In the previous chapters we have been seeing the significance and place of the ‘option for the poor’ in the Christian tradition. Is this option something very special to Christianity or is it found also in other world religions, even if the accents in which it is expressed may be different. Aloysius Pieris, for instance, distinguishes between the ‘option to be poor’ and the ‘option for the poor’ and asserts that, while the ‘option to be poor’ is common to all the world religions, the ‘option for the poor’ is specific to Christ and Christianity. If this is true then our search for the ‘option for the poor’ in the other world religions will be a futile exercise. But I do not think that this affirmation is true. I shall try to show this by exploring the perspectives of the ‘option for the poor’ in the other world religions. But before doing this, it is necessary to understand what I mean by ‘option for the poor’.
The contemporary discourse on ‘option for the poor’ has been influenced by Marxist theory. This influence is shown particularly in two ways. First of all, the term ‘poor’ is used to refer to the economically poor. Economic poverty normally involves political powerlessness and subjugation, but it is at the root of oppression. Secondly, the term ‘option’ takes for granted a conflictual situation. There is an ongoing struggle between the rich and the poor in history – a ‘class struggle’. To opt for the poor and the oppressed in such a situation of conflict is to opt against the rich and the powerful. The socially radical nature of such an option is sought to be softened also in two ways. Firstly, the option is said to be preferential, not exclusive. Secondly, the conflict should be non-violent, seeking ultimate peace and harmony rather than the victory of one side over the other.
It is not my intention to enter into a dispute with Marxist theory. I would like to suggest that Jesus was not an ‘orthodox Marxist’. Jesus indeed sided with the poor. He had table-fellowship with the publicans, prostitutes and sinners. He was critical of the religious oppression of the Pharisees and the ritual domination of the high priests. He condemned them in strong words. But he did not shun the rich. He accepted their invitations. The publicans, like Matthew or Zacchaeus, were not economically poor. He was supported and financed by some rich women. He did not care only for the economically poor. He cured the sick by forgiving their sins, not by meeting their economic needs. He liberated people possessed by demons like fear, desire and selfishness. The only demon he could not easily exorcise was pride and self-sufficiency. He did not get involved in the political and class struggle which was not unknown in his time. He kept away form the Zealots. While he conferred blessedness on the poor and the oppressed, he did not promise them an earthly kingdom. Poverty was, for him, only a sign of other forms of oppression. Liberation is not merely from economic poverty but from all the demons that keep the humans enslaved. In India today, some Dalits may not be economically poor, but still feel socially oppressed.
It is necessary to keep this broader vision in mind while we look at other world religions so that our search does not limit itself to an examination of their Marxist credentials. As a matter of fact, the other world religions have developed their ‘option for the poor’ precisely as a counter to Marxist influence and its destructive approach to religion. It is in this context that we need to revisit Aloysius Pieris’ contention that the ‘option for the poor’ is not present in other world religions. The avatars in Hinduism are self-manifestations of Vishnu in history when unrighteousness (adharma) is dominant. People suffering from poverty are one indication of unrighteousness. Adharma also includes other social and religious disorders. One can say, of course, that Hinduism does not speak the language of poverty, especially economic poverty. But it is difficult to maintain that God in Hinduism is not concerned by the sufferings of the oppressed people, who include the poor. Traditional Hinduism may have lacked the awareness and the terminology promoted by the social analysis of Marxism. This is true also of Christianity till the 20th century C.E. This is why I think that the ‘option for the poor’ is not exclusive to Christianity. It is also found in other world religious traditions. It would be more true to say that the avatars of Hinduism were not and did not become poor as Jesus was. However Jesus’ own poverty was relative. John the Baptist was more poor in this sense than Jesus. Let us now see what form does the ‘option for the poor’ take in the other world religions today. I shall focus on contemporary thinkers and not on the scriptures. I shall limit myself to Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
- Aloysius Pieris, “An Asian Paradigm: Inter-religious Dialogue and Theology of Religions,” The Month 26 (1993), 133.
Islam and the Poor
A sense of community and justice is central to Islam. Almsgiving is considered one of the five pillars of its pillars – the others being: the affirmation of faith that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet, prayer five times a day, fasting during a month and a pilgrimage to Mecca when and if possible. Almsgiving is not justify to individual choice. In Islamic societies a tax called zakat is levied on every one. It is a combination of wealth and income tax. The rate is not specified in the Qur’an and could be adjusted according to needs and circumstances. The income from this tax was collected in the treasury and was used to help the poor and the needy, the orphans and the widows, to pay off the debts of the indebted and to free slaves. The Qur’an forbade sharecropping on land and usury. The basis for this practice is the conviction that God is the absolute master and lord of every one and everything. This conviction did not develop into any form of collective ownership, but affirmed the rights of every one to have a share in the goods of this earth. The two words used in the Qur’an to indicate justice are ‘adl and qist. ‘Adl means justice with an implication of leveling and equalizing. It is the opposite of zulm and jaur, which mean wrong doing and oppression. Qist is equal distribution and fairness. This applies also to material goods.
There are a number of passages in the Qur’an that justify these attitudes. It says: “It (wealth) may not circulate only among those of you who are rich.” (59:7) Again: “And in their wealth the needy and the deprived have due share.” (51:19) Helping the poor is true religion. “Have you observed him who belies religion? It is he who turns away the orphan and does not urge others to feeding of the needy. Woe to those who pray and give no alms to the destitute.” (107) Again: “O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to piety.” (5:8) The Qur’an justified taking up arms in defense of the poor. It says: “Why should you not fight for the cause of Allah and the weak among men and of the women and children who are saying: Our Lord! bring us forth from out of this town of which the people are oppressors!” (4:75) We can hear the option for the poor in the following passage: “And we desired to show favour unto those who were oppressed in the earth, and to make them leaders and make them the inheritors.” (28:5)
2. For general reference one can consult Michael Amaladoss, Life in Freedom. Liberation Theologies from Asia. (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash,1997)
Starting from these roots contemporary Islamic theologians and leaders have developed further the implications of justice and option for the poor. Asghar Ali Engineer (from Mumbai, India) has a book on the liberation theology of Islam. Ali Shariati (from Iran) was active in the movement liberation of Iran from the oppressive capitalist rule of the Shah. He calls the God of Islam as the “God of the oppressed, of those who are fighting for their freedom, for the martyrs for the cause of truth and justice.” The humans are not the owners of the world and its goods, but its trustees on behalf of all. He points out how Mohammed rose out of the common people to oppose the rich and the powerful, like Jesus, but unlike the Buddha, Zoroaster and Confucius who were from princely families. He says: “Unlike other religions which justify poverty, Islam condemns it… (Its) elements are based on constant striving (jihad) and justice (‘adalat). Islam pays attention to bread, its eschatology is based on active life in the world, its God respects human dignity and its messenger armed.” He has a beautiful prayer.
O God of the deprived!
Thou who willed that Thou wouldst grace
The deprived upon the earth,
Those masses who are condemned to weakness
And deprived of life,
Who are the enslaved of history,
The sacrifices of oppression
And the plundering of time,
And who are the stretched upon the earth,
To become the leaders of human beings
And inherit the earth.
Now the time has come
And the deprived upon the earth
Are in anticipation of Thy promise.
Ali Shariati paid for his defense of the poor and the oppressed with his blood, murdered by the secret police of the Shah.
Economic inequality normally finds expression in political inequality. It is in that context that the idea of theodemocracy of Mawlana Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi (India-Pakistan) is interesting. Since God is the absolute master of everything, the humans are collectively responsible for themselves. “The right to rule belongs to the whole community of believers. There is no reservation or special prerogative in favour of any particular individual, family, clan or class. Such a society cannot tolerate class divisions, and it will not permit disabilities for citizens on the basis of birth, social status, or profession.”
3. Ashgar Ali Engineer, Islam and Liberation Theology. Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1990.
4. Ali Shariati, What is to be Done? The Enlightened Thinkers and Islamic Renaissance (Houston: IRS, 1986), pp. 1,71.
5. Ibid. pp. 22-23.
6. Ali Shariati, Martyrdom. (Tehran: Abu Dharr Foudation, n.d.), p. 86.
The Poor in Hinduism
I have already suggested at the beginning of this chapter that the avatar tradition in Hinduism can be and has been interpreted as God opting for the poor and the oppressed and fighting with the forces of evil for their liberation. The reading and reinterpretation of the Bhagavad Gita has played an important role in this process.
Mahatma Gandhi is known more for achieving political freedom for India from the British than for his social projects. For him freedom was not merely political, but also social and economical. He campaigned for the abolition of untouchability, though he considered the caste system only as a division of labour, not as hierarchical ordering of society. In the field of economics he developed the doctrine of trusteeship. This means that the humans are not owners of the material goods that they have. They hold them only as trustees for the equal use of every one. He organized the peasants and workers for struggling – non-violently – for their rights. He was against industrial projects that destroyed basic village industries. He justified all these movements in the name of the new society of justice (dharma) outlined in the Bhagavad Gita. For him, the option for the poor is not an option against the rich. On the contrary he laid great stress on the importance of non-violent, non-cooperative agitation leading to negotiation and to a series of compromises on the way to achieving total liberation. Thus Gandhi, not only made an option for the poor, but devised a concrete and effective way of empowering the poor for liberating themselves from their poverty and subjection. Gandhi feels free to reinterpret Hinduism to suit contemporary needs. His place in the Hindu spectrum is at the opposite pole from Hindutva. His tradition was continued by Acharya Vinoba Bhave and Jaiprakash Narayan.
Swami Agnivesh is a monk belonging to Arya Samaj. He is the national leader of stone quarry workers and bonded labourers. He makes conscious efforts to reconcile the Vedic Hindu tradition with the principles of Marxism. This effort gives birth to vedic socialism. He calls the oppressed to struggle: “In order to establish your political supremacy the toiling masses of the world unite, and expropriate the expropriators” and tells them: “God is clearly on the side of the noble, the rational and the toiling people when She says: I give this land, this earth to the toiling people.” In the process of developing his vedic socialism he reinterprets fundamental vedic doctrines like the theory of karma, the caste system and the scheme of the four ashramas. He speaks of a family spirit of “from each according to one’s capacity, to each according to one’s need” and declares that “the fight against untruth, bondage, an unjust social order based on violence and greed and usurpation become part and parcel of one’s spiritual pursuit.” It is interesting to note the way in which both Gandhi and Agnivesh link social transformation to personal and spiritual transformation. The ‘option for the poor’ must go together with the ‘option to be poor’.
7. Quoted in John L. Esposito (ed), Voices of Resurgent Islam. (New York; Oxford University Press, 1983), p.110.
8. Ignatius Jesudasan, A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1984)
9. Swami Agnivesh, “Vedic Socialism”, Seminar 339 (1987) 22.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p.21.
From an earlier generation, the figure of Swami Narayana Guru stands out. As a Dalit, he reinterpreted Hinduism as a basis for social equality and justice, finding in the advaita (non-duality) a principle of the equality of all, since all are one in the Absolute. He also worked successfully for the uplift of the Dalit (Ezhava) community in Kerala by promoting education and organization so that they are socially empowered today. Other names would include Baba Amte. Contemporary Hindu gurus like Sai Baba and Mata Amritananda Mayi and even administrators of popular temples and pilgrim centres promote various social, educational and medical ventures to help the poor.
While the ‘option for the poor’ in Hinduism is revolutionary it insists on the way of non-violence. Social violence comes today mostly from Hindu fundamentalists and Marxist revolutionaries. The Marxists do stand by the poor, but they have not brought about any economic or social transformation. This is true, not only about India, but also about other parts of the world. This suggests that ‘option for the poor’ must be de-linked from the ‘option for violent revolution’.
In recent years, some Gods and Goddesses of local popular religions are also being rediscovered as inspirers and empowerers of the poor in their struggles for liberation. These are often historical persons who had lost their lives unjustly during their struggle for their liberation. They become symbols of struggling people and are divinized.
Buddhist Socialism
Bhikku Buddhadasa of Thailand developed the social aspects of Buddhist dharma. He called it Dhammic Socialism. He presents it as an alternative both to liberal capitalistic democracy and Marxist communism. Buddhism teaches that there is no ego which we consider as a centre of being and action. So the whole of reality is a network of inter-dependent beings. So nature or reality itself is socialistic or communitarian. It is not individualistic, since there is no ego. Of course, we can be egoistic. But it is unnatural. We have to get rid of our ego and experience and live reality as it is. From this base Buddhadasa develops the three fundamental principles of dhammic socialism: the good of the whole, restraint and generosity, respect and loving kindness. He says:
Solving social problems is dependent on living in a socially moral way; acting in the best interest of the entire community by living according to nature’s laws; avoiding the consumption of goods beyond our simple needs; sharing all that is not essential for us to have with others, even if we consider ourselves poor; giving generously of our wealth if we are well-to-do.
12. Cf. V. Thomas Samuel, One Caste, One Religion, One God. A Study of Shree Narayana Guru. (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1977)
13. Cf. Kalpana Ram, Mukkuvar Women. (Delhi: Kali for Women, 1992)
14. Bhikku Buddhadasa, Dhammic Socialism. (Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for
15. Development, 1986)
16. Donald K. Swearer (ed), Me and Mine. Selected Essays of Bhikku Buddhadasa. (Albany: State University Press of New York, 1989), p.180
Development is not in increasing, but in reducing one’s needs. But this does not mean that we must reduce production. On the contrary one produces more in order to be able to share more.
This reflection of Buddhadasa is rooted in the Buddhist ideal of the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva is a person who has realized the goal of liberation from his own self. But because reality is interdependent, he cannot feel fully liberated till every one else is liberated too. So he is compassionate towards others who are suffering. Of course this suffering is basically the consequence of being ignorant of one’s true nature. But ignorance is at the root of the many other concrete sufferings that people undergo, like poverty. So mercy or compassion reaches out to people who are suffering in whatever way. The Bodhisattva then tries to alleviate the sufferings of people, whatever they are, not forgetting, of course, to free them from the root of all suffering which is egoism and desire.
This compassion towards the suffering other on the basis of the inter-connectedness of all beings is highlighted also by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist leader. He coins the word inter-being to refer to reality. He is committed to the promotion of peace and community. He says: “If you have compassion, you cannot be rich… You can be rich only if you can bear the sight of suffering. If you cannot bear that, you have to give your possessions away.”
Another Buddhist leader engaged in working for the poor is A.T. Ariyaratna from Sri Lanka. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, he socializes the Buddhist conception and practice of self-lessness by focusing on the building up of the community. The community involves all the dimensions of its life: material, living, health, educational, developmental, personal, spiritual realities and needs. The developmental dimension addresses question of poverty in the community also.
We can see that there is a concern and compassion for the poor. But it does not take the form of dividing the community into rich and poor and opting for the poor. Economics is not seen as the most important issue, though it is not ignored. The real problem is egoism and that is addressed in various ways. There is a lot of stress on the community as inter-dependent. Community involves equality in some way. Such a spirit would be against dividing the community into warring groups in terms of classes and opting for one group against the other.
Conclusion
A look into how other world religions treat the poor people may make us rethink some of our rhetoric about the ‘option for the poor’, partly inspired by Marxist theory and based on a re-reading of the life, teaching and actions of Jesus through Marxist lenses. Rather than trying to correct the lenses, may be we should look at reality directly and see how we can empower and liberate the poor. We do not want to ignore the divisions that exist in the community in the economic, political and social dimensions nor the hidden violence and the tensions and conflict that they may give rise to. But our goal is to build community and that must remain the horizon of all our options and struggles. The best method of doing this is non-violent struggle that leads to a transformative negotiation between every one. If the communitarian dimension is not there we will only be entering a vortex of conflict and violence. Our option then will be counter-productive.
16. Thich Nhat Hanh, Inter-being. (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1987)
17. Cf. Joanna Macy, Dharma and Development. Religion as Resource in the Sarvodaya Self-Help Movement. (West Hartford: Kumarian Press, 1983)
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.