AN ENGAGING EVENING IN KOHIMA

 AN ENGAGING EVENING – THOUGHT PROVOKING CONVERSATIONS IN KOHIMA

I was accompanying the director of NEDSSS, Guwahati Dr. Sebastian and Dr. Joseph PV, the former VG of Kohima diocese, in their hunt for material regarding the former bishop of Kohima, late Rev. Abraham Alangimattathil SDB.  We stopped over at the Kohima Assembly where our illustrious alumnus, Dr. Antony PJ of 1979 PDC batch welcomed us. He has always been a vocal advocate of what SH did or does for students citing his own example.  We had a very engaging conversation with Dr. Joan, his wife and associate professor of psychology, JM College, Delhi also getting deeply involved.  I am hardly used to such long and engaging conversations.  The discussion was around the threat and intimidation (persecution!) that minority communities, especially, the Church face today, and the lack of visionary leadership in the Church to guide the Christian community and ministry about that. We felt that the bishops were not giving the Church the right direction, on which Dr. Antony also had agreement.  However, Dr. Joan warmed up to the discussion, and raised the point that the Church cannot do anything about it, until it is able to address the issues (say, wrongs/injustices) within it – perhaps against women, or against groups that are already marginalised. She cited her own experience with JMC over last 3 decades indicating how the quality of people who led had drastically come down, responding to a possible reason Antony suggested – that of the lowering of the quality of leadership, the background and motivation.  I confronted saying that such thinking cannot be acceptable in Christian context, with Christ choosing the 12 and perhaps a larger group of disciples, from very poor socio-economic and cultural background, and who continued to be not fully free from the limitations of their upbringing in spite of their intense Jesus experience. He responded saying it was not meant to be merely SES of the so called elect! Joan appeared not satisfied with her hierarchy-baiting, repeating the need for correction within the smaller (basic groups and individuals) before going for the larger and macro issues. I couldn’t digest the way in which it was put across, as if the entire system was corrupt, and those who are part of the so-called hierarchy were the culprits. I warmed up and with my usual passion when in argument, said that I disagreed and cited some arguments, apparently, in some heated manner.  Joan responded that I (we, the hierarchy) was becoming defensive and she would not stop saying these just because I had responded in that (harsh! implied) manner, that she had been invited by CRI Delhi, where her positions were responded to eagerly by the gathering and some young religious vouching for suppression/oppression within the basic religious communities (houses/convents etc).  She also felt that the efforts made in the name of synods (the present one about synodality and participation etc.) were farce, and mere whitewash. She said that she had walked out of the discussion after the first session was over, sensing the wastefulness of the exercise.  (Now I was struck that I had hardly any real information about all these – I was never involved in any such discussion anywhere – before or even now!!  Yes I had been hearing more about this synod, and I had in my mind that somewhere I should get involved, but we too don’t have many occasions to be in the mainstream, I fear.  We tend to give the slip or slip away, unwittingly).  

She pointed out specifically towards the infight and disunity among the consecrated members and the members of hierarchy – citing the examples of running of institutions and the Church (e.g., the ongoing fight for eucharistic celebration facing the altar or people – which she considered a non-issue).  This I felt was a real issue, and I felt the religious ought to hear this.  I accept the possibility of differences and arguments, but finally, clarity regarding the purpose of our life (imitation of Christ) and purpose of our ministry (proclamation of the goodnews) whatever mode it may take should take priority over everything else – this, I am afraid is not happening.  Often our infight and efforts to pull down others and not joining hands on commonly agreed upon goals and the modality (ies) of achieving them, become a great scandal, and make us butt of the jokes of the laity. 

But I stood my grounds with the following arguments: 

1. She was absolutizing the individual experiences (which are very real, and which are definitely to be corrected) and presenting a picture, as if the Church and religious life was more of a scandal and means of oppression/suppression, which was not true. There could be any number of instances and experiences to show the helping and compassionate face of Christian life as lived by the consecrated persons and communities. 

2. Fully agreeing while we need continuous and life-long reformation (ecclesia semper reformanda est!) towards becoming Christ (as we profess primarily to be Christians), we cannot wait till those issues are tackled/addressed to address or respond to macro issues – these have to be taken on simultaneously. 

3. I also told her that hers was not a stray instance, rather priest/religious communities do invite the lay leaders to share their critical views regarding the consecrated life, and receive the views well, though the correction might not appear prompt and overarching, in spite of the efforts in that direction. 

Antony also appeared to be in agreement with my arguments. 

But I liked the challenge Antony threw up: (Given the lack of leadership/wherewithal to meet the challenges posed by the present political power structure head-on) the ideal approach would be to let the process as laid down in the norms to take place, and not let us lose our stand on issues come in the way of protecting our possessions – land etc. as in the case of Delhi Arch-diocese.  Church was not born or built up with all these, and now we should not be losing our idealism or compromising on our ideological positions.  This is indeed a challenge, and would be a test for the Church. 

By now, serving of some snacks, and Antony initiating us to have some spirit brought down the heat of the arguments and we could still engage in some less harmful banter, like that of alumni involvement etc. Again, discussions took us to the majoritarian hindutwa political agenda of annihilating the others, and going away from constitutional values which are nothing but Christian values, which happened to be there, thanks to the direct or indirect Christian influence through western education of those times and leaders.  This scenario has already changed and is drastically changing with we being no longer the educational leaders.  And still not waking up to such issues on a collective platform – of Catholic and Christian and even minoritarian unity and solidarity. Joan, again was harping on her old tune, that individual has to take the initiative (especially referring to ‘you’ in the hierarchy), while that being still indigestible to me – as individual initiatives should be there, the collective initiatives cannot be a substitute for individual initiatives.  

When I cited the instance of the Cardinal responding to my appeal to take initiative that what we could do is to pray for peace, she responded ridiculing that let prayer be the solution for changing the mind of Modi as well.  I think here both of us err, as prayer can also be a powerful spiritual instrument – so have I really made these matters subject of my prayer? 

We were taken out for dinner by Antony and Joan to VIVOR, a joint (apparently run by the CM through his son?).  It is said to be a high profile place. I thought I would try something Nagamese, and ordered Braised fish with Naga sauce and wild green leaves. Sounded good to my ears! Now it came in a small katora, accompanied by a large bowl of white rice. Fish was very much there, almost bland, but some flavour was added, which tasted to something like a perfume (not that I had tasted any perfume before), and the leaves in the watery gravy didn’t appeal to my taste buds, rather they felt bitter.  But there were plenty of other stuff – some pork, chilly chicken, prawns, fried rice, roti etc…. I regained taste for my tongue with some fried rice and some prawns. It was great company and a good evening. When we were on our own, Fr. Sebastian suggested that when lay people make such arguments it is better that we keep quiet and listen. Fr. Joseph also apparently supported, saying that they might otherwise feel like not responding! Valid point, I feel – but, if it is an intellectual debate, does one’s presenting an argument forcefully need to restrain others from the same. Fortunately, Joan says she would. But would others do the same? Is being part of the hierarchy such an intimidating force?