Dr. Vetso Koza
“It is still premature to introduce 33% reservation,” so thought some of us. Let us observe this statement as a hypothesis from a theological perspective and understand whether it is correct. To set this argument in motion, we may recognize that at the backdrop of this 33% Reservation debate is the issue of gender dominance and gender suppression.
The subject of gender dominance and gender suppression is the direct result of human’s fallenness since the Edenic account. The consequence was the pronouncement, “Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16b). Prior to this turn of event, the whole creation narration started with perfectness. On meeting Eve, Adam exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘women’ for she was taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23). This mysterious declaration was not simply a marital hymnology between husband and wife to be spoken during wedding ceremonies. It was a gender recognition and acknowledgment of the same person manifested in two unique identities -in the form of a man and a woman. In other words, what Adam the man was saying may be decoded as, “Look! She is me only; in the form of a woman.” Basing from the perfect creation of Adam, there is supposed be free gender acknowledgement of male and female without any biasness. Thus, what is distorted by sin must be rectified with the hearing and acceptance of the Gospel of Christ. If we are passionate about “the old has gone behold the new has come” declared in 2 Corinthians 5:17, then the old lifestyle of men ruling over women ought to be transformed into “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
If we have to translate this transformative Gospel into our socio-political life, it is restoring what rightfully belongs to women. Then, reservation for women to a certain extent may be necessary. 33% reservation is not a political tool to manoeuvre the women power; it is not a political mechanism to outcast the men; it is not a socio-political gift to appease their grievances. Reservation for women is about acknowledging the worth of women, to freely and equally participate with men in this patriarchal society. Will this 33% Reservation snatch away the rights and authority of men if it is introduced? Mathematically speaking, it cannot. The remaining 67 still belongs to men. But when we try to keep all the 100 to ourselves and talk about women empowerment, it is like “muzzling an ox while treading out the grain.” This assertion was mentioned both in the Old Testament and New Testament, signifying its crucial importance in socio-economic-political living. Refer to Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9.This act of “Muzzling the ox while treading the grain” is outright injustice according to God’s standard.
The word, feminism or feminist agitates many of us men. Let us not forget that the rise of feminism as a liberative movement came into being in order to fight the dictatorial mechanism of patriarchy. Charles Lindholm, studying the inferior status of women in the Middle Eastern society concluded, “Women in the Middle East are denigrated and held in contempt not because they are so weak, but because they are so strong” (Charles Lindholm, “Power, Law and Blood: Sources of Patriarchy in the Middle East,” Boston University). Women suppression through chauvinistic patriarchal attitude will only elevate the spirit of feminism, and vice versa. Suppression will make the suppressed people stronger in the long run. This is because the suppressed people would learn life skills the hard way which would create better resilience and adapt to any given situations. The suppressors, well, they will bloom initially but will eventually develop stunted growth because they are threatened by anything beyond themselves. As long as men are fanatic about patriarchy and women are being romantic with feminism, the issue of power struggle between men and women will always remain. Therefore, perhaps the best way to equate women power and weaken the spirit of feminism is to embrace them and make them one of us. The first step is to acknowledge each other – I for the other. Can’t there be something like, men work towards elevating the women and women come in full support of the men? We derive practical meaning on the expression, “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” when we mutually complement each other.
The paradox of being women is, they are same-different to men. And what more comprehensive verse can we find than the golden rule of Jesus, “Love you neighbour as yourself” in Matthew 19:19. Do we pause to appreciate sometimes that women are the most immediate neighbour to men in this patriarchal society? Yet the one who is our best neighbour is also in us and from us, theologically speaking. Thus, nothing, not even our human cultures and traditions should over-ride this mysterious relationship between men and women.
Culture and traditions are not ready-made package from heaven. It is us who create it for own use, and for a particular point of time. Culture is dynamic, it is never static. As such, what we know as ancient Naga culture and tradition ought to move forward and be refined by the transformative Gospel of Christ. Paul was aware of the conservative Jewish tradition and culture, and the standing of men and women in the society of his time. Yes, some accuse Paul of been men-oriented in his speech. Particularly on occasions where he addressed the women to be silent in 1 Timothy 2:12. This however, was not a case of women suppression. It was in a social context where there was abuse of power by some uninformed women which had the potential threat to over-rule the rights and freedom of men. Another reason was because some women were exploited by false prophets into spreading heresy in the Ephesians Church by wrongly interpreting the Scripture. Other than this, Paul stood for women empowerment in a conservative society by means of toning down the chauvinistic attitude of men of his time. The call for men to love and respect their women in Ephesians 5:25 and 1 Peter 3:7 was something that contradicts their culture and tradition. It was daring to talk to men about love and respect in a socio-cultural context where women were considered a little more than a thing. At times the men’s cattle worth more than the women and children, let alone women participating in the socio-political arena. Paul proclaimed that the socio-economic-political divide between men and women was made equal in the cross of Jesus.
When the essence of social, cultural and political institution is derived from the perspective of the cross of Christ, there is social orderliness even in the midst of gender acknowledgment. The cross is the liberation point for both the suppressed and the suppressors. The cross is the liberation point both for men and women in a situation where women are denied socially, politically, economically and even spiritually. The levelling rod between men and women is the self-giving on both the sides in the form of submission and sacrificial love. Refer to Ephesians 5: 21-33.
Time is now when we need to fine-tune our contextual theology of Naga men and women and our place in the society. According to our Naga Church history, the coming of the Gospel to our land could be faintly traced back as early as 1851. However, a more organised event was visible from 1872 onwards with the coming of Godhula Rufus Brown, an Assamese Evangelist through the persistent support of E. W.Clark. (A. Bendangyabang Ao. History of Christianity in Nagaland: The Ao Naga Tribal Christian Mission Enterprise 1872-1972). Thanks to our missionaries, the transformative Gospel has transformed the Naga society immensely. One obvious fact is the head-hunting practice. If this Gospel of the cross has power to break such evil practices, will it be too difficult to bridge the gender divide and gender injustice? In conclusion therefore, if we are to read women empowerment from the perspective of this transformative Gospel coming to our land, the introduction of 33% Reservation is not premature. It is infact, about 144 years overdue.
