Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A cynical view of charity... charity by the church in particular

Recently when a RSS leader questioned the motive behind mother Teressa's charitable acts, it raised a lot of ruckus from ardent believers in the mother's nobility. I personally have high admiration for her. I put her in the same pedestal as some of the other notable god men and god women who have made a significant difference in the lives of the poor. But despite my admiration of the mother's service to humanity, I am cynical of her motive...
Mother Teresa 'only helped poor to convert them to Christianity'
Charity by definition is " the voluntary giving of help"... giving without expecting anything in return. But reality is grimmer than that, as the pope openly acknowledged in one of his recent tweets, "practicing charity is the best way to evangelize."

Every giving comes with an expectation of something in return... quid pro quo. The question is, will there be charity if there is no room for evangelism? I can show a hundred instances where there is charity in the absence of preaching/conversion... but none that involves the church, its pontiff, or its many missionaries. Perhaps it is because I dont have as much exposure to the true charity of the church. I may be totally ignorant here. I will be happy if someone can correct me and show me instances where the utilitarian goal of conversion is not what drives the "charity" of the church. Right now, I am an agnostic to that idea.

I did my schooling in missinoary run schools and I have often been told of the many great things that the church does to the society. "What a noble gesture", I often thought. But I started questioning the "noble" aspect of the gesture when I started observing a the method to their "nobility". One personal experience in particular, when I was 13 years old kid, has had a profound influence on my cynicism... I usually go to a temple on way home from school and I often see few homeless people asking for alms. Occasionally, I give them some spare change... the change that I would have otherwise dropped into the offerings box. One Thursday afternoon, my school ended early and I was on my way home when one of these homeless men whom I normally see in front of the temple asked me, "do you know the way to XYZ home?" (for the sake of anonymity I will not mention the actual name of the home). I said, "I know the place, it is on my way home, if you want you can walk with me". He accepted the offer and started walking. He was rather weak. So I had to walk slowly for him to keep pace with me. I thought if I am walking slowly I might as well strike a conversation. I asked him casually, "what is your name?". He said, "Krishnaraj, but recently the mother named me Anthony"... Perplexed, I asked "your mom?". He replied, " no, the mother in the XYZ home"... "she changed my name and arranged for free lunch every Thursdays"... "That is why I am going there today". For that day forward, I have started seeing any act of charity with a cynical eye... especially if there is an organized religion involved.

But some other examples challenge my cynicism... For example, Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero, the Buddhist monk who donated his kidney to save the life of a Christian missionary certainly stands out. There are also numerous others who don't take the name of religion to engage in charity...

I really don't mean to belittle the acts of kindness Mother Teressa showered on the needy and poor of Calcutta... I would in fact say, even if the cost of taking alms from a charity is losing one's religion, it is not a big price to pay... if converting the whole world to Christianity will solve hunger and poverty in the world, why not. After all, meeting the basic needs should take precedence over meeting one's spiritual needs... 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Strategic voting in Delhi and lessons for AAP and BJP.

I would be happy to see a strong two party scenario emerging in India (ideally AAP and BJP as the only two parties out there)... I am sure this is a more likely scenario going forward, thanks to the growth in informed strategic voters... just like what happened in Delhi.

In particular, staunch INC fanboys (for lack of a better word) who invariably are anti-BJP would have learnt from the previous election and the nationwide trend that INC has lost its grounds and the only way to keep BJP out would be to vote for AAP. The result: AAP strengthens its victory margins in all places and gains wins where BJP were marginal winners in the previous election... So this win for AAP, in a way, is a de facto win for INC fanboys :)


A very good test of my argument will be the actual vote share for the parties in swing constituencies... In places where AAP won a seat that was previously held by BJP, BJP's vote share would have remained the same, AAP's vote share should have increased and Cong's vote share should have decreased.

I used to be a huge fan of the INC during the Narashima Rao regime... It really felt like the end of nepotism in the INC but INC simply didn't have a legitimate, democratic succession planning. In addition to getting rid of nepotism, a legitimate democratic succession planning would be one where the parties set term limits for its leaders. Just because a leader is popular among the masses should not mean that she/he gets a longer run at the helm. Had sheila dixit  step aside after her second term, she would have gone out as a revered leader and she would have let Delhites taste some variety in leadership from within the INC.