In secular Europe Catholic bashing is fair game

The last few weeks haven’t been a good time for Catholics. Almost on a daily basis, the media has been full of reports about child abusing priests, and allegations that the current pope, Benedict XVI, failed to act against known child abusers when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. Despite penning an unprecedented letter to Irish Catholics, in which the Pope acknowledged the wrongs done by wayward priests, the scandal continues unabated. As victims of child abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy have emerged in a number of countries including Ireland, America, Germany, Switzerland and Netherlands, the scandal does appear to be a global one rather than one confined to a particular country.


Some of the stories that have emerged are truly tragic and disgraceful, and my heart goes out to the victims. I can understand their anger. It is a kind of rage that probably will last for the whole of their lives however many apologies they receive. That the cases of child abuse reported happened a long time ago, during the 1960s and 1970s, when Benedict XVI wasn’t even pope is inconsequential to them. They want revenge and their target is the pope. However, as Cristina Odone, writes: “This Pope has done more than any other churchman to address the issue of priestly child abuse. He has stopped the practice of turning over priests accused of abuse to therapists, as we now know that therapy seldom helps a paedophile. He has fast-tracked the defrocking of priests found guilty of abuse. He has promoted co-operation, at a diocesan level, between church authorities responsible for canon law and police.”


Apart from a few Catholic columnists like Christina Odone and Damian Thompson, who have defended the pope, the tide is very much in the other direction. Too many journalists seem content joining the dots and accusing the pope of being complicit in the cover-up of child abuse. The impression one gets from the media is that most of the Catholic clergy are child abusers. This is simply not the case. Research in Ireland (SAVI Report, 2002) indicates that 3.2% of sexual abuse victims in Ireland were abused by clergy or religious orders. On the other hand, 80% of perpetrators were known by the victim, who included family members (cousins, uncles, brothers, fathers, stepfathers, etc), neighbours, teachers, babysitters, childcare workers, sports coaches, and youth leaders. 25% of child sexual abusers were children themselves. One has to remember that child abuse has occurred in many secular institutions too.


To be frank, the media never really warmed to Benedict XVI right from the start of his papacy. As a conservative, as a staunch defender of the Catholic faith, as a critic of homosexuality and moral relativism, as a German who was conscripted in the Hitler Youth, and lacking the unique charisma of his predecessor John Paul II this was, I suppose, inevitable. However, Pope Benedict XVI is not a bad man. He is far better many previous popes who were morally and intellectually lacking in comparison. We are simply living in a different age when the authority of the pope in its traditional heartland, Western Europe, continues to decline – a decline that has been underway since the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.


In contemporary secular Europe, the role of the church is diminishing fast. Today only a small fraction of the population goes to church on a regular basis. Congregations are falling so much that the survival and maintenance of many churches are under threat. Christians are increasingly seen as misfits in society who are sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexually repressed, and generally out of touch. They believe in authority and an invisible God. To the modern liberal secularist, who prides in unfettered individualism above all things, Christianity is an anachronism. Yet the products of unfettered individual freedom are all too evident to see: the collapse of the institution of marriage such that nearly a quarter of all children now live in a single-parent family; around 200,000 abortions in UK alone every year; an increasingly unequal society in which class determines one’s chances in life; and rising levels of teenage alcoholism and drug abuse. Christianity is being hounded out of the public space like never before. Unfortunately Christians themselves are complicit in this surrender. As Dinesh D’Souza says in his book “What’s so great about Christianity”: “Instead of engaging this secular world, most Christians have taken the easy way out. They have retreated into a Christian subculture where they engage Christian concerns. Then they step back into secular society, where their Christianity is kept out of sight until the next church service. Without realizing it Christians have become postmodernists of a sort: they live by the gospel of the two truths. There is religious truth, reserved for Sundays and days of worship, and there is secular truth, which applies the rest of the time.”


Modern Europe more or less mirrors the largely decadent Greco-Roman world in which Christianity was born. Modern day European secularists look at other parts of the world and remark with horror about the growth of religious “fundamentalism”. Of course, the religious militants of this world are a grave menace, but what they fail to distinguish is the growth of traditional religion; and Christianity is doing better than other religions even in the most hostile countries. In 1900, there were about 10 million Christians in Africa, representing about 10% of the population. Today there are 360 million, nearly 50% the population. It is estimated that in China there are between 80 million to 100 million members of underground Christian churches, unapproved by the state. To these people Christianity means something; it’s a form of social liberation and emancipation just as it was in the Mediterranean world nearly two thousand years ago.


Some people have said that the latest crisis affecting the Catholic Church is the greatest challenge since the Protestant Reformation. I don’t see it that way. The Reformation was a reaction to the widespread simony and corruption within the medieval Catholic Church. It was an internal conflict among Christians themselves. This crisis is entirely different. Most of the people attacking the Catholic Church are from outside the church, with no genuine interest in it's welfare, so there is unlikely to be a split within the church. What is more likely to happen is that the trend in secularisation will simply continue with renewed vigour. The Catholic Church has to be seen as the institution it is, made up of fallible human beings, but trying to preserve the catholic or universal doctrine based on the witness of all the apostles. Benedict XVI can take credit that today in England and Wales child protection officers monitor every encounter between children and clergy - a fact the British media conveniently ignores. As Bishop of Rome he is successor to Simon Peter, the apostle Jesus entrusted to be the “rock” upon which he would build his church, which according to his words, “all the powers of hell shall not prevail against it.” In the meantime, Catholic bashing is fair game.

Vailankanni: The Lourdes of the East

(Source: NRI America)

Some interesting points about Vailankanni:

• Small town located on the south eastern coast of India in the state of Tamil Nadu, 12km south of Nagapattinam and 350km south of Chennai. It was once a trading port, which traded with Rome and Greece, that gradually lost its commercial importance to the larger Nagapattinam.
• It is associated with two apparitions of Mary and the rescue of Portuguese sailors during a violent storm.
• First appearance: Sometime in the sixteenth century, around 1560, Mary appeared with her infant son to a Hindu boy carrying milk to his master. He was resting under a banyan tree near a tank. She asked the boy for some milk for her son, and the boy gave it to her. On reaching his master’s house, the boy apologized for his lateness and the reduced amount of milk by relating the incident that occurred on his way. His master didn't believe him until the milk jar miraculously began to overflow with milk. Wanting to see the place where the apparition occurred, the man accompanied the boy to the place where Mary appeared. Our Lady appeared once again appeared to both of them. The tank where the apparition took place became known as "Matha Kulam" or Our Lady’s tank.
• Second appearance: Towards the end of the sixteenth century, Mary appeared with her infant son to an invalid boy who sold buttermilk on the outskirts of Vailankanni. She asked him for a cup of buttermilk for her son, and the boy complied. Our Lady asked the boy to inform a certain wealthy Catholic man in the nearby town of Nagapattinam of her appearance. When the boy informed her he could not walk, she asked him to stand up. He was cured of his ailment, and he immediately went to see the gentleman. The man had a vision the previous night in which Our Lady asked him to build a chapel for her. Delighted to see the boy, the man went with him to the site of her appearance. Then Our Lady appeared again to both of them. The man erected a thatched chapel for Our Lady at the site of Her second appearance.
• Rescue of Portuguese sailors: In the seventeenth century, a Portuguese merchant ship travelling from Macau to Sri Lanka encountered fierce storms in the Bay of Bengal. In desperation, they prayed to Mary and vowed to build a church in her honour wherever she led them, if she saved them. The storm calmed down and the sailors came ashore near Vailankanni on the on the feast of the Nativity of Mary (Sept. 8). Falling on their knees in thanksgiving, local fishermen recognized them as Catholics and directed them to the shrine of Our Lady. A few weeks later they started building the church which they had promised to build in her honour. On subsequent visits they improved on it, using rare porcelain plates and statues they acquired in China and elsewhere. The modest church the Portuguese built has been extended many times and transformed to the magnificent basilica it is today.
• It draws around 20 million pilgrims each year - more than any other sacred shrine in India.
• The feast of the Our Lady of Vailankanni or Our lady of Good Health is an annual festival which lasts for nine days, starting on 29 August and ending on 8 September. It draws more than a million and a half pilgrims.
• The pilgrims include people of many faith backgrounds, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs as well as Christians.
• Hundreds of miraculous cures are reported by pilgrims every year. Many of these favours are received by non-Christians.
• The Asian Tsunami on 26 December 2004 wrought much destruction in Vailankanni, killing thousands, but miraculously the basilica and 2,000 pilgrims inside were spared of any damage. What makes this more extraordinary is that buildings on the same elevation, further inshore, were destroyed.

The Roman Empire and its lessons for Europe today

“I came. I saw. I conquered.” Those are the words of Julius Caesar, a key ruler of the Roman Empire, but they could easily have been the motto of Roman generals for centuries. They were infamous for their excesses of greed, lust, and cruelty; but the empire lasted more than six hundred years, during which time Rome managed to conquer and rule over two million square miles, stretching from the Rhine River to Egypt and from Britain to Asia Minor. In subsequent years it has been the example of empire that European powers with imperial ambitions have tried and often failed to imitate.

Although the Romans provided a degree of freedom and stability to its conquered subjects, they were often brutal rulers. Slavery was endemic, accounting for about a quarter of the Roman population. Rebellious slaves and dissidents were tortured and killed in spectacular fashion, ranging from crucifixion to a form of entertainment in amphitheatres. There was little concept of human rights. Yet all this was tolerated for many years, provoking only isolated instances of rebellion.

Controlling a vast expanse of land, covering Europe, West Asia and North Africa, the Roman Empire pulled together very diverse geographical landscapes and cultures. The Romans borrowed much from the Greeks, including their art, philosophy and literature. Roman religion was polytheistic. They were good soldiers, administrators, lawyers and engineers. They built long straight roads, connecting different parts of their empire, as well as elaborate water systems and public baths. They invented concrete, made of lime and sand, and built tall buildings.

The Romans did not look kindly on Christians, who refused to worship the pagan gods and partake in emperor worship. They were seen as stubborn and subversive, and were often persecuted, sometimes severely. Things eventually changed when Constantine became emperor in 324 AD as he favoured Christianity, and set in motion the process whereby Christianity would become the state religion of Rome. He moved his capital to Byzantium, on the boundary between Europe and Asia, and built a “New Rome,” which became known as “Constantinople” or “city of Constantine”.

The legacies of the Romans still endure with us today. In addition to preserving and building upon the Greek ideas of arts and literature, democracy, philosophy, theatre and free speech, Rome made many contributions of its own. The language of the Romans, Latin, formed the common root for the Romance Languages - Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French – and also influenced the Germanic languages. Their road and water systems were tremendous improvements over previous civilizations. Our modern legal systems, based on trial with a judge, plaintiff and defendant, are derived from Roman law. The final legacy of the Roman Empire is Christianity, which marked a significant change from the classical age. Due to well-paved and well-guarded roads, as well as flourishing trade, the circumstances favoured the spread of the religion.

Rome fell in 410 AD to the barbarians. The pagans blamed the Christians for Rome’s fall, while Christians blamed the pagans. Europe was plunged into centuries of cultural and economic decline known as the Dark Ages, for the relative lamp of civilisation that Rome offered was extinguished. The eastern section of the empire, which came to be known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted more than a thousand years until that eventually fell to the Ottoman Turks.

Augustine of Hippo, probably the greatest theologian in the western church, wrote The City of God, in which he claims that there are two cities, each built on love. The city of God is built on love of God, while the earthly city is built on love of self. In human history, these two cities appear mingled together but in fact they are irreconcilably different from each other. In the end only the city of God will remain. Meanwhile, human history is filled with kingdoms and nations, all built on love of self, which will all wither away no matter how powerful they may be. In the case of Rome, Augustine says, God allowed her and her empire to flourish so that they could serve as a means for the spread of the Gospel; but now that this purpose has been fulfilled, God has let Rome follow the destiny of all human kingdoms, which is no more than punishment for their sins.

The lessons of Rome are equally pertinent today. What we are almost definitely witnessing is another period of cultural and economic decline in Western Europe. Nearly all of these countries are mired in high levels of national debt that will take possibly a generation to pay back, not helped by an ageing population. Economic growth will inevitably be slower than in the past. Meanwhile, other countries such as China, India, Russia and Brazil are growing rapidly. It remains to be seen how far these countries rise and how far Western Europe falls, but the trend seems set. Almost five hundred years of Western European hegemony in the economic and cultural spheres of this world is coming to an end. This is not to say that their legacies won’t last, for those of Rome still last today. They may rise again in the future. As human history shows, nothing is permanent. Empires and nations will continue to rise and fall unceasingly throughout time.

Britain and its immigrants

With a general election not far away, British politicians are already busy announcing various election promises with the aim of wooing potential voters. The topic of immigration is always a hotly debated one, and politicians will no doubt be compelled to talk about their party’s immigration policies in the coming weeks. It’s a topic that is never very far from the headlines at any time, kept constantly on the boil by a willing media. In the last general election in 2005 the Tory leader, Michael Howard, decided to make immigration one of his prime election issues. “It's not racist to impose limits on immigration: are you thinking what we're thinking?” the Conservative Party’s election posters said. Howard’s populist campaign was one of the most anti-immigration ones for a long time, and in the end it was a loser. Howard employed Lynton Crosby, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s election strategist. Crosby’s dog-whistle type of politics may have worked in Australia, but it boomeranged in the UK. This is not to say immigration is a non-issue, for Britain’s antipathy toward foreigners is legendary, but a closer look at its history reveals a nation that has been shaped, and indeed enriched, by many waves of immigration over millennia. I have finished reading Robert Winder’s fascinating book “Bloody Foreigners”, which I thoroughly enjoyed, chronicling the achievements of Britain’s many immigrants over the years.

Britain was once connected to continental Europe thousands of years, and Homo sapiens from the south simply wandered here unchecked. Then around 7000BC melting ice caps raised the sea level and water broke through the fragile chalk bridge connecting Dover to the continent. Homo sapiens had advanced much more by then and would have continued to come to Britain. They were followed by the Beaker people from the Rhine Valley, the Celts from east of the Alps, the Romans, the Germanic tribes (Saxons, Angles and Jutes), and the Vikings. It was the Romans who introduced Christianity. A divided country – Saxon in the south and west, Danish in the north and east – it took a Danish monarch – King Cnut – in 1016 to unite the country. The Norman Conquest in 1066 was actually a war between two Danish tribes: the Normans of France and the Anglo-Danish heirs of Cnut. The Normans did a whole scale corporate takeover of Britain, laying the foundation of the British class system and erecting its chief pillar: the primacy of land ownership as the path to power. The lasting legacies of the Normans are the institutions: the government, the aristocracy, the church and the army. Many of the great castles and cathedrals in Britain were built by them.

During the centuries of Norman rule among the most significant of the new immigrants were the Jews. Due to the church’s insistence that usury was a sin, Jews were invited to perform this important service. Initially they were welcomed by the rulers, given special privileges and guarantees, and they prospered due to their near-monopoly position. They often charged high interest and the natives hated them because they were rich, but slowly the Jews’ growing wealth was plundered in a series of random and greedy taxes, or ‘tallages’. The crusades sharpened animosity toward them even further, as they were seen as infidels, and resentment of the Jews hardened to official disdain. In the thirteenth century Henry III not only plundered them but forced them of their land, which they had acquired in lieu of debts. There were some terrible atrocities, such as the murder of some four hundred Jews on Palm Sunday in 1263, in London, and up to a thousand Jews in 1264. Eventually in 1290, in an act that would resonate across Europe and be echoed by continental monarchs, Edward I expelled the Jews from Britain.

The Black Death in 1348 wiped out nearly one third of the English population. Immigration was encouraged in official circles in order to fill the gaping hole in the labour market. “But if the expert immigrants – the weavers, cobblers, glass blowers and brewers – were sponsored and welcomed by the authorities, they too faced resentment from those less advantageously placed on the social ladder.” The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 led to many attacks on foreigners. But medieval life was rough, and eruptions of violence were relatively brief, punctuated by long periods when no animosity is recorded. As a new Protestant nation, England attracted persecuted Protestants from Europe, mainly from the Low Countries. They were by definition self-reliant, industrious, and independent minded. Protestants rested only on Sundays, while Catholics took a two-day break each week. These qualities later became harnessed into one of the western world’s most powerful characteristics: the Protestants work ethic.

Religious liberty was the overriding reason why many Protestants came. The Jews also made a come-back, fleeing persecution on the continent. They were granted permission to pursue their religion, at first discreetly, but later in public. In 1663 Samuel Fortrey wrote a book in which he stated four reasons why migrants wanted to come to Britain: 1) it was an obliging and temperate land; 2) English law was relatively fair and provided some protection to the individual; 3) England gave newcomers the chance to make a fortune; 4) it offered religious sanctuary. The Huguenots, who fled Catholic France, were a vibrant addition to English life, and helped transform an agricultural economy into an industrial one.

When Queen Anne didn’t produce an heir, England’s leaders chose her closest living Protestant relative, the Elector of Hanover - George I - as her successor. Eighteenth century society received a fresh injection of new blood, in the form of George I’s inner circle as well as many German businessmen, bankers, scholars and artists. Later as Prussia expanded west and south, some two hundred thousand Germans left their war-ravaged country and fled, mainly to North America but also to Britain. They achieved prominent positions in business, finance and industry. Paul Reuter, the son of a Rabbi, started a company that became the leading supplier of international news, primarily financial information, to Britain’s newspapers. There were many German or German-descended bankers in the City: Barings, Grotes, Samuel Montagu, Rothschilds, and the mightiest of them all, Sir Ernest Cassel. Many of the Germans were actually Jews. “Under English law it was still necessary for everyone wishing to naturalise as British to take a Christian sacrament. For the devout this was intolerable, but for a large number of nineteenth-century immigrants it was no great deterrent.” Benjamin Disraeli was Britain’s first Jewish prime minister.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in 1807, “Britain had snatched and thrashed, bought and sold more than two and a half million men and women (mainly men) into the plantation infernos in eleven thousand ships.” The profits were enormous, without which it is unlikely Britain could have mustered the resources to invade and secure India, or power industrialisation. Slavery and racism enforced each other, and for the first time Britons came to think of themselves as ‘white’. Although slavery dwindled racism did not. Nevertheless, the abolition of the slave trade did boost Britain’s image as the “moral leader of the civilised world”. Political refugees, like Giuseppe Mazzini, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, unwelcome in Europe, found a shelter in Britain where there was more individual freedom. Marx and Engels’ historic work – from the Communist Manifesto to Das Kapitol – was to a large extent a critique of British capitalism, at a time when Britain was enjoying an explosion of industrial activity. In the nineteenth century there were other immigrants too from Italy and Ireland. Few immigrants have been less welcome than the Irish, and there were plenty of anti-Irish riots, but by the end of the nineteenth century they had more or less entered the mainstream of British life.

As the British Empire expanded so too did a feeling of British superiority. “Partly it was the very ease of the imperial conquest which confirmed in the minds of Britons the concept of inferior people.” At its largest, in 1914, the empire covered 12.7 million square miles, of which the UK itself accounted for less than 1%. Surely this ‘proved’ that white Europeans were born to rule, and dark natives born to serve? “Very few people knew what went on in the colonies. They were happy to go along with the contorted logic of racist thinking, which insisted that the subjugated populations were too dim for cerebral work, yet simultaneously capable of fearsome cunning.” Religion, science, philosophy and even poetry joined hands to encourage racist thought. A racial pecking order was developed with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom, just above the animals. These ideas flowed naturally from Darwin’s recently formulated theory of evolution. By the mid-nineteenth century, when the ‘lower orders’ had the audacity to rebel against their ‘superiors’, Britain reacted with righteous indignation. “The Indian Mutiny of 1857 was seen as the worst form of ingratitude against the civilising empire-builders. And a few years later in 1865, a similar uprising in Jamaica was put down with unprecedented savagery.” Nineteenth- century Britain was not a good place to be dark-skinned or foreign. “Foreigners” declared the Truth magazine in 1893, “are in fact deceitful, effeminate, irreligious, immoral, unclean and unwholesome.”

After the Suez Canal was cut in 1869, people from the east began filtering to England. The shipping companies were quite fond of their Asiatic Lascars and coolies as they worked harder, for less pay, and were not as keen on drunken brawls as their local counterparts. Nearly a third of men who fought for Britain in the First World War were from the colonies, mainly India, yet the war is remembered as an act of pure British sacrifice. After the war the Indian men were shooed off home. The passport came into use in 1915, which gave governments a new weapon to control migration. However, the number of African, Chinese and Indian men working for shipping companies continued to grow. Some Indian activists began to surface in public life: Uphadhaya, Shapuri Saklatava, and Krishna Menon.

Things got harder for Britain’s Jews as anti-Semitism grew all over Europe. There were marches and rallies, including one notable running fight along Cable Street in east London, but persecution on this scale was no deterrent to those fleeing the far worse oppressions in Nazi Germany. One third of Germany’s Jews managed to escape before the borders were closed, and inevitably this was the third most able to leave. Some of Britain’s well known shops were started by Jewish immigrants: Marks & Spencer, Moss Bros, Burton and Tesco. They started from very humble circumstances, just running a market stall or a rag-and-bone business, but successfully built up their businesses over time. With their growing clout in the higher echelons of power, Zionists such as Chaim Weizmann were able to lobby for a Jewish state.

As in the First World War Britain summoned its colonial subjects to arms in the Second World War. The Indian Army supplied three million men. Many Poles, squeezed between Hitler to the west and Stalin to the east, came to Britain. They fought valiantly for Britain, and this was recognised by Churchill who felt they were “a special case” and offered them settlement. This was the first time a major group of immigrants were formally welcomed, embraced and given assistance. After the war some 345,000 European nationals were recruited by the Foreign Labour Committee to rebuild a war ravaged country.

In the decades that followed many migrants, first from the Caribbean, then from partitioned India, Africa and Hong Kong made their way to Britain. The empire had been widely resented, but also –despite everything – admired. In Gandhi’s words Britain was “the land of philosophers and poets, the very centre of civilisation.” Nehru’s years in Harrow had left him with a keen regard for English manners. “In my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian,” he wrote. “I returned to India as prejudiced in favour of England and the English as it is possible.” It was financial hardship that prodded the newly liberated peoples to head for England. There was, however, no assistance given to the new arrivals as was forthcoming for the Poles, Czechs, European volunteers and even prisoners of war. Thrown into an unfriendly labour market and a tougher housing market, they inevitably clustered in certain locales.

Among the first Indians to come to Britain were the Eurasians or Anglo-Indians. They were followed by the Sikhs, fleeing a partitioned Punjab, and then people displaced by the construction of the Mangla Dam in Mirpur, Pakistan. Unlike the West Indians, who felt they were British before they came, the Indians and Pakistanis were keen to uphold their cultural traditions. Anti-immigrant feeling, particularly toward non-white immigrants, increased toward the end of the 1950s when the post-war reconstruction boom came to an end. There were ugly scenes in Nottingham, Shepherd’s Bush and Notting Hill. Politicians too easily succumbed to the idea that immigrants were to blame, with little concern for the bullying behaviour of the locals, and police were convinced that the best way to stop violence was to send them back home.

Britain did its best to deter expelled East African Asians, but in the end admitted many of them in anyway. Enoch Powell said Britain must be “mad, literally mad” to permit such an unhealthy influx. “Like the Roman,” he said, “I see the Tiger flowing with much blood.” It didn’t take long for the Indians and Pakistanis to effect sharp changes in the urban landscape and the national lifestyle. Asian owned corner shops sprang up everywhere. Many Asians became prosperous and prominent figures, but the most common experience was social exclusion. In the East End of London daily life for Bangladeshis and Pakistanis was torrid, with the far right National Front inciting much violence. There was also trouble in Southall, which climaxed in the election campaign of 1979 when the National Front organised a meeting in the town hall. The Chinese immigrants, who came mainly from Hong Kong, dispersed much more sparsely across the country, setting up takeaways and fish and chip shops, and faced much less hostility. There were also a large influx of Europeans, including Irish and Cypriots, but they were hardly noticed. At any other time, things could have been quite different.

On ‘World in Action’ Margaret Thatcher said, “Some people have felt swamped by immigrants.” “They’ve seen the whole character of their neighbourhoods change.” Soon after she came to power her government acted quickly to stop an influx of Boat People and a mass migration of Hong Kong citizens. The immigration rules were tightened even further so that only people of demonstrably “British descent” could be considered for settlement. Throughout the 1980s, like the decade before, racist incidents were so common that they “ceased to be news, until the determination of Stephen Lawrence’s parents provoked a front-page search for the murderers of their son (led by the Daily Mail, unusually) and pricked Britain’s conscience.” This was a turning point and there was a major bureaucratic effort to oppose racist violence in theory.

In 1986 the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses” made immigration again a national concern. Anti-racist politics had already made deep inroads into public life, and there were laws protecting the rights of immigrants, but the situation was the kind that opponents of multiculturalism had feared might come to pass. It highlighted there was a new element in the social landscape, one which had no desire to ‘blend in’ or adapt to British ways: fundamentalist Islam. This made people brood on a more literal definition of ‘tolerance’: the willingness to put up with things they did not necessarily like.

Throughout the 1990s the asylum system was so overwhelmed that the British public came to believe all migrants were false, none had a right to be here, and there was pressure on the government to get tough. The British National Party began agitating again. “These foreign spongers were given favourable treatment and precedence over honest Brits,” they declared. “They were stealing our houses, our birthright and our jobs.” In fact, asylum seekers amounted to only a fraction of the people coming to Britain. Thousands more travelled perfectly legally, on tourist, student or business visas, and then simply overstayed, drifting out of reach of law enforcement agencies. Given that these illegal immigrants have no access to either social services or healthcare, no employment rights and no leverage in the housing market, it is unlikely they are here to stay. According to some guesses the illegal economy is worth some eight billion pounds per year. Employers didn’t stop hiring; they just stopped declaring.

Today the general opinion about immigration is not much different than in the past, with renewed calls to tighten immigration rules even further. The long sequence of political reforms since 1962 has been nothing but a wholehearted attempt to restrict immigration, especially coloured immigration. It’s now extremely difficult for coloured immigrants to enter the UK legally. They are not generally taking other people’s jobs, but doing jobs in the so-called 3-D category: dirty, dangerous and difficult. Migrants have kept inflationary pressures down, being willing to tolerate low wages. With an increasingly aging population it will be hard for Britain to underwrite a solid pension system if the labour force is not replenished with younger workers. If it were true immigration is economically harmful then America would be minnow, not a superpower. Francis Walker, superintendent of the US census in 1880 and 1890, wrote a hundred years ago that it was time to halt the exodus from Europe. These people, he said, were “beaten men from beaten races, representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence.” This massive misjudgement is echoed in Britain today.

I do recognise that Britain cannot allow unlimited immigration. The country wouldn’t be able to cope. Strains on social services, social tension and also criminal activity have to be taken into account in deciding how many and what types of people are allowed in. Sometimes they are fleeing natural disasters, political oppression, religious persecution, failing crops or internal conflict. The tabloid newspapers, and an increasingly media savvy anti-immigrant lobby, are all too eager to view immigrants not as individuals but as numbers. The tabloids not only report discord but often sow it.

Looking at all the different immigrants who have come to Britain it’s clear some groups have clearly been more successful than others. The Jews, Huguenots, Indians and Chinese have done very well. Others like the Palantines and the Gypsies were not successful, mainly because they lacked the urban skills required to thrive in British society, and unfortunately for them they got deported. Ultimately it seems that those who bring with them the most useful skills and who can adapt quickly are the ones who thrive. Britain lends a certain degree of leeway and protection for them to do so. There are very few countries in the world that would provide a flat, a school, a hospital and some petty cash for refugees, but Britain does this. This is often more a source of shame than of pride. And I wholeheartedly agree with Winder’s statement that “immigration is, after all, a compliment, a tribute to our opportunity-rich economy, our humane (if overstretched) social services, our historic civil liberties, our rickety but ancient reputation for fairness and justice.”

Book summary: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel

I enjoyed this book so much that I decided to summarise it. It is a Gold-Medallion award-winning best-seller written by Lee Strobel, a former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, who has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School. The book retraces his own spiritual journey from atheism to belief in Christ. Using his investigative journalism skills he cross-examines a dozen experts, with doctorates from prestigious universities like Cambridge and Princeton, who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel asks some tough, point-blank questions. With a predisposition to atheism he sets out to examine whether Jesus of Nazareth really was the Son of God. Being a skeptic he is interested in evidence, and that is what he tries to uncover. The book is remarkably easy to read, written in a captivating, fast-paced style.

The eyewitness evidence

Strobel starts by examining the eye witness testimony of Jesus, recorded in the gospels, and interviews Dr. Craig Blomberg, a New Testament scholar at Denver Seminary in Colorado. The gospels include: the Gospel of Matthew, by Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector; the Gospel of Mark, by John Mark, a companion of Peter; the Gospel of Luke, by Paul’s physician, Luke; and the Gospel of John, by another disciple of Jesus, John. All the gospels were written within sixty years of the life of Jesus, much earlier than biographies of other important persons in ancient history and too early for legendary interpretations to have formed, explains Blomberg. The Gospel of Mark was written first, no later than about 60AD, and it was a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is believed Matthew and Luke also used a common hypothetical source, called Q (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"), containing a collection of the sayings of Jesus.

Blomberg explains persuasively it was the intention of the gospel writers to preserve history accurately, they were able to do so, and that they were honest and didn’t allow bias to influence their reporting. They had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism and martyrdom, yet because of their integrity and firm beliefs, they were willing to endure all this. The consistency of the gospels on the main facts, together with variations on some details, lends historical credibility to the accounts. Blomberg says, “It’s likely that a lot of the similarities and differences among the synoptics can be explained by assuming that the disciples and other early Christians had committed to memory a lot of what Jesus said and did, but they felt free to recount this information in various forms, always preserving the significance of Jesus’ original teachings and deeds.” Moreover, it is unlikely the early church would have grown if contemporaries of Jesus could have been exposed as propagating falsehoods.

The documentary evidence

Strobel then examines how carefully the biographies of Jesus have been preserved. He interviews Bruce Metzger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, who has written many books on the New Testament. Metzger explains that although there are no surviving copies of the original New Testament, what it has in its favour is the unprecedented number of copies (more than 5,000), from different geographical locations, that have survived and date back close to the original writings. This indicates they can be traced back genealogically in a family tree to the original manuscripts. The oldest surviving manuscript is a fragment of the gospel of John which dates back to between 100 and 150 AD. The manuscripts are so remarkably consistent with one another that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, “The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5% pure.” The early church did not include apocrypha, such as The Gospel of Thomas, in the New Testament because they contradicted Jesus’ teaching, having been written in the second century or later, and their mythical qualities made them less credible.

The corroborating evidence

Is there evidence outside of the gospels for Jesus? Strobel puts this question to Dr Edwin M. Yamauchi, a Japanese-American academic, who was born a Buddhist but became a believer of Christ. Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. In his work “The Antiquities “ he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in order to have James, the brother of Jesus, killed. An even lengthier section about Jesus is written in the “Testimonium Flavianum”, which is considered authentic by both Jewish and Christian scholars, although there may be some interpolations by early Christian copyists. Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem; and he established a wide and lasting following, despite having been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some Jewish leaders. Tacitus, a Roman historian of the first century, testifies to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a historical figure – “Christus” – who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Pliny the Younger, another Roman who was provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan in 112 AD how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor and instead worshiped "Christus". A historian called Thallus refers to the solar eclipse at the time of the Crucifixion. The Jewish Talmud mentions Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death; and it repeats the rumour Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there was something unusual about his birth; so in a negative way it corroborates some things about Jesus. Paul of Tarsus, a Jewish high priest who never met Jesus, was transformed from being a persecutor of Christians to history’s foremost Christian missionary after he encountered the resurrected Christ. His letters, written before the gospels, verifies the antiquity and traditions of Jesus, undermining a popular theory that the deity of Christ was later imported into Christianity by pagan beliefs. The ‘Apostolic Fathers’ – the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament – attest to the basic facts about Jesus, particularly his crucifixion, resurrection and divine nature. Yamauchi adds, “For me, the historical evidence has reinforced my commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God who loves us and died for us and was raised from the dead. It’s that simple.”

The scientific evidence

Next, Strobel examines the scientific evidence and interviews Dr John McRay, a professor of New Testament and archaeology. McRay explains how archaeological evidence has repeatedly enhanced the credibility of the New Testament. John’s gospel was sometimes considered suspect because he mentioned locations that couldn’t be verified, but new discoveries have backed it up. The Pool of Bethesda, where Jesus healed an invalid (John 5:1 – 15), has recently been excavated. Other discoveries include the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), Jacob’s Well (John 4:12), the probable location of the Stone Pavement near Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate (John 19:13). Luke says the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria. Strobel points out that Quirinius didn’t begin ruling Syria until 6 AD. But McRay says an archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, which places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod the Great. Sir William Ramsay, the late archaeologist and professor at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, concluded from various inscriptions that while there was only one Quirinius, he ruled Syria on two separate occasions, which would cover the time of the census. Another contentious issue is the existence of Nazareth, which skeptics say didn’t exist during the time of Jesus. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jewish priests were sent out to various other locations, including Galilee. Archaeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty four ‘courses’, or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having moved to Nazareth. There is no independent confirmation of the slaughter of new born children at Bethlehem. Bethlehem, McRay explains, was a small town, and the fact that Herod, a bloodthirsty king, killed some babies there wouldn’t have captured the attention of people in the Roman world. Ancient Palestine was a bloody place. The way archaeology has backed up the New Testament, concludes Strobel, contrasts with how it has proved to be devastating for other religions such as Mormonism.

The rebuttal evidence

With self-selected, liberal groups like the Jesus Seminar attracting a great deal of uncritical media attention with their claims disputing the gospels, is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith? Strobel puts this question to Dr Gregory A Boyd, a former atheist, who became professor of theology at Bethel University. The Jesus Seminar disputes most of what Jesus is purported to have said in the gospels, rules out the possibility of the supernatural, and uses questionable criteria to prove that a saying came from Jesus. Historians usually operate with the burden of proof to prove falsity or unreliability, since people generally are not compulsive liars, but the Jesus Seminar turns this logic on its head explains Boyd. He says the Jesus Seminar represents “an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking.” The idea that Jesus emerged from mythology or was another Jewish wonder worker doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Jesus’ teachings are based on distinctively Jewish beliefs and the miracles he performed have no parallel in history. It is likely that mystery religions with parallels to Christianity, which emerged after the second century, borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way round. So the Jesus of faith is the Jesus of history, concludes Boyd.

The identity evidence

The second part of the book examines the identity of Jesus. Did he believe he was God? Strobel discusses the topic with Dr Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Drawing upon Jesus’ miracles, his sense of mission, and some of his phrases (e.g. “Abba” to refer to God, “Amen I say to you” before starting his teachings) Witherton explains how Jesus saw himself in the very place of God. As Mark 10:45 says his purpose was to come into this world and, by sacrificing his life, redeem his people: “I did not come to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom in place of the many.” Just as God formed his people in the Old Testament Jesus creates a renewed Israel, represented by his twelve disciples. This says quite a lot about what he thought of himself.

The psychological evidence

Was Jesus crazy when he claimed to be the son of God? Strobel examines this area with Dr Gary R Collins, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology from Purdue University. Collins says Jesus didn’t display the usual characteristics of madness: emotional imbalance (e.g. depression, anger, anxiety); misperceptions (e.g. paranoia); thinking disorders; or unsuitable behaviour (e.g. odd dress sense, poor social skills). On the contrary he was compassionate; he was not egotistical; he was emotionally balanced; he knew what he was doing and where he was going; he accepted people but didn’t ignore their sins; and he responded to people based on their unique needs. Jesus healed conditions like lifelong blindness and leprosy, for which a psychosomatic explanation isn’t likely. “I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness,” he concluded.

The profile evidence

The Old Testament provides numerous details about the attributes of God. Did Jesus fulfil those attributes? Strobel put this question to Dr D A Carson, a research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who has written more than forty books. While the Incarnation - God becoming man, the infinite becoming finite – is difficult for our finite minds to comprehend, Carson pointed out evidence that Jesus did exhibit the characteristics of deity, although theologians believe some kind of voluntary ‘emptying’ out (Philippians 2) of his independent use of his attributes took place. Every attribute of God, says the New Testament, is found in Jesus: omniscience (John 16:30); omnipresence (Matthew 28:20, Matthew 18:20); omnipotence (Matthew 28:18); eternality (John 1:1); and immutability (Hebrews 13:8).

The fingerprint evidence

Did Jesus, and he alone, match the identity of the Messiah given in the Old Testament? Could he have simply fitted the description of the Messiah by coincidence? Strobel interviews Dr Louis S. Lapides, who was born to a Jewish family, to discuss these questions. Lapides had experienced some anti-Semitism when he was an American soldier in the Vietnam War which put him off Christianity. However, looking at a bible given to him by an evangelist he was stopped cold when he read Isaiah 53, which was written seven hundred years before Jesus:

He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gave gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

Nor was any deceit in his mouth...

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Lapides was so struck by this description of the Messiah that he believed Christians had rewritten the Old Testament to make Isaiah’s words sound as though the prophet had been foreshadowing Jesus. Jews in the Old Testament sought to atone for their sins through a system of animal sacrifices but here was Jesus, the ultimate sacrificial lamb of God, who paid for the sin of all man. He came across more than four dozen predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, all of which matched with Jesus. Mathematician Peter W. Stoner computed that the probability of a man fulfilling just eight prophesises would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Lapides realised the New Testament wasn’t a handbook for the American Nazi Party but an interaction between Jesus and the Jewish community. Lapides accepted Jesus as the Messiah and that also helped to transform his spiritual life.

The medical evidence

The third part of the book examines the Resurrection, the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith, which is the ultimate vindication of Jesus’ teaching and personal claims. The idea that Jesus never really died on the cross can be found in the Koran. Ahmadiya Muslims believe that Jesus fled to India; and there’s a shrine that supposedly marks his real burial place in Srinagar, Kashmir. Many swoon hypotheses, that contend Jesus faked his death, continue to flourish. Strobel interviews Dr Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D., who holds a medical doctorate from the University of Miami and a doctorate in engineering from the University of Bristol, to discuss the possibility whether Jesus could have faked his death. Metherell provides a medical account of the physical torture Jesus would have endured, from his sweating of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane before his arrest to his crucifixion on the cross. The sweating of blood is a condition known as hematidrosis, which is associated with a high degree of psychological stress. The flogging Jesus received prior to his crucifixion would have been brutal, resulting in lacerations and significant blood loss, which would have caused hypovolemic shock as evidenced by the fact that he was too weak to carry the crossbar (patibulum) all the way to Golgotha. At the site of the crucifixion he would have been laid down and his wrists would have been nailed to the crossbar, piercing the median nerve which is the largest nerve going to the hand. The pain would have been unbearable, so much so that a new word was invented for it: excruciating. Once the crossbar was attached to the vertical skate, and nails driven through his feet, both shoulders would have become dislocated (Psalm 22: “My bones are out of joint”). Then it would have been a slow agonizing death by asphyxiation. Jesus’ death would have been guaranteed by the thrust of a spear into his side and heart, accounting for some fluid – the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion – that has the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, described by the eyewitness John in his gospel. Metherell concludes that it would have been impossible for Jesus to survive this ordeal, and even if he somehow did his ghastly condition would not have inspired a worldwide movement.

The evidence of the missing body

If the resurrection is true, is there evidence that supports Jesus’ missing body from the tomb? Strobel seeks out Dr William Lane Craig, who has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich, to answer this question. Craig points out that the empty grave is reported or implied in extremely early sources – Mark’s gospel and the 1 Corinthians 15 creed – which date so close to the event that they could not have been products of legend. The fact the empty tomb was discovered by women, who had a very low status in first century Jewish society, bolsters the story’s authenticity. There are conflicting narratives about the empty tomb in the gospels but the inconsistencies are in the secondary details, suggesting we have multiple, independent attestation for the missing body; and all four accounts name Joseph of Arimathea, a Jewish high priest who gave Jesus a tomb. It is most likely that Joseph of Arimathea is a historical figure, and not invented by the gospel writers, considering the early Christian anger toward the Jewish leaders for instigating Jesus’ crucifixion. It is unlikely the women went to the wrong tomb because it was known to the Jewish authorities who would have been too happy to point it out, yet they invented the story that the disciples, despite having no motivation or opportunity, stole the body – a theory not even the most sceptical critic believes today.

The evidence of appearances

What is the evidence to support the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus? This question is put to Dr Gary Habermas, an expert on the resurrection of Jesus. Habermas begins by referring to Paul’s letters to the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul passes on a creed of the early church which names specific individuals and groups of people who encountered the risen Christ, written at a time when many of them were still alive and could be sought out to verify the truth. The evidence suggests the creed could be considered a statement of eyewitnesses. The Acts is littered with references to Jesus’ appearances, while the gospels describe numerous appearances in detail. Appearances to multiple people simultaneously, including to sceptics like James and Paul, rule out the possibility of hallucinations. Concluded British theologian Michael Green, “The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity...There can be no rational doubt that they occurred, and that the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection in the earliest days was just this. They could say with assurance, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ They knew it was the case.”

The circumstantial evidence

Finally, what circumstantial evidence supports the Resurrection? Strobel interviews Dr J. P. Moreland, a philosopher with a doctorate from the University of Southern California and a master’s degree in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, to answer this question. In a clear and methodical way Moreland outlined five reasons to believe in the Resurrection. Firstly, the disciples were transformed from being weak, cowardly men to zealous followers of Jesus, willing to spend their lives proclaiming about Jesus and, in the process, face hardship and death; it’s unlikely they would have endured so much if they weren’t sure of the Resurrection. Secondly, there’s no good reason other than the Resurrection that sceptics like James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul of Tarsus would have been converted and died for their faith. Thirdly, within five weeks of the Crucifixion over ten thousand Jews began abandoning key social practices that they had carefully preserved for centuries. For a people who thought that such social institutions were entrusted by God and abandoning them would risk their souls being damned, these changes represented a social earthquake, and earthquakes don’t happen without a reason. Fourthly, the early Christians adopted the sacraments of communion and baptism. Communion symbolised Jesus’ victory over death, and baptism a Gentile’s wish to take upon himself the laws of Moses. Fifthly, the spontaneous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution “rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of Resurrection,” as C. F D. Moule put it.

Conclusion

This is a certainly a compelling book and for those people who have open mind, there is sufficient evidence to support the case for Jesus’ divinity. However, it probably won’t convince the most ardent sceptics. They will obviously point out that all of the people Strobel interviewed were evangelical Christians. This maybe so but most of them have undertaken extensive research, often battling with their own beliefs, before becoming convinced about Jesus themselves. In some cases they were not believers of Christ at all but became believers in the course of their research. Even today, the majority of scholars are so convinced of the historicity of Jesus that it is only a small minority of non-historians who dispute the case. This book is testament to the fact that the evidence was strong enough that a former atheist, who was a well established award winning journalist, has become a pastor. Often converts who are the most ardent believers. Strobel has gone on to write a number of other books similar to this one, in which he tries to argue the case for a Creator, faith and the real Jesus, none of which I have read; he has also appeared on a television programme called "Faith Under Fire" in America. This book is most certainly worth a read if you want to explore the evidence for Jesus and you have an open mind.

Book review: "The Last Jews of Kerala" by Edna Fernandes

This is a fascinating and touching account of the dying Jewish community in Kerala, India. The book is well researched and skilfully written by Edna Fernandes, who is a British Indian journalist, pointing a spotlight on a community largely unknown to the rest of the world. The author explores the racial divide in the community between the White and Black Jews, the major landmarks in their history and what the future holds. The author’s direct meetings and conversations with members of the community adds a true sense of authenticity, which makes the book so much more interesting.

The Black or Malabari Jews trace their ancestry to the days of King Solomon in biblical times when Jewish traders would come to Kerala in search of spices, sandalwood and other exotic commodities. The White or Paradesi Jews came during the Inquisition in Europe. Unlike many other Jewish communities in the western world, the Jews never suffered persecution in Kerala. In fact, they were a privileged community with special favours bestowed upon them by princely rulers during the ages.

The divide between Black Jews and White Jews came about due to a fight for pre-eminence in Cochini society, resulting in a “Jewish apartheid in India that would last four centuries and eventually lead to the decline and fall of both Black and White.” The Paradesi Jews linked their skin colour to religious purity, alleging that the Malabari Jews were the offspring of slave converts. As Fernandes explains, this undermined the standing of Black Jews: “In caste-based India, where the concept of religious purity is prominent, the taint of slavery eventually undermined the Malabaris’ standing in the royal court of Cochin. Loss of status and economic influence was only part of the cost they had to bear. Dubbed the sons of slaves, the Black Jews were then barred from marrying the White Jews, barred from the Paradesi Synagogue, barred from forming their own place of worship in their homes.”

All this went against the tenets of Judaism, in which the link between justice and shalom are inviolable. As news of this discrimination reached overseas, foreign rabbis such as Rabbi ibn Zimra ruled that the Black Jews “did have the right to intermarry and enter the synagogue as equals, provided all the proper conversion rituals had taken place.” However, the Paradesi leaders did not listen and carried on with their discrimination. “If the segregation was ever challenged by the Blacks, the Whites would call upon the raja or local colonial powers to intervene on their behalf and quell any resistance.”

Eventually it took the bold efforts of a low-born, brilliant lawyer from Ernakulam, A. B. Salem, known as the “Jewish Gandhi”, to bring about change. Inspired by Gandhi’s non-violent methods of protest in the fight for Indian Independence, he applied similar tactics with the Paradesi community. One day he refused to sit in the antechamber designated for the Blacks and strode into the Paradesi Synagogue, dragging his sons behind him. Being a top lawyer, writer and knowing Gandhi and Nehru the Paradesi elders were powerless to stop this man. “Blessed with formidable patience as well as intellect, he relentlessly chipped away at the edifice of prejudice, piece by piece, until it came tumbling down.” Finally, within a few years of the creation of the state of Israel, the last taboo was broken when Balfour, the second son of A. B. Salem, fell in love and married Seema ‘Baby’ Koder, a beautiful White Jewess.

Fernandes briefly describes the other Jewish communities in India including the Bene Israel, who are based in Mumbai, and the Baghdadi Jews, who have now all but disappeared. “While British rule lasted, the educated Bene Israel did well. By the 1940s the community had reached a peak of 25,000 people in India. The Bene Israel were like the Cochinis in that they, too, differentiated between light and dark-skinned Jews, mirroring the indigenous society, which also put a premium on fairness.” However, the Bene Israel still number around 5,000 today which is evidence of their ability to put aside their differences unlike the Cochinis.

Faced with an uncertain future and the lure of Zionism many of the Jews of Cochin, and India, migrated to Israel after Indian Independence and the creation of the Jewish state. Fernandes visits a few Cochini Jews in Israel, most of whom have settled in the Negev, where the dry, barren, desert landscape contrasts with green, verdant Kerala. Despite the harshness of the land many of them have settled well, doing well in horticulture and agriculture. “After fifty years, the Cochini Jewish way of life was thriving in the Middle East just as it was dying in southern India. The community here took every opportunity to push things forward to the next generation. They were ruthless in their in their pragmatism, as one would expect of a desert people. If they could not marry a Cochini, they would marry another Jew and show them the Kerala Jewish life. It was better than the alternative.”

For some Cochinis, however, Israel wasn’t the paradise they had envisaged. Not only was it a “void of loneliness and rejection,” the constant conflict between the Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land was a far cry from their peaceful co-existence in Kerala. As Fernandes explains, the Malabari immigrants “sensed an echo of their own tragedy in the Palestinians.” “They too knew what it was to be usurped in their historical narrative, to face separation. In Kerala, division led to destruction. Perhaps their fear was of the cycle repeating itself.” One such person is seventy-eight year old Abraham Eliavoo, who came not for Zionism but the love of his faith, yet he wanted to return to Kerala to die there because he could not reconcile faith with conflict. “In the end, it was an age-old tolerance that drew him.”

The book is a touching and compelling tale of the Jews of Kerala whose existence, stretching back thousands of years, certainly looks bleak despite a prosperous past. There are some wonderful conversations with various people, as well as descriptions of the Paradesi Synagogue in Mattancheri and places such as Cranganore, Cochin, Chennamangalam, Parul, the Negev and Jerusalem which are important for the Cochinis. In the twilight of their existence in Kerala, at least, there is a belated bonhomie between the Black and White Jews, the latter depending on the former for life support. But as the last few Paradesi Jews come to the end of their lives, and a despondent resignation hangs over them, they will be questioning whether their own attitudes led to their plight, for without justice there can be no shalom.

The Iraq War, oil and the Nobel Peace Prize

Yesterday, a service was held in St Paul’s Cathedral, London, to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq, which was attended by the Queen, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his wife Sarah, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well other members of the military and government. The event was an opportunity to honour the dead British servicemen and reflect on a highly controversial war, with questions on whether it was worth it resurfacing once again. The cost of the war, in both human and financial terms, was huge. It is arguable whether the war has made Iraq and the rest of the world a safer place, which was allegedly the aim of the intervention.

The father of one dead British soldier, Lance-Corporal Shaun Brierley, refused to shake hands with former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Later Peter Brierley said, "I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he has been allowed to come to this reception. I believe he has got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hand.” Tony Blair, who took this country to war, investing his allegiance with former President George W Bush, a failed oil man with a “tendency to concoct favourable facts” (Dilip Hiro), believed the world had changed irrevocably after 9/11 and pre-emptive action was necessary to make it a safer place.

The main reason given for the war was to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which Saddam Hussein was allegedly concealing from the rest of the world. We all know that was hype now. Other reasons for the war were to “liberate” Iraqis from a genocidal dictator; to bring democracy to the country and the wider Middle East; and punish Saddam Hussein who, together with Al Qaeda, was responsible for 9/11. Many people succumbed to the anti-Iraq hype, but many others protested against it, believing that force was not the best solution. Despite the protests, Bush and Blair went ahead with their invasion.

As the dust settles, it becomes increasingly obvious that oil was the main reason behind the war. Even life-long Republican and former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said so. The US was becoming increasingly dependent on Irqai oil after the Clinton administration introduced the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 1996, which banned trade with Iran; and realising his growing clout, Saddam Hussein threatened to postpone plans to raise Iraq’s output if the US held up Iraq’s contracts for food, medicine and economic infrastructure before the UN Sanctions Committee. This pushed up oil prices and forced Clinton to take the unprecedented step of releasing 1 million barrels per day for thirty days from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve during peacetime.

After George W Bush took office in January 2001, at the first meeting of National Security Council (NSC) at the White House, the number one item on the agenda was Iraq, and the next NSC meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated “going after Saddam,” and said, “Imagine what Iraq will look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with US interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what US policy is all about.” Among the documents later sent to NSC members, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which had mapped Iraq’s oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American companies likely to be interested in participating in Iraq’s oil industry.

According to a BBC Newsnight report, the Pentagon planners, influenced by neoconservatives, devised a super secret plan, which involved the sale of all Iraqi oil fields to private companies with a view to increasing output well above the normal OPEC quota for Iraq in order to destroy OPEC. Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi exile and a front runner to replace Saddam, told The Washington Post in 2002, "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." In public, however, the justification for the war was Iraq’s WMD and Saddam’s alleged connections with Al Qaeda.

The plan to exploit Iraq’s plentiful oil resources, however, didn’t go as smoothly as planned. The Bush administration realized it would violate the Geneva Convention on War, which bars an occupying power from altering the fundamental structure of the occupied territory’s economy, by denationalizing Iraq’s oil industry; and the highly revered Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani, as well as other Shiite clerics, held that minerals belong to the “community,” meaning the state. The subsequent insurgency reduced Iraq’s oil output due to frequent attacks on oil pipelines and facilities, and Bush had to approach the US Congress for $2.1 billion to safeguard Iraq’s oil infrastructure. The new Iraqi constitution, endorsed by referendum in October 2005, finally dimmed the prospect of oil privatisation, stating that hydrocarbons are “national Iraqi property.” An auction for Iraq's new oil contracts was held last June, but many major Western companies withdrew their bids at the last minute because of controversial legislation setting terms for foreign investment in the country's oil sector, and for distributing its revenues.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who has always been critical about the war, delivered a stinging attack from the pulpit yesterday, even mentioning the evil hand of Satan: "The invisible enemy may be hiding in the temptation to look for shortcuts in the search for justice – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face." He said it is better if world leaders be patient and be guided by truth: "St Paul tells us to wrap ourselves around with the truth, to be defended by justice and to be impatient only for peace. These are not remote ideals for a religious minority. They are essential advice for those caught up in the anxious, fast-changing world of modern military operations, with the intense, even harsh, scrutiny they get from observers and commentators worldwide." For a man who has often been criticised for his indecisiveness, these were firm words indeed and I admire his courage for such a firm stand.

I was very surprised yesterday that President Barack Obama, who has not been in office for even a year, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his rhetoric about nuclear non-proliferation the prize seemed premature as he has achieved so little. But the Nobel Peace Prize is more than a prize - it is also a statement, and this one is a damning indictment of the policies of the previous Bush administration, which involved the use of unilateral, pre-emptive action with little regard for diplomacy, human rights and ground reality. It remains to be seen if Obama can live to the expectations of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. So far he has made a number of corrective changes to US foreign policy, many of which are welcome, but I think even he will struggle to completely change US foreign policy.