Mailbag

Pope's visit

Sir,

This has reference to : ''Advani terms opposition to Pope's visit ''Improper''- Daily Excelsior p5, col. 3, dated. October 24. The same views have been expressed by top Hindu spiritual leaders which include Shankracharyas of different Maths.

We should know that Christianity has been in India since year 52 AD, ushered in by Saint Thomas, one of the first disciples and an Apostle of Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity was here before it reached England or America. In the last 2000 years it has taken firm roots here, though the population of Christians is hardly 2.8 percent of the total population of the country. A religion that has been here for 2000 years and lived through by several generations is as totally indigenous as any religion in India can claim to be. By no stretch of imagination or criterion can Christianity be called a foreign religion or its adherents foreigners. It is a part and parcel of Indian life. Let us not also forget that Christianity was born in Asia Minor, that it is primarily an Asian religion and that it went westwards from the East. It spread in all directions and India was no exception.

Those who oppose the visit of the Holy Father should bear the fact on their minds that for the Catholic Christians the world over, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH. He is the VISIBLE HEAD of the Church. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the POPE.

Besides this, it should also be remembered that in 1929, Pope Pius XI and King Victor / Emmanual III signed a formal agreement, by which the Pope has the temporal sovereignty over the city of Vatican. He is also the head of an independent sovereign of Catholic Christian State.

There are people in our country who misconstrue Evangelisation 2000. It does not mean mass conversion to Christianity in the year 2000. Evangelisation 2000 is nothing more than a way of celebrating the 2000th Birthday of Lord Jesus Christ and sharing His message with more and more people. It is an attempt to build a society based on positive human values. Although these values are present in other religions also, the Christians are inspired to work positively towards these ends because of their faith in Jesus Christ, whose 2000th Birthday will be celebrated at the end of this millennium. In this understanding of Evangelisation, even Christians are not exempted from the need of being Evangelised. It calls for a complete renewal of all Christians according to the GOOD News and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We should, therefore, have no misgivings about Holy Father Pope John Paul II's Visit.

Yours etc...
Predhuman K Joseph Dhar
Member, Indian Catholic Press Association.

Maturity matters

Sir,

Apropos to Mr P N Sus's write-up in your esteemed daily on 26th October, 1999 under the caption 'Politicians & Retirement', I would submit that how can there be any law to debar any person to join public life notwithstanding the fact of his being a minister's son, daughter, wife, brother or sister so that the 'dynastic rule' is put to an end? Individually every one is a citizen of the land and belonging to a political family is no bar or stigma to join politics. Let it be illustrated.

Mr Kumaramangalam, a minister in the Union Cabinet happens to be the son of late Mr Mohan Kumaramangalam who died in air-crash in early 70's. He was a communist and gave what is called the 'Kumaramangalam Thesis' which stipulated for Leftists to join Congress Party. Why? That is not the subject matter here. He joined Congress Party and was inducted into the cabinet by Mrs. Gandhi. Mr Mohan himself was the son of Mr Subbaroyan, a contemporary of Nehru at Cambridge, a minister in Nehru's cabinet and subsequently a governor. How is it possible to have a law by which the present Kumaramangalam could be debarred from contesting any election in any capacity for being a member of a political family so that the 'dynastic rule' would not get perpetuated? Examples galore.

Secondly, it is inconceivable to bring politicians within the ambit of 'rules' at par with CSRs which govern employees. Minimum age for appointment in services and maximum for retirement is provided in CSRs. I would like Mr Sus to clarify the age at which Mr Kashyap Bandhu became Chief Project Officer of the erstwhile Sonawari Model Block in Sept. 1964. We should come out of the cocoon like mentality conditioned by these CSRs which have no co-relation with the fate of nations. There are millions of people who are above 60. Assuming for a while the age of retirement is fixed at 60 in respect of politicians constitutionally; it tantamounts to defranchising them and they are bound to loose interest in elections; and they may not vote when elections are conducted. Is it feasible? Mr Sus maintains that politicians seek mandate at 70. Mr Rajagopalachari founded the Swatantra Party in 1957 when he was 80 and Morarji Desai became the Prime Minister when he was 81. And, a question arises as to why single out politicians for fixing their age of retirement, say at 60 or 70? Why not those in corporate world or in filmdom? If those who are aged and do well in business or Bollywood, politicians are expected to do well. Mr G D Birla and Naval Tata headed the two big business empires in India when they were too aged. Dev Anand and Dalip Kumar are there in the Bollywood who never retire and are in mid 70's of their lives. And, so Ashok Kumar and Shammi Kapoor of Pan Paraag. Queen Victoria reigned Britain for long 64 years. Robert Menzies and Lester Pearson were Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada when they were too old but brought glory to their countries by adept handling of the affairs of State.

Physical deformity of a person even is no criterion for retirement. If physical deformity is taken at its face value, should Mr Jaipal Reddy retire because of such a deformity? Mr Roosevelt was physically wreck when he was the American President during the IInd World War for the second term. Since American constitution provides only two terms to the President, Mr Roosevelt's second term came to an end amidst war. So, the American constitution was amended to provide for his third term as a historical constitution was amended to provide for his third term as a historical necessity. In advanced age and being virtually crippled, Mr Roosevelt provided leadership to his country in her gavest hour and attended the historic Yalta Conference in a wheeled chair. Immediately thereafter he died. What counts? It is grit, determination and maturity of a person; it is not necessarily the age. A renowned teacher late Mr Nand Lal Bakaya on being asked to state his age, replied, ''I am a young man of 82 years.''

Yours etc...
Pran Nath Tiku
1/20 Vikas Nagar, Jmu-Tawi