Prof Dr Eyingbeni Hümtsoe-Nienu
Nagaland, professing to be a Christian majority state, is rightly to be guided by Christian principles of God’s justice, particularly in governance. This is not to undermine other authoritative documents on which a state and its agencies function but to recall that a Christian does not stop being one in professional realm. Christian theology stands as a guidepost to give direction to his children and institutions that invoke his wisdom for effective governance – the Government of Nagaland (GoN) no less.
The relevant authority from the GoN has categorically stated on live media that the 147 contractual employees were regularized on empathetic ground – since they have served as Asst Professors and Librarians for long years and served the Government colleges amid dire needs (the other being demand from students’ and teachers’ organizations). Taking him at his word, empathy is a strong case in support of how the GoN has responded to a perpetual administrative loophole. Empathy is an important Christian virtue because it is also a divine attribute. It has many forms in the Bible. God expresses it in love, grace, compassion, mercy and ultimately in the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God’s willingness to be “in the shoes” of others is a call for everyone to imagine being in a pinch situation and being eased of it by special dispensation (Matthew 7: 12). It might’ve seemed right to the Government to act empathetically towards them. And what a relief for the contractual appointees too!
The catch is this. When there are two parties involved how does God respond? Justice becomes a crucial basis. Yes, God is empathetic but that is not all; he is just at the same time. The Psalmist declares that “The Lord is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings” (Psalm 145: 17). Thus, God’s righteousness (aka justice) is never one-sided, particularly when both sides are proven to be innocent and have been turned into victims of circumstances. In certain cases, human beings may be blindsided by personal attachments and obligations. God is perfect and not limited by anything. He sees the reality of both sides, hear the pleas of both, determines the rightness or wrongness of the situation, and acts upon it. When two sides face unequal predicament, the justice of God picks up the injustices that one party faces more acutely than the other and intervenes accordingly. However, his just intervention is, again, neither partial, neutral, or arbitrary since it’s predicated on his own inherent goodness that seeks the welfare of all (John 10:10). Did the GoN consider that their empathetic decision would mean denial of justice to the thousands of service aspirants who are preparing for competitive examination under depressing conditions?
From ancient Greek to modern thoughts, justice is rightly regarded as the embodiment (Plato) or ideal (Hegel) of the State. God’s reign on earth is characterized by justice that manifests in good outcome for everyone. There is no divine justice without displaying his goodness and vice versa. Thus, God’s justice is wholesome and worthy of being embraced. The biblical narrative of Hagar, Sarah and Abraham will make this clear. To the world, Hagar is the villain, Sarah is the provoked, and Abraham is, well, the powerful spiritual father of all. God approaches their episode differently and worked his compassionate justice in all three directions. He looks at Hagar with as much compassion as he did Sarah. He declares to Hagar that her son, Ishmael, will greatly multiply and become a great nation (Genesis 16: 10; 17: 20; 21: 13, 18). After a theophany (appearance of God), Hagar names God as El-roi (God who sees; Genesis 16: 13) – the first person in the Bible to do so. Sarah is not left in despair. Thirteen years after Ishmael was born (Genesis 17:25), Sarah was promised a son (Genesis 17: 15 -19; 18: 9-14). Hagar and Sarah’s mutual animosity is created by a lopsided system in which both were entangled. In all these, Abraham is fickle. Once he tells Sarah that Hagar was her slave girl, and it is in her power to do to her as she pleased – deal harshly (Genesis 16: 6). Another time, at the behest of Sarah, he sends Hagar and Ishmael away to wander about in the wilderness (Genesis 21: 10-14). His own failings invited distress upon himself, yet God continued to be gracious in keeping his side of the covenant (Gen 13: 16).
I want to draw a parallel between these three Bible characters and the groups involved in the issue at hand. Abraham is the proverbial GoN who has created the situation and is accountable for its consequence. Sarah represents the aspirants who are willing to defend their rights at all costs. The contractual employees are signified by Hagar whose demands cannot go unheeded as well. Is there a way to change the circumstances among the symbolic Hagar, Abraham, and Sarah? Who has the power to reverse any ill-effects on each other? In line with Foucauldian thought, I believe power is not fixed and concentrated in one entity. Obviously, it has shifted from Abraham to other members of the (political) household. But power struggle will not bring solution, neither will avoiding honest discourse on the matter. By way of a parable, Jesus mentions a judge who “neither feared God nor had respect for people” and yet due to the persistent search for justice by a widow against her opponent he granted her justice (Luke 18: 1-8). God promises justice to those who cry out to him. People across the state are seeking for God’s justice to prevail. It is binding on the GoN to channelize that and execute God’s justice in a manner that ensures the good of every affected party.
