The
violent political honeymoons
By Arun
Nehru
Political
honeymoons are brief and often violent
and in the first month of governance we
have seen the DMK, RJD and the TRS
extracting their pound of flesh in
government formation and this is a part
of coalition politics where stability
depends on power sharing. The reality is
that the Congress along with
‘allies’ have 220 members and
need the 60 odd MP’s of the Left to
govern = there is additional insurance of
another 20 MP’S but much depends on
the progress in regard to Mayawati and
her income tax cases where gifts going
into many crores are yet to be explained
and the matter is being monitored by the
Supreme Court and it would be interesting
to see the progress in this matter. The
question most people ask after the
fractured verdict is whether the
government will last and if so then for
what period and the answer can be very
complicated as the future governance
patterns are yet to be determined and
most political parties are still busy
trying to understand the verdict and play
the blame game to suit their political
goals in the near future. The BJP had 182
MP’S and led a coalition with allies
which totaled 290 MP’S = the
Congress with 145 MP’S lead a
coalition of 220 MP’S with support
of the Left which has 60 MP’S and
clearly the Left will dominate the
economic agenda and will determine
foreign policy and this is where both the
strength and weakness of the coalition
will lie in the future months = the
Congress have gained from 112 seats to
145 seats and may possibly feel that this
is the opportune time to
‘expand’ their base to 200 plus
seats in the next election which can come
sooner than later = the Congress train
their guns on Mulayam Singh and UP and
only time will tell whether this is the
right thing to do at this time. The Left
will try to avoid this confrontation but
their experience of ‘dynastic’
politics is very limited and with
elections due in Maharashtra, Bihar,
Jharkhand and Haryana within the next one
year the Congress alliance with the
NCP/RJD/JMM will be fully tested and it
would be interesting to see if the
Congress would adopt the same
‘soft’ option on seats as they
did in the Lok Sabha elections =
coalition politics is about power sharing
and the Congress cannot look for a
dominant role in the states if they want
to govern with 145 MP’S at the
center.
The BJP
hold their strategy session and Gujarat
is very much in the news and this is
natural as the ‘minority’ vote
swings against the BJP/Allies in UP
[SP/BSP gain], Bihar[RJD gain],
AP[Congress gains],West Bengal [Left
gains TC loses]and in Bombay city
[Congress gains, SS loses] = the reality
is that caste divisions divide the Hindu
vote except in ‘exceptional’
circumstances as we witnessed in 1984
whilst the minority vote in bulk went
against the BJP and the Gujarat syndrome
cannot be ignored as it prevailed over
all the efforts made by Atal ji to woo
the minority voters. The reality of the
election cannot be avoided and I think
that it is a very sad day if caste and
religion are to dominate the election
agenda instead of economic growth and
prosperity. Secular and non secular
politics and talks of majority and
minority are negative and election
planning on these lines will only create
further fissures and sadly moderate
Hindus and Muslims which constitute a
huge majority are being pushed into
‘positions’ and only communal
leaders on both sides will benefit from
this politics. There are no instant
solutions to this and things can get out
of hand. We have seen this syndrome in
the recent killing of terrorists in
Gujarat where the secular media had taken
a stand without going into details and
what is going to be the result of all
this on the public mind? Narender Modi is
being targeted and it will not be
difficult for the Central government
along with the interested media to
manufacture reports to their satisfaction
but will this increase or decrease the
tension for the immediate future. The
blame game can be played to
everyone’s satisfaction as the
Assembly elections approach and sadly the
one thing the fractured verdict of 2004
has insured is that economic reforms will
take a back seat as caste and religion
dominate the political landscape.
The budget
will draw a great deal of attention but
there are few miracles in economics and
impressions rather than hard facts drive
the markets and investors. The Left have
definite views on economic policy and
these will prevail as they have the
political muscle to implement their
agenda and a reserve of 120 billion
dollars inherited from the BJP government
will give them a adequate cushion and
‘time’ to pursue populist
policies for electoral gains. The global
community will wait and watch events as
the economic agenda unfolds and will then
take appropriate decisions on future
investments. The first month itself shows
inflation as fuel prices are increased,
power rates escalate and coal prices go
up by 16% = difficult days ahead as
rhetoric has to be matched by deeds and
for all concerned it is necessary to
understand that the anti-incumbency
factor is working all the time and
nothing lasts forever. The first month
has gone by and in all fairness the
government needs time to settle in and it
is no secret that triple power centers
exist as Sonia Gandhi and her staff
spread their wings and have little
intention of delegating control and it is
only a matter of time before questions
will be raised if the
‘selected’ PM functions as a PM
should or whether he is merely a PPS to
the Congress President on all matters of
governance.
|
 |
Jehad
is like a credit card
By
Ghazanfar Butt
When the
militants struck at a restaurant in
Pahalgam on June 12, the tourist industry
in Jammu and Kashmir was literally
shell-shocked. They were hitherto under
the belief that the ‘militants’
will not do anything to harm the tourist
industry, which was run by their own kith
and kin. They were proved wrong. Five
tourists were killed and over two score
were injured. The violence was promoted
by the mercenaries who are in the State
from across the border, and do not want
normalcy and prosperity to return to the
State.
Unknown or
unimportant terrorist groups like Al
Nasirun take credit for the violence. The
reality is that other than
Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba,
the only other credible militant
organisation in the State is the Hizbul
Mujahideen. None of them want to own the
act of violence, as it would earn them
the ire of the people. Hence the effort
to give ‘credit’ to unimportant
organizations.
The
argument that the acts of violence are
indulged in by those who do not want the
Centre-Hurriyat talks or the
India-Pakistan dialogue to succeed is not
going to wash. The decision to go ahead
with the talks is to be determined by the
Hurriyat leaders. Moulvi Abbas Ansari
showed courage recently to go ahead with
the proposed talks with the Centre,
knowing full well that the deliberations
will be headed by the Home Minister
Shivraj Patil. There is no point is
saying that the earlier rounds were
conducted with the Deputy Prime Minister
L. K. Advani at the helm. It will be too
much to expect that the Government of
India will have a new Deputy Prime
Minister or that the Prime Minister
himself would attend the deliberations
– at least for the present. One only
hopes that the Hurriyat leaders do not
develop cold feet.
Earlier in
the week in Karachi eleven persons,
including six army personnel, three
policemen and two civilians were killed
when unknown assailants attacked the
convoy of Karachi Corps Commander,
Lt.-Gen. Ahsan Salim Hayat. The Corps
Commander escaped, but his driver was
killed and 13 other people received
severe injuries While President Musharraf
rang up the Corps Commander after the
attack, the Jamat-e-Islami Chief Qazi
Husain Ahmad blamed the United States and
it agents in Karachi for the attack on
the Corps Commander. Meanwhile, the MQM
Chief Altaf Hussain telephoned the
Karachi Corps Commander and condemned the
murderous attack on him. He also assured
the Corps Commander of his party’s
unconditional cooperation in establishing
peace in Karachi and other parts of the
country. The MQM and the MMA are ranged
against each other in urban Karachi.
The Daily
Times (11/6) in its editorial said: The
deadly morning ambush in Karachi shows
some facts clearly: the terrorists are
alive and well, they have the means,
resources and the motivation to mount
attacks on high-value targets, and from
now onwards top commanders of the army
will be on their hit list…… The
biggest indicaion of internal threat to a
country comes when its army is attacked.
We have seen that happen in South
Waziristan; we have seen that happen in
Karachi. It is no coincidence that the
two states that face the gravest danger
from extremist terrorism are Pakistan and
Saudi Arabia. Both have been allies in
the cloak-and-dagger stuff that started
with the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan."
President
Zia took full advantage of the
developments that started with the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan, with
US help, nurtured the Taliban, fashioned
the Jihad weapon against the Soviets and
salted away arms and ammunition for use
in Jammu and Kashmir to wage its own
Jihad. The Soviets had to leave
Afghanistan. The United States gained its
objective.
Then
Pakistan encouraged the Taliban to take
over Afghanistan, and serve as an
instrument for "achieving strategic
depth for Pakistan". Pakistan used
the weapon of Jihad against India in
Jammu and Kashmir, first by promoting
militancy and later by taking over the
movement itself. Jammu and Kashmir has
not recovered yet. However, the seed of
Jihad has spread and is threatening peace
in different parts of the world. It
threatened the United States itself. The
world scene has changed following 9/11
and Pakistan is now in the frontline of
States fighting terrorism. Jihad is now
threatening Pakistan itself. It is ironic
that Pakistan Army is fighting the
Taliban in Waziristan and the casualties
in the encounters – Pakistan
resorted to bombing the border areas with
Afghanistan – is nearly a hundred.
Pakistan is now engaged in the difficult
task as to why the operations are being
conducted against the Taliban.
As the
Pakistani News International (10/6) said:
"Now that terrorism has become a
horrific reality internationally, the
need for combating it at every level
could not have been more pressing. And
then there is a proposal for enlisting
the help of ulema in informing the people
between the difference between terrorism
and jihad." It is a fond hope.
As Ayaz
Amir wrote in the Dawn (11/6) " From
1989 onwards we looked to
‘jihad’ as a way to bleed India
and unfreeze Kashmir. India has paid a
price and continues to do so. That
it(India) is no closer to quitting
Kashmir more that it was when the
insurgency began…….In fact, the
insurgency peaked long ago and
‘jihad’ fatigue has set in
."
Today, the
United States and Pakistan, which
actively collaborated in the founding of
the Jihadi movement in Afghanistan, are
themselves under threat of terrorism.. So
also Saudi Arabia which extended support
to the movement. The United States, which
has been a strong ally of Saudi Arabia,
is now in a situation where its citizens
are no longer safe in Riyadh. In Iraq the
US forces are now facing the wrath of a
movement which may soon develop into a
‘jihad’. President Zia had a
violent end and General Musharraf has
survived two attempts on his life. The
threat has now spread to other senior
officers of the Pakistan Army. Some of
those who have been infected by the
Jihadi virus are young officers of the
Pakistan Army itself. Like the credit
card, the signatures on the
‘jihadi’ card are all adding up
together. (ADNI)
|
|
What
is the agenda of Centre-Hurriyat talks?
TALES OF TRAVESTY
By Dr. Jitendra Singh
As the Government
of India and the Kashmir Hurriyat Conference plan
to go ahead for yet another round of much
publicised talks, the question which continues to
remain unanswered is: Does Hurriyat have any
concrete agenda or concrete proposal with regards
to Kashmir? And, does New Delhi have any concrete
policy or concrete roadmap vis-a-vis Kashmir?
The Hurriyat
leadership asserts that the socalled Kashmir
issue must be resolved according to the wishes of
the people of Kashmir. But, even while claiming
to be genuine representatives of the people of
Kashmir, the Hurriyat representatives are at a
loss to explain what exactly should be a Kashmir
solution based on the wishes of Kashmiri people.
Does the Hurriyat recommend 'Azaadi'? If so, then
does it recommend "Azaadi" or
independence only for the Valley or for whole of
the State including Jammu and Ladakh divisions as
also the part of Kashmir under Pakistan
occupation? Is this option acceptable to all the
regions of the State and also to Pakistan? And if
independence short of "Azaadi" is the
proposal, then how does this proposal differ from
the "autonomy" proposal forwarded by
National Conference? If the Hurriyat is not
proposing the above two options, then is it
proposing total accession of the State to
Pakistan? There are some other questions too
conveniently avoided by the Hurriyat. For
example, what is the precise agenda that the
Hurriyat has in mind when it proposes tri-partite
talks involving representatives of India,
Pakistan and Kashmir?
On the other hand,
it is for the Govt of India to make clear what
exactly are the proposals which it wishes to
discuss with the Hurriyat. For example, is the
Govt of India ready to concede "Azaadi"
for Kashmir? If not, is the Govt of India willing
to allow Kashmir's accession to Pakistan? If not,
is the Govt of India considering granting fullest
autonomy or to use Narasimha Rao's famous cliche
"sky is the limit" powers to the State
of Jammu and Kashmir without allowing a similar
provision for the other States of the Union? And,
if not any of these, then what is it that the
Govt of India is talking about with the Hurriyat?
The matter of
fact is that neither the Hurriyat nor New Delhi
have any serious agenda for their much publicised
talks. Each of the two parties is playing
self-suited politics by other means. The problem
with the Hurriyat is that it has over the years
become a beneficiary of "separatist"
politics without actually intending to carry
forward the agenda of separatism or secession to
its logical conclusion. This position gives the
Hurriyat leaders "tripartite"
advantage. First, to continue to be on the
payroll of Govt of Pakistan and the ISI. Second,
to extract maximum black-mail dividends from Govt
of India. Third, to continue to fool the innocent
people of Kashmir while quietly filling their own
coffers and ensuring safe luxurious life for
themselves and their progeny.
Meanwhile, the
problem with each successive Government in New
Delhi is that it strives to appear to be more
sincere than its preceding Government to resolve
the socalled Kashmir tangle, if at all there is
any. As a result -- whether it is Advani or
Shivraj Patil or Vohra or Jethmalani --- each of
them seeks to be one up in striking a chord with
a defiant Hurriyat even as, in heart of hearts,
each of them understands very well that nothing
is going to substantially change with Jammu and
Kashmir.
If the Congress
led UPA Government fails to come out clearly and
state what precisely is the agenda of the much
hyped Centre-Hurriyat talks, the common man
across the country will feel cheated and, once
and for all, Umapathy will lose faith in
both the New Delhi leadership as well as the
Hurriyat leadership, a La "-----Na Yeh
Apne, Na Woh Apne!"
|
Draft
a defence policy
By Maj Gen V K Madhok
(retired)
Who is responsible
for drafting and issuing India's Defence Policy ?
What should be its aims and objectives ? What
should be India's strategic Doctrine? These are
issues which have been avoided in the last half a
century. But the Nation can ill afford to
sideline these any longer considering that the
Nation does not have a Defence policy. While
security occupied the top slot in National
agenda, whether we agree or not.
Any nation's
defence policy would be designed to use the
instruments of force to engage- and enforce those
national policy objectives which cannot be
achieved by diplomacy or economic coercion.
Accordingly, the defence policy outlines the aims
and objectives which the armed forces would be
required to achieve. It gives them direction and
time to prepare. Without this directive, adhoc
employment of armed forces can end up in a
disaster.
What should be the
aims and objectives of India's Defence policy ?
India has to cope with threats both from Pakistan
and China. Its armed forces have to be ready to
blunt hostile designs for mischief in Kashmir and
the northeast, so that Kashmir does not end up as
another Vietnam nor does the northeast fragment
and turn into another Bosnia. The sea lanes in
the Arabian Sea have to be kept open and safe for
transportation of oil and other trade. As the
country is heavily dependent on import of oil
from the Gulf region and nearly 98 percent of its
trade is by sea. The Exclusine Economic Zone (EE)
and the Bay of Bengal have to be kept free from
domination by the navies of hostile powers.
Besides, the country has to have a second strike
nuclear capability to stand up to nuclear threats
and to ensure that its citizens do not live under
constant fear of missile threats. Hostile
satellites in addition, in Space over India have
to be prevented from carrying out all such
activity that threatens India's security.
Further, in pursuance of its past resolutions,
besides developing a capability to take back its
territories from Pakistan and China, there has to
be a capability to assist the members of SAARC
and also to prevent any hostile moves and actions
by its neighbours which pose threats to India.
Finally, to ensure maintenance of law and order
and continual governance of the Union when all
other forces-civil and police, have failed. Such
then are most of the objectives which the defence
policy will have to spell out. Only then can the
Service chiefs- be in a position to structure
their forces and to train them.
As regards the
Strategic Doctrine : India's defence philosophy
if modelled on the concept of ''Preventation of
war and removal of the causes of war with a
strong military deterrent (including a second
strike nuclear capability) besides a cpability to
engage Pakistan & China simultaneously and to
excercise a military option to take back POK,
when all else has failed ''would probably be
appropriate. But this philosophy needs to be
debated in the Parliament so that the entire
Nation is aware of it. As regards taking back
territories back from China, this can only be
attempted after POK is taken back unless of
course, the Nation has compromised. And does not
wish to pursue this objective.
To achieve all
this, a major change in attitude from a
compromising and a reactive one to a pro-active
one is a pre-requisite. Besides, restructuring of
higher defence organisation as well as the
Ministry of Defence (MOD), the military machine
itself would need a major reorganisation. There
is much greater need for integration in the
Services. Logistics, communications and
intelligence branches are areas to focus upon to
start with. Besides, why should'nt the IAF have a
Space command, integrated with Space scientists
and the ISRO, to provide support from Space to
all three Services from indigenous satellites in
orbit while denying similar access to hostile
ones. An integrated missile command would need to
be created to destroy incoming hostile missiles
as well as to launch those which are necessary to
hit targets deep inside Pakistan and China with
conventional and nuclear warheads. This would
require an oveall air defence system, initially
under the IAF to ensure anti-missile defence, use
of long range anti-aircraft artillery and combat
aircraft. And as a long term measure, India would
need a separate Air Defence command for the
future.
What about a
surprise nuclear attack? No thought has been
given to this contingency. It requires
construction of underground operation and
communication networks, coordination with the
Civil Defence organisation and education of the
citizenary in the first instance. Besides, the
Services need a reservist system for expansion
which is totally missing at present. The Army
needs to move from a conventional to a hi-tech
warfare capability. Much greater attention needs
to be paid to India's military leadership right
from selection, training to promotion. India's
Territorial Army (TA) needs to be revived and the
NCC made compulsory for students.
Further, India's
defence apparatus has some major cracks. There is
a big communication gap between the politician
and the soldier. It must be bridged. The Defence
Minister does not get direct advice of the Chiefs
of Staff (COS). What he gets is a watered down
version through the MOD. There is no formal forum
where the COS can directly interact with the
Minister as they have been relegated to the
position of the many who give such advice. MOD's
primary role which should have been coordination
with other ministries has altered. The Defence
Secretary has become the chief coordinator of
three services. In fact, the chief advisor to the
Defence Minister. While the MOD has taken on the
mantle of a superior headquarters. The Service
Headquarters accordingly act as subordiante
offices whereas they should be equal partners. As
such there is duplication of work and delay,
mostly in the name of coordination. The MOD has
become a vetting organisation without making any
serious contribution. In the present set-up
Service headquarters function outside the
Government while the Ministry is staffed with
generalists who may be from postal, telephone and
other departments without any defence background.
Accordingly, there is a need for politicians and
the Services to interact, the absence of which is
a serious lacuna. The question to be considered
is, whether Service Headquarters be merged with
the MOD and a National Defence Council formed,
with the Defence Minister as its Chairman ?
As regards the
defence budget, India has no option but to incur
high spending on defence to maintain a superior
force against Pakistan and a holding force
against China, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Besides,
cordial and even qasi-alliance type of relations
with the US and Russia for facilitating
technical, military, economic and diplomatic
support during the transitional period till India
has built up its self reliance primarily through
Indigenisation are necessary.
A point worth
consideration is that, Indian security remains to
a large degree dependent upon a successful
diplomatic posture towards the Russians and the
US and a reasonable ''Cold War'' with China.
Pakistan remains a problem in all cases not
because of its intrinsic strength but because of
foreign powers acting through Pakistan which can
have a telling effect on India's vulnerability.
In addition, the military establishment must
think of new concepts of threats like narcotics,
international terrorism, collapse of governments
and societies around us as well as within India.
An objective study of India's assets and
liabilities vis-a-vis its adversaries will show
that defensively, India has the capacity to
ensure the security of its territory. But this
potential has not been fully developed.
Indigenisation, as mentioned earlier, is the key
requirement, considering that arms and equipment
are Indian armed forces's chief weakness. Also,
the fuel sector is and has been India's Achilles,
heel. India depends on Russia, Iran and the
Middle East for its oil. The sea lanes can be
interfered with by Pakistan as it has a large
number of military personnel serving in Saudi
Arabia, Oman and other Arab states who can
influence these countries to impede the oil flow.
India has not explored the possibility of getting
oil from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and
Myanmar which it must do. India's major foreign
exchange expenditure is on oil, purchase of
sophisticated foreign weapons and military
hardware.
Finally, it is the
Defence Minister who has to issue the defence
policy to support the National policy objectives
laid by the Cabinet. On May 16, 1995, the then
Prime Minister and Defence Minister Narasimha Rao
was asked in the Lok Sabha as to what was India's
defence policy ? His reply was that the
Government did not have a document called defence
policy but there were suficient guide lines to
meet threats. Can the Nation accept such a
situation which has not changed ? Therefore,
there is much useful work to be done where
defence is concerned. Obviously, foreign and
defence policies should be complementary to
achieve India's national aim, within the national
doctrine formulated by the Cabinet. And this
should, in all fairness, be debated in the
Parliament before finalization.
|
|
Saint
Peter-first Pope of Christiandom
By Predhuman K Joseph
Dhar
Today is the feast
of Saint Peter the first Pope of Christiandom.
There are, however, non-Catholic denominations
who assume that Papal claims are, at best, based
on a single text, and that, for the rest, there
is merely a lot of Roman sleight-of-hand without
any substantial support; yet the truth is exactly
the opposite. It is the Catholic who approaches
the question, not by wishful thinking or specious
argument, but as it actually is.
We are bidden to
go to the Scriptures, and to the Scriptures I
certainly shall go. It is indeed extraordinary
that a truth which our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ set in the forefront of His teaching
should be so denied and set aside. There is
scarcely a single truth He taught for which the
Scriptural evidence is so complete and so
conclusive. It is, therefore, appropriate and
meet to demonstrate, in some slight degree, the
richness of this evidence.
The Petrine claims
rest, not on one passage of the Holy Gospels, but
on Three, viz :
A) Holy Gospel
according to Saint Matthew Chapter 16- Verses
13-19.
B) Holy Gospel
according to Saint Luke Chapter 22 verses 31-32.
C) Holy Gospel
according to Saint John Chapter 21 Verses 15-17.
The striking
feature, almost overwhelming in its force, is
that these three passages which might, at first
sight, appear isolated from each other are
actually inter-locked. Each carries the teaching
further forward. Each presumes the others, and
together they form a magnificent chain of proof,
reinforcing and strengthening each other.
The passage from
the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew is :
''And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea
Philippi : and He asked His disciples, saying :
Whom do men say that the Son of Man is ? But they
said : Some John the Baptist, and other some
Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the
prophets. Jesus saith to them : But whom do you
say that I am ? Simon Peter answered and said.
''Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God. And
Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar Jona : because flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in
heaven. And I say to thee: That Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build My Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom
of Heaven. And whatsoever though shall bind upon
earth, it shall be bound also in heaven : and
whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven. Then He commanded His
disciples that they should tell no one that He
was Jesus the Christ. From that time Jesus began
to show to His disciples that He must suffer many
things and be put to death''.
It was the last
year of Jesus'' life. Jesus had deliberately
taken His twelve Apostles apart, in the far north
of Galilee, away from the tumults of men. To the
question of minor importance ('whom men said He
was) 'they' answer. Then comes the crucial
question, 'Whom do you (note the plural) say that
I am ?' and only Peter answers. It is not what
men in general fancied and attered, but what His
own disciples had come to believe about Him. To
the supreme question only Peter answers.
Immediately Jesus takes us, as it were, deeper
into the source of that great answer, showing us
that a special gift has been vouchsafed by a
special revelation to a special person and that
person is Peter. This is the moment up to which
the earlier change of name, recorded by all four
evangelists, has led; this is the moment for its
significance to be revealed, Jesus emphasises and
underlines it by calling him first by his
original name, Simon son of Jona, and then by the
changed name. He has given him. Jesus spoke in
Aramaic, the name Peter (Cephas) means rock. In
English ''Peter'' and ''rock'' are two different
words but some languages, eg. Latin and French
are similar in this respect to Aramaic and have
the same single word for both. If therefore we
put the words into French, ''Tu est Pierre et sur
cette Pierre, je batirari mon 'eglis'e, the
significance of the words used by our Lord, the
significance of the change of name, will strike
us with the clarity of a flash of lightning.''
Thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build
My Church''. ''Thou art rock and upon this rock.'
This allusion to 'rock' as a foundation was no
chance allusion. Jesus has made this clear from
His parable of the house built on a rock that
stood firm, as compared with that built on sand
that was swept away (Luke 6:48).
The passage in
saint Luke is : 'and the Lord said : Simon,
Simon, behold Satan hath desired you (plural)
that he may sift you (plural) as what. But I have
prayed for thee (singular) that thy (singular)
faith fail not: and thou (singular), being once
converted, confirm thy brethren.
Saint Luke, as do
all the evangelists, includes Peter's confession
of faith but he gives neither promises to Peter
nor the rebuke to him. 'Get thee behind me
Satan.' All the evangelists mention the dispute
at the Last Supper, but it is Saint Luke who
gives his special and peculiar contribution to
the Petrine texts, 'Satan hath desired to have
you (plural), I have prayed for thee (singular).
In other words,
the strength of the Apostolic Body was not to be
found in Christ's prayer for them; it was to be
in His prayer for their Chief, and consequently
for all of them as members of the one body of
which Peter is the Head.
I have said that
the three passages are inter-woven, and support
each other. The passage quoted above does not
stand, simply by itself, because nowhere in the
Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke was Peter
made the head, only in the Holy Gospel according
to Saint Matthew. Christ's declaration, then,
that. He had prayed for Peter would have been
intelligible to the Apostles had they not already
heard the earlier promise.
The silence of
Saint Mark is exactly what we should expect,
since Saint Mark derives his Gospel from Saint
Peter. It heightens our respect for Saint Peter
to find that no single commendation of Saint
Peter is to be found in it, but that all that is
derogatory is faithfully preserved. His denial of
his Master is give at great length. The omissions
too are significant. Saint Mark gives the
Confession of Faith, but is silent on the
promises and does not fail to record the rebuke,
''Get thee behind me. Satan ''(Mark 8:33). He
also omits the walking on the water, and the
miracles of the coin. Evenso, there slips out
once, as it were unintentionally, in the
Resurrection narrative (Mark 16:7) Peter's true
relation to the others : ''Go tell His
disciples-and Peter''.
The record both of
the denial and the rebuke are interesting. It
itself, the denial may seem to take up a
disproportionate amount in St Mark and St John.
Why ? The answer surely is to show us first and
foremost that Peter's privileges are in the
Supernatural Order only and are not going to
change his personal character. The privilege for
him and his successors was in no way for his and
their personal benefit, but the faithful
throughout the world may be preserved in the
truth.
It is, therefore,
clear that Saint Matthew and Saint Luke each give
us one great Pretine text. These are not,
however, mere isolated passages; they are the
natural outcome of a crowd of allusions and
incidents which, without these great texts, would
be meaningless. There is nothing in the Holy
Gospel according to Saint Mark which justifies
''Go tell His disciples- and Peter. 'It is clear
in the light of the 'Thou art Peter'.
The Holy Gospel
according to Saint John appears to end at Chapter
20, then comes an afterthought- a species of
appendix-one more Chapter. ''Feed my Sheep'' is
the third promise to Peter. He comes after
Resurrection, and, as well as confirming him in
the position he might have forfeited by his
denial is the final promise, crowning and
completing the other two.
To the titles of
rock, holder of the keys, binder and looser,
strengthener of his brethren, we must add
Shepherded of His Sheep. Could anything be more
significant ?
|
|
|
