The Chinese philosopher Lao Tse suggested more than two thousand years ago, ‘when things begin to go really bad around you, sit back, relax and think’. Watch how things happen, take note of the forces at work and see where they are tending to. Assess the respective advantages of ignoring the event, negotiating, yielding, resisting, or putting up a stiff fight. The answer arises out of the situation itself. This is ancient Asian wisdom. But it is as relevant today as in Lao Tse’s times.

I agree it is perfectly legitimate to protest, retort and resist. In some situations it is useful, in other situations it is less useful, and in other situations still it is counter-productive. In fact, there are several risks involved in rushing to the highest authority in the country quoting the Constitutions and seeking the headlines in the press before analyzing ground realities and having an adequate understanding of all related issues. We may be deceived by our apparent success in creating a favourable public opinion. A successful reaction does not necessarily lead to a successful conclusion. We may little realize that certain political parties and media persons are merely making use of us to promote their own interests, while they show great sympathy to our problems and highlight our grievances. They have their own axe to grind. When their interests coincide with ours, we get full attention. But when they do not, we are dumped, with not a word in our favour.

Wisdom will tell that in most disturbed situations it is better to discuss, explain, persuade, convince, reconcile and heal, than keep up an endless struggle. This has to be done most often locally. Even after protesting vigorously, and fighting and winning many a battle, if a reconciling and healing activity does not follow, the victory is incomplete. It is no good leaving enemies behind. Embers ought to be put out.

What I said about expecting some sort of opposition when we begin work in a new place would also be valid when we take up a new type of work in the same place. Traditional institutions like schools and dispensaries are known entities and are generally welcome. Churches that assist the humbler society and give them a sense of dignity and destiny may be less welcome, but often these too are tolerated. Houses of formation, on the contrary, have an obscure identity as far as the people are concerned. They serve an internal purpose and remain a mystery for the public. The larger society perceives them as trees occupying much ground and yielding little fruit. When they multiply in a neighbourhood, they act like deadweights on the community around.

It is curious how the original owners of the land are occasionally made to feel they are mere midgets and dwarfs, lost between our mighty institutions. What they fail to understand is the internal culture that seems to reign within those walls to which they have no access, a culture that at times looks competitive among themselves, over-possessive with regard to property rights, busy with irrelevant discussions, not rarely quarrelsome in relationships, and totally indifferent to the problems of the neighbourhood. What I have said is clearly an exaggeration. But people occasionally feel that way.

It may be that we do not cultivate the needed sensitivity to the feelings of the people who are caught in the middle of such ‘ecclesiastical agglomerations’. If we did, we would avoid over-crowding into a single space. We would combine institutions that serve an internal purpose with an external service. We would join hands with neighbouring institutions and engage ourselves in activities that are complementary in character. We would happily relate with the local leadership and give them due recognition. We would more intensely interact with the people of the immediate neighbourhood.

Troubles are more likely when a new comer to a place launches into activities that seek to effect social changes. I agree that such activities are considered to have the greatest priority today. But it is not equally clear whether people have an obligation to accept upstart reformers from another cultural world. It is even less evident that they are bound to prove right the theories that such social activists have learned in a recent social analysis course, and that they need to react only in the way that some ideological experts have assured such zealots. Life is more complex than a series of well researched theories. Human response is conditioned by a vast variety of forces at work in society….caste, creed, code, cult and culture; not culture as described in textbooks, but as perceived, lived and experienced in community.

To take up situations of injustice in society, accentuate existing tensions and lead them to a solution through ultimate confrontation and catharsis is proposed as an intelligent approach to social problems. It is even suggested as an ideal at least at the theoretical level. Polarization and confrontation are considered necessary stages towards the ultimate goal of justice and fairness. Whether that is the only option left to human genius for the solution of problems is not equally clear. Whether we need to abandon persuasion and creative dialogue (which may include both intelligent criticism and respectful recognition of others’ wisdom and interests) as a wiser way of resolving problems is the question that we may ask. In certain justice struggles, some activists show themselves strong enough to provoke and get beaten, but not sturdy enough to muster the needed energies to keep up an intelligent and worthwhile struggle and win a socially important battle!!

We spoke of expecting some sort of opposition when we move into new places and take up new types of works. The opposition may be in the form of apparent coldness, mild resistance, unfriendly rumours, visible hostility, legal battles and even violent confrontation. We know that, as even harmless trifles can lead to violent conclusions, so too a very unpleasant beginning can gradually be turned in skilful hands into surprising collaboration.

Collaboration certainly is possible even from the very beginning. That is what we should aim at from the start. People tend to oppose what they perceive as a hostile, alien, or disruptive force entering into their neighbourhood. That is to be expected. People of a particular locality have a right to defend their own interests. When we buy up vast properties, build up what they consider mighty fortresses, and act as secret societies, it is no wonder that people who are already misinformed about us by the unfriendly media will go on the defensive. It is less important to put barbed wire over the walls and quote the Constitution than enter into dialogue with our neighbours and explain our motives.

Our benign intentions and promotive plans are not self-explanatory for people. They have to be shared , explained and made acceptable. Fears and prejudices have to be removed. We have to join hands with persons and groups with similar intentions and goals. We cannot act as though we are the only movers of all beneficial services in the universe, and as though social reform is our own personal discovery and that our interpretation and vision of social realities are binding on all. We cannot act as though we have all the wisdom in the world. Very often it is better to begin as junior partners with like-minded people who are already in the field, seeking their advice and learning from their experiences before launching on our own. When young activists come into the field all too sure of themselves, theologically set and ideologically unbending, we know that troubles are ahead. They may be more conversant with their own ideas than with the complexities of the local situation.

A good missionary is always a learner. He/she does not complain that others do not understand him/her, but feels that he has not sufficiently understood others and their ways of looking at things and doing things. He/she is always eager to learn. Such persons profit from mistakes and failures, even more than from successes.

I need not refer to the great hardships that our big institutions inflict on the public when drain-pipes leak, water is overused, walls intrude, boundaries are over-claimed, public facilities are monopolized, a disproportionate share of water or electricity is consumed. Our over-possessiveness may turn a counter-witness. If in the early stages of the history of an institution we have powerfully witnessed to our possessiveness, it will come as a surprise to our neighbours when we tell them later than we are at their service!!

How many tensions can be avoided if a friendly chat precedes the closing of footpaths, erecting of fences, barring of access to water sources, taking of disciplinary action against staff members, hasty raising of fees, changing of established practices, refusal of expected favours. Termination of the services of certain employees and announcement of poor school results may be necessary, but there is a way of doing such things. What I am trying to say is that embers should always be put out. No anger should be left behind us to explode like a hidden mine. If the head of the institution lacks the reconciling skills, another trusted member of the staff should be invited to do it.

But the greatest number of mistakes that we make are those that arise from lack of cultural insertion. Many of our Church personnel are working for other ethnic groups than their own and are unperceptive of the categories, calculations and customs in another culture. People who are too confident of their skills, competences and ideologies are unperceptive of cultural differences and conditionings and are likely to be blind to negative cultural signals they receive. They wake up only when everything goes up in fire. They forget that the universalizing ideologies they champion are merely products of another civilization and are the fruit of the social and historic experiences of another society, and need not correspond to the needs, possibilities and expectations and cultural genius of the community they are working with here and now. An idea perceived as alien will be rejected, even if it is a good one. Talking to Spartans about the benefits of Athenian democracy would have been of little avail. It would have been rejected, not because it was bad, but precisely because it was Athenian.

Styles of speaking, emphasizing ideas, gesticulating, showing displeasure, manifesting familiarity, manner of relating, organizing, consulting, objecting, protesting, ….all these differ from community to community. A new comer needs to observe, seek advice and learn if has to avoid being annoying and provocative.

Some preparatory work must be done before a new idea or a new type of work can come to be accepted. The Leftist concept of egalitarianism, for example, made headway in India only in those regions of the country where a general sense of equality had preceded through Christian influence or Western exposure. Where, on the contrary, static hierarchy was the taken for granted like in the Central and Northern states of India, it was outright rejected. That sort of resistance to egalitarianism still remains strong in those regions, and has been further strengthened by the Hindutva movement.

Certain cultural interactions and processes must go ahead before radically new ideas can come to be accepted. A perceptive missionary can do invaluable service in the area of paving the way for the acceptance of values that are new and transforming. Study of concepts like equality and freedom would be incomplete without any reference to the Religious Inspiration they originate from.

Unfortunately, many Hindutva activists think that conversion to Christianity is the greatest threat to Hindu society today. We can very well understand their anxiety, but we think differently. The real threat to Hindu civilization is the amoral secularism that is fast invading Indian society. Indian people are being wooed away from their civilizational roots, …and they are fast yielding to the snares of materialism, hedonism, amoralism, dishonesty, apathy, self-centredness and a partisan outlook. The VHP leadership is not unaware of this. The Indian civilization is in a crisis. But so are all other civilizations in the world.

Before this threat, people who believe in religious principles should rather join hands together than jump at each others’ throats. Likewise, they should not allow their religious faith to be placed at the service of certain political interests. During the recent Kumbha Mela celebrations some sadhus expressed fears that religion was being hijacked by politicians. When politicians become the chief spokespersons for a particular religion, their statements enjoy no credibility and religious values suffer. The task of enlightened believers in times of colliding perceptions is not to renounce the central teachings of their faith or dilute their basic beliefs, but to deepen their religious convictions and take dialogue to profounder levels. Religiously inclined people have not quarreled because their respective positions were irreconcilable, but because they had not fathomed the possibility of a deeper level dialogue and encounter.

Christian national debates during the last few decades have very much been on socio-economic issues, and too little on socio-cultural problems. One without the other is incomplete. Conclusions can go astray. To a certain extent that is what has happened. Many have been misled into a superficial analysis of the immensely diverse Indian society. Ideologies come and go. They change. But culture-based worldview and vision of reality prevalent in a community do not change so fast. And these differ from culture to culture. And they need to be taken into consideration if any social programme under our guidance has to be led to success.

Our human rights enthusiasm may be red rag to the bull for people, until it is expressed in categories intelligible to the community we are working with. Our concepts of justice will need to be explained with illustrations from elements in the local culture and felt needs in the local community. Our prophetic condemnations may need to be wisely softened to exhortative tones. It would be imprudent to take the pose of Old Testament Prophets and condemn things in the neighbourhood of which you are inadequately acquainted with. Everyone knows that it is more beneficial to make people reflect and change than to feel threatened and put on the defensive. They can turn aggressive in determined self-defense. It serves no purpose to win many a battle and lose the War. If there is a place for retort in a debate or discussion, there is also room for conceding.

Over-reaction can leave us exhausted after the first struggle. If every local dacoity is made a national issue, we shall run out of breath in a short time. If we cry ‘Wolf, wolf’ too loud and too often, we will have no air left in our lungs when the wolf really comes. I am not saying this to suggest inaction, but to evoke reflection and measured response. A non-communal incident should not be presented as communal. A school problem is best handled as a school problem, a neighbourhood problem and a neghbourhood problem.

All this is not to say that we should be blind to the grand designs of the Saffron Brigade. On the contrary, we should be awake and alert. But we should confront anger with composure, might with intelligence, partisan intelligence with wisdom, sectarian wisdom with love, and selective love with the spirit of universal brotherhood. That seems to be what the Gospel is all about. That may not be what we are doing today, but it must always remain the ultimate goal.

I once had a chance to meet with an elderly Chinese Bishop at Chengdu (mainland China) who had served a term of 30 years and more in Communist prisons. He described to me all the sufferings he had gone through during his long years in jail. And yet, he explained how he had learnt to live and how the Christian community had learnt to thrive within limited possibilities. He ended his conversation saying, “After all, the Communists are also human beings”. He had come to note, that behind the harsh visage of hardened army personnel and behind the unyielding and harsh positions of Communist officials, there were human beings who always responded humanly to a human approach. Also in our case, our ultimate appeal is to the ‘human being’ among the Hindutva leaders and activists, and anyone who may seek to oppose us!

Even behind the persons who exert every influence for admission into our schools and profit by our services, and simultaneously accuse us of horrible crimes and anti-national activities, there are ‘human beings’……..and they too will ULTIMATELY respond humanly to a human approach.

Contradictions are found in every society. According to Hajime Nakamura, the Chinese try to work out a synthesis of two opposite positions. But Indians, he feels, find no difficulty in leaving contradictions side by side. According to him, the Indian mind is not unwilling to recognize contradictions and let them be. Nobody is obliged to agree with Nakamura. But there may be something in what he says. We feel no difficulty is speaking Socialist and acting Capitalist, pressing for Swadeshi and consuming Videshi, accusing missionaries of anti-national activities and standing in long queues to admit our children into missionary schools! ! The contradictions are clear, but we find no difficulty in leaving them side by side.

In any case, reality, with all its contradictions, is a good starting point for launching any good work. That is where our Pilgrimage begins. We have to learn to live with a lot of contradictions and troubles this side of the Himalayas for some more time to come,…. and still keep a cheerful face! But the Pilgrimage goes on and on, and opens the path to indefinite possibilities…. as we walk the way to Truth and Eternity.

(This article was written during a week-long social work with volunteers in a remote Tarabari village on the hills )