Rev. Dr. Wati Aier
Today, more than ever, the contradiction between violence and division on the one hand and the Good News of reconciliation and love on the other is pronounced in official ecclesiastical statements and in the politically and also socially conservative and liberal polemics against “factional” ideological positions among the Nagas. The mere mention of this suggests that there are several questions involved—socio-analytic, theological and ideological.
“Naga Sovereignty.” In the description of the existing situation, it is recognized as a fact. As such, nevertheless, it is not a brute fact of nature; it is a “constructive” (Richard Eaton) process through which each Naga tribe discover their identity and consciously assume the struggle. This struggle can be characterized as an instrument of liberation and freedom. To be sure, our struggle is not a permanent feature of our human existence but as the loss of political right triggered by the indifferent attitude and lack of political will of India
A theological issue that needs to be clarified in the background of such a concept or shall we say perception of peace and reconciliation as it is commonly used and the problem of “violence.” At the risk of oversimplification, I want to sketch two theological perspectives which seem to find expression in the current discussion of these issues. One of them is build upon the rationality of the universe—a conviction that a universal order penetrates the world. Everything under heaven , nature and society, moral and spiritual life seek equilibrium that corresponds to that rationality. In the most witless form, this concept simply becomes an ideological screen (Paul Ricoeur’s expression) to hide the imposition of the status quo by identifying it with such cosmic rationality. Violence is understood in the light of this order: whatever disturbs it is irrational and evil and ought to be countered through a rational use of duress, force, break, divide, and if possible conquer. This logic, albeit plagued with fallacies, nevertheless, flourishes in the political and social rhetoric of the right wingers. The will of God is made to coincide with the ordering of things, which in turn coincides with the present order, that is threatened by the “violent ones.” Therefore, the bankrupt axiom is, “To resist the threat is to obey God.”
Historically, this theological concept which came to dominate Christianity when Christianity co-opted under the sanction of the empire (Constantine-Christianity syndrome) is in itself very significant and ought to be noted.
The antithesis of the above conceives humanity as a project of liberation that constantly emerges in the fight against objectifications found in nature, in history, in society, and in religion---the rationality of the universe. Human being is a creator, and creation is always, in some measure, a violence exerted on things as they are. This typology goes this way, “Affirmation of the new as against that which is.” Violence plays a creative role in the scheme as the “midwife” (Marx’s and Engel’s Manifesto). This conception can also be escalated to the extreme, deifying violence as principle of creation, valid in itself because it is, par excellence, the destruction of all objectifications. Only in the destruction of everything that limits nature, social order, ethical form can humanity find freedom.
Both the aforesaid positions find support in ecclesiastical and political tradition. They frequently identified respectively with the priestly and prophetic streams and it will not be difficult to trace both positions in the history of Naga Christian theology. And as such, these two positions have given rise to two different understanding of peace and reconciliation. The first one equates peace and reconciliation with order, absence of conflict, harmonious integration of nature and society. Its roots lie in the Babylonian myth of society as living organism. It has dominated the Greco-Roman conception of peace (Pax Romana) and has shaped the theological tradition since St. Augustine. The other view of peace is typically represented by the prophets in the Bible. Peace is a dynamic process through which peace is established amid the tensions and conflicts in history.
In the first position, peace and reconciliation is viewed in terms of order, in the second, in terms of struggle for justice. It seems to me that our understanding has tended to be polarized along these two theological traditions. While the two may represent a significant dimension of Christian thought, may I purpose that such approaches are seriously distorted and needs analytical theology.
If we try to underscore the two themes developed in the aforementioned pages, we can say that the issues cannot be debated abstractly, but only in relation to God in Christ of a new person and a new humanity which must be witnessed to and proleptically anticipated in history. Let us try to understand the concrete problem of the Christians in the struggle.
Struggle is a fact. This is not Marx’s discovery. Even Calvin described the social and political realms, under the sway of sin, as the battleground, in which, domination of others and injustice have destroyed the rightful place. At this point, I think social analysis is indispensable. Our thinking and theological position must be corrected and refined in the context of theory and action. Our struggle is not a general consequence of human sin alone, nor a deplorable accident. It is a struggle prompted by domination, an unresponsive and indurated stance of the concerned Government. Naga struggle is, finally, the effort of the oppressed to break out of the situation to a finite rightful place in history. It is not a mere outlet for resentment, or an instrument of revenge—although these things are by no means absent. When the fact of Naga struggle—in itself a brute fact unleashed by the apathetic status quo—is consciously assumed by the Nagas and deliberately used for our liberation, this becomes a political act. It is as such that it must be theologically evaluated.
If Naga struggle is a fact, if its dynamics is what we have, then which intends to be effective in terms of God’s Kingdom cannot avoid taking sides. Why is it, therefore, that so often Christian ethics and ecclesiastical pronouncements flounder precisely at this point? Why is it that we so stubbornly refuse to come to terms with the reality and choose instead to ignore it and to offer plans and projects that presuppose a harmony and coordination of interests and goals of the status quo which do not exist? Why is that clerical pronouncements, after recognizing the intolerable injustice of the situation, issue an appeal to the beneficiaries of the situation and a condemnation of the struggle of the oppressed to change it? There is no possibility of speaking a meaningful word to our men and women in struggle unless the facts underlying this condratiction are unmasked and overcome.
The “ideological screen” of Paul Ricoeur, which is identified as the “ideology of conciliation at any price,” is to be suspected. We have already noted the theological roots of this ideology, namely, the sacralizing of order and consequently the rejection of anything that threatens or disturbs the present balance however unsatisfactory it may be.
This ideological screen must be eliminated today. It must clearly be shown that the idea of conciliation is not compatible with biblical reconciliation in Christ. Reconciliation means in the bible not the ignoring or explaining away of the contradiction but its effective removal. Faction A , Faction B and faction C etc are not invited to minimize or sidestep their differences but to become aware that the contradiction between them has objectively been eliminated through the struggle and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. They are not conciliated in the new fellowship but are overcome through repentance and conversion and the creation of the new person. The “new age” does not coexist passively with the “old age” but engages in a death struggle. Reconciliation is not achieved by some sort of compromise between the new and the old but through the defeat of the old and the victory of the new age.
I suspect, such a theological paradigm may come under the scientific scrutiny of “probability” and not a “possibility.” And to some, such a paradigm may be another pie-in-the-sky idealism. Whatever may be, Christian have not adequately tried this paradigmatic option. If we mean business, we are challenged to demonstrate the foolishness and the powerlessness of the cross to the world of the Nagas who are in most cases “Christians.” Faith in Christ is not a step beyond our Nagas rather the situation calls Nagas toward it. In truth we are not Nagas only to be Christians, but Christians to be truly Nagas. All Naga Christians are commissioned to proclaim God’s salvation in Christ. This means, the repentance and forgiveness of sins, namely, our freedom in God’s grace and the invitation to effective love and the freedom to love. The urgent task of the Church is to take this matter seriously in deed. Why not mobilize fasting and prayer by Naga Christian volunteers for an indefinite period of time around our factional camps until God’s work is accomplished.
