Narratives of an Ideology and Sustainable Capability Enhancement

Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
Narratives of an Ideology and Sustainable Capability Enhancement
This paper is an attempt to study ‘a belligerent ideological narrative’ that challenges to obliterate the thus-far prevalent constructs in various realms and to prepare ourselves for improving the capabilities of the deprived sections through a sustainable interpretation of the word of God in the background of 500th year of the dawning of the reformation. 
The word ideology, in essence, has aggressive nature and political underpinning that are occasionally explicit and more often implicit in some of its narratives. The narratives are ideological goals that wish to replace broader perspectives. The expression ‘Sustainable capability enhancement’ is used to highlight the dynamic role of ‘interpreting scripture’ to derive substantial resources to empower people who are otherwise disadvantaged of basic facilities and privileges to improve themselves. It is also to reflect that any interpretation of scripture should preserve its classic nature. While allowing critical musings, it should do justice to all the previous interpretations and explore relevant contextual interpretations to allow the inherent potency of the word of God to enhance the capabilities of the ones who are in need. More aptly and precisely ‘sustainable’ refers to the principle of interpretation or hermeneutics and ‘capability enhancement’ to mission, implying that both interpretation and mission should be ‘sustainable’.
It is not unusual to be aggressive for any ideology that enjoys ‘state patronage’ as church might have been in the pre-reformation era. What is striking in the present context is that we are amidst the new narrative and reforming ourselves to continue in sustainable capability enhancement.

Prevalence of the Ideology
The Hindutva (loosely translated as Hinduness) ideology that was once at experimental mode has switched over to implementation [mode] of its ideologies in conjunction with the policies of the government. As a result the ‘modern, secular and democratic’ and ‘inclusive’ India is in for change.[1]  This change brings in political gains to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the off shoot of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which advocates Hindutva. The Hindutva affiliates, as an essential step forward, work ‘to create a pan-Hindu identity’.[2] The ideology has used ‘democratic processes like elections’ and ‘majority minority polarity’ to gain political power.[3] Further consolidation of the narrative is glaringly obvious in the appointment of ideologically inclined persons to important constitutional positions of the country.[4] It is an irony that this move has been financially supported by thousands of educated and well-to-do Hindu NRIs who migrated to Europe and USA to enjoy the freedom and wealth under democracy.[5]
The main objective of the narratives seems to bring in ‘singularity’ in the place of ‘plurality’, ‘majoritarian state in the place of secular’, ‘prohibition in the place of freedom’ ‘terrorizing instead of confidence building’, ‘polarizing in the place of harmony’, ‘hatred in the place of understanding’, ‘intolerance in the place of tolerance’ mob lawlessness in the place of constitutional justice and myth in the place of science, reason and history. Sitaram Yechury in his farewell speech in the Rajya Sabha lucidly cognized the risk underlying the new narratives as “if you try to impose a uniformity, whether it is religious uniformity or linguistic uniformity or cultural uniformity, on our diversity, then this country can never remain together.”[6] The combination of an aggressive ideology and the emergence of BJP in the context of identity politics of India, together aid the new narratives.

Ideology and Identity Politics
The BJP’s contemporary political articulations and policy formulation are a paradigm shift driven by powerful ideological forces. It’s an altogether new brand of politics[7] that had its inception in the ‘development of identity politics’, in 1980 s and 90s. The identity politics of BJP utilizes ‘community and caste prejudice’ to polarize the people.[8] It is apprehended that the new paradigm [narrative] can cause ‘ideological struggles, street battles, regional divisions, and attempts at revisiting the fundamentals of the Indian Union, among others’.[9] If the paradigm shift does not consider the ‘pluralistic accommodation, religious sensitivity, regional differences and civil rights then there may be ‘civil war-like situations, mounting dissent and violence’.[10]
The outcome of the combination of ideology and identity politics seems to be startling. According to Mohammad Hamid Ansari, former Vice President, in recent times there were “enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians”.[11] In connivance with this combination, governments remain silent as mobs have taken law in their hands ‘to terrorize Dalits and religious minorities’[12] in pursuit of the new narrative.
Risks of the Present Narrative
            Amartya Sen analyses the danger of promoting singular identities like-civilization, religion, nationalities, class, etc. and call this as a “solitarist” approach to human identity. And he writes “a solitarist approach can be a good way of misunderstanding nearly everyone in the world.”[13] He, without mincing words, says “our shared humanity gets savagely challenged when the manifold divisions in the world are unified into one allegedly dominant system of classification.”[14]
Sen points out that ‘indeed, many of the conflicts and barbarities in the world are sustained through the illusion of a unique and choiceless identity’. It is relevant in the context of the new narrative to note that “in fact, a major source of potential conflict in the contemporary world is the presumption that people can be uniquely categorized based on religion or culture.”[15] He also said a solitarist approach ‘makes the world much more flammable’[16]  and ‘contribute to social tension and violence’.[17] According to him, in the context of many identities  ‘reasoning and scrutiny can play a major role both in the specification of identities and in thinking through the relative strengths of their respective claims’.[18]  Unfortunately the present narrative is opposed to ‘reasoning and scrutiny’ of its claims.

Brand Nationalism
 ‘Brand nationalism’ is a part of the project of the current narrative. It conveniently distinguishes between political nationalism and geographical nationalism and suggests that people who fought for independence upheld political nationalism and people who did not involve in freedom struggle uphold geographical nationalism.  The root of the scheme is setting one against the other.
Mohammad Hamid Ansari said ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism’ and that ‘it promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.[19] Eric J.Lott writes “nowhere, probably, have communal roots been as defining of a person as in traditional India.”[20]
Some call the present state of affairs as a counter-revolution where rapid strides are being made towards a corporate-backed Hindu Rashtra.[21]  In spite of the unreasonableness of the ‘singular’ narrative “the combination of communalism and collaboration from Big Business imparts to the present regime a seeming invincibility.”[22] 

Suffocating other Voices
The new narrative subverts the architects of democracy and democratic principles. For example, suspecting the intents of Ram Nath Kovind, the president of India, it is appealed that “though the government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has gone to extraordinary lengths to eliminate references to the architect of democratic India, we expect the head of state to stand above partisan party politics.”[23]
Democracy must have space for variety without leaning towards an identity or ideology. Sen writes “Political and civil rights, especially those related to the guaranteeing of open discussion, debate, criticism, and dissent, are central to the processes of generating informed and reflected choices.”[24] He goes on to say “this is essential for the survival and prosperity of a country as remarkably varied as India, which may have a Hindu majority, but which is also the third largest Muslim country in the world, in which millions of Christians, along with most of world’s Sikhs, Parsees, and Jains, live.”[25] Mohammad Hamid Ansari quoting S. Radhakrishnan, said “a democracy is distinguished by the protection it gives to minorities” and that it was “likely to degenerate into tyranny if it does not allow the opposition groups to criticize fairly, freely and frankly the policies of the government”.[26] Many of the current ‘terrorizing’ incidents move in this direction. 
Amartya Sen argues that “developing and strengthening a democratic system is an essential component of the process of development.”[27] He also warns that mere democratic freedoms are of no avail. Sen illustrates from Sundarban that ‘while the tigers are protected, nothing protects the miserable human beings [honey gatherers] who try to make a living by working in those woods’.[28] He deplores further ‘if poverty drives human beings to take such terrible risks and perhaps to die terrible deaths’ ‘it might well be odd to concentrate on their liberty and political freedoms’.[29] His concerns fit fairly well into our context. It is a paradox that human lives being valued lesser than animals and killing an animal for a living is treated as more serious crime than killing a human being. We are in a situation where murderers roam free and the family and community of murdered are ostracized and booked.

Majority Psyche
A part of the new narrative is to obliterate the ‘secular’ character of the Indian constitution and to instill majority opinion. Hence, the Constitution is presented as “anti-Hindu”[30] and therefore to replace it with Manusmriti (Codes of Manu).[31] In reality, “it is not the Constitution which has failed the nation. It is the leaders who betrayed the trust which the framers of the Constitution reposed in them”.[32] BJP’s choices for top government positions poignantly are in this direction. 
Ambedkar had apprehended this concern and said on November 4, 1948, that the Constitution ‘is workable, it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peace time and in war time’. He also noted ‘if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was Vile’.[33] He further added         on November 25, 1949, “however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot.”[34]
            Indian Constitution celebrates ‘plurality’ in contrast to the narrative of devastating ‘cultural nationalism or chauvinism’.[35] In our times attempts to ‘keeping traditions pure and unpolluted is hard to sustain’.[36] Hence it is also argued that “the future of the world lies in finding a way in which different cultures can contribute their share to an integral development of humanity.”[37]
            Thus,   Huntington’s characterization of India as a “Hindu Civilization” is politically combustible[38] and ‘confrontational in form and implication’.[39] This leads to the exploding of ‘majority psyche’ in the form of ‘mob constitution’.

Terrorizing: A New Paradigm
 In the present context “maligning intellectual and socio-politically sensitive critical inquiry as “extremist”, “anti-national” and a seditious threat to state security have become today’s common sense and are used as justification for current policy.”[40] Assassination of Gauri Lankesh, a journalist, on 5th September 2017 signals a ‘new and significant moment in the growing environment of intolerance in the country’[41] and ‘has brought to focus again the discussion on ideological intolerance and a new brand of terrorism’ ‘to further a particular political ideology’.[42]
US state department noted in its latest report that “there was an increase in violent incidents by cow protection groups against mostly Muslim victims, including killings, mob violence, assaults, and intimidation.”[43] It added that ‘India did not act against cow vigilantes’ and ‘the authorities have routinely refused to take action against’ them.[44]  Sober minds consider the sentiments about cow as ‘a campaign of terror that has made a mockery of the rule of law in the country.[45]
The disturbing dynamic of the new narrative is that its programs find governmental assistance. For instance on May 23, 2017 the government introduced the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules 2017 in addition to the already existing ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960’. The new rule ‘require a person coming to the market to give a written undertaking that he will not sell his cattle for slaughter’. [46] The Supreme Court questioned this and asked the government “how can you [the Centre] insist that a person should give a written undertaking that he(sic) is not bringing cattle to the market for sale for slaughter?” [47] The court further pointed that “this is an interference of his (sic) fundamental right to carry on trade, protected under the Prevention of Cruelty Act”.[48]
In fact the 1960 Act allowed slaughter of animals for food and religious sacrifices.[49]  The Constitution makes no mention of religious sentiments. Still less does it seek to impose dietary preferences of a section of the population on other communities or individuals.[50] Some see that the rule is intended to ‘harassing people involved in the meat trade’.[51] For others ‘there are serious economic interests behind the political backing’ because the ‘Central government has allowed 100 per cent foreign direct investment in March 2017 through automated route in e-commerce for food production and food-processing.’[52]
            In the context of this narrative the supreme court ‘stated that right to privacy is a fundamental right as it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution’.[53] On August 24, 2017, the court said ‘the right to privacy enjoyed state protection under Article 21 of the Constitution’. [54]
Government’s involvement to protect the so called ‘religious interest’ of a particular community is against the principle of a secular India. It is also dishonoring the other religious traditions and sentiments.
The following comparison illustrates the paradigm of the new narrative:  “Modern Gau Mata and Bharat Mata are contemporaries: the former has given the growth of communalism a boost and the latter has sought to strengthen the Hindutva brand of nationalism.”[55]

Back to Myths
After the arrival of ‘scientific education’ in India the government had taken education under its administration. But, the paradigm of the new narrative is to encourage ‘corporate interests in decision-making in the name of “efficiency” and “professional management”.[56] Privatization of education has made quality ‘education beyond the reach of the socially and economically oppressed’.[57]
The activism of ‘Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’[58] and the governments interference in the universities ‘to curb the intellectual and physical space available for students and faculty to question, dissent from and disturb existing power structures’[59] are serious concerns. Attempting to imbibe ‘nationalism’ and ‘military discipline’ like Sainik Schools[60] disturbed the fabric of education at all levels. It is feared that ‘selective appointment’ to top academic and administrative positions can threaten the ‘credibility of research in the natural and social sciences and the future content and quality of investigative studies’.[61]
Claiming an organic unity between the Vedic world view and modern science has been an agenda of the Hindu nationalists. It is argued that in the end, Vedas-as-the mother-of-science is a “magnificent dead end”.[62] Further the ‘project of turning modern science into a smriti is a massive, and repeated, distortion of the history of science’.[63]  Attaching the knowledge of plastic surgery to the story of lord Ganesha and knowledge of genetic engineering to the theory of kama are other examples of the new narrative. It is deplored that ‘to the shame of this country not a single eminent scientist in India’ took to task such claims, ‘which may now well enter our textbooks in Central schools and the schools in most States’.[64]
It looks, gone are the days reason and science challenged crude myths. The new paradigm suggests a preference for myths in the place of reason, research, history and science.  A serious task awaits everyone, including us, who thinks of inclusive India and scientific enquiry (education) for a better future.

Ideology Driven Religious Narrative
            The new paradigm is committed to contentious religious narratives like a temple was demolished to construct a mosque,  one of the world wonders was built in the place of a Siva temple and symbolizing India as Bharat Matha. These narratives have satisfactorily encompassed the three major strands of Hinduism to facilitate pan Hinduism. The consequence of the new narrative is that ‘India has recorded a spike in violence related to religious intolerance in 2016’.[65] In the words of Amartya Sen “violence is fomented by the imposition of singular and belligerent identities on gullible people, championed by proficient artisans of terror.”[66]
            It is a warning that ‘a simplistic characterization of India along an artificially singular religious line remains politically explosive’.[67]  It is also against the religious neutrality of the constitutional provision. The religious partitioning of the world/nation ‘has the effect of magnifying one particular distinction between one person and another to the exclusion of all other important concerns’.[68] Singular perception can undermine mines of riches. For example ‘while Akbar was free to pursue his liberal policies without ceasing to be a Muslim’ there were others who considered different views.[69] Forcing ‘religious identity’ alone devastates all other possibilities of appreciation and coexistence.
Madrasas in Uttar Pradesh have criticized the government order to video-graph Independence Day celebrations this year, as ‘an attempt to test the patriotism of Muslims’.[70]        Prominent citizens who voiced concern over such schemes are questioned about their nationalism. It is also true that more and more number of minorities is convicted in different cases. Heinous crimes against minorities are not fairly investigated for logical conclusions. Many are the ‘restrictions imposed’ on Christian NGOs.[71] It is unbelievable that the new narrative, unimaginably, claim victimhood.
Singular narrative is unhealthy. For the harmony of the world/ nation there needs to be ‘a clearer understanding of the pluralities of human identity’.[72] These identities coexist, interact and cannot be singularized. Even ‘the prospects of peace in the contemporary world may well lie in the recognition of the plurality of our affiliations’.[73] At this context of the new narrative we remember, with hope and confidence, the reformation that challenged a particular paradigm.

Remembering Reformation
            ‘Narrative of a belligerent ideology is our context’, as we remember the ‘event of reformation’ after 500 years. Re-forming the church, re-reminding the church and re-affirming faith in Jesus Christ the head of the church in obedience to the word of God are symbols of gratitude to Jesus and reformation. It is gratitude to Jesus because we remain continuously committed to him and to reformation because reformation was a historical reminder to the church not to forget her head and the calling.
Reformation reminded us that God, scripture, faith, grace and salvation, among many more theological contributions, are irrefutably fundamental to Christian life and witness and it is God’s justice that has brought equal standing with him (priesthood of all believers).
            Catholic thinkers have gracefully accepted that there is a ‘need to return to our primordial source: God alone’.[74] They have agreed that the reformation ‘gave a fillip to the reading and study of the Word of God in the Catholic Church’.[75] There is a positive acceptance that ‘the Catholic charismatic movement’ was ‘inspired by the Protestant model of prayer’.[76] It is also admitted that ‘in different dimensions of church life’, ‘interestingly Protestant sections had already gone forward’.[77]
            It is also penitently said that reformation ‘provides the Catholic Church a chance and grace to rethink about her methods of interpreting the Word of God’. Further, ‘instead of condemning Martin Luther’ we ‘confess our wrong approach to it ’[Bible], ‘and give a re-orientation to the biblical interpretation’.[78] It is more fitting to affirm that Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular made a tremendous impact on both the Church and society.[79]           Although denominationalism is attributed to reformation, the availability of Bible in local languages helped spreading the Gospel in multifaceted ways. Different interpretations and understanding have facilitated innovative mission. We are called upon to continue the impact in our own contexts.

Veiling the ray of Hope
Contrary to the new narrative that Christianity is a foreign religion, Roger E. Hedlund firmly states that “Christianity is one of the ancient religions of India.”[80] He further said, “the Thomas Christians are purely indigenous, born and brought up on Indian soil, nurtured in Indian culture and traditions, their customs Indian and indigenous.”[81]
While the new narrative attempts to obliterate other viewpoints and contributions the fact remains that the Bible has from its start inspired millions to commit for an inclusive and sustainable capability enhancement based on Jesus’ approach- ‘the primacy of human need.[82]
The printing press of the missionaries and the educational institutions set up by them for both men and woman are the initial impetus of transformations in India.  They opposed child marriage, widow burning and many other inhuman practices.[83]  Their publication of news papers brought ‘mass enlightenment’.[84] The Serampore missionaries developed Indian languages ‘aimed at the economic and socio-cultural renaissance of India’.[85]  Tokenism was never in consideration. Their works were based on ‘sustainable capability enhancement’ through education, printing press, hospitals, medical education etc. This cannot be stopped even when the new narratives prevail. It is hard to understand the reason for preventing such works and naming them differently. Why cannot Christianity be credited for its sustainable capability enhancement resulting in transformations in India in the past and now?
Like never before, there are challenges to continue the mission. However, the fact remains that “invariably, there are many different ways of being an ‘Indian-Christian’, just as there are many ways of being ‘Indian’.”[86]  A reformation in our understanding of hermeneutics and mission is necessary to affirm such faith and conviction.

Hermeneutics of Sustainable Capability Enhancement
The same triune God, faith, bible, grace and salvation that inspired millions to accept the symbol of cross for sustainable capability enhancement of the deprived all through the centuries have not lost ‘empowering and enhancing potency’ until today. Explicating and actualizing this reality solely rests on the church in her multifaceted engagement with the entire creation. Bible has not lost its irreplaceable appeal for sustainable capability enhancement leading towards justice and peace.
            It may be helpful, in the process, to be reminded that ‘transmitting and interpreting’[87] the message/word of god/bible is a continuous process. In order to be successful in this exploration it may be cautioned that ‘no hermeneute can succeed transcending the boundaries of the original text of the “Revelation”. It is also essential that unless the interpreter has ‘empathy with the feelings, emotions, imaginations, expectations as well as frustrations, tragedies and comedies of the life of the common people’[88] interpretations may fail.
            In our context of interpretation, no doubt, there is a ‘need to consider the country’s cultural background’.[89] ‘Plurality’ is the essence of Indian setting.  The challenges emerging from the narratives of a belligerent ideology in the process of sustainable capability enhancement call for a “concrete theology of cross” in contrast to the ‘theology of glory’ or triumphalism. The hermeneutical principle of ‘sustainable capability enhancement’ can relevantly address Indian plurality.
            Sustainability refers to the nature of interpretation that seriously takes in to account the irreducibility of the word of God, the life and mission of the church, various contextual interpretations of the Bible, plurality of the Indian context, the narratives of the belligerent ideology and derive resource for capability enhancement. Our mission of capability enhancement has to be developed from the resources generated from a sustainable interpretation.

Mission as Sustainable Capability Enhancement
In spite of aggressive ideological narratives in consonance with identity politics, existential context of India remains difficult to change. Poverty, poor health care, child mortality, exclusion, deprivation of basic capabilities, exploitation of all kinds, degradation of human rights, dignity of human beings and accessibility to basic resources are still serious concerns. These ‘are rampant in the countryside of the nation’.[90]
Amartya Sen interprets ‘poverty as a deprivation of basic capabilities’ rather than merely as low income and says ‘deprivation of elementary capabilities can be reflected in premature mortality, significant undernourishment (especially of children), persistent morbidity, widespread illiteracy and other failures’.[91] Therefore it is argued that, one of the mission challenges is to work on a fast track ‘to eradicate illiteracy; enable the poor access resources for higher and professional education; enhance their bargaining capacity; uncover the poverty hidden behind their cell phones and the televisions; promote mainstreaming of women and the weaker sections through participation in governance and decision making bodies/levels’.[92]
The present narrative has the capability to project the unreal as real. Nevertheless, our commitment to mission is initiated by God (Missio Dei).[93]  Christianity always opted for capability enhancement of deprived sections through, education, health care, fighting social evils, industrial training etc. In spite of the labels like ‘foreign religion’, ‘attempting to convert’; and banning organizations and blocking financial resources to sustainable capability enhancement we need to move forward with the help of interpretation of the word of God relevant to different contexts.

The new narratives of Hindutva are really challenges for Christian mission. The church has never relaxed even in more adverse contexts than ours. Nor the word of God failed to speak to any situation. Reformation event reaffirms that we need to re-form our commitment, re-remind ourselves of our responsibility in varying contexts and recall Christ the head of the church to inspire us to diligently serve him. The hermeneutical principle of “sustainable capability enhancement” can be explored to relevantly interpret the word of God in order to derive resources for capability enhancement. It was because of the “sustainable capability enhancement” mission of the church all through the centuries ‘hope dawned in hopelessness’. Our mission today is ‘dispelling various forms of deprivations’ and enabling the deprived to see hope and enjoy justice and peace. Our strength is the cross and the crucified Jesus.  And our capacity is being able to repent if anything was pursued unjustly and insincerely. The biblical dictum that what you have done to the least you have done to me and what you have not done to the least you have not done to me has not lost its freshness.  Reformation, hermeneutics and mission are continuous rejuvenation of our commitment. 

Religion and Dialogue

[1] Lancy Lobo, “De-Humanization through Caste and Religion: Two Shining Human Rights Activists of Gujarat, India,” Third Millennium XX/2 (April-June, 2017): 17.
[2] Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed, “Communal Cauldron,” Frontline (September 30, 2016):52.
[3] Lancy Lobo, 17.
[4] Lancy Lobo, 17.
[5] Lancy Lobo, 17.
[6]Special Correspondent, “Yechury thanks BJP, Cong. leaders,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 11
August 2017, 11.
[7] Happymon Jacob, “When the paradigm shifts,” The Hindu (Vijayawada),10 August 2017, 8.
[8] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):60.
[9] Happymon Jacob, 8.
[10] Happymon Jacob, 8.
[11]Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, “Creed above country: Rise of the Right,” Frontline (September1, 2017):15- 16.
[12] Prabhat Patnaik, “From revolution to counter-revolution,” Frontline (September1, 2017):7-8.
[13] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, (London: Penguin Books, 2006), xii.
[14] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, xiii.
[15] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, xv.
[16] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 16.
[17] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 21.
[18] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 29.
[19]Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, “Creed above country: Rise of the Right,” Frontline (September1, 2017):15- 16.
[20] Eric J. Lott, “Issues in Shaping an Indian-Christian Identity,” in We, the Church: studies in Mission & Evangelization, edited by Smitha P. Coffey & Donna Tracy Paul (New Delhi: Christian world Imprints, 2017), 39.
[21] Prabhat Patnaik, “From revolution to counter-revolution,” Frontline (September1, 2017):6.
[22]Irfan Habib, “Inventing history to inculcate hatred,” Frontline (September1, 2017):36.
[23]Neera Chandhoke, “Why Nehru matters more than ever,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 8
August 2017, 8.
[24] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, (US: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999), 153.
[25]Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 157.
[26]Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, “Creed above country: Rise of the Right,” Frontline (September1, 2017):15- 16.
[27] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 157.
[28] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 146. [Sundarban is the place where the royal Bengal tigers are protected and it is also known for its honey hives which attract the poor to risk their lives for a living].
[29] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 146.
[30] M.P. Raju, “Composite culture and its discontents,” Frontline (September1, 2017):28.
[31]M.P. Raju, “Composite culture and its discontents,” Frontline (September1, 2017):28.
[32] A.G.Noorani, “Enemies within the system,” Frontline (September1, 2017):26.
[33] A.G.Noorani, “Enemies within the system,” 26.
[34] A.G.Noorani, “Enemies within the system,” 26.
[35] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, (US: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999), 242.
[36] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, 243.
[37] S.M. Michael SVD, Christianity and Cultures: Anthropological Insights for Christian Mission in India (Delhi & Pune: ISPCK and Ishvani Kendra, 2015, 108.
[38] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, (London: Penguin Books, 2006), 48.
[39] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 45.
[40] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):58-9.
[41]Parvathi Menon, “A dissenter silenced,” Frontline (September29, 2017):5.
[42]Jacob Peenikaparambil, “New Brand of Terrorism,” Indian Currents XXIX 38 (18-24 September, 2017):22.
[43] Varghese K. George, India did not act against cow vigilantes, says U.S.,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 16
August 2017, 10.
[44] Varghese K. George, 10.
[45] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):59.
[46]Krishnadas Rajagopal, “Law itself allows cattle slaughter, SC tells govt.,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 12August 2017, 11.
[47]Krishnadas Rajagopal, 11.
[48]Krishnadas Rajagopal, 11.
[49]Krishnadas Rajagopal, 11.
[50] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):60.
[51]T.K. Rajalakshmi, “In the Name of Cattle Protection,” Frontline (June 23, 2017):35.
[52] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” 59.
[53]Suresh Mathew, “Strictly Private,” Indian Currents XXIX 2 (04-10 September, 2017): 5.
[54]V. Venkatesan, “A Historic Moment,” Frontline (September 15, 2017):4.
[55]D.N. Jha, “Never Kill a Cow in Kaliyuga,” Frontline (November 25, 2016):103.
[56] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):58.
[57] Prabhat Patnaik, “From revolution to counter-revolution,” Frontline (September1, 2017):11.
[58] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” Frontline (September1, 2017):59.
[59] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” 60.
[60] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” 60.
[61] Madhu Prasad, “Learning in a saffron-tinted market,” 58-9.
[62]Meera Nanda, “Hindutva’s Science Envy,” Frontline (September 16, 2016):46.
[63] Meera Nanda, “Hindutva’s Science Envy,” 47.
[64] Irfan Habib, “Inventing history to inculcate hatred,” Frontline (September1, 2017):36.
[65] Varghese K. George, India did not act against cow vigilantes, says U.S.,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 16
August 2017, 10.
[66] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, (London: Penguin Books, 2006), 2.
[67] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 48-9.
[68] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 76.
[69] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, 16.
[70]Omar Rashid, “I-Day: Madrasas asked to videograph celebrations,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 12
August 2017, 7.
[71] Varghese K. George, India did not act against cow vigilantes, says U.S.,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 16
August 2017, 10.
[72] Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, (London: Penguin Books, 2006), xiv. 
[73]Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, xvii.
[74]Subhash Anand, “The Reformation as a Return to God: The Indian Significance of Martin Luther,” Third Millennium XX/2 (April-June, 2017): 20.
[75] Jacob Marangattu, CMI, “500 Years of the Great Western Schism: Another Holy Wound?,” Third
Millennium XX/2 (April-June, 2017): 4.
[76] Jacob Marangattu, 5.
[77] Jacob Marangattu, 6.
[78]Paul Kullaveettil, CMI,, “Biblical Hermeneutics in the Light of Luther’s Challenge,” Third MillenniumXX/2 (April-June, 2017): 59.
[79] Paul Kullaveettil, 60.
[80] Roger E. Hedlund, “Indigenous People of South Asia,” in We, the Church: studies in Mission &
Evangelization, edited by Smitha P. Coffey & Donna Tracy Paul (New Delhi: Christian world Imprints, 2017), 34.
[81] Roger E. Hedlund, 34.
[82] Jose Maliekal, Standstill Utopias? : Dalits Encountering Christianity, (Delhi: ISPCK, 2017), 278.
[83] Babu K. Verghese, Let there be India!: Impact of the Bible on Nation Building, Summary ed.(Chennai:WOC Publishing & Mumbai: Media Concerns, 2016), 165.
[84] Babu K. Verghese, 137.
[85] Babu K. Verghese, 166.
[86] Eric J. Lott, “Issues in Shaping an Indian-Christian Identity,” in We, the Church: studies in Mission &Evangelization, edited by Smitha P. Coffey & Donna Tracy Paul (New Delhi: Christian world Imprints, 2017), 47.
[87] Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, Indian ed.
(Secunderabad: OM Books, 2005), 15.
[88] Thomas Manickam, “Biblical Hermeneutics: An Indian Approach”, Indian Interpretation of the Bible, ed.By Augustine Thottakara, cmi, (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2000), 123.
[89]Joseph Pandiappallil, “The Encounter of the Semitic/Jewish Culture with the Indian Culture”, Indian Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Augustine Thottakara, cmi, (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2000), 132.
[90] Jetti A. Oliver, “Mission in aGlobalized world: Opportunities and Challenges,” in We, the Church:studies in Mission & Evangelization, edited by Smitha P. Coffey & Donna Tracy Paul (New Delhi: Christian world Imprints, 2017), 68.
[91] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, (US: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999), 20.
[92] Jetti A. Oliver, 68.
[93]Harold Dalton, “The Mission of God ,” in We, the Church: studies in Mission & Evangelization, edited by  Smitha P. Coffey & Donna Tracy Paul (New Delhi: Christian world Imprints, 2017), 51.


Popular posts from this blog

Religio-theo-dialogical Approach


Brahma Samaj