Mission as Crawling

Ecumenical News International reported on 23 July 2008:

"Indian churches hail government's slim win in no confidence vote:

Churches in India have hailed a victory by the country's governing coalition, dominated by secular parties and which won a crucial vote of confidence in the national parliament. The United Progressive Alliance coalition government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh won the vote of confidence late on 22 July after two days of acrimonious debate, garnering 275 votes against the 256 recorded by the opposition parties. "We're very happy about the result," Methodist Bishop Tharanath Sagar, president of the National Council of Churches in India, told Ecumenical News International on 23 July. "The defeat of the secular government would have strengthened the hands of fundamentalist forces. We're relieved," noted Sagar, who heads the Indian church council made up of 30 Orthodox and Protestant churches."

-------

It is indeed appropriate that the Indian churches are demonstrating a keen interest in the political life of the country. The question, however is, in the context of a politically divisive matter (as was the circumstances that led to the recent vote of confidence), what is the criterion that is employed with regard to taking a stance on political matters. It is public knowledge that what led to the vote of confidence was India's nuclear energy deal with the United States and the emerging strategic partnership between the two countries. This step was widely seen as a virtual surrender of India's non-aligned foreign policy. The move led to harsh criticism, not only from the political circles but also in the wider society.

There is, however, more to the present vote of confidence than the surrender of India's sovereignty. The level to which the ruling Congress Party and its alliance partners stooped to save the government (and thus save the strategic partnership with U.S.) virtually shook the conscience of the public. Even the American media, which has been generally supportive of the nuclear deal between the two countries, noted: "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Congress party fought hard to secure victory, and appeared to cut back-room deals when all else failed. An airport was named after one lawmaker's father, another was promised a high-level job and - rival politicians allege - many others received millions of dollars in bribes" (The Boston Globe, July 23, 2008).

The statement of the President of the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) needs to be read in the backdrop of such wheeler dealer business behind the vote of confidence. This, incidentally, is not the first occasion when NCCI is taking a stance on an issue of paramount national interest. The Emergency regime (1975 - '77) of a previous Congress government was one such. The Emergency was the first time (and mercifully, the only one so far) when civil liberties and democratic rights were denied in "the world's largest democracy". For those twenty months, free speech and freedom of press were suspended; hundreds of people who demanded freedom, democracy and human rights were thrown behind the bars. That is indeed a dark period of which every Indian is ashamed of.

The National Council of Churches in India, however, had a different perception of the situation. At the height of Emergency, the NCCI led a delegation of bishops to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. There, the Christian leaders of the land offered their unconditional allegiance to the Prime Minister and to the Emergency regime! As proof of their allegiance, they praised Mrs. Gandhi for being a benevolent leader of the country and for taking good care of Indian Christians. An opposition leader later wryly remarked: "During the Emergency, people were asked only to stoop, but some started crawling."

Suffice it to say that, three decades later, NCCI has lived up to its reputation.