UCA News
Contribute

Bible and the Indian Constitution are skeptical of worldly power

The difference lies in the clear biblical recognition that legislation alone will not transform the world
Bible and the Indian Constitution are skeptical of worldly power

Mahatma Gandhi was influenced by Ruskin and Tolstoy, both of whom were ardent and well-informed Christians. (Photo: Pixabay)

Published: January 07, 2020 05:32 AM GMT
Updated: January 07, 2020 03:55 PM GMT

The constitution is to a country what the scripture is to religion. It sketches the destination for a people and roadmaps the journey in a minimalist sort of way. Insofar as a nation is an entity in a state of continual evolution towards the goals espoused by a people, its constitution too is bound to be in perennial modification. The most obvious meeting point between the biblical faith and the Constitution of India is the ideal of freedom. 

More than the founder of any other religion, it was Jesus of Nazareth who identified "setting the captives free" as the very essence of his spiritual mission. I cannot help the thought that India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was familiar with this passage in the Gospel (Lk. 4:18). It is reflected quite clearly in his words, addressed to the nation on the eve of our independence, "the soul of a nation long-suppressed finds utterance ..."

The two predominant historical influences on the formation of the Indian Constitution are the American War of Independence (1775-83) and the French Revolution (1789), both of which were strong in their Christian underpinnings. The ideas of equality of opportunity and federalism are clearly borrowed from the American Constitution.  The French Revolution gave the Indian Constitution its three cornerstone principles  "liberty, equality, fraternity!" 

It does not have to be argued that none of the values referred to above is native to Indian political thought. The caste system institutionalized de facto slavery for a majority of our people, many of whom have still not, after generations, recovered from its life-degrading devastation and depravity. The caste system also rejected and deprecated the idea of equality. It is founded on ineradicable, religiously sanctified inequality, which is deemed, besides, basic to social stability. 

Fraternity among a people as people, as opposed to those within caste stratifications, was a prospect too scandalous to contemplate. It remains so in many places even today, as is evidenced by the subhuman practices of honor killings and brutal repression of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. The Indian worldview never had a spiritual or metaphysical foundation on which to erect a doctrine of pan-Indian equality. Even though the doctrine of vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the whole world as one family) did seem conducive to such a vision, it never became a shaping element in social life. 

It is not an insignificant fact that most of the tall leaders of India's freedom movement — were formatively influenced by the Christian culture via their exposure to the West. Sri Aurobindo lived with a Christian priest-family for several years in England. Gandhi was influenced by Ruskin and Tolstoy, both of whom were ardent and well-informed Christians. Gandhi's acceptance of truth as the paradigm of his spiritual and political life — was, to a large extent, due to Tolstoy's influence. A close associate of Gandhi's was Charles Freer Andrews, an Anglican priest and, for a decade, on the faculty of St. Stephen's College in New Delhi.

Emphasis on justice

The uniqueness of the Indian Constitution, as compared to the ideals inspiring the French Revolution, is its emphasis on justice. The Preamble to the Indian Constitution lists four fundamental principles, the foremost of which is justice. The centrality of the ideal of justice to the biblical faith is too obvious to be argued. We are to "thirst and hunger after justice" as per the Beatitudes. Jesus exhorted his disciples to "seek first the Kingdom of God and his justice." 

Yet another significant meeting point between the Constitution of India and the biblical faith is the value both attach to life per se. In the Indian culture, life as life had no value. The worth of life depended on a person's caste and social standing. The life of a socially poor Dalit — counted for nothing. The quintessence of the revolution that Jesus introduced into the world is centred on the absolute value of all human beings based on the divine origin and significance of the soul.

I remember publishing a tongue-in-cheek article a quarter-century ago in a New Delhi newspaper, arguing that as per Christianity, human beings are more important than God. I based this nearly heretical idea on the fact that God, in Christ Jesus, came into the world to die for sinners. In simple logic, it makes sense to sacrifice a value (the Second Person of the Trinity) only for a higher value. The very same day in the afternoon I happened to share a podium with Shri. Buta Singh, the late home minister of India. He hailed from a Dalit background. He thanked me most enthusiastically for writing the piece. "The equal worth of all human beings," he said, "is the blind spot of the Indian worldview."

The preferential option for the poor that Jesus proclaimed (Lk.4:18) finds its reflection in provisions for affirmative action to develop and empower the long-suppressed sections of Indian society: the Dalit and indigenous people. But, over a period of time, the symbol and the meaning have parted company in this respect. The special social benefits devised as affirmative action to bring the disadvantaged sections on par with the mainstream has today become a tool for political appeasement — extended by the ruling dispensation.

The Bible and the Constitution are in their own ways skeptical of worldly power. This will become clear if we consider, howsoever briefly, the idea of the rule of law. The rationale for law is the need to bridle the power, apt to be exercised unjustly and tyrannically, of rulers. So, there is a need for a higher authority. Law is that authority. The Bible too shares the skepticism about the capacity of rulers for righteous governance. It recognizes that rulers are apt to be despotic and oppressive. The solution it proposes, however, is different. It seeks to bridle earthly power with divine authority. The king must remember and respect at all times the fact that he has a master to whom he is accountable. 

The main difference between the biblical worldview and the outlook of the Indian Constitution is still different. It lies in the clear recognition in the Bible that legislation alone will not transform the world. The transformation of the individual — is the key to social transformation and national regeneration. When this is left out, the law itself assumes an unjust and oppressive character. The flavor of law depends very much on who handles it and for whom it is handled. 

The core Christological principles, as set out in the Sermon on the Mount, are too radical to be accommodated in an earthly constitution. If the doctrine of Jesus is adhered to strictly — no Christian can serve in the army or be part of any war effort (do not resist evil with evil), no man can divorce his wife or litigate against an aggressor, no one can extend sworn allegiance to any earthly authority, or seek redressal of grievances from a court. This is important for us to remember, for a Christian is in a state of double-allegiance, informed with a hierarchy of allegiance. In his capacity as a citizen, he is bound to live by the prescriptions of the constitution. In his capacity as a disciple of Jesus Christ, he is bound to live by the doctrine of Christ. 

The resolution of the tension it could generate is not that we dilute our citizenship responsibilities. It is that we maintain a higher standard of right and wrong, of the idea and practice of justice, and commitment to the ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity. In all of these, we must exceed the norms prescribed. A Christian is a citizen alike of earth and heaven. Working out such tensions as there might arise from time to time from this two-fold loyalty is fundamental to the "cost of discipleship" (in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's expression) that we are to meet. 

Reverend Valson Thampu is a priest of the Protestant Church of South India who served on the faculty of St. Stephen's College, Delhi, for 30 years (1973-2003) before becoming its principal (2007-16).This article is published in collaboration with Living in Faith and the opinions expressed in it are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of ucanews.

Help UCA News to be independent
Dear reader,
Lent is the season during which catechumens make their final preparations to be welcomed into the Church.
Each year during Lent, UCA News presents the stories of people who will join the Church in proclaiming that Jesus Christ is their Lord. The stories of how women and men who will be baptized came to believe in Christ are inspirations for all of us as we prepare to celebrate the Church's chief feast.
Help us with your donations to bring such stories of faith that make a difference in the Church and society.
A small contribution of US$5 will support us continue our mission…
William J. Grimm
Publisher
UCA News
Asian Bishops
Latest News
UCA News Catholic Dioceses in Asia
UCA News Catholic Dioceses in Asia
UCA News Catholic Dioceses in Asia