Commentary/Ashwin Mahesh

Make up your mind, Mr Gupta!

In the days following Mother Teresa's death and funeral, the bouquets of praise heaped on her have been partly tarnished by the brickbats that accompanied them. Every individual in the public eye stands exposed to criticism as much as to praise. Nevertheless, it is egregious to fault a woman of such incomparable substance with being no more than the long arm of Catholic doctrine and its ulterior motives. And in the final analysis, it does injustice not merely to her, but to every Indian who was moved by her tremendous service.

Mother Teresa was a woman of God. No matter that she saw God differently from how many of us might, it is indisputable that by her dedicated service to the forgotten, she exemplified a life well lived. Among Hindus, it is not unusual to contend that God is everywhere, that our closeness to the gods lies in our actions, in our character, in our relationships, and our convictions. Creation is not so independent of the creator, goodness is not very far removed from God. Every fibre of our national culture is rooted in recognising this, and has given us our great pluralism.

It is quite possible, even likely that Mother Teresa, like other missionaries, toed the party line on faith. She has been upheld as a steadfast guardian of Catholic doctrine. But does that detract from her worth as a woman of limitless compassion and concern? In no way.

How is it then that Kanchan Gupta portrays her as nothing more than another spoke in the missionary wheel and a zealous Christian who does not deserve recognition by a secular state? A close look at some of the criticisms reveals much.

'How can a State funeral be accorded to a nun whose dedicated service to the sick and the dying was only an expression of her fierce, unflinching and dogmatic loyalty to the Catholic church?'

Let's be honest. This is the same state that ran the Ramayana and Mahabharata for years together on national television. A secular society, according to Mr Gupta, is one where the government removes itself from religious activity. Exactly where he got that idea from is not clear to me, but it is entirely wrong. The government's secularism lies in recognising the religious diversity of the populace, and acting in impartial ways to promote people's aspirations. Religion is an important part of people's lives. Government, as the organising force in society, needs to recognise this and be a part of it.

'A certificate of good work that comes from the West influences how we look at ourselves. Vinoba Bhave, Acharya Sushil Muni and the Kanchi Shankaracharya never sought nor received any such certificate. Hence, we have minimised their contribution.'

Now we see the real focus of his assault. It is definitely inconsistent to argue that a secular State should not recognise Mother Teresa's work, and at the same time complain that Hindu activism and reform has not been accorded any recognition. First, Mr Gupta, you should decide how you want the State to behave, then we can address particular faiths with more integrity.

'Mother Teresa knew the power of the foreign media in moulding the Indian opinion which matters in the corridors of power.'

Mr Gupta contends that the big bosses in government and business as well as the lib-left intelligentsia are so taken with Western democratic tradition that they are bound to espouse any line of thinking that finds favor in the West. In other words, if you and I hold opinions that Mother Teresa lived an exemplary life, it is because the Western media would like us to think so, since the West has a bias towards Christian tradition.

If you believe that, Mr Gupta, you must be so devoid of your own opinions that brainwashing you is easier than vacuuming my carpet. If we are all such idiots as to be mindlessly led to be underlings of the West, it is a wonder that you even seek to influence our minds. Or perhaps, in this case, you would like us to be mindlessly led by you instead!

'While it is true that she did not discriminate between the high and the low, it is equally true that she discriminated, with great deliberation, between local and foreign media precisely for this reason.'

A back-handed compliment if I ever saw one. Probably true, even. But what of it? Since when did marketing become a crime? The money that supported the Missionaries of Charity came in large measure from abroad. Like with any charitable organisation, Mother Teresa looked for potential donors in the wealthier parts of this world. She was a busy woman, she had little time to devote to fund-raising, and she used it judiciously. If this is unjust, it is probably because Mr Gupta cannot tell the difference between common sense and discrimination.

We all know what the term 'export quality' means. Do we raise up and demand that manufacturers should sell goods of the highest quality in India too? No. If they did, nobody could afford to buy them. Why should fund-raising be any different from profit? In Western societies, and in the church, charity is as much an institution as businesses are. If the Missionaries of Charity devoted more time to the Western press, it is with good reason. They needed to raise money, and used their minds in going about it.

'She was an unabashed servant of God and felt no qualms about the means so long as the end was justified.'

'Baby Doc' Duvalier and Charles Keating, one a rotten tyrant and a mass murderer, the other a conman, gave money to her works. This is legitimate criticism, and I won't contest it. If there is one thing that I wish Mother Teresa had not done, it is this. It is not justifiable that the money she raised through such dubious people was used to help the poor and the dying. In fact, Duvalier and Keating mostly raised that money by leading several thousands to poverty and death.

But let's not forget that this is by no means the norm for the Missionaries of Charity. Most contributors are well-meaning folks with no history of murder and embezzlement. The bad apples will remain with us, and like I said, I wish Mother Teresa had done more to distance herself from them.

'Tragically, a life spent in the service of Christ and the furtherance of Christian faith was confused as a life dedicated in the service of society. In their eagerness to convert Mother Teresa in death into what she definitely was not in life, the secular intelligentsia has minimised her contribution to the Catholic faith. Worse, a great wrong has been committed against indigenous Indians like Vinobha Bhave and the Kanchi Shankaracharya. '

Unfortunately for you, Mr Gupta, you seem to think that Mother Teresa's worth ought to be derived in a secular manner. And you blame the intelligentsia for being secular-minded!

If Mother Teresa was a great Indian, it is not merely because of her work, it is also partly because of the society she worked in. God is not an Indian institution, Mr Gupta, but the notion that goodness is a huge stride towards God is remarkably Indian. It is the reason that Hinduism is fabled for its diversity and tolerance. Our tremendous plurality of opinion hinges on this faith: that God is in the eye of the beholder, in the helping hand of the good samaritan, in the generosity of the wealthy, in the hearts and minds of the gifted.

If you understood that, you would also realise that the institutions that give identity to religion have nothing to do with God or goodness. If our desire to be mutually helpful is derived from the the doctrine of the church or the potential blessings of the gods in heaven, then we will cease to recognise the resplendent qualities of great human beings like Mother Teresa.

Honesty, compassion, benevolence, forgiveness, we uphold these for a reason. However we may see God, we must first believe that the kindness of individuals is pleasing to such a god. Without that, we will remain rooted in the establishments that claim to speak for our gods, and ultimately will lead us away from true faith.

I would much rather see Hinduism praised as a religion that embraced the virtue in Mother Teresa despite the threat that her doctrine posed. If Mother Teresa considered my faith to be ungodly, and if her works were implicitly designed to make me see her God as the only true God, I can only attribute it to her inability or unwillingness to see the world as it truly is. In much the same way, if you saw in her nothing more than a missionary wolf in the sheepskin of compassion, it too must be attributed to the god on your shelf.

If, as you say, only Christian doctrine has profited from her work, then you fail to recognise a simple fact. Vinobha Bhave and Kanchi Shankaracharya are held in high regard for good reasons, no doubt. But these reasons are not so different from the ones we see in Mother Teresa's life. If conversion was a yardstick of her work, then you have nothing to fear. For it is in being Hindus that most Indians recognised the goodness that lay in her.

Tell us what you think of this column