This wine is not heady

It is a measure of Gupta’s ingenuity that he has found that since wine is served as a sacrament in churches, Christians cannot claim churches to be places of worship. What logically follows from this absurd proposition is that since the church is no place of worship, Christianity is no religion. At this rate if he had found that a temple, and not a church, was the stumbling block for him he would have argued that since there are temples even in the Capital where liquor is an offertory, as in a Bhairav temple, no temple should be considered a place of worship. Or he could have even quoted scripture to argue that even the gods partake of the heady stuff that he is so keen to supply. It is a different matter that it was on the slogan of prohibition that the BJP won power in neighbouring Haryana.

But the issue here is whether serving of wine in churches can be considered serving of liquor at all.Sacramental practices vary from one church to another. In the Orthodox church, a tiny piece of bread is dipped in wine and served to the worshipers while in the Catholic church an ounce of the precious stuff is sufficient to serve hundreds of people on a single day. In a Kerala-based Syrian church, it is grape syrup that is used in place of wine. This sacramental serving of wine is as old as Christian tradition and owes its genesis to Christ serving it to his disciples as a symbol of his blood. In this tradition, wine is used sacramentally (Matthew 26: 27-28), medicinally (Proverbs 31:6) and as a beverage with meals (Mark 14:23) as in Palestine bread and wine were indispensable staples (Psalms 104:14). Come to think of it, had Jesus been born, say, in Kerala, He would in all probability have served tapioca and rice gruel, instead of bread and wine.

Taking a cue from this association of the Christians with wine, the Hindi film media has for decades been projecting Christians as drunkards badly in need ofsome brains. In fact, the excessive use of wine is described as a folly (Proverbs 20:1) and is, therefore, to be avoided (Isiah 5 :11). This being the religious position, Gupta’s proposal to denotify churches as religious places is the result of either outright ignorance or sheer mischief. Since the proposal runs counter to Constitutional guarantees and can easily be challenged in a court of law, nobody really feels threatened by the move. Yet, in the meantime it can cause harassment to churches which, like any other religious place, enjoy certain facilities.

For a party which is keen on winning the sympathies of the minorities, this is the kind of pitfall the BJP should avoid at any cost. Devi Lal is still remembered by the Christian community because of the puerile statement he made when he was in power at the Centre that Christians were welcome to go back to England, little knowing that Christianity came to India even before it reached British shores. Worse was Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok V.Chowgule’s recent statement in the context of the reaction of the National Con-ference of Churches in India (NCCI) to the nuclear explosion that Christians were guests in India enjoying the hospitality of the majority community. It is this mindset that is at the root of the problem.

Since in the average person’s perception, the BJP is not minority-friendly (otherwise, it would have been in power on its own and not at the mercy of the Jayalalithas and Mamata Banerjees), the party has to be extra-sensitive to issues that concern the minority communities.

For decades Indian Railways have served meat, mostly chicken, on trains without anyone ever getting exercised over whether the meat is jhatka or halal. Since alternative food was available, those who did not like either of the varieties for health or religious reasons did not at all feel deprived. But under the BJP, this becomes an issue in Parliament forcing Railway Minister Nitish Kumar to ban serving of meat altogether.

Like the foolish friend who doesmore harm than the enemy, those ignorant of religious practices and traditions can create situations where the practitioners of a religion have reasons to feel hurt. Doordarshan’s Good Friday Masala telecast on the last Good Friday on April 10 is a case in point. It started with a three-minute message from a Catholic priest and was followed by a fashion show and a modern Bhangra dance which was notable for the skimpily-clad girls who gyrated to the high-decibel tunes. Little did the producer know that Good Friday is a day of mourning for Christians and they would have preferred Doordarshan ignoring the day rather than producing this sacrilegious programme. It spoke volumes for the sensitivity and general knowledge of the Doordarshan authorities. And to compound their hurt, the RBI declared the following Sunday — Easter Sunday — as a working day for bank employees.

To view the issue purely as Christian in character is to miss the wood for the trees. If today Gupta finds that a church is no centre ofworship, he can say the same thing about temples, mosques and gurdwaras tomorrow. It is this danger that an enlightened citizenry has to perpetually guard against. After all our leaders, irrespective of the party to which they belong, have proved that when it comes to taking decisions what matters most to them is how it benefits them and their kith and kin. The BJP is no exception.