict not only gave the female progeny equal rights in the father's property, it did so with retrospective effect. The retrospective clause promised to unleash chaos in the community. Every Christian household faced the prospect of an insurrection from within. All past land transactions became open to question. All titles to property derived from intestate succession now stood invalidated. There could be no precise estimate of the number of women who suffered injustice under the earlier law. The Supreme Court judgement provided an instant remedy.”

The church and the state tried to stall and circumvent the court order and has been successful to a great extend with changes in will and daughters agreeing to sign legal documents mentioning they have received their share. The court order should be read from the perspective of daughters being sent off from their house in the hope that they will never return. It is a once for all settlement. Perhaps this was what happened with Mary John Akhouri. Her being sent off or her going on her own was the part of the societal and church sponsored programme of making sure that the daughter of the house was settled and sent away. Mary John Akhouri’s wish to be buried in her mother parish can and must be seen as her return for her rights which were denied to her earlier. Even if she personally got something from her family her return is the return of a Syrian Christian woman for an equal share of the property of her family which includes a space in church and the cemetery as well. Here I am again sympathetic to the priest in charge as his denial must be seen as the denial of the church to accept someone like Mary Roy and her fight for her rights and the effort to circumvent any court order given otherwise.

The court order giving equal rights over ancestral property to women in the family was always fought by the church and the political class as well because they thought that the ruling patriarchal class would be offended if they did not circumvent the court verdict. It was also a case of holding on to power by the influential class of people in society. The church still has a chance to redeem itself by first of all accepting what Mary Roy, a Syrian Christian herself has done for the emancipation and equal rights of women. She should be honored for this fight and struggle that she has undertaken. Her fight and case should not be seen as anti-church but as a struggle for the church and its constituency of women. What the church has not done for various reasons was taken up and done by a church member and this should be appreciated by the church. The church finds itself at the cross roads looking at itself on what it means by equality, justice and peace. Is it only a slogan or is it something which suggests that all who are in the church are its members and deserve equal treatment from the church? In the Mary John Akhouri analysis it will help church members and others to understand that her burial is not just a burial of a church member who was away and therefore had given up her membership status but that she was a woman of the church who was collectively wronged by a patriarchal society and church together. Her wish to be buried in Kumarakom is her coming back and her journey for the justice which was denied to her because of a discriminatory law of 1916 which still seems to be hanging like a mill stone around the neck of church administrators.

The church and all of us together must understand that we have been hand in glove with all of this. We have not considered the work of women like Mary Roy and Mary John Akhouri because they were women and they tried to change the status quo of gender roles prevalent in the church. One did it through a life long legal battle to get a right to her ancestral property and the other did it through an end of life wish to gain access and right to her ancestral tomb and thus property.
In Numbers 27 the daughters of Zelophehad Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of meeting and said, “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.” So Moses brought their case before the LORD, and the LORD said to him, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them. The five daughters of Zelophehad are the women who makes God change God’s rules. They go to Moses and the others and when Moses asks God, God tells Moses to give them the inheritance to their father’s property and name even though that was not the norm.

The year 2016 is a good year to remind ourselves about our commitment to women and that we owe them their inheritance which they will come to claim at a time they choose. Mary John Akhouri chose now and chose her way to do that. Mary Roy has already brought about a change through her struggles. Now it is time for us to go to God like Moses did and ask God what indeed we must do.




Pictures courtesy dnaindia.com and alcherton.com

Who is going to scrape off the dark tint/window in my life?

I have been trying to figure out the court judgement on how much sun film you can use to cover your car and how much is seen as okay and how much will attract the attention of the police. The mad rush to scrape of the dark film has subsided for the moment but new deadlines will obviously come up. The first concern of mine is obviously personal. Will I have to remove the light sun block film that I have on my car glass windows? What will I do after it is off?

Leaving aside contempt of court, one can analyse rules which affect the public in various ways. The latest directive is also an effort to curb something. Specifically speaking, car windows which do not show, are at risk of hiding criminals, terrorists and offendors of various kinds. So, all those insticts which are done in the cover of darkness will be curbed by this order. Atleast that must be the case for the coming out of the order.

What could be the pros and cons of the order? As mentioned above, those who seek to bring harm to others by using their cars as the place for offence is indeed a reason for the directive on car windows. The cons on the other hand are that it goes against single women who see their car as a world which gives them their space on their terms and the order takes away this space from them. Families who may get to spend quality time together will have to do away with this time all together. Nursing mothers who may want to feed their babies will again have to hide their babies with yards of clothing. Women and children who may want to have a bite of something to eat in their cars may have this privacy lost forever. VIP's, movie stars, sports personalities and even religious leaders who may want a little time away from the public eye may find this more and more difficult and will have to pay the ultimate price of stardom.

One's car therefore has today become one's world. You will find everything from food, clothing, and books to make up, documents and memories. All this has been kept together by the dark window. This is a secret and personal space at the same time and it is an individual's space whatever said and done.

Now that I have conceptualised and talked about my own problems I should also talk about the unsaid problems. Even a recent survey conducted in India has come out with the startling but not surprising fact that 60% of India lives on 35-66 rupees a day. They don't have three square meals, will be lucky to have a cycle, and do everything in the open. Their lives are in the open, their suffering in the open, and we further dissect them and open them up for everyone to see, never really asking them whether they want it this way. Media reports and NGO reports are basically made to document and report a startling fact and nothing more than that.

Now let us come back to the car windows. It is obvious that many (me included) are ilked by this order. But what about those who don't have a chance to express their opposition to be made objects of sensational reporting? What about those who don't even have enough to cover their own bodies with, and are we talking about cars?? What about those who don't have anything to eat in the first place and therefore would not mind whether they can eat it in the comfort of their own spaces or wide open in front of the whole world? What about those who feed their babies while working in someone else's field? What about those whose honour is taken away in front of a bunch of losers who cheer on for more? The list is endless.

I am not saying that the court or the government got it right and thought we should frame laws for our real constituents. What I am trying to say is that we have got the space (outside our cars) to register our opposition. What about those who can't do this? While we seek for some more time for debate and sane decisions let us also pray for the dark windows of our lives to be scraped off. We have maybe lived too long in them and it is time for us to come out.

The donkey says no

We are inching closer to celebrating Palm Sunday and any sermon on the day cannot forget the donkey on which Jesus made the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Many preachers prefer to ask the congregation, “Are you willing to be the donkey on which Jesus had to travel?” We are engaged into an emotionally charged environment where we are faced with a choice between donkey and no donkey! If I have to travel whatever class so that I can be with my master, so be it. I will take the donkey!

So as some writers have pointed out I imagine myself as the donkey on which Jesus travelled. I reconstruct the entry. The children, women and men all throwing their clothes and spreading branches on the road. As Jesus enters placed on the donkey the commotion is huge and the people say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.” The donkey also feels a sense of the euphoria which has engulfed the scene. Maybe the donkey felt a rise in adrenalin in the midst of all the people and the shouts of joy and praise?

But what would have been the scene the next day when the donkey sans Jesus travels the same route, head held high and expecting the same praise and attention? Obviously people would have forgotten the donkey (It wouldn’t have been noticed anyway). As the donkey made its way one or the other men on the road would have beaten it and made it to go to the side.

I don’t mean any disrespect for the donkey. The donkey is a very hard working animal and teaches us many things. But when we put ourselves in the shoes of the donkey, we need to think of certain things. The symbolism of the donkey is one who serves the Lord and not the Lord himself. We cannot expect to be the Lord just because we served the Lord. It is a folly to leave the Lord and expect people to concentrate on us.

In the past couple of days India has seen the donkey speaking and trying to overshadow Jesus. Mulayam Singh Yadav started it by saying that women who contest Lok Sabha seats and come to parliament will be whistled at. I presume he expected that people in India would take him seriously but do we need to? Statements like that should be given the seriousness they deserve. None at all! The supreme court of India on the other hand gave a land mark judgement on live in relationships in India saying that there was nothing wrong with it. But all those who are carrying God on their shoulders now see themselves as God and take it upon themselves to deny freedom to others. So this judgement has also been questioned by the so called people playing God themselves.

A television series called “Little Britain” has a character called Carol Beer. She is shown working as a receptionist in a hospital and as a travel agent. She is very close to her computer and answers queries of people by tapping the computer and giving them a negative reply and then saying “computer says no.” Things which were taken for granted, things which were sure, things which were looking bright and hopeful are all cut off with three simple words… “Computer says no.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcHxiw9QIfc

As we enter into passion week, we place ourselves as the donkey upon which Jesus has to travel. But as soon as Jesus is out of the scene we try to become what we are not and in his absence take it upon ourselves to tell others what they are supposed to do. We tap into our computers and say, “computer says no”, wiping out the last strands of hope of the common people, from our self constructed peaks of safety and indestructibility!