by A.J. PHILIP (editor, The Herald of India)
Rubbing salt into professor’s wounds
Respected Bishop,
I Have read reports about your pastoral letter in which you have justified the sacking of Professor T.J. Joseph of Newman College, Thodupuzha. But I really wonder whether you considered all the circumstances of the case before you decided to deprive the teacher and his family of their livelihood. I am sure you know that there is no demand for a Malayalam teacher in the otherwise thriving tuition market in Kerala. So job opportunities for him, particularly after the “dismissal”, are nil.
Did you as a bishop, whose job is comparable to that of a shepherd, act like the shepherd in the parable of the lost lamb that the Bible teaches? In that story, one of the first I heard, the shepherd does not “dismiss” the lamb because it went “astray”. Instead, he looks for the lamb everywhere in order to save it from certain danger.
Or, take another powerful parable in the Bible, the one about the prodigal son. Did his father “dismiss” him because he was not as disciplined as his other son? The implication here is not that Prof Joseph “went astray” or that he behaved like the “prodigal son”. I mention these two parables to drive home the point that compassion and care are two essential attributes of a bishop which I find missing in the treatment meted out to the professor.
Your grouse against Prof Joseph is that he did not admit his “guilt”. Did you think about the implications of admitting “guilt” which would go against him in the criminal case the police has instituted against him? Recently, two “murderers”, Phillip Bivens, 59, and Bobby Ray Dixon, 53, were released from a prison in Mississippi, USA, after 30 years. They and a third person, Larry Ruffin, were involved in the “rape” and “murder” of one Eva Gail Patterson in front of her 4-year-old son.
They “confessed” and “pleaded guilty”, because the police had told them to do so. Otherwise, they were told, they would get death penalty. A recent investigation and DNA test found that the woman was actually raped and killed by one Andrew Harris, who lived in the neighbourhood. The third man in the story Larry Ruffin died a few years ago in the jail. When Phillip Bivens came out of the jail, he had no possession other than two Bibles, which kept him sane all those years.
Do you want Prof Joseph to confess his “guilt” so that the police case against him is strengthened and he gets the severest punishment? Perhaps, you may not be aware that, under the Indian law, if a person confesses, he would get the maximum punishment. No leniency would be shown to him. Do you also want the professor to rot in jail for what you call his “mistake”?
And what is the great “mistake” that he made? Today’s “Malayala Manorama” (Sept 18) has a three-column story on page 6. It is headlined “Mohammed committee squanders lakhs of rupees”. Will anyone say the headline is an insult to the Prophet Mohammed and is, therefore, blasphemous? Do you think the Manorama management will “dismiss” the sub-editor for giving this headline when he could have given another one like “Judicial committee squanders public money”?
No such action would be taken against him, because the reference in the headline is to Justice P.A. Mohammed, and not the Prophet? It seems you do not distinguish between “Mohammed” and the “Prophet Mohammed”. The former is a common name by which millions of Muslim men are known, while the latter is unique and refers to the one born to Abdullah at Mecca in 570AD, who founded the religion of Islam.
In the investigation of criminal cases, one question that police seeks to answer is “who benefited from the crime”. In most cases, it is the beneficiary of the crime who either committed it or organised it. Now, do you think Prof Joseph benefited in any way by what you call the “mistake” he committed? Again, do you think he is such a fool that he can think of causing any harm to Islam, which has over one billion followers the world over, by preparing a “sacrilegious” question?
Whenever disciplinary action is taken against any employee, his or her past record is always taken into account? When you decided to “dismiss” him, did you take into account his impeccable credentials as a teacher which alone prompted the management to give him responsibilities that included fostering ecumenism among the students? Did it ever occur to you that such a fine teacher could not one fine morning become a rabid anti-Islamist, insult the Prophet and become worthy of not just “losing” one palm but his bread and butter too?
About twenty years ago when I shifted to a flat on Pusa Road, New Delhi, my neighbour was a well-known journalist, whose wedding anniversary was always a gala affair in which chief ministers and Union ministers and the top brass of the Delhi Police attended. He had a dog called “Peter”. Every time he or his son shouted “Peter, Peter” to discipline the animal, I felt bad. I do not have to tell you why because you know how sacred the name “Peter” is to Christianity, particularly Catholicism.
Was the journalist insulting Christians or Christianity? I did not think so. Perhaps, he did not know that Peter is to a Christian what Krishna is to a Hindu. Fortunately for me, the agony of listening to the barks of “Peter” ended, when one evening his son told us that the dog was found dead. Last week I saw a picture in “The New York Times” a person holding the leashes of three big dogs. The caption mentioned the dogs’ names. Each of them was named after a disciple of Jesus Christ!
Prof Joseph took the passage for the controversial question from P.T. Kunju Muhammed’s “Thirakkadha — Oru Viswasiyude Kandethalukal” (Screenplay — the Findings of a Believer) which is a university-prescribed text. Now, as he has explained, he substituted “Mohammed” for “Madman” in the question paper because the “Madman” calls God, “Padachone”, the Malayalam word for “Creator”, which only Muslims use.
So it was obvious that the “Madman” was a Muslim. So why not give him a Muslim name, instead of just “Madman”, he thought. After all, the writer of the book is also a “Muhammed”. The thought that “Mohammed” could be construed as the “Prophet Mohammed” would not have crossed his mind. It is actually a good question because only a student who knows all the punctuation marks like :,?,!, ?,? can answer it correctly.
If I were in the professor’s position, I would not have used the passage for the question, because I found that it was in bad taste, not because it was blasphemous. And if I were the Principal, I would have at best ticked him off for the question. I would certainly not have “dismissed” him. As principal, I would also have explained to one and all that the “Mohammed” in the question paper was not a reference to the “Prophet Mohammed”.
Did the management explain the situation to the people? If it had, it would have calmed the Muslims who, hearing the rumours about “blasphemy”, felt offended. In other words, the management is equally to blame for not putting the correct picture in the public domain.
I have read a report that the management would pardon Prof Joseph if the Muslim community “pardons” him. That is a tall order. Do you know that among the people who came forward to donate blood to Prof Joseph were some activists of the Jamaat-e-Islami? What does that mean? It means they have only sympathy for him. Now, you may say that those boys do not represent the Muslim community. I agree with you. But, then, how will the church know that the Muslim community pardoned him? Do you expect the 16 crore Muslims in India to give you a signed memorandum that they have “pardoned” Prof Joseph?
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. So he can speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. But can he speak on behalf of all the Catholics in the world? I doubt because, a majority of the Catholics may not agree with him on many issues like family planning. In the case of Muslims, there is no central authority like the Pope. Do you know that the concept of priesthood is alien to Islam?
Anybody who is senior and knows the prayers well can lead the community in prayers. There are no priests and bishops in Islam. So it is impossible to know whether the Muslim community “pardoned” Prof Joseph. It is as good as saying the church will not take him back into service.
There is one cardinal principle that guides the justice system in the country. And that is, a person cannot be punished more than once for the same offence. You are absolutely right that the cutting of Prof Joseph’s hand could not be termed a “punishment” because whoever did it had no authority to do so. It was a criminal activity. But do you know that there is a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against Prof Joseph? He is now on bail. Once the charge-sheet is filed in a court of law, hearing in the case will start.
The prosecution will have to prove that Prof Joseph caused blasphemy. If it succeeds in doing so, he will be punished, which means, he will be sent to jail. The management could have waited for the judicial verdict before taking action against him. Now look at the reality, you have punished him by cutting off his only source of income, the criminals have punished him by cutting his hand and the authorities of law and order are in the process of punishing him. All this because you and some others think that “Mohammed” can only be the “Prophet Mohammed”!
In the eighties, “The Deccan Herald” of Bangalore published a story about a fictional character called Mohammed. Some fanatics indulged in violence. The newspaper suffered a lot of damage but it did not “dismiss” the sub-editor who made the page. Now I must tell you about my own experience.
I was then holding “The Hindustan Times” fort in Patna. The Sunday Magazine carried a cartoon strip depicting the picture of a relative of the Prophet. The magazine was produced and printed in New Delhi and I had no control over it.
Someone claiming to be a Muslim leader called me in a threatening voice. I explained to him the situation. He wanted me to visit him and explain it to a group, which I refused. Instead, I invited a small group of three or four people to the HT office. Of course, we also alerted the police and our Delhi office. The group came and I told them that there were no protests from anywhere else. I offered them tea and snacks and also “apologised” if the cartoon strip had offended them. They left happily.
Christians and Muslims believe their God is merciful. What kind of message are you giving to the people by dismissing him? Do you realise that in dismissing the professor, you are actually justifying the conduct of those who took the axe against Prof Joseph?
This week a Church-appointed commission in Belgium found that 13 people in that predominantly Catholic nation had committed suicide because they could not withstand or resist sexual abuse by priests. One of the victims of abuse began to suffer it from the age of 2.
The Pope would, no doubt, say he has tried to apologise for what he calls “the abuse of the little ones”. Alas, in Belgium, “little” was defined downward to include a baby of two. Does not the Bible ask, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
It is not too late for you to exercise your authority as Bishop and give Prof Joseph back his job and allow the law to take its own course in the case against him. There is no prestige involved, when it is a question of taking the right decision. It is always better late than never.
Yours etc
A. J. Philip can be reached at ajphilip@gmail.com