Lent Day 34: The assurance of the fringe of Jesus’ garment

There are certain pieces of cloth, garments, a special shirt, or dhoti which is close to our heart. It is either because it was a favourite of ours, or someone we loved, wore it. Even years later, we will take it, hold it and even smell it. There is a familiarity, a knowingness and even an assurance that the cloth gives us. Knowing that it is kept somewhere in a cupboard gives us a good feeling, and taking it and feeling it in our hand and on our face, when we are sad, gives us a lot of peace.

Touching the garment of someone we know, have heard of and hold in high esteem is also like this. We would like to touch them but don’t like disturbing them and making them feel that we are taking advantage. So, we will instead, stand close and touch their garment without making them feel awkward. It is a decent way of approaching someone we respect or love and should not be seen as something weird.

In St. Mathew 9: 21, we read, “for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well.” This was a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years. The expectation was high because she would have heard a lot about Jesus and his capability to heal. But she also didn’t want to disturb him and thought it would be next to impossible to speak to him, request him, and get an answer from him.

When we hold the garment dear to us to our face and to our nose, we also expect something. An assurance of peace, a strength in the time of problems and a thought that we have someone who cares for us. There is only one-sided communication and the communication from the dress is non-verbal. The smile it brings to our face and the recollection of pleasant memories is itself a healing process for us. Grief is also contained to a large extend by this.  

Jesus turns around and says in verse 22, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” Even though the woman till then was communicating with the fringe of Jesus’ garment, it leads to Jesus himself talking to the woman, a miracle in itself. She is instantly made well. This lent, shall we also reach out for the fringe of Jesus’ dress. Just like the garments and pieces of cloth which give peace to us. But in this case, which will talk back, assure and heal. Amen.

For such a time as this: Learn from women how to observe lent

One of the most significant things in the church which many a time is kept under wraps is that women in the church fast and pray more than men. Even though priests give the call to fast and lent, it is women in the church who give heed to the call more sincerely. This they do despite the usual responsibilities of house work, child rearing and jobs. It is therefore surprising that during lent we do not consider women as a model for lent.

Yesterday being International Women’s day, it was celebrated all over the world with messages praising women. What I noticed in whats app and facebook though was that these congratulatory messages were followed by messages which indirectly and directly demeaned women. It was as if to suggest that a majority of the men were just being politically correct for women’s day and they did not say it from the heart.

Religion has a lot to do with the plight of women in our society. If the religion that you and I are a part of does not respect women, then there are high chances that you and I will follow suit. That is why it is important for us to see if there is any connection between women and lent. It is because we can accept women during the entire Lenten period and continue to do that, being strengthened by the lent we observed.

Nursing mothers and women who take care of all the house hold work need more nutrition and yet they take up the burden of saving the household primarily because the good fortune of the house is linked with the woman and because by themselves they are more responsible than men when it comes to matters of the house. It is because of this that we have to take a look at women in the bible who fasted. Every lent we always hear that fasting or lent is because Jesus fasted, Moses fasted and Elijah fasted. Women never come into the picture. Why so? Lent is a God given opportunity to realise that we have knowingly and unknowingly ignored women who were, are and should be an integral part of any lent we observe.

One of the strong examples that we have is of Esther. Mordecai informs her of the impending danger and the seeming end of their community. He sends her a message that she cannot keep quiet in such a time as this. He says in Esther 4:14 “Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this.” The future of her community is on the shoulder of Esther. Mordecai knows that Esther is the last straw of hope. Now what happens to Esther is the interesting part. She does not say no or that she would think about it. In an almost transformative trance she replies to Mordecai in verse 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.” Ah, what a bold statement from a young woman? She chooses to be proactive in such a time as this and declares a fast for the entire community knowing the responsibility of their lives rests on her. It is also typical of men as to how Mordecai puts the responsibility on Esther even though he is the more seasoned and experienced campaigner. Esther like all women does not shrink from the responsibility but takes it on.

Esther’s fast which lasts three days is a sign for us on how to fast and lent. We must see the signs of our time and we must know the dangers lurking. When communities are in danger and when people can be killed, communities should come together in fasting and prayer. Our fasts and lent today have no consequences. But Esther’s call to fasting shows us that our fasts and lent can indeed have consequences, and good ones at that.

This lent, let us look at the fast of Esther and create our own fasts for justice and peace. When the refugee crisis and wars in the Middle East and other parts of the world rage on with no solution in sight, let us get together like Esther’s community and fast for a solution. Esther shows us the power of fasting. It has the strength to overcome evil and bring about justice. It is interesting for us after Women’s day and knowing how diligently women fast in the church, that Esther and other women like her in the bible offer us a credible model of fasting and lent. It is also important for men during lent and after women’s day to see how thinking like women can bring about a more meaningful fast and lent in which the responsibility and the future of the community become important life and death issues. Amen.

Walls of love.....the sermon

Luke 7:36-46
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[a] to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii,[b] and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus[c] said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” 48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Walls of love
The passage Luke 7:36-50 which was read to us has certain peculiarities. Usually in the church the probability is that it will be read along with the title of the section which is mentioned as "sinful woman". The woman here is differently seen as perhaps being Mary Magdalene or Mary the sister of Martha, among other women. It has parallels in all gospels but this passage is special in that Jesus does not talk about his death and the preparation for that.


Now what are some of the problems in the passage when we read it today? The first problem is that there is a tendency to come to a conclusion that the woman is a sinner and the sin associated with her is that of being a loose woman, an adulteress or temptress. It may have been something else though, for instance her association with tax collectors which made the writer refer to her as a sinner. But the understanding of sin in relation to the woman is sadly in one direction and this is the popular understanding of the church. The second problem is the association of the woman as Mary Magdalene and the way she has been perceived by the church. There are several interesting theories about the association of Mary Magdalene with Jesus but I am not going into that but rather would like to point out that Mary Magdalene has been slut shamed and trolled by the church.

What is slut shaming and trolling? Slut-shaming is defined by many as a process in which women are attacked for their transgression of accepted codes of sexual conduct,i.e., of admonishing them for behavior or desires that are more sexual than society finds acceptable.It is retrograde, the opposite of feminist. Calling a girl a slut warns her that there's a line: she can be sexual but not too sexual. Online trolling is In Internet slang what happens when a person sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement. There is more an online phenomenon these days were women are subjected to verbal online abuse for having expressed their views in public. Several famous personalities, writers, actors, public figures and women from various walks of life are subjected to this regularly even bringing in the public debate whether there should be a law to safe guard online users who express their thoughts and feelings. The women and child development minister offered help to those who are facing online trolling and her tweet itself was subjected to online trolling!


The Eastern church and the Western church look at Mary Magdalene totally differently. In the Eastern church she is perceived as the woman of faith who reported the resurrection of Christ to the disciples. In the Western church interestingly in a later development, Mary Magdalene is seen as the sinner who repented and then became a saint. This can be traced back to Pope Gregory’s sermon on her and how she is made into the woman out of whom seven demons were driven out. In the Eastern church Mary Magdalene is a saint who showed exemplary faith and closeness to Jesus while in the Western church Mary is a sinner and a woman with loose morals who later on had a conversion in life. When the passage is read in this context we also associate the entire conversation between Jesus and the Pharisee as one on what sin is and who will be forgiven based on the weightage of sin.
On the contrary shouldn’t this passage be seen as a strong rebuke by Jesus of the Pharisee and the message that this slut shaming and trolling should come to an end. Sin cannot and should not be associated with gender! Mathilukal, which means walls is a famous novel by Vaikom Muhammad Basheer, a well known writer from Kerala. He was involved in the freedom movement and jailed several times for his writings even though he did not do anything against the country as such. This story from which an adaptation was performed in today's worship is based on Basheer’s own experiences in jail. We feel very uncomfortable to talk about the bible and especially topics in the bible which we perceive as contentious and controversial. By positioning Mathilukal (Wall/s) in this worship we are trying to look at popular culture and the theological insights it offers. Luke as a writer has written with passion along with a list of writers to help him but if we refuse to see the Jesus they try to portray then we have to look elsewhere to ease us into the passage in Luke. Biblical interpretation has to in this sense look for the underlying messages and real characters to find strands of the message which in all essence will be lying hidden in the text.


The adaptation performed tonight is a conversation between a man, who is the writer Basheer himself and a woman Narayani who are both in jail separated by a wall built to keep women and men apart. The wall though does not prevent them from communicating and entering into a conversation. They talk despite the wall. In the process they share their lives with each other and look ahead for a time they can be together. We can very well get stuck in the ending thinking that Basheer has left, leaving Narayani behind but we must know that Basheer did not have any idea that he was being released and their spiritual relationship is threatened by the wall of perceived freedom when in reality Basheer is released into a place he does not want to go to. Even in their eagerness to meet, Narayani knows that Basheer will always be in her thoughts and mind. In Luke 7 there is an invisible wall built by the Pharisee between Jesus and the woman present there. It is the wall of judgement which the man is adapt at building through his thoughts and words. But this does not prevent the woman and Jesus from relating to each other and being in relationship. Rather the woman cleans Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes it with her hair and anoints his feet with the special perfume. This sensuous act of love goes unnoticed in traditional interpretations but we would be missing the essence of the passage if we continue with only the usual interpretations.


The notion of Jesus and the Jesus movement is challenged by the Pharisee and his judgmental community when he notices what is happening on two sides of the wall they have constructed. The woman was not supposed to be there and yet she is there. She was not supposed to relate and be with Jesus and yet that is what she does. The woman and Jesus remind us of Narayani and Basheer who be with each other despite the wall which is built to keep them apart. The transcending of the wall by the woman and the reciprocation by Jesus annoys the Pharisee as it would annoy anyone of us who either construct or are part of such walls. But Jesus and the woman just be like Narayani and Basheer wall or no wall.


Jesus goes further in the passage and gives the example of those who owe money to a creditor. The creditor forgives both and then Jesus asks, which debtor will be more thankful. The Pharisee says that the one to whom more is forgiven will be more thankful. There is a problem here because this does not make total sense. For someone, forgiveness is not only comparison but is also the act of forgiveness itself. So whether big or small if we have been forgiven it will be great for us. Why then is the writer saying that the one who is forgiven more will love more? One reason could be that the woman is showing love for the forgiveness she has received through John and she is showing the love of what she has already received. Two could be because Jesus is here talking of unconditional love which leads to unconditional forgiveness. The woman loves completely. So much that she cries in being able to be with Jesus, she lets down her hair because she is no more concerned by those who have constructed the wall and who is watching, and she then anoints Jesus’ feet with perfume in unconditional love. What happens here is that the unconditional love of the woman leads not to forgiveness but forgiveness does not matter anymore because she has already gone beyond that. Jesus is not answering the woman but Jesus is answering his host by talking about forgiveness. The woman doesn’t seem to be bothered about forgiveness anymore. She is concerned about and is expressing love. This is what happens to Narayani and Basheer. Narayani does not want a good conduct certificate from Basheer the accomplished writer. Rather she wants to love and be loved. It was not mandatory for the host to wash Jesus’ feet, kiss him and anoint his head but he could have done it. The Pharisee represents the church which is unwilling to repent and love. But there are others sometimes inside and outside the church who are willing to love like the woman and like Narayani. The ordination of welcome through anointment of the head which should have been done by the Pharisee is then turned upside down into the ordination of acceptance through the anointment of the feet by the woman.


I will offer three points for us to take home and think about.
1. I to we – We are obsessed with ourselves. We simply cannot go beyond ourselves like the host of the house. He is not obsessed with Jesus but himself. The primary reason of calling Jesus to his house we learn later is not to honor Jesus but to honor himself. We live in a culture of I’s. I phone, I pad, I pod…... and finally father or mother saying I paid. The host of the house is caught in thinking about himself whereas the woman and Jesus are not thinking about themselves but thinking about each other. The woman did not do what she did to get forgiveness. She was loving and one does not love for forgiveness. Jesus did not love the woman because she wiped his feet and anointed him. He loved because he was reciprocating to the love he received. Narayani and Basheer are on two sides of the wall. They are leading their “I” lives and yet the voice of the other leads them to the understanding of “we” which they cherish from two sides of the wall.

A mom and his son and the relationship their shared helps us understand the limitation of I. The man says I love you to his mother when he was 5 years old and she reciprocates. He says I love you mom again when he is 16 years old. She asks him "How much do you want?" Meaning how much money does the son want. The son again says I love you mom when he is 25 years old. The other asks him "who is she?" meaning which girl friend does her son want to introduce. When he is 40 years old he says I love you mom and she replies "I told you so". Finally when he is 60 years old the son says I love you mom and the mother replies "I won't sign on any paper come what may." I here is all the son himself and what he wants from his mother.

2. Ego to love
There was something preventing the Pharisee from seeing the beauty of what the woman was doing. There was a wall preventing him from seeing and he had built this wall so that others would not see. The three letter word ego prevents us from seeing many things. The story of the rabbit and the turtle is familiar to us and so is the saying "Slow and steady wins the race." But an extended version of the story goes on to say how the turtle wins first, the rabbit the second time, the turtle again the third time and the rabbit and the turtle together the final time. First it is "Slow and steady wins the race", second it is "Steam ahead and set the pace", third it is "Change the rules and claim your space" and finally it is "Come together and change the face."

Jesus conquered his ego and so did the woman. The host had ego as an accompaniment and he was trying to win a race he wasn’t capable of winning. Jesus and the woman team up while the host keeps away. Basheer and Narayani do not know each other and yet work together a relationship which is actually based on nothing and everything at the same time. They do not allow ego to prevent them from expressing their love for one another. Love is a natural expression for them and they do not allow the ego of their lives or the jail environment to spoil that.

Indians have a way of going around the ego. There is a story of Albert Einstein and an Indian man travelling together. Einstein says “Let’s play a game and if I know the answer you pay me 50 rupees and if I don’t know the answer I will pay you 5000 rupees. The Indian agrees. Einsten asks “ What is the distance between the earth and the moon? Indian gives 50 rupees and says "I don't know.". Then the Indian asks “Which animal goes up the hill with three legs and comes back with four? Einstein gives 5000 rupees and says "I don't know.". Indian man goes to sleep. Einstein is angry and says “Give me the answer.” The Indian wakes up and gives him 50 rupees and says "I don't know." We are good in going around our ego rather than engaging our ego.

3. Being sorry to having a choice- The host is sorry for Jesus, the woman and for himself. He is frustrated at the fact that Jesus is not performing as a prophet even though he must have actually invited him to prove that. This is very typical of us as well. We work all our lives to accomplish one thing and then realise that it is not what we want. If the host had invited Jesus to anyway humiliate him shouldn’t he have been happy!? In India there are some ways of saying things which are against each other “Are you a man to beat a woman. Are you a man to be beaten by a woman?!”, “You can piss in public but you cannot kiss in public”, “If one man stands with three women he is a stud whereas if one woman stands with three men she is a slut.”, “Never talk to a stranger before marriage. But we can sleep with a stranger after marriage.”, “We talk against corruption but will bribe a policeman after jumping a red signal.” and “Talking about sex is taboo but having babies and being the second most populous country in the world is not.” We can see a lot of discrepancies here.

Our country is fraught with problems of caste, gender and class. And yet there is also hope in the form of how and what people can make out of their contexts. The woman in the passage along with Jesus is also faced with problems and yet they choose to take the path seldom tread and stop being sorry for others and with themselves. This is what Narayani and Basheer do too. They have nothing to look forward to. They can be sorry about themselves and everything that is happening around them. And yet they choose to be happy, exploring what they can in the limitations they find themselves in. I to we, ego to love and being sorry to having a choice. We will also find ourselves on two sides of the wall. But that is not an invitation to be silent but rather an opportunity to explore, love and go beyond. Amen.



(Sermon preached on Sunday, August 7, 2016 in the Tagore Hall, UTC, Bengaluru.)

Pictures credit- Deepak

The bent woman as a lenten pointer to liberation

In the gospel according to St. Luke 13:10-17 the woman with an infirmity for 18 years catches Jesus’ attention in the synagogue while he is teaching there. Jesus tells her that she is set free of her ailment. She stands straight and praises God. Jesus sets right what is perceived as a promise which has been bent to the extent of breaking but still hasn’t been fulfilled. But despite Jesus doing what should have been done ages ago, the leader of the synagogue is bitter with Jesus for having cured on the Sabbath.

Did the leader want the woman to stand straight or did he not? Was his problem the Sabbath or the woman standing straight? Jesus calls this thinking hypocrisy. You got to do what you got to do! There is no special time for that. The liberation of people belonging to the lower strata of society and the problem of women being pushed away from the main stream is always set aside for an opportune moment.

This moment becomes promised liberation. Perhaps the woman was coming regularly to experience liberation. But she was denied it citing laws and regulations. It is in essence a feeling of having the cake (apple or bread) and not being able to eat it. Jesus changes this promise of liberation to actual liberation. Liberation cannot be words and promises blocked by culture, traditions and auspicious occasions. It has to be offered when someone seeks it through words, actions or even silence.

Jesus is angry at the lack of interest in the well being of the woman who has aspired to see and experience life like everyone else. When this takes place the community leader expresses his clear displeasure. Jesus exposes the leader’s actual problem though. Is it the Sabbath or is it what is done on the Sabbath that is problematic to the leader?

The ban on cow slaughter in a particular state in the country has brought in a lot of criticism. One strong criticism is that a cow has more protection in India than a woman. To make a more appropriate statement, a cow has more value than a woman! Jesus asks the community leader “Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water?” 'And should not this woman be liberated?' Jesus points out a very similar point that we are facing in our age. Don’t women have the value of an animal?

Jesus’ reaction to the woman offers us a wonderful model to follow this lent. Liberation of the oppressed should be now and not later. Lent is an opportunity to say that our dietary restrictions are going to make us spiritually strong to raise our voice against the oppressions we observe in and around us. Lent is not a time to bow down but a time to allow Jesus to straighten us and liberate us. Amen.



Picture courtesy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_healing_an_infirm_woman

The persevering woman who offers us crumbs of faith for Lenten sustenance

The Canaanite woman in St. Matthew 15:21-28 approached Jesus and asks him to heal her daughter. His disciples who resemble us tell him to send her away as she is an irritant and keeps shouting. Jesus in an effort to converse says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the story starts here. The woman expresses her faith which is unrelenting perseverance. She finds the solution to Jesus’ problem of not being able to look beyond where he has been sent. The woman in her desperation but with unrelenting perseverance points out that in breaking comes out the solution for the problem. There is enough for everyone and everyone has a right to sustenance. This she courageously points out to the amusement of Jesus. Perhaps it is her eye for detail based on her experience on running the household which makes her point out this wonderful solution.

It is interesting that Jesus’ disciples want to ease out the woman and Jesus states a fact. But the woman is not willing to give up. She identifies crumbs as the way out of the situation. Her daughter needs help and the very basic help of sustenance. But none are willing to offer her that. Is there a way out? No one else thinks so. But Jesus offers a rope to hold on to when he says that no one gives dogs what is meant for the children. This is a clear indication of reality. But the woman is not willing to give up. She goes on and expresses her resilient faith making Jesus remark “Great is your faith.”

There was a way out of the deadlock. Jesus offers a possibility and the woman changes it into her opportunity. The dogs live out of the crumbs from the master’s table. What faith indeed! As we celebrate International Women’s Day we should realize that men haven’t given women their due! Men continue to argue that it is not their work. Women have now come into the position of asking for their rights and what is justly theirs. We should understand that men have treated women as second class citizens. But can we continue like this? It is one thing to say that we should follow the cultural changes that are taking place in society. But we should also look at the message in the bible and how we have not been able to get the real message out.

Women have not even been offered the crumbs when in fact the table is equally theirs. We have been like the disciples showing eagerness to sideline the woman and branding her as an irritant. But in reality women deserve much more. Can’t we at least follow Jesus’ model of offering life to the woman by healing her daughter and offering much more than the crumbs? Isn’t lent a time of unrelenting perseverance and resilient faith? Shouldn’t God accept us and tell us “Great is your faith”? Or are we going to be stuck in the temporal limitations of what gender is perceived as?

Jesus could come out of it despite it being part of his culture, traditions and belief. His blessing is an acceptance of the woman and her faith. It is saying yes to the smartness, faith, perseverance and resilience of the woman. Can we on International Women’s Day do this and continue to do this on other days as well? Amen.


(Preached on March 8, 2015 in St. Ignatius JSO Church, K. R. Puram, Bangalore.)

First picture courtesy www.healingmoments.com
Second picture courtesy www.lucascleophas.nl

Kiss of Love: Looking beyond choreographed acts of love

To be or not to be can be translated as to be in communion or not to be in communion. There are several ways for people to be in communion with each other. Mere presence, an online like, touching of the hand, hugs and even a kiss in some cultures are all ways of seeking and being in communion. Participating in each other’s lives is definitely Christian and needs to be encouraged in all possible ways. No one prevents children from playing with each other and expressing their love towards one another. But forced acts of love are not freedom acts but choreographed acts.

The kiss of love in Kochi, Kerala had a reason of being an act against moral guardians in society. It was a protest and a sign of defiance against what was perceived as being against one’s freedom. The famed café in which couples got together and the morality groups which came together to teach the couples a lesson all lead to triggering a response by a part of society in Kerala. This has also created a chain effect with other cities including Bangalore picking up the kiss. But what is the real issue about and how should be engage with the act of kissing in public?

For starters, is it right for any group or religious institution to judge couples and women in particular? Freedom is the same for everyone and wearing a religious symbol does not give one person or group more freedom than the other. What religious groups can do is to give a religious undertaking of what is right and wrong and allow people to decide what they want to do. Any other violent expression of one’s religion is an infringement upon the rights of another person and also misinterpretation of the peace and love within one’s own religion.

What should be discussed before the kiss of love? The kiss of infringement and humiliation in public should precede the kiss of love. Why can’t religious heads and societal leaders make public statements that men who force themselves upon women in buses, public spaces, educational institutions and even religious sites are doing wrong and will be taken to task by the religious heads and societal leaders themselves? Why can’t women and men be offered the security of being safe on the roads and public spaces? Why shouldn’t the bodies of women belong to them and not be open to male gaze and insult? Why isn’t it that leaders don’t come forward when acts of violence and discrimination are followed against women in society?

Is kissing such a bad thing and who can one kiss? One can kiss one’s family, friends and in some cultures a kiss is a public gesture of greeting one another. Why do we make it into something else? In St. Luke 7: 36-50, a woman cries onto Jesus’ feet, wipes it with her hair, kisses his feet and puts expensive perfume on it. Jesus in St. John 13 washes his disciples’ feet. Bishops today wash and kiss the feet of altar boys and priests during Passion Week suggesting that kissing as such is not wrong. It is the opening up of an individual to the realization of how small one is and how one should wash and kiss the feet of others to bring about humility and love as two important Christian factors in one’s existence on earth.

But what is the kiss of love becoming? There is a lot of promise in the kiss of love. The promise lies in humility and love. But the kiss of love is being limited to a media choreographed event which turns into a security nightmare for the law enforcing agencies. There are so many people serving and loving humanity, kissing the very core of human suffering and expressing God’s love. But what is the kiss of love doing? It is protesting, defying and fighting. There is a street fight between the guardians of morality and the guardians of love. The media loves a story and the stage is set for Romeo and Juliet and their saga of love being denied and buried.

So kissing is good. But it is good when it is done for suffering humanity and when it leads to humility and the expression of Godly love. Any other kissing can be done in the privacy of one’s own room with one’s own partner. Public kissing cannot be exclusive and for a select few. It has to go much beyond that. But public kissing cannot be the infringement of the rights to one’s own body either. One cannot force oneself on a girl or woman in secret and then come and preach about morality in public.

What does the law say? Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code states that “whoever, to the annoyance of others, a) does any obscene act in any public place, or b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or word, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” Outraging the modesty of a woman comes in Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It says “Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Both laws leave much to be desired in them and many a time it depends on how it is interpreted and used. It was interesting to note that in Kochi while on the one hand couples got together, on the other hand sections of the bystanders were insulting and hurling obscenities against the women present. Who then was breaking the law?

Jumping on to the road should be done for totally different reasons. When modesty is questioned and women are prevented from leaving their houses no one says anything. Those who stay at home and have to make do with domestic violence are silenced from many quarters. This then calls for religions to do what they are called to do and that is to express God’s love in its manifold ways. If this is not done, love will be hijacked by other institutions and used for a dramatic effect, moving away completely from the actual meaning and need for love. Let’s love and move on.


Today is the International Day For the Elimination of Violence against Women.
You are invited to orange your neighbourhood.


Picture courtesy http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/end-violence-against-women

Feet washing: Reading the scriptures publicly and sensually

Sensuality is expressed in the most mundane and simple terms and yet it has its own complexity which attaches a certain sacredness to it. In the present era we even have festivals to celebrate our love and sensuality. Valentine’s Day is one such festival where flowers are exchanged and love is expressed openly. It is another matter that this has been commercialized and made artificial at the same time.

Luke 7:36-50 brings to us the encounter of the woman and Jesus. Jesus who is invited to a Pharisee’s house for dinner is attended to by the woman who was perceived as sinful. She weeps onto his feet, wipes it with her hair, kisses his feet and puts perfume on it. This brings about a negative reaction from those in the house.

Worship involves the activation and constant interpolation of the five senses of a human being. The senses include touch, smell, taste, sight and hearing. We obviously do not give much thought to the activation and the coherent expression of these five senses and many a time maybe even forget about their existence. Nevertheless these senses when used in various combinations bring forth very effective interaction. Two of the important senses are touch and smell.

1. Touch is one of the most active steps of sense activation that we can undertake. In many of Jesus’ miracle acts what he does, goes beyond the miracle because it involves touching those who were not touched. This is not just a spiritual and inward touch but a clear physical touch which involved challenging the prevalent system of untouchability which was practised in various forms. When Jesus arrives at the Pharisee’s house there seems to be no indication that anyone received him with a welcome touch. Rather what we see is a woman referred to as a sinner who comes with an alabaster jar of perfume. She wets Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, kisses them and pours perfume on them. As we usually concentrate on the woman who lived a sinful life in the town, what we ignore is the woman who touched Jesus with her physical and sensual touch. Our feet are one of our most sensitive yet most ignored body parts. The sensation we feel when we are touched by someone at the feet is indeed very arousing. Yet we usually refer to the touching of the feet as a mark of respect (as is done in Indian culture) and forget that it also has a very distinct and clear meaning which goes beyond just mere respect. In the church, the main part of touching is the kiss of peace, which again should have been a kiss but is now a shake of both hands and even that is done half heartedly. At times members of the opposite sex try to avoid touching each other in this otherwise very meaningful ritual practised in church. The washing of the feet during Passion Week in the Jacobite-Orthodox churches also becomes an act of service, humility and discipleship and is never seen as anything beyond that. The kissing of the feet by the woman takes us towards a sensual awakening. How can then a woman who had led a sinful life bring about a sensual awakening? Her love as mentioned by Jesus covers any sin that she may have been accused of. So what for many may seem as a passage of servitude, discipleship, and confession may very well also be seen as a passage of love, passion and sensuality. When everybody goes for Jesus’ upper body, the woman goes for his feet. The church is always seen as shying away from touch. We refuse to touch the untouchable, we refuse to acknowledge that touch is sensual and we in the mean time run the business of touching souls, while the bodies wither away. Maybe we need to look at scriptures more publicly and sensually for us to come to a different understanding of touch. Valentine’s day (looking at the positive side of it) is a perfect punching bag for different religious groups and I wonder whether it is only because of the commercialisation of Valentine’s day or is it because of the refusal to acknowledge that expressing one’s sensuality is not religiously acceptable?

2. Smell is another of the senses which can arouse our feelings. Aromatherapy is now marketed in India as a spiritual and mental well being that we can feel when we use certain products which arouse and bring out our sense of smell. In India we live amidst the dichotomy of smell. We have what we can call the rich, ‘produced’ smell and what is the poor, ‘natural’ smell. The woman in the passage has a strange mix of both! She wets Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair and then pours perfume on them. Her tears are her own and they are as therapeutic for her as for Jesus. The drops which fall on Jesus’ feet may have caused the first arousal, the touch and smell the second arousal, the kissing the third arousal and the perfume the fourth arousal. She wipes off the tears with her own hair and then puts perfume. The base smell which she provides is her own. This is followed by the constructed smell of the perfume. The perfume adds to the olfactory delight that Jesus was being put through. Truly a great experience! The church more or less relies on incense to provide for the awakening of the sense of smell. This is complimented by the hundreds of smells emanating from the bodies of the congregation. If we care to take a dig into the variety of smells we will be aroused into action in church. What actually happens is that we turn off our smell sense and in our aim to attain holiness we keep away from everything which may awaken our minds. But think of using the smell as a welcome arousal of our senses to function better and to espouse this great feeling of love just like the woman who toyed with the feet of Jesus? In essence what happens in church is that we take away the senses of people or we try to numb them. This keeps our bodies in a state of non-orgasmic existence while our spirits are taken into ecstasy. The woman in the passage arouses us to our senses just like she may have aroused Jesus. Are we ashamed by our arousal or are we tickled to action? As others ignore Jesus, the woman welcomes him by arousing him and Jesus likes it! Are we willing to allow others to be aroused? The incense is only one particular way of doing this but there are other smells as well. This rounds up as the smell of love and warmth felt towards one another as well as the smell of passion which couples will sense and feel towards one another. Who are we to prevent this? The Pharisee tries to unlike the touch of the woman but Jesus reminds him of the woman’s love which refuses to subside. I am aroused, are you?




(Already published by NCCI)
Picture courtesy photobucket.com

Maaro, magar pyar se maaro (John 7:53- 8:11)

John 7:53- 8:11- ...while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.[a] 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.”[b] And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”]][c]

The passage John 7:53- 8:11 talks of a woman who is wrongfully confined and held by a group of people, who want Jesus to answer what punishment she should get for the indictment they have given her.

We see Jesus being questioned by the scribes and Pharisees. The bait they use here is a woman who they say has been caught in adultery. The people present along with the scribes and Pharisees therefore want Jesus to say that the woman has committed a mistake and should be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses. But does this happen or does Jesus do something not expected? The said passage fascinated me because it was included in the gospel of John very late. So much that biblical researchers would even say that it is not Johanine in style. This itself makes it interesting to look at because it could have been a resistance or protest passage within the entire scheme of events. Almost like being pushed through in the heaviness of the gospel. This therefore gives an indication that it may also contain something equally explosive which could have been of concern to the church. When we look at the passage we notice several things.

There are several gaps in the story which actually may be intentional. Where is the man caught in adultery along with the woman, why did the crowd wait for Jesus to come, was their concern adultery or trapping Jesus? Three major characterisations exist in the story. From the perspective of the men, the woman and Jesus are the enemies. More Jesus and less the woman. They are therefore to be done away with. The woman is slapped with an allegation of adultery. This is made as an excuse to engage Jesus. This is for defeating him and getting him out of the equation. So there is a reason for them to do what they did. A reason from their perspective. They used a law and twisted it in their favour to do away with the threat of Jesus. The situation could even have turned out into an early end of Jesus’ public ministry. The atmosphere is volatile and could have had a very ugly end. But what happens is completely different from what they had planned.

The second perspective is that of the woman who is accused of adultery. This is a woman who is wrongfully held against her will. She is a woman who is maybe caught in the crossfire. But it also shows as to how the men treat her as an object to lure Jesus. She is helpless in the entire incident and awaits her judgement at the hand of the moralists. Her wait may have been agonisingly slow and makes one wonder whether that was worse than the accusation made against her. She is embarrassed and humiliated in the company of many males who are preaching morality to her. So much that she has lost all energy to complain and say anything at all. Her silence is not an admission of her guilt but an admission of how she has been subjected to violence, pain and humiliation. This silence speaks more than the words used by the others. Her silence is also the judgement of a society who continued to ravage her life instead of showing empathy to her and supporting her.

The third perspective is that of Jesus. He is faced with several predicaments. Should he affirm the lawless law and even the misinterpreted law, should he judge the woman or fight for her, should he support or condemn the men, should he wish away the uncomfortable situation along with the people present, or should he say what is right and save the situation without bringing about bloodshed? The tension in the passage is so strong that one cannot predict which way it will go. Blood shed seems imminent.
As mentioned before, the bible passage attains new meaning as a subversive text because it was never a part of the text and still confuses those who read it. This is because the text is packaged brilliantly that the meaning lies hidden somewhere inside.

Maaro, magar pyar se maaro, is the conceptual framework in which I would like to see this passage. People are quick to unassumingly use the thought in the passage “first one to throw a stone” and “anyone without sin” so much that it is seen as practically impossible to follow. The killer instinct of the passage has been made toothless by the fact that it has been allowed to stand still without reflection.

My conceptual framework was picked up in Mumbai from a story that a pastor shared. It is a different setting involving different characters but which nevertheless speaks to us and inspires us. The setting is a suburban railway station in Mumbai where a long queue is broken by a heavily built and tall man. The short person behind him complains and asks him to stand at his right place in the queue. Both of them get into a fight and the winner is clear because of the might at the hand of the first man. He raises his hand and says “Maroonga thuje”, meaning I will beat you/hit you. The short man is unsure as to what to say but nevertheless maintains his ground. The crowd anticipates a good fight and instead of saying anything, watches intensely for the first move from the giant. Just as the huge man raises his hand to swipe away the small man like a fly, comes a voice far off but crystal clear. It says “Maaro, bhaiya maaro….magar pyaar se maaro” meaning “beat him/hit him man, beat/hit him with love.” The crowd is unsure as to which direction to look to and pay attention. They don’t want to miss a thing. A few seconds of silence follows and then the big man, small person and the crowd burst out laughing. A fatal situation turns to a situation where everyone says, take it easy. The big man shakes the other person’s hand, says sorry and joins the queue at his rightful place. The crowd in true Mumbai Bollywood style claps.

How can we see the passage of the woman, the adulterous woman as she is called and what Jesus does? It is a common scene or setting in our lives when the power of intervention could work wonders. I would pick a few points from the passage for our reflection today.

1. Kill the bill or kill the attitude?
The women’s reservation bill was one of the promises made by the United Progressive Alliance II in its election manifesto. Despite the passing of other bills this has stayed in the back burner. The upcoming national elections in 2014 would have been a time to bring this into effect but the parliament cannot get it passed because of some men who group themselves into a mob whenever this is discussed. Killing the bill or Kill Bill, following the famous Hollywood movie seems to be the attitude of male politicians. Interestingly the movie portrays a woman killing a man. Several reasons are given for the negation of the bill and they involve reasons which are never really out in the open. It resembles the attitude of the crowd to the woman. They alleged that she had done something and therefore should be stoned or killed. A similar reasoning is used to say that the reservation bill should be killed. But Jesus in the passage turns around the argument. He writes on the ground and it looks like he is writing a new bill to be passed. The bill involves telling the mob that if anything/anyone should be stoned or killed it is their attitude and not the woman. If anything is sin, it is what they are doing. It is time that we also took stock of our lives and saw ourselves and located ourselves in the said passage. Who are we in the passage? The crowd, the woman or Jesus? Who should we be? Are we sinning?

2. The silence of the lambs.
Silence has been much written about and always is used to suggest that those who are silent are the reason for the state of affairs in our country. They include women, ordinary people and the poor. Their silence is seen as the problem instead of the solution. The woman in the text is also silent. Does that mean that she had nothing to say, was guilty as charged, accepted the sentencing of the crowd or does it mean that her silence was speaking against what she was charged for. This is the silence that Jesus notices. It is a silence of communities who are oppressed into silence. It is a silence which is even more powerful than speech. The woman is fighting her battle with silence. Even as the others shout, she remains silent. Maybe it was a silent defiance against the men who teamed up against her. It is noteworthy that the silence and not the accusation moves Jesus. It is the silence of the lambs. He moves over to the role of the shepherd who takes the side of one sheep while leaving the 99 on the other side. Even as the other sheep complain, the one is silently exploring new ground and territory. The shepherd goes in search of this one.

3. Writing and shedding one’s blood to prevent bloodshed.
Jesus is under a clear predicament. The crowd was ready to stone him using the woman as bait. They were waiting for him and finally got him. The answer to their question on the law and what should be done to the woman is interestingly given by writing on the ground. He basically puts his life on the line and is prepared to shed his blood to prevent bloodshed and to prevent injustice to the woman. At no point does this seem as something benefitting him. As theologians this gives a clear indication that we have to write and rewrite for the benefit of oppressed individuals and communities. Seeing oneself as the oppressed and writing for oneself may not come under such protest writing. Unfortunately we sometimes write for ourselves. We should be able to transcend this and write for the benefit of others and for the rightful justice of others. It is also interesting to note that Jesus prevents violence through his act of writing instead of doing vice versa. We can notice in the society that we live in that a lot of hate literature is passed on. The communal violence in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh was fuelled by such hate literature and images being circulated over the internet and through mobile phones. Such messages divided communities and brought about conflict which became very difficult to handle. Fanning the fire and adding fuel to the fire is easier than stopping the fire. Jesus is asked to fan the fire and sign the death sentence of the woman. He puts his life at risk to do the opposite.

4. Maaro, magar pyar se maaro.
This motto sums it up. But one should not mistake what this means. It is not being a smiling assassin, or smiling while stabbing someone in the back. What it means rather, is that we should love one another first and if we still have hatred, then go on and do what you want. The first step and the first part has to be the love for the other. This is new territory, new culture, new understanding, new laws and new ways. Yet we enter into the newness with love in our minds. Jesus does not tell the group of men to not throw stones and not punish. He only says, let the one without sin throw the first stone. He does not discourage them, but tells them to do it if they have no wrong inside. In another way, he is saying, do it with love. But they are not able to because love does not involve violence and condemnation.

In our own communities this becomes a good example to follow. This is at the same time an outlet and an understanding of one’s limitations and the road that lies ahead. Jesus does not stop the scribes and Pharisees from making the accusation. Rather he allows them to make it so that the negative thoughts inside them come out. After this has happened he knows that they have it out of their minds. This is when he talks to them about sin, and then suggests that the filth is out. Now you can concentrate on something positive. This becomes an important element in our churches as well. People need an outlet to express themselves. This is important because without this expression the hatred will remain. The expression of this hatred will give an opportunity to people to be at peace with themselves and go their way. Jesus sends both parties their way. One goes with the understanding that hatred is not there anymore and they cannot sustain the relentless campaign against the woman and Jesus. The other party in the form of the woman also is send her way, with hope that Jesus does not condemn her. This is because Jesus does not have hatred for her.

Friends, in our haste in moving forward we have all become a mob, waiting to pounce on the next person who appears. Let us meditate on and allow the bible passage to speak to us, so that we realise it is time to express, time for getting an outlet but also time to let go. Amen.

(Preached this sermon in UTC Tagore Hall for Sunday evening worship on October 13, 2013.)

My preferential option for women’s day

Whenever the question of gender comes up in a lecture one can be sure that male students will categorically say that they will be neutral in their congregations once they are ordained as pastors/priests. This becomes the painful commitment they are willing to take as part of their commitment to pastoral ministry. Theological colleges all over India try their best to engage with gender studies and try to bring about gender conscientization in the colleges among students and community members. This is the responsibility of all departments.

But where are we as we commemorate another women’s day? Is it enough to be neutral or should we have a preferential option for women in church and society? WACC in its numerous deliberations has brought out the importance of having a preferential option for the poor. This has been a direct challenge to the mainline media who follow the traditional inverted pyramid of journalism whereby women, children and labourers are left out of the mainline discourse.

To turn this around one has to play a pro active role in bringing about gender justice by openly supporting women in churches and in society. This has to be a part of theological education as well. Can we make decisions purely on whether a woman qualifies based on general criteria which have been decided for all or should we include more women based on separate criteria which take into consideration the generations of oppression, lack of freedom and violence that they have undergone and continue to do so? The objection to a separate criteria leads to a skewed system whereby lesser women will get through to do theological education and be in service of the church.

Cases of violence against women continue and public spaces owned and controlled by the church and other religious institutions have imposed limitations on women as well. This means that we will be unable to change the situation of violence against women in India. A pro active stand by the church and church run institutions will lead to better gender parity and better justice. Without this International Women’s Day will be a showcase of how we have failed women and not how women are now equal to men. It will be a sober and sad recollection of our collective failure rather than a celebration of the character and strength of women.

Protest becomes a legitimate tool in the hands of women who have nothing else for support. There needs to be a movement to fill church committees and decision making bodies with women just as much as men. This can come about only with support from various sides and men will also have to be a part of this movement, always ready to do what women want. Theological educators/pastors/priests also have to decide on their preferential option to women. The often travelled route of suspecting the character of women, questioning the ability of women, negating the strength of women has to give way for trusting women, supporting women and affirming and celebrating women. This could be the greatest thing that men could do for women this women’s day. There can never be a neutral way of teaching, a neutral ministry or a neutral teacher/pastor/priest. I and you should opt to listen, accept and support women we come across in our houses, colleges, churches, streets and public spaces. The United Nations is also trying its bit this year. The slogan "A Promise is a Promise: Time for Action to End Violence Against Women" should be a wake up call for the church as well.

Making the church rape free

After a long struggle the symbol of hope for women has died down. We are told that India’s daughter wanted to live and continued to struggle, wanting to come back. Her brutal rape is a reminder of how brutal men in India are. However much we justify our institutions, frameworks, our legislators and our law enforcers, we have fallen short by many a mile. Many people in India sincerely prayed for the recovery of our daughter and sister. But nothing could stop the brutality of the rape, not even the best medical care. Where do we go from now?

I am a theological teacher (facilitator) and a church worker. My area of influence is theological seminaries, students, churches, church women, church men, girls, boys and children. I can’t help but wonder what my response to this highly despicable incident should be? After the strain and work of an academic term, after the joyful work of preaching and announcing Christ’s arrival to church members and the world, I am left drained. Not because of both the things I mentioned above, but because I haven’t been able to stop violence against women in the church and in society. I have been a failure amidst all the success I have enjoyed. And it is because of my silence, lack of pro-active involvement and status quo in the church and in seminaries that I feel this way. Every reluctance of standing for women has meant that I have been an accomplice in every rape.

What am I supposed to do? I am supposed to facilitate a thinking process in the minds of students from various parts of the country and various denominations. I am supposed to teach and practise a thinking process that women are not lesser than men, women have to be respected, women have feelings and the body of women belong to them. I am also supposed to preach and practise the same in church. But I am falling short time and again. Time and again women are not getting justice in church and I go along with the status quo. In all trueness I am not doing my job.

Every religion is supposed to be a protest, a movement asking for change. And yet we are far from it today. Can women wear what they want to in church without hearing a lewd comment in the back ground and being marked twisted? Can women speak in church without being labelled ‘forward’? Can women file a complaint against a church leader/s for harassment, misrepresentation, misuse of authority, humiliation, staring, sexual overtures, and misquoting of scripture? Can women expect the church to support them in the case of domestic violence, marriage related violence, violence at work, violence during public transport, violence at public spaces and violence from the law and authorities? If the answer is no, isn’t the church an accomplice to violence against women?

What am I going to accomplish by lighting a candle in church against the violence and brutal rape and murder of the 23 year old woman? Nothing much I suppose. There are several women in my own church who in all probability are exposed to violence in different places and the church remains silent to this. “Potte mole” (It is okay daughter, let it go daughter) is a constant reminder given to women to forgive and forget. Today has reminded us that we face a grim reality. Part of India has risen up against this. There are many others who have not got support and have been violated again and again. This is the time to fight for all women. No more potte mole. “Unaruvin and poruthuveen” (rise and fight) would be a better slogan for women and for those men and leaders including me who have some sense of guilt left in them.

I am like this only: The Indian woman

Today it’s the clothes I wear and the beer I drink
Tomorrow it’ll be the religion I believe and the God I call

Today it’s the places I’m in and the people I meet
Tomorrow it’ll be my patriotism and my country of origin

Today it’s the things I do and the woman I am
Tomorrow it’ll be my persona and my being-ness in question

Today it’s the way I am and the direction I take
Tomorrow it’ll be the diversions and disturbances I cause

Do what you want but reality remains
Whether you like it or not… ‘I am like this only’

Truth lies!!!

‘Don’t look at her. She’s bad.’ I still remember the few doctrinal-like words which were injected into me at a young age. Like any young one who would twitch and twist at the very sight of a shining needle, I too twitched and twisted, but stole a look nevertheless at the woman. Along with foundational letter recitals and rhyme learning, I was also told, by not only my mother and father, but also by the unending list of uncles and aunts that some people were good and others, more importantly, were bad. Like a cloth absorbing water into its parched self, I, too, took in everything that came my way. I was being the good student, the one who would accept everything and make others happy.

This was followed by the phase where I would imbibe whatever I saw, still staying in full view and control of elders and advisors. I noticed that certain people could not sleep on beds that we slept in, could not drink from the same cups and glasses that we did. I did find it a bit strange but who was I to question the cultural diktat being implemented by the rich and the fortunate ones?

Years later, with the guidance and help of numerous people and books I learnt that I was part of a huge conspiracy. (Not the one that the politicians in our land talk about!!!). I was a discriminator, lock, stock and barrel. I had discriminated against the woman I was told not to look at. I had discriminated against those with whom I had not shared my bed and my glass. It was a time when I felt sick of myself and confusion added to the predicament. All my life I thought I was doing the right thing, following the truth word for word.

The media too are like our parents and family, telling us who is good and who is bad, what is fashionable and what not. Our perceptions of different people are based on what we read and believe. We think we are adding on to the big reservoir of truth that we update everyday. But are we? What is truth? Is it what someone constructs or is it what we have to learn for ourselves? Is truth conditional and made up?

The same struggle to understand truth continues today. ‘She is a loose woman’, ‘Stay away from him.’, ‘That community is illiterate’, ‘This group is violent’... The clichés are unending. But on the other hand, what is true for me is the reverse for someone else. Truth itself keeps changing with time and place. What then is truth? Is it what keeps us together or is it what keeps us from keeping together?

Role reversal

We all have our roles to play or that is what we believe. How many times have we heard that if we stick to the role we are given, everything will fall into place and there will be harmony and peace? Depending on which role is played by whom, this makes sense to a few but unfortunately not to everyone.

As a child I was clearly told what I was supposed to do, what role I was expected to play and how. I had to take care to study and get a good job with a nice pay packet. I was not supposed to enter the kitchen and cook food, nor was I expected to do anything in the house. The lines were clearly drawn. As a boy and a man my scope of work was outside the house. Who then was to care of the house? The woman of course. The mother, daughter, wife, whoever fell on the other side of the sex genes!

India is trying hard to shed the old image of cows on the road and poverty, and trying to project sky-scrapers and the sophisticated image. But what usually gets conveniently forgotten is the equality of the sexes and how important this is to reflect the progress that a country makes. The parliament is divided over the arithmetic and caste issues of 33% reservation for women in parliament. First pass the bill, implement it and then think of how it could be made all inclusive! (It is a shame that even in the west many men still expect women to be house makers and fulfil certain roles)

What then is the role of women? Is it to be a house maker, a maid, a cook, a piece of the house furniture? To understand this, we have to come to terms with our role in life. Who am I and what is my role? Am I the king, the master, the lord, or God? Can I go beyond this and can I swap my role with a woman- my mother, sister, wife, friend?