|
Israel has once again conducted military operations in
Gaza. The air offensive against Hamas strongholds later
gave way to ground operations. Despite military experts
predictions of street-to-street battle—a game that Hamas
is quite adept at, things have now calmed down.
India
has condemned the Israeli operations as a
“disproportional” use of force. Of course, how can
India talk against all use of force when she considers
“clinical” strikes at Pakistan’s terror factories as a
viable answer to Mumbai attacks. By judging Israel’s
“you-touch-me-and-I’ll-blow-your-head-off” approach as
disproportionate use of force vis-a-vis Hamas’ attacks,
India seems to advocate a “proportional” show of force
quite in line with the Jewish statue, “an eye for an
eye.” However, in reality, India has thus far hesitated
from meting out even a proportionate reply to Pakistan’s
terror elements.
The
Israeli operation has divided world along predictable
lines. Massive protests rallies in London, the USA, and
several Arab cities reveal popular discontent against
Israel’s actions especially due to the heavy civilian
casualty associated with these military operations. To
be fair, it should be noted that when Hamas pounded
Israeli civilians with their rockets and missiles, no
humanitarian agency came out in support of the dying
Israelis. The world may not be now upset just because
Israel retaliated; the world believes that the
Palestinians have by now received too much of a beating
for their support to Hamas. In spite of all the death
and sufferings this misadventure has earned them, the
Hamas continues to launch missiles at Israeli targets.
The
world generally is in favour of an “eye-for-an-eye”
approach to retaliation; no one seems to support
Israel’s “head-for-an-eye” approach. No wonder God gave
Moses and the Jewish nation the law: “an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth.” This law was not given to ensure
retaliation but to restrain the measure of vengeance to
a just level. Did God insist that an eye be taken for
every eye lost? Certainly not. If an aggrieved party
wished to take revenge, authorities who ruled over him
had to insist that he repay in just measure. If a man
or woman who suffered a loss or injury did not wish to
take revenge, he or she was free to do so. In fact, such
a decision to forgive and leave room for God’s wrath was
always held in high esteem.
The
Lord Jesus wished to bring his disciples to this higher
ground of forgiveness and non-resistance. He taught his
disciples: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do
not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your
right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone
wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your
coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with
him two.” (Matthew 5: 38-41) Jesus ruled out revenge,
retaliation and resistance. Jesus recommended suffering
in silence. He exemplified it by suffering like a lamb
which remains silent when led to slaughter. We, his
disciples are called to follow in his footsteps.
|
|
|
Jesus taught his disciples: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do
not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your
right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone
wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your
coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with
him two.”
|
|
|
No one seems to take Jesus’ words more seriously than a
group of Anabaptist Christians in the USA known as the
“plain folk” or the Amish. Although the world looks
down upon the Amish Christians for their seventeenth
century life-style and their utter separation from all
things “worldly” - including electricity, automobiles,
and telephone - they deserve our admiration for being a
group of Christians who suffer in silence. I have read
of a gory incident. Miscreants threw stones at a
horse-drawn buggy in which an Amish family travelled.
One of the stones took the life of a six-month old Amish
child. Yet, the family suffered in silence without a
word of protest. Such stories of Amish non-resistance
abound.
Was
Christ’s teachings on non-resistance lost on the Indian
Church? Did we ever understand what the Lord meant when
he said that we should take up our cross daily and
follow him? He did not ask us to pick up placards,
flags or weapons. He did not wish that we fight for our
“Constitutional rights.” A Christian is supposed to lay
down his weapons, even his claims to legitimate rights,
and take up the sentence of death—the weapon of silent
suffering and martyrdom.
Indeed
we do have the weapon of prayer. However, our prayer
must be an instrument of our submission to God’s will
than a route to escapism. To some, heavy prison gates
will open by themselves. For others, there is the path
of the cross and a hope of a better and more glorious
resurrection. |
