Of A K Antony, St Thomas and the gospel of truth

Mr A K Antony, The Defence Minister of India is a Syrian Christian from Kerala.  It is immaterial whether he follows the Syrian Christian traditions or not. Syrian Christians in Kerala are believed to be the descendants of upper caste Hindus, who embraced Christianity through St Thomas, the disciple of Jesus, in the first century.  Thus all Syrian Christians are called St Thomas Christians. What does it matter today?

                                                         Photo: bbc.co.uk

Yes, it is relevant. Honorable Minister is in a precarious position today.  Entire opposition, media and many others complained that he has made an incorrect statement regarding the killings of five Indian Army men at Poonch, India’s territory near Pakistan.  Mr A K Antony gave a statement that the crime was committed by terrorists in the uniform of Pakistan Army.  This was made just a few hours after the incident. Mr Antony’s position was that he cannot make any vague statement accusing anyone unless he gets clear information on that. Hence at that point of time, he desisted naming the Pakistan Army as responsible for this attack.

Back to St Thomas, called as the ‘doubting Thomas’ in history. St Thomas was the only disciple of Jesus who openly declared to the other disciples that he won’t believe when they said about the resurrection of Jesus. Thomas said that he won't believe unless he can actually put his finger into the mark of the nails, thrust his hand into the place where the spear went into Jesus' side.   Later, Jesus appeared before him and said. "Thomas, here are my hands, here's my side, don't be faithless. But believe." And Thomas takes the ‘flying leap of faith’ and doesn't just say, "I believe." He says what no other disciple had said   "My Lord and my God."  Even now, Syrian Christians are being blamed as ‘Doubting Thomases’ whenever they do not admit anything categorically unless they are convinced.

Hon. Minister was correct

Media anchors like Mr Arnab Goswami can give a statement on the basis of rumours and field reports. Even the Congress spokesman can give his opinion on what he might not have personally seen. There is nothing wrong in that. But when a Minister makes a statement, it should be based on clear facts and evidence. Mr Antony was right in his initial statement. He, as a responsible minister representing this country cannot accuse another country without verifying the facts. He shared this to his fellow members in Parliament too.

Later when he got clear information, he made a fresh statement correcting his earlier position

Moral of the story

There is a difference between what someone says as a politician or as a common man and a statement from an authority in his official capacity. When a formal statement is made as a responsible authority, it should be based on verifiable facts. This is all the more important when you accuse another sovereign state.

Even in our daily life, how much of the tensions and conflicts could have been avoided, had we used our words and statements carefully after studying the genuineness of what we heard from others.

Disclaimer

I admit that I am also a Syrian Christian, and under the risk of getting labelled as another ‘doubting Thomas’. I don’t intend to give any clean chit to Pakistan. I am a small worm, and I have strong faith in Indian Army and its Intelligence. I am sure that the criminals and the entities behind them will be ultimately identified and punished. The views are personal.

Other articles on similar topic:

The tongue has no bones: The need for speech therapy

Speeches by the dignitaries and the art of outsourcing