Rohan Prabhakar Gideon.. 5840584 Final Text

THE AGENCY OF CHILDREN IN LIBERATION THEOLOGIES

IN INDIA AND CHILDREN-RELATED THEOLOGIES:

A CONTRAPUNTAL LIBERATIVE ANALYSIS

A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities

2015

ROHAN P. GIDEON

School of Arts, Languages and Cultures

Contents

Abstract ...... 9

Declaration ...... 10

Acknowledgements ...... 12

PART I MAPPING CONTRAPUNTAL AGENCY ……………… 14

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 15

1.1. Introducing the Research Question ...... 15

1.1.1. Conceptual Background to the Research Question ...... 17

1.1.2. Contextual Background to the Research Question ...... 23

1.2. Aims of the Research ...... 25

1.3. Research Methodology ...... 27

1.3.1. Contrapuntality as my Research Methodology ...... 27

1.3.2. Theoetical Developments towards Qualitative Agency as

Contrapuntality …………………………………………………..30

1.3.3. Methodological Challenges and Clarifications ...... 34

1.4. Research Method ...... 39

1.5. Scope and Limits of the Research ...... 41

1.6. Definitions and Notes ...... 42

Chapter 2. Postcolonialism, Contrapuntality and Agency ...... 49

2.1. Introduction ...... 49

2.2. Mapping Postcolonial Agency ...... 51

2.2.1. Postcolonial Agency and Contrapuntality ...... 53

2.3. Contrapuntality and Postcolonial Qualitative Agency in Bignall ...... 64

2.3.1. Overcoming Conceptual Difficulties towards a New Sociability . 65

2.3.2. A Qualitative Transformative Possibility ...... 67

2.3.3. Identifying the Creative Potentials of the Differences ...... 69

2.3.4. A Positive Connotation of Power ...... 71

2.4. An Evaluation of the Themes in Bignall’s Contrapuntality ...... 75

PART II A CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENCY OF

THE COLONISED IN LIBERATION AND POSTCOLONIAL

THEOLOGIES IN INDIA ………………………………………………….80

Chapter 3. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of the Colonised

In Liberation Theologies in India ...... 81

3.1. Introduction ...... 81

3.2. Problematizing the Understanding of ‘Postcolonial in Liberation

Theologies in India ...... 82

3.3. A Critical Survey of Methodological Categories in Liberation

Theologies in India ...... 85

3.3.1. Methodological Exclusivity in Liberation Theologies in India ..... 85

3.3.1.1 Methodological Exclusivity in Dalit Theology ...... 86

3.3.1.2 Methodological Exclusivity in Feminist Theologies .. 90

3.3.2. Methodological Inclusivity in Liberation Theologies in India ...... 91

3.3.2.1 Inclusivity through Interdisciplinarity ...... 92

3.3.2.2 Inclusivity and Peoples’ Movements ...... 94

3.3.2.3 Inclusivity and Interfaith Matters ...... 97

3.3.3. Praxis and Liberation Theologies in India ...... 99

3.3.4. A Critical Review of the Agency of the Colonised in

Liberation Theologies in India ...... 108

Chapter 4. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of the Colonised

In Postcolonial Theologies in India ...... 113

4.1. Introduction ...... 113

4.2. Contrapuntality and Postcolonial Theology in India...... 114

4.3. The Critical Intervention of Postcolonial Theology in

Liberation Theologies in India ...... 117

4.3.1. Probing Conventional Hierarchical System ...... 120

4.3.2. Interrogating Homogenising Tendencies ...... 122

4.4. Creative Mediation of Postcolonial Theological Thought in

Liberation Theologies in India ...... 126

4.4.1. Contrapuntality and Feminist Agency ...... 126

4.4.2. Tactic Subversion, Compliance and Agency ...... 129

4.4.3. Organic Womanism and Agency ...... 134

4.4.4. Engaging Subjectivity and Agency ...... 136

4.4.5. Dalithos and Agency ...... 138

4.5. Agency, Advocacy and Mystery in Liberation and Postcolonial

Theologies in India ...... 142

PART III A CRITIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENCY OF

CHILDREN IN CHILDREN-RELATED THEOLOGIES ...... 148

Chapter 5. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of Children in

Child Theologies in the West ...... 149

5.1. Introduction ...... 149

5.2. The Enduring Models of the Agency of Children ...... 151

5.3. The Agency of Children and Child Theologies in the West ...... 157

5.3.1. The Child-in-the-Midst as a Method of Child Theologies

in the West ...... 159

5.3.1.1 The Child-in-the-Midst as Symbolic: Keith White

and Haddon Willmer ...... 160

5.3.1.2 The Child-in-the-Midst as Contextual:

Jan Grobbelaar ...... 163

5.3.1.3 Agency of Children: Child Theologies in the West

as Liberation Theologies ...... 165

5.4. The Agency of Children: Child Theologies as Liberation Theology 168

5.5. The Agency of Children: Interactions between Child Theologies

and Theologies of Childhood ...... 170

5.5.1. The Child Theologies’ critique of the Theologies of Childhood 171

5.5.2. The Agency of Children in Theologies of Childhood ...... 172

5.6. Theologies of Childhood and Liberation Theologies ...... 174

5.7. The Concept of Mystery to advance the Agency of Children ...... 177

5.7.1. Jesus and Mystery ...... 177

5.7.2. Children and Mystery: John Wall and Martin Marty...... 178

5.8. An Evaluation of the Understanding of the Agency of Children in

the Children-related Theologies in the West ...... 182

Chapter 6. The Agency of Children in Children-related Theologies

in Asia ...... 191

6.1. Introduction ...... 191

6.2. Theological and Methodological Development of Children-related

Theologies in Asia: Colonial and Postcolonial Traits ...... 193

6.2.1. Holistic Child Development ...... 198

6.2.1.1 Incarnation of Jesus and Child-in-the-Midst ...... 201

6.2.1.2 Child Theologies and Holistic Child Development

in India...... 203

6.2.2. Child Theologies in Asia outside India ...... 207

6.2.2.1 Child-in-the-Midst in Child Theology in Asia ...... 209

6.2.2.2 Child-in-the-Midst as Children’s Lenses ...... 210

6.2.2.3 Child-in-the-Midst and the Entitled Adults ...... 212

6.3. Critical Methodological Issues in Children-related Theologies

in Asia ...... 217

6.3.1. Children-related Theologies in Asia and Liberation Theologies. 218

6.3.2. Children-related Theologies in Asia as Counter Theologies ...... 220

6.3.3. On Context and being Contextual ...... 221

6.3.4. An Evaluation of the Agency of Children in the

Children-related Theologies in Asia ...... 224

PART IV ANALYSIS OF THE THEMES EMERGING FROM

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ………… 228

Chapter 7. Agency, Advocacy and Mystery: A Contrapuntal

Analysis ...... 229

7.1. Introduction ...... 229

7.1.1. Purpose of the Chapter ...... 229

7.1.2. Contrapuntality and the Agency of the Colonised ...... 230

7.1.3. The Limitations of deploying Bignall’s Contrapuntal Agency

and the Immanence of Mystery ...... 231

7.2. An Understanding of the Agency of Children, Authentic-Advocacy

of the Adults and the Immanence of Mystery...... 233

7.2.1. A Qualitative Relationship in a New Sociability ...... 234

7.2.2. Identifying the Creative Potentials of the Differences ...... 240

7.2.3. Belonging as Power ...... 244

7.2.4. A Continuous Interrogation of Internal Colonies for

Tranformative Possibilities...... 250

7.2.4.1 Adult-Advocacy as Postcolonial Inclusivity in

Understanding Children’s Agency ...... 253

Chapter 8. A Renewed Understanding of the Agency of Children

towards a Children-related Theology relevant to

an Indian Context ...... 275

8.1. Introduction ...... 275

8.2. The Agency of Children, the Advocacy of Adults and the Immanent

Mystery: A Renewed Understanding ...... 276

8.2.1. Liberation and Postcolonial Theologies in India ...... 278

8.2.2. Children-related Theologies ...... 280

8.3. Contextual Conundrum: An Indian Context to demonstrate the

Agency of Children ...... 283

8.3.1. Education versus Labour debate to elucidate the Agency of

Children in India ...... 285

8.3.1.1 Education-Labour Debate in Postcolonial India ...... 287

8.3.1.2 Child labour and Illiteracy Debate ...... 289

8.4. Revisiting Contrapuntality to Understand the Agency of Children

in Indian Context ...... 291

8.5. Contrapuntal possibilities in Children-related theologies for an

Understanding of the Agency of Children ...... 296

8.6. Concluding Remarks ...... 301

Bibliography 305

Total Words: 80,023

Abstract

This thesis answers the question: How does a contrapuntal reading of the agency of the colonised in Indian liberation theologies and the agency of children in children- related theologies help to understand the agency of children for a relevant children- related theology in India?

Liberation theologies in India have been adult-centric discourses and have not explored the possibility of understanding the agency of children in their methodologies. These methodologies are methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis. By contrast, many children-related theologies are currently attempting methods and explanations that seem to advance the agency of children. Of them, two significant streams, Child theologies and Holistic Child Development, have been impacting theological thinking in India to claim the subjecthood of children with the aim of advancing the centrality of children and their agency.

Children-related theologies have claimed to develop the concept of the agency of children by drawing methodological insights from liberation theologies. However, these children-related theologies have not adequately explored the hermeneutical principles of liberation theologies, thus falling short of contributing to an explanation of the agency of children. I deploy contrapuntal methodology, a critical tool of postcolonial criticism, to engage liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies to achieve a renewed understanding of the agency of children.

Contrapuntality as a postcolonial methodology decentres the role of the dominant and still sees a constructive role of the dominant in a postcolonial engagement in the light of the experiences of the colonized. The colonizer and the colonized engage in a conversation with different perspectives on the need to negotiate an agreeable resolution. This resolution could be short-term and context-specific.

In my quest to understand what constitutes the agency of children in an Indian context by contrapuntally analysing concept of the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies, I have analysed the themes of the agency of the children, the advocacy of adults, and the immanent mystery. The agency of children I propose is a positive notion of agency that theoretically includes children’s view and expressions. They have to be strongly supported by authentic advocacy of the adults and by recognising the immanent mystery in children. I draw these themes by analysing the methodologies of methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis as in liberation theologies in India and the themes of Child-in-the-midst and Child theologies as liberation theologies in contemporary children-related theologies.

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.

Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.

The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses

Acknowledgements

The research period of four years was a journey that I enjoyed for the challenges that it threw at me. It flagged up my strengths and limits and also shaped my theological thinking through methodological issues. This was possible with God’s unending mercies and the support of many to whom I express my sincere gratitude here.

This research was possible by the generous Lincoln International Doctoral Studentship Fee- award from Lincoln Theological Institute based in the department of Religions and Theology in the University of Manchester. The Lincoln Institute also provided me a plentiful travel grant for a field-research trip to India. I thank the Director and Trustees of the Institute for their timely and encouraging support.

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Prof. Peter Manley Scott, Samuel Ferguson Professor of Applied Theology & Director of the Lincoln Theological Institute. Prof. Scott has been a tremendous combination of an academic mentor and a calming pastoral presence, both of which I needed in my research journey. He has been instrumental in fine tuning my arguments with incisive and challenging comments whenever required and unwearyingly directed me to the close of this research.

The research panel members Drs. Susannah Cornwall, Chris Shannahan and Andrew Crome gave their comments and insights from time to time in shaping my arguments. I owe them my sincere gratitude.

My dear wife Jayachitra and son Pranay have been part of the pressures of this journey through their tireless support, love, care, unexplainable sacrifices and much needed distractions. I cannot thank you both enough. My parents, sister’s family, my in-laws and other members of the family have all shared their love, care and prayers to make this journey a successful one. Thank you all for all that you have been to me.

My friends and religious communities in Manchester, especially St. Peter’s Church and Chaplaincy, Manchester, have been my strength and support during these years. I was able to minister with you and among you which provided financial sustenance. I remain grateful to you all!

Finally, but not the least, my teacher and mentor at the United Theological College, Bangalore (India) Prof. Iris Devadason helped in proof-reading the script. My friend Dr. Hamilton Inbadas (University of Glasgow) went through the rigours of formatting this document. Much regards to you both.

PART I MAPPING CONTRAPUNTAL AGENCY

In this part, I present two important aspects of this research. In Chapter 1, I present the conceptual and contextual background to liberation theologies in India to initiate my research question of what constitutes the agency of children for a relevant children-related theology in

India. I also introduce contrapuntal methodology as my research methodology to engage liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies alongside each other and also critique.

In Chapter 2, I map the concept of contrapuntal agency in postcolonial theories. I then explain that Simone Bignall’s description of qualitative postcolonial agency is a relevant form of contrapuntality to develop the constituent factors of the agency of children for a children-related theology in India.

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Introducing the Research Question

This thesis is a critical study of the inadequacies of the methodologies of liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies in advancing an understanding of the agency of children. Liberation theologies in India have been adult-centric discourses and have not explored the possibility of understanding the agency of children in their methodologies.

These methodologies are methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis.

Liberation theologies in India have addressed the pressing need for the agency of marginalized adults such as dalits, women, and tribals amidst the violation of their agency.

However, their hermeneutical principles have been inadequate to interrogate the silenced agency of children especially in the context of the gross violation of child-rights. By contrast, many children-related theologies are currently attempting methods and explanations that seem to advance the agency of children. Of them, two significant streams, Child theologies and Holistic Child Development, have been impacting theological thinking in India to claim the subjecthood of children with the aim of advancing the centrality of children and their agency. Children-related theologies have claimed to develop the concept of the agency of children by drawing methodological insights from liberation theologies. However, these children-related theologies have not adequately explored the hermeneutical principles of liberation theologies, thus falling short of contributing to an explanation of the agency of children.

Could the inadequacies of each of the theological streams be overcome by engaging them with each other? Therefore in this research, I offer an understanding of the agency of children by answering the research question:

How does a contrapuntal reading of the agency of the colonised in Indian liberation theologies and the agency of children in children-related theologies help to understand the agency of children for a relevant children-related theology in India?

Primary arguments for my analysis emerge as a response to questions related to liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies, such as: how are the methodologies of liberation theologies in India configured and reconfigured to press for the agency of the marginalized? How has the limited understanding of the postcolonial in liberation theologies in India, which is resistant and countering in their approach, restricted the scope of the agency of the marginalized? I raise these questions about the methodologies in the liberation theologies in India because many child theologians have claimed that the agency of children could be brought to the centre of theological discourse by formulating Child theologies along the lines of liberation theologies.

Drawing a methodological clue from their claim, I probe the claims of the Child theologians at two levels: [a] by asking why are the Child theologians cautious or less persuasive in deploying the methodologies of liberation theologies to enhance the possibility of the agency of children? and [b] by discussing the effectiveness of agency surrounding the methodologies to see what reconfiguration of methodologies facilitates a renewed understanding of the agency of children in adult-dominant discourses. Therefore, I contrapuntally analyse liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies to achieve a renewed understanding of the agency of children.

Contrapuntality within postcolonial methodology explains how various configurations and structures of agency come to play in a conversation between the colonizer and the colonized.

It identifies and analyses the colonizer/colonised binary to explore common spaces of

engagement. By identifying the binary, contrapuntal methodology will decentre the role of the dominant and still see a constructive role of the dominant in a postcolonial engagement in the light of the experiences of the colonized. The colonizer and the colonized engage in a conversation with different perspectives on the need to negotiate an agreeable resolution.

This resolution could be short-term and context-specific. Therefore, contrapuntality as a postcolonial methodology offers open-ended or flexible arrangements where the agency of the colonised is projected along with the advocating ability of the colonisers. Therefore, contrapuntality moves beyond the merely resistant and counter methods.

1.1.1. Conceptual Background to the Research Question

I begin by briefly explaining the term ‘child’ and its bearing on the phrase ‘the agency of children’.

This term ‘child’ can be defined biologically, theologically, politically and socio-culturally.

In a broader sense this research tries to understand who a child as in various theological contexts such as child theology, theologies of childhood, and Holistic Child Development.

Therefore the discussion will be about the significance of and differences between an individual child and children in context. At the same time, the child is also understood in particular social, political and cultural contexts where children are not considered fully human as adults. Therefore the children are theologically distanced from the possibility of expressing their views and making their presence counted in theological discourses.

In terms of the maximum cut-off age, there are conflicting definitions. Debating the basis of the age of rights-deprived children, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as anyone up to the age of 18 and categorically forbids the employment and

exploitation of children. If the scheme of compulsory education is any reference, the least possible age of employment is the minimum age of completion of mandatory schooling.

Biological categories too become important factors in determining a child. Adding to the debate, the National Commission for Enterprise in the Unorganised Sector sets 10-14 as the age group to define child labour. However, it is quite obvious that these numbers only lobby to have more children into the labour force than not. The debates should also consider the climatic conditions and other factors, children at different geographical setups attain puberty at different ages. In the societal valorization of ‘adult’ and ‘children’ and semi-feudal relationship in agrarian setups, Indian legal laws and cultural practices have not given children adequate constitutional protection through proper definition.

I draw my initial thoughts on agency from a critical survey of the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in India and the understanding of agency of children in the children- related theologies that have influenced the discussions on children and theology in India.

This also facilitates a broad spectrum to this research which will place the understanding of the agency of children for a children-related theology in India along the lines of liberation and postcolonial theologies in India.

Here, I am obliged to rethink the concept of agency to see how far the understanding of children’s capacity to expresses their views impacts the methodologies of the Indian liberation theologies and postcolonial theologies which are largely adult-centric. While their methodologies do provide directions for exploring the agency of children, they have not taken up the agency of children in their discourses. This challenge emerges in the light of growing debates on the concept of agency that entail their capacity to make decisions on their own behalf which also impacts the world outside them. In the debates on the agency in modern

and postmodern philosophy that have influenced the liberation theological movement, the contentious issue has been the location of the agency in the agency-structure debate. These debates have strongly influenced the concept of the agency of the marginalized in Indian liberation theologies such as dalit theology, womanist theology, feminist theology and tribal theology. These theologies discuss the renewed subjectivity that enhances the agency of the marginalized communities as well as individuals who could continually negotiate their postcolonial identity. However, the dangerous proposition for children’s agency is that the subjectivity of children could be lost in the adult-centric context. Therefore in the attempt to define the agency of children, I also attempt to see how the dominant adults could advocate on behalf of the agency of children. This will be unique to children-related theologies as the above-mentioned theologies are adult-centric theologies. Moreover, a significant contribution to the themes of the agency of children is mystery. Both liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies strongly present the role of mystery in advancing the agency of the colonised.

I will also argue that postcolonial theologies in India with their contrapuntal method are liberation theologies too. Postcolonial theologies offer a critique of and pursue the methodological options of Indian liberation theologies. Of the methodological options, firstly, methodological exclusivity requires the recognition of the agency only of the hitherto colonized, emerging from their unique experience of pathos. A theology that eventually emerges from this process would be liberative in nature. It would exhibit a “radical discontinuity” from the previous theologies as suggested by Arvind Nirmal1 and counter the

1 Arvind Nirmal, “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective”, in A Reader in Dalit Theology, ed. A. P. Nirmal (Madras: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, 1991), 58-59. 19

experiences of the colonisers. Secondly, by contrast, methodological inclusivity derives liberative resources predominantly from the exclusive oppressed experiences of the marginalised and from advocates who are from the dominant groups yet who stand by the marginalised. Thirdly, praxis refers to people’s movements that practically engage with communities to unite and work at grassroots in specific contexts (Peniel Rajkumar). 2

Methodological inclusivity and praxis critique the exclusive claim of pathos as the formative factor of the agency of the colonised. At the same time they press on for prolonged agency of the colonised through grassroot negotiations with the colonisers and sympathisers of the colonised.

It is also significant to note here that Indian liberation theologies, due to their emphasis on the hermeneutics of resistance, are not keen on drawing on the concept of agency of the marginalised in the earlier Indian Christian theologies. Through their critique of earlier theologies, liberation theologies deliberately sideline the concept of agency already present in

Indian theological traditions. This is because the liberation theologies assert that the classical theologies adapt what the liberationists believed to be the dominant theologies and philosophies. 3

To understand how the children-related theologies and Indian liberation theologies interact methodologically, children-related theologies have demonstrated a tactical acquiescence to liberation theologies. Children-related theologies have made two claims: firstly, they are

2 Peniel Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and Dalit Liberation (Surrey: Ashgate, 2010). 3 Arvind Nirmal, “Doing Theology”; Sathianathan Clarke, Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999); Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation. 20

along the lines of liberation theologies to assert the subjectivity of children and secondly the child-in-the-midst method of Child theologies presents an overarching explanation for the centrality of children and their agency. Therefore, children-related theologies in principle project the centrality of children as their core objective 4 but do not press further to claim the significance of children’s agency.

This limitation, the objective of the children-related theologies as liberation theologies has not been widely explored for several reasons. Firstly, they are emerging disciplines and they have been exploring liberationist hermeneutics on how to explain the unique voices of children and at the same time clarify the understanding of adult advocacy. Secondly, even as they explore the unique voices of children, they are tentative and cautious in pursuing their claims. This, I argue, is because their prospective projection of the child as an agent of theology could displace what/who many child-theologians call the central subject: Jesus

Christ and his kingdom values. Therefore, the agency of children as projected in the children-related theologies conjures up ambiguous ideas. While the central idea of the children-related theologies is to advance the agency of children, the views of children are expected to be represented by adults (Keith White, 5 Sunny Tan, 6 and Jesudason Jeyaraj 7). Jan

Grobbelaar attempted to consider the liberationist mode of interpretation for children-related

4 John Collier ed., Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church (London: Child Theology Movement, 2009). 5 Keith White, “The Child in the Midst of the Biblical Witness,” in Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church, ed. John Collier (London: Child Theology Movement, 2009), 154-160; Keith White, “Thinking about Child Theology in the context of Liberation Theologies” (Paper presented at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, November 30, 2010), 6-7. 6 Sunny Tan, Child Theology for the Churches in Asia: An Invitation (London: Child Theology Movement, 2007). 7 Jesudason B. Jeyaraj , “Child in the Midst: Incarnation and Child Theology,” in Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges , eds. Jesudason B. Jeyaraj et al (Delhi: ISPCK, 2009), 49- 72. 21

theologies and to a great extent proposed a projection of the voices and views of children alongside the advocacy of the adults. 8 However, the discussion on the advocacy of adults is dubious as the explanations for the agency of children are meticulously wrapped in adult- dominant language. Therefore, the children-related theologies are largely silent on children’s views as their own agency. Moreover, the agency of children is discussed in abstract terms without seriously considering context-specific issues. White even mentions that contextual issues are not relevant while discussing the centrality of children. 9

Therefore, the Child theologies in the West project a rather restrained approach to the liberationist stance. This restrained and tentative approach raises potential challenges in understanding the agency of children: firstly , as a limitation, children-related theologies under-explore the concept of the agency of the marginalized that are presented in liberation theologies in India and secondly , their cautious approach to the advocacy of adults underscores their hesitation to pursue the understanding of the agency of children.

In the context of Indian Christian liberation theologies, I show that the agency of dalits in dalit theology, or the agency of women in feminist and womanist theologies and the agency of tribals in tribal theology has effectively challenged modes of marginalizing them and advanced their agency. By advancing their agency, they have not attempted to displace the concept of God or Jesus Christ but deeply explore the subjectivity of the marginalized caste, tribal and patriarchal structures. Therefore liberation theologies provide clear hermeneutical

8 Jan Grobbelaar, Child Theology and the African Context (London: Child Theology Movement Ltd., 2012). 9 Keith White, “Thinking about Child Theology in the context of Liberation Theologies” (paper presented at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, November 30, 2010). 22

directions to children-related theologies that do not eclipse Jesus Christ from their theological propositions.

Hence, I analyse internal colonies in liberation theologies and children-related theologies which helps to open up their methodological discussions to incorporate the understanding of the agency of children presented by postcolonial theologies. This helps children-related theologies to further explore the concept of the agency of children as a marginalized and colonized group alongside the concept of the agency of the marginalized in the liberation theologies.

1.1.2. Contextual Background to the Research Question

Child labour in India demonstrates the severe violation of the agency of children. India has one of the highest numbers of child labourers in the world. The child labourers come from communities and groups which are at the lower rungs of our traditional, caste-based social hierarchy, i.e. the Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and minorities, especially Muslims. These are the marginalised communities in India and it is largely from these social groups that child labourers come. It is therefore not accidental that studies of many of the industries where there is a substantial presence of child labour in hazardous industries like the carpet industry, the match, brassware, glass and bangle, lock- making, slate, gem-polishing industries and the tea plantations show that the overwhelming majority of the children working in these industries come from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Muslim communities. 10 Data available for the last 30-40 years depicts either a regrettable rise or a status quo in the percentage of the child labourers in India. However, the data projected by the Government of India (2-20 million) drastically contradicts the estimates of the International Labour Organisation), and the Commission on

Labour Standards and International Trade. Also, the incidence of child labour grows at an annual rate of 4%. 11 According to the 1991 census India has a child population (0-14 years) of 197 million of which 12.7 million are full-time child workers, and about 10.6 million are marginal child workers. Between 1999 and 2003, UNICEF has estimated that 14% of children (5-14 years) are in the labour force in India. 12 The period between 1971 and 1986 has seen an increase in the number of child labourers in correspondence to the rise in the population with a great majority of the labourers engaged in the agricultural setup in rural areas. 13 The agricultural sector, known as the “hidden” sector for child labour, employed 76

% of child labour in 1991. The percentage of child labour involved in the manufacturing sector rose from 3.1 % in 1971 to 5.7 % in 1991. 14 Approaching the issue from the viewpoint of school drop-outs, the data suggests that the identity and whereabouts of nearly 57 million

10 Geetha B. Nambissan, “Social Exclusion, Children’s Work and Education,” in Child Labour and the Right to Education in South Asia: Needs versus Rights, eds. Naila Kabeer, Geetha B. Nambissan and Ramya Subramanian (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003), 115. 11 Geeta Chowdhry, “Postcolonial Interrogations of Child Labour,” in Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, ed. Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, 1st Indian Reprint, (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), 225. 12 “Child Labour, ” UNICEF , accessed 14th November 2007, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html1 . 13 In 1971, it was 10.7 million (93% in rural area), in 1981, 14. 5 million, in 1983 it was 17.4 million (90% in rural India) and, in 1986 it was 110 million (87% from rural area). Neel K. Sharda, The Legal, Economic and Social Status of the Indian Child (New Delhi: National Book Organisation, 1988), 54-55. 14 Kaushik Basu, “CHILD LABOR: Cause, Consequence and Cure, with Remarks on International Labor Standards,” Essex.ac.uk, accessed November 9, 2007, http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000413.pdf .Also note that, out of the 12.7 million full-time child labourers, 35.2 per cent worked as cultivators while 42.5% were agricultural labourers. It is also estimated that there were 2.6 million bonded labourers, of which at least 8% were children. Vasanthi Raman, “Globalisation and Child Labour,” Revolutionarydemocracy.org, accessed November 14, 2007, http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/childlab.htm . 24

neither account as child labourers nor school going. 15

There is clear data to show that the class-caste-minority religious community nexus continues to force the younger members of the family to work to make ends meet. In its latest observation, the commission has sharpened its focus on the age group and observes the presence of nearly 7 % children below 14 years of age in the above mentioned labour force, while the presence of children between the ages of 15-19 is a glaring 39%. 16

Here, two dynamics should not escape our attention. Firstly and obviously, the glaring difference between the percentage of children in the labour force between two cut-off age- groups, i.e., 14 years and 19 years shows the ugly haste of exploitative forces to push children to labour force once they have reached the legally safe age of 15. While it is 7% below 14 years, it is a poles-apart 39% between 15-19 years. Secondly, this analysis confirms the view that children from most marginalized communities are forced into the labour sector and are deprived of the basic rights of compulsory education and a healthy and playful childhood.

These facts make it imperative for our theologies to take up the issues of child labour with unreserved commitment and absolute seriousness.

1.2. Aims of the Research

No research has been done in Indian theology on the agency of children drawing either hermeneutical keys from children-related theologies or from understanding the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in India

15 Shantha Sinha, “Child Labour and Education,” Seminar 474 (February 1994): 14-15. 16 National Commission for Enterprise in the Unorganised Sector, 48. 25

I offer a deeper discussion on the understanding of the agency of children more than the streams of theologies mentioned above have done by drawing clues from these streams themselves. Therefore this research is both critical and constructive. I critically analyse methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis in liberation theologies from a postcolonial perspective to show that their understanding of postcolonial is restricted to historical critique of the classical Indian theologies. Therefore the liberation theologies have slowly and cautiously critiqued internal colonies to retain the exclusive agency of the marginalised as much as possible. They have not employed contrapuntal methodology to either critique their internal colonies or explore creative engagement with postcolonial theological hermeneutics.

I have critiqued the limitations of children-related theologies, their claims to progress along the lines of liberation theologies and depicted the child-in-the-midst method as advancing the agency of children.

As a constructive presentation, I explore the understanding of the agency of children for a children-related theology in India along the lines of Indian liberation theologies as Indian liberation theologies have offered methodologies to explore the agency of the marginalised. I employ a contrapuntal methodology of the postcolonial method which explains how various configurations and structures of agency come to play in a conversation between the colonizer and the colonized to facilitate the agency of the colonised. Of the recently emerged children- related theologies, Child theology, and Holistic Child Development have been impacting theological thinking in India to claim the subjecthood of children. They have attempted to interact with liberation theologies for the hermeneutical keys that promote the agency of the lesser known and the colonised. Therefore, this movement from objectification of children to

their subjecthood, and to children as active actors disclose a concept that children are endowed with agency and this agency takes shape as children interact within their socio- cultural contexts.

1.3. Research Methodology

I begin by explaining how I employ the terms methodology and method. By methodology, I refer to the ideological or theological positions underlying a research process, the guiding principles and the knowledge gained. My theological/ideological positioning is postcolonial criticism, especially its critical stance, contrapuntality, to analyse how some of the hermeneutical keys in liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies may critique and contribute to each other’s field to open up spaces to facilitate advancing the agency of children.

By method I refer to the process I employ in this research. I have employed two methods to resource my research: [a] a critical review of the literature in liberation theologies in India and -children related theologies, and [b.] interviews with scholars especially in the field of children-related theologies.

1.3.1. Contrapuntality as my Research Methodology

As briefly explained above, contrapuntality engages the colonizer and the colonized anticipating a negotiable space for conversation. The resolution that emerges out of the conversation could be for short-term and context-specific. Thus, contrapuntality foresees a continuous conversation.

In the course of developing an understanding of the agency of children for a children-related theology in India, contrapuntal analysis assembles some of the directives of agency from two theological streams current in Indian theologies: firstly, the agency of the marginalized in

Indian liberation theologies, and secondly, the agency of children from the recent forms of children-related theologies that have so far influenced children-related theologies in India:

Child theologies, and Holistic Child Development. This also facilitates a broad spectrum of this research, which is to place the understanding of the agency of children for a children- related theology in India along the lines of Indian liberation theologies.

My broad working definition of postcolonial agency and its theoretical explanations for contrapuntality are drawn from Simone Bignall’s understanding of qualitative agency. It is important to note here that Bignall does not use the term ‘contrapuntality’. However, I will employ the term contrapuntality for Bignall’s explanation for conversations between the former colonizer and the colonized, and for the ways and means she tries to reconfigure the conversational principles. Bignall’s explanation of qualitative agency as postcolonial agency is driven by principles of contrapuntality which is, as explained earlier, to facilitate a constructive engagement between the once colonizer and the colonized. Qualitative agency defines social-construction, self-concept, and attitudes of being, relating and belonging; therefore, an ethical mode of interaction is proposed which is more conversational and interactive. This is different from a quantitative perspective of agency that has a strong language of political resistance to Empire as proposed by Foucault. The political forms of resistance could challenge the colonizer/colonized binaries of the type proposed by Foucault when the participants “act within, against, and according to a lasting legacy of colonial

sociality”.17 This gives rise to newer forms of “internal colonisation”. 18 Therefore, this engagement is by definition contrapuntal. Bignall also engages with a key argument on the agency of the colonized in postcolonial discourse as offered by Gayatri Chakravorthy Spivak,

“Can the subaltern speak?” 19 Spivak’s contention is that the language of the subalterns is already couched in the language system of the dominant and therefore the dominant must advocate the cause of the subalterns in a postcolony.

In this research I prefer to deploy Bignall’s proposal of qualitative agency as an account of contrapuntality rather than Sugirtharajah’s explanation of postcolonial agency. Sugirtharajah has employed the methodology of contrapuntality with by largely referring to Indian theologies. He juxtaposes various texts in Indian theologies to see how liberation theologies and the earlier Indian theologies could cross rigid disciplinary boundaries. 20 However,

Bignall has deeply probed the theoretical dynamics of juxtaposed situations in a postcolony to differentiate between what she calls qualitative postcolonial agency from quantitative postcolonial agency, and suggests qualitative agency as an effective method for sustainable relationships in a postcolony. I explain this in detail in Ch. 2.

Postcolonial theologies in India which are both a continuum and critique of the liberation theologies resonate with Bignall’s qualitative agency to some extent. While postcolonial theologies have critiqued Indian liberation theologies, it is also to be noted that the liberation

17 Simone Bignall, Postcolonial Agency: Critique and Constructivism ( Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) , 2. 18 Simone Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault on desire and Power,” Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities 13, no.1 (2008): 128. 19 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, eds., Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossbern (Illinois: University of Illinois Press: 1988), 271-313. 20 R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations (London: SCM Press, 2003); R. S. Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). 29

theologies themselves have demonstrated a sense of postcolonial tendency by conceptualizing and interrogating caste, patriarchal and tribal structures as colonies. Therefore, the current expressions of postcolonial theologies are a continuum of historical forms of postcolonial stances that Indian liberation theologies have depicted.

In this research, I contrapuntally evaluate at different levels various forms of agency as depicted in the liberation theologies and children-related theologies in the light of Bignall’s qualitative agency.

1.3.2. Theoretical Developments towards Qualitative Agency as Contrapuntality

In the context of such an engagement, contrapuntality, as proposed by Edward Said allows

“preservation of the difference without, at the same time, sinking into the desire to dominate”.21 The intersection of the voices of the colonised and the coloniser could work out ways of cordially moving ahead by not overlooking the differences. To explain this further in the words of Kathryn Lachman, contrapuntality offers “to think through and interpret together experiences that are discrepant, each with its particular agenda and pace of development, its own internal formations, its internal coherence and system of external relationships, all of them co-existing and interacting with others”. 22

As a broad, critical method, postcolonial analysis simultaneously represents historical and social criticism. In the words of Homi K. Bhabha, “‘the term postcolonial is increasingly used to describe forms of social criticism that bear witness to those unequal and uneven processes

21 Kathryn Lachman, “The Allure of Counterpoint: History and Reconciliation in the Writing of Edward Said and Assia Djebar,” Research in African literatures 41, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 162. 22 Lachman, “The Allure of Counterpoint,” 164. 30

of representation by which the historical experiences of the once-colonized Third World come to be framed in the West.’” 23 This would, in the words of Antony Appiah, 24 clears a space for the colonized by assisting in avoiding a heavy baggage of the dominant. It produces intersections by critically cutting through hegemonic schemes. These spaces prominently project neglected identities and establish them as crucial, but are not uncritical of them. The views projected by the colonized to clear the spaces continue to find resistance in cleared spaces. Contrapuntality therefore projects the dynamics and the objectives of the engagement between the colonizer and the colonized. The framework of these arguments is what Bhabha calls hybridity. 25 But what forms of interaction take place in hybrid spaces? Here Bignall’s distinction between qualitative and quantitative agency in a postcolony provides a broad area of discussion. Qualitative agency is based on rigorous conversation and engagement to develop attitudes of being, relating and belonging. Therefore, an ethical mode of interaction is proposed which is more conversational and interactive. This contrasts with quantitative agency where the momentum of the agency of the colonised is on resistance and counter- discourse.

In the light of the above, I argue that postcolonial theology in India is a critical partner of, and not disconnected from, Indian liberation theologies. I also argue that Indian liberation theologies are to a notable extent post-colonial/postcolonial. For the interaction to continue, I argue that the methodologies used within liberation theologies— methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis—have to be reconfigured in the light of various levels

23 Padmini Mongia, “Introduction,” in Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, ed. Padmini Mongia (London: Arnold, 1996), 1. 24 Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in Postcolonial?” in Contemporary Postcolonial Theory, ed. Padmini Mongia, 55-71. 25 Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 4. 31

of engagement in differing postcolonial contexts. This effectively advances the agency of the marginalized and opens up liberation theologies to incorporate the agency of children.

Bignall’s proposal for a qualitative postcolonial perspective comes as an alternative to various forms of postcolonial interactions. She develops her thoughts from Felix Guattari and

Gilles Deleuze, simultaneously interacting with and drawing insights critically from Foucault.

Bignall’s immediate context is the postcolonial debate in Australia which seeks reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. What is her image of a postcolonial context? It is a context in which “bodies occupy the same territory; each experiences a significant sense of belonging”.26 The sense of belonging is also an act of reconciliation because belonging is a “process of becoming compatible drawing from a ‘common concept’ of the postcolonial…” 27 For Deleuze, it is an “ontological becoming” through which one could envision a different view of self and unfolds into an “open-ended process of actualisation that has an immanent cause”.28 Bignall seeks compossibility in the context of reconciliation. In the process she attempts to see both the colonised as well as the coloniser working out a postcolonial agency from a “common concept”. Bignall considers a historically postcolonial Australian context but that which does not create an engaging space for the once colonized aboriginals to express their views to stake their claim for greater reconciliation and their agency in state policies. Therefore Bignall rereads Deleuze and Guattari arguing that their proposal reinstates a postcolonial type of reconciliation which is “not as progressive

26 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 141. 27 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 141. 28 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 9. 32

unification, but as the collective enactment of a historical dis continuity”.29 Bignall calls this a qualitative perspective.

A significant qualitative perspective addresses the binary tendency by retrieving the agency of the colonized as well as recognizing the “responsibility and transforming capacity of formerly colonizing subjects”.30 As a critique of previous discourses on agency, Bignall raises the question of the problem of the negative. The negative is the projection of a lack.

Therefore, the colonized organise resistance to reclaim that which they lack. Hence, explaining the agency through the idea of lack is negative, and is antagonistic to the positive, to the given. In Bignall’s words “the privileging of negativity is therefore also a privileging of difference”.31 The difference could trigger discontinuity. However, a certain degree of discontinuity is required move further from routine practices in postcolony that reflect the colonial hangover. However, the discontinuity is not an end all. Postcolonial discourse will

“take the opportunity to reconstruct modes of social existence upon an alternative, non- imperial political and ethical basis”.32

The second qualitative move is the positive driving factor for agency. Drawing from Deleuze and Guattari, agency cultivates

a critical awareness of the particular and the concrete types of desires that have been invested in his/her formation as such, together with a critical awareness of the types of desires she or he practises in the associations and relations that come to compose the social body at large. 33

29 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 9. 30 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 31 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 30. 32 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 3. 33 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 138. 33

It is clear from Bignall’s explanation that she does wish to see a discontinuity from a dominant imperial understanding of power. However, she also argues for a discontinuity of power that even the negated class desires. What she foresees is not a grand nationalistic unity that subsumes differences to the advantage of the dominant but that which continues to emphasize differences which are an ontological reality and yet keeps the desire for receptivity and adaptability. For Bignall negativity does not unite but moves towards division or another hierarchy. Bignall tends to propose a single factor–desire–to enhance the agency of the neglected in a postcolony. At the same time she avoids a strong argument for a single formula by invoking Foucauldian ‘discontinuity from the dominant’ alongside Guattari and Deleuze, but prioritizes desire.

1.3.3. Methodological Challenges and Clarifications

It should be noted here that Bignall’s qualitative contrapuntal methodology cannot be deployed in its entirety for a children-related theology in the Indian context as there is a change of cultural context and the age-group of the participants in qualitative engagement.

Firstly, Bignall’s proposal emerges in a context to reconcile the colonized aborigines and their colonizers in the Australian context. The aboriginal inhabitants were imagined to be

“too primitive” to be considered as communities with powers to represent their “sovereign” agency. 34

Secondly, when postcolonial theologies prescribe methodologies for the agency of the marginalized, they refer to the adult-marginalized. They lack clear directives for the agency

34 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 77. 34

of children. Bignall’s methodology assumes an adult-centric world of contrapuntal interaction whereby each body in a colony is keen to engage in relationships, and keenly “forge and facilitate meetings” as an affirmation of self-willed power. In this research, the discussion on the agency of children involves an understanding not only of children’s voices but also of adult-advocates who speak on behalf of children in largely adult-biased discourses. The methodological challenge here is to evaluate and discern how adults as advocates of children enhance or restrict the concept of children’s agency.

Thirdly, according to qualitative agency the obligations on children as colonized are demanding. Unlike the adult-colonized, children cannot grasp the colonized state they are in as they are naturalised into an adult-dominant world. They need a strong advocating support from the dominant adults. The role of the colonizers as advocates will complement Bignall’s qualitative agency calls for but the role of the dominant as advocates is not explained with clarity in Bignall. Therefore, I complement the concept of advocacy by drawing explanations of postcolonial advocacy from Mark Lewis Taylor’s recommendation of ‘authentic advocacy’, 35 which is an appreciative and creative development of Spivak’s critique of

‘benevolent’ advocates in a postcolony. As observed in Chapter 2, Bignall advances her explanation of qualitative agency through a critique of Spivak’s explanation on whether the subalterns could speak. But here I show that Bignall’s extensive emphasis on agency overlooks the equally significant role of advocacy, especially when her explanation of agency has to be deployed to explain and define the agency of children.

35 Mark Lewis Taylor, “Subalternity and Advocacy as Kairos for Theology,” in Opting for the Margins: Postmodernity and Liberation in Christian Theology, ed. Joerg Rieger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 23-44.

Fourthly, the challenge is to clarify the different trajectories of inclusivity involved in the course of the discussion in this research. Both Indian liberation theologies and contrapuntal methodology offer their distinct versions of inclusivity. Therefore, the first challenge is to identify conceptual differences between inclusivity as explained in methodological inclusivity and the type of inclusive engagement that contrapuntally offers. It should however be noted that the inclusivity that contrapuntality calls for is different methodological inclusivity of Indian liberation theologies. Postcolonial theologies and liberation theologies have made limited attempts for inclusivity. In the liberation theologies there is methodological inclusivity, and then theological inclusivity within methodological exclusivity as proposed by Sathianathan Clarke. 36 However these notions of inclusivity are constrained by an overemphasis on the exclusive pathos of the marginalised. The following are the differences between the inclusivist mode in the liberationist stream and the postcolonial theologies in India.

Methodological inclusivity in the liberationist stream, which is usually a critique of methodological exclusivity’s extreme emphasis on pathos explores pathos from various communities outside dalit communities that could include the colonisers. While doing so, the tendency within the inclusivist mode is to move toward what the exclusivists call the ‘pathos’ of the dalits as proposed by Arvind Nirmal. 37 This is well explained by Clarke’s theological inclusivity within methodological exclusivity where inclusivity is expected to move towards identity-discourse as greatly emphasized by the exclusivists. In other words, the inclusivists

36 Sathianathan Clarke, “Dalit Theology: An Introductory and Interpretative Theological Exposition,” in Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century. Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways , eds., Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 19-37. 37 Arvind Nirmal, “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective,” Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective,” In A Reader in Dalit Theology (Madras: Gurukul, 1992). 36

include the so-understood dominant and the marginalized. Their concerted effort is to stress the identity of the marginalized (dalits, women, tribals). By emphasizing the identity of the marginalized, the inclusivists expose the realities of structural power that dominant groups hold politically and historically.

This is different from inclusivity in postcolonial theologies where the emphasis is on the models of continued engagement and liminality, and creates more flexible forms of identity.

While postcolonial inclusivity intends to engage in the identity discourses, they offer more flexibility to discern the views of the dominant in the course of liberation. Unlike the liberationist stream, postcolonial inclusivity does not press the dominant towards the identity discourse of the marginalized. As found in the works of Monica Melanchton 38 , Gabriela

Dietrich 39 and Jayachitra Lalitha 40 , postcolonial inclusivity works at an initial or ground level to discern how cumulatively the motif of liberation could be worked out with broader or flexible objectives for an interactive and a flexible postcolony.

In this research, I support the inclusivist position of the postcolonial theologies with the following rationale:

Firstly, in my discussion on the agency of children, I explain how the prevalence of strong binaries in identity-specific discourses deters the inclusion and discussion of agency of

38 Monica Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered: Sexual Violation and After”, Gender, Religion und Kultur , (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2010): 77-100; Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Akkamahadevi and The Samaritan Woman: Paradigms of Resistance and Spirituality” in D. N. Premnath ed., Border Crossings: Cross- Cultural Hermeneutics (Maryknoll, Orbis Books: 2007): 35-54; 39 Gabriele Dietrich, “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology need to relate to People’s Movements?”, Asian Journal of Theology 19/1 (April 2005): 166-187. 40 Lalitha Jayachitra, “Jesus and Ambedkar: Exploring Common Loci for Dalit Theology and Dalit Movements” in Dalit Theology in the Twenty-first Century, ed., Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 121-136. 37

children within the liberationist mode in Indian theologies. Binaries like exlusivist/ inclusivist, adult/child tend to elude flexible conversations. At a broader level, this argument critiques the liberationist model that Child theologies attempt to take but struggles to explain it further (Chapter 5). With the sense of postcolonial agency, I attempt to present how postcolonial inclusivity comes as a relevant model of interaction towards understanding the agency of children in India.

Secondly, I argue that liberation theologies could exhibit a greater flexibility in relation to qualitative engagements at the grassroots. As I will discuss in my analysis in Chapter 7, inclusivity as explained by Bignall through the concept of compossible space and continued engagement provides methodological strength to liberation theologies enabling them to overcome some of the limitations of modernity discourse that they have uncritically inherited.

Deploying postcolonial hermeneutics also facilitates the methodologies of liberation theologies to include the agency of children and its concerns as significant for Indian theologies.

Thirdly, here the intention of employing postcolonial inclusivity is not to negate the concrete or stable identities that influence and shape liberation theologies. Postcolonial inclusivity interrogates, rather than negates, the liberation theologies that ground themselves on exclusive identity based on pathos. This is significant for children-related theologies.

Liberation theologies in India emphasize the experiences of oppressed adults and homogenize varying experiences of children. Postcolonial inclusivity also recognizes the oppressive forces even within the oppressed groups or communities. In other words, traditional liberation theologies tend to overlook ‘internal colonies’. For instance in the conventional dalit theology, all dalits are understood as oppressed whereas a postcolonial reading helps identify

various forms of colonizing tendencies within and outside dalit theological schemes. So, postcolonial inclusivity facilitates the disruption of homogenizing tendencies.

1.4. Research Method

This research is a theoretical discussion of the understanding of the agency of children in children-related theologies by drawing the concepts of the agency of the marginalised in liberation theologies in India. Two types of resources have helped in shaping this research.

Firstly, reviews of literature in the field of Indian liberation theologies, and children-related theologies. This research is a theoretical discussion on the understanding of the agency of children in different theological streams. In the children-related theologies, I consider three important strands: Child theologies in the West, Holistic Child Development and Theologies of Childhood. However, for my critique of the children-related theologies, I have also drawn insights from literature on children and theology that are discursively linked with children- related theologies.

Secondly, interviews with some scholars in Child theologies and Holistic Child

Development. Child theologies and Holistic Child Development are emerging fields and there is not much literature published in this field. In fact, there are no monographs that elaborate the understanding of the agency of children in India or in children-related theologies. Therefore, I conducted one-to-one interviews with some scholars in children- related theologies in different parts of the world. I also had Skype conversations and email correspondences. I interviewed them specifically on the themes of my research that they have not covered in their writings. Child theologies and Holistic Child Development.

Therefore, the views of some of the scholars on the agency of children are expressed for the first time. These views will be presented in Chapters 5 and 6. 39

Third, although this research is about the agency of children, the research will not have children’s voices or stories. It is a theoretical discussion, and the outcomes of the research could be used as guidelines for studies and researches among children. It provides guidelines on how the adults, in circumstances to anticipate and advance the agency of children could be conscious of their dominant selves and also transform their dominant selves into authentic advocates of children’s agency.

I also bring to this research my experience and knowledge of working among children since

2002 in various contexts of child rights violation in India in the states of Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Before commencing this research, I had taken up both non-degree and Master level researches. The non-degree research was on the girl child in domestic help and contextual factors, 41 and the Master’s dissertation was on dalit theology’s hermeneutical limitations in incorporating child-rights issues and its over-insistence on adult-rights issues. 42

In this research, I explore deeper issues surrounding the understanding of the agency of children if they have to make their way into the adult-dominant theological discourses in

India.

Referencing Method : I follow the Chicago Manual of Style (16 th edition), specifically its

Notes-Bibliography documentation system for referencing and bibliography.

41 Godwin Shiri and Rohan Gideon, “The Plight of Female Child Labourers: A Case Study of Workers in Bangalore Urban District,” Religion and Society 49/50 (Dec 2004-March 2005): 33-71. (Co-authorship clarified in Religion and Society 50/3 (Sep 2005) p.v] 42 Rohan Gideon, Child Labour in India: Its Challenges for Theological Thought and Christian Ministry in India (Delhi/ Nagpur: ISPCK/ NCCI. 2011). 40

1.5. Scope and Limits of the Research

This research will be limited to Christian theological discourses. Discussions on liberation theologies are from the Indian liberation theologies, unless mentioned otherwise for Indian liberation theologies’ unique contribution to the wider discourse of liberation theologies is their theological interrogation of the caste system. Therefore, my analysis of Indian liberation theologies is largely drawn from but not restricted to analytical methods of Dalit theology, which is anti-caste or caste-interrogating theology. It has to be noted here that dalit theology has influenced the already present liberation theological discussions in India. In turn, these theologies have enhanced the interrogative ability of dalit theology. Therefore, I also draw from other Indian liberation theologies like feminist and womanist theologies, eco- theologies and tribal theologies. This is a clear indicator to how juxtaposed readings have been happening, but these discourses have not included children’s agency as a conversation- companion within these discourses.

While discussing children-related theologies, my resources are extensively from, but not restricted to, Child theologies as proposed by Child Theology Movement, Holistic Child

Development which is a children-related theology prominent in Asia and which interacts with, contributes to and draws from Child theologies, and Theologies of Childhood which interacts with and at times is critiqued by Child theologies.

This research on the agency of children is taken up by an adult-researcher, reviewing literature coming from an adult-domain and interviewing scholars who are adults.

1.6. Definitions and Notes

The children-related theologies are fairly new streams of discourses and therefore many terms that are employed here associated with them need to be defined here. In this research, the following terms and phrases are employed as explained below.

Children-related Theologies

I have devised the term Children-related theologies as an umbrella term which covers three theological streams: Child theologies, Theologies of Childhood, and Holistic Child

Development.

Child Theologies

Child theologies are “the ways in which the experience of childhood critiques theology”. 43 It is discussions of a movement called Child Theology Movement that perceives the views of children as potential enough to restate our traditional theologies and even doctrines. In the words of Marcia Bunge a pioneer child theologian, Child theology

re-examines not only conceptions of children and obligations to them but also fundamental doctrines and practices of the church. Drawing on analogies to feminist, black and liberation theologies, Child theologies have as their task not only to strengthen the commitment to and understanding of a group that has often been voiceless, marginalized and oppressed—children—but also to reinterpret Christian theology and practice as a whole. 44

43 Peter Privett, “Prologue,” in Through the Eyes of the Child: New Insights in Theology from a Child’s Perspective, eds. Anne Richards and Peter Privet (Church House Publishing, 2009), xix. 44 Marcia J. Bunge, “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies: International Initiatives to Deepen Reflection on Children and Childhood in the Academy and Religious Communities,” Dharma Deepika 28/12/2 (July-December, 2008): 35. 42

The Child Theology Movement uses the singular term ‘Child theology’ while Child theologian Bunge uses the term in plural as ‘Child theologies’. In this research, unless mentioned otherwise, I go by Bunge’s term as the Movement employs and offers different methodological insights to understand the agency of children.

Theologies of Childhood

‘Theologies of Childhood’ is a broad term for theologies in the past and present that discuss children, their safety and the responsibilities of adults towards protecting them. Again in

Bunge’s words, Theologies of Childhood “[p]rovides sophisticated understandings of children and childhood and our obligations to children themselves”. 45 As Bunge claims, the

Theologies of Childhood project children more as theological objects than as subjects.

Holistic Child Development

Dan Brewster, a pioneer, argues that Holistic Child Development “is a new global movement afoot with a vision to reach and mobilize the next generation—to maximize their transformational impact while they are young, and mobilize them for continuing impact for the rest of their lives”. 46

45 Bunge, “Theologies of Childhood,” 35; Deusdedit R. K. Nkurunziza, “African Theology of Childhood in Relation to Child Labour,” African Ecclesial Review 46, no.2 (2004): 121- 138; Estep, James Riley, Jr. “Childhood transformation: toward an educational theology of childhood conversion & spiritual formation,” Stone-Campbell Journal 5, no. 2 (Fall, 2002): 183-206; Angela Shier-Jones ed., Children of God: Towards a Theology of Childhood (Peterborough, UK: Epworth, 2007); David H. Jensen, Graced Vulnerability: A Theology of Childhood (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2005). 46 Dan Brewster, “Themes and Implications of Holistic Child Development Programming in Seminaries” in Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges, ed. Jesudason Jeyaraj (Bangalore: Christian Forum for Child Development/ISPCK, 2009), 32. 43

Holistic Child Development argues for three broad themes: Holism , which “addresses the physical needs of children and young people as well as their spiritual needs”; Child , that tells us that “we are not just learning about children but also about ourselves” which propels to seek the society to “help children”; and, Development, which is a biblically drawn dictum based on Jesus’ own development that desires to see children grow in “wisdom, stature, favour with God, and favour with man”. This dictum “neatly encompasses all aspects of the whole person and provides a useful model … to create meaningful holistic development programmes”. 47

Liberation Theologies in India

Here the term ‘liberation theologies in India’ is employed as an umbrella term. The term encompasses theologies in India such as dalit theology, tribal theology, feminist theology, womanist theology and eco-theology unless specified otherwise. Methodologies like methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity have been employed largely in

Dalit theologies but also in the other liberationist streams too.

Post-colonial/ Postcolonial

These similar sounding words with or without an hyphen are interdisciplinary discourses covering historical, sociological and cultural analyses, and engaged in the examination of meanings produced under “the controlling power of representation in colonized societies”. 48

The terms continue to be distinctively used. ‘Post-colonial’ is used to indicate various

47 Brewster, “Themes and Implications,” 34. 48 “post-colonialism/postcolonialism” in Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts , eds. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 186-187. 44

experiences and their analyses in the former political colonies, especially European colonies.

However, any analysis in a former colony to be categorised a post-colonial is contested as the outcome of colonial experiences is not only restricted to the past as in ‘post-’ but includes it.

Such experiences or similar experiences continue to produce meanings in the present. They are “trans-historical”. ‘Postcolonial’ in that sense encapsulates interactions and experiences

“between and across” meanings that span the past and the present. 49

It is to be noted here that liberation theologies in India have called themselves as postcolonial. On the other hand, postcolonial theologies in India consider themselves as a critical continuum of the liberation theologies. Therefore in my research I argue in Chapters 3 and 4 that while they sound different by their nomenclature they have commonalities as much as they have differences.

Colonised and Coloniser

In this research, I use a broad term ‘colonised’ for those dominated upon and ‘coloniser/s’ for the dominant. However the word ‘subaltern’ features in this research where the scholars have drawn this term from Gramscian discourse. In this research, the word ‘subaltern’ features in the discussions on theoretical concepts of postcolonial agency and as employed by liberation theologians (Sathianathan Clarke and others). While this research is about children, which is one of the most colonised groups, I do not use the word ‘subalterns’ for children as the word heavily implies a group which is a product of and restricted to Marxist analysis. In my

49 Aijaz Ahmed, “The Politics of Literary Postcoloniality,” Race and Class 36, no.3 (1995): 9. 45

discussion of children, I use a broad term ‘colonised’ to express the adult dominant mental and physical colonies within which children operate.

A Note on Children-related theologies

The phrase ‘Children-related theology’ has to face a few methodological challenges when I place it in the context of Indian liberation theologies because:

Firstly, I use the phrase ‘children-related theology’ as an umbrella term for recent theologies like Child Theology, Holistic Child Development and Theologies of Childhood.

Secondly, in my research I do not employ empirical method to use children’s own experiences through their own agency but critically re-understand their agency as an adult- advocate. This position has the limitations of a benevolent advocacy that represents children from a privileged position. In Mark Lewis Taylor’s explanation, an entitled advocate holds a privileged position or influences that others cannot or do not freely have. The entitled advocate claims the privilege through “group affiliation” such as “class, ethnic identity, gender, educational experience, political position or because of some combination of these affiliations”.50 Extending Taylor’s thoughts to adult-child dichotomy, adults who represent children are entitled advocates in the context where adulthood is privileged over childhood and therefore culturally eligible to decide for and speak on behalf of children who are less entitled.

50 Taylor, “Subalternity and Advocacy,” 2. 46

Liberation theologies in India emphasize the subjecthood of dalits, women, tribals and others.

Their experience in the form of ‘pathos’—a factor for their agency—is key to theological discourse. These experiences are captured in their methodologies methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis. However, the methodologies do offer spaces to the entitled advocates to represent the marginalized as could be seen in methodological inclusivity and praxis. As I argue later on, postcolonial agency, specifically in the sense of

‘qualitative agency’ (Simone Bignall) offers grounds for an engagement between the colonized pathos and the dominant experience of the colonizer. A certain degree of discussion akin to qualitative agency has been taken up by postcolonial theologians in India but not as explicitly as in the work of Bignall.

Thirdly, I call my proposal ‘children-related theology’ to not restrict my contribution to any one form of theology like Child Theology or Theology of Childhood or Holistic Child

Development. To be contrapuntally authentic, I draw strengths for my arguments from all these varieties and contribute back a more engaging method. Methodologically, it helps in identifying with clarity forms of agency of children that the above-mentioned theologies have either addressed or not addressed.

Furthermore, proposing a ‘children-related’ theology offers clues to dalit theology, feminist and womanist theologies in India, tribal theologies to be dalit-related, woman-related or tribal-related theologies by opening these theologies up for an open-ended engagement to identify liberative elements from a variety of resources. This open-ended engagement does not negate or drastically side-line the agency of dalits or women or tribals in transforming the face of liberation. In fact it anticipates wider engagement to recognize the unattended to or unknown liberative components—or “mystery” (Martin Marty)—in the “region of mystery”

(Mark Lewis Taylor). These proposals have been initiated in postcolonial theologies in India.

Bignall’s proposal offers further directions on these engagements.

In the following chapter, I present a detailed discussion on contrapuntal methodology that helps understand postcolonial agency. The discussion bases the analytical framework for this research largely on the work of Simone Bignall’s postcolonial agency, specifically on her proposal of qualitative agency in a postcolony.

Chapter 2. Postcolonialism, Contrapuntality and Agency

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, I employ Simone Bignall’s understanding of contrapuntality as a broad framework to map the debate on postcolonial agency in the recent past. Her theoretical discussions span the works of Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. Bignall has also critically engaged with Gayatri Spivak on Spivak’s supposition that subalterns cannot speak for themselves. Bignall’s qualitative perspective defines social construction, self-concept, attitudes of being, relating and belonging; therefore, she proposes an ethical mode of interaction which is more conversational and interactive. This is different from a resistant form of contrapuntality which is proposed by Foucault. The political forms of resistance could challenge the colonizer/colonized binaries when the participants “act within, against, and according to a lasting legacy of colonial sociality”. 51 The act of resistance for a unique agency could aggressively lead to an exclusive agency and new hierarchies, giving rise to new forms of internal colonisation.

What I present as Bignall’s explanation of contrapuntality is developed from her concept of qualitative agency based on the works of Deleuze and Guattari. Bignall also engages with thoughts of Foucault and Gayatri Spivak, that are highly influential in developing the discourse of liberation theologies in India and postcolonial theologies.

I begin my survey of postcolonial agency from Foucault’s deconstruction of structure and moral agency built upon Enlightenment rationalism. This is for two reasons: [a] discussions

51 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 128. 49

on the understanding of agency in liberation theologies in India have largely relied on

Foucault’s discourse on structure, subjectivity and agency; [b] Bignall’s proposal for a qualitative agency based on Deleuze and Guattari’s thoughts begins with a critique of

Foucault’s notion of agency which Bignall calls quantitative. The Foucauldian discussions in the liberation theologies have then followed the discourse on power until the emergence of postcolonial theologies. Dalit theologians and other liberation theologians argue on

Foucauldian lines that subjectivity is discursively constituted. Therefore, subjects do have agency. Discussions in liberation theologies allow a free flow of association between subjectivity and agency. However, a significant question is: to what extent is the agency unitary or negotiable? This could be responded to by analysing the dynamics of the methodologies of liberation theologies. With Bignall and liberation theologies in India having

Foucault as a common point of conversation, I begin my discussion with a critique of

Foucault’s theme of resistance. Later in this chapter, I show how postmodern and postcolonial theologians in India are critically appreciative of the liberationist methodologies.

This appreciation resonates with Bignall’s critical appreciation of Foucauldian agency.

Bignall highlights how Foucault’s agency takes a quantitative position which has the danger of creating more binaries in the process of overcoming some binaries. Foucault’s theme of resistance, which signifies agency, has strong political connotations and has the ability to challenge the colonizer/colonized binaries when the participants resist the long-term legacy of colonial engagement. This form of agency has an inherent ability to recreate new colonies.

Bignall critiques the dangers of quantitative agency and proposes a qualitative engagement to reconstitute the idea of a postcolonial agency.

With regard to Bignall’s engagement with Spivak, Bignall highlights that Spivak projects as problematic Deleuze and Foucault’s failure to “acknowledge how subaltern critique must be

presented within the privileged structures of Western epistemology and representation in order to be comprehended or perceived as sensible”.52 Spivak argues that while not acknowledging the western epistemology as dominant is a gap in Deleuze and Foucault, she supplements it with the idea that resistance to the dominant is already shaped within the discourse of the dominant. Therefore, the authentic agency of the subalterns continues to be elusive. A continual dominant process renders the subalterns voiceless. 53 For Spivak, a subaltern discourse emphasizes “everything that has limited or no access to cultural imperialism … a space of difference”.54 Bignall builds on a general notion of agency that considers human capacity to act or respond as crucial.

The reason for agency is ascribed to two factors: to a structure where human agency is a consequence of structural constraints or cultural stresses, and where human agency or action is a product of self-will. The self-willed agency could challenge a structure inadvertently. The explanation of agency is classically connected to social structures and how agency and social structure reciprocate in constituting or reconstituting each other. Discussions on agency gain prominence with a critical assessment of structuralism which either negate or diminish the role and actions of individuals as significant in shaping a discourse.

2.2. Mapping Postcolonial Agency

Bignall redefines postcolonial agency of the colonized by analysing the relation between desire and power. She derives her thoughts from a Deleuzean understanding of Nietzsche’s

52 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 21. 53 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 21. 54 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, interview by Leon de Kock, “New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa.”, Ariel: A Review of International English Literature 23, no.3 (1992): 45. 51

‘the will to power’. She sees Foucault expounding this thought too which is different from

Deleuze and Guattari. She develops her thoughts on two calculated features found in Foucault and Deleuze: What forces have brought a colonial state into existence? And, what powers of actualization could bring an alternative present?

Where Foucault differs from Deleuze is on the cause of desire or how desire is produced. For

Foucault, desire stems from the power of the colonized to claim back a dignified relationship in a structure. “Foucault shows how a concept and practice of desire is produced in modernity as an effect of power…” 55 In other words, the desire for power is driven by a sense of lack, the lack of power. Therefore, the desire is towards gaining power that influences the shaping of a subject. In Foucault, the subject is shaped by desire to gain the power that creates agency. Such agency is justifiable as it resists and interrogates a colonizing power.

However, this has its own limitation. Foucault’s overemphasis on power relations has limited the understanding of the desire of the colonized. Foucault’s notion of power converts to a political relationship without an “ethic of care” for others. This leads to less respect and regard for other participants in a postcolonial relationship. In other words, it causes a

“dangerous desire”. It could as well develop resistance to change from the powerful. 56

Foucault’s work sees the effects of power on the subjects, but does not go further to adequately explain “desire” as a “casual component of agency”. He sees desire as that which creates new hierarchical power. 57

55 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 130. 56 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 137. 57 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 129. 52

2.2.1. Postcolonial Agency and Contrapuntality

According to Bingall, Foucauldian dialectic is primarily driven by negative sense to highlight and recreate differences. Therefore, political engagement and its outcome are based on negation too. When the agency of those seeking a change carries negativity as a mode of change, it pits the objective of reconciliation against a problematic difference. A problematic difference is exactly what a positive desire seeks to “eliminate or transform”. When the negated group acts to transform the situation or work out a liberative agency all by itself, the negativity of differences silently lets go off the “accountability” and “apathy” of the dominant.

A relevant postcolony that enhances the potential of the agency of the negated class and at the same time seeks to account for the dominance of the colonizer is achieved by a positive desire. Raymond Caldwell sees in Foucault a fluid association between subjectivity and agency projecting pervasive agency that challenges intentional agency and projects a desire for power. Foucault moves away from ontological dualism of subjectivity and agency, towards changes that agency could effect. 58 Caldwell presents four trajectories on the discussion of self, subjectivity and human agency. 59 Explaining Foucault’s discourse on power and knowledge, and how lines between them blur, he firstly explains that Foucault challenges the optimism of Enlightenment reason and excessive confidence in individual autonomy; secondly, power is everywhere and manifests itself in multiple ways at different levels; thirdly, power functions in relational forms through different mechanisms of a

58 Raymond Caldwell, “Agency and Change: Re-evaluating Foucault’s Legacy,” Organization: The Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society 14, no.6 (2007): 2. 59 Caldwell, “Agency and Change,”: 6. 53

structure; and fourthly, power is positive and productive, and presents abilities to implement itself on everyone.

Caldwell 60 argues that Foucault’s understanding of agency concentrates on the “possibilities of agency and change ” than it is conventionally understood as questioning “ontological dualities of individual and society” and “agency and structure”. This does not negate the question of “intentional agency” established on rationality, knowledge/ expertise, autonomy and reflexivity; rather it “decentres” intentional agency “allowing new possibilities for resistance and the dispersal of agency and change in organisations and societies”.61 Foucault attempts to question the reason of Enlightenment and thus remove the differences between power and knowledge, subject and object. He also questions individualistic autonomy

“through rational knowledge of the self and the world”.62 What Foucault has tried to achieve is to present agency that emerges from interactions within structures which challenges certain forms of knowledge.

To explain it further at a discursive level, Foucault does not completely rule out the connection of agency of subalterns to their subjectivity albeit agency appears and disappears in subjectivity without clarity to the notion of agency. As Caldwell quotes Foucault as a supportive argument, “power is not a thing, an institution, an aptitude or an object”.63

Subjectivity and agency exhibit a state of flux. What can be seen here is that agency as a unitary rational entity of the Enlightenment is questioned through a pervasive notion of power. Yet it allows a space to discuss differences and therefore allow a notion of agency

60 Caldwell, “Agency and Change,”: 6. 61 Caldwell, “Agency and Change,”: 3. 62 Caldwell, “Agency and Change,”: 6. 63 Caldwell, “Agency and Change,”: 6. 54

which is not necessarily a rational, autonomous agency, but an agency that projects itself as an effect of subjectivity. Therefore, subjectivity becomes a key formative factor of agency, an agency not as a completely separate entity but a response that emerges from questioning autonomy or privileging a dominant agency.

Postcolonial philosopher Edward Said gives a fresh perspective to the ambiguous relationship between subjectivity and agency. Said develops his idea of subjectivity from Foucault’s disapproval of the precedence of truth to knowledge, a Cartesian standard. The Cartesian paradigm was for Foucault an overlooking of the subject. As seen earlier in Caldwell,

Foucault does not relate human consciousness as a source of the human subject. However, what is significant for our discussion is to highlight Said’s allegiance to Foucault’s resentment to structures based on the centrality of truth. However, Racevskis argues that while Said critiques Foucault, Said’s views on “discourse and of discursive formation” owe a great deal to Foucault. 64

Said finds Foucault’s ideas on subjectivity problematic because, as he claims, Foucault’s rejection of truth-based knowledge is not enough to separate agency from subjectivity. For

Said, power works in relationships and it is wilfully used or abused. This is in contrast to

Foucault’s presentation of power which works in structures which are “impersonal [and] anonymous”. 65 Therefore, Said is critical of Foucault’s vagueness of the description of power which otherwise is manifest “physically and politically”. In Said’s words,

64 Karlis Racevskis, “Edward Said and Michel Foucault: Affinities and Dissonances,” Research in African Literatures 36, no.3 (2005): 84. 65 Edward W. Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Literary and Cultural Essays (London: Granta Books, 2001), 243-244. 55

What he [Foucault] seemed not as quite willing to grant is, in fact, the relative success of counter discursive attempts first to show the misrepresentations of discursive power, to show, in Fanon’s words, the violence done to physically and politically repressed inferiors in the name of an advanced culture, and afterwards to begin the difficult, if not always tragically flawed project of formulating the discourse of liberation. 66

For Said, the agency of the colonized manifests in a historical context as against Foucault’s depiction of power which is present in and pervades relationships. Foucault’s intention is to make agency accessible to all in a structure without dictating the consequences that such agency should give rise to. At a broader level, Said’s views offer a postcolonial critique of

Foucauldian agency in a supposed structure. While Foucault’s sense offers a broader sense of the agency applicable to the dynamics of a structure which is invested in everyone, it also tends to slip out of a historical context. On the contrary, Said argues that purpose of agency is to be tangential in specific political and cultural contexts especially of the colonized. Such an agency offers the ability to reformulate interactions between different members of the structure with agentic significance to negotiate power practically.

By opening up the debate about the less contextual implications of Foucault’s proposal of agency, Said shows that when power is widespread in a structure it takes on cultural and political shapes of the context and that power gets concentrated in the historically dominant.

Said adds that in a context of power-disparity, the colonised wield their agency through the available power which could be discerned as a “counter” agency, however unsuccessful or short-lived this agency might be.

66 Said, Reflections on Exile, 243-244. 56

Said’s examination of Foucault and his own proposal that power should be analysed in specific contexts lead to double-jeopardy: positing the power in a context which is already dominant, and watching the power getting concentrated among the dominant. The uneven presence of agency in a political context, especially the uneven presence of agency in a postcolony is well-explained by Homi K. Bhabha who captures this double jeopardy thus:

Postcolonial criticism bears witness to the unequal and uneven forces of cultural representation involved in the contest for political and social authority within the modern world order. 67

If the postcolonial is about diagnosing the jeopardies, how could one bring to conversation the “uneven” agencies? In the light of Foucault’s limited understanding of agency and his hesitation to posit the agency in a specific context, on the one hand, and Said’s exposition of agency in a postcolonial context which could be a counter agency on the other, Bhabha’s views further open up the discussion to the spaces that counter-discourses could create.

Postcolonial criticism and its explanation of the agency paves the way for an analysis of the meanings that emerge through relationships in “uneven” circumstances because of differing world views due to colonization. Specifically, the meanings that emerge through the relationships indicate that the views of the colonizers are predominant. It produces intersections or an “in-between space” by critically cutting through strategies of the colonizers in “shared histories of deprivation and discrimination”, and importantly, the

“exchange of values, meanings and priorities”. The exchanges could be “incommensurable” or “antagonistic”. In Bhabha’s understanding, there are, nevertheless, “[t]erms of cultural engagement”. Therefore the ‘post’ in the postcolonial, for Bhabha, is neither necessarily a

67 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (Oxon: Routledge, 2004), 245. 57

new space nor about “leaving behind the past”. It is an “overlap”, where conversations and views are created in the contexts of differences. Moreover, differences in various contexts also result in strategizing selfhood and agency to context specific needs. 68 Bhabha’s exposition of the colonial interactions emphasize that the colonizers as well as colonized relentlessly work through ever-emerging new combinations of views and perspectives. In other words, there are constant negotiations between the colonizers and the colonized to present their views as significant. It is the intersection of these views that creates an in- between space. What happens in these overlaps is what Bhabha calls ‘hybridity’ which is a continuous course of negotiations between different social collectives with unequal power- interests. Bhabha explains that conversations or encounters throw up different configurations of agency. The new configuration eludes specific references either purely to the agency of colonized or the colonizer. These projections are temporary and have the potential to affect long-term alterations in identities and spaces which Bhabha calls the “third space of enunciation”.

The intervention of the Third Space of enunciation, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process, destroys this mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is customarily revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code. Such an intervention quite properly challenges our sense of historical identity of culture as homogenizing, unifying force, authenticated by the originary Past, kept alive in the national tradition of the People. 69

Now, the crucial questions in mapping this discussion are to what extent do the colonized— with less or no agency in a post/colony—get to manifest their agency, either as a counterview or as an alternate perspective? And, in the “overlaps” of unequal power-interests, how

68 Bhabha, The Location of Culture , 54. 69 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 54. 58

do the once colonized make their way into a conversation with the colonizers? Anthony

Appiah explores these activities in what he sees in the postmodern or the postcolonial discourse called “in-between spaces”. The process of bringing forth the views of the once colonized involves what Appiah calls a ‘space clearing’ activity. 70 It means to make space for the colonized for their articulation by assisting in avoiding a heavy presence of the dominant.

Bhabha and Appiah notice what inevitably constitutes the postcolonial. In their views, the postcolonial retains the historical and geographical domination wherein the colonized move away or further from as well as explain a subject created out of interactions between the colonisers and the colonised. While the postcolonial tries to move to the future, it is not dismissive of the past. Bhabha specifically highlights that new configurations of relationships which emerge constantly, while Appiah highlights the fact that interactive spaces have to be created constantly. The common notion is the emergence of the ‘new’ space which maybe either short-lived or long-lived. This new space allows us to capture the glimpse of the agency that this research claims to highlight.

So far I have shown that there is an emphatic relationship between subjectivity and agency.

As we noticed in the critique of power in Foucault and later in the view of Bhabha and

Appiah the potential of the colonized to create new spaces, the formation of the subject is strongly influenced by contexts. At the same time, the subjects are invested with power or reason that works independently of the normative power and reason in a structure. Such subjects strongly question exclusive claims for Enlightenment reason and excessive confidence in individual autonomy. Power is pervasive and demonstrates itself in different

70 Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism” in Contemporary Postcolonial Theory, ed. Padmini Mongia (London: Arnold, 1996), 342. 59

ways even in well- structured hierarchies. We understand power contextually and through the agency manifested at different levels of the hierarchy. The agency is also understood relationally by analysing different levels of the hierarchy because power manifests itself at all levels of the hierarchy. Therefore, power and the resulting agency interrogate the hierarchy and engage in creative conversations for a new subjectivity. These modes of interaction are explained in the postcolonial method called contrapuntality, as presented at the beginning of the chapter.

Contrapuntality provides spaces to highlight the deep consequences of imperial process, and to provide a counterview to the dominant text which was oblivious to the dominant discourse. 71 In Said’s words, contrapuntality emphasises the differences but intervenes when any of the differences exhibited a sense to dominate. 72 The differences engage in the new spaces creating new and multiple narratives. The differences bring in unique and divergent agenda: their “internal formations” and their “internal coherence and system of external relationships, all of them co-existing and interacting with others. 73 The agency of the once- colonized is significantly fluid as it is context-driven. It strives towards accommodating the views of the once colonizers whose legacy continue to impact the context. Therefore, the objective of conversations is with the objectives to connect and belong with a hope of a wider change. It counters robust modes of resistance which has the potential to recreate what

Bignall thinks are unsolicited binaries and internal colonies.

71 Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, 55-56. 72 Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), xxv-xxvi. 73 Said, Culture and Imperialism, 32. 60

Contrapuntality also presents strong contextual challenges in uneven contexts, especially from the perspective of the colonized. How can one prominently project the views of the colonized that were sidelined by the colonizers and at the same time not undermine the experiences of the dominant that have the potential to continue to engage in conversations for a better relationship?

While engaging with the above questions directly, it is important to identify the complexities involved in approaching the questions. Appiah attempts to identify the ‘post’in critical theoretical discourses such as postmodernism and postcolonialism to understand with clarity the roles of the colonizers and the colonized in formulating the post-ness. In the postcolonial as in the postmodern, the engagement between the two is indispensable, either in opposition or in interaction. Appiah rejects claims for an exclusive voice. Exclusivity tends to replace an earlier dominant exclusive notion with another, but less seriously. It is also not possible to be exclusive because exclusivity sometimes works in “synergy” and at times in “competition”. 74

It is generally understood that exclusivity in modernity has distinctly worked in the form of reason. However, Appiah contests this view to claim that while reason was prioritized many lesser known forms interactions like political and religious have challenged Enlightenment reason, but the distinctiveness of reason was significantly emphasized. 75 He also argues that postmodernism increases the possibility of highlighting the distinctions that undergird a system. While modernity specifically highlighted Enlightenment reason, only one of the

74 Appiah, “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism,” 342. 75 Appiah, “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism,” 344. 61

undergirding factors, as the significant and “self-privileging” factor, postmodernism paves the way for or ‘transcends’ many such factors to synergize or compete with each other. 76

Appiah explains that the postcolonial becomes relevant when it is connected back to the precolonial state. This makes space to retrieve some of the practices that are not influenced by the Enlightenment rationality, and at the same time to interrogate the ‘recognizable’ colonial and postcolonial elements. What Appiah is critical of is the highly influential presence of the privileged-minority (the economically privileged in his context) for whom the postcolonial seems to benefit because they seem to “incorporate” the other officially to their advantage. There is a danger of a modernist mode operating in the postcolonial. The agency, in a modified form, sometimes wrongly termed as the postcolonial, tends to remain largely with the historically dominant. 77

By invoking the precolonial, it seems Appiah presumes a pristine state of affairs untouched by the Enlightenment rationality. While this is plausible in a colonial context of

Enlightenment, Appiah’s explanation could give clues to various forms of single-dominant ideas (similar to reason) to have controlled various cultural activities in different contexts.

Appiah’s explanations raise thoughts such as: agency could be defined within the precolonial or the precolonial could have had its own set of internal colonies that we tend to overlook.

While Appiah’s explanations affirm that spaces have to be generated for potential interactions between the colonisers and the colonised, Bignall’s proposal offers directions in how this interaction could take place in a postcolony. The initial suggestions of the potential activities

76 Appiah, “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism,” 343. 77 Appiah, “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism,” 346. 62

are in the way Bignall defines postcolonial. For Bignall, postcolonial is a constructive critique,

a critique and rejection of colonial forms of sociality; it also, however, gestures beyond critique and moves towards constructivism in so far as it properly emphasises a positive task barely begun: the conceptual creation of ‘a new horizon’ describing new forms of non-imperial mutuality, and thus genuinely post colonial society. 78

Bignall’s constructive critique of postcolonial activity presupposes and dwells intensely on mutuality and conversation between the colonisers and the colonised. The constructive critique begins by pointedly aiming to question imperial motives while engaging in the conversations. Bignall highlights four significant directions in a constructive understanding of a postcolonial conversation when the earlier suppositions of such conversations fluidly move between subjectivity and agency. These four directions capture and elaborate the moments when agency comes to the fore in the fluid movements between subjectivity and agency. The four directions are overcoming conceptual difficulties, qualitative transformative possibility, critique of the unconstructive character of the differences and a positive connotation of power.

The following section explains Bignall’s postcolonial qualitative agency, which is a movement further in our understanding of contrapuntality. Bignall bases her argument for a postcolonial agency on the conviction that “ontology shapes agency, while practice provokes thought”.79 This is because subjectivity is constructed in “concrete social and cultural conditions”.80 Such a constructed subjectivity clearly suggests the moments when agency of

78 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 3. 79 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 3. 80 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 2, 6. 63

the colonised manifests itself however temporary its presence is felt. This recognition of the presence of the agency also recognises the claims and responsibilities of colonisers as well as the colonised.

2.3. Contrapuntality and Postcolonial Qualitative Agency in Bignall

A significant contrapuntal moment in Bignall deals with the coloniser/colonised binary by retrieving the agency of the colonized as well as recognizing the “responsibility and transforming capacity of formerly colonizing subjects”.81 To recall the differences between the qualitative agency and the quantitative, the ‘qualitative agency’ emerges in a postcolony where there is ample space of “social construction, self-concept, attitudes of being, relating and belonging”.82 Therefore, an ethical mode of interaction is proposed which is more conversational and interactive. The colonised recognise the dangers of recreating new hierarchies to resistance and encounters, but rather desire an agency hoping to belong in the postcolony.

As a critique of quantitative agency, Bignall raises the “problem of the negative”. The negative is the projection of a “lack”. The colonized air their views either to emphasize or claim a lack. Consequently, the colonized are required to organise resistance or a critical activity to make good the lack. Therefore, explaining the agency through the lack is negative, and is antagonistic to the positive, “to the given”, and gives rise to the difference. The resistance that emphasizes negativity also recreates a difference. So, “the privileging of

81 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 82 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 2. 64

negativity is therefore also a privileging of difference”. 83 The difference could trigger discontinuity. However, a certain degree of discontinuity, as suggested by Foucault, is required “to ‘exit’ from habitually imperial assumptions and practices of relation”. But an exit is not enough. Postcolonial discourse would “take the opportunity to reconstruct modes of social existence upon an alternative, non- imperial political and ethical basis”.84

2.3.1. Overcoming Conceptual Difficulties towards a New Sociability

As observed in the earlier sections, the postcolonial emphasis was predominantly on the question of the agency of the colonised groups. In the course of addressing the issues of the agency of the colonized, a new sociability in qualitative agency also addressed the agency of the former colonisers who through their liberative resources participate in a new sociability. 85

New sociability also presupposes creating flexible configurations of social structures to continue the engagement which in turn supports the social structure. 86 This engagement could be based on some existing forms of sociability and it is the postcolonial obligation of the engaging groups to each other to explore various existing forms of sociability but those that question imperial modes of sociability. 87 For Bignall the postcolonial is

a historically different quality of relationship between formerly colonising and colonised bodies (or collectives), beginning a new kind of sociability that enables the joyful “compossibility”: their capacity to coexist in a complex national body that maintains the power of each participating body to persevere in being, and which enhances each body in virtue of its participation in the association. 88

83 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 30. 84 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 3. 85 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 19. 86 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 20. 87 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 114-115 88 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 141. 65

For Bignall, compossibility expresses itself best in the qualitative agency because at the core of compossibility is “relating and belonging”. It reassures sensitive conversations and interactions without resorting to aggressive modes of projecting the agency of the colonised. 89 It is a “causal and purposeful” agency at one and the same time individual and multiple. However, not all bodies are agents. Agency emerges from a view that a body exhibits constant need for relationships and uses various conditions to create agency. 90

Therefore, compossibility interrogates the presence of more vicious colonies.

Here Bignall shows how some forms of postcolonial resistance which, while challenging one form of binary, have the ability to create newer forms of binaries and therefore newer forms of colonisation. It is these kinds of colonising potentials that she is trying to interrogate. She does not completely reject such political resistances. Bignall’s suggestions are about moving away, firstly, from the binaries of the colonizer/ colonized and secondly exposing the unconstructive character of differences. If a political resistance (read quantitative agency) develops schisms, even some potential opportunity for a cordial interaction is lost. Bignall seems apprehensive about the loss of an opportunity for an interaction between the colonizers and the colonized. Positively for a postcolonial argument, Bignall’s suggestion about the negative makes sense because the participants engaging in a conversation do not create their subjectivity based only on the lack but also on their desire. However, Bignall’s pressing argument on the negative as the other restricts the scope of recognisable differences that would otherwise enhance the scope of transformation.

89 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 2. 90 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 12. 66

2.3.2. A Qualitative Transformative Possibility

A qualitative transformative possibility is a postcolonial practice that recognises the capacity of the coloniser to identity the dominant legacy and transforms it to an exercise of relationships. The transformation overcoming the conceptual difficulties that avoids the dangers of a extremes like an identity-specific exclusivist position or a grand homogenous unity. It opens up spaces to welcome new bodies towards new engagements. It presumes the colonizer psychologically decolonizing oneself from the benefits of imperial legacy and translating it into an act of transforming society.91

Here Bignall emphasizes the transformative possibility of the colonising subjects to emphasise the interactive potential of the colonisers in creating a better postcolony. It presumes the colonizer psychologically decolonizing oneself from the benefits of imperial legacy and converting the decolonised mind into a social act of transforming the society. 92

This encourages a movement away from the political forms of resistance that would give rise to newer forms of “internal colonisation”. 93 The formation of internal colonies thrives on the

“generative force of negativity” and the collective unity it idealises”. 94 Bignall’s explanation implies that the formation of internal colonies is the consequence of the negative desire, the desire to recreate new colonies due to the feeling of a lack of imperial power. It subsequently envisions a grand unity, preventing potential conversations for greater postcolonial possibilities. Also, subject formation is not the ultimate aim of transformation, but rather the transformation of the subject to engage in a negotiable conversation.

91 Bingall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 92 Bingall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 93 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 128. 94 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 8. 67

Transformation is also anticipated from the colonised class who strive to reclaim their agency. The desire of the colonised to reclaim their agency should not be driven by anything outside desire itself. Desire is not for the sake of power or to gain a material benefit but interpreted as desire itself. Therefore the attention is on desire to produce desire for an engagement and not desire to recreate another colonial style of power. The assemblage of the desire is highly local or contextual. However, they have two clear movements. The first movement is a critique of negativity or power-driven motif for desire, while the second movement emphasizes a positive desire: desire for desire’s sake and not to emphasize a lack. 95 Understanding the desire of the coloniser and the colonised usually works at molecular and molar levels. At the molecular level, new forms of relations are possible with a risk of a body transforming into some other kind. At the molar level, the relations between different bodies continue to happen but with a greater consciousness to retain the structure. This explains what for Bignall is ‘desire-driven desire’ (qualitative) and ‘power-driven desire’

(quantitative agency). Bignall sees in each body a tussle between power and desire, where desire expresses a qualitative relationship more than power would as power would exert pressure on the other. In Bignall’s words,

[…] desire is best understood as a qualitative or ethical force of association that concerns the nature of the disposition or orientation of bodies towards each other, while power is best conceptualised as a quantitative or political force exerted by relational bodies upon each other. 96

Therefore a positive transformational potential also includes the transformation of the colonisers and the colonised through conversations. The ensuing outlook of the new forms of

95 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 137-138. 96 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault”, 139. 68

postcolonies does not subscribe grandly to one final form where both the colonisers and the colonised have reunited and claim not to have any differences. But it exemplifies an open- ended process where new bodies join in to nurture new engagements and transformations.

2.3.3. Identifying the Creative Potentials of the Differences

In a situation where differences are taken advantage of to recreate hierarchies, the objective of this factor is to neither recreate another hierarchy based on power differentials nor to eliminate marginal values that the differences project. Rather, the awareness of the differences leads to new transformations. For a continually engaging postcolony, the differences should be allowed to be “critical” and “creative potential”, and not just otherness in a negative sense. However the understanding of otherness should not be restricted to the socially marginal. 97

Overcoming the unconstructive character of differences is a positive driving force for agency.

The objective of agency is not to recreate another colonial form of hierarchy by desire for power that was lacking previously. Desire to gain power creates a dominant agency and not an engaging agency. For Bignall, most of the postcolonial discourses work on the dominant idea of the difference because the desire for transformation which emerges from the awareness of the differences. 98 However the differences in the disadvantaged are interpreted as absence or lack. For a continually engaging postcolony, the differences should be allowed to be “critical” and “creative potential” and not just otherness in a negative sense. However

97 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 31. 98 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 8. 69

the otherness should not be restricted to the socially marginal. 99 Nor should it be the

“silencing or elimination of minoritarian values” because these values are momentous in identifying and advancing the agency of the colonized. 100

Another methodological challenge could be raised in the form of a question: Can the notion of ‘desire’ explained in Bignall be compared to the ‘aspirations’ or ‘consciousness’ of the methodological exclusivists in Indian liberation theologies? Bignall clearly seems to be conscious of multiple identities that both the once colonised and the colonizer have. Every context has a power-relationship working at multiple levels. Therefore it is significant to address the need for power simultaneously with the engagement of desires. While the act of desiring itself could be postcolonial, it moves from just wanting to negotiate power-relations.

Bignall’s argument for a qualitative postcolonial agency lacks strength to discuss power. By setting desire and power in a linear progression, Bignall does not emphasize that the cause of desire is the lack of power. Bignall does see that colonisers must grapple with the legacy and responsibility associated with the repugnant history of their colonial domination of others and former colonised peoples must seek to reaffirm their identities, communities and cultures and so reconstruct their broken societies. Ideally, national processes of postcolonisation witness both responses occurring simultaneously as diverse peoples thrown together by colonisation struggle to find friendly ways to coexist. 101 The new sociability that I discussed earlier has the potential to reorient differences. 102

99 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 31. 100 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 39. 101 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 128. 102 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 121. 70

2.3.4. A Positive Connotation of Power

A positive understanding of power in qualitative agency envisions new transformations and maintains the differences between the colonised and coloniser. The differences are maintained purposefully to explore their strengths and to exhibit a constant need for relationships. A positive understanding of power constitutes their desire for new relationships, their capacity to unsettle imperial notions of relationships, and their reflexivity to create more agentic spaces for the colonised.

Bignall expounds a positive connotation of power and a qualitative difference it offers in a postcolonial condition. The postcolonial agency is “causal and purposeful” and at one and the same time both individual and multiple. However, not all bodies are agents. The agency emerges from the view that a body exhibits a constant need for relationships. The bodies that desire relationships must be potent and reflexive. Therefore Bignall imposes imperatives on the colonised bodies to be “productive, transformative and ethical agency” and rooted in a

“non-imperial ontology of selfhood, no longer defined by the desire to master, appropriate or exclude the Other” 103 but to facilitate relationships. This requires a critique of discourses that create a negative or a restricted notion of the Other.

Bignall mentions that “not all bodies are agents” in a postcolony. 104 Here Bignall’s statement resounds with the Spivakian rhetoric that the subalterns cannot speak. To explain Spivak, although the subalterns do have the sense of opinion and expression, they are entrenched in the dominant language system. Likewise the understanding of bodies could be treated both

103 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 131. 104 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 12. 71

physically and as a community. Especially in the context of the violation of children’s dignity, their frail and vulnerable bodies are taken advantage of by the dominant adult. Here, a communitarian sense of body raises liberative possibilities at two levels: firstly, the community of bodies that include adults would convert their dominant power to that of advocacy of children’s agency; and secondly, the context of children as a body as opposed to an individual child also presents a sense of collective agency of children as a forceful recognition of their presence in a community.

Bignall also discusses power-relations at both micro-political level and macro-political levels.

Her discussion clearly shows that there is no normative way of understanding power-relations at various levels. A non-normative circumstance opens up towards grassroots or contextual analysis of power-relationships which is highly fluid. The norms of the micro-level that seem to influence the macro-level are constantly in a state of flux. Norms themselves are, in that sense, flexible. Yet, some overarching objectives are strongly retained to make a practice normative. What postcolonial agency tries to do is to see how the flexible notions of the normative have the ability to reconfigure both the internal dynamics of the normative as well as changing the face of the so understood indispensable normative. What postcolonial agency offers in a context of an almost unthinkable non-normative relationship are directives to negotiate for every actor’s agency in a relationship. Initially taking Bignall’s ‘bodies-are-in- relationships’ as given, we also see in Bignall a sense of responsibility from power-holders in a relationship. In Bignall’s words:

Each body in a relationship has a necessary duty to preserve the capacity of the other to exist and maintain some degree of power, in order to preserve the relationship that produces and sustains them both. Because they originate in the context of the power

relations in which they are embedded, concepts of right constantly shift according to changes in these relations of power. 105

The ends as suggested by Foucault are not necessarily outcomes of normative structures because the agency of subjects is controlled by the state. Therefore the ends are largely predetermined. While Bignall does not make a statement to this effect, what could be inferred from her reading is that Foucault does not take up this issue directly. She mentions though that Foucault’s vision of agency has the potential to “transform existing power structures”.

The form of qualitative agency is the positive driving factor for agency. Drawing from

Deleuze and Guattari, agency cultivates

Bignall also contests the negative desire whose end is power, or a power- driven desire. This leads a negative power-driven agency by adapting only to the lack or the difference. Bignall explains:

The ontological negativity of desire and difference motivates and underscores the process of transformation: history is compelled by the negativity of lack, need, absence or difference that signals disunity, and by the desire to ‘negate the negative’, by assimilating or internalising negativity within a greater and more representative unity. This ambiguous, and arguably imperial, attitude of desire aimed at ameliorating the ontological negativity of difference is problematic for postcolonial theories of transformation and transformative agency. 107

105 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 134. 106 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 138. 107 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 7. 73

Bignall critically evaluates two discourses with a negative sense of the Other. Firstly, the conception of agency as drawn from Hegelian philosophy and secondly, the postcolonial trajectory of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. The Hegelian notion of the other, which is in the tradition of Plato, Descartes, Hobbes down to Lacan, and Sartre, presents a negative connotation of the Other and its agency. The other is a lack of the self and therefore a threat to the self. Therefore the self attempts to assimilate the other through suppression. This has imperial motives. 108 From this it is clear that Bignall is critical of the emphasis of dialectics in the guise of a macro-unity.

In the tradition of Hardt and Negri, which is postcolonial at its core, the activities of the empire defy “dialectical struggle” or “a sovereign imposition of power” and work subtly to reinstate hegemony. They critique binary-methods that Homi Bhabha employs in his arguments as the societies that reflect colonial stances have now outgrown such binaries.

They argue that the multitude must “confront directly and with an adequate consciousness the central repressive operations of Empire. It is a matter of recognising and engaging the imperial initiatives and not allowing them continually to re-establish order”.109 Therefore

Hardt and Negri do not offer alternative modes of engaging imperial initiatives. Bignall circumvents a postcolonial interaction that emphasises the negativity of differences.

Drawing from her above critical views it could be said that a postcolonial agency could neither be drawn by negating the other or by engaging in confrontation. How could then be a postcolonial relationship worked out, especially from the perspective of the postcolonial other?

108 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 137. 109 Bignall, “Deleuze and Foucault,” 127. 74

2.4. An Evaluation of the Themes in Bignall’s Contrapuntality

Appiah and Bignall strongly privilege the aspirations of the colonised. At the same time, they explore the transformative possibility of the dominant, and therefore draw the dominant into a conversation with the colonized. Appiah’s space-clearing activity does not replace the dominant, nor Bignall’s desire allow a strong reactionary proposal for an interaction. In both the cases, a transformed agency of the dominant is called for a significant actor in shaping the agency of the colonized. Therefore, claims for an exclusive sense of agency of the colonized are evidently overruled.

There are also similarities between Appiah and Bignall when they call the precolonial traditions of non-indigenous and indigenous communities for conversations. So there could not be an uncontaminated culture without an uncontaminated agency. They both present a sense of binaries, although not as clearly as binaries in modernism that postmodernism critique. Qualitative agency projects the larger picture of the transformative power qualitative desire has on the dominant. Likewise with Appiah, the space-clearing activity of the colonized makes inroads into the established norms, thus disrupting a presumably peaceful structure. In the above cases, it could be noted that each context discreetly works with qualitative and quantitative configuration of agency that are flexible enough to express and accommodate new challenges.

Analysing Bignall and Appiah’s broader theoretical explanations and critique of modernism and postmodernism, we see that postmodernists and their positive critics see a constant interaction between subjectivity and agency, providing a hope for continual glimpses of agency in a repressed structure. The agency thus established benefits from powers vested in itself either to change the course of the structure or to overhaul it. However, this restricts the

scope of its activity only to that of questioning and not to rebuilding tangible creative spaces.

When agency is not adequately acknowledged of its creative ability, it restricts the scope of a constructive space. With that, discursive thoughts face the danger of relegation by powerful structures and lose any possibility of an agency. The discursive thought might as well be termed anti- structure and a misrepresentation.

Bignall highlights that Spivak projects as problematic Deleuze and Foucault’s failure to

“acknowledge how subaltern critique must be presented within the privileged structures of

Western epistemology and representation in order to be comprehended or perceived as sensible”.110 While not acknowledging that the failure to note the dominance of western epistemology is a gap in Deleuze and Foucault, Spivak also argues that resistance to the dominant forcefully and paradoxically is shaped by the mode of the dominant. With this the authentic agency of the subalterns continues to be elusive. A continual dominant process as this renders the subalterns voiceless. Therefore, the subaltern cannot speak. 111 For Spivak, a subaltern discourse—in that sense—emphasizes “everything that has limited or no access to cultural imperialism … a space of difference”.112

The broader objective of Bignall is to correlate oppositional tendencies such as a qualitative and quantitative agency, and to destabilise and deconstruct the cultural authority of the colonizing subject. This is done through “the identification of a collective, self-conscious and an oppositional subjectivity”; through counter-discourse and concrete action and working

110 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 21. 111 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 21. 112 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, interview by Leon de Kock, “New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa,” Ariel: A Review of International English Literature 23, no. 3(1992): 45. 76

against the discourse that have been mobilized to justify the process of colonization. 113

However the difficulty is to see the colonial subjectivity and the oppositional subjectivity coexist uneasily. Bignall calls it an uneasy-coexistence because a movement to destabilize the colonial subject also in turn destabilizes efforts towards unity and the agency of the resisting subalterns. This leads us to see that the identities of the colonized subject are born out of the uneasy coexistence or through negotiations. As Leela Gandhi confirms, a postcolonial agency is a negotiated agency. Postcolonial theory is “caught between the politics of structure and totality on the one hand, and the politics of the fragment on the other”.114

It is clear from the Bignall’s explanation that she wants to see a discontinuity from an imperial understanding of power which is dominant. However, she also argues for a discontinuity of exclusive power even of the colonised. What Bignall foresees is not a grand nationalistic unity that subsumes differences for the advantage of the dominant but that which continues to emphasize differences of ontological reality and yet keeps the desire for receptivity and adaptability. For Bignall negativity does not unite, rather moves towards division or another hierarchy. Bignall tends to propose a single factor, desire, to enhance the agency of the neglected in a postcolony. At the same time she avoids a strong argument for a single formula by partly invoking Foucauldian ‘discontinuity from the dominant’ alongside

Guattarti and Deleuze, but prioritizes desire.

According to qualitative agency the obligations on children as colonized are demanding.

Bignall states that the colonised must have the potential to desire to engage in a conversation

113 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 60. 114 Leela Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction (New York: Colombia University Press, 1998), 167. 77

despite their colonised state. However, unlike the adult-colonized, children cannot grasp their colonized state. They need a strong advocating support from the dominant-adults. There is a potential danger of the adults’ role of advocacy recreating the hierarchy of adult-dominance.

The role of the colonizers here is more demanding than what Bignall’s qualitative agency calls for. Therefore, I complement the notion of advocacy by drawing explanations of postcolonial advocacy from Mark Lewis Taylor’s recommendation of ‘authentic advocacy’.

Taylor’s proposal of authentic advocacy calls for a participatory action and “self- contradiction” of the entitled advocates, the powerful and the privileged, who should let go off control and domination. Taylor offers four modes for authentic advocacy: [a] acknowledging the problem and trying to journey along the route of the sublaterns that advocates attempt to represent, [b] participating and being “embodied in a praxis of resistance” more locally, [c] risking their own freedom and wholeness and not just of the subaltern other, [d] acknowledging the numinous space and embrace the “mystical dimension at the heart of political struggle in relation to subaltern people”.115

The above discussions offer a methodological framework for an understanding of the agency of children in a children-related theology. Bignall’s proposal for a contrapuntal methodology with supplements from Taylor emphasizes creating a new sociability that overcomes strict binaries as colonisers/colonised but that which creates new spaces for engagement between them. As much as the new sociability opens up for the colonised to anticipate liberative resources from the dominant, it also demands a qualitative transformation in the colonisers.

The qualitative transformation in the colonisers makes them see in the colonised the dignity of life and the power of agency to converse towards new forms of postcolony. The new forms

115 Taylor, “Subalternity and Advocacy,” 17. 78

of postcolony critique the unconstructive character of the differences and presents power positively. When power is understood positively, the dominant adults accept their roles as authentic advocates and let go off control and domination, to participate in and be informed by contextual praxis, and open up to the mystical dimension that otherness offers.

PART II A CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENCY OF THE COLONISED IN LIBERATION AND POSTCOLONIAL THEOLOGIES IN INDIA

While Part I has introduced the research question and the methodological framework for contrapuntality, part II presents the first of the two contrapuntally engaging theological streams which in Liberation and Postcolonial theologies in India. In this section I argue that liberation theologies in India can effectively advance the agency of the marginalised by deploying a contrapuntal method of postcolonial criticism.

In chapter 3, I present a critical survey of the agency of the colonized as explained in the methodological categories of methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity, and praxis. I go on to show how methodological exclusivity generalises the subjectivity of the marginalised and overlook their complexities that define their identity. Such a generalisation diminishes the exploration of liberative resources and is an effective agency of the colonised.

In chapter 4, I argue that when liberation theologians take a postcolonial position seriously, they expose the limitations of the methodologies and expose internal complexities within these methodologies. They present multiple identities of the colonised and colonisers and create negotiable spaces for an effective engagement between the colonisers and the colonised. An effective engagement in a negotiable space which does not completely sacrifice the agency of the colonised opens up liberation theologies in India to incorporate discussions on the agency of children.

Chapter 3. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of the Colonised in

Liberation Theologies in India

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter I argue that the understanding of the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in India is largely influenced by a resistant form of postcolonialism. I start by explaining that while liberation theologies in India call themselves postcolonial, they do not explore the hermeneutics of conversation and negotiations adequately. Their strong commitment to the hermeneutics of resistance diminishes liberative engagement with authentic advocates who are committed to advance the agency of the colonised. The debates on the agency of the colonised have largely persisted around methodological exclusivity. I argue that methodological inclusivity too get absorbed into the exclusivity debate. I explain that the methodology of praxis demonstrates elements of contrapuntality to advance the agency of the marginalised. However, while compared to contrapuntal engagement, praxis falls short of a relevant postcolonial engagement. Therefore as an initial argument, I propose here—and later explain in detail in chapter 4—that contrapuntal nature of engagement provides liberation theologies wider scope to explore and sustain the agency of the colonised.

This chapter discusses the interactive dynamics between methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis.

The claims for liberation theologies as postcolonial could be critically observed by: [a] an understanding that the exclusive agency of dalits, women and tribals work as a resistance to colonial forms of classical Indian theologies and develop a fresh understanding of the agency of the colonised in exclusive spaces; [b] observing how deploying Foucault, Said, Spivak and

Bhabha have explored negotiable spaces between the colonised and the colonisers; [c] identifying that theoretical discussions on the methodologies take new when they are tested in specific contextual engagement between the colonisers and the colonised; and [d] recognising that the explanation of contrapuntality as offered by Sugirtharajah for Indian liberation theologies is a starting point for deeper analyses but not adequate.

3.2. Problematizing the Understanding of ‘Postcolonial’ in Liberation Theologies in

India

Here I explain that the nature of the postcolonial in liberation theologies in India is a contested issue. They are presented as ‘post colonial’, post-colonial, and postcolonial.

Postcolonialism in liberation theologies in India is largely treated in a historical sense where dalit theology, dalit feminism and womanist theology critiqued the earlier theologies that did not consider the agency of either dalits or women. In principle, the agency of the colonised is limited to acts of resistance and therefore non-engaging with classical Indian theologies.

Therefore the theological methodologies are ‘counter’ methodologies. George Oommen presents the emergence of liberation theologies, especially dalit theology, as a consequence of the post colonial struggles where the historically and culturally colonised communities attempted to claim their distinct identity. The claim for a distinct identity was in the face of homogenizing trends found in political and cultural colonisation. 116 Arvind Nirmal sees colonizing or conquering motives in what he calls “dominant” theological traditions and proposes an anti-colonial rationale for methodological exclusivity. He presents his notion of a

116 George Oommen, “The Emerging Dalit Theology”. 82

counter theology in the language of conquest as in expansionist motifs of historical colonisation. Nirmal explains:

This exclusivism is necessary because the tendency of all dominant tradition-cultural or theological is to accommodate, include assimilate and finally conquer others. Counter theologies or people theologies, therefore need to be on their guard and need to shut off the influences of the dominant theological tradition. 117

Likewise James Massey, a dalit theologian, identifies four historical colonial movements that have influenced theological thought in India: Aryan invasion, the Muslim invasion, the

British colonization, and the post-independent India’s upper-caste domination to colonize dalits as an intra-national dynamic in India. Massey analyses the four stages thus: The foremost stage is the defeat of dalits in the hands of the Aryans which through the course of time was authenticated and “internalized” through scriptural myths and narratives. The success story of Aryans was introduced through social order based on caste system which is stratification based on one’s birth. Massey explains that the knowledge system of Aryan success could not be overcome even with powerful invasions to India by Muslims or the

British or through the religions that they brought through colonization. Massey criticizes the

Muslim and British colonization for strengthening the caste status quo. In post-independence

India, he sees the country back in the hands of the upper-caste, “the original colonizers of the

Dalits”.118 With this he puts caste-based discrimination alongside many historical invasions that India has experienced. Dalit theology and other liberation theologies have claimed that classical Indian theologies carried with it colonial notions of domination and acquisition.

Arvind Nirmal’s ‘methodological exclusivity’ is an instance of blocking ‘colonizing’

117 Arvind Nirmal, “Doing Theology,” 141. 118 James Massey, Down Trodden: The Struggle of India’s Dalits for Identity, Solidarity and Liberation (Geneva: WCC, 1997), 27-28. 83

influences from outside of the ‘pathos’ experience of Dalits. The concerns of Nirmal and

Massey were to identify various forms of colonial impositions that emerged in classical

Indian theology. This concern has effectively created a resourceful space for the aspirations of dalits in their own terms; however it has effectively ignored similar debates on agency in classical India theologies.

Gabriele Dietrich too presents postcolonisation and its internal-colonies that are historically created. She recognises different levels of colonisations manifesting in India simultaneously.

They are cultural, economic, political and religious. According to Dietrich, “the situation is not uniform… [the understanding of colonisation] has to do with a different positioning within the colonial history…” 119 Dietrich takes the concept of the postcolonial further by asking how to “liberate internal colonies while fighting new external colonisation?”. She contends that one cannot hope to be “post-colonial” without taking on the offensive nature of neo-colonial implications. However, Dietrich takes the postcolonial discourse further than

Nirmal, Massey and Oommen by drawing attention to the question of identity and difference as explained in postmodern and postcolonial discourses. However her focus is on the historical development of colonisation and the post-colonial response to it. Dietrich explains

In order to create a post-colonial feminist theology, it is not sufficient to recognize the colonial character of our church history and to attempt to recover precolonial identities. It is also not enough to focus on post-modern, post-colonial acknowledgement of “difference”. We have to simultaneously address the neo- colonial economic and cultural onslaught. Trying to go beyond colonialism required to address the problem that capitalism recreates colonies externally and internally. 120

119 Gabriele Dietrich, “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology need to relate to People’s Movements?” Asian Journal of Theology 19, no.1 (April 2005): 167. 120 Dietrich, “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology,” 174. 84

This highlights different ways in which postcolonial discourses have been employed in the liberation theologies so far. The different natures of postcolonial methods in the liberation theologies fundamentally means that the question of agency has been discussed in multiple ways to suggest that the methodologies contain in them a flexible configuration of the agency of the marginalised and advocacy of the others.

As an initial note, we observe some shifting notions in the understanding of the postcolonial in the liberation theologies. It moved from critiquing the classical Indian theologies to seeing colonial imprints in intra-national and intra-cultural discourses. However, in these shifting notions the role of the agency is largely resistant in nature. A positive consequence of resistance means that it gives the theologically colonized a scope to recreate their histories and theologies.

3.3. A Critical Survey of Methodological Categories in Liberation Theologies in India

In the following section, I examine how the agency of the colonised in methodological exclusivity attempts to open to an engagement outside its methodological boundaries but falls back into the category to strongly reinforce an exclusivist position.

3.3.1. Methodological Exclusivity in Liberation Theologies in India

A crucial debate on projecting and advancing the agency of the colonised within liberation theology in India emerged strongly with Nirmal’s call for methodological exclusivity. As highlighted in section 3.2, methodological exclusivity has two distinct roles: it disconnects itself from previous methodological hermeneutics and establishes new hermeneutical keys to develop new methodologies drawing liberative resources from within one’s own identity

category; and, the new methodologies are placed as a counter-discourse to observe limitations and excesses in previous methodologies.

3.3.1.1 Methodological Exclusivity in Dalit Theology

Nirmal, in his attempt to promote the exclusive agency of dalits, presents pathos or the oppressed experience of dalits as the formative factor of their agency. He insists that

a Christian Dalit Theology will be produced by dalits. It will be based on their own dalit experiences, their own sufferings, their own aspirations and their own hope. It will narrate the story of their pathos and their protests against the socio- economic injustices they been subjected to throughout history. It will anticipate liberation, which is meaningful to them. It will represent a radical discontinuity with the classical Indian Christian Theology of the Brahminic tradition. […] This also means that a Christian dalit theology will be a counter-theology. I submit that all people’s theologies are essentially counter-theologies. In order that they should remain counter theologies, it is necessary that they are also exclusive in character. This will be a methodological exclusivism. 121

For Nirmal, “pathos” or the inner most pain constitutes liberative agency. Nirmal indirectly acknowledges the significance of praxis but emphatically affirms that “ pathos is prior to praxis”. The preference to pathos is because it is their condition that leads dalits towards praxis including “knowing God” as a method of “doing theology”. 122 Praxis prior to pathos could lead to a dangerous engagement with those having privileged experiences with colonising tendencies. Therefore, exclusive pathos experience of the dalits is the primary factor to define a postcolonial agency.

Nirmal also presents a faith-based dilemma in debating what should be the most compelling factor for the exclusive agency of the dalits. For Nirmal, Christian theological activity should

121 Nirmal, “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology,” 58-59. 122 Nirmal, “Doing Theology” , 141-142. 86

not resemble a “separatist movement” in Christian theological discourse [but which is]

“continuous with and in dialogue with other theologies in the Christian world”. 123 Therefore he struggles to present an unambiguous explanation on how to make dalit theological discourse a Christian discourse while returning to the question of the ‘dalit’:

The Christian for this theology is exclusively the ‘dalit’. What this exclusivism implies is the affirmation that the Triune god—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—is on the side of the dalits and not of the non-dalits who are the oppressors. It is the common dalit experience of Christian dalits along with the other dalits that will shape a Christian dalit theology. 124

Nirmal’s ambiguously invokes the Trinity to give dalit theology a Christian face. However, he emphasizes dalitness over against the Trinity to give dalit theology a dalit identity. Nirmal creates a ruthless binary of the oppressor/oppressed by claiming that the Trinity is only on the side of the oppressed. Therefore, he inserts a powerful Christian doctrine of the Trinity to further assert an exclusivist position as the primary methodological position to advance the agency of the dalits.

The limitation of Nirmal’s argument about the Trinity is that Nirmal does not provide a theological rationale to support his argument why the Trinity takes only the side of the oppressed and not of the oppressor. Rather, he uses the doctrine as a religious and psychological reinforcement to argue the case of the methodological exclusivity. Compressed delicately between the Christian theological engagement and cultural discourse, methodological exclusivity prefers to be strongly rooted within cultural discourses. The

Christian theological basis, as explained in the explanation of the Trinity, is only secondary.

123 Nirmal, Heuristic Explorations, 26. 124 Nirmal, “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology,” 59. 87

Therefore, Nirmal’s understanding of pathos leans towards a cultural pathos sustained by the

Christian theological arguments.

Rajkumar offers a robust critique of Nirmal’s constricted concept of pathos. For Rajkumar emphasizing just the cultural pathos takes the attention away from the majoritarian presence of dalits among Indian Christians. Rajkumar is right in projecting the majority notion of dalits among Indian Christians because this majority notion presents dalit theology as a mainstream discourse which otherwise could be overlooked for its exclusivist position. To continue Rajkumar’s argument as more relevant than Nirmal’s, Rajkumar claims that praxis precedes a final description of dalit agency which is in distinct contrast to Nirmal’s claim that pathos is prior to praxis. (I will address this issue in section 3.3.3 and later on in chapter 4).

But it is important to highlight here that Rajkumar’s notion of the majority dalit presence combined with praxis presents a novel scope for dalit-engagement with various liberative resources without forfeiting an account of the exclusive agency. Therefore the exclusivity of agency produces lesser possibility of the agency of the marginalised.

Methodological exclusivists have exercised caution to the colonised-coloniser engagement.

Historically, if the majoritary dalit presence connived with the primacy of pathos to generate a strong agency of the marginalised, the exclusive agency should have generated a strong liberative agency. It is now evident that exclusivist and resistant form of theologies have yielded lesser liberation than anticipated. In this argument, the primacy of praxis seems significant as praxis opens up to engaging spaces between the dalit colonised and the dominant communities as they have offered more liberative resources to retrieve and strengthen the agency of the colonised.

Clarke expects dalit theology to exhibit liberativeness by being inclusive “because of the interrelatedness of theological knowledge and the inclusive character of the Christian community”. 125 He wishes to see any theology as offering “trajectories towards the universality of God and the inclusiveness of all human beings in the purpose of this one creator”. 126 However, Clarke himself prioritizes methodological exclusivity over theological inclusivity. His rationale to retain methodological exclusivity and open-up spaces within it for a creative engagement is to reconstruct and present “pain as the core of experiential knowing that must frame and fund Dalit theology”. 127 In other words, when subjectivity is a product of a wider system, it should not subsume the core pathos experience of dalits. Clarke also exhibits a strong movement towards an exclusive position when he says:

Other communities can participate in doing dalit theology but must recognize their respective distance and respectful relatedness to the distinctiveness of Dalit pain- pathos. 128

Clarke reiterates Nirmal’s argument but within the parameters of a dalit exclusivist position.

Sebastian explains this hermeneutical movement as a cautious yet an anticipatory exploration for “interrelational” and “reconciliatory” methods. He raises this hermeneutical movement when he explains that Nirmal was committedly traversing between exclusivity and inclusivity to explore

the inter-relationship and interaction between Dalit theology and other forms of theologizing, as well as between Dalit and other communities, including those

125 Clarke, “Dalit Theology,” 22. 126 Clarke, “Dalit Theology,” 21. 127 Clarke, “Dalit Theology,” 22. 128 Clarke, “Dalit Theology,” 22. 89

communities whose present ‘status’ was achieved, at least in part, through use and abuse of dalit peoples. 129

It can be noticed that while agency of the colonised as a consequence of interrelationality is not entirely rejected, the core experiences of dalit pathos is treated as significant and unique to understanding dalit agency. While the purpose of interrelationality is to explore various modes of liberative agency beyond just the exclusive agency, Nirmal and Clarke restrict the cultural pathos and theological explanation of God predominantly on the side of the exclusivist agency. Even as they push the boundaries of methodological exclusivity to see less colonial forms of inclusivity, they are cautious and at times aggressively exclusivists.

3.3.1.2 Methodological Exclusivity in Feminist Theologies

Feminist theologies in India largely principally subscribe to methodological exclusivity. They interrogate patriarchy-caste nexus within their specific context as well as in theologies, including signs of such colonies in dalit theology.130 Feminists emphasize political and moral agency for activities of those women who find ways to affirm their identity against all odds.

Metti Amirtham explains that theologies benefit from the agency of women through their pathos of hardships. In this context, agency constitutes “ empowerment as manifested in assertion, critical consciousness, resistance and autonomy within the respective structures”.131

Built into Amirtham’s framework of agency are two significant signposts: the particular experiences of women, and experiences of women unique to different contexts and structures.

These signposts make the definition of agency fluid towards empowerment of any vulnerable

129 J. Jayakiran Sebastian, “Creative Exploration: Arvind P. Nirmal’s Ongoing Contribution to Christian Theology,” in Bangalore Theological Forum, XXXI/2 (December 1999): 48. 130 Dietrich, “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology,” 168. 131 Metti Amirtham, Women in India: Negotiating Body, Reclaiming Agency (Delhi: ISPCK, 2011), 42. 90

group. The pathos of women increases the claim among women to “have control over her own life, body and environment”.132 Therefore, agency for Amirtham is a “sense of autonomy” intellectually and physically to interrogate deprivations and traditional “myths and notions” that restricts freedom. 133 When methodological exclusivity opens up context specific experiences of women, women theologians have used autobiographical methods as a theological methodology as a mode of agency. This is to put the multiple identities of a woman theologian, a feminist, and a dalit in a kaleidoscopic context and show how these identities create situations to explore or curb agency in a male-dominant, caste-based and religious academia. While multiple identities help overcome dichotomies and restrictions, they also marginalize one in a strong identity-centred theological politics. Therefore, highlighting one’s marginality allows oneself to be a critical insider and also overcome narrow identity-political theologies.

3.3.2. Methodological Inclusivity in Liberation Theologies in India

In this section I survey the heuristic methodological inclusivity to show that the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies could open up conversations with potential authentic advocates through interfaith movements and through an interdisciplinary approach. However, because liberation theologies in India are strongly driven by caste identity discourses, the discussions on inclusivity are inhibited by dalit theological discourse. Therefore inclusivity reinterpreted in the light of methodological exclusivity provides a strong methodological reference.

132 Amirtham, Women in India, 43. 133 Amirtham, Women in India, 45-46. 91

Methodological inclusivity contests the exclusivist position but predominantly supportive of exclusivity and pathos. We observed in Nirmal and Clarke that attempts towards inclusivity are strongly driven by dalit pathos. Therefore, inclusivity only regresses toward exclusivity without a great potential for engagement. By Nirmal’s definition, if dalit pathos constitutes methodological exclusivity, then methodological inclusivity consists of differing experiences of oppression of non-dalits, both men and women, who strive to come together and offer solidarity with the oppressed dalits. The experiences of oppression are from communities that are deemed dominant from dalit pathos perspective but who openly stand by dalit struggles to form a stronger resistance to oppressive mechanisms. Therefore methodological inclusivity operates when dalits, tribals and oppressed women come together for an effective liberation of themselves.

3.3.2.1 Inclusivity through Interdisciplinarity

Methodological Inclusivity as a thematic critique of methodological exclusivity in the liberation theologies is a clear sign of flexibility to define the agency of the marginalized.

Methodological inclusivity was emphasized by first generation dalit theologians such as K.

Wilson, Franklin Balasundaram and Abraham Ayrookuzhiel. What is significant in their critique is drawing of motifs of dialogue and interdisciplinary nature of theologizing that existed in theological methodologies in India. Wilson and Balasundaram foresaw the impending danger of an excess of the pathos experience as a dominant criteria for theologizing while Ayrookuzhiel dwelt on the historical experience of interrelatedness of communities based on common themes. They critiqued the dualistic and vicious nature of

exclusivism. 134 Explaining the methodological inclusivist position as a critique of methodological exclusivity, Oommen contends that an exclusivist theology would cease to be a Christian theology, and liberation has been achieved for non-dalits as well as dalits. 135

Challenges to ‘exclusivist’ or ‘organic’ methodologies represent a methodological critique of dalit traditions. Ayrookuzhiel considers interrelatedness in methodologies as a significant part of the religious heritage of India. He proposes the methodology of interrelatedness to dalit theology which will open up theological and philosophical spaces as well as motivation for praxis to enhance the vision of liberation. With this Ayrookuzhiel sees a renaissance in the dominant hindu tradition just as it would offer wider scope to reconfigure liberative schemes.

Explaining this for a dalit context, he expresses:

Since Dalit tradition is historically bound up with the caste Hindu tradition it will not be easy to resist the pressure from inside. Here the dalits are asking for change as insiders. Given the political weightage of the dalit community in India it will be difficult for the caste Hindu to resist their demands. A process of change in this was will be in the spirit of dialogues of religions. 136

While Clarke and Coorilose emphasize the prominence of exclusivity with a scope for an outside solidarity without impinging on the exclusive experiences, they restrict the

‘inclusiveness of pathos’ which strengthens solidarity. But Jeremiah’s proposal of a

‘synergetic’ method in the context of multiple methodological possibilities offers “collective

134 For Ayrookuzhiel’s methodological suggestions for Dalit theology, see Godwin Shiri, “Study of Religion: Ayrookuzhiel’s Search for a New Approach in the Context of Dalit Theology,” in Religion and Society 43, no.3 (September 1998): 39-53. 135 George Oommen, "The Emerging Dalit Theology: A Historical Appraisal." http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1121 136 Abraham Ayrookuzhiel, “Distinctive Characteristics of Folk Traditions. A Proposal for the Study of the Religious Heritage of the Dalits: Some Methodological Considerations,” in Religions of the Marginalized: Towards a Phenomenology and the Methodology of Study, ed., Gnana Robinson (Bangalore/ Delhi: UTC/ISPCK, 1998), 1-17. 93

engagement of individuals which produces a significant effect at the end” 137 In his words, a synergetic method “transcends narrow preoccupations, thereby encompassing human life in its entirety”, 138 overcoming particular confines of religious or political or other forms of restricted categories. The focus then is on the centrality of human agency and not on supernatural, otherworldly occurrences or objects. 139 While Jeremiah adopts the conventional method of critiquing pre-liberation Indian Christian theology as coming from the “elite” and leaning excessively on Vedic religious philosophy, he equally critiques the essentialised Dalit

Christian identity. Essentialised identity subsumes multiple identities that dalits live as a day- to-day drawing the best of possibilities from religions and cultures around them. 140 Therefore,

Jeremiah rightly provides a strong critique of an inclusivist vision within methodological exclusivity because the agency of the colonised is advanced and strengthen in the wider interaction.

3.3.2.2 Inclusivity and Peoples’ Movements

India.n liberation theologies have been effective through their association with people’s movements. Coorilos directs Dalit God-talk at once to be strongly rooted in the scriptures and in people’s movements. He sees the “logos” paradigm from the gospel of John as a model for theologies to associate themselves with people’s movements. Similarly, Coorilos mentions that Dalit theology too has its future by “pitching its tent” among the homeless and the rights-

137 Anderson H. M. Jeremiah, Community and Worldview among Paraiyars of South India: 'Lived' Religion (London: Bloosmbury Academic, 2013), 165. 138 Jeremiah, Community and Worldview , 165. 139 Jeremiah, Community and Worldview, 165. 140 Anderson H.M. Jeremiah, “Exploring New Facets of Dalit Christology: Critical Interaction with J. D. Crossan’s Portrayal of Historical Jesus,” in Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century. Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways. Eds. Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 151. 94

deprived just as the embodied Logos “pitched its tent among people”.141 This could provoke the “philosophical imagination, sociological imagination and poetic imagination” 142 of Dalit theology in the contexts of Nandigram, Plachimada, Moolampally and Narmada struggles.

Oommen explains that many of the caste-based issues were reduced to economic categories due to an increasing impact of secular dalit movements alongside Latin American liberation theological movement that depended on a secular movement as Marxism. Oommen explains:

… caste is now seen as the major socio-economic formative force in shaping and understanding the history of dalits. Moveover, the over-arching impact of Ambedkarism on all Dalits further seems to enhance the process of accepting caste as the sole source of the suffering of Dalits. 143

Therefore, dalit theology deploys class-caste assemblage to give space for the identity of the working class from the lens of the caste-oppressed. A minority religion such as Christianity in India has ever felt the need to extend its theology into people’s movements to identify itself in a larger national scenario as well as to contribute to nation building as its obligation both in pre-colonial and post-colonial India. As Wielenga explains this phenomenon,

Christian nationalists like M. M. Thomas started to recognise that their dreams at the dawn of Independence had not come true. Interaction with social scientists and activists convinced them that a radical renewal would have to come in the course of people’s awakening and organisation and struggles. From then onwards the focus shifts from ‘development’ and ‘modernisation’ to ‘social liberation’ and from ‘nation’ to ‘people’, meaning tribals, Dalits, women, peasants and workers getting organised in the struggle for their rights. 144

141 Geevarghese Mor Coorilose, “Dalit Theology and its Future Course” in in Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century. Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways. Eds. Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 168. 142 Geevarghese Mor Coorilose, “Dalit Theology and its Future Course”, 168. 143 Oommen, "The Emerging Dalit Theology,” 67.

More specifically for a dalit cause, a need for dalit representation in the national scenario was strongly felt since India became independent in 1947. 145 The views of Bhim Rao Ambedkar, a pioneering dalit intellectual and activist, prompts Indian theology to incorporate political ideology into dalit theology for two reasons: firstly, as a Christian minority to benefit from the liberative vision that is constitutionally granted; and secondly, to participate in people’s movement to bring about dalit liberation beyond religious boundaries. 146 The constitutional reforms signified the political voice of the dalits.

It can be observed that when liberation theologies like dalit theology attempt to be inclusive through people’s movements, they are largely drawn into and stop with the discourse of the victimhood of the colonised. The discourses focus on victimhood and overlook the possibilities of the colonised communities to engage with other communities. Therefore the understanding of the agency of the agency of the colonised remains predominantly exclusive.

Coorilose introduces the concept of mystery by invoking the biblical concept of Logos. For

Coorilose, the understanding of mystery which is associated with people’s movements helps the colonised draw liberative solidarity from various people’s movements. However, Coorilos seems to restrict the all-pervading power of mystery only to garner solidarity on behalf of the

145 For a strong sense of critique and undermining the dominant Hindu philosophical politics, see Kancha Illaiah, Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindu Philoshopy, Culture and Political Economy (Calcutta: Samya, 2005). For analysis of cultural factors surrounding caste discourse, see Manoranjan Mohanty, Class, Caste and Gender, 3rd reprint (New Delhi, SAGE, 2006); Ghanshyam Shah ed, Dalit Identity Politics: Cultural Subordination and the Dalit Challenge, Vol 2 (New Delhi/ London: Sage Publications/ Thousand Oaks: 2001); Gail Omvedt, Caste, Land and Politics in Indian States (New Delhi: Authors Guild Publication, 1982); Gail Omvedt, Dalit Visions: The Anti- caste Movement and the Constitution of an Indian Identity (Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2006). 146 Aravind P. Nirmal and V. Devasahayam eds, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Centenary Tribute (Madras: Gurukul, 1991); Mohan P Larbeer, Ambedkar on Religion: A Liberative Perspective (Madurai /Delhi: DRC/ISPCK, 2003). Some of the prominent dalit movements in post- Independent India are the Dravida Movement, Dalit Panthers, Dalit Sangarsha Samithi, the Dalit Sena, Bahujan Samaj party, etc. Caste based struggles have been internationalized to mobilize attention. 96

colonised. Notably, Coorilose claims that methodological exclusivity is the relevant model to claim the agency of the colonised. I will explain this in detail in 4.4.3.

3.3.2.3 Inclusivity and Interfaith Matters

While there is a strong contention within its methodological purview to maintain an exclusive notion at a broader level, dalit theology exhibits inclusivity. This struggle is well captured in

Nirmal’s efforts to see which identity should take priority—the Christian identity of dalits or dalit identity of a Christian. I explained earlier (3.3.1.1) that Nirmal seems to be wary of the term ‘Christian’ as it might overshadow the pathos argument related to caste identity. At the same time his cautious approach would mean that he does acknowledge the kerygma of

Trinity at the core of his theological formulation without permitting it to permeate the caste identity. This stance, Wielenga clarifies, was culturally built into an aspiration for liberation and to be retained:

What is specific about Asia, especially in contrast with Latin America, is the religio- cultural context. The overwhelming majority of the poor and oppressed in Asia are non-Christians, many of whom adhere to a wide variety of popular religious traditions which are more or less connected with the traditions of the great religions which have shaped dominant Asian cultures. 147

This poses methodological challenges to understand the agency of the colonised. Having identified the need for Asian liberation theologies to see liberative ‘connections’ with neighboring religions, Wielenga presents a defence of Christian liberation theology.

Elaborating his defence through Kappen’s words, Wielenga invites an inclusive spirit of

Christian identity among dalit theologians that has been well-attested. Dalit theologians have

147 Wielenga quoting Sebastian Kappen, “Liberation Theology in Asia”, 55. 97

tried to see liberative elements of various religious traditions in India as complementing

Christian understanding of divinity and liberation from the divine. Joseph Prabhakar Dayam retrieves the theological imagination in the discussions of the Divine Feminine among Dalit communities. He specifically discerns the power and Koriaka (“desire”) of Gonthelamma of the Malas in Andhra Pradesh to challenge male-dominant christologies and to re-formulate

Christian theology into theo/alogies for an inclusive vision of Dalit community. 148 Dalit theology can authenticate its relevance by correlating with resources “even if they are not

Christian” as they enhance a “Christian conception of God”. 149

In my examination of the methodological inclusivity I have explained that there has been a strong contention between the majoritarian identity of dalits in Christianity and the minority identity at the national scenario. A common denominator that strongly defines the agency of the colonised in these debates is the ‘pathos’ discourse from both Christian theological perspective and the cultural perspective. If pathos is the defining factor to establish the notion of the agency, it falls back largely on the exclusivist mode without amply considering the role of the authentic advocates or the theological themes of God or the divine that could be inclusive. Even the role of the advocates and the divine are absorbed into the primacy of pathos. Therefore the agency that transpires here is largely an exclusive agency, however not without heeding to the authentic advocating presence coming from the dominant theologies.

But it does not sufficiently consider the potential of methodological engagement with the inclusivist streams yet.

148 Joseph Prabhakar Dayam, “ Gonthemma Korika: Reimagining the Divine Feminine in Dalit Theo/alogy” in in Dalit Theology in the Twenty-first Century. Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways. Eds. Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 137-149. 149 Clarke, “Dalit Theology” , 31. 98

As I will explain in the following section, oppressive experiences in India are not just based on caste discrimination but also on gender and tribal discrimination. Therefore dalit theologies insistence just on caste oppression as the source of agency restricts the constituent factors of agency and the scope of dalit theology as a representative liberation theology in

India.

3.3.3. Praxis and Liberation Theologies in India

As we saw earlier, Nirmal clearly prioritises pathos (methodological exclusivity) over praxis.

However we observed in methodological inclusivity that the criterion to advance the agency of the colonised can cross the boundaries of the discourse of exclusivity which includes the methodology of praxis.

Before I engage further in the discussion on pathos-praxis relationship and its significance to the understanding of agency, I highlight what praxis means in the context of Indian liberation theology. Maria Arul Raja offers two significant insights on praxis in dalit theology in particular and liberation theology in general that complete the process of liberation. They are a) identifying liberative aspects and, b) furthering the liberative aspects through praxis in the light of the scriptures. A liberative aspect is incomplete unless translated into a liberative action. 150 While in both cases the victims’ agency is significant, it is clear that agency of the marginalized alone will not yield liberation. Liberation theology in India owes it vision of praxis to at least two wide ranges of sources emerging nationally and internationally: a. To secular people’s movements and grassroot action groups in unsettling the western colonial

150 Maria Arul Raja, “Living through Conflicts: The Spirit of Subaltern Resurgence”, in Vidya Jothi Theological Review, vol. 65 (June 2001): 465-476. 99

power in India; b. to the Latin American liberation theological emphasis on the nexus of faith and politics, church and base communities, and multi-faith forums and Christian theologies.

By doing so, it was trying to spread the process of liberation of the dalits and other marginalized communities. Thus enhancing agency, praxis resists an alienating tendency in attempts to forge solidarity. It poses an explicit sign of threat to the absoluteness of the oppressor. Solidarity of the like-minded for liberation acts as catalysts for wider liberation. It is precisely this solidarity that the liberationists in India find lacking in the classical Indian theologies. As discussed in the previous chapter, Christian philosophical theologies have less impact on Indian society because of their minority status. Ethical and political debates

“gravitate towards an increasing assertion of the majority culture”.151

At a theological level, the philosophical frameworks that classical Indian theologies adopted either from eastern or western theological traditions were allegedly from the dominant philosophical stream. Liberation theologians resort to this argument and add that theologies are not action-oriented enough to bring about changes among the colonised. As Clarke reiterates, earlier Indian Christian theologians were reluctant to reflect upon “Jesus’ concrete praxis”. A lack of placing human subjects in a context would deprive them as “conscious agent”. 152 It was here that Indian liberation theologies felt the need to extend their theological activity into context-specific actions and movements. This enables identifying a larger national scenario as well as to contribute to nation building as its obligation both in precolonial and post-colonial India. This has contributed to the agency of the marginalized at

151 Dietrich, A New Thing on Earth, 130. 152 Sathianathan Clarke, “The Jesus of Nineteenth Century Indian Christian Theology” in Studies in World Christianity vol. 5, no.1: 32-46 . 100

two levels: a quantitative increase of voice thus making the voices of the marginalized heard more effectively; and drawing unexplored resources for agency to envision a faster liberation.

Praxis has challenged methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity by a deeper engagement with the agency of the colonised, the advocating responsibility of the former colonisers and the dialogical nature of the oppressed from different walks of life and not just from dalit backgrounds. As Bennett explains, “praxis is not just an ethical position of a theological argument, rather praxis is theology”.153 In that sense it is an action-oriented engagement by the oppressed; and, action-oriented engagement on behalf of and along with the oppressed by those sympathetic to the oppressed. Therefore it is an engagement of the oppressed and oppressor in context-specific movements with liberation as the highest objective.

Continuing on the methodological inclusivity arguments of Balasundaram, Wilson and

Ayrookuzhiel, Rajkumar confirms this methodological premise by terming the inclusive approach to praxis as a significant signpost for a theoretical notion of agency in dalit theology:

The agency for this [dalit] liberation lay not only with the Dalits but was also dependent on partnerships with non-dalits and other like-minded groups. This makes it incumbent for us to understand that the envisaged praxis of Dalit theology is essentially a praxis of partnership. 154

153 Zoe Bennett, “‘Action is the life of all’: the praxis-based epistemology of liberation theology” in Christopher Rowland (ed.,) Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology, 2nd edition, edited by, Christopher Rowland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 2007), 39. 154 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation , 177. 101

Engaging in this debate, Rajkumar raises a critical question about the relationship between the identity-specific discourse and praxis, albeit in a reverse order. 155 While in this section I discuss how praxis contributes to deepen the understanding of the above-mentioned engagement, Rufus enquires into the potential contribution of the identity-specific discourse in Indian liberation theologies to deepen the understanding of praxis. A point of convergence between my argument and that of Rufus is that exclusive identities as manifest in methodological exclusivity deter the advancement of the agency of the colonised. I see in praxis a fluid and negotiating relationship between methodological exclusivists and methodological inclusivists with a bigger objective of advancing the agency of the colonised.

On the other hand, Rufus explains that dalit culture discloses a sense of engagement and negotiation if dalit religiosity remythologises its narratives with “existential pragmatism” which inevitably requires the primacy of community and solidarity and interdependency. 156

In this section I deal with three models of praxis that are clearly articulated in Indian liberation theologies. They are Peniel Rajkumar’s ‘Praxis and Imagined Identity’, Mathew

Schmalz’ ‘Spatial Oppurtunism’ and George Nalunnakkal’s ‘Organic Womanism’. 157

155 Penieel [sic] Jesudason Rufus, “The Problem of ‘Methodological Fidelity’ in Identify-Specific Hermeneutics and the Pertinence of ‘Ethological’ Hermeneutics”, in Bangalore Theological Forum XXXVIII/I (June 2006): 120-144. 156 Rufus, “The Problem of ‘Methodological Fidelity’”, 122-126. 157 In this research, I use the term Womanism as used in Indian liberation theological context which has multiple origins. It is a critical awareness that feminist theologies and theories as proposed by feminist discourses in the West that have influenced Indian theologies do not encompass the experiences of women in particular cultural contexts. It also critiques other liberation theologies in India such as Dalit theology and Eco-theology for not articulating the specific caste based oppressions of women and of those women are the direct victims of ecological degradation. As I will explain later on, Womanism here considers as vital the agency of dalit and Adivasi women’s movements that struggle for the issues of land that they are strongly connected to in their particular region. This explanation if different from that of Alice Walker’s who originally proposed Womanism that critically interrogates racist and classist aspects of white 102

Rajkumar’s proposal clearly contests the core of the “imagined identity” of praxis that largely agrees with a space created by the dominant. His thoughts question the basic premise of

Indian Christianity that historically prevailed for solidarity which is highlighted by Schmalz.

Rajkumar exposes the historical paradox which is the so-understood dominant are only minorities in Christianity in India and that praxis needs redefining in the light of the dalit- majority.

Rajkumar makes important observations on convergences and divergences in agency-praxis interaction with different castes and tribal communities. Understanding solidarity as praxis, he observes, has a fundamental flaw in the notion of the ‘solidarity of the church with dalits’ .

The church in India is dalit by majority, and dalits continue to interact with other caste and tribal communities to reclaim their voices. In the process they call the church to participate in a collaborative effort for the liberation of dalits. The call for the church to be in solidarity with Dalits means that the dalits are imagined to be the minorities. It is this imagined definition of the church that has delineated what should be the platform for dalit-agency praxis. Therefore the imagined church could only represent what it is not through solidarity in praxis. This restricts a clearer strategy for a stronger dalit-praxis due to continued demonstration of dalit/non-dalit binary in a predominantly non-dalit operated praxis. 158 Here

Rajkumar is clear that the binaries could be overcome by acknowledging that the church in

India is of dalit majority and therefore their agency will in effect take care of praxis simultaneously by addressing dalit-christology. Two issues stand out in Rajkumar’s analysis:

feminism. Alice Walker, In Search of Our Mothers’ Garden: Womanist Prose (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983).

158 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation, 60. 103

firstly, dalit Christology’s engagement with praxis would enhance the scope of Dalit agency.

Secondly, Dalit Christology or dalit praxis will not be adequate enough to pursue dalit agency effectively independently in a multirrelgious context. 159

It should be observed that Rajkumar’s discussion contributes largely, but is not restricted to, the ways in which praxis facilitates Christian theology by revisiting dalit theology. However, the question of how a redefined Christology helps a minority Christian praxis in a largely multi-religious context where the dominant Hindu philosophy is still the largest factor of theologizing in public sphere remains. Feminist theologian Amirtham’s theoretical notion of agency was worked out largely on the lines of methodological exclusivity, but at times transcended that mode into methodological inclusivity as reflected in praxis. She describes

“action-oriented groups”, education institutions, and media as catalyst agencies. 160 She explains that those who have participated in these groups have claimed that these groups have given them a new type of consciousness to come out of their insulated enclosures and social spaces, expressing their equality, freedom and dignity in relation to men. Besides, the elements of transformation among women include empowerment, self-confidence, socio- cultural and political consciousness and assertion of self- identity leading to agency. 161

The model of spatial opportunism, as proposed by Mathew Schmalz, starts spiralling from a non-pathos position into a space of practical solidarity with pathos. It creates opportunities of praxis for dalit liberation, providing the place within which the dalit agency could be recreated. According to Schmalz, as much as marginalisation is based on the differences, it

159 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation, 122. 160 Amirtham, Women in India, 150-151. 161 Amirtham, Women in India, 150. 104

also provides opportunities to understand the dynamics of relationships between the colonised and the colonizers. The marginalised must seize this opportunity to momentarily refrain from resistance and cross-cultural boundaries to gain freedom. 162

As Schmalz points out, the agency in praxis emerges even without being a victim of oppression and therefore not sharing in the pathos of the marginalized. When two Christian mission agencies create geographical spaces for education, health and housing, it immediately converts into a discursive space for dalits in hindu and other religions who make use of the space. 163 This space collaborates liberative dynamics of the sympathy and pathos beyond religious boundaries. While there could be a limit on the exclusive agency of the marginalized for a liberative praxis to create an agency in a non-pathos space, Schmalz yet sees an opportune space—which was not available earlier for the marginalized—to re-tell their histories. These histories were earlier enmeshed in metanarratives of the times and spaces that received either marginal or no attention.

Schmalz also highlights the intriguing notions of a liberative praxis when the praxis is expected to be supported by Christian theology. Many of the stories and activities of the marginalized, especially of the dalits are “dismissed as uninteresting” because they appear neither “Indian nor Christian”. 164 Both ‘Indianness’ and ‘Christianness’ of praxis are largely influenced by the religious and cultural language of the dominant that have not incorporated dalit and tribal spiritualties as equally significant. Therefore, spatial opportunism as praxis opens up subversive spaces for reclaiming histories and agencies of the marginalized. There

162 Mathew N. Schmalz, “Dalit Catholic Tactics of Marginality at a North Indian Mission”, History of Religions , 44, no. 3(2005): 249-251. 163 Schmalz, “Dalit Catholic Tactics”, 222. 164 Schmalz, “Dalit Catholic Tactics”, 217. 105

is a possibility of the marginalized not getting the spatial opportunity completely for themselves. Spatial opportunism also provides the same practical solidarity for methodological exclusivity. This opportunism overrides any clear-cut methodology at micro- levels of interaction in that there is a sense of the postcolonial overview of prioritising any one methodology and at the same time clearly advancing the agency of the marginalized.

Spatial opportunism presents a way of establishing a collaborative praxis that would both restrict and enhance methods of liberation.

However, a multireligious context presents a challenging perspective for praxis. A model of political consciousness that enhances theological scope of agency is the model of Organic

Womanism, a model of praxis. This model fills in for Christian theology for being unable to affect the context with its Christian-only approach to praxis. The model as proposed by

George Nalunnakkal combines gender and interfaith concerns to define agency. Nalunnakkal explains how organic womanism as resource for understanding agency is triggered by a mass movement in Kerala (India) initiated by Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (‘The Grand Assembly of Adivasis’. [Adivasis means ‘original inhabitants ’ or tribals]) “where a representative from each Adivasi village (with gender parity) take decisions for themselves ”. The Maha Sabha struck an alliance with Dalits in Kerala. The main source of Nalunnakkal’s proposal is a people’s movement led by a tribal woman “unlike other political movements… [which] represent a new political awakening”. It was led by Dalits and adivasis themselves. While

Nalunnakkal is conscious of the inclusive nature of feminism which includes men as

106

advocates in liberative project unlike womanism, he still feels that womanism in India “need not be seen as an exclusive enterprise of women alone”. 165

For Nalunnakkal, organic womanism will be interested in retaining a certain sense of

‘methodological exclusivism, which is required for an identity politics oriented discourse […]

The adjective ‘organic’ is engaged here to highlight the natural relationship that Dalit and

Tribal women have with nature, which women of middle class and other section of the society do not possess at the same level and intensity. 166 The fact that the herald of the movement is an Adivasi woman, articulating issues of social justice and ecological balance through the forum of ‘Adivasi Gothra Sabha’ is of immense political significance.

Nalunnkkal reckons that highlight exclusive agency of the adivasis, ramifications for shaping the future course of eco-feminist discourse in India. 167

A crucial methodological point in Nalunnakkal’s proposal is that he emphasizes methodological exclusivity as a conceptual base. I explain Nalunnakkal here to highlight the nature of praxis that Indian theological scenario offers. In chapter 4, I engage with

Nalunnakal further to show how praxis, which has the potential to create engaging spaces, when combined with methodological exclusivity reduces the possibilities of engagement at the grassroots, thus largely restricting the agency of the colonised in the Indian context.

165 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism”. 166 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism”. 167 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism”. 107

3.3.4. A Critical Review of the Agency of the Colonised in Liberation Theologies in

India

In this chapter, as I critically surveyed how agency, advocacy and mystery interact with each other at various levels in the methodologies of liberation theologies, the following observations could be made:

The Indian liberation theologies, in the course of their history have either hesitantly or openly accepted liberative resources that are available even in the so-understood ‘dominant’ as seen in intertextual readings using postmodern methods or in contrapuntal methods. This trait is clearly and consciously promoted by theologians almost in the first instance of formulating a methodology for dalit theology. The flexibility of methodological boundaries have helped the liberation theologies to gain from interdisciplinary interaction. Therefore, this directive opens up to appreciate the theological capital any marginalized discourse could offer.

Liberative resources have come not only in the form of philosophical discussions, but also in the form of solidarity of many marginalised groups like women’s movements, ecological concerns, and class struggles. The pathos experiences of these marginalised groups may vary in their nature in different contexts, but a shared pathos of being rejected or neglected forms a common denominator in attempts to confront a dominant ideology.

It has clearly emerged from the discussions that there would be a constant and creative tension in a situation where many liberative ideas merge. Only a context could order what could be a good configuration of liberative resources for that specific moment. Therefore, any act of homogenizing pathos experience would become too predictable to survive an onslaught of powerful ideologies such as caste-based colonisation found in Christian theologies. As

108

their limitations, dalit theology and other forms of liberation theologies have many unaddressed forms of colonies, and such colonies might project at various times and spaces.

On a positive note, the liberation theologies have partly kept themselves open to be influenced by various forms of theologies outside the boundaries of methodological exclusivity.

Different generations of liberation theologians have amply exhibited how many gaps within dalit and other theological thinking have been critically diagnosed and plugged in with what is deemed as relevant at that point in time. A consistent evaluation of theologies incorporating positive insights from various generations is also metaphoric for the need to take the views of younger generation as creatively crucial for an inclusive theology.

Dalit theology has amply exhibited how it has benefitted from movements and secular academic disciplines. Within theological discussion it has richly enhanced its argumentative base after drawing from various theological disciplines. Indian theological scenario has been highly interdisciplinary in that it has drawn from all possible resources to step up the momentum of liberation and wider participation.

As observed, the homogenizing tendency of liberationist theological stream under class, gender, anthropocentric and such categories continue to be some of the strong identity- specific factor influencing the discussion on the agency of the marginalised. I also explained that exclusivity has the tendency to homogenise various degrees of pathos experiences as well as compel the methodological inclusivity to prioritise the primacy of pathos.

Homogeneity dangerously subsumes differences. Liberation theologies as in dalit theology have a history of and potential to homogenize struggles of different peoples-group.

109

Agency, Advocacy and Mystery

To explain the nature of agency that emerges from this discussion, methodological exclusivity presents an agency that stands independently from the potential advocacy that methodological inclusivity offers. While advocacy of the sympathetic marginalised is present with its liberative resources to strengthen the case of the pathos, methodological exclusivity presents strong resistance to such sympathetic presence by suspecting colonial traces in their presence. Therefore, when the theme of agency is emphasised, it is largely in an exclusive sense. When there are attempts to expand the understanding of the agency of the colonised by networking the pathos experiences of many colonised groups such as women and tribals as in methodological inclusivity, dalit theology creates an exclusive boundary around the pathos of the dalits, thus creating a double exclusion for itself as a developing ground for agency.

When advocacy has shown the potential to engage with agency methodological exclusivists are wary that advocacy could exhibit a false sense of solidarity. As exclusivists pressingly point out, agency is about living out and therefore solidarity could take the focus away from agency or instrumentalise the colonised.

An interesting factor that has strengthened the argument for agency is the theme of mystery.

In the liberation theologies, mystery refers both to the Christian doctrinal sense of Trinity

(Nirmal) and to the feminine divine (Dayam) to re-formulate Christian theology into theo/alogies for an inclusive vision of Dalit community. The presentation of mystery is from

Christian traditions and beyond. Therefore, mystery offers multireligious resource to enhance the Christian understanding of Christology. The mystery that Arulraja presents is the divinising of a Madurai veeran from a local folklore as done by dalit communities just as the divinising of Jesus from Christian traditions.

110

The presentation of mystery in the liberation theologies means a critique of the exclusive male Christology of the Christian tradition. It means a robust argument to see the divine mystery, the ultimate source of agency, present not just in the marginalised communities but also in the dominant traditions that offer advocacy to marginalised communities. While mystery exhibits the divine agency as a formidable front for the agency of the marginalised, it also moves beyond strictly exclusivist methodological boundaries.

Among the methodologies of liberation theologies, praxis has created spaces for conversations between the exclusive agency of the marginalised and the potential liberative resources of the advocates. From the discussion on spatial opportunism of Schmalz and the rightful recognition of the colonized as the majority among Indian Christians by Rajkumar, we observe that praxis demonstrates best the negotiable space between the colonised and the coloniser. However, the danger is a movement towards the dominant model of Indian

Christian theology where the culturally and politically dominant has the ability to take advantage of the negotiable space to colonise and recolonise. An important and critical observation to be made here is that despite being the majority in Indian Christian scenario, the exclusive agency of the marginalised dalits could not bring about its liberation. We observed that, the Christian discourse of the colonised was caught up in a conundrum whether to claim its majority only within Christian context and seek its liberation or to gather interreligious resources—a macro approach—through discourses and movement to strengthen and speed up the liberative process.

My explanations show that liberation theologies in India are largely confined to an historical understanding of colonisation and therefore they use resistance and counter-response as their key hermeneutical position. The hermeneutics of counter-responses and resistance largely

111

undermine the potential for a liberative engagement with authentic advocates who committedly strive to advance the agency of the colonised. However, as I will show in the following chapter, the liberation theologies show a certain degree of openness to engagement by taking a postcolonial position similar to that of contrapuntality but not as open as contrapuntality anticipates in its engagement.

112

Chapter 4. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of the Colonised in

Postcolonial Theology in India

4.1. Introduction

In the previous chapter, I argued that liberation theologies in India are largely confined to a historical understanding of colonisation and therefore they use resistance as their hermeneutical norm. I also explained that resistance diminishes explorations for a liberative engagement with authentic advocates who strive to advance the agency of the colonised with great commitment.

In this chapter I argue that postcolonial agency as discussed in Indian theology is a viable source to advance discussions on the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in India.

This is because the postcolonial theologies have critically addressed the methodologies of liberation theologies in India and have reinterpreted their internal dynamics without completely rejecting them.

Another significant reason to ground my analysis in the postcolonial approach is to emphasize the inherent postcolonial nature of dalit theology, as discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter presents a discussion of selected theologians from liberation and postcolonial theologies on how the methodologies of liberation theologies in India have been re-configured to context-specific demands to constantly define the agency of the colonised.

This demonstrates two issues regarding methodologies: [a.] there are constant methodological explorations in liberation theologies in India, and [b.] there is a great potential to further advance the agency of the colonised by constantly reconfiguring the methodologies through contrapuntal readings of the methodologies.

113

4.2. Contrapuntality and Postcolonial Theology in India

Here, I briefly survey the effectiveness of contrapuntal methodology as explored by R. S.

Sugirtharajah, Monica Melanchthon, 168 and Lalitha Jayachitra. 169 They demonstrate reading methods to interact variety of texts not only to see how liberative elements could be brought out in a case-specific manner but also to see how to constructively critique Indian liberation theologies and widen their hermeneutical realms. Sugirtharajah points to three levels in which postcolonial criticism helps theological reinterpretation: firstly, as a critique of history it captures the colonial past of the marginal communities and helps in identifying obscurities in the process of decolonisation, secondly, it helps in analysing oppositional texts and conditions by specifically highlighting the suppressed voices and thirdly, it helps in uncovering the hidden colonial patterns. 170 In the process of recovering the lost voice or agency, Sugirtharajah reminds us that it is not possible to get back to “authentic roots” or discover original traditions. In postcoloniality one finds the web of relationships one has to negotiate and live through. 171 Therefore Sugirtharajah questions the possibility of an exclusive agency of the colonised or their idea of returning to their authentic roots as each context has already engaged with many traditions around it.

As a postcolonial reading practice, Sugirtharajah introduced contrapuntal reading-ways into

Indian Christian theological scenario. Contrapuntality is a reading style “in which all texts are

168 Monica Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered: Sexual Violation and After”, Gender, Religion und Kultur , (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2010): 77-100. 169 Lalitha Jayachitra, “Jesus and Ambedkar: Exploring Common Loci for Dalit Theology and Dalit Movements” in Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century, Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock eds. , Dalit Theology, 121-136. 170 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations, 4. 171 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations, 125. 114

constantly impelled by a desire for connection and conversation”. 172 Explaining how this reading texts alongside each other is different from the traditional comparative approach to the study of religions which is “aggressive, judgmental, and condescending”, contrapuntal method

aims to produce not a harmonious reading but a reading which contains complexities and irresolvable differences. Contrapuntal reading is an activity which leads to a larger worlds of texts and enables an interpreter to see connections. It unveils what might have been buried or underdeveloped or obscure in a single text. 173

This means that while texts are placed alongside each other, they “gain from one another” without “losing their vitality”. Even texts with seemingly oppositional values “profit by opening themselves to new dimensions which are not present in their textual traditions”. 174

Explaining the need for a contrapuntal reading, Monica Melanchthon explains:

The contrapuntal/juxtaposition reading is a method of bringing these oft-neglected experiences of the exploited and the exploiter, texts from the metropolitan centers and the periphery to be studied together. These texts can be religious or secular, written or oral, visual or aural, since contrapuntal reading requires the simultaneous study of mainstream texts/scholarship and of texts/scholarship emanating from the peripheries, which the dominant discourse tries to domesticate and speaks and acts against. 175

Melanchthon revisits a crucial biblical passage—Bathsheba and King David—through contrapuntal lenses alongside an Indian regional movie Sirai (‘Prison’) which is based on a short story in Tamil by Anuradha Ramanan published in 1984. By doing so, she critically reviews feminist readings that see Bathsheba only as a victim of patriarchy and therefore a universal representative of a woman as a perpetual victim. She employs contrapuntal reading

172 R. S. Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice, (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 143. 173 Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism , 14. 174 Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism, 149. 175 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered”, 3. 115

to remove blinders “from seeing possible strategies for survival and life after rape/sexual violation”. 176 The method helps readers to employ “comparative critical enterprise without idealizing either text or privileging either one as better or authentic or as alternatives to each other”, thus allowing “a genuine dialog between this native text and among the varied positions on interpretation of 2 Samuel 11 and discern possible new meanings in the biblical text that might be liberating and transforming for/of women”.177 It could be observed that

Melanchthon observes the lack of woman’s agency in the context of the violation of womanhood. Reading this passage as a ‘post-rape’ narrative could be enriched by culling liberative elements from Sirai that presents positive elements of overcoming victimhood. The readings that overcome any exclusive strand of thought, like overcoming the exclusive nature of victimhood, contests the stronghold of historical criticism that claims scientific and objective approach to a reading and research, allowing differing voices to produce liberative methods. In this sense, critical theories are interrelated.

Drawing more cues from contrapuntal reading methods for Indian liberation theology,

Jayachitra reads Jesus’ temple act narrated in the four Gospels alongside Ambedkar’s teachings on Dalit Politics. She contrapuntally reads dalit theology/dalit hermeneutics and the

Sitz im Leben of early Christians and dalits. The analysis closes with an exploration of the possibilities of opening up dalit theology and dalit movements to each other that could aid both the checking of caste discriminations within the church and affirming positive discrimination of Christian dalits in the wider Indian society. Jayachitra considers how dalit theology promotes a state of conscious paradox by first aiming to eliminate such caste-bound

176 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered”: 2. 177 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered”, 3. 116

discriminations existing within the church, while on the other hand, ensuring an affirmative reservation for the dalit Christians by claiming schedule caste status in the Indian constitution. 178 While the Christian characteristic of liberation theologies is the scope of the discussion here, it could be noted that religious categories of evaluation have reduced the scope of exclusivity due to its risk of relevance in a multi-religious and multi-cultural context as India.

4.3. The Critical Intervention of Postcolonial Theology in Liberation Theologies in

India

In this section I present a broad postcolonial critique of liberation theologies in India as presented by Sugirtharajah. Following that, I will complement Sugirtharajah’s critique with

Sebastian’s methodological insights regarding taking dalit theology further from the confines of its methodologies. Sebastian’s insights are also applicable to other liberation theologies in

India as dalit theology has provided the methodological frameworks.

Sugirtharajah provides potential indicators for an “arranged marriage” of liberation hermeneutics and postcolonial reading methods, however arbitrary the arrangement could be.

Firstly, liberation hermeneutics and postcolonial methods seriously consider liberation as the highest value. Secondly, the liberation motif pressingly aspires for the agency of the colonised other. Therefore both streams of theology do not hesitate to take a biased position of the side of the marginalised. Thirdly, the aspirations for agency further envision a grand

“communal harmony”. The three leads of taking non-negotiable positions in both the theological streams present them with strong modernist leanings. However both these

178 Jayachitra, “Jesus and Ambedkar”, 121-136. 117

theological streams esteem liberation, agency and harmony as crucial and momentarily overlook the critique of such modernist leanings. It can be recalled here from the previous section that Sugirtharajah does propose contrapuntality as a relevant reading method which critiques the above three leads. However, in contrapuntality, the three leads do have their place in the postcolonial discourse. 179

Sugirtharajah points to a short-lived marriage of liberation hermeneutics-postcolonial reading methods because postcolonial methods look for internal dynamics within the meta-narrative of liberation. Therefore the internal dynamics have the ability to reconfigure constituent factors and present fluid interpretations of marginalisation, harmony, and agency. In comparison, liberation hermeneutics homogenizes categories such as poor, dalits, and other marginal categories while postcolonial hermeneutics constantly looks out for power dynamics within such marginal groups in different contexts. While liberation hermeneutics sees the scriptural interpretations of God as taking the sides of the marginalised and neglecting other groups of people, postcolonial hermeneutics sees the ambivalent nature of such interpretations as scriptures endorse “both emancipation and enslavement”. While liberationist hermeneutics are largely Christian restricting the scope of inter-religious liberative resources, postcolonial hermeneutics thinks outside any one religious framework to point to wider liberative resources to pressingly advance the agency of the colonised. 180

These explanations go on to present a sense of continuity and discontinuity which itself is postcolonial in nature. I raise this here to show that postcolonialism has and could continue to be a critical and constructive movement within liberation theologies in India.

179 R. S. Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation” in R. S. Sugirtharajah ed., Voices from the Margin, Revised and Expanded Third Edition (Maryknoll: Orbis Book, 2006), 77-78. 180 Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” 78-80. 118

One of the crucial ways of taking Sugirtharajah’s critique of liberation theologies further is proposed by Jayakiran Sebastian. He brings in fresh methodological evaluation of dalit theology and offers additional insights when he emphasizes moving from methodological exclusivity to the “possibility of its inter-disciplinarity” by not “overlooking the intra-Dalit dynamics”. Sebastian’s critique is relevant when Dalit theology strongly continues to project the pathos experience by overlooking interdisciplinary methods. Sebastian discloses the strength of dalit theology from its “inter-connections with the methodological possibilities”, as in postcolonial hermeneutics, which presents a source of theological possibilities through epistemological enquiries. He highlights the need for dalit theology to constantly refine, interrogate, and redefine the identity question:

Rather than merely affirming simplistic and essentialist myths of origin, Dalit theology constantly searches for that existential yet elusive element, identity, which offers a fertile possibility of understanding the self, leading in turn to the interrogation of those forms of self-understanding that, very often, have been constructed or imposed. 181

This gives the so-understood theologically colonized a scope to recreate histories and theologies towards an enriched idea of liberation through inter-connectedness. Sebastian is critical of the theological modes that dichotomize “knowledge-praxis” debates that benefit the academic modes of inquiry, rationality, and objectivity. While these modes are not completely rejected, he calls for an analysis of their shortcomings to avoid marginalization of those communities, whose very marginalization was actively promoted by such ‘scholarship’.

He illuminates the need for an intra-liberation theological examination, which I see as a

181 J. Jayakiran Sebastian, “‘Can We Now Bypass that Truth?’ Interrogating the Methodology of Dalit Theology”, Transformation 25, no.2 & 3 (2008): 86.

119

strong critique of methodological exclusivity and even of the methodological inclusivity which is driven by the former. Sebastian is right when he says:

In so far as Dalit theology has systematically questioned all attempts at theological reductionism, a crucial concern of dalit theology is that of continuing to fearlessly speak the ‘truth’ to power, without succumbing to the dictates of mere fashion, without simplistic mimesis, without pandering to the desires of the dominant, and without overlooking the intra-Dalit dynamics. Apart from this via negativa, Dalit theology should affirm what it has always been—a way of living, of praying, of relating, of questioning, a way that is not a bypass, but a way that is itself the way of truth. 182

In the light of Sugirtharajah’s critique of liberationist theologies in India and Sebastian’s proposal to take liberation theologies further in the lines of postcolonial theological guidelines, I make the following observations to affirm that liberation theologies in India have shown a few traits of intra-liberationist critique, but stopped short of probing deeper and exploring contrapuntal ways of assessing the agency of the colonised.

4.3.1. Probing Conventional Hierarchical System

As observed earlier, dalit-feminists exposed the dominant male representation within dalit theology. With the emergence of feminist hermeneutics, it is more glaring that dalit adults have represented as authentic the subjugated situation of the all members of dalit communities, leading to “hermeneutical forgetness” of the concerns of marginality of other communities within the purview of its discourse. Sugirtharajah warns of such colonising in an

“eagerness to produce a resistance theory”. 183

182 Sebastian, “‘Can We Now Bypass that Truth?’”, 89. 183 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations, 32. 120

Feminist theology interfaced with dalit theology critically and constructively to highlight gender-based exclusivity, and sought to rectify the limitations it by interfacing dalit discourses and women’s movements. 184 Melanchthon explains how the forces of gender, class and caste behave not only as segregated concepts “but also place specific limitations and produce forms of discrimination in combination”. 185 Dalit women were conscientized about their greater discriminated status, thus amplifying the understanding and the scope of dalit theology as a liberation theology. For that reason, women’s liberation within dalit theology sought to—to use Gabriele Dietrich’s thought—challenge internal and domesticating colonies while also dealing with external colonization. 186 Applying Gabriele’s methodological vision of testing and teasing out repressing colonies would give our theologies scope to see the way more marginalized groups have been kept out of the liberationist discourses. Nalunnakkal argues that Dalit theology is too anthropocentric to connect ecological concerns to Dalits and Tribals. Consequently, Dalit theology might lose relevance unless it has participated in peoples’ movements fighting for land rights and has seen a strong link of the peoples’ movements for nature’s benefits as well. 187 In his work

Dalit Theology and its Future Course, Coorilose highlights how neo-colonialism in the form of development and industrialization has shattered the eco-balance by driving dalits and

184 Dietrich argues, “Dalit theology… has not spent much… energy on the issues of Dalit women… At the same time, Dalit Theologians as well as Dalit movements, have a tendency to be pro-women ideologically”. See Gabriela Dietrich, A New Thing on Earth: Hopes and Fears facing Feminist Theology (Delhi/ Madurai: ISPCK/ TTS, 2001), 242. 185 Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Dalit Readers of the Word: The Quest for Hermeneutics and Method,” in Frontiers in Dalit Hermeneutics, edited by James Massey and Samson Prabhakar (Bangalore/Delhi: BTESSC-SATHRI/CDSS, 2005), 47. 186 Gabriele Dietrich, “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology need to relate to People’s Movements?”, Asian Journal of Theology 19/1 (April 2005): 168. 187 George Mathew Nalunnakkal, Green Liberation. Also see his “Towards an Organic Womanism: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/December- 2003/Towards-an-Organic-Womanism-New-Contours-of-Ecofeminism-in-India.aspx (23.5.2012). 121

adivasis out of the resourceful forest areas. The dalits and the adivasis, he insists would maintain a strong human-nature link for the betterment of both. 188 This missing link has been emphasized by Eric Lott. In his analysis of Clarke’s presentation of dalit drum as a symbol of positive presence (and therefore ‘Christ the Drum’), Lott highlights what is much neglected of “all drum-linked cultures, i.e. its eco-inclusiveness”. In Lott’s words,

In one form or another, this eco-dimension is intrinsic to the cultural life of all primal communities over against the destructive anthropocentric de-naturing of our cosmic being that has been so characteristic of western modernity. 189

Liberation theologies in India have been adult-centric since its inception, barring a few instances when theologies expanded into people’s movements. A methodological observation here could be to explore its flexibility in understanding ‘pathos’, by including the pathos of women and nature.

4.3.2. Interrogating Homogenising Tendencies

Two terms are widely used to signify ‘collective consciousness’ of dalits, i.e., “dalit consciousness” and “subalterns”. The term ‘dalit’ is further qualified with an effort to carefully ‘conscientize’ the oppressed communities by highlighting liberative strands already embedded within their struggles. Dalit consciousness refers to the historical identity of dalit communities, which is a combination of predominantly agonising memories of the longstanding exploitation and subjugation, and of the splendid time in history of sovereignty and autonomy. The memories of pain are also coupled with the immanent emancipation,

188 Geevarghese Mor Coorilose, “Dalit Theology and its Future Course” Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock edited Dalit Theology in the Twenty-first Century. 189 Eric Lott, Religious Faith, Human Identity: Dangerous Dynamics in Global and Indian Life, (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation & United Theological College, 2005), 347. 122

models of which are drawn from various similar histories of suppression. Jayakumar summarizes this notion of dalit consciousness as

a constant reminder of their age-old oppression and their ancient glorious past when their forefathers were a free people. This has become an expression of hope for them in recovering and enhancing their past identity by expressing their sufferings through drama and poetry. 190

Maria Arul Raja presents the multi-faces of oppression that conditions dalit consciousness.

Dalit consciousness deals with the pain of imposed pollution and segregation, and the resulting economic impoverishment. It highlights the practical disempowerment created by the denial of space for self-governance. He explains how the retention of the term ‘Dalit’ denotes both victimhood and assertiveness. 191 This ambiguous usage has greatly triggered the liberative consciousness among dalits and has formed the characteristic strength of Dalit theology. As Arvind Nirmal indicates, this consciousness

…reflects the past, the present and the future of Christian Dalits in India. It lays bare the Dalit consciousness and it is this Dalit consciousness which is our primary datum for Christian Dalit theology. 192

Therefore, dalit Theology—as James Massey supposes—should consider the “life context, history and language” of the dalits 193 which is the “consciousness of their plight as against the natural law, not to speak of ethical or moral laws. This consciousness is new and subject to

190 Samuel Jayakumar, Dalit Consciousness and Christian Conversion: Historical Resources for a Contemporary Debate (Oxford/ Delhi: Regnum International/ ISPCK, 1999), 16. 191 Maria Arul Raja, “Perspectives of Dalit Hermeneutics,” Gurukul Journal of Theological Studies XVI, no. 1&2 (2005): 23. 192 A. P. Nirmal, “A Dialogue with Dalit Literature,” in Towards a Dalit Theology, edited by M. E. Prabhakar (Delhi: ISPCK, 1988), 75. 193 James Massey, Dalits in India: Religion as a Source of Bondage or Liberation with Special Reference to Christians, (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1995), 173. 123

critiquing the existing systems, structures and value”.194 The ‘subaltern’ too has been synonymously used for marginalized communities in India as well as in dalit theology. As far as the use of ‘Subalterns’ for dalits in India, Clarke mentions that homogenization of oppression has its strengths and limitations in a larger picture of liberative history. As an argumentative justification, Clarke prefers the term “subalterns” to capture the history of communal oppressions that groups of people went through, though he is aware of its limitations. Yet he prefers it to valorise solidarity and form a visible agency of the oppressed communities in India. Clarke confirms,

I have consciously avoided talking of the Subaltern, as if it is one phenomenon. Rather, in order to integrate the awareness that this term connotes multiple realities, having many context-specific variations, I employ the plural, that is, Subalterns. And yet I opt for the one common term mainly to reflect the history of solidarity that is emerging between Dalit and Adivasi communities. In the end, Subalterns' scholarship finds strategic rather than essential reasons to project a common identity for the differing strands of Dalit and Adivasi communities in India. 195

Clarke pays much attention to the limitations, yet offers a positive agency, within the homogenizing activity:

I am careful not to construct the subaltern as a unitary ‘negative consciousness’ which is either mainly passive or merely oppositional. Rather, by a careful analysis of the religion of the Paraiyar, I garner the activity and creatively constructive aspects of subalternity. Subalternity is a collective consciousness that actualizes its subjectivity through a process of creative and calculating engagement with the material and symbolic order of the dominant communities within the restrictions of severe subjection. 196

194 James Massey and T. K. John SJ, “Concept Paper: Centre for Dalit/ Subaltern Studies,” in Frontiers in Dalit Hermeneutics, edited by James Massey, and Samson Prabhakar (Bangalore/ Delhi: BTESSC/ SATHRI & CDSS, 2005), 287. 195 Clarke, Biblical Interpretation: 10, 3. 196 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 7. 124

Clarke takes this position in order to locate and interpret exclusive dalit agency “with due respect to collective agency”. 197 Here ‘homogeneity’ seems to pass on as ‘collective’.

‘Homogeneity’ subsumes differences and will have the face of the dominant within, while

‘collective’ retains particularity in a community. Therefore, dalit theology poses a clear danger of homogenizing struggles of any peoples group. In other words, one or more groups seem to have represented many other marginalized groups within dalit communities. Claims for unique spaces within broader discourses have enhanced the scope of the liberative vision of dalit theology.

Sebastian exposes Clarke’s limited reading of classical Indian theologians, especially Raimon

Panikkar, in Clarke’s zest to set aside any form of Brahminic philosophical basis for Indian

Christian theology. Questioning Clarke’s exclusivist mode of thinking and simultaneously highlighting in Panikkar a commitment to Dalit cause, Sebastian asks whether Panikkar’s prioritizing of the so called dominant philosophical method is a complete negation of the concerns of dalits and other marginalized communities. Sebastian emphasizes that any signs of commitment to the dalit cause should be an open invitation for liberation theology in India to be in intellectual communion with various theological streams. Sebastian highlights

Clarke’s limited notions for a dalit theological method by pointing out that Clarke sidelines

Panikkar because Panikkar has long been identified as a champion of the Hindu classical culture and religion, which would make Dalit interpreters somewhat resistant to his theological suggestions. 198

197 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 8. 198 Sebastian quoting Clarke from Clarke, Dalits and Christianity , 212. 125

In the midst of constant interrogation of the exclusivist position and the rich possibility of resources from the classical Indian theologies to support the advancement of the agency of the colonised, liberation theologians like Clarke continue to insist on the exclusive agency of the colonised. However, Clarke’s insistence could mean a deeper and unobstructed exploration of the liberative resources from the colonised communities to strengthen their agency.

4.4. Creative Mediation of Postcolonial Theological Thought in Liberation

Theologies in India

In this section I will explain how liberation theologians, who strongly subscribe to the methodologies of liberation theologies in India, also draw from postcolonial philosophers, especially Gayatri Spivak. They attempt to explain the agency of the marginalized in a postcolonial sense and adapt them to liberation theologies in India. These attempts are to push the earlier claims of the historical analysis of the post colony to now focus on conceptual notions of postcolonialism.

4.4.1. Contrapuntality and Feminist Agency

On the need for representation and rereading of marginal characters in history and myths especially of dalit women, Melanchthon explains that “representations are epistemological, revealing considerations and issues related to cultural mythology” and therefore the represented are “interpreted”. 199 Melanchthon’s contribution to the discussion on agency has

199 Melanchthon, “The Servant”, 232. 126

been through Christian biblical feminism. 200 Melanchthon insists on the hermeneutics of imagination as imagination moves beyond literary genres of religious interpretation to provide a free flow of interpretation of religious scriptures. Imagination serves as a tool for women’s agency, especially for dalit women as they are twice restricted due to androcentric and caste oppressions. When imagination converts literary texts to stories and plays, they often contain in them interpretations of real life experiences. Real-life experiences merge with scriptural stories, and (dalit) women “become participants in the bible story and not just recipients of it”.201 This allows women to voice their views beyond certain culturally predestined ways.

In her re-reading of scriptures, Melanchthon insists that for the subalterns scriptures are symbolic of a religious life promoted by the powerful colonial mission agency; and that the bible should be interpreted by dalits and tribals against the backdrop of the religious beliefs they were kept away from. 202 Melanchton proposes a hermeneutics of liberative imagination under the rubrics of contrapuntal methodology. For Melanchthon, contrapuntal methodology

“recaptures their [women’s] agency as makers of history, identity and other modes of knowledge”.203 Her cases for contrapuntal readings are interreligious texts that have limited representation of women in religious histories which have reduced their agency. 204 Therefore,

200 Monica Melanchthon, “Dalit Women and the Bible: Hermeneutical and Methodological Reflections (Revised),” Hope Abundant: Third World and Indigenous Women’s Theology , ed. Kwok Pui-lan, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 2010), 103-22. 201 Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, " Dalits, Bible, And Method," http://sblsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=459 202 Melanchthon, "Dalits, Bible, And Method." 203 Melanchthon, “The Servant in the book of Judith: Interpreting her Silence, Telling her Story” in Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock edited Dalit Theology in the Twenty-first Century : 232. 204 Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Akkamahadevi and The Samaritan Woman: Paradigms of Resistance and Spirituality” in Border Crossings: Cross- Cultural Hermeneutics, D. N. Premnath ed. (Maryknoll, 127

Melanchthon explains that juxtaposed reading methods or the contrapuntal method rediscovers the spaces that negotiate for women’s voices that are in the peripheries. 205

According to Melanchthon, the contrapuntal method explains inroads within the narratives that present womanhood as emerging out of ‘victimhood’ into a grand survivor, without denying the victimhood. 206 The method helps readers to employ “comparative critical enterprise without idealizing either text or privileging either one as better or authentic or as alternatives to each other” and “discern possible new meanings in the biblical text that might be liberating and transforming for/of women”, 207 making spaces for the positive stories of survival and greater agency than just about victimhood.208

Melanchthon suggests that the process of restoring women’s agency is not just for the sake of restoring agency; it is to reconfigure histories with histories, stories and myths of women. It considers that women are not a homogenous group and detached from the rest of the histories, “but whose lives and histories are inextricably intertwined in a web of class and caste relations, community life, colonialism, and capitalism”.209

Interpretations involve highlighting of some voices and silencing of some active participants thus creating silent spaces in histories. Melanchthon explains that if the silenced contexts are

Orbis Books: 2007): 35- 54; Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “The Servant in the Book of Judith: Interpreting her Silence, Telling her Story” ; Monica Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered.” 205 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered,” 3. 206 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered,” 2. 207 Melanchthon, “Bathsheba Reconsidered,” 3. 208 Melanchthon, “The Servant,” 231. 209 Melanchthon, “The Servant,” 232. 128

not “filled by the marginalized, there will be further myths written by the dominant to crowd and justify the denigrated status of dalits”.210

Following Sugirtharajah’s mode, Melanchthon effectively introduces the contrapuntal methodology with a focus on feminist issues. Her explanation that the victims have to move beyond their status as victim is a strong critique of methodological exclusivity. Yet she does not negate the significance of pathos and presents pathos in a context where the victims could draw from their strengths outside their exclusivist framework and reinterpret their histories.

4.4.2. Tactic Subversion, Compliance and Agency

Similar to Melanchthon’s contrapuntality, Clarke shows how dalit communities exercise compliance and subversive methods to advance their agency without negating their pathos.

This section analyses Clarke’s exposition of agency and/or representation under the following discussions [a] Tactic subversion and compliance as subversive methods for agency, and [b]

Theological inclusiveness within and along with methodological exclusivism.

It shows that Clarke has drawn on the categories of Antonio Gramsci and, consciously or otherwise, Gayatri Spivak in reconfiguring the agency of dalits. Clarke’s contribution to understand subaltern agency relies on Nirmal’s proposal for a methodological exclusivity and

Gramscian understands of the subaltern.

210 Melanchthon, “The Servant,” 245. 129

Dalits as Subalterns, Tactic Subversion and Compliance

The significance of Clarke’s proposal has been his categorical exposition of the “ignored” agency of dalits in Indian-Christian theology which bear witness to “centuries of oppression and marginalization”. Clarke’s initial analysis is by understanding dalits as ‘Subalterns’, a term introduced by Gramsci to denote to people from low rank in a society suffering from hegemonic rule of the dominant. 211 Naming dalits as subalterns takes dalit theological discourse beyond mere religious categories of dalits that Nirmal was trying to give with his

Christian framework to dalit theology. In his work Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern

Religion and Liberation Theology in India, Clarke attributes the co-opting of the dalit aspirations in Indian-Christian theology to “a process of hegemony” that has perpetuated the interests of the dominant. However, he retrieves a strong symbolic tradition of the Paraiyar cultural practice of drumming to reconstruct “subjectivity” and agency of dalits within Indian

Christian theologies. The significance of Clarke’s analysis is in methodologically putting the dominant caste tradition in dialectic conversation to demonstrate that hegemony is not always absolute. More specifically, to ‘exegete’ his hypothesis of ideological co-option of dominant philosophical views in the earlier Indian-Christian theologies, Clarke deploys Antonio

Gramsci’s analytical category of hegemony. 212

Clarke’s thoughts converge with Gramsci’s at the level where class struggles become cultural patterns. Clarke quotes Gramsci:

211 Sathianthan Clarke, “Viewing the Bible through the Eyes and Ears of Subalterns in India”, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2444 (20th Dec. 2012). 212 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 41. 130

Class struggle is not simply the battle between capitalist and the proletariat, owners and producers in the work situation. It also takes the form of cultural and religious conflict over which attitudes, values and beliefs will dominate the thought and behavior of people. 213

The connecting thought between Gramsci’s discourse on class struggle and caste system in

India as perceived by Clarke is ‘hegemony’. Here Clarke equates Gramsci’s category of

‘class’ to the Indian cultural category of caste. Clarke explains that caste system as a class struggle in India has been ‘hegemonic’ in the concentration of economic resources. Such concentration has moved to reinstate caste-hierarchy because resources are concentrated among the dominant caste without necessarily imposing caste practices directly as legitimized by ‘intellectual and moral leadership’. Such a class system “disguises” dominant religious beliefs and symbol- systems “unconsciously” perpetrating theologies of dominance.

Clarke however denies that hegemony can be complete. This denial leads to his explanation for how the once non-represented or mis-represented communities in theological thinking could re-signify their presence through working out their ‘subjectivity’:

Christian Dalits are able to minimally actualize their own subjectivity through a process of sharing in some form of hegemonic practice … the process by which the subaltern communities creatively construe counter hegemonic procedures. 214

While Clarke argues for forging a relationship between the traditional Indian-Christian theology and the voices of Dalits, he goes on to explore what implication the coalesced subjectivity has had on the issues of agency in Indian-Christian theology. He identifies that traditional Indian-Christian theology had strongly resisted any more Indian expression of theology than the existing one and claimed itself to be “genuinely a pan-Indian theological

213 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 41. 214 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 42. 131

expression”. On the other side, the Dalits too resisted any “tactic compliance” fearing a different nature of reductionism that would curb dalit agency at another level. However,

Clarke’s strategy is that compliance works out a strong subaltern agency. Clarke explains how dalit fears took an ideological expression:

The Dalits generally failed to admit to their tactic compliance with certain forms of Indian theology. Instead of interpreting this [tactic compliance] as an act of subaltern agency to forge a kind of transformed subjectivity, the usual rationale points to the helpless and marginalized situation of the Dalits. 215

Here, Clarke derives his proposal for agency out of compliance between the dominant caste group and the subjugated dalits along the lines of Spivak’s subaltern agency. Spivak’s discussions on subalternity and the possibility of its agency are placed in the context of debates on neo-globalisation that demoralize voices of protest from those whose labour is exploited in developing countries. Clarke confirms his compliance theory with his case study of the dalit drum by seeing the drum beyond just the dalit community seeking to re- understand in the wider Indian contexts. Therefore, the agentic significance of the drum as the agency of dalits, especially in the context of orality and other mediums of representation, can be “evaluated and transformed” for a deeper understanding of dalit agency and its contribution to wider history. 216

215 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 44. 216 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 141-149. 132

Theological Inclusiveness and Methodological Exclusivism: Resistance-Liberation

Model

Does tactic compliance mean methodological inclusivity, or an inclusive interaction of the colonised within methodological exclusivity? I raise this question to show whether Clarke places his concept of inclusivity within a broader framework of methodological exclusivity or a new framework of inclusivity that engages alongside methodological exclusivity. As explained earlier, theological inclusiveness in Clarke is intended to enhance dalit agency.

While he recognizes the need for openness from non-dalit voices (dominant) to advocate dalit agency, he also sees a new dynamic in the dialectics of methodological exclusivism and theological inclusiveness which can be called the resistance-liberation model. Resistance here implies a sense of exclusiveness by confronting any further attempts of the classical Indian theology that would co-opt the subalterns with a dominant attitude. But what neutralizes a negative interpretation of exclusiveness or an undesirable sense of confrontation is the notion of liberation. Here, liberation binds all communities together in a common mission that benefits, first Dalits; next, other subjugated communities; and eventually, all human beings as they seek to live together in security, justice, peace, and life in all its plenitude. Clarke makes conscious attempts to force dalit agency to the fore in the midst of theological politics of co- options that might leave out dalit agency as historically observed.

By bringing Gramsci’s thoughts into dalit theology, Clarke adapts Gramsci’s class consciousness model (economics and resource) as a tool for caste analysis. However, Clarke does not exhibit the same methodological flexibility when he analyses the humanization

133

theory of M.M. Thomas 217 . While Clarke exhibits a sense of inclusivity with the symbol of drum, the inclusivity is bound by the larger framework of methodological exclusivity.

4.4.3. Organic Womanism and Agency

A sense in which dalit and tribal women in India work out their agency towards a relevant ecology in India is proposed by George Mathew Nalunnakkal through his concept of ‘organic womanism’. His proposal significantly contests ecofeminism in India which is largely of

“middle class orientation” and allied to the dominant caste ideology. He highlights that the ideology of the middle class ignores the interplay of caste, class, gender and capitalism. The main source of his proposal is a people’s movement led by a tribal woman in the state of

Kerala “unlike other political movements… [which] represent a new political awakening”. It was led by dalits and adivasis (‘ original inhabitants ’ or tribals) themselves. While

Nalunnakkal is conscious of the inclusive nature of feminism which includes men in liberative projects unlike womanism, he still feels that womanism in India “need not be seen as an exclusive enterprise of women alone”. A crucial point in his proposal is that he falls back on ‘methodological exclusivity’. In his words, organic womanism

will be interested in retaining a certain sense of methodological exclusivism, which is required for an identity politics oriented discourse […] The adjective ‘organic’ is engaged here to highlight the natural relationship that Dalit and Tribal women have with nature, which women of middle class and other section of the society do not possess at the same level and intensity. 218

217 Clarke, Dalits and Christianity, 39- 40; Also see his similar views on M.M. Thomas in Kwok Pui-Lan, Don H. Compier, and Joerg Rieger (eds), Empire and the Christian Tradition: New Readings of Classical Theologians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 436. 218 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism.” 134

In other words, ecofeminism is “sanskritic in orientation” and has a “brahminic slant”.

Ideologically, it ignores the concerns of dalits and tribals and their age old attachment to land and other natural resources. It thus “raises the question of ownership of land and therefore of power relations as well. Dalit and Adivasi women are talking about the preservation of their own space and therefore about their own ecology”.219

Nalunnakkal hails Organic Womanism as a “new political praxis” born out of ‘revolution’ as the earlier ecofeminism manifests largely as “mere intellectual engagement”. The new praxis raises “unsettling questions about capital (economic, cultural and symbolic), questions of ownership and control over resources”. To elaborate this dynamic, Nalunnakkal derives theoretical impetus from Foucault’s description of power-relations where power is understood as a “multiplicity of relations, decentred and produced incessantly from one movement to another”. 220 To further emphasize on the pluri-vocal nature of power dynamics,

Nalunnakkal invokes Gayatri Spivak’s alerts on the dangers of essentialism. He quotes

Spivak saying

Essentialism is a trap…homogenizing women’s diverse experiences and then romanticizing that ‘essence’ blinds us to the myriad ways in which the idea of ‘womanhood’ is implicated in constraints on and brutality against women. 221

Through his proposal Nalunnakkal calls for the solidarity of different subalterns in a specific context. He adopts what could be called a ‘strategic inclusiveness’ where womanism needs solidarity from men and like-minded groups beyond religions. His proposal also gives a strong indication of a movement-driven theology or praxis based theologizing.

219 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism.” 220 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism.” 221 Nalunnakkal, “Towards an Organic Womanism.” 135

Invoking Spivak to critique essentialism offers multiple possibilities to understand the agency of the colonised in Nalunnakkal’s thoughts. While Nalunnakkal wishes not to have a hybrid agency by keeping away a non-dalit or non-tribal agency from his ‘organic’ womanist approach, he nonetheless wishes to incorporate men’s voices and their participation for an effective hybrid stance. He does not wish to see the danger of patriarchy’s influence on a womanist movement by perhaps seeing a greater danger in a caste-hybrid movement. This stance of Nalunnakkal can be observed as a context-specific dependence on liberative resources as well as re-invoking Spivak’s thoughts on the continual reconfiguring of

“conditions of impossibility into possibility”.222 Moore-Gilbert explains that Spivak finds this dynamic appropriate as any counter-hegemonic discourse could cancel any possibility of an agency or a reappropriation of a dominant agency. 223

4.4.4. Engaging Subjectivity and Agency

Vinayaraj, a dalit theologian, presents a postmodern response to the methodological exclusivity of dalit theology that elicits “theologies with a prefix” or “hyphenated theologies” to “the modern prefix-less and universal theology”. 224 This validated dalit theology in the context of the “colonial other”, the “national other” or as the “poor” of liberation theology.

He is critical of “a collective, coherent, and essential category” that is rendered as subjectivity. He especially dwells critically on pathos as the source of true knowledge.

222 Gayatri Chakravarti Spivak, In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics (New York/London: Routledge, 1988), 201. 223 Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics (London: Verso, 1997), 85. 224 Vinayaraj, “Envisioning,” 95. 136

In his quest to contribute to the relevance of dalit theology in a postmodern context,

Vinayaraj begins by discovering modernity trappings in dalit theology which continues to imbibe the meta-narrative of caste as an episteme. 225 To first deconstruct the modernity trappings and then redevelop dalit subjectivity, Vinayaraj adapts Michel Foucault’s proposal where “insurrection of these subjugated knowledge” generates responses of the until-then silent communities. 226 While he takes suggestions from Jacques Derrida and other postmodern philosophers, he dwells on Foucault’s theory of ‘discursive formation’ extensively to argue his views.

As Foucault contends, “we have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries”.227 In

Foucault’s words

the historical process in which we are formed and being formed is not detached from our subjectivity. It is we who determine our histories through formulating new discourses that provide patterns for alternative subjectivities. Thus, histories are not external to the people; rather histories live in their life worlds and even in their bodies. The people, the ones who make them, embody histories. Thus, the transformation possibilities of Dalits is not historically fixed or socially determined… Dalits are able to determine their own subjectivity. 228

With the postmodern effect on dalit subjectivity, freedom seems to work within a structure; it provides possibility to contest and overthrow all the colonial traces established in their subjectivity for several centuries. 229 In understanding the Dalit body as a site of resistance, in

Foucault’s ways, “[f]reedom does not basically lie in discovering or being able to determine

225 Vinayaraj, “Envisioning”, 93. 226 Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 edited by Colin Gordon, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 81. 227 Vinayaraj, “Envisioning,” 97. 228 Vinayaraj, “Envisioning,” 97-8. 229 Vinayaraj, Revisiting the Other, 80. 137

who we are, but in rebelling against those ways in which we are already defined, categorized and classified”. 230 Agency, in this sense is de-structuring the dominant and reworking those structures. Thus, Vinayaraj places the idea of dalit subjectivity or agency to operate “within and against” the meta-narrative of caste. He envisions how “by rejecting the essentialist/humanist traditions of modern epistemology, postmodern Dalit theology invites

Dalits to have a fresh look at themselves and their world view. A new world is possible through courageously and creatively utilizing the discursive space”. To validate his views,

Vinayaraj explains that Foucault view that insists on promoting “new forms of subjectivity” by rejecting the argument of individuality propagated by modern epistemology. 231

By depending extensively on Foucault, Vinayaraj reinforces resistance as the key hermeneutical principle. However Vinayaraj’s notion of resistance is different from the resistance in methodological exclusivity when imagination of the colonised deliberately adventures into interacting with the agencies that advance liberation. These agencies need not share a common pathos, but include those agencies that are sympathetic to the pathos.

Therefore, Vinayaraj’s explanations open up to an interaction between methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity with a strong insistence of dalit pathos that resource methodological exclusivity.

4.4.5. Dalithos and Agency

Peniel Rajkumar is a current-generation dalit theologian. His contribution to agency through convergence can be encapsulated in what Rajkumar calls ‘Dalithos’ which is an

230 Vinayaraj, Reimagining Dalit Theology, 63. 231 Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 785 138

amalgamation of three significant dynamics, Dalit(ele)os, Dali(myth)os, and Dalit(the)os .232

In Dalit(ele)os , epistemological primacy is given to the purposiveness which characterizes the dalit view of life. It is “that element of Dalithos where Dalit agency finds expression as an intuitive and resourceful appropriation of interrelationality” to further dalit knowledge.

Dali(myth)os provides space to re-mythologize dalit aspirations to critique dominant mythologies and recreate dalit identity. And, Dalit(the)os contemplates on dalit vision of God as “divine agency for Dalits is intrinsically linked with their quest to further life and to strive for fuller humanity”. They open up liberation theological discussions at a broader level.

Rajkumar identifies the combination of Dalit Christology and Dalit mythology as important resources to revitalise Dalit agency and praxis. However, he first contends that dalit christology in its present form does not open up sufficient space for “critical praxis” as it has depended on the epistemological premise of pathos. Christology in this direction could only

“reinforce the slavish mentality” and impede self- emancipation. 233 At the same time, he utilizes Dalit mythography as a representation of dalit resistance because dalit mythography

“holds in dialect tension the autonomy of dalit expression as well as dalit subjectivity in a highly constrained life situation, a tension symptomatic of the subalternity of the dalits”. 234

Two issues stand out in Rajkumar’s analysis: firstly, dalit Christology’s engagement with praxis would enhance the scope of Dalit agency; secondly, dalit Christology or dalit praxis would not be enough to promote dalit agency effectively and independently. 235 Reading Dalit myths alongside Christology in Rajkumar’s work raises a significant methodological issue

232 Rajkumar, “The Diversity and Dialectics of Dalit Dissent and Implications” in Dalit Theology in the 21 st Century, 63- 68. 233 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 115. 234 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 122. 235 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 122. 139

with regard to the agency of dalits. Contrapuntally, dalits receive a double bolster—through their Christian resources and through their cultural heritage. This bolster enhances the scope of their agency in their act of resistance. In his words

when this subversive dimension informs Dalit Christology there is potential for a praxis which refuses to internalize and accept the status quo, and so there is a broader scope for transformation as it gives a religious impetus to Christian Dalits to move beyond the status quo under the Christological category of the ‘resisting Christ’. 236

However, the bolster for praxis is lesser if praxis is understood as symbolic. Rajkumar delineates the idea of praxis as ‘symbolic’ and ‘real’. By symbolic praxis he means using socially approved idioms as strategies drawn by interpreting scriptures and similar liberative traditions as interpreted by the dominant. In a historical context, symbolic praxis preserves the status quo. It leads to acquiescence and to a potential subjugation. Also, assimilation through acquiescence will replicate hierarchy. A real or an “empowering praxis” emerges out of the experience of oppression. A strategy for praxis born out of experience has the ability to effectively and practically deconstruct the absolute power. Therefore a ‘non-collaborative’ or

‘non-collusive’ praxis brings out greater liberation. 237 Rajkumar tends to make praxis synonymous with agency when he explains how the powerless leper becomes an “an agent of praxis by being empowered to challenge the ‘boundary-keepers’”. 238

In a more specific discussion on “Rethinking Agency, Re-signifying Resistance”, Rajkumar emphasises praxis as a form of agency for Dalit liberation. He presents agency as including a representative voice from outside a dalit community. He presents the liberative aspect of

236 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 123. 237 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 134-140. 238 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology , 124. 140

myths to transcend their immediate dilemma into a liberated stance, thus presenting Dalits as

“agents of such human living”. Either re-enacting the myth or reaching a state of divine trance makes humans operate as agents of the deity. He explains this level of agency where dalit myths present a “reconciliatory potential of the dalits which while addressing the undue oppression of the dalits, yet clearly communicates the urge of the dalits to work towards a humane world. Dali(myth)os is reconciliatory by virtue of the nuanced nature of its satire and resistance to the dominant worldview”.239

Agency as representation is re-confirmed when Rajkumar explains how dalits depend on a divine agency for a better life and a fuller humanity. Drawing clues from Kancha Ilaiah,

Rajkumar explains that dalits depend on gods and deities who seek to empower communities and “engage in productive activity”. 240 He further explains this point in the context of dalit spiritual activity called possession where people are empowered with the spirit of deities and gain the agency to mediate the divine power to those who participate in the ritual. 241

Rajkumar’s analysis of the use of myths and divine powers for dalit liberation indicates that dalits depend on powers outside themselves to be encouraged and resourced by as their own agency (in the sense of speaking for themselves) has been curbed. It is also interesting to see how at times human beings act as agents of the divine, i.e. on behalf of deities, to pass the divine message on to people. What we notice here is the blurring of lines between and the merger of the concepts of agency and representation in the divine-human interaction. While humans ‘represent’ the divine, the ‘agency’ of the humans (ability to express themselves in

239 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 66. 240 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 66. 241 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 67. 141

their own language and terms) comes to the fore. Rajkumar calls this phenomenon “the interrelationality between Dalits and the Divine” and attributes the interrelationality to the

Image of God that exists “among” the dalits. 242 In spite of his proposal of an interrelational interaction, Rajkumar attributes to God more agentic power of liberation through the ‘image of god’ built into the dalits. He says, “God is that divine agency which inspires, protects, and participates in the Dalit quest for ‘being-in-wholeness’. 243 The extra-human agency, which resides in the marginalised, converts to timely human strength during the experiences of marginalisation. Rajkumar sees the need for an agency in solidarity from outside the dalit- pathos system as the “the present epistemological premise of pathos under which dalit theology has worked out its Christology leaves insufficient space for critical practice”.244

Like other dalit theologians, Rajkumar too insists on pathos as a key resource for praxis.

However, the positive notion of Rajkumar’s concept of praxis is that praxis could garner more liberative voices from outside the communities sharing the same pathos. This presents a good case for praxis as agency. His methodological motive is to strengthen liberative resources for greater resistance from various quarters as well as to use dalit mythology along with Dalit Christology.

4.5. Agency, Advocacy and Mystery in Liberation and Postcolonial Theologies in

India

In the above sections, I have shown that the theologians who confined themselves to methodological exclusivity (in Chapter 3) explore beyond the exclusivist boundaries when

242 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 67. 243 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 67. 244 Rajkumar, “The Diversity,” 114. 142

they are confronted with grass-root realities. Their objective is to enhance liberative possibilities and redefine the agency of the marginalised even if it means to relinquish a part of their exclusive claims that postcolonial engagements demand. The contrapuntal reading method understands the status of the colonised beyond mere victimhood and discovers their influence to their immediate histories. This discovery of the contribution of the colonised redefines their postcolonial agency.

In the beginning of Chapter 2, on the definition of agency, I mentioned that subjectivities are products of a structure and are endowed with an ability to create opportunities for agencies regardless of their impact in a structure. This agency can be further explored to generate a recognizable space for the lesser known in the structure. This raises significant questions as to what should the lesser known subject do to promote its agency? How long should the new subjectivity and the ensuing agency strive to establish itself as an equally significant agency without being submissive to a structure? What are the checks that the lesser agency could have on the surrounding dominant structure while not losing an opportunity to create a space for itself? Attempting to answer these questions in the broader context of Indian Christian theology and within the methodological confines of Indian liberation theologies, Indian theologians have been flexibly and diligently plying between methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity. Each methodological position provides its space for agency.

Theologians such as Nalunnakkal, Rajkumar and Melanchthon work on the intersections of methodological boundaries to garner liberative solidarity from available resources in different religions, people’s movements, and cultural mythologies to see if they could enhance the agency of the marginalised. At the same time they have been diligent about an imposing influence of liberative resources from outside of the methodological exclusivity, lest they

143

would recolonize. Clarke’s analysis of dalits as subalterns is a case to explain cautiousness in inclusivity. Clarke uses the Gramscian argument that subalterns either assert 245 or foresee 246 their autonomy for agency. He however stops short of a complete autonomy of the dalits giving his dalit assertion a twist by echoing Spivak’s thought that autonomy will lead to a new hegemony, this time of the subaltern group and its identity. 247 Clarke restlessly moves between Gramscian autonomy and Spivak’s resentment for autonomy. He proposes agentic space for subaltern religious expression in Indian Christian theology by first naming the dalit community as subaltern and then placing them alongside other similar or contrasting religious experiences. With this he perceives a model of negotiation as a way forward in an otherwise bleak possibility for the dalits to advocate their agentic tradition. Here agency interacts with liberative representation from outside the exclusivist framework and constantly cuts boundaries to create a new space. Through this he promotes a confluence of traditions. This is noticeable in Nalunnakal’s proposal too. The definition of an ‘organic woman’ is flexed, yet the term ‘Organic Womanism’ is retained to reconfigure a sense of effectiveness to maximize agency of the concerned: men’s voices and participation are considered equally important as the outcome of the movement has implications on the wider community; the Tribal community has struck an alliance with a community with similar predicament— the dalit community—to form a formidable coalition; the new proposal ‘Organic Womanism’ does not overthrow the notion of ecofeminism in India that it is challenging, but opens up for a

245 El Habib Louai, “Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical developments and new applications,” African Journal of History and Culture v ol. 4/1 (January 2012): 6. 246 Peter Ives, “Language, Agency and Hegemony,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8, no.4 (December, 2005): 457. 247 El Habib Louai, “Retracing,” 7. 144

possible negotiating space for independent agency within the wider discourse of

Ecofeminism.

Clarke and Nalunnakkal clearly appeal to Nirmal to continue the distinctiveness of the exclusivity model, unlike Vinayaraj, Melanchthon, Rajkumar or Sebastian. This raises a hopeful sense for the question of agency as it creates unique spaces for the marginalized to voice their perspectives. However their views on praxis seemingly oppose an exclusive stance as they seek solidarity from like-minded communities to boost the possibility of liberation.

Does Clarke’s tactic subversion and compliance work within a methodologically exclusivist mode and elaborate it, or methodological challenge exclusivity? Or, does Clarke take a context-specific beneficial stance with his multiple views on exclusivist and inclusivist issues? Clarke methods work within methodological exclusivity. He issues a stern announcement that other communities can participate in a liberative exercise but must keep to a respective and respectful interaction. In contrast, Nalunnnakal exhibits a moderate stance when he challenges any one type of movement-based-theoretical-notion called ecofeminism by another movement-based theoretical notion. While praxis or grass-root movements are keys to both the strands, organic womanism provides space for the lesser privileged of the

Indian population creating new forms of feminism in India.

It is of critical significance to know how Clarke and Nalunnakkal have employed the postcolonial theoretical views of Gayatri Spivak. It is understood that agency in a

145

postcolonial context is “psychological guerrilla warfare”. 248 To the question of agency of dalit and tribal woman, Nalunnakkal sees in Spivak’s “conditions” a fluid sense of encouragement to include men’s voices as well as to exclude dominant caste views. It is interesting to see that the fears of patriarchy are set aside by inviting ‘men too’ but ecofeminist movements are critiqued as the caste background they work in seem to pose a greater danger. Nalunnakkal presents the context-specific marginalised as the best adjudicators for a combination of liberative solidarity. Clarke too strategically moves from

Gramsci’s complete autonomy to the subalterns to Spivak’s openness to negotiate agentic spaces. Interestingly their proposals for negotiations and openness seem to work within methodological exclusivity without rigorously confining to it.

It can be noticed in Melanchthon too that she draws the reading strategy proposed by Clarke which is inclined to the subaltern reading ways but does not get confined to it. By employing a contrapuntal reading method, she takes the role of dalits and women beyond their

‘victim’hood. This enhances dalit and women’s agency by explaining that dalits and women have influenced their histories and that their histories have to be retrieved and highlighted.

The method also provides a leeway to bring in readings that emphasize both victimhood and triumph and provides a positive view to an otherwise gloomy history of the subalterns. As observed in methodological inclusivity as agency in Rajkumar, he is emphatic about an inclusive and interrelational praxis which further explores the ethos of dalits (Dalithos) from within. He exhibits a postcolonial instance of the benefits that dalits would have through interrelationality. He proposes that Dalitos should critically and cautiously absorb newer visions and resources for liberation. Clarke and Nalunnakkal, on the other hand, want

248 Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 130 146

external liberative resources to sympathetically adapt themselves to an exclusive stance to promote liberation.

Methodological exclusivism presents a new space for subjectivity of the colonised. While it emphases exclusively the agency of dalits or women, it seeks a concerted effort of the marginalized of different oppressive contexts and times to enhance a broader sense of agency of the oppressed when the oppressed are in a minority. Ironically, this methodology has reinstated an ideological co-option, the very concept that it is critiquing. It was the ‘non- dialogical and non-representative’ style of the classical Indian theology that dalit theology was critiquing. By this the exclusivity model strengthens its debate for an agency that emerges out of pathos without any facilitation from the advocacy of the inclusivists or the dominant.

However, postcolonial theology in India is found wanting on one clear conceptual ground: difference between the agency of the colonised who move from being victims to contributors to their histories and the potential advocating presence of the colonisers. While the postcolonial theology in India opens up to the contribution of the colonised beyond the discourse of pathos, it does not express the need for deeper engagement with the colonisers who have the potential to offer liberative resources.

More specifically to argue for the agency of children in t postcolonial theologies, children do need authentic advocates from among the dominant adults to recognise the agency of children and their contribution to their local histories. The authentic advocacy must also recognise the victimhood of children and take their identities beyond victimhood to their contributions. It is here that postcolonial theology in India falls short of explaining the concept of advocacy.

147

PART III A CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AGENCY OF CHILDREN IN CHILDREN-RELATED THEOLOGIES

Part III is a critical survey of the understanding of the agency of children in Children-related theologies, specifically Child theologies in the West, Children-related theologies in Asia like

Holistic Child Development and Child theologies in Asia, and Theologies of Childhood.

These children-related theologies are in the second of the contrapuntally engaging theological stream, the first being the Liberation and Postcolonial theologies in India.

In Chapter 5, I argue that Child theologies in the West have not provided adequate theological and methodological arguments to advance the understanding of the agency of children. This is despite their claim that [a] their novel method the child-in-the-midst brings children to the centre of theological discourse, and [b] their methodological claims that Child theologies are along the lines of liberation theologies that advance the agency of the colonised. I argue that adult-norms regulate the discourse albeit in new forms.

In Chapter 6, I argued that Holistic Child Development with interdisciplinary methods attempts to advance the agency of children. However, in their interaction with Child theologies in the West, they fall back on the supremacy of adults over children. Therefore they do not fully explore the benefits of interdisciplinary methods that facilitate a greater agency of children.

148

Chapter 5. A Critical Understanding of the Agency of Children in Child

Theologies in the West

5.1. Introduction

In this chapter I argue that Child theologies in the West and their methods have not provided adequate theological and methodological arguments to advance the understanding of the agency of children despite their claim that their innovative method, ‘child-in-the-midst’, has drawn methodological directives from liberation theologies that advance the agency of the marginalized. The inadequacy-argument, as I will explain in detail later, stems from the fear that arguing for the agency of children could replace the divine agent, God in Jesus. This practically means that the dominant-adults, who traditionally represent the all-powerful God in adult-child relationship, will have to forego their privileged status and advocate the children’s cause. The understanding that advancing the agency of children could replace God with children, I argue, is both theologically and methodologically unreasonable. On a constructive note, I argue that children’s agency has to be advanced alongside the adult advocacy where this does not impinge on the agency of children.

The basis of the inadequacy argument arises from my critical engagement with two methodological propositions presented by child theologian Marcia Bunge. The first proposition is that Child theologies are more progressive than the Theologies of Childhood or

Holistic Child Development by discussing the centrality of children through child-in-the- midst method. The second proposition is that, the agency of children could be brought to the centre of theological discussion by formulating Child theologies along the lines of liberation theologies.

149

To critically engage with the first proposition, I will present the Child-in-the-midst method as discussed by Child theologians, and what they describe as the radical movement.

Specifically, I will critically engage the works of two prominent child theologians Keith

White and Jan Grobbelaar. Then, I place the outcome of the engagement with the views of

Adrian Thatcher, whose proposal for Theologies of childhood also provides an effective explanation for the agency of children which is not fully acknowledged. This is to show that

Child theologies could further explore the potential strengths of the Child-in-the-midst method by drawing insights from Theologies of childhood which has already initiated the discussions on the agency of children.

To discuss the second proposition that liberation theological methods facilitate Child theologies to advance a fuller agency of children, I will again engage Keith White and Jan

Grobbelaar’s views on Child theologies’ engagement with liberation theologies. I will show how Grobbelaar draws significantly from African liberation theologies to signify the agency of children in Child theologies, which is in contrast to Keith White’s restrained acknowledgement of the hermeneutics of liberation theologies.

All the above arguments and the outcome of the chapter will interact with the discussions on the agency of children that are recently discussed in the works of John Wall and Martin

Marty. A significant theme that emerges alongside the agency-advocacy debate is mystery.

Mystery, as I show later, is a significant factor in further understanding the agency of children.

Significantly, children-related theologies do not employ the language of a colony or colonisation while explaining adult-child relationship. However, I approach the adult/child binary from a postcolonial perspective where children are colonised and adult domination is a

150

form of colonisation. I further analyse the conceptual connection between the understanding of the colonisation of children and the children-related theologies by critically engaging with the propositions of Marcia Bunge.

5.2. The Enduring Models of the Agency of Children

I begin by placing the understanding of the agency of children in the children-related theologies in a broader context of the discussion on the agency of children as presented by child theologian/ethicist John Wall. This is to show where the children-related theologies currently stand in the wider discourses on themes such as agency, advocacy, vulnerability and mystery. Wall presents four models that capture varied understandings of “child-responsive” discourses and their bearing on the historical understanding of the agency. For Wall, children as historical beings only interpret “languages and mores” that they have inherited in newer ways for themselves. So what children say or interpret is “both within and beyond some particular historicity”. 249 Wall explains the contexts of children’s interpretations in three

“enduring models” that are “embedded” in the history of children’s agency: the top down model , the bottom up model , and the developmental model .250 Wall presents these models along with his own alternative, which he calls a circular model . These models are not presented chronologically. They overlap, yet highlight distinct characteristics as contrast or in continuation of the other models. Therefore no model exhibits itself purely, they “cross- fertilize”. 251

249 John Wall, Ethics in Light of Childhood , (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2010), 13. 250 Wall, Ethics, 14, 15. 251 Wall, Ethics, 15. 151

The top-down model suggests that human nature is fundamentally disorderly and demands an orderly rule from above because life with high moral values is from above. These values are invested and enshrined in communities. These values are sustained with a teleological aim on

“coherent relations” with each person “properly playing” his or her prescribed social roles.

Education plays a crucial role in formulating children’s role in society, which is imparted with socially prescribed values. Otherwise, children will see too much power for themselves and destroy a peaceful social fabric. Theologically, children as other humans carry in them original sin and they need the salvific grace of Christ from above. Childhood reveals the ontologically disordered humans most. Baptism and regular Christian education will constantly help children towards “higher moral submission”.

The top-down model has its merits as well as demerits. For Wall, this model provides children with “full participation in the human moral struggle”. It acknowledges their agency to create a better context for them. Therefore, the notion of children’s unruliness is to be interpreted as a refusal to be confined to cultural sentimentality or “simplified neutrality”.

However, the negative side of the argument is that it “obscures the depths of human moral agency” and confines its emergence to something above. Therefore all agency submits to a higher order.

The bottom-up model suggests that human beings are naturally good and possess distinctive natural agency. The original goodness of the humans questions the notion of original sin. This natural agency helps recognise each other’s unique natural agency, and therefore together they transform society. It recognises in each other human purity and simplicity as against ambition and violence. Even in the midst of chaos and corruption, the original goodness of humankind offers a way forward. Children bring through their birth the much-needed original

152

goodness and therefore children’s presence is desirable both physically and figuratively.

When Jesus placed a child in the midst of his disciples, it represented moral purity as well as human goodness less corrupted by the fallenness of the world. They are untainted manifestation of the divine, “inwardly free, simple, and humble”. 252

As far as children’s agency is concerned in this model, their views are distinct and diverse.

Therefore, their views and participation bring in and enrich the understanding of moral capabilities of the humans. However, what this model does not consider with sufficient clarity is the “reality of human vulnerability” to the dangers of the world by over- emphasizing human goodness. In a context where children are socially and culturally vulnerable, the bottom-up model’s romanticizing and sentimentalizing children’s nature puts them into greater vulnerability because children have less time and experience until they reach to dominant adult-expectations.

The developmental model is neither of the above two, but suggests a gradual realization of human potential over a period of time. Human agency starts with ethical neutrality and reveals itself towards a sense of social progress aiming at constructive human relationships and dialogue along the time. Here it is clear that agency as a sense that takes ideological positions or decisions goes through a process before reaching the ability or gaining the capacity to decide. As far as children’s participation and agency are specifically concerned, children are already potential social participants. However, they hone and exercise their greater abilities in the process of interaction. The developmental model recognises the reality of the need for the humans to be open to social needs to explore their potential. However,

252 Wall, Ethics, 23. 153

this model sets up a linear progression towards a set goal especially for children as children’s openness leads to already developed and developing adult-goals. Therefore, all claims of development are towards adulthood. This deprives a space for children’s contribution to add to the diversity of developmental goals that comes from childhood as a stage in itself.

Wall proposes an alternative which takes insights from all the above historical possibilities that forms a circle of possibilities which “is not finally reducible to any of them.” 253 In his own contribution to the understanding of the agency of children which he calls a circular model , Wall suggests that children’s moral agency works to construct and reconstruct social meanings over time and in response to one another. He draws this position from the premise that human beings have a “fundamental capability” or the “most basic nature” to produce meanings. Therefore, the humans are “simultaneously constructed and constructive”. While the humans adapt themselves to a social context they also change it to their needs. It is the

“restless and endless play of fashioning and reinventing the world itself”.254 Wall sees that a circular model of agency pushes the bottom-up model towards multifaceted directions. One of the starting points for a circular model is “to insist on a child-inclusive view of human beings for all”. It takes the idea away and further from modernity’s views that adult-agency has the defining ability for human agency. 255

Wall challenges the assumption of the adult-agency as the defining ability by understanding agency in relation to vulnerability. His core objective is to identify the agency/vulnerability dichotomy. Conventionally, vulnerability is explained by placing children in a dominant

253 Wall, Ethics, 31. 254 Wall, Ethics, 36. 255 Wall, Ethics, 38. 154

context. One of the dominant contexts for children is the adult-domain. The adult-domain overlooks the agency of children. However, Wall attempts to explore the possibility of agency amidst vulnerability because he sees that vulnerability provokes agency to a great extent. The notion that vulnerability is devoid of agency comes from the idea that vulnerability is opposed to freedom. This is not completely so. Vulnerability also has the ability to give rise to “self-empowering” agency. This ability creates an unending agency- vulnerability circle which explains that children are born vulnerable not because they have to be overpowered but to be allowed to be shaped through “openness and relationality”. 256 This puts agency and vulnerability in creative tension in the world of creativity. This creative tension in a world of creativity checks the hardened habits of adult-domain that children and their vulnerability are to be taken advantage of and suppressed of their possible and potential agency. 257 Therefore in an already creative world where vulnerability has the capacity to generate self-empowering agency, children—in actuality—are not depraved. But they are deprived “by being robbed of social agency [and] by not being acknowledged in one’s own social vulnerability”. 258 To understand children’s agency calls for societal openness to explore the gift of play in a child: play as an ontological ability for opening upto more

“expansive experience of being and relations”, 259 “the very dynamic of human being-in-the- world” and as a “primordial experience”. 260 Play in a world of creativity opens up to endless possibilities of meaning-making and endless transformative possibilities.

256 Wall, Ethics, 39. 257 Wall, Ethics, 40-41. 258 Wall, Ethics, 47. 259 Wall, Ethics, 48. 260 Wall, Ethics, 49. 155

Wall draws from Richard Kearney who says that play in a creative sense could be called God.

This God is “a player rather than emperor of Creation”. 261 The endless meaning of God unfolds when God is not understood literally. This endless circle of humans-God-creative world opens up to mysterious ways in which every being participates in meaning-making.

Therefore, the whole being turns out into a mystery to understand why children are meaning makers and how their agency is immanent.

It is also significant here to know how Wall explains the notion of mystery that strengthens the argument for the agency of children:

Children represent humanity’s ultimate creative possibility, not in the sense that children secretly know the answer to the meaning of life, but in that they may be more open, on the whole, to the apparent impossibility of creating unknown meaning. Children are simply the newest to the world, and so can play in the world in relatively more creative ways. They may not so easily take comfort in metaphysical or literal explanations or, on the contrary, world-denying cynicism. Rather they are more generally likely to let themselves vulnerable to the possibility for possibility itself: the possibility that what seems impossible is not therefore without meaning, the possibility for inventing worlds of meaning at the limits of imagination. Therefore, for Wall, childhood offers mysterious creative possibilities especially in the way the Bible attempts to “juxtapose” two assertions: “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible”; and, “it is to such as these [little children] that the kingdom of heaven belongs”. 262 It is a mystery of creating meanings even before religiously theologizing the notion of God’s existence and the role of religions in understanding it. It challenges the top-down model of the all-knowing dominant and the ideas of “blind leap of faith”. Therefore, the meaning emerges ultimately not from the “self-transcending beyond” but in a complex circle involving the creative tension (from tensus , meaning to stretch ) or stretch of meaning-making imagination between humans-God-creative world. 263

261 Wall, Ethics, 52. 262 Wall, Ethics, 54. 263 Wall, Ethics, 54. 156

Wall’s work addresses ontological and teleological questions: what childhood suggests for the agency; and what being human and exercising its agency means to human relationships, respectively.

5.3. The Agency of Children and Child Theologies in the West

Here I begin with Marcia Bunge’s explanations of the methodological propositions that I mentioned earlier in this chapter. Bunge predicates that, firstly, Child theologies have a more effective and progressive presentation of the agency of children than discussed in the

Theologies of childhood or Holistic Child Development. The progressive notion is presented through the Child-in-the-midst method and, secondly, the agency of children could be significantly brought to the centre of theological discussion by formulating Child theologies on the lines of liberation theologies.

Bunge suggests two significant signposts for the discussion: firstly, to identify gaps in

Christian theologies so far that expose why children have not been central in systematic theologies. Systematic theologies have paid attention largely to themes such as “human condition, nature of faith, language of God” and so on. Children’s issues are placed under

Christian education that directs parents and adults to teach and direct children; secondly,

Child theologies draw on analogies to various liberationist theological streams such as feminist and black theologies. 264

264 Bunge, Marcia J , “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies: International Initiatives to Deepen Reflection on Children and Childhood in the Academy and Religious Communities” in Dharma Deepika (A South Asian Journal of Missiological Research ) 12/2 (July- December 2008): 33- 53 157

As far as the theme of the research, understanding the agency of children, is concerned, Child theologians in the West are ambivalent about whether children’s own views and perceptions in the midst of adult domination could constitute the understanding of the agency of children.

Their wide-ranging discussions include both positive and negative views. As positive views, the lens of the child provides new perspectives to understand the kingdom of God; children are partners in God’s missions and the centrality of children sheds new light on theological methodologies and doctrines. Different terms are employed by child theologians that directly mean or imply agency. They are ‘agency’, ‘agents’, ‘lens’, ‘views’, ‘impact of the child’ 265 and ‘active participants’. However, there are also negative terms and phrases such as a passive child, a silent child, and an imagined child. These views emerge from their exploration of the phrase, the child-in-the-midst’—a biblical phrase from Matthew 18: 1-10

(Mark 9: 33-37; Luke 9: 46- 48)—that depicts Jesus’ act of placing the child in the midst of his disciples to show them the way to the Kingdom of God. For the child theologians it is not about children in their context or the understanding of their development, “but to understand fully what children reveal to us of God and his purposes and nature”. 266 The understanding of

‘child in the midst’ goes beyond just the child to what the child could do: “to see the child in relation to God in Jesus Christ”.267 This helps to develop theological insights like “children as partners in God’s mission”, “child and childhood as God’s way of seeing all humans”, “the messiah as child” and “Child as representative of Jesus and Kingdom”. 268

265 Collier, Toddling, 19. 266 Keith White, “The Child in the Midst of the Biblical Witness” in Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church, ed. John Collier (London: Child Theology Movement, 2009), 156. 267 White, “The Child in the Midst”, 156. 268 White, “The Child in the Midst”, 157-160. 158

5.3.1. The Child-in-the-Midst as a Method of Child Theologies in the West

Significantly, the phrase child-in-the-midst has been given the status of a method. A crucial question that could be raised at this stage is: What kind of presence of a child is envisioned in this method?’ On the physical presence/absence of a child to make an impact or create an agency, John Collier shows that explaining the agency of children is not necessarily about their physical presence. Collier says, “It should not affect us whether or not children are actually present”. 269 Collier makes it clear that Child theology begins to define the agency of children even without children’s presence and their views. Their presence or absence is not of a hermeneutic significance as child theology seems to read the act of Jesus purely symbolically. Moreover, evading a discussion on the agency of children shifts the discussion to the theme of the kingdom of God which becomes inappropriate. However, it still provides scope for a question on the role of children that could potentially define the agency of children: What is that of a child we assume in absentia that questions traditional theologies or that explains better the Kingdom of God? An initial rejoinder could possibly be in White and

Haddon Willmer’s response to bring “theological sayings back to the reality of the child”.270

The above explanations do not present strong cases to define the agency of children as they are hesitant to include voices and expressions of children.

A critical survey of the child-in-the-midst method facilitates Bunge’s first signpost. The child in the midst method provides a theological explanation for the “lens of the child”. The lens of the child helps explain the discussions on the “role” of children in child theology and brings

269 Collier, Toddling, 11. 270 Keith White and Haddon Willmer, “Our Response” in Toddling, 18 159

“a new perspective on the way God does things”.271 This directs us to the mission of Jesus which upend hierarchies and upset cherished categorisations and systems of thoughts. 272 It is a “method for ‘theology in process.’” 273 The child-in-the-midst method has diverse interpretations among Child theologies. In the following section I discuss the methods of understanding children’s presence as offered by White and Willmer and Jan Grobbelaar.

5.3.1.1 The Child-in-the-Midst as Symbolic: Keith White and Haddon Willmer

White and Willmer consider the child in the biblical passage as a symbolic child. They conclude this view by rereading the act of Jesus literally: the child that is placed in the midst of the disciples is a silent child, yet it stands in “splendid isolation”. Jesus speaks about the child and conveys the message of the Kingdom of God to his disciples. White elsewhere says:

“A child [in the midst] should influence the way we do theology … It might be to plant a mustard seed in one child or to allow a child to plant one seed in me”. Again in White and

Willmer’s words:

The child is like a lens through which some aspects of God and his revelation can be seen more clearly … the child is like a light that throws existing theology into new relief. 274

They say again that the Child in the midst is like a sacrament, as a visible word. When Jesus placed a child in the midst, it was more than a liturgical routine: it was a crisis of conversion, a shaking argument. 275

271 John Collier, preface to Toddling, 8. 272 Collier, preface, 8 273 White, “The Child in the Midst”, 156. 274 White and Willmer, “Our Response”, 6. 160

White and Willmer’s thoughts take an ambiguous position on the agency of the child. At the face of it there is a clear mention of a child whose silent yet physical presence is good enough to ‘throw light’ on the Kingdom of God and to trigger new insights for a radical theological argument. At the same time there are also mentions of the child ‘planting a seed’, the child as a lens, and the ‘child as a sacrament’ offering a picture of an actively participating child.

While White’s presentation of the child as sacrament and lens tend to depict a positive view about children, they however do suggest underplaying the views or perspectives of children as primary theological and methodological criteria. For White, the revelation of God or God’s kingdom through a child cannot be on par with the revelation of Jesus. This is due to White’s succinct theological fear that the agency of a child would either eclipse or replace God in

Jesus. White says,

However precious any part of creation is (and children are very dear to God’s heart) anything that displaces God will tend to become an idol and in relating to any such created thing we will tend to become guilty of idolatry however indirectly and unconsciously. So I would like to stress that all of us must take good care never to think or act in a way that elevates children or childhood in such a way that God is relegated to the background.276

While expressing his fear, White does not see that he subtly reinstates the adult/child binary through a bigger God/human binary where the human is usually an adult.

It is necessary to emphasise that the child should not be the primary focus of criterion in Child Theology, because the child is not God. There is a danger of inadvertent or practical idolisation of the children, so that in child-friendly religious discourse the child in effect takes the place of God. Then, rather than the child being upheld and

275 White and Willmer, “Our Response”, 20. 276 White, “The Child in the Midst”, 154. 161

justified by the truth of God, the child would subvert and block the truth of God and our thinking for children would be deprived of the help of God. 277

What White does not seem to consider in his argument is the prevalent adult/child binary.

Rather, he works within a ‘human/divine’ binary. He does not recognize that elevating the agency of a child is to contest the dominant agency of the adult. Having overlooked it either consciously or otherwise, White depicts the elevation of the agency or the spoken words of the child as a direct contest to the agency of the divine. This flouts the broader discursive framework of Child theology, which is basically to challenge adult- centric views. With this,

White indirectly reinforces adult dominance in theologies, ironically in Child theologies.

White endorses the fact that the individuality of children advances the agency of children over against communities of children in contexts. For White, understanding children as communities would equate them to the marginalised adults who revolt in context of the violation of their agency. Therefore attending to children’s issues individually would help to carefully discern their limitations and the scope of their agency. He suggests that

Each child should be called and helped to be the agent of her own history, to be and become a particular person, but that development is prevented or distorted if children are treated as a group, a new type or generation of humanity which will transform the world… 278

White stops short of explaining why treating children as group inhibits children’s agency.

Combining his views on not allowing children’s voices to get prominence, the need for a

God/human binary that reinstates adult-dominance, to address the needs of a child

277 White and Willmer, “Our Response”, 21. 278 Keith White, “Thinking about Child Theology in the context of Liberation Theologies” (paper presented at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, November 30, 2010). 162

individually and not to equate the community of children to the community of the marginalized adults because they cause a revolution, we notice in White a strong tendency to retain the power conventionally in the adult and to subtly overwhelm any notion of opposition or resistance from children.

5.3.1.2 The Child-in-the-Midst as Contextual: Jan Grobbelaar

A significantly contrasting interpretation of the method is presented by Jan Grobbelaar.

Grobbelaar’s work raises an important hermeneutical question “Who is the child in the midst?... Who are the children we put into our midst in our theological reflections in the twenty-first century… ?” 279 While Grobbelaar bases this broader arguments on the lines of

Child theology, he deviates to a contextual way of presenting the ‘child in the midst method’ focussing on the African context. For Grobbelaar to say it differently, “[Child theology] does not just seek new knowledge and understanding of God’s ways of doing things but a new way of living with children Coram Deo ”. 280 This offers a twist in the child-in-the-midst method from that of White. Grobbelaar sees no gender, name or social background of the child that

Jesus placed in the midst of disciples. What is important for Grobbelaar is the fact that “the child had no status in the surrounding Mediterranean world”.281 The child in the midst denoted marginalization and powerlessness. 282 If the child is not without a context,

279 Jan Grobbelaar, Child Theology and the African Context, (London: Child Theology Movement ltd: 2012), 19. 280 He employs a “reading with” posture as suggested by Gerald West, and therefore tries to develop a concept “reading with children”. Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 18, 22. 281 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 19. 282 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 20. 163

Grobbelaar fears that Child Theology would become a “theology-from-above”, and not any more a “theology-from-beneath”.283

In his explanation of a contextual understanding of the child-in-the-midst method, Grobbelaar focuses on a child who is always in a context and in a group with other children. 284 However,

Grobbelaar too provides ambivalent positions on what could constitute the agency of children. He says that while formulating a theology it is not very important to have the physical presence of children. Adults could imagine children in their context and reformulate theological ideas that accept children in the midst. 285 He however acknowledges that children have their own agency and it enriches the broader view of life as well as their own and their future. Grobbelaar says that children have their own spiritual experiences and “they are equipped with the Holy Spirit to bear fruit and to practice the gifts they receive from the

Spirit. Although not regularly or universally applied, the agency of children is not a new idea for the African mind. 286 Grobbelaar appeals to biblical insights on children’s agency to confirm the practical experiences of children. He presents what could be called a context- text-context method to show that children’s views could influence the context for their better future.

We see in Grobbelaar different ways of deploying the child-in-the-midst method to a specific context as Africa. He is flexible in appropriating the broader objective of child theology to a local method, thus adapting methods from both sides. With that he presents the way the method could draw from the experiences of children in specific contexts, especially through

283 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 21. 284 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 39. 285 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 22. 286 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 84. 164

children’s own words. Unlike White, he does not rule out the possibility of children’s own views as having agentic significance. What is also significant in Grobbelaar is the bearing that community has on a group of children and not just an individual. While White’s

‘individual child’ expresses the unique nature of each child, Grobbelaar’s ‘children as a group’ helps bring out children’s best agency in the midst of their peers. This would be unlike in an adult dominant context where children would possibly not express their views in their own language.

White explains again that child theology as explained by its method respects the “experience and the voice of the subject by letting the child speak” but would not consider it evidential for the agency of children. 287 It is clear from White’s words that the real voices of children are not very significant and child theology maintains a respectful distance from the speaking children. They show awareness that the agency of children is effective in reunderstanding theologies, but are hesitant to incorporate these views in their interpretation of the ‘child in the midst’ method.

5.3.1.3 Agency of Children: Child Theologies in the West as Liberation Theologies

Bunge’s second signpost that helps understand the agency of children further is her comparison of Child theologies with various liberationist theological streams such as feminist

287 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 9. 165

and black theologies. 288 Moreover, Bunge’s comparision finds resonance in the views of other child theologians, albeit varying interpretative schemes. John Collier confirms this:

Child theology is akin to new theologies that have brought new questions to the Bible based on the experiences of those who had long been marginal to formal theological reflection: the poor, the women, the marginalized races that have brought to us liberation, feminine and black theologies… Children are the most oppressed social group; 289

White and Willmer reiterate it:

As the poor transformed theology in Liberation Theology, and as women transform it in feminist theologies, so in child theology it is the impact of the child that transforms theology. 290

In the words of Grobbelaar, “CT [Child theology] does not just seek new knowledge and understanding of God and God’s way of doing things but a new way of living with children

Coram Deo ”. 291 Child theology shares an important characteristic of liberation theology which is to learn life and practice “than a module in theology to be studied and applied”. 292

This hermeneutical key is drawn from Clodovis Boff, a Brazilian Roman Catholic liberation theologian.

The theological framework provided by liberation theology could be summarized thus: liberation theology has focussed on how to reinterpret the knowledge about God, and God in

Christ, through the lens of oppressed peoples and in their specific contexts. Theology does

288 Marcia J. Bunge , “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies: International Initiatives to Deepen Reflection on Children and Childhood in the Academy and Religious Communities” in Dharma Deepika: A South Asian Journal of Missiological Research 12/2 (July- December 2008): 33- 53. 289 Collier, preface, 8-9. 290 White and Willmer, “Our Response”, 19. 291 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 18. 292 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 18. 166

not take place in a vacuum. Therefore understanding the knowledge of the oppressed requires a new consciousness as there is an emergence of new subjects. The oppressed subjects are the originators (agents) of theological thinking, while others collaborate with their liberative perspective, but keeping in line with those of the oppressed. Theological activity thus emerged addresses socio- political context and takes ‘praxis’ as a serious theological method.

With this, theological discussions on salvation, sin, incarnation and so on bear socio-political dimensions and help societal change. Liberation theology is a combination of action and contemplation and the outcome is flexible to meet the needs of specific contexts. Therefore, it challenges traditional and dominant structures towards a fluid structure where changes could be effected to interrogate dominant structures. 293

White makes a volte face assertion about child theology in a recent publication which highlights the methodological reservations about Child theologies’ similarities with liberation theologies. White claims that Child theologies are “not a contextual theology like Liberation,

Black or Feminist theologies”.294 This implies more inconsistent hermeneutical discussions among Child theologians on what methodological scheme would advance the agency of children. However, to analyse the relationship between Child theologies and other liberation theologies, I take White’s sustained position until recently that Child theologies are in the lines of liberation theologies. I depend on White’s earlier position as it is undisputed by other child theologians.

293 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 294 Keith White, “’Come Over to Macedonia and Help us’: Reflections on Child Theology and Holistic Child Development” in J. B. Jeyaraj et al eds. Repairers of Broken Walls: Essays on Holisitic Child Development (Bangalore: CFCD-India, 2014): 180. 167

Combining White’s views with his claim of child theology as liberation theology in the previous section, it begins to seem that White, in principle, acknowledges Child theologies as one of liberation theologies. He also offers a critique of liberation theologies that have not offered a place for children in their theologies.

5.4. The Agency of Children: Child Theologies as Liberation Theology

White and Grobbelaar present conflicting positions on Child theologies’ understanding of liberation theologies, especially on the agency of children.

White rightly begins his evaluation of the liberation theologies by pointing to adult- dominance in the discourse. Children are largely reduced to data or noticed mostly by their absence. This is less so in feminist theology, where the mother-child bond might be thought to be a central feature of experience for many.

Child Theology is not concerned solely or even primarily with children (unlike a “Theology of Children” that by definition will cease to do its job if it diversifies), but it will never let go of children and childhood as concrete realities/ideologies, even when seeing all people as “children of God”. In this respect Child Theology, is to date, palpably distinctive. In its light the absence of children in liberation theologies is now seen as problematical. 295

However, White moves away from a central focus within liberations theologies on the impact that political struggles have on theologising. He does not see a political struggle about children making a direct impact on Child theology. While children at risk are at the back of the mind, Child theology does not represent them directly. The immediate theological point of reference is not the children at risk but the kingdom of God, and a better understanding of

295 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 168

the kingdom of God paves way for children’s inclusion in theological discourses. This show how Child theology radically moves from the claims of its liberationist roots. 296

Child Theology does not take place within the context of a political struggle between the rights of children and adults, for example: it will seek for change as it strives to understand and model the Kingdom of God, but it is not like other political movements, in that it has Jesus who chooses the child as a sign, as its model, and the Cross as its norm. Children are not ascribed the status of norms by which theology should be judged: rather they are signs, lights welcomed because placed by Jesus Christ. 297

How then does White see the child in Child theology? In my correspondence with White 298 on how far the universal sign of children interacts with the local to enrich a contextual child theology, White responds that the ‘child’ is “Universal”, not in the sense of distinguishing between local and global, moving away from the modes of identity specific theologies.

“Everyone either is or was a child, so the sign of the child is universally applicable: it is not exclusive”. It is clear from the above statements by White that children’s experiences of risk and oppression cannot serve as a hermeneutical key to explain the agency of children.

White’s argument about praxis seems to draw Child theologies towards liberation theologies.

He reckons combining the child-in-the-midst method with praxis to “form new ecclesial communities”. 299 On a negative note, White equates praxis to the action of God unlike the action of humans as understood in liberation theologies. White insists on praxis as the action of God because God’s praxis is prior to the praxis of the humans. This makes human action

296 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 297 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 298 Keith White, email to research, 1 August, 2013. 299 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 169

fall in line with God’s action combined with human freedom. 300 In this sense, White emphasises the action of God, following which humans could determine their praxis.

However, Grobbelaar’s exposition of child theology in the African context provides ample scope to explain how agency in child theology could be opened up to a liberation theological way of explaining agency. Taking methodological clues from Boff, Grobbelaar offers child theology to see the way of life as clues to explaining liberation. Here children’s way of life is something to be learnt from and practiced. 301 In the discussion on ‘child in the midst’ as a method, we observed that ‘theology from below’ is contextually apt even for child theology.

The claims of child theologians to enhance the scope of agency of children by employing liberationist hermeneutics are questioned by Grobbelaar. There are differing opinions among the child theologians on how far can children’s agency be considered. Here Grobbelaar’s argument that children’s experience for their agency is significant differs from Bunge’s ambitious claims for a child theology to question and reformulate doctrine. Grobbelaar’s insights provide an element of hope to child theology to explore further into this area. By not employing the liberationist hermeneutics, the nature of agency looks obscure.

5.5. The Agency of Children: Interactions between Child Theologies and Theologies of Childhood

Having presented a general set of models of children’s agency and a specific discussion on the ‘Child in the midst’ method, I now go on to explain how Child Theologians have

300 White, “Thinking about Child Theology”. 301 Grobbelaar, Child Theology, 18. 170

presented their views on agency with another children related theology called Theologies of

Childhood.

5.5.1. The Child Theologies’ critique of the Theologies of Childhood

The first of Bunge’s signposts claims that, unlike Child theologies, conventional theologies have predominantly paid attention largely to themes such as “human condition, nature of faith, language of God” and so on. Children’s issues are placed under Christian education that directs parents and adults to teach and direct children. This has deprived the theologies of children’s lenses. Bunge categorizes such theologies as Theologies of Childhood.

The agency of children in child theology is claimed to be a movement further from the explanations of the agency in Theologies of Childhood. How then is Child Theology different from Theologies of Childhood? Marcia Bunge holds the agency of children as a key to differentiate the agency in Child theologies from the agency in Theologies of Childhood.

Bunge clarifies these terms: Theologies of Childhood “provide sophisticated understandings of children and childhood and our obligations to children themselves”. 302 Bunge means that theologies of childhood tend to review how children and their agentic significance have been addressed and received traditionally in Christian thought. 303

Along with reviewing the Theologies of Childhood, Child theologies highlights that Christian thought has always been a strong fort of adults as dominant subjects and children as mere

302 Bunge, “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies”: 35. 303 This is best exemplified in Marcia Bunge, The Child in Christian Thought while it also sets out way forward for bring to the centre children’s views. 171

recipients. On the other hand, Child theologies do that and more. Child Theologies, as Bunge explains,

[re-examine] not only conceptions of children and obligations to them but also fundamental doctrines and practices of the church. Drawing on analogies to feminist, black and liberation theologies, Child theologies have as their task not only to strengthen the commitment to and understanding of a group that has often been voiceless, marginalized and oppressed–children–but also to reinterpret Christian theology and practice as a whole. 304

The agency of children here moves from being a mere object of adult analysis and review to a subject to talk on its own behalf. So, the agency in Child theologies intends to do fundamentally more than just a passive entity. Therefore the scope of this discussion is to say that reviews of agency of children in Christian thought are carried as effective ways forward to make children’s agency central. Bunge’s explanations are at the levels of definitions without further probing deeper theological questions. She however offers a scope for the discussion on how the agency of children could be expressed in religious education and child advocacy, and to see what makes children’s agency central. Therefore, in this chapter (as much as in this research) my deeper questions are about the way children’s agency work in a general theological structure, and in liberation theologies–that precede practical implications of children’s agency as presented by Bunge. 305

5.5.2. The Agency of Children in Theologies of Childhood

It is appropriate to analyse how children’s agency has been depicted in Theologies of childhood as it facilitates a critical discussion on Bunge’s claims that understanding of the

304 Bunge, “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies”:35. 305 Marcia Bunge, “The Child, Religion, and the Academy: Developing Robust Theological and Religious Understandings of Children and Childhood”, The Journal of Religion , Vol. 86, No. 4 (October 2006), 549. 172

agency of children in Child theologies is more progressive than in Theologies on Childhood.

However it is significant to note here that Bunge is not in favour of the Theologies of

Childhood. Rather, her task is to make the agency in Child theology exemplary for

Theologies of childhood. Here are a few clear instances to explain Bunge’s explanations for

Theologies of Childhood. At least six themes are identified by Bunge to explain how children are understood in Theologies of Childhood: Children are gifts of God and Sources of Joy; they are sinful creatures and Moral Agents; they are developing beings who need instruction and guidance; they are fully human and made in the image of God; they are models of faith and sources of revelations; and, they are orphans, neighbours and strangers in need of justice and compassion. 306

As could be observed from Bunge’s compilation of the above themes, the significance of children is an uneven mixture of children as objects and children having positive agency.

Children as depicted as “gifts” and “sources”, “moral agents” and “developing beings”, and

“sources of revelations” and those who need sympathetic attention. Two foremost critiques of

Bunge are that Theologies of Childhood have not taken up issues that see children as agency: i.e., children as fully human and made in the image of God, and that they are models of faith, sources of revelations and “teachers” and “bearers of revelation” 307 . The Theologies of childhood stop short of claiming children’s agentic significance to reformulate conventional theologies. Bunge suggests that

By using the lens of the child, or by ‘foregrounding’ the child, Child theologies will be able to offer new insights into central themes of Christian faith and practice, such

306 Bunge, “The Child, Religion, and the Academy”: 563-568. 307 Bunge, “The Child, Religion, and the Academy”: 567. 173

as God, creation, Christology, theological anthropology, sin, salvation, faith, the Word, worship, prayer, sacraments, missiology, and eschatology. Thus, Child theologies will build on strong theologies of childhood but have a broader scope. 308

There are clear discussions in Theologies of childhood to challenge Bunge’s claims. Even as

Bunge builds her case for Child theologies on the principles of Theologies of Childhood too, she does not seem to make a strong case for her distinctions between Child theologies and

Theologies of Children in so far as in the Theologies of Childhood there is a strong call for a participatory method for children where protecting children and interacting with them creates new space for developing new hermeneutics. This new space offers commonalities that adults and children share that make them at once both agents as well as vulnerable beings. In this context she shows how defending the intrinsic value of children means more than a protest against instrumentalisation of children. 309

I will explain in the following section how the Theologies of Childhood do emphasise the centrality and agency of children which Bunge does not acknowledge completely.

5.6. Theologies of Childhood and Liberation Theologies

While observing that Theologies of childhood too advance the agency of children as vigorously as Child theologies in the West, it is also essential to emphasize how liberationist hermeneutics works in the theologies of childhood. This could be done by reading Bunge’s reference to child theology as liberation theologies alongside Adrian Thatcher’s A Theology

308 Bunge, “The Child, Religion, and the Academy”: 569. 309 Annemie Dillen , “Children between liberation and care: Ethical perspectives on the rights of children and parent–child relationships”, International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2006 : 237–250 . 174

of Liberation for Children 310 and Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of

Childhood 311 where a “preferential option for children” is justifiably argued. The latter provides a more discursive space for the former. One can notice in Thatcher’s works a combination of agency from both streams. Thatcher explains that in the context of child rights children should be perceived as agents of theologizing, because Jesus himself promotes children as models to emulate to enter God’s kingdom. 312 Broadly, agency as expressed in rights should be placed in the understanding of God the child, “who became incarnate in a human being”. Therefore, Christ the child who both expressed wisdom and faced structured violence has built into himself a “relation” with the outer world and with Godhead in the

Trinity. 313 This could become a model to analyse the concept of structural sin that has “a peculiar relevance to the failure to flourish of children”. His theological method aims to examine how the legal material ‘fits into the evolving Christian theological tradition’”. 314

Thatcher’s theology of liberation for children begins “with real children”. It then “can listen to children”. Listening to children is possible by seeing “children as young persons and agents”.315 These arguments will be taken up for analysis toward the end of this chapter in the section: On the Child Theologies as Liberation Theologies.

It becomes clear from the above arguments that Bunge’s claim that Child theologies are a more progressive version of Theologies of Childhood is indefensible. Theologians of

310 Adrian Thatcher “A Theology of Liberation for Children”. http://www.adrianthatcher.org/data/resources/a%20theology%20of%20liberation%20for%20children.pdf 311 Adrian Thatcher, “Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood”, Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission 23/ 194 (2006): 194- 199. 312 Thatcher, “A Theology of Liberation for Children”: 5. 313 Thatcher, “Theology and Children”: 197. 314 Quoting Kathleen Marshall and Paul Purvis, Honouring Children: the human rights of the child in Christian perspective (Edinburgh: St. Andrew’s Press, 2004).Thatcher, “A Theology of Liberation”: 10 315 Thatcher, “A Theology of Liberation”: 6. 175

Childhood have amply suggested agentic significance of children in reformulating theologies just as in Child theologies. Theologians of Childhood have highlighted that agentic significance of children cannot be restricted to (Christian) theologies alone but to children’s concerns such as rights, philosophies, and practices. This makes discussions on agency of children interdisciplinary.

What is positive and significant from the above discussions is the bearing of the understanding of agency of children in theologies in general. There has been a clear adult/children dichotomy and it has to be reviewed both generally and in context-specific themes and methods. Children’s agency has to be given, to use Thatcher’s phrase a

“preferential option for children”. 316

At the level of a discipline one can notice discrepancies in Bunge’s definitions. It is noticeable in many Theologians of childhood that they have certainly highlighted children’s agency as a significant stepping stone to re-vision traditional theological insights on children as objects of theology. It is becoming clearer that it is not just the nomenclature of the theological stream that advances the notions of the agency of children, but is the theological arguments that makes a movement progressive.

A major methodological hurdle to Child theologies while attempting to foreground the views of children is the way they see the role of the adults. Child theologies have been promoting adult-primacy by not making bold methodological statements or providing theological arguments for the primacy of children. While the presentation of a passive or silent child itself could be backsliding, the adult-primacy makes it more backsliding by not deploying a

316 Thatcher, “A Theology of Liberation”: 1. 176

strong language of adult advocacy. It is compounded by a strong theological language of

God in Jesus as projecting the role of the adult who places a silent child only symbolically in the midst of other adults.

5.7. The Concept of Mystery to advance the Agency of Children

We observed a strong child/adult dichotomy in the child-in-the-midst method which is reinforced by introducing the themes of Jesus and the Kingdom of God. We further observed that the introduction of Jesus not only reinforces adult dominance but also tries to take any little attention away from children. White and Willmer strongly present this view.

5.7.1. Jesus and Mystery

As observed above, child theologians in the West are unable to refer to the agency of children without being perturbed about the primacy of Jesus Christ. As discussed earlier (section

5.3.1) there are compelling arguments for a silent child whose physical yet silent presence is good enough to ‘throw light’ on the Kingdom of God and trigger new insights for a radical theological argument. I also explained White’s apprehensions about the voice of the child which could become idolatrous thus dislodging the centrality of Jesus Christ in the understanding of the kingdom of God. White went on to imply that any discussion on the agency of children as taken up in the liberationist perspective of the agency of the marginalised would create a child-dominant hierarchy disregarding the Christ-centred

Kingdom of God. Child theologians have also attempted to see children as sacrament to connect children positively with mystery. However, their presentation implies that children are merely a symbolic presence just as sacraments are symbolic of the divine presence. This argues against a strong need for children’s physical presence and their views that define the

177

understanding of the agency of children.

The ambivalent explanations of mystery in connection with children in White, Willmer and

Bunge are further compounded when White and Willmer impose the primacy of God in

Christ over against any definition of the agency of children that includes the views and perspectives of children. As White and Willmer explain, the objective of Child theologies is neither to draw attention to children’s views nor to draw a sympathetic attention to children’s needs, but only to the child’s symbolic significance in the explanation of the Kingdom of

God.

5.7.2. Children and Mystery: John Wall and Martin Marty

In the following section I show how John Wall and Martin Marty have approached the explanation of the agency of children and God or mystery without a fear of children displacing or replacing God or Jesus. Moreover, they show that discussing the agency of children would only widen and strengthen our understanding of God or mystery without a discomforted notion of displacing Jesus Christ as well as deeply and positively argue for the agency of children. They revisit mystery ontologically by placing the agency of children in real historical and social contexts. Wall offers a new way of understanding mystery by a juxtaposed reading of children in the kingdom of God and the omnipotence of God. Wall’s explanation seems to be a positive and creative response to the difficulty of White and other child theologians to connect God and children without the discomfiting thought of preferring a child to Jesus Christ. 317 Just as in Child theologies, Wall sees in the literal readings of the

317 Wall, Ethics, 54. 178

scriptures, limitations to understanding the significance of children. The literal reading also limits the understanding of mystery which is not just self-transcending but that which extends to creative imagination and interaction in this world. It is before and beyond the religious language of theology that interrogates dominant models of knowledge. The power to question the dominant model emerges from the knowledge gained through constant interactions

“between humans-God-creative world”. 318

To understand an agency of children that does not create a hierarchy or primacy of any one factor, Wall offers an interactive method that boldly extends the theological imagination that children are part of God’s creative world and therefore carry forward the creative activity of

God. Therefore a project to advance the agency of children as a primary motif is built into the creative circle of humans-God-creative world without any one constituent member overriding the other. Therefore for children-related theologies, redefining the agency of children which boldly includes children’s own views and perspectives needs a radical understanding of God or Christ or mystery that surrounds children or acts as a stumbling block to understand the agency children are invested with. To explain the same in Marty’s thoughts children should not be seen as a set of problems but as mystery that creatively perplexes our understanding than concealing it.

Martin Marty develops the notion of mystery as an outline to understanding the presence and significance of children in an adult-dominant world. The understanding of mystery in children is not just transcendental or deontological. It is to consider the “changing

318 Wall, Ethics, 54. 179

circumstances with their apparently limitless contingencies, experiences, and choices...".319

The central argument of Marty is that if we have to envision a radically improved way of understanding children, then there should be an equally radical shift from understand children as complex sets of problems to children as “mystery surrounded by mystery”. The idea of interaction with children should be recaptured in “childness”, something that one should not grow out of. Taking it further Marty asks how we could relate a child to the image of God, he wishes to take the line of thought that speaks of an “analogy of relation” where humans and

God participate in each other’s activities. An interactive relationship helps a child to freely receive life with gratitude. 320

For Marty, the thought of mystery should be taken up in the context of three existential thoughts: finitude, contingency, and transience. While caring for or interacting with a child as a mystery death-thoughts lay claims on the child and its cares. So, caring for the child leads to handling of a double- mystery: child and death. Children are also susceptible to unforeseen circumstances. Caring for children requires the carers to reflect on issues as luck, coincidences and results that they are unprepared to accept. While children’s state of being is something to be invested in, childhood cannot completely “enshrine” or “freeze” the best in it as it is a stage of human life. Marty profoundly explains that while childhood is a stage in itself, it is a stage of openness and receptivity. This takes the nature-nurture debate to a new level of understanding ‘the mystery of the mind of the child’ thus “provocatively” connecting

319 Martin Marty, The Mystery of the Child (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 52-53. 320 Marty, The Mystery, 66. 180

the world of human experience with the mind of the child. 321

Marty explains why the child should be treated as a mystery: “Treating the theme of mystery effectively can lessen the temptation of adults to see and sustain dominance and control over the child…” 322 Marty readily connects the notion of mystery to God. However, the God as mystery is not “remote and ineffable”. The connection of the child as a mystery to the mystery of God is “analogical”. Therefore the child as a mystery entails two significant theological thoughts: “that the child is a child of God”, and “the child is made in the image of

God”. 323 This gives care-providers (meaning adults) a heightened sense of responsibility towards children not in the sense of greater patronage but with joyful reflection. Mystery does evoke awe and wonder which could be attributed to children. But when the care- providers joyfully accept awe and wonder, children become the agents of joyful reflection. 324

The contingencies are treated contextually to explain that the agency of children is an outcome of an interaction between adults and children. The contingencies capture the agency of both adults and children. Placing the contingency of mystery in an ontological sense, for

Marty, does not keep God or the mystery of God out of the equation. God is certainly a part of the discourse on mystery but not the only factor. Mystery, when interpreted religiously, gives rise to two claims: [a] the child is a child of God, [b] the child is made in the image of

God. 325 Therefore, from the analogy of the mystery of God, we understand mystery as

"incomparable".

321 Marty, The Mystery, 66ff. 322 Marty, The Mystery, 60. 323 Marty, The Mystery, 61. 324 Marty, The Mystery, 68. 325 Marty, The Mystery, 61. 181

While literalists do not treat the child as a problem, they keep the theological activity of Child theology as and within adult domain. This has its drawbacks. Drawing clues from Marty, such theologies tend to be concerned about the disciplining of the child, taking away the exploratory possibility of the mystery of the child or "reflection of that mystery". 326 Such critiques "set out to replace all sense of the mystery with demand on the part of the providers of care to represent God...". 327 They take credit for taking on the burden on behalf of children than being their advocates projecting the biases of an entitled advocate.

Adults continue to hold the agency rather than being advocates, and "a judge who is not judged, someone who would change the child without being changed himself".328 The adults are “not noticing the posture and openness of the little children themselves. They close themselves off from enjoying the mystery of the child so that they can have control of their problems, no matter what these are”.329

5.8. An Evaluation of the Understanding of the Agency of Children in the Children- related Theologies in the West

The above discussions now will be analysed within a broader scheme as presented by John

Wall (in the beginning of this section). The theme of children as silent and passive agents has dominated the discussion of agency of children in Child theologies. While child theologians in the West claim to be progressive in challenging the adult-child binary, theological discussions especially by White and Willmer attempt to reinstate the dominance of adult

326 Marty, The Mystery, 94. 327 Marty, The Mystery, 94 . 328 Marty, The Mystery, 97. 329 Marty, The Mystery, 97. 182

activity in the agency of children. Wall calls this a top-down model where the control of agency rests with the dominant—here the adults. This becomes clearer by mentioning that

White invokes the essential presence of God through Jesus in defining the agency of a child.

While it seems that children would not have a bigger say in reformulating theologies, conversely it is all the more taken away from them in the name of the supremacy of Christ.

Therefore there is an almost reinstating of God (Christ)-Adult-Child linear progression, except with an exception that a child’s lenses will be employed by adults to understand children’s situation. However Grobbelaar tries to present a bottom-up model (theology from below) as an alternative to understanding children’s agency. This provides space for children’s own views and experiences, and in principle gives child theology the scope to give children their agentic space.

If Grobbelaar’s views have to be engaged with that of Wall’s enduring model, they seem to strike similar chords. Grobbelaar presents his methodological principles drawing freely from child theology and liberationist streams for a relevant African child theology just in line with

Wall’s circular model. Their models present for children’s issues significant directions amidst contextual realities of abuse of children’s rights, dignity and agency. They simultaneously highlight children’s vulnerable presence as well as the capacity to interrogate and revise methodological structures.

As explained in 5.5., Bunge’s definitions of Child theologies in comparison to the Theologies of Childhood are tentative and indefensible, especially in her claims that Child theologies take the agency of children forward from Theologies of Childhood. At the level of definitions, one can notice discrepancies in Bunge’s definitions. It is noticeable in many

Theologians of childhood that they have certainly highlighted children’s agency as a

183

significant stepping stone to re-vision traditional theological insights on children. It is becoming clearer that more than the terminologies of the streams, it is bringing to the foreground the agency of children that makes a progressive movement. Is then Child theology a movement forward as Bunge claims?

However, drawing positive insights from the discussions, both the streams of children- related theologies have categorically exposed adult/children dichotomy and have explained how the dichotomy has to be reviewed both generally and in context-specific themes and methods. Children’s agency has to be given, to use Adrian Thatcher’s phrase ‘preferential option to children’. This hermeneutical principle is to be adopted across disciplines to retrieve the agency of children and for their protection.

While understanding the child-in-the-midst method, we observe that the phrase child-in-the- midst’ oscillates between being a method and a biblical phrase. It becomes clear from the discussions in the earlier sections that the phrase is predominantly used for biblical exposition to understand the place of a child than to present it as a method. Therefore, I begin by saying the understanding of the phrase as a method is meticulously controlled by the biblical exposition. As child theologians read the phrase literally, the children placed in the midst of the disciples did not talk. The children are also placed by an adult in the midst of other adults.

Therefore children’s movement to the centre is only a symbolic one.

An assemblage of views on child-in-the-midst as a method raises a few crucial thoughts and questions on the place and role of children’s agency. White and Willmer take an ambiguous position on the agency of the child-in-the-midst. At the face of it there is a clear mention of a silent child whose silent yet physical presence is good enough to ‘throw light’ on the

Kingdom of God and to trigger new insights for a radical theological argument. At the same 184

time there is also mention of the child ‘planting a seed’, the child as a lens, and the ‘child as a sacrament’ offering a picture of an actively participating child. While the latter arguments of

White tend to take the agency of children from that of a ‘silent presence’ to an active agent of change, White suggests withdrawing from projecting a child from a spoken or an active activity. This is due to White’s succinct theological fear of the agency of a child either displacing or replacing God in Jesus. Or, the revelation about God or the Kingdom of God through a child cannot be on par with the revelation of the same through Jesus. What White does not seem to consider as a framework of his argument is the prevalent adult/child binary.

Rather, he works within a ‘human-divine’ binary. He does not recognize that elevating the agency of a child is to contest the dominant agency of the adult. Having overlooked it either consciously or otherwise, White depicts the elevation of the agency or the spoken words of child as a direct contrast to the agency of the divine. This flouts the broader discursive framework of Child theology, which is basically to challenge adult-centric views. With this

White, indirectly reinforces adult dominance in theologies, ironically in Child theologies.

Grobbelaar posits the child-in-the-midst method to a specific context. He is flexible in appropriating the broader objective of child theology to a local method, thus adapting methods from both the local and wider views. With that he presents the way the method could draw from the experiences of children in specific contexts, especially through children’s own words. Unlike White, he does not rule out the possibility of children’s own views as having agentic significance. What is also significant in Grobbelaar is the bearing that a community has on a group of children and not just on an individual. While White’s

185

own language. Even the method the child-in-the-midst seems to be symbolic as it only continues to present a symbolic or a silent child.

On the Child Theologies as Liberation Theologies

The claims of child theologians to enhance the scope of agency of children by employing liberationist hermeneutics are not elaborated in their methods and exposition of the themes, with Grobbelaar as an exemption. There are differing opinions among the child theologians on how far can children’s agency be taken and where they have to be stopped. Here

Grobbelaar’s explanation of children’s experience as agentically significant differs from

Bunge’s in the sense that Grobbelaar employs liberationist principles (drawn from Gerald

West), unlike Bunge’s ambitious claims for a child theology to question and reformulate doctrine without giving children’s agency a scope to question conventionally accepted theologies. Grobbelaar’s insights provide an element of hope for child theology to explore further in this area. In summary, we notice that by not employing the liberationist hermeneutics, the nature of agency looks obscured in Child theologies and to re- emphasize, theologies of childhood provide greater scope for theological reformulations.

Understanding the above discussion in the light of the broader scheme of the research using contrapuntal insights from Indian liberation theologies, the larger scheme of the research explains that the subalterns tend to negotiate between methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity, while still insisting on an exclusive space for themselves. This becomes clearer in postcolonial understanding of liberation theologies where dalits, women and tribals negotiate their way into expressing their agency, though not in the fullest extent as desired. However, the longevity of the time gained through negotiation provides them

186

significant time and space to explore better ways of agency every time. In the same vein,

Child theologies do tend to start by attempting to use children’s lenses, views, presence and expression as initial points of negotiation with wider theologies. However, as Child theologies are still adult- activities, they later on exhibit a regressive move as noticed in Keith

White. Grobbelaar’s views on employing liberationist principles both in the methodology and in explaining the theme child-in-the-midst provides a way forward for Child theologies.

Wall’s circular model lends itself to an interaction with the contrapuntal method to see where agency finds greater scope for expression. Drawing inputs from all the models, it is a postmodernist thought of engaging several models of children’s agency. At the same Wall positively provides greater space for children to contribute their views in redefining the agency of children in depth. However, what gets overlooked in this circular model is a strong possibility by the dominant to resist space-creating activities by the colonised. This makes the space of the subalterns tentative or temporary. This tendency is largely seen in Child theologies, especially in the views of Keith White where there is first a claim to be a liberationist, but subtly resisting the move not just to retain adult- dominance but to buffer it with theological themes as centrality of Jesus, who is the child incarnate of the Divine. When a divine child is ingeniously placed against a human child, the divine child gets priority of thought thus also reinstating adult views that control this thought.

White’s hermeneutical limitations are in his literal reading of the Scripture. I do not stand in opposition to White’s general sensitivity to the need for children’s agency but with his commentary on the method that restricts the scope of the agency of children. This is in contrast to the objective of the child theology as set out by Bunge to take the agency of children much beyond its understanding in the Theologies of childhood. What is perplexing is

187

his conscious adult-privileging as much as his literalist reading of the scripture. This leaves

White to explain more on what theological or philosophical basis he pleads for the agency of the children.

On the effectiveness of liberation theologies, White’s contrasts Bunge’s second proposition and claims that he opposes a constructive space within liberation theologies or taking the objectives of the liberation theologies forward. Moreover, he does not engage Barth in dialogue with any liberation theologian to elaborate his anti-liberationist positions. However, he softens his critique of liberation theology by considering praxis as a relevant key.

White does not explore the liberationist hermeneutics enough to debunk the ineffectiveness of liberation theologies on Child Theologies. Grobbelaar provides clear indicators as to why liberationist hermeneutics is necessary for a stronger agency of children. White’s Barthian position does not necessarily negate the agency of children. But what White at least does not engage in is a comparative reading of Barth and liberation theologies. That also reiterates why a contrapuntal reading in this line becomes significant to obtain the best for the agency of children in Child theologies.

On Child Theologies’ claim of taking the Agency of Children further

Child theologies have initiated a critique of the previous models by highlighting the deficiencies in the previous models that seem restricting the agency of children. However, there is no agreement among child theologians on how to take their critique of the previous models to a constructive stance. The lack of consensus is on taking children’s own views seriously to define the agency of children. Even as they employ phrases like children’s

‘agency’, ‘agents’, ‘lens’, ‘views’, ‘impact of the child’ and child-in-the-midst as affirming

188

the agency of children, robust insistence on a ‘passive child’ by a majority of child theologians restricts their vision of enhancing the agency of children. Therefore the models that Child theologies have proposed offer both strong movements forward and yet some retrograde steps.

As a strong movement forward Child theologies draw on the biblical model of Jesus placing the child in the midst of the adult disciples to whom the child becomes a model to enter the kingdom of God. Grobbelaar is an exception. He strongly proposes children’s own views as theologically and methodologically significant in pursuing the agency of children. Where

Grobbelaar draws his theological strength for children’s own views is by methodologically drawing from the strengths of liberation theologies that endorses the views of the marginalized as either a counter discourse or a continuum of the previous ‘dominant’ discourses.

As a movement backward, the children that are placed in the midst of the adults are expected to be passive and silent. In his contextual interpretation of Child Theology, Grobbelaar has shown an ambiguous position on children’s own views. While he validates the views of the majority of child theologians that the physical presence of children is not always necessary and that adults could imagine children in their context to review theological ideas on the agency of children, he, however, acknowledges that children have their own agency and it enriches the broader out-view of life as well as their own and their future. Children’s own spiritual experiences as guided by the Holy Spirit are contextual signifiers of the agency of children. Grobbelaar attests to biblical insights on children’s agency to confirm the practical experiences of children’s agency. He presents what could be called the context-text-context method to show how children’s views could influence the context for their better future.

189

As a rare exception, Grobbelaar moves between the real views of children and the passive and silent child. However, if Child theologies continue with its second methodological proposition of drawing indicators from liberation theologies as adapted by Grobbelaar, children’s own agency or views can be emphatically highlighted. By either not mentioning liberation theologies emphatically or subtly moving away from the liberationist hermeneutics,

Child theologies seemingly do not wish to be dragged into the counter-culture of the liberationists. On the other hand, if Child theologies were to present the agency of children not as a clear counter to adult-agency, but as an agency positively coming from a stage in itself, a literalist reading of the child-in-the-midst passage in the Bible will block advancing the agency of children.

In this chapter, we observe that the agency of children means either a symbolic or physical presence of a child whose views and expressions are not seriously considered. Rather, it is the understanding of dominant adults about children that predominantly contribute to the definition of the agency. However, as a positive note, the understanding of mystery as in Wall and Marty takes the notion of the agency of children to a higher level providing positive factors for the definition of the agency of children.

The Child theologies in West and the child-in-the-midst method have influenced theological thinking in Asia. The following chapter critically enquires the interaction between the Child theologies in the West and children-related theologies in Asia and gleans various levels of postcolonial and liberationist dynamics.

190

Chapter 6. The Agency of Children in Children-related Theologies in Asia

6.1. Introduction

In this chapter, I argue that Child theologies in Asia and Holistic Child Development do not provide adequate discussions to foreground the views of children as significant for the agency of children. There have been sporadic mentions about the real voices of children or the centrality of children but not significantly a probing of the understanding of the agency of children. Children-related theologies in Asia still argue largely for an adult-representation of children without adequately compelling arguments about the agency of children. They have strong methodological inadequacies for not taking up the discussion on the agency of children. Firstly, Child theologies in Asia are largely influenced by the Child theologies in the west while Holistic Child Development has drawn from both the Child theologies in the West and liberation theological methods with a sense of urgency to discuss the centrality of the agency of children.

‘Holistic Child Development’ and ‘Child Theology in Asia’ are Asian children-related theologies. Scholars such as Sunny Tan, J. B. Jeyaraj, Paul Bhakianathan and Israel

Selvanayagam have employed the term ‘child theology’ or ‘children theology’ as common parlance in many of their writings and suggest what could be a relevant child theology in the

Asian context. At the same time they exhibit an awareness of and have written about Holistic

Child Development. Sunny Tan, a Malaysian theologian, has made a preliminary proposal for a child theology in Asia. Therefore ‘Child theology’ is a widely accepted term for Christian theology related to children.

191

I have resourced this chapter through two different methods: first, critical reviews of literature in the children-related theologies in Asia, and second and significantly, interviews with scholars in children-related theologies in Asia such as J. B. Jeyaraj, Israel

Selvanayagam, Siga Arles and Sunny Tan. As Child theology and Holistic Child

Development are emerging fields in Asia in general and India in particular, there is a dearth of literature in this field in this region; in fact, there is no theological literature fully dedicated to the theme of the agency of children. An exception is Sunny Tan who in his work Child

Theology for the Churches in Asia: An Invitation , has dedicated a section on the theme of understanding “children-as-agent” where children’s agency would help in reformulating doctrines, practices and mission approaches. Therefore, the interviews were to fill the gaps created by the lack of literature.

This chapter is dedicated largely to a critical understanding of the agency of children in children-related theologies in Asia such as Holistic Child Development and Child Theology in Asia. Despite the fact that they address the same contexts, Holistic Child Development and

Child Theology in Asia have dissimilar stand points on methodological issues of liberation theologies and ‘children as agents’. There also have been debates on which strand offers a better configuration of hermeneutical keys to understand the place and significance of children for Asian contexts. While Holistic Child Development scholars as Dan Brewster and

J. B. Jeyaraj claim that Holistic Child Development’s contextual affinity offers an immediate key to a relevant children-theology in Asia, child theology scholars such as Sunny Tan and

Paul Bhakiaraj 330 —who are influenced by Child theologies in the west—claim to present a

330 Paul Bhakiaraj, “From Invisibility to Indispensability: Sketches for an Indian Christian Theology,” Dharma Deepika vol 28/12, no. 2 (2008): 54-67. 192

strong theological basis to challenge the core of Christian doctrines and theologies. This, they believe, helps to address the agency of children with theological and doctrinal clarity.

Specifically on the child-in-the-midst method, both strands have exhibited interdisciplinary approach and present the case of children for context-specific purposes. This has immense potential and challenges for a context-driven understanding of the agency of children. While the theological basis of Holistic Child Development tries to bring to attention the importance of caring for children and upholding their dignity as children of God who are created in the image of God, Child Theology from the West tries to infuse its biblical theology into Holistic

Child Development to make children’s theological issue more central. 331 Holistic Child

Development as a model is a critique of child theology in the west for not being contextual.

As we have seen in the previous chapter, White is clear that the child is not the central focus of theology and contextual challenges of children are not within the purview of child theology’s methodology.

6.2. Theological and Methodological Development of Children-related Theologies in

Asia: Colonial and Postcolonial Traits

What is not recognised about children and theology in Asia—and in fact the world over—is the emergence of “children theology” (Kulandai Iraiyal) in India in 1990, much before the emergence of Child Theology movement outside Asia. The children-related theologies like

Child Theology in the West and Asia and Holistic Child Development began in the year

331 Keith White, “The Contribution of Child Theology to the HCD Course and Beyond” http://www.childtheology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Paper-on-CT-and-HCD-Chiang-Mai-May- 2007.pdf : 1. 193

2002.332 Children theology in India was first discussed by Israel Selvanayagam where he recognised children’s own views as significantly defining the agency of children that largely emerge from children’s context and children’s interaction with adults. Selvanayagam has also recognised the adult-child binary and more importantly the lack of children’s agency in

Christian thought. Children theology proposes a contextual understanding of children which is different from Child theology’s less emphasis on context. However, children’s theology neither developed into a deeper theological discourse nor associated itself with theological streams that propagated the agency of the colonised like the liberation theologies in India did.

The relationship between Holistic Child Development and Child theologies in the West is largely to address the place and significance of children in the light of the violation of their rights and dignity and to advance their agency. Holistic Child Development and Child theologies have a few things in common. They both help the church and community “to help children to serve children better”.333 However the differences are stark when Holistic Child

Development has children at the centre of its theological thought and action, Child theologies

“will have Jesus Christ at its heart”. 334 However, White explains that the primacy of Christ is not at the expense of children because Jesus himself gave children a central place for them to thrive. 335

332 Children theology as a discussion was published in Indian local language Tamil in the journal Iraiyiyal Malar in 1990. While it did not continue as a prominent thought as the present Child Theology movement, it can be certainly said that the objectives of the present Child theology movement were already discussed in Kulandai Iraiyiyal . This was followed up in 1995 with Israel Selvanayagam’s, “Children Laugh and Cry” 333 White, “’Come over to Macedonia”, 181. 334 White, “’Come over to Macedonia”, 181. 335 White, “’Come over to Macedonia”, 181. 194

However, the relationship is problematic and it could be analysed at two levels: [a] their interactions at conceptual levels project a subtle need for dominance over the other, and [b] identifying their commonalities and differences in the child-in-the-midst method. While this chapter explains in detail the commonalities and differences in the child-in-the-midst method, the interactions at the conceptual level between Holistic Child development and Child theologies in the West provides us evidence for a quietly dominant-natured Child theologies in the West in its interaction with its Asian counterparts. As a result Child theologies do not seem to interact with its counterparts to explore further the methods to advance the agency of children. This highlights that Child theologies in the West have a strong colonial sense of imposing its methodological schemes on other children-related theologies. Even Holistic

Child Development in the thoughts of Jeyaraj tries to claim its superiority over Child theologies. However, White continues to subtly present Child theologies as a superior stream among the children-related theologies.

To explain my contentions briefly, Holistic Child Development and Child theologies in the

West emerged around the same time in two different geographical regions and contextual circumstances. However, Child theologies contend to offer “a long term paradigmatic shift”. 336

Keith White patronisingly claimed that Child theologies have hermeneutical principles to offer for Holistic Child Development. However he does envision beneficial learning for Child theologies from Holistic Child development. White does not recognise the patronising

336 White, “The Contribution of CT”, 1. 195

tendency. He says that Child theologies have “no desire to dominate or control” 337 but hope to offer Christian “theological foundations” which it thinks Holistic Child Development lacks. With this he goes on to emphasise the primacy of Christian foundation for Holistic

Child Development against any developmental theories. 338 Even in his most recent work, 339

White continues his strong critique of the Holistic Child Development to present it as a secondary stream to Child theologies. He engages with James E. Loder’s theology of human development, particularly children’s development. While engaging Loder’s ideas with Child theology, White sees a need for “connections” for an integrated approach. However, White sees Loder’s ideas only “challenging” Holistic Child Development and not offering connections for integration. If Loder is a reference to a superior theological argument in human development, then Child theologies, for White, have reached a stage of conceptually engaging with Loder while Holistic Child Development is “still looking for some sort of synthesis, rather than accepting inherent contradictions between the different discourses that make up for the components of an integrated approach”.340 As if it is not enough of a critique,

White resorts to what would certainly be a harsh theological position to put down Holistic

Child Development when he says,

Jesus confronts HCD in and through the sign of the little child with a dramatic challenge to change. He calls us to consider that we might be fundamentally mistaken, or on the wrong track—i.e., not just that we have made one or two minor errors, or slipped up occasionally, but that we are heading in completely the wrong direction. Of course we find it unthinkable that we might be outside the kingdom of God and getting further away in our striving for greatness in it! But hopefully we can see that

337 White, “The Contribution of CT”, 16. 338 White, “The Contribution of CT”, 16pp. 339 Keith J. White, “Child Theology, Loder, and Holistic Child Development (HCD): 50ff. This dominant position can be also be seen in his “Come over to Macedonia”, 178-187. 340 White, “Child Theology”, 51. 196

there is a real practical problem here about process: the way any form of conceptual integration might be achieved. 341

It is this position of White that ascribes to Child theologies conceptual superiority similar to colonial intellectual domination and disables it from engaging with other children-related theologies.

Jeyaraj prompts a methodological argument on the relevant form of children-related theology even as Holistic Child Development and Child theologies exhibit methodological acquiescence at various levels. He explains why Holistic Child Development should be an

“umbrella” concept to the wider field of children-related theologies. On the relationship between theological proposals emerging from Child theologies in the West and Holistic Child

Development, Jeyaraj is clear that “Holistic Child Development is the over-arching umbrella or goal for which Child theology provides a theological basis for actions”. 342 He claims that

Child theology is fundamentally “biblical” and Holistic Child Development is the “ultimate goal of this theology”. “They are integrated as theology and praxis and should not be separated”. 343

These arguments go on to show that Holistic Child Development has been critically open to engage with Child theologies while Child theologies try to exercise uncalled for theological supremacy. This could be equated to Bunge’s similar claim of Child’s theologies’ progressive status compared to the Theologies of Childhood (Chapter 5). It could be said for now that

341 White, “Child Theology”, 51. 342 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst: Incarnation and Child Theology.” In Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges, edited by Jesudason Jeyaraj, (Bangalore: Christian Forum for Child Development/ISPCK, 2009), 71. 343 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 71. 197

White rejects the interdisciplinary mode of theologising. Rather he intends a unitary movement, a methodological movement that begins with a literalist reading of Christian scriptures.

6.2.1. Holistic Child Development

The critical concept in Holistic Child Development lies in the interpretation of the term

“holistic”; and it claims that its understanding of “God” enables it to define and practice

“holism” rightly. 344 A strong theological conviction that drives the Holistic Child

Development movement is to care for the child with biblical and theological justification to bring children to the centre of the discourse. This mandate comes in the wake of violation of children’s dignity, especially in the context of “at riskness” of all children. As Dan Brewster says,

The underlining and perhaps most compelling factor that drives the Holistic Child Development Global Alliance is the biblical mandate to care for children. Children are mentioned more than 1,600 times in Scripture, and it is clear that God cares for and loves children. As a result, we also ought to love and care for children. The Holistic Child Development Global Alliance holds a unified conviction that all children deserve to grow up in a healthy and safe environment so that they may truly enjoy and live out the lives God had intended for them to have in the first place. 345

As an initial thought, what we know about the centrality of children is about their care and protection extending the divine model of care and love. The care and protection motif has transpired in the context of rights violation largely in the context of Asia.

344 In an email response to the researcher, Sunny Tan responded on June 1, 2013. 345 Core Values of Global Alliance of Holistic Child Development: http://www.Holistic Child Development-alliance.org/intro/aboutus 198

The development of Holistic Child Development as a children-related theology can be ascribed to the notion of caring for and protecting children for their further development.

While the term ‘holistic’ opens up the definition of Holistic Child Development to an interdisciplinary approach to the issues of children in a multicultural context, it is strongly grounded in biblical notions of ‘development’ giving ‘holistic’ a Christian approach.

Brewster explains that holism is a “mosaic” of “physical, social, mental and psychological” factors that determine the development of children.346 The guidelines for a holistic approach are enshrined in the gospel. The gospel not only recognizes and studies the various components but knits them together as in a fabric. The result should be that the aspects of personhood, and the environment, issues of poverty, aspects of sin and suffering, physical safety, communal well-being, health and contentedness are all woven together and completely interdependent. A child has to be understood both in the context of the Bible and cross-culturally. Holistic Child Development looks at childhood as “a vulnerable and dependent period in a person’s life before adulthood”.347 The movement from childhood and adulthood needs care and education. It reminds adults of their childhood. 348 Development could be understood as having four significant components: wisdom, stature, favour with God and favour with humans. 349

As with the motif of care and protection, the theological core of Holistic Child Development is certainly to project the need for care in real life. However, what is masked in discourse of care and protection is the conventional adult-child binary. Theologically, what seems

346 Brewster, “Themes and Implications”, 34. 347 Brewster, “Themes and Implications”, 34. 348 Brewster, “Themes and Implications”, 34. 349 Brewster, “Themes and Implications”, 34. 199

compelling on children is to constantly project their agency in a way that reinstates the dominant discourse. This creates a tension between caring for children and avoiding patronizing them into the binary.

As for the current relationship between the Holistic Child Development and Child theology in

Asia, the current Child theology movement that emerged outside Asia could be considered as making a theological impact. It recognised age bias in theological discussions, and specifically highlighted the limitations of liberation theologies based on age bias. More theological discussions on this claim would be taken up later. It would suffice here to say that recognising this historical detail has an impact on how agency could be understood in a way to combine Holistic Child Development and Child theologies and also emphasizing the agentic significance of children in India. Brewster, in his explanation of the aims and objectives of Holisitic Child Development enthusiastically draws from Child theology that could help the former. Brewster explains

A rediscovery of children in Scripture will inevitably lead to more theological reflection on children and childhood. Just as Liberation Theology, and African, Asian and Feminist theologies have changed our paradigms, so Child theology has the potential to cause a fundamental ground shift in the way our generation–and perhaps future generations – understand the Bible. As they begin to interpret Scripture differently, seeing the children, Child Theology may open new territory for the church and the seminaries and theological institutions that teach it. 350

The above statement continues to show a healthy relationship between Holistic Child

Development and Child theologies and the methodological challenges it opens up in its method the child-in-the-midst.

350 Dan Brewster ‘It’s Time to Take Children and Youth Seriously’, http://www.europeanea.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/its_time_paper_Dan_Brewster.pdf 200

6.2.1.1 Incarnation of Jesus and Child-in-the-Midst

Jeyaraj’s proposal for a child-in-the-midst method is an outcome of a novel reading of the theology of Incarnation. He proposes the incarnation of Jesus as the Christological starting point for Child theology.

Jesus, the incarnated child, was at risk at the time of his birth and sought by the political authorities. The incarnation of Jesus in the midst of people reminds us of the weak, dependent and powerless nature of children and becomes the hope of salvation. 351

Jeyaraj emphasizes two level of Jesus earthly life 352 : first, as child who was placed in the midst of socio-political risk; and second, as an adult whose childhood moulded his life and teachings.

At the first level, Jeyaraj takes the attention away from the love of the Father to give his only son to the world who becomes a human to dwell in a historical context. The limitation of logos is that it is both the Father and the son. But the logos that becomes flesh ( sarx ) emphasizes human frailty and vulnerability. Jesus’ dependence on parents, his neighbours and the socio-political contexts shows the societal influence on this grooming. Taking this aspect further, Jeyaraj says:

[the] significance of his dwelling among human beings can know God through his words and actions. His dwelling among the people … signifies his presence and identity with human beings. 353

351 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 70. 352 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 54-68 . 353 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 58. 201

Jeyaraj gives Incarnation Theology a sociological dimension. Jesus had to bear the stigma of a bastard. Incarnation gives hope to child theology because Jesus went through a stigmatized life, yet his thoughts and words brought salvation. Such a Jesus would be able to identify himself with children. 354 So we see that Jeyaraj’s contribution to the discussion on child theology is to highlight historical semblances between Christ as an incarnate child and the conditions of vulnerable children. It can also be noticed that Jeyaraj uses the terms ‘Holistic

Child Development’ and ‘Child Theology’ synonymously but brings in contextual differences. While Jeyaraj attempts to emphasize the humanity of Jesus through sociological readings, he yet connects the life of Jesus back to what he had tried to move away from – divinity. In bringing back divinity into the humanity of Jesus, Jeyaraj draws attention to the salvific work of Jesus and the forgiveness of “sins”. However, Jeyaraj clearly wants to retain the sociological aspect of Jesus life. He mentions that while the divine benefits of grace and salvation of God through the incarnate son

cannot be taken for granted… [h]is incarnation among human beings is sociological in terms of his birth, growth, presence, relationship and consequences… [Therefore] Child theology is not only theological but also sociological. 355

The second level of Jeyaraj’s presentation of the human Jesus is the adult Jesus’ act of recognizing the agency of children in his ministry. So when Jesus places a child in the midst of his disciples he was presenting children as signs to the kingdom. He was also warning his disciples (adults) not to be stumbling blocks to children. The danger of orienting children to an adult life is to overlook the limitations of the adult life. Jeyaraj calls for an interaction between childhood and adulthood, in that childhood is more recognized than earlier. In a

354 J. B. Jeyaraj, interview by researcher, Madurai, India, March 16/17. 355 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 59. 202

sense, Jesus was carrying out a ministry by incorporating the significance of children that he missed out on in his childhood. 356 Thus, Jeyaraj clearly places children in historical contexts and invites contextual challenges in the hermeneutical schemes of Holistic Child

Development.

6.2.1.2 Child Theologies and Holistic Child Development in India

This section deals with the way various hermeneutical keys have been employed by Child theologians in India to negotiate between two important children’s concerns: their care and protection, and their agency. It will highlight how at a broader theological level, overarching objectives of Holistic Child Development and Child theologies in the West flexibly integrated to formulate pertinent models of Child theologies. Jeyaraj explains that every context should develop its own form of Child theologies taking contextual features seriously along with general theological formulations as drawn from scriptures and theological thought. 357

Jeyaraj’s views sets up the tone for an interdisciplinary mode of theology as relevant to address children’s agency. While his thoughts certainly incorporate Christian biblical principles as significant for Holistic Child Development, he implies that praxis could give an edge to the already present biblical-centred theories of children’s development and care found in Child theologies in the West. With this he suggests that biblical-centered theologies could restrict the scope of the development, and therefore praxis has to be consciously incorporated into the methodological discussion. Therefore, Holistic Child Development is an all-

356 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”. 59. 357 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 51. 203

encompassing methodology which is the decisive end of theology. 358 However, it should be noted that Jeyaraj is not specific about the use of the term Holistic Child Development or

Child Theology for what he proposes for children’s issue. But it has to be noted that his proposal is largely driven by the objectives of Holistic Child Development–which is interdisciplinary and contextual–while he sometimes calls his proposal ‘Child Theology’ or

Children’s theology. It is also clear that Jeyaraj employs the language of liberationist theology when he explains how child theology could be done. On “doing” Child Theology,

Jeyaraj has a five- pronged formula: [a] placing children and adults simultaneously in our midst, [b] listening to children; if required even by “imagining a child” in the absence of a child, [c] critical analysis of the context about/in which children express their views, [d] theological responses to the questions that emerge in contexts and interactions to the extent of correcting our own theologies, and [e] doing theology by involving in action for a holistic development of a child. 359

What is to be observed here is the way Jeyaraj appropriates the child-in-the-midst method into a broader context of children’s protection and care. As adults play a vital role in children’s care, they too are to be brought to the centre. Therefore praxis (involving adults’ participation) and children’s centrality are put in constant interaction. At a broader level in the practice of Child theology both as theoretical exercise and contextual practice, Jeyaraj is ambiguous regarding taking every view of children. While he believes that it is important to take children’s views seriously, he suggests that their views should be put in their immediate

358 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 51. 359 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 71-72. 204

context and reinterpreted as a wider gospel by adults. 360 It implies that Jeyaraj aims to balance the final outcome of the adult–children interaction without interrogating the adult- dominance much. Also, discussing on the actual presence of children to signify their agency,

Jeyaraj’s views resonate the views of child theologians in the West on child-in-the-midst method when he says that children’s views could be imagined in the absence of a child.

Paul Bhakiaraj in his ecclesiological dimension for child theology struggles to clearly distinguish between children as objects or as subjects of theology. Therefore, a clear discussion on the agency of children is found wanting. Bhakiaraj draws his constructive framework for an Indian child theology primarily reflecting on ecclesiology. 361 Bhakiaraj falls back on the child-in-the-midst method which makes children objects of ecclesiological discussions. 362 He derives his methodological insights from Keith White and Haddon

Willmer’s working definition of Child Theology that recommends children’s role as a “lens”.

However, Bhakiaraj comes out with greater clarity on why children should not be treated as objects. He says:

This focus on the child not as an object of the educational ministry of the church or of mission, but rather as a subject of theology and as an active participant in that process, as one will recognize, introduces a fresh and invigorating perspective to our understanding of theology, indeed the kingdom of God itself. 363

Bhakiaraj also adopts the liberationist text–context–text hermeneutical principle as central to configuring a comprehensive child theology. Child Theology in India, he explains, has to recognize three significant hermeneutical issues in developing an Indian Child Theology:

360 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 69. 361 Bhakiaraj, “From Invisibility”, 64. 362 Bhakiaraj, “From Invisibility”, 64. 363 Bhakiaraj, “From Invisibility”, 64. 205

firstly , to move beyond mere textual reading of scriptures into the context “in which the scripture is read, understood and acted upon”. This demands reading historical details of the times of the scripture and to see what difference it would make in rereading the scripture for child theology. Secondly , he suggests that the outcome of the text-context-text scheme should reflect in the church, which is a sign of the kingdom of God into which the child as model may enter. Bhakiaraj sees the church as a relevant context for this theological scheme.

Therefore the movement is from critical theological engagement into ecclesiology. Thirdly , he sees “the untrained, the inexperienced, the immature, and the playful child as an active participant in the theological process”. 364 He sees children’s views and activity as crucial in probing the conventional theological methodology. But he restricts the scope of children’s participation in mission as he continues to privilege adults as initiators and sustainers of missions.

In my interview with Jeyaraj on the question of the agency of children, the theme that he has not dealt with in his writings, Jeyaraj refers to biblical narratives where children have spoken.

However, he does not boldly extend the possibilities of children speaking out in present contexts. An instance for children’s voices interrogating adult views is to be found in the conversation between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac’s question ‘where is the lamb for the sacrifice’, theologically questions the broader plan of God and God’s agent, the adult father.

A truthful response from Abraham at that instance would have changed the understanding of covenant. However Isaac meekly submits to his father (and to God’s broader plans) by continuing the conversation. 365 He continues to say that children’s occasional voice would

364 Bhakiaraj, “From Invisibility”, 64-65. 365 Jeyaraj, interview by researcher. 206

not be a strong justification for children’s agency. However, the debate for the agency of children is context-driven. Therefore the argument should be whether the agency of children is important in a given context because children are not enlightened to deal with cultural issues. 366 Infants should be left out of the equation of children expressing their views. 367

Jeyaraj makes an ambiguous distinction between different age groups of children such as infants and young children. Therefore for Jeyaraj, biblical exposition of children as lens leads to both positive and negative sides of the discussion. He considers infancy as too early to consider for discussions on children’s agency. About the children who express their views, he considers them as irregular or rare compared to adults, and therefore not to be considered as strong arguments for the agency of children.

6.2.2. Child Theologies in Asia outside India

A significant contribution to the discussion on the agency of children outside India and within

Asia is Sunny Tan’s invitation for Child Theology in Asia. Tan’s work, while claiming to be

Asian in its approach draws heavily and leans towards Child theologies in the West. Tan’s work is significant because it deals with clarity on the issue of children as agents or children’s agency from an Asian perspective. To a considerable extent, his work resonates with Holistic

Child Development’s claim on doing children related theologies in Asia.

In my interview with Tan, Tan takes a high view of adult’s privilege in formulating Child theologies and incorrectly calls it liberation theology. He says,

366 Jeyaraj, interview by researcher. 367 Jeyaraj, interview by researcher. 207

there is no question that theologies are produced by adults; and each adult doing theology chooses a method which from hindsight is an attempt to provide a corrective to existing theologies. A study of the history of theological and doctrinal developments would reveal the contextual factors in the choice of theological methods. Child Theology, likewise, is a theological method arising from the recognition of the Church’s lack in “holistic action” towards children. Hence, Child Theology is “in line with other liberation theologies” because it seeks to contribute to the “liberation” of children. 368

In the above quote, Tan struggles to not let go off adult privileges of articulating children’s issues completely and at the same time to attach a liberationist mode to child theology.

Tan’s thoughts touch two significant issues of methodological importance: the extent to which children contribute to theological thought and the role of theology to recognize a holistic approach as identified in liberation theologies. With this Tan potentially starts a discussion towards a positive understanding of the agency of children. However, he does not give a sophisticated account of the agency of children. He nevertheless subscribes to the claims of seeing elements of liberationist streams of theology in child theology. 369

On the agency of children, Tan’s simplistic presentations are largely biblical expositions or unexplained qualifications for agency. He begins with some simplistic formulations of the agency of children as the capacity that children have to perceive things. Children are deemed to have the capacity to receive and perceive the values of the kingdom of God. They have the capacity to worship God. So, children’s agency is not an exaggeration but real. A theological justification is that Jesus saw children as signs of the Kingdom of God. 370 Children as agency

368 Tan, Child Theology, 369 Sunny Tan, email message to author, June 1, 2013. 370 Jeyakumar, “Children as impressions of God’s reign”, Iraiyiyal Malar , 9- 10 208

are models for corporate living by naturally challenging adult-created boundaries. 371 In practice, they present models to unite divided groups and society. A justification for this role is their “natural capacity”. Children are morally significant while they may be physically vulnerable and weak. 372 Child theology, through theologizing of adults should help children develop their own potential is theologically important. What helps adults recognise children agency and enhance its importance is children’s presence and visibility. 373 The above explanations of Tan equate the ‘signs’ of children incorrectly to the ‘agency’ of children.

6.2.2.1 Child-in-the-Midst in Child Theology in Asia

Child-in-the-midst as a method of Child theology in Asia has been explored in detail by Tan.

Tan reads Jesus’ act of placing the child in the midst from a pre-determined bias of not giving the child the agentic significance that the methodology allows. His interpretation claims that all theological activity is an adult activity and a basic structure as that has to be retained even in cases where children’s views could challenge the dominant structure.

Tan sees the function of Child Theology as a methodology rather than the doctrinal formulations or propositional statements. Doctrines are communitarian formulations whereas methodologies debate the credibility and potentiality of doing theology. Therefore, the child- in-the-midst method is key to understanding Child theology. 374

371 Sam Christopher, “Children and Church”, Iraiyal Malar , 22 372 Israel Selvanayagam, interview by researcher, Chennai, India, April 15, 2013. 373 Selvanayagam, interview by researcher; Dan Brewster, “Themes”, 41. 374 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 209

In my interview with Tan, I notice that Tan sees a strong adult advocacy in Jesus’ action of placing a child in the midst of the disciples. Though this child-in-the-midst method occurs only once in Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament, Tan finds it significant because the adults care for children who are deemed to be at risk. Thus, Child Theology as a method has its origin amongst Christian child advocates. The latter were looking for a Christian theology that requires Christians and churches to view care for children as a key evidence of reading the Bible correctly. Additionally, the judgment of these child-advocates is that existing

Christian theologies are not leading Christians and churches to do more for children. Since action flows from belief or understanding, the lack of action towards children seems to indicate the existence of faulty beliefs or understanding of the Triune God. 375

6.2.2.2 Child-in-the-Midst as Children’s Lenses

As seen in the previous chapter, there is a theological gap in understanding the terms

‘agency’ and ‘lens’. In Child theologies in the West, the term ‘lens’ does not readily translate as agency. Tan attempts to bridge this gap but does not provide deep theological or methodological arguments for the same. In his work Child Theology for the Churches in

Asia: An invitation, Tan presents children as active contributors. Tan does not doubt that theologizing is an adult task but children too can make a contribution by being themselves and when they are purposefully placed in a theological context. Therefore the method is

“corrective” in purpose. Children’s presence now should help reformulate theological process. 376 He explains that Child Theology emerged so that “[c]hildren themselves could

375 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 376 Tan, Child Theology, 4-5. 210

help adults work on the desired truthful response to God”. 377 He says that children are agents

“naturally”. 378 However, Tan does not argue further why children are agents naturally. The lack of argument also reflects in his uncritical acceptance of the child-in-the-midst method, which is adult-dominant (Ch. 5).

Tan’s interpretation of the child-in-the-midst method resonates with White’s position on children’s agency. He takes the agency almost completely away from children although he thinks that children’s views are significant. Tan explains that a movement as Child Theology had to be envisioned so that “[c]hildren themselves could help adults work on the desired truthful response to God”.379

Here, two interesting theological twists appear in the explanation of his position on children’s natural ability to be agents. Firstly, he explains that by including children, we get to know how God sees children. While a logical conclusion to his argument in the light of Child theology methodology would be that children help us see God, Tan removes children from the position of subjects to retain the centrality of God as utmost to understanding theology.

Secondly, his interpretation of Jesus’ act of placing a child in the midst of his disciples creates a methodological confusion. Tan explains:

Jesus placed “an alive child” in the midst of adults; but should that “alive child” be described as “lens”? as “agent”? as “catalyst”? All such descriptions could be employed and they are descriptions that allow the “alive child” to be “present yet without a voice.” The child that Jesus placed in the midst did not speak at all. 380

377 Tan, Child Theology, 7. 378 Tan, Child Theology, 12. 379 Tan, Child Theology, 7. 380 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 211

Tan reads Jesus’ act of placing the child in the midst from a pre-determined bias of not giving the child the agentic significance that the methodology allows. Tan uncritically adapts the method to an Asian context and therefore does not offer Asian contextual elements to this exposition. Therefore, he retains a western framework of child theology which precariously influences the understanding of children and their agency in a context where the violation of child-rights is higher. Moreover, his interpretation claims that all theological activity is an adult activity and a basic structure as that has to be retained even in a case where children’s views could challenge the dominant structure.

6.2.2.3 Child-in-the-Midst and the Entitled Adults

Tan adapts White’s views on the primacy of Jesus uncritically. White says that the central message of the ‘child placed in the midst’ by Jesus

starts with Jesus Christ. He is the Alpha and He will be the Omega of Child Theology. It [child theology] takes him very seriously. Ultimately it is about him and the Father who sent him: not about a child or children. 381

White’s rationale for the primacy of Jesus is that “the child placed by Jesus is beside him as a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only the object of attention, care and veneration insofar as that is inherent in being a sign of the kingdom of God”.382 Child theology sees what light can children throw on the working of the Triune God’s working in this world. So the child as

381 White, The contribution of CT, 2. 382 White, The contribution of CT , 2. 212

a sign exposes the way the disciples think in a limited sense about the Kingdom of God. So, in “welcoming children we welcome Jesus, and the One who sent him. 383

Tan seems to take White’s theological position as the basis to explain children’s agency. Tan continues: children as agent “does not mean that children must act or do something in order to impact the adults in contact with them”. So the agency is not about “abilities or virtues impacting adults but about children as children impacting adults”. 384 There seem to be a clear theological aversion to make children subjects of theology fearing that children would replace

Jesus for the coveted venerable position.

Tan has more to say on the adult- child interaction. He mentions that adult- perception of children determines children’s agency. He says that adults are responsible for creating the condition or situation for children to become agents. They “do not automatically become agents unless they are placed in God’s Context”.385 Children “are agent’s only when they are encountered in the concrete and not just imagined”.386 This contradicts his earlier stance that children are natural agents. It, moreover, resonates with White’s interpretation of the child-in- the-midst as a child ‘beside’ Jesus, exhibiting theological hesitation to call children ‘central’.

This retains adults as the central theological subjects.

There seems to be a subtle attempt to maintain the adulthood of Jesus which continues to give adult-agency an edge over children’s agency. There is also an indication of children’s lens being appropriated by adults. Tan says that adults should adopt the lens of ‘children as

383 White, The contribution of CT , 2. 384 Tan, Child Theology, 12-13. 385 Tan, Child Theology, 13. 386 Tan, Child Theology, 14. 213

agents’ and experiment with it. 387 Tan probably suggests that adults should think like children do. While that enriches child theology’s call for responsible adults, it effectively blocks children’s significance coming to the fore.

Tan’s understanding of the agency of children is not about children’s capacity to express views. Therefore, for Tan, child theology is not about seeking to deal with children’s ways of understanding and articulating idea, but about articulating “the root of the problem in the speaking of ‘GOD’”. It should retain the subjecthood of God as against upholding the subjecthood of children. While so retaining God’s subjecthood one should critically view the formulations as human speeches that oppress others. Tan retains a theological position that promotes divinity of God as pivotal for a discourse, whose titles or subjecthood cannot be shared with humans. What theology could do most, in Tan’s thoughts, is to highlight the discriminations that theological concepts could create. In his words

… colored people have been kept in their place in the name of God, women have not been treated equal with men in the name of God, human persons who are evaluated as “imperfect” (or sinners) are not allowed to be part of the “holy people of God” and children are also viewed unimportant in the name of God. Thus, the concept of “lens” or “frame” is now used to refer to the way we are to view both God and Children. 388

What is inconsistent in Tan’s argument about theological method is the way he carries further the appropriation of ‘lens’ or ‘frame’ by the dominant, in general, and by adults in particular.

Tan’s understanding of a lens requires that the lens be rightly described. As he explains further, a green lens will lead us to see things in green. A racist is a person who sees other races through their own coloured lens. In the end the issue is our way of “seeing Reality”.

387 Tan, Child Theology, 14-15. 388 Tan, Child Theology, 16. 214

How is the invisible Reality God to be seen? And how is the visible reality called Child to be seen? 389

Tan raised rhetorical questions such as who are the “we” who wear the lenses of the oppressed? What gives “we” the privilege to wear others’ lenses to see the reality of God for them on their behalf? How will our knowledge of the invisible reality of God help us address the oppressed situation of the visible Child? In all his interrogative thoughts, Tan does not elaborate on what the Child itself could do in a real situation of being an object of analysis.

However, he suggests how to bring about a change in the reality of oppression. Specifically in context of children’s oppression, Tan suggests a transformation of the adult:

Child Theology thus is first of all about the formation and transformation of the Adult. Thus, “unless an adult becomes like a child..” he/she cannot “see” the way of the Kingdom, cannot see God …. 390

In the dominant/oppressed binary, the dominant adult has to experience transformation by wearing the lens of the child. This is because as mentioned earlier by Tan, all theologies are adult activity; and theological methods chosen prove – significantly from hindsight – that the methods provide a corrective to existing theologies. Equally important to notice in Tan’s thoughts is that by hindsight we get to know that these methods are contextual. Yet, a question that begs an argumentative response is ‘what is the role of the child in its own liberation?’ Tan provides some initial arguments on children’s agency where he mentions about children’s voices as agency that can show the way to the development of children. Tan sees children providing a “critical way” of preventing anything becoming idolatrous with

389 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 390 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 215

regard to the holistic development of children. Children’s voices are prophetic because they are reactive and emerge out of their innocence. They are the “litmus” testing the adults’ interpretation of reality and truth. Children in a sense transcend the “interpreted world of adults” until they are taught by adults to conform to the world of the adults. 391

Then, if theologies are adult activities, where do children’s voices fit in? Are children’s views taken as they are or modified to fit into the language of an existing theological thought? It is obvious that Tan only introduces the child-in-the-midst method and especially explains the role of the adults. Drawing a theological argument of relationality in Trinity to the method of

Child theology, Tan reiterates that child theology draws its strength from talking about adults.

As in the Trinity, one cannot talk about the identity of the Invisible God without speaking of the visible Jesus Christ; children’s agency cannot be emphasized without essentialising adult roles and issues. 392

It is clear from Tan’s methodology and theological analogy that he wishes to retain the invisible (God) and the dominant in child theology (adult) as the focus of agency in child theology. The invisible is in a sense unquestionable. However, the visible and the questionable (adult), who also represents the invisible, is given the privilege of defining the agency in child theology. Whatever the agency the child is entitled with in Tan’s theology it is to play a catalyst between indefinite and vague. The only clear role for the child as an agent is to be a catalyst for adults to practice the values of Kingdom of God.

391 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 392 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 216

6.3. Critical Methodological issues in Children-related Theologies in Asia

It is evident that children are given priority of agency in Tan’s views. There is also a strong sense of retaining agency with adults. What is also noticeable is that children do play the role of an agency, albeit indirectly. This reduces children’s agency to what some child theologians call “instrumentalisation”. Arles critiques this sense among child theologians that deprive children or their agency and take the basic objective off child theology. Arles explains that children are instruments that adults play with, because adults have controlled theological activity just as other activities. That makes the child merely a token presence. Ideally, the child should be much more in control and have much more say in what formulates as a theology. Arles also observes this model in Christian mission that claims centrality of children. Children are used as baits to attract more adults as converts of mission. The child is a victim of the adult number game of evangelization. Therefore instrumentalisation is not agency. 393 Arles and Selvanayagam’s views come as a critique of Tan’s view in particular, and child theology’s objectives in general.

Reading Tan and Jeyaraj alongside each other, a few thoughts on the theme of ‘child in the midst’ helps our analysis. Tan’s presentation of the child-in-the-midst does not take further the role of children that the methodology of Child theology has the potential to offer. He is resolute in not giving children the agentic significance that would take child theology further from the conventional theologies. While child-in-the-midst gives a positive outlook for the things to come, Tan’s interpretation claims that all theological activity is an adult activity and a basic structure as that has to be retained even in cases where children’s views could

393 Siga Arles, interview by researcher, Bangalore (India), April 16, 2013. 217

challenge the dominant structure. However, Jeyaraj takes a different position in giving children their due role in formulating child theology. He is for an interactive theology between children and adults, where children’s views are crucial, yet they have to be formulated by adults on behalf of children. It advances contextual realities and retains the broader objectives of the gospel.

In both Tan and Jeyaraj, the final authority to define Child Theology rests with the adults though Jeyaraj considers children’s views as more significant than Tan does. Both Tan and

Jeyaraj consider their contextual realities seriously. However, Jeyaraj brings in contextual methods of theologizing into his analysis which opens up to a more progressive notion of

Child theology than Tan’s.

6.3.1. Children-related Theologies in Asia and Liberation Theologies

The understanding of children’s significance in theological thought and work for their agency has been discussed above. This section tries to see how Child theologies have appropriated liberationist methods into their views to make child theology context-relevant.

Tan thinks that Child Theology did not emerge as a response to or to be along the lines of liberation theologies. The appearance of Child Theology could be considered as a “kairos” moment for the Church. A line can be traced in history for the different foci in theological development: If Jesus’ incarnation is “Word becoming Flesh” which can be regarded as the start of doing Christian Theology, then the period following the early Church saw “Flesh” becoming more and more abstract words. Philosophy and abstract doctrines became the focus of theologizing until the Reformation era. The Protestant Reformation made the Bible the focus of theologizing which is less abstract as it is possible for everyone now to look at words

218

“visibly”. Liberation theologies could be understood as “word becoming flesh” again as the attention is now on the concrete human persons as an important factor in doing theology.

However, focusing on human persons (even oppressed human persons) does not “free” the

Church from the temptation of “power” because “adults” do constantly think of being in control. Thus, history has shown us that when the oppressed are freed and have assumed power, they tend seek to oppress others. Since Christianity is about the “humbling of God in

Jesus”, the “way” of Christianity in doing anything, including doing theology must be the way of humility and not of power. 394

Attempting to engage with liberationist hermeneutics, Jeyaraj prefers an orthodox position for biblical interpretations. He draws parallels from the situation of child rights in India and biblical dimensions of children in the bible as a foundation of formulating the biblical theology of child. He likens child theology to iberation theology or eco theology or creation theology where the marginalized have an emphatic voice in theological activity. In the process of recovering the insights of the biblical teachings on children, he proposes that children are significant actors in defining God and therefore in formulating and articulating theology. He sees that children from different experiences of socio- cultural discrimination or privileges perceive God, and therefore theologies, differently. 395

However, if children’s interpretation of scriptures/biblical stories is treated as children’s agency, Jeyaraj is apprehensive about taking every thought of a child seriously. So

394 Sunny Tan, email message to author. 395 Jesudason B Jeyaraj , “Child in the Midst: Incarnation and Child Theology” in Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges (Delhi: ISPCK: 2009): 49-72 219

[l]eaving children to define God could bring out the positive and negative elements of their theology. This kind of ‘Theology of a Child or Children’s theologies’ could be pluralistic and sometimes contradictory… [A]dults can formulate a ‘Child Theology’ on behalf of children based on hearing the views of children, the theological dimension of children in the Bible and leave room for adding a contextual dimension if it is not contradictory to the biblical teachings on children. 396

Jeyaraj presumes that a dalit child (from the lowest cultural strata of Indian society) may call

God discriminatory, or a disabled child may curse God. A poor child may reject God by claiming that God is unjust.

Jeyaraj conspicuously avoids bringing children’s voices to the fore as they would challenge the conventional adult-prescribed interpretation of God which in turn protects and perpetuates adult-dominance in Holistic Child Development.

6.3.2. Children-related Theologies in Asia as Counter Theologies

Jeyaraj says he takes the initial definition of Child theology in the West further by bringing in the realities in which the incarnation of the child Jesus took place. It is not only children’s views but also their experiences that contribute to enriching Child theology. By taking their experiences seriously, theology gives “preferential option to children at risk and marginalized” for their liberation, protection and empowerment.

To my question whether child theologies are counter to earlier theologies, Jeyaraj explains that while all theologies are generally adult-formulated and adult-centred, Child theology in its core is a counter movement to adult-centric discourses. 397 However, child theologians

396 Jeyaraj, “Child in the Midst”, 69. 397 Jeyaraj, interview by researcher. 220

express different views on potential of Child theologies and the need to counter earlier theologies. Jeyaraj insists that taking the ‘counter’ aspect uncritically is a missed opportunity to reconcile and work in coordination. The counter-ability should also allow the possibility for the dominant to review and rebuild itself. 398 Arles and Selvanayagam too see the need for child theology as counter theologies. Otherwise children’s perspectives will be reduced as

“childish” 399

However, Selvanayagam sees the dangers of counter-discourses. The counter-discourses have the ability to create strong binaries. 400 He sees the clues of dangerous binaries in liberationist streams in India. He also notices that a claim for an authentic theology is not necessarily by considering the agency only of the subalterns. It is a collective effort. Seeing this in Dalit theology, Selvanayagam says that not all dalits do their own theology. It is done by elite theologians who can think and articulate. There cannot be an ‘authentic’ articulation of a theology. 401 While this gives an idea that theologies are co-operative, Child theology could be more creative than other liberation theologies by considering ‘non-propositional’ mode of theologizing like poems, music. 402

6.3.3. On Context and being Contextual

On understanding what is context and how to be contextual, Tan explains that there is no such thing as a “human person in the abstract”. A human person exists as a “particular race” speaking a particular language or having a certain culture. All human persons are alive in a

398 Jeyaraj, interview by researcher. 399 Arles, interview by researcher. 400 Arles, interview by researcher. 401 Arles, interview by researcher. 402 Arles, interview by researcher. 221

particular historical time and are shaped to think according to prevailing knowledge. Thus we exist in contexts. What this means is that to understand any person, the context or environment must also be taken into consideration. To speak of God-context is another way of saying to think and speak theologically into a person or situation. The whole world is certainly a context or maybe it is better to see the world as context for every human person but each person creates his/her own world.

Tan’s interest in speaking of children in relation to the Asian multi-religious situations is from his own conviction that Jesus is the Ultimate Revealer and that all human persons must encounter Him to know Life and Truth. Religions are an aspect of acquired human identity and also are ways people view Reality. Religions cause conflict because people’s identity is threatened when told that their religions do not lead to ultimate truth or ultimate reality. He also sees “Christianity” as a form of “religion” and a way of identity forming and should be differentiated from God and Revelation in the Bible and in Jesus. He sees “children” as agents in the Asian context because society, regardless of religion, shares a concern for the wellbeing of its young. This is not to use children or manipulate children for conversion but when everyone shares a concern for the development of children, then all resources including those from the sciences and religions could be used to contribute to their development.

Children are agents because they lead the adults in their pluralistic way of thinking and living to come together to nurture and protect human life.

As Tan suggests, a key difference between Child Theology and the various liberation theologies is that while oppressed people are able to reflect and articulate on their pains and hence do theology for themselves or challenge others to provide a theology that will liberate them, children do not have the cognitive maturity to reflect, articulate, and formulate a

222

liberation theology for themselves. This is not to say that children cannot have experiences with God or that they cannot cry out when in pain, but they are not in a position where their words about God can be taken seriously and be regarded as an act of theologizing. It is possible to have children talk about God but would what they say be considered as theology?

In a sense, for Tan, having a child in the midst could be considered as a more universal and critical “hermeneutical key” than placing a female, a black, and the likes in the midst in the theologizing act. The reason is that a child or anyone in the childhood stage (whether black or female or poor) is at a very early stage of experiencing “human life” on planet earth; and each life must be given the “freedom” to blossom and mature. Thus, the concept of “liberation” should be taken further back to the God-given gift of life to the human community which should be received, nurtured until maturity. If the child-in-the-midst is understood as the “gift of human life” introduced into the human community at pregnancy and birth, then priority and efforts are required to protect and nurture that life, and not just through the legal system but foremost through theologies.

Thus, the human person as child seems to bring us to a kind of agency that could lead us do theology in a way that reflects God and God’s ways. It could contribute to formulations that support human transformation. The vision of Isaiah that “a child will lead” could be the reason for Child Theology. That vision is not about children being regarded as political or ecclesiastical leaders but that the focus on children, who are physically weaker than adults,

223

could change the way the church manifests the life of the Triune God and “do” Church differently. 403

As Arles suggests, where Child theology could emulate liberationist stream is by not making a mystified thought out of the child-in-the-midst method. It should be practical and brought out in the open. Mystifying a child takes us away from the objective of children’s liberation.

It should be rational spirituality and contextually communicating the truth. 404

Arles takes his arguments further to critique the Child theology of the West. He says that theologizing is always contextual. Even with children’s participation and views as expressed in the bible, applicational hermeneutics has to be set in current context. A child’s experiences and expressions have to be taken seriously. Children are source material. Binding agency only to Bible and biblical context would be “useless”. It will be “bibliolatrous”. Their expression must provide pathways for liberationist approach in child theology. Rereading from the child’s eye is imperative to make Child theology. The end result which would be put together by adults in child theology is basically children’s expressions. This makes children’s participation more conscious and contextual. 405

6.3.4. An Evaluation of the Agency of Children in the Children-related Theologies in

Asia

This chapter began by understanding children-related theologies in Asia such as Holistic

Child Development and Child Theology in Asia, and their attempts to define agency of

403 Arles, interview by researcher. 404 Arles, interview by researcher. 405 Arles, interview by researcher, 224

children in the Asian context. These streams have also deviated on methodological issues on liberation and on participation of children as agents. However there have been debates on which strand offers a better configuration of hermeneutical keys to understand the place and significance of children for Asian contexts. While Holistic Child Development claims that its contextualizing tendency offers an immediate key (Brewster and Jeyaraj), Child theologies claim to present a strong theological basis to challenge the core of Christian doctrines and theologies (Tan and Bhakiaraj) as influenced by Bunge and White. Specifically on the child- in-the-midst method, both strands have exhibited an interdisciplinary approach but have strongly resisted children’s voices emerging to the fore. This immensely negates a contextual theological attempt to advance the agency of children.

It is clearly recognised that children-related theologies like Holistic Child Development and

Child theologies in Asia do work within a strict methodological frame. Holistic Child

Development concentrates on the need for a holistic view of the development of a child where theological insights (drawn from Child theology) are only a part. On the other hand, we have seen the tendency of Child Theology in Asia to present itself as a broad theological scheme where children’s care and protection (as emphasized in Holistic Child Development) is a part. Therefore they have exhibited mergers and differences in the best interest of children.

The above analysis shows that Tan and Jeyaraj differ in their positions on attributing agency to children. Tan’s thoughts touch two significant issues of methodological importance: to what extent would children contribute to theological thought, and the role of theology to recognize a holistic approach as identified in liberation theologies. However, Jeyaraj is of the view that Holistic Child Development forms the umbrella concept for a child theology in

225

Asia. It was discussed that Tan does not prescribe to liberationist hermeneutics for a child theology. He nevertheless subscribed to the claims of seeing elements of liberationist streams of theology in child theology. Tan’s interpretation follows White’s position on children’s agency through the child-in-the-midst method. He takes the agency almost completely away from children although he thinks that children’s views are significant.

There seems to be a subtle attempt to maintain the adulthood of Jesus which continues to give adult-agency an edge. There is also an indication of children’s lens being side-lined by adults.

Tan says that adults should adopt the lens of ‘children as agents’ and experiment with it. Tan probably suggests that adults should think the way children do. While that enriches child theology’s call for responsible adults, it effectively blocks children’s significance coming to the fore. In the case of ascribing agency to children, Jeyaraj confines himself to the conventional interpretation of the scriptures, as he fears that children’s views might take the established gospel away for child theology. While he strives to help children in need, he takes an ambiguous position on understanding children’s views as having the potential to change the course of theological thought.

What we notice is a wide range of views on how child theology could be liberation theology just as broadly claimed by the pioneers of child theology in the West. Following up on the view that child theology needs to be a liberation theology of sort, contextual realities present opportunities and clues for children to express their views. It also provides an analytical frame to see the violation of children’s dignity in context rather than mystifying such experiences.

It can be noticed clearly that children-related theologies in Asia have not given adequate attention to explaining the significance of children’s agency in the Asian context.

226

Understandably, attention is focussed first on safeguarding the rights and dignity of children which is an adult activity. This is where Child theology in Asia could draw guidelines from

Indian liberation theologies. While Child theologies have claimed liberationist leaning, they have nevertheless drawn largely to confessional and orthodox interpretations of scriptures (as discussed in detail in the previous chapter).

227

PART IV ANALYSIS OF THE THEMES EMERGING FROM PREVIOUS CHAPTERS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

This section analyses and presents agency, advocacy and mystery as significant themes emerging from part 2 and 3 by deploying contrapuntality. The analysis offers my findings of this research on what constitutes the agency of children in a predominantly adult-centric context, the authentic advocacy of adults and the immanent mystery in children as the colonised other. I present the reinterpreted themes in Chapter 8 in the context of the education-labour debate about children in postcolonial India. This section also re-interprets methodological concepts such as contrapuntality, postcolonial theologies, the agency of children, the authentic advocacy of adults and the immanent mystery in children.

228

Chapter 7. Agency, Advocacy and Mystery: A Contrapuntal Analysis

7.1. Introduction

This chapter draws together the themes agency, advocacy and mystery as significant themes emerging from Parts 2 and 3. These themes will be analysed in the light of Bignall’s contrapuntality and complementing thoughts on advocacy and mystery by Taylor. The earlier part of the chapter recalls the themes as presented in liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies and later engages them contrapuntally.

7.1.1. Purpose of the Chapter

In this chapter, I analyse the themes of agency, advocacy and mystery to explain what constitutes the understanding of the agency of children in relation to advocacy of the adults and the immanent mystery in children. I also say that any essentialist order of presentation of the themes curbs the engaging ability of children and adults to integrate the vital presence of mystery in various degrees as contexts demand. It is significant to mention here that Bignall’s contrapuntality presents a new sociability for the colonised to anticipate liberative resources from the dominant. The new sociability also demands a qualitative transformation in the colonisers. The qualitative transformation in the colonisers makes them see in the colonised the dignity of life and the power of agency to converge towards new forms of postcolony.

The new forms of postcolony critique the unconstructive character of the differences and presents power positively. When power is understood positively, the dominant adults accept their roles as authentic advocates and let go off control and domination, to participate in and be informed by contextual praxis, and open up to the mystical dimension that otherness

229

offers. Therefore the configuration of the agency of children, the authentic advocacy of adults and significant presence of mystery varies in different contexts.

To recapitulate, I began my research with a preliminary observation that agency, advocacy and mystery are the three themes that interact with each other in various configurations both in Indian liberation theologies and children-related theologies. This is to emphasise that an inclusive interaction of the themes have advanced the agency of the colonised more effectively than the exclusive agency of the colonised. Moreover, in the configuration of agency, advocacy and mystery, it has re-emerged clearly that an exclusive understanding of agency cannot advance the agency of the colonized as much as a combined effort of agency, advocacy and mystery. The exclusive agency is all the more restricting in its relevance when the colonised are children who cannot claim their exclusive agency in an overpowering adult dominant world.

7.1.2. Contrapuntality and the Agency of the Colonised

As explained in Chapter 2, the sophistication of Bignall’s explanation, compared to postcolonial theological explanation in Indian theology, is due to Bignall’s clearer explanation of different forms of agency in a postcolony: resistant-forms of agency

(quantitative agency) and engaging-forms of agency (qualitative agency). Bignall’s sophisticated account of Contrapuntality through qualitative agency recognises that the colonisers and the colonised engage in conversations without desiring to recreate a new colony. This desire for conversations is by recognising that positive power pervades in a postcolony and that strong exclusive claim for individual autonomy of the coloniser is questioned. The conversations are not just the manifestations of resistance, but also a sharing of constructive liberative resources in compossible spaces. The former colonisers recognize 230

their role as advocates of the agency of the once colonised without impinging on their agency and the once colonised pursue a new sociability for more recognition of their agency.

Bignall draws her scheme for her contrapuntal agency with a critical analysis of the notions of agency in Bhabha, Said and Spivak. Significantly, in her critique of Spivak, Bignall raises the issue of the audibility of subaltern speech granted the subalterns have the ability of speech. She questions the listening ability of the dominant. This shift of dynamic in contrapuntality enables authentic adult-advocacy in two significant ways: firstly, enhancing the listening ability to the voices and expressions of children that are either responses to their immediate contexts or their own innocent expressions that could be treated as resources for a compossible engagement; and secondly, enabling to identify the significant presence of mystery that enriches the agency of the colonised children. As seen in Chapter 2, while

Bignall only critically deconstructs the notions of Spivak’s subaltern-speech and overtly emphasizes the listening ability, she does not recognise the ontological role of mystery that reinforces the agency of the colonised.

7.1.3. The Limitations of deploying Bignall’s Contrapuntal Agency and the Immanence of Mystery

While I do engage with Bignall’s contrapuntality for my analysis, her proposal has its limitations. Bignall presupposes a historical postcolony in Australia involving the dominant communities and the aboriginals and is therefore context-limited. She also critiques postcolonial discourses in Australia so far as they aim for grand narratives that tend to take the views of the aboriginals seriously but not adequately to consider their views and history for a continued engagement. Therefore Bignall’s proposal of the qualitative agency itself is investigational and open-ended.

231

The first limitation is the context of the method. I place my findings in the context of India, more specifically in the adult-dominant context that has colonized the understanding of the agency of children while Bingall’s contrapuntal engagement is an all-adult engagement.

Therefore, Bignall’s adult-centric presumptions in her proposal of qualitative agency fall short of addressing my desired question on the agency of children.

Secondly, the obligations on children are demanding as a colonised group. The children, unlike the adult-colonized, cannot grasp the enormity of the colonized state they are in. They need a strong advocating support from adults who are ironically the colonizers. Hence the role of the colonizers here is more than what Bignall’s contrapuntality calls for. Therefore, I complement the notion of advocacy by drawing from the explanation of postcolonial advocacy from Taylor which is a critical and appreciative development of Spivak’s ‘entitled advocates’. Taylor’s proposal of authentic advocacy [a] creates a space for its advocacy without impinging on the potential space for agency of the colonised, [b] understanding the contexts of children to allow their agency to flourish, and [c] further involves in activism and questions exclusive notions of agency.

Bignall’s contrapuntal method benefits from the theme of mystery, which is significant in this research. As discussed in the Introduction and Chapter 2, Bignall’s notion of agency is strongly shaped by ontology. 406 In her view, a positive ontology helps to discover different conceptualization of transformative actions between the colonizer and the colonized.

Therefore, the theme of mystery from my research interacts with Bignall’s contrapuntality to see how when qualitative agency opens up the space for mystery, the agency of the

406 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 2. 232

colonized—especially the agency of children as in my research—will gain the deserved prominence in the adult-colonising world.

Taylor opens up the issue of mystery through his account of advocacy. Mystery is the differential that the engaging spaces offer especially to the advocating dominant. This mystery subsequently promotes responsible advocacy when the advocates potentially expose themselves to the context of solidarity and explore the liberative resources which is a movement away from their imperial self. The ability to accept the profound uncertainty in the face of the other enhances the value of mystery.

To augment Taylor’s thoughts on mystery, I turn to Marty’s elucidation of mystery. Mystery, for Marty, is “limitless contingencies, experiences, and choices...”.407 (see Chapter 5). I explain this further by saying that conceptualizing children demands an act of openness to see them beyond any one contingency such as their physicality or vulnerability. Their significance cannot be restricted just to the biblical notions of the gift of God, or as the source of covenant as promoted in children-related theologies. Nor is it restricted to the mysterious silence of the child that could still show the way to the kingdom of God.

7.2. An Understanding of the Agency of Children, Authentic-Advocacy of Adults and the Immanence of Mystery

The themes of agency, advocacy and mystery have emerged from liberation theologies in

India and children-related theologies to confirm that the agency of the marginalised elicits support from advocacy and mystery to advance the agency effectively. In this section I

407 Marty, Mystery, 52-53. 233

critically engage the thoughts from the above section with Bignall’s elucidations of contrapuntal agency. The elucidated factors for a contrapuntal agency are: qualitative relationship in a new sociability, a qualitative transformative possibility, a critique of the unconstructive character of the differences, and a positive connotation of power.

7.2.1. A Qualitative Relationship in a New Sociability

In the discussion on the agency of children, the discussion is not just about agency of children but also about the dominant-adults who engage and explore with children to create a new sociability. I showed through the survey of postcolonial agency in Chapter 2 that a robust presupposition in postcolonial criticism is that postcolonial agency is largely about the agency of the colonised that should break through a dominant stronghold to create a new sociability. The emphasis is on the colonised to keep retelling the significance of their agency. Bignall takes this debate further by also calling for the voices of the colonisers who through their liberative resources participate along with the agency of the colonised in new sociability. 408 The voice of the colonisers is what I term the advocacy of the colonised. In the context of children’s discourse, it is the advocacy of the dominant-adults in adult-centric contexts. A new sociability also supposes creating flexible configurations of agency and advocacy for an ongoing engagement which in turn interrogates an imperial social structure. 409

There are challenges when children-related theologies engage with liberation theologies in

India to understand a new sociability, an engaging space between children and adults. The

408 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 19. 409 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 20. 234

children-related theologies are carefully guarded spaces of adult-dominance without exploring the challenges of sociable spaces where the dominant move away from their privileged self. While the children-related theologies indicate postcolonial or liberationist eagerness and strategically that draw hermeneutical directions from the liberationist streams, they have not been bold to state that a discussion on the agency of children will not displace

God or Jesus Christ. Therefore, children-related theologies perpetuate a discourse about God or Jesus which will always be superior to that of the discourses on the colonised humans. By perpetuating a dominant sense of God or mystery, the children-related theologies also retain the dominance of the adults because it the adults who interpret the powers of mystery. As seen in the children-related theologies, the interpretation of the mystery has been favourable to adult-dominance than to advance the agency of children.

If children-related theologies have to contrapuntally interact with liberation theologies in

India which strongly insists on methodological exclusivity, the agency of children cannot be advanced much. This is because the predominant exclusivist notion of the liberation theologies could collude with the exclusivist notion of adult-dominance in children-related theologies to retain the methodological exclusivity. As in the liberationist streams in India, the child theologies adopted a strong resistive stance to various forms of engagement in

Holistic child development and Theologies of Childhood. Therefore, as in the liberationist theologies, the children-related theologies are unsuccessful in creating sociable spaces for conversations to explore hermeneutical resources that promote the agency of children.

In contrast to the exclusivist claims, there have been minor yet strong positive indicators within the liberationist streams tactfully to create a new sociability. While addressing the question whether the once-dominant could become authentic advocates, I explained briefly

235

that because liberation theologies restricted the postcolonial outlook of their exercise only to historical antecedents, they have overlooked the possibility of the colonisers becoming the advocates. Therefore, the liberation theologies have been more resistive than explorative for a coloniser-colonised engagement. However, postcolonial theologies in India have shown (see

Chapter 4) that methodological openness creates sociable spaces and contrapuntality facilitates retaining the exclusive claims while also seeking liberative resources from the advocates.

The closest sense of a new sociability in liberation theologies in India could be observed in praxis. Praxis shows the characteristics of negotiating between exclusive and inclusive agencies and advocacy. Nalunnakkal in his explanation of Organic Womanism demonstrates from grassroot movements that exclusive agency could negotiate with its advocates but with a caution: the caution of identifying the lesser dominant in a context of various dominant forces. The dominant forces in Indian contexts are casteist ideologies and patriarchal ideologies. Nalunnakkal prescribes the support of a patriarchal ideology for a womanist cause than a casteist ideology as caste ideologies are an exceedingly dominant force.

Children-related theologies exhibit a disparity between their intended vision and their hermeneutical principles. By analysing the historical nature of relationship between Child theologies in the West and Theologies of Childhood, Child theologies in the West have claimed to revisit the agency of children as perceived earlier in Theologies of Childhood to overcome the conceptual difficulty of regarding children as merely objects. Marcia Bunge held that the lens or the agency of children was a key to differentiating Child theologies from

Theologies of Childhood by offering refined views of children and childhood and the obligation of the adults towards children. This was unlike the theologies of childhood that

236

tend to review how children and their agentic significance have been addressed and received traditionally in Christian thought.

Positively, Organic Womanism (Nalunnakkal) and tactical compliance (Clarke) hint at the way forward in their negotiated ways to prudently and flexibly reconfiguring context-specific alliances even with the once dominant. To contrast them, there are also strong indications through methodological exclusivity that there is a potential danger of recolonization if exclusive claims are not continually made or if resistance is not offered strongly to the potential recolonizing schemes.

On a positive note, bringing the concept of sociability closer to Christian theology in India,

Rajkumar debunks the traditional notion of the dalits as the exclusively marginalised by flipping the argument on behalf of the dalits. As he claims the dalits to be a majority among

Christians, it also requires relocating the initial point of the agency debate from methodological exclusivity to praxis. With that, dalit theology is shown the possibility of resisting the agency argument from an exclusivist position to a more negotiatory position in praxis which still claims an exclusive agency without cutting itself off from the possibility of conversations with advocacy.

In children-related theologies in the West, when Grobbelaar and Thatcher deeply explore conceptual discussions with liberation theologies by deploying eclectic methods, they are incorporating various liberative principles with a vision of creating new sociabilities. The significance of eclectic method could also be observed in Holistic Child Development.

Jeyaraj takes the debate further by implying that praxis could give an edge to the already present biblical-centred theories of children’s development and care found in Child theology.

With this he suggests that biblical-centred theologies could restrict the scope of the

237

development, and therefore praxis has to be consciously incorporated into the methodological discussion. Therefore, Holistic Child Development is largely an all-encompassing methodology which is the decisive end of theology. At the same time, Holistic Child

Development has adapted the child-in-the-midst method both to signify a progress in its position on children as well as to make it context-specific in its presentation. The theological positions of White and Willmer could draw from these methodological explorations when they claim to advance the agency of children.

This raises significant questions about various notions of agency that children-related theologies float especially when they concentrate more power in the adults in the interpretation of the agency of children. It could be noted that defining the agency especially of children, unlike the adult-agency, needs greater support of adults than in other liberationist streams. Even while agency co-exists alongside advocacy, the conceptual difficulties of the agency of children in a new sociable context have to be seen urgently as circulated by the dominant adults. It also has to be seen as coming from the adults who are responsible advocates. The views that emerge from the children-related theologies clearly indicate the theological deliberation of understanding the child as not befitting the discourse on the agency of the colonised. White, Willmer and Collier exhibit the colonising tendency of firstly trying to say that children have to be in the centre and then wanting the children to be silent or passive. Simultaneously, they claim their responsible advocacy by attempting to project the child as theological subject. However, the projected child is passive or silent. The projection of the passive or silenced child as analogous to Jesus’ own action of placing a child in the midst of the disciples but not wanting the child to express its views is a shrewd theologically manipulation. Such an interpretation is a clear theological excess of the dominant claiming to be the advocates. In the light of the initial claim to re-present children

238

in a positive light, this interpretation is a regression from advocacy to dominance.

Grobbelaar, who seems to provide contextual analysis in the course of advancing the children’s agency, falls back on the fundamentals of the Child theologies of a passive or a silent child as adequate.

From the above explanations, I observe that the dominant agency of the adults is more prominent than their committed advocacy towards children. The notion of dominance points against a qualitative relationship or new sociability. However, on a positive note, the agency of the adults does show inadequate signs of advocacy. I observe that there is a sense of advocacy of the adults that wishes to bring children to the centre of theological discourse but there is unwillingness to provide more space for understanding children’s agency. Therefore, neither a clear understanding of the agency of children nor a clear understanding of the responsible advocacy of the adults could be drawn from children-related theologies. In this complex dialogical situation where the responsibility is on the adults to recognise the presence of children’s agency, children-related theologies reinforce children’s speechlessness. To make the advancement of the agency of children difficult, the children- related theologies even characterise and present a silent or passive child as a normative theological position. Such normative positions exhibit closures to creative methodological engagement to explore further understanding of the agency of children. Therefore the adult theologians continue to depict themselves more as entitled advocates than authentic advocates.

While it seems that the notion of adult-dominance or methodological exclusivity outweigh the discussions on contrapuntal inclusivity, postcolonial theologies in India, praxis as in

239

liberation theologies and Theologies of Childhood offer hopeful models of engagement and new sociability to advance the agency of children.

7.2.2. Identifying the Creative Potentials of the Differences

Identifying the creative potentials of the difference and overcoming their unconstructive character are positive driving forces for agency. The purpose of contrapuntal agency is to resist recreating new forms of hierarchy by the colonised by desiring the power that they lacked previously. Desire to gain power for a new hierarchy creates an exclusive agency and constraints the possibilities for a new sociability.

Children-related theologies and methodological exclusivity predominantly and constantly reinforce contrasts and differences as methodological features. In the child-in-the-midst method, the adult-child, the adult intentions to prolong the adult/child binary is strongly underlined by projecting Christ as the power and source of the agency. By inference, questioning adult-dominance sums up as questioning adults as powerful representatives of

Christ in adult-child interaction. This is further reinforced by the adult-claims that the presence of passive children is adequate enough to discuss children’s centrality. In the liberation theologies in India, even as theologians explore intersections as the space to explore the agency of the marginalised, they appeal to methodological exclusivity as fundamental to their arguments. Clarke calls to harden the edges around the exclusivist methodology and stresses that the inclusivists should maintain a respectful distance.

Likewise, Nalunnakkal reverts to Nirmal’s exclusivity even as he explores allegiances at grass-root levels.

240

In the children-related theologies, the deeper intentions have been to bridge the differences between the understanding of the centrality of children and the patronising voices of adults.

However, children-related theologies predominantly exhibit patronising attitudes towards children. Conceptually, in contexts where differences are taken advantage of to recreate hierarchies, the objective of critiquing the unconstructive character of the differences is to neither recreate another hierarchy based on power differentials nor to eliminate marginal values that the differences project. Rather, the awareness of the differences leads to new transformations. For a continually engaging postcolony, the differences should be allowed to be “critical” and “creative potential” and not just otherness in a negative sense.

For Bignall, most of the postcolonial discourses work on the dominant idea of the difference because the desire for transformation emerges from the awareness of the differences. 410

However, the differences on the side of the disadvantaged are interpreted as absence or lack.

Further, the otherness should not be restricted the socially marginals, 411 nor should it be the

“silencing or elimination of minoritarian values” because these values are significant in identifying and advancing the agency of the colonized. 412

I have shown that both liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies have deferred from exploring the positive notion of the differentials. Rather they have principally preferred exclusive positions as their starting points as well as their operative positions. In this research I deployed the contrapuntal methodology as my initial critique of the exclusivist agency. As I have mentioned (Chapters 1 and 2), I take the inclusivist position of the

410 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 8. 411 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 31. 412 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 39. 241

contrapuntality which benefits from the strengths of the differences between the colonisers and the colonised. The contrapuntal inclusivity also begins with the sense of engagement rather than resistance. This notion of engagement facilitates children-related theologies as adults have to engage firstly with their dominant self to explore their potentials for authentic advocacy and secondly, they have to engage with children to discern their sense of responsibility in relation to children’s needs and desires.

I explained in Chapter 3 and 4 that praxis has largely attempted to overcome the exclusivity/inclusivity binary by working out context-relevant configurations of the exclusive and inclusive agencies. This method was prescribed by Rajkumar, Schmalz and Nalunnakkal.

However their notions of regrouping differ as they reemphasise context-specific configurations. Rajkumar’s notion of praxis explains that exclusivity could be retained in an inclusive community specially by reframing the question of the majority and the minority. He explains that there is danger of the oppressed being readily and uncritically termed as

‘minority’ as in the case of dalit Christians in India. While Schmalz view opens up to an inclusivity-exclusivity discussion, Nalunnakkal tends to rely heavily on Nirmal’s dictum of a strong priority for methodological exclusivity in praxis.

In liberation theologies, methodological exclusivity takes differences to an extreme position.

The liberation theologies start-off as counter-movement to the classical Indian theologies or what the liberationists would call as the dominant or the colonial mode of theologies. Desire for liberation is driven by pathos and colonised-consciousness.

Here we note that Bignall is critical of Foucauldian analysis which is largely more quantitative than qualitative in its presentation of the agency of the oppressed in a structure.

And simultaneously, there have been movements to discover qualitative balances among

242

various forms of theologies, and yet to project the agency of the colonized in methodological inclusivity and postcolonial theologies in India. However, methodological inclusivists are largely driven by experience-driven agency. This has two implications. Firstly, the agency here is not just of the exclusively colonized as dalits, tribals, women, and so on, but also agency coming through the experience of marginalization of the so-understood dominant in various other contexts. The dominant too have their experiences of marginalization. This argument opens up to what could be called intra-category interaction that says each category has multiple identities. Each identity shows up prominently as context-specific demands.

Secondly, despite differing experiences of pathos between the marginalised and the dominant, the argument for methodological inclusivity to side with methodological exclusivity on the terms of the latter is beneficial in an all-adult discourse. The colonised adults are able to discern their colonised position and demand the inclusivists to sympathise with them. The colonised adults are also able to resist the dominant adults if the dominant adults cross their lines as authentic advocates.

If the above explanation has to be transposed uncritically to the context of the colonised children, it could mean that the children are well aware of their colonised state and they are aware of their imminent potential to overcome adult dominance if the dominant adults violate their objectives as authentic advocates and attempt to recolonize children. On the contrary, it is largely the children’s inability to discern the colonised condition they are in and subtle forms of potential adult-dominance that have to be considered in understanding what constitutes the understanding of the agency of children.

Children-related theologies offer a subtle debate on the differences between the dominant agency of the adults and their advocacy role. To begin with, the children-related theologies

243

sustain a paradox by continuing to retain the dominant adult agency even while claiming the centrality of children. The paradox is in ascribing central place to Jesus alone. It is a hermeneutical setback to the claims made in the child-in-the-midst method and the Child theologies’ quest to take the liberationist route in their approach. There have even been attempts to call children as agents by Tan, however preliminary the arguments are. Therefore, the notion of mystery that centralises Jesus defeats Bunge’s claim for liberationist views or the shallow claims for the agency of children by Tan. However children’s issues are not just about mentioning the agency of children, but also about the demands on adults to be more than just conversational partners with children. They also need to be authentic advocates who not only represent children but also those who listen to children before representing them. It is this notion of authentic advocacy that advances the agency of children.

In the struggle of adults to be authentic advocates and responsible conversational partners and at the same time be aware of not to be colonising agents of children, the children-related theologies benefits from the notion of mystery as suggested by Wall and Marty. Taylor too sees mysterious spaces in the movement from entitled advocates or the dominant adults to the authentic advocates or the listening adults.

By taking contrapuntal analysis seriously to explain the agency of children, I argue that the differentials coloniser/colonised dynamic work differently in adult-dominant discourses and intergenerational discourses where children are the colonised.

7.2.3. Belonging as Power

Contrary to Bignall’s suggestion that belonging and engaging in a new sociability gives power to the colonised, methodological exclusivity endorses a strong exclusive community to

244

create power from within the available resources. However, children-related theologies provide neither an exclusive or inclusive sense of belonging. Here, the dominant-adults seem to promote the centrality of children in the new sociability. Yet, they are expected to be silent or passive participants.

Bignall presents desire as a prerequisite for a power that does not recreate a new hierarchy but that which interrogates established structures and generates conversations. These conversations open up a sociability that empowers the agency of the colonised and the listening ability of the colonisers.

Liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies offer different understandings of desires to re-vision power positively. The colonised in liberation theologies are all adults and therefore the nature of their desire is different from desires of children. Again among children, it should be further said that the desire exhibits differently among different age- groups of children. The adults in liberation theologies could be empowered and made aware of their loss of agency perhaps more easily than with children. The children among the lesser age group would not have even realised the loss of their power or the overpowering dominance of adults in the adult domain. Therefore the connection of desire to positive power takes different interpretations in adult-children dichotomous contexts.

In dalit theology, dalit consciousness which refers to the historical desire for sovereignty and autonomy invokes pathos as a factor for power. The power that is backed by pathos leads to a segregated or exclusive community striving for exclusive and antagonistic powers. Bignall calls the agency that emerges from this power a quantitative agency. However contrapuntal agency opens up spaces for the colonisers to exercise their potential authentic advocacy.

Bignall’s proposal wishes to see the colonisers and rethink their ideas of power.

245

Simultaneously she calls the colonised in the same vein to foresee “friendly ways to coexist”. 413 As the liberation theologies exhibit, the desire of the colonised cannot be achieved without moments of aggressive interrogation of and resistance to the colonisers’ schemes. This thought is central to my critical conversation with Bignall.

My argument in the broad contexts of the liberation theologies is not to completely reject the configurations of agency, advocacy and mystery as presented in methodological exclusivity.

Likewise, in the children-related theologies, it is not to completely reject the role of adults who attempt to bring the child to the centre of theological discussions. But it is to critique an overemphasis of one or two themes against the others and to illustrate that the themes need constant reconfiguring in the light of the new challenges that children face in their context.

An over-emphasis of the configurations so far would lead to reinstating modernity traits in the discourses for a relevant children-related theology. In this light a practical understanding of mystery gives children the power that the advocates have to recognise. Therefore I argue that mystery is a strong factor in explaining the agency of the child alongside the advocacy of the adults. Multiple factors such as agency, advocacy and mystery significantly resist the potential privileging of any one factor.

Mystery and Positive connotation of Power:

Mystery emerges as a strong factor in advancing the agency of children. It not only emphasises the immanent power of children in relation to their colonising adults, it also opens up to creative engagements in transforming the dominant adults to authentic advocates.

413 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 246

Therefore mystery holds the key for a continuous engagement between the agency of children and the advocacy of adults. Wall and Marty’s understanding of immanent mystery invests positive power in children which provides potential insights to the agency of children. The complexity of the issue of children and mystery should not be treated as a problem but more positively as an unexplored sense of mystery. The unexplored depths of mystery would facilitate the reduction of adult dominance rather than giving the adults more power. When adults explore deeper meanings of mystery in the differences that children offer, the adult advocates heighten their sense of advocacy and responsibility than their dominance. This resonates with Taylor’s explanation of the mysterious knowledge that is gained in a delirium caused through the unanswered questions in the engagement between the colonisers and the colonised.

The mystery here does not just connote the divine, but also many creative and unknown possibilities. Interactive spaces between the colonisers and the colonised offer unlimited contingencies of experiences. In her explanation of qualitative agency, Bignall does not give prominence to this theme. While Bignal and Taylor develop their views based on the critique of Spivak, Bignall emphasises the notion of agency, while Taylor develops complementary views on advocacy. Taylor’s rigorous explanation of advocacy leads him to observe the mysterious space of unlimited contingencies. The ability to accept the profound uncertainty of the other raises the possibility of experiencing and dealing with mystery. Therefore, while

I draw the key analytical principles from Bignall, I intersperse them with complementing thoughts on the issues with views from Taylor especially on advocacy and mystery. Even if the mystery has to be connected to the mystery of God, Marty explains that the God as mystery is not distant and indescribable.

247

For adults to see the presence of mystery in the presence and activities of children is a postcolonial listening act. As strongly proposed in Thatcher, listening to children is possible by seeing children as young persons and agents. Therefore, the immanence of the agency of children has to be recognised. However, in an adult-dominant world the children need to be listened to by the adults to confirm their agency. Therefore, the first postcolonial responsibility of the dominant adult is to recognise that children have a capacity for agency because of the immanent mystery. To reiterate it from the view point of an authentic adult advocate, the listening occasion of the colonisers is not the only time when the colonised would speak. But it is in the recognition of their desire to speak and in the mystery that emerges through the engagement that positive signs of agency are present.

Bignall’s view that not all bodies are agents downplays the immanent source of mystery in children. This is contrasted by the child-in-the-midst method which, in principle, begins by presenting that children are passive agents. Therefore the desire to see children as agents compels adults to engage with children in children-related theologies. The child-in-the-midst method is a strong instance of the dominant adults who generously attempt to include children into the theological conversation but stop short of exhibiting their desire for positive power of children that advances their agency. While the differences of adult-child have to be maintained to purposefully explore their strengths and to exhibit constant need for relationships between different generations, the child-in-the-midst method retains the imperial notion of the adults as custodians of higher knowledge and agency. Even as children-related theologies debate on the fine lines between authentic advocacy and dominant agency of the adults, re-understanding mystery redirects the debate to understand the power of children positively. Child theologies in the West have presented a dominant divine or mystery that sits on the top of the hierarchy. The child theologians such as White and

248

Willmer invest great faith in Jesus the divine to the extent of overlooking the human Jesus.

This dominant hierarchical model seems to have been balanced in the works of Jeyaraj who revisits the theology of Incarnation to see a child Christ in the incarnation. While juxtaposing

White-Willmer and Jeyaraj, a crucial question is to ask is ‘how do adult theologians interpret the role of a physically absent Jesus in a practical situation of the violation of child rights and their dignity?

While White and Willmer state that the physical presence of children is not important, there are positive signs on how some strands of children-related theologies offer hope to children’s agency. Jeyaraj and Thatcher draw on the incarnation of Jesus as a child, thereby affirming that understanding the mystery of the God incarnate would make a strong case to understand the mystery surrounding the agency of children. Thatcher argues that children should be perceived as agents of theologizing, because Jesus himself showed how children’s lives are ways to understanding God’s kingdom. Thatcher strongly feels that the agency of children as expressed in rights should be placed in the understanding of God the child to strengthen a theological argument for the agency of children. The child-Christ was part of the God-head as well as a historical child living in and challenging adult-power domains. For Thatcher, listening to children in historical contexts advances the theological notion of the agency of children. If adults could listen to children, it opens up the view that children are young persons and agents. In the above cases, we see that wherever the notion of mystery is deployed through various names such as God, Christ, Jesus, Incarnate Christ, the attention is taken away from children by assuming that bringing children to the centre of discussion would debase mystery. The above explanations restrict the understanding of mystery to divine beings such as Jesus. Thatcher or Jeyaraj do extend their arguments to show how mystery could be identified in children through which their agency could be advanced.

249

As a case against the Child theologians in the West and their limited understanding of mystery, Grobbelaar’s method for child theology places the notion of mystery strongly in a cultural context while not relegating the significant role of God and God’s kingdom in interpreting the centrality of children. As a contextual interpretation to advance the agency of children and the mystery surrounding the agency of children, Grobbelaar explains from the stories of the African context that children have their own spiritual experiences and they are led by the Holy Spirit to exercise their spirituality just as the Spirit-filled adults would. For

Grobbelaar, the agency of children is contextual, and when contextually analysed they are not new.

To argue on the lines of Taylor, it is in the adults interacting actively with the child that advances both the child’s agency and sees the agency of the child beyond the restricted realm of the adult/child binary. The mystery challenges perpetuation of the binary and colonisation.

Mystery presents awe and wonder in the face of an interaction with children. When the adults willingly consent to the mystery in children, they open up to the potentials of children’s agency.

7.2.4. A Continuous Interrogation of Internal Colonies for Transformative Possibilities

We noticed in the previous section on power that children-related theologies demand greater transformation of the dominant and colonising adults. It opens up spaces to welcome new bodies towards newer transformations. It presumes the colonizer psychologically decolonizing themselves from the benefits of imperial legacy and converting the decolonized

250

mind into a social act of transforming the society.414 This encourages a movement away from the political forms of resistance that would give rise to newer forms of “internal colonisation”. 415 Formation of internal colonies thrives on the “generative force of negativity” and the collective unity it idealises”. 416 Thus Bignall seeks a transformative possibility of the colonising subjects to emphasise the interactive potential of the colonisers in creating a better postcolony.

Bignall’s explanation implies that the formation of internal colonies is the consequence of the negative desire, the desire to recreate new colonies due to the feeling of a lack of imperial power. It subsequently envisions a grand unity, preventing potential conversations for greater postcolonial possibilities. Also, subject formation is not the ultimate aim of transformation, but rather the transformation of the subject to engage in a negotiable conversation.

Transformation is associated with the colonised class who work for their agency. But a positive transformational potential also includes the transformation of the colonisers. The outlook of the envisioned forms of postcolonies does not subscribe grandly to any final form, but exemplifies an open-ended process where new bodies join in to nurture new transformations.

In postcolonial theologies in India, the emphasis is on the notions of continued engagement and liminality, and creating more flexible forms of identity. While postcolonial inclusivity intends to engage in identity discourses, they offer more flexibility or elasticity to discern the views of the dominant in the course of liberation. Unlike the liberationist stream, it does not

414 Bingall, Postcolonial Agency, 4. 415 Bignall, Angelaki , 128. 416 Bignall, Postcolonial Agency, 8. 251

compel the dominant towards the identity discourse of the colonized. Rather it works at an initial or ground level to discern how cumulatively the motif of liberation could be worked out with broader or flexible objectives for an interactive and flexible postcolony. The intention of postcolonial hermeneutics as a continuation of the liberationist stream in India is not to overlook the concrete or stable identities that influence and shape liberation theologies.

Contrapuntal methodology interrogates the liberation theologies that are predicated on group identity but does not completely reject it. The liberation theologies emphasize on the experience of the oppressed and tend to homogenize the whole group or community as oppressed. However, it does not recognize the oppressive forces within the oppressed groups or communities. In other words, traditional liberation theologies tend to overlook ‘internal colonies’. For instance in the conventional dalit theology, all dalits are understood as oppressed whereas a postcolonial reading helps identify various forms of colonizing tendencies within and without dalit theological schemes. So, postcolonial theologies facilitate in disrupting the homogenizing tendencies.

Among the methodologies of liberation theologies, so far praxis has strongly explored possibilities for an engagement towards transformation. From the discussion on spatial opportunism of Schmalz and the rightful recognition of the colonized as the majority among

Indian Christians by Rajkumar, we observe that praxis demonstrates best the negotiable space between the colonised and the coloniser. However, the danger is a movement towards the dominant model of Indian Christian theology where the culturally and politically dominant have the ability to take advantage of the negotiable space to colonise and recolonise. I raised the question as to why the colonised, despite being the majority in the Indian Christian scenario, could not bring about its own liberation. We observed that, the Christian discourse of the colonised was caught up in a conundrum whether to claim its majority only within the

252

Christian context and seek its liberation or to gather interreligious resources—a macro approach—through discourses and movement to strengthen and speed up the liberative process.

In the children-related theologies, the challenges of transformation in a compossible space in adult-child conversation fall largely on the adults, the colonisers. The challenge of contrapuntality according to Bignall is to prefer qualitative engagement to a quantitative one, it demands the adults to move from their dominant selves to being responsible advocates which takes adults to understand the nature of negotiation on behalf of children. If the colonising adults wait for children’s resistance as a means for their transformation, then the adults already seem to continue their dominant selves because they are least commonly aware of the lack of children’s ability to resist that undergirds adult dominance. However, an alternative way of understanding resistance by children is in acknowledging the differences as counter responses. It is in the differences that the adults could see alternative views for their transformation.

7.2.4.1 Adult-Advocacy as Postcolonial Inclusivity in Understanding Children’s Agency

When Spivak claims that subaltern voices are enmeshed in the dominant discourse, she either seems to compel the dominant to advocate on behalf of the subalterns or explains that all agency is invested in the dominant. She addresses the dominant as the benevolent western intellectuals. As introduced earlier, Taylor extends Spivak’s idea of the advocating role of the colonisers that Bignall has failed to see in Spivak. Therefore, in my argument on advocacy,

Taylor’s proposals complement Bignall’s qualitative agency as both Taylor and Bignall place

253

an impetus on the colonisers to move away from their imperial selves. However Taylor spells it out with greater clarity.

I explained the significant role of advocacy that strengthens the agency of the subalterns in

Indian liberation theologies when the subaltern agency is placed in a resilient context of the dominant. However, advocacy faces serious challenges when the advocates could be potential dominant powers themselves. As examined in Clarke, in liberation theologies in India, theological advocacy emphasises greater responsibility to the colonised in coordinating

“oppositional, discordant and anomalous voices” that are negated or neglected. 417 Clarke recognizes that liberation theologies do provide space and scope for advocating the agency of the colonized.

As derived from the analysis of the methodologies of liberation theologies in India as well as from the children-related theologies, the creation of the agency cannot be attributed to the colonised experiences alone. This is in a sense a strong negation of identity-specific exclusive voices. The many experiences towards liberation also involve those who are categorised as the colonisers. As methodological inclusivity, theological inclusivity within methodological exclusivity, and importantly as praxis has revealed, representatives of the so-called colonisers do advocate the liberation of the colonised. It was also observed in the children-related theologies, adults—the colonisers—have readily taken up the role of advocates on behalf of children. It is when the colonisers take up the role of the advocates in a colonial context that

Spivak’s argument that the subalterns cannot express their authentic views comes to the fore.

Or, as seen earlier, for Spivak, a subaltern discourse underscores the colonial dynamic that

417 Sathianathan Clarke, Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India, (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), 20. 254

has inadequate or no right of entry to interrogate cultural imperialism. And that creates a differential space because the subaltern critique is embedded well within the privileged structure. 418 In a captivating context as this, what could still make a coloniser a responsible advocate?

Firstly, the two-space challenges/dilemma: Initially, the dominant has the challenge of identifying two spaces: space for the agency of the colonised to flourish and at the same time to create a space for its advocacy without impinging on the potential space for agency of the colonised.

In Indian liberation theologies, methodological exclusivists have alerted the absence of the agency of the colonized especially when such agency did exist but was side-lined. This side- lining was due to the colonial nature of control over and negating any form of the colonized agency. Nirmal’s exposition of the Trinity and his uncertain position on whether the theology is ‘Christian’ or ‘dalit’ explains the risk. To build a hedge around the exclusive agency and yet presume an open engagement, Nirmal derives a sense of advocacy from a non-human agency, i.e., the Trinity as a justification for intercommunion yet exclusive. He even glosses over what could be perceived as inclusive that conventionally comes with the theology of the

Trinity to make Christian theology grounded in dalit experiences than in the inclusivity.

Similar to Nirmal, Clarke works out an inclusivity model within methodological exclusivity.

This is how Clarke’s tactic compliance works out inclusivity within an exclusive scheme. The discomfort of calling for advocates is due to the colonial experience of the classical Indian

418 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, interview by Leon de Kock, “New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa.”, Ariel: A Review of International English Literature 23/3 (1992): 45. 255

theology or of the methodological inclusivists who could be working towards another

“theological hijacking”, as Sebastian analyses Nirmal’s exclusivist position.

In such a context, methodological inclusivity captures the idea of an advocate outside the realms of pathos when methodological inclusivity calls for advocates of liberation on behalf of the colonized. This position also presents as sense of uncertainty by not allowing a confirmed or a final agency of the colonised. Regarding this sense of uncertainty or tactical open-endedness, Sebastian however feels that exclusivity was required in dalit theology’s infancy, but given the larger picture of Nirmal’s theological strategy, methodological exclusivity is of an exploratory nature that could open up toward a reconciliatory theology.

The dynamic of an advocate takes a different trajectory in the children-related theologies. The notion of the entitled advocacy of the adults by White, Willmer and Tan and Jeyaraj largely reinstates adult-dominance that either blocks children’s active agentic potential or an open- ended intergenerational interaction that could provide adults a break-through into children’s worldview. White is positive in methodological contradiction to both of Bunge’s methodological propositions: that taking contextual realities of children as in liberation theologies is a way forward towards recognising the agency of children, and that Child theologies take further the notion of the agency of children from Theologies of Childhood.

This triggers speculations of regulating the colonised and negating the possibility of an open- ended possibility of any agentic contribution from the children.

Grobbelaar explains that children’s agency is largely a product of children’s context as well as more than the agency of an individual child. But White’s explanation of children’s agency suggests that one cannot ascribe completely to children their ability to generate the agency.

Opening up the configuration of children’s agency to the context allows adults to offer

256

advocacy on behalf of children. However, restricting the power of agency only to their children’s contexts exposes power differentials as adults continue the colonising model.

However, Grobbelaar ascribes to children greater ability to proactively express their own views through their own experiences of oppression or through their observation. These views complement the already existing views about the context that has emerged despite the dominating adult-centric context that children live in. Therefore Grobbelaar’s observations make it possible to note at least two views: that it is possible to create spaces for agency of children in particular or of the colonized in general, in stifling circumstances and, that such emergence of agency should be identified by the entitled advocates to promote the agency of children. This also justifies and accomplishes Bunge’s methodological proposition that children’s views—when considered as significant as the agency of the colonized in the various liberation theological streams—offer potential openings to promote the agency of children through Child theology, which is a methodological improvisation of the Theologies of Childhood that Bunge claims is not adequate enough to pursue the agency of children.

The methodological position of White, Willmer and Tan and Jeyaraj is precisely the contradiction that our finding alerts the entitled advocates to avoid while representing the subaltern speechlessness. In this first suggestion, he expresses that entitled advocacy or a committed representation also poses the danger of objectifying and controlling the subalterns.

This in turn reifies adult entitlement. White—as well as other Child theologians outside Asia with an exception of Grobbelaar—wishes to keep the activity of Child theology as an adult domain restraining children from having a greater say in the methodological formation of

Child theology. A moment of optimistic adult advocacy becomes prominent when Child theologians call adults to wear the lenses of children to see through their eyes. Even in his

257

understanding of the role of entitled advocates, Tan mostly resonates with White’s position when he claims that all theological activity is an adult activity which has to be retained even in case where children’s views could challenge the dominant structure.

Secondly, children-related theologians and liberation theologians have to take a plunge into grass-root praxis in their endeavour to advocate the agency of the colonised. Context-specific knowledge of agency and advocacy embodies specific challenges to theoretical notions of the discourse.

The second thought explores the idea of committed praxis by advocates by identifying forms of exploitation in their contexts and resisting such exploitations. Resisting exploitation takes advocates through the experience of being subordinated. This experience provides the advocates opportunities to identify themselves with the experiences of subordination and marginalisation in wider contexts and represent them on their behalf. Here two varying degrees of subordinated experiences interact to form an alliance to resist colonising tendencies: the subordinated experiences of the colonised and the subordinated experiences of the advocates. The experience of subordination of the advocates could be less intense than that of the represented. This proposal provides a scope for those who identify with the colonized through their own unique experiences of suffering/pathos as expressed in methodological inclusivity and praxis. What is significant in this proposal is the way two varying degrees of pathos could come together to create a formidable resistance to colonising tendencies.

In children-related theologies, Grobbelaar’s and Jeyaraj’s exploration of contextual hermeneutics within the broader, largely adult-centric Child theology provides the type of resistance for effective advocacy. Grobbelaar’s and Jeyaraj’s proposal are in stark contrast to

258

Sunny Tan’s rigid position not to incorporate contextual hermeneutics even as he claims to propose child-theology for a specific context, i.e., Asia. However, the outcome of the proposals between Grobbelaar and Jeyaraj vary. While they both are sympathetic to the contextual realities of the suffering children voices need to be heard, Grobbelaar discerns that children’s views and stories of their experiences are equally important as their advocates’, while Jeyaraj privileges the adult advocates at the expense of the views of colonised children.

The critique of Arles is a good instance of how Jeyaraj’s views cannot be left predominantly to the confines of adult-interpretation of children’s experiences. Arles, as discussed in Ch. 6, critiques the instrumentalisation of children, the kind of model that Tan and Jeyaraj propose on the pretext of representing children but subtly perpetuate adult-dominance.

Thirdly, openness to praxis opens up negotiable spaces. As observed in liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies, the advocates of the subalterns delicately, if not impeccably, recognise that grassroot activism at any scale is crucial and it challenges the notion of an established space because the established spaces are rigid and less likely to grasp the availability of liberative resources outside their spaces.

In my presentation of the methodologies of liberation theologies in India in Chapter 3, I noted that two prominent models of praxis pave the way for a clearer understanding of the collaborative dynamics between the colonised and the colonisers beyond restricted boundaries such as the theological and the religious: Schmalz’ “spatial opportunism” and

Rajkumar contestation of “imagined identities”. Praxis, as exhibited in Indian liberation theologies, has methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity in context specific perspectives by reconfiguring their dynamics. While in the exclusivity and inclusivity, the agency of the colonised is significant, it is clear that agency of the colonized alone will not

259

yield the envisioned liberation. Praxis poses an explicit sign of threat to the absoluteness of the oppressor. Rajkumar’s dalithos questions the illusive opinion rooted in Indian theological thinking on who should provide solidarity to whom in the context of the struggle for identity.

Where the church in India has dalits and tribals as majority, he identifies the dominant notion among the minorities to patronizingly extend solidarity, a tendency of the coloniser. This has created an unsolicited binary in the church and liberative movements. He prescribes a collaborative effort of the colonised and the colonisers by acknowledging that the church in

India is of dalit majority and therefore the agency of the majority will invariably be decisive in envisioning liberation.

I understand Rajkumar’s methodological movement as a positive divergence from methodological exclusivity. He recognises the majority status of dalits and tribals which unavoidably makes a case for the recognition of their agency without having to harden the edges around exclusive dalit discourses and to make identity specific discourses as counter discourse in Clarke and Nirmal respectively. He questions the counter colonial model or exclusivist model of agency and generates a compossible model within a postcolony. This provides what Bignall explains as a common notion that facilitates cordial understanding between the colonised and the coloniser. Rajkumar’s views presents a conceptual space for a common notion while Schmalz’ views present possibilities of creating practical interaction between organisations on behalf of the colonised. While the intent of Schmalz’ spatial opportunism is similar to that of methodological inclusivity, Rajkumar’s argument has an advantage when Rajkumar uses the methodology of praxis to take the notion of interrelationality beyond the conventional scheme of the methodologies, especially of methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity by debunking the theory of the

260

dominance of the minority. In this sense praxis offers a model that would interrogate the conventional methodologies.

The Agency of Children

In my quest to understand what constitutes the agency of children in an Indian context by contrapuntally analysing concept of the agency of the colonised in liberation theologies in

India and children-related theologies, I have analysed the themes of the agency of the children, the advocacy of adults, and mystery. I have analysed them under contrapuntal themes that a new sociability advances the agency of children. The new sociability offers great potential for the adults to explore positive notions of the differences between adults and children to interrogate dominant views. While interrogating the dominant views, power must be exercised positively to include the colonised and create spaces for their agency. A continuous engagement would also lead to the transformation of the dominant adults to be authentic advocates of children.

The agency of children I propose is a positive notion of agency that includes children’s view and expressions. Therefore, the agency of children means children’s own views and expression and not just their subjective or passive presence that children-related theologies present. Therefore the understanding of the agency of children I present is beyond the concept of passive agency or the silence presence of children that children related theologies promote. The sense of agency that children-related theologies promote is shrouded in the idea of children’s subjectivity where subjectivity means their passive presence without acknowledging their own views and perspectives. Even where there are possibilities of considering children’s views in rights-violated contexts, the children-related theologies

261

consider it an adult-privilege to speak on behalf of children than for adults to become authentic advocates.

Even liberation theologies in India have not initiated a discussion on the concept of children’s agency but, in principle, they present a liberative agency of the marginalised. However, only posturing of the principles of liberation does not translate practically and effectively incorporate children’s concerns. Moreover, as I have shown in this research, the liberative principles are enshrined in adult-dominant discourses. Therefore liberation theologies in India must relocate their discussions on the agency of children by disclosing the colonising tendency built into their liberative hermeneutical principles and simultaneously moving further from methodological exclusivity.

A strong insistence on methodological exclusivity to advance children’s agency means that only children’s views have to be considered exclusively regardless of the significant themes of adult advocacy and mystery. I have argued that to exclude the themes of adult-advocacy and mystery greatly limits our understanding of the agency of children because the theological and cultural contexts in which we discuss the agency of children are strongly adult-centric. Moreover, contrapuntality facilitates not only a critique of the adult-dominance but also a constructive participation of the formerly dominant adults as authentic advocates.

In comparison to liberation theologies in India, children-related theologies have taken the concept of the liberative principle ahead and explained that children in rights-violated contexts have questioned the structure. The children-related theologies have developed methods as child-in-the-midst and initiated debates on children’s centrality to see the adult- dominant context. If liberation theologies in India have to revise its hermeneutical positions to incorporate children as one of the marginalised communities, they need both children’s

262

voices and the listening ability of the adults simultaneously. Such a simultaneous action is emphatically contrapuntal.

To explain it more specifically, the liberation theologies must be cautious that its adult- dominant discourse does not subsume the understanding of the agency of children. This is because the adult-consciousness of liberation theologies demands an ability first to root its subjectivity in its immediate context and then challenge the structure. However, this possibility is unlikely in the case of children. Therefore, the teleology of adult advocacy is not only to move beyond merely understanding children’s subjectivity but also to seek their views and expression as significant factors to define their agency.

The Advocacy of Adults in relation to the Agency of Children

While the adults assume the responsibility of advocacy on behalf of vulnerable and voiceless children, the proposal of the children-related theologies suggests views to the contrary. Adult- advocates expect the children to be passive or silent participants and only symbolically be present in the centre of the discourse the child-in-the-midst method. This is even when the children-related theology begins with a claim to bring children to the centre of theological discourse and advance their agency. Therefore, the claims of the agency of children are conservative and regressive.

Child theologies in the West and in Asia project a sense of intolerance to any kind of challenge to adult dominance. A contextual child theology as proposed by Grobbelaar gives hope to advancing the agency of children by taking the children’s context seriously.

Grobbelaar convincingly argues that children’s voices could be heard clearly when their rights are violated. However, a consequential contribution of Grobbelaar is that his proposal

263

engages between the traditional methods of Child theologies in the West and the Liberationist theologies. In all these interactions, we observe that the agency of children needs adequate support of adult-advocacy, more than that of the adult-colonised in their respective colonised circumstances.

The following outcomes on the theme of adult-advocacy strongly support the agency of children:

In both liberation theologies and children-related theologies, the dominant had the challenge of creating two spaces: a space for the agency of the colonised and at the same time to create a space for its advocacy without impinging on the potential space for agency of the colonised.

However as shown, the contrapuntal challenge was to see that the colonised in the liberation theologies in India like the adult dalits or women or tribals could be the coloniser in relation to children. Therefore the methodologies of methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis will reformulate to see the dominant tendencies in the both colonisers and the colonised. This undertaking is the recognition of internal colonies both by the adult- colonised as well as the adult-colonisers. It is this activity of discerning the presence of internal colonies that takes liberation theologies a step towards seeing children as part of the theological discourse.

Likewise in the children-related theologies, the subtle adult-dominance will have to see the child-in-the-midst as not only a silent and passive child but a potential child to express its views in its context. Therefore, the presence of children is not just a symbolic presence but a real presence. Significantly, children-related theologies will have to boldly respond to its claims of being along the line of liberationist theologies

264

Children-related theologies and liberation theologies define praxis as a key theme. They agree that grassroot praxis negotiates favourably for the agency of the colonised when both the colonised and the coloniser review their roles. Praxis has largely attempted to overcome the exclusivity/inclusivity binary by continually reconfiguring context-specific movements.

Praxis explains that exclusivity could be retained in an inclusive community specially by reframing the question of the majority and the minority.

Holistic Child Development has proposed interdisciplinary methods that include praxis as a way of bringing children to the centre of theological discourse. It includes justifying children’s rights and working towards their care and protection. However theologically, the model of praxis continues the dominant form of inclusivity where adults define childhood and children’s context for children’s agency.

In the initial analysis presented in Chapters 3-6, my task was to see how forms of exclusive agency either of the colonised or the coloniser were deconstructed, and whether there were simultaneous attempts to forge relationships between the groups. In the process I showed that the agency of the colonised groups does not operate exclusively. Advocacy and mystery are the two other significant themes that engage with the agency of the colonized. In the chapters on liberation theologies in India, I analysed the themes based on the interplay of the methodologies of methodological exclusivity, methodological inclusivity and praxis.

Therefore agency, advocacy and mystery capture intricate dynamics of the collaborations between the once colonised and their former colonisers.

Advocacy in contrapuntal qualitative agency means that the dominant adults, who intriguingly are both colonisers and advocates of children, overcome the colonizing intentions and promote the agency of children in the adult-domain. Qualitative agency, by implication,

265

demands withdrawal of adult dominance and exercising of the sensitivity to the pathos of children. Furthermore, unlike in an all-adult colony or postcolony, the adults are to advocate to a large extent an exclusivity agency of children, but not completely exclusive. The demanding advocacy of the adults would mean not to impinge on the potential space for the agency of children, to have a context-specific knowledge of the challenges that children face, to surrender their privileged spaces to accommodate children’s potential privileges that advance their agency and to be continually aware of the critical discourses to adult-centric views. The four outcomes about the understanding of advocacy will be discussed in detail in section 7.3.

Mystery, Agency of Children and Advocacy of Adults

Mystery is a significant theme that traverses the themes of the agency of children and authentic adult advocacy. This theme needs a significant attention as it is both interrogative and creative. It interrogates adult dominance and supplements the concept of the agency of children. On the creative side, while this research is an account of the construction of the agency of children which seeks serious and responsible support from the dominant-adults, a positive affirmation of the agency of children emerges in the account of mystery. As discussed in Part III, a theological understanding of mystery related to children is not just confined to the notion that they are created in the image of God. The mystery that develops from the Image of God minimises adult-dominance and gives adults a heightened sense of responsibility towards children. While this argument is still confined to the theme of adult- advocacy, it also postures of openness which children exhibit in their engagement with the adults. Mystery also provides a sense of incomprehensibility which would keep adult- dominant discourse open-ended to the sense of knowing more about children.

266

The children-related theologies pay large attention to the divine mystery. In the process they equate the role of an adult to that of the divine: defining the concept of the kingdom of God in which the child is placed and that adults are the final adjudicators of the understanding of childhood. This is a highly spiritualized notion or what John Wall explains as a top-down model where childhood exhibits the ontologically disordered humans most. A major sense of quantitative agency or a reverse exclusivity is exhibited in Child theologies while explaining the notion of mystery. Children-related theologies have exhibited a strong sense of resorting to the divine or mystery to retrieve and promote the centrality of children. However, we also notice that resorting to mystery or the divine have taken away the emphasis on the discussions about the agency of children.

As Chapters 5 and 6 have shown, a constructive understanding of the agency of children is strengthened by children’s immanent mystery as proposed by Wall and Marty. Their proposals are a strong critique of the concept of mystery as an external force that children- related theologians such as White and Willmer have proposed. For White and Wilmer, Jesus

Christ symbolises the ultimate model of mystery to promote the agency of children because

Jesus presented children as powerful signs of the kingdom of God for adults to follow.

However, by reading the scriptures literally, White and Willmer incorrectly depict children as passive or silent. The strength of the argument of the immanent mystery in children is that it looks for the manifestation of mystery within children beyond just the theme of children as signs, but also in the constant adult-child interaction that opens to fresh understandings about children and adults who exhibit mystery.

There are also varying explanations of mystery in liberation theologies in India and children- related theologies. In liberation theologies in India, mystery is described as an external agent

267

either in the explanation of the doctrine of Trinity or in the presentation of deities emerging from marginalised communities. The theme of mystery has also strongly emerged from the liberation theologies where the theological imagination of the colonised helps them to perceive the mysterious powers in gods and goddesses that empower the agency of the colonised.

The liberation theologians in India predominantly prefer the understanding of mystery that supports the exclusive agency of the marginalised. The notions of mystery emerge from the cultural traditions of the marginalised communities (methodological exclusivity) as well as from Christian themes (methodological inclusivity). Even as the themes of the Trinity had the potential to offer an inclusivist position, liberation theologians move precariously between methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity only to say that the God is on the side of the oppressed, a dictum of Latin American liberation theology. Nirmal presents a shallow exposition of the doctrine of Trinity with a presupposition that dalitness is the core to understanding the mystery. He begins with the notion of inclusivity that the Trinity potentially offers but he undoubtedly propagates an exclusivist proposition by asserting the dalit exclusive agency over against the potential interrelational potential of the Trinity.

Therefore, attempts to revitalise the concept of mystery in liberation theologies become superficial.

However, we also observe that the theme of mystery could be offered in an inclusive way if the understanding of the mystery is interreligious, as presented in Prabhakar and Arulraja.

Their proposals are only theological inclusivity within methodological exclusivity which I critiqued as less relevant compared to contrapuntal inclusivity. However, their proposals offer some beginnings to the understanding of mystery as a supportive argument for agency. They

268

confirm that resorting to religious myths and mystery stories do enhance the argument for the agency of the colonised to affirm that the colonised are not just victims without a voice of resistance or creativity but also divinely favoured and have the potential to scheme their own unique modes of agency.

Here I observe two significant understandings of mystery that emerge from the above explanations: mystery as a primary factor in children-related theologies and mystery as the supplementary factor in liberation theologies in India. In the children-related theologies,

Jesus as divine mystery is the primary factor. The experiences or views and expressions of children are secondary to the mystery of Jesus’ act of placing children in the midst of the adults. In contrast, in the liberation theologies in India, the pathos experience of the adults presents the primary case for the agency of the marginalised. The mystery supplements the pathos argument.

Such an understanding of mystery, I argue, captures a strong adult/children dichotomy that privileges the adults. The experience of adult pathos is considered to be a strong methodological factor to define the agency of the marginalised whereas the experiences and views of children are projected to be not weighty enough to constitute the understanding of the agency of children. Therefore mystery is projected as a strong primary factor in the children-related theologies to reinforce the views and presence of children. However, the threat to understanding mystery as a primary factor for children’s agency is when the interpretation of the mystery is controlled by the dominant adults. Therefore there are strong possibilities to project a dominant-friendly mystery than children-friendly mystery. To reconfigure the ideas of mystery relevantly to understand the agency of children, Indian liberationist and postcolonial theologies must project the views and expressions as primary

269

factors which is strongly supported by their immanent mystery. While doing so they must consider that the notion of mystery is not confined just to the traditional understanding of children as God’s gift or God’s own image, but also to explain that mystery could be identified in the views about children that adults could be unaware of. Therefore, a strong notion of mystery emerges from continuous intergenerational interactions. In these interactions the adult dominant theologies must play the role of authentic advocates.

A Relevant Understanding of Contrapuntality

In this research, I have offered a more progressive understanding of agency and advocacy, by deploying contrapuntality as an inclusive methodology which does not drive the dominant towards the identity-specific discourse of the colonised. Rather, agency and advocacy work continually at the ground level to discern how the cumulative notion of liberation could be worked out with broader or flexible objectives for an interactive and a flexible postcolony.

To explain the modes of agency in children-related theologies in the language of the methodologies offered by liberation theologies in India, children-related theologies largely present reverse exclusivity or passive exclusivity where the dominant rather than the colonised has a significant say in defining the agency of the colonised. The agency of children they suggest is the silent agency of children which are manifest only through their presence. Children’s own views are not considered as either fully necessary or adversely upsetting the core of Christian faith. This passive or silent agency of children is strongly justified through narrow biblical interpretations of the child-in-the-midst method. Even contextual realities are largely and deliberately sidelined by theologians Keith White and

Haddon Willmer in their methodologies (see 5.3.2). This not only challenges the ontological

270

significance of children’s agency but also ignores a core proposition of Child theologies in the West that are children-related theologies.

The inclusivity expressed in children-related theologies is dominant inclusivity: Adults are dominant advocates, whereas children’s agency is largely ignored. This is justified by the headship of Jesus Christ who represents the Godhead in the Kingdom of God. In the non- presence of the physical Christ in the contextual realities, adults represent Christ as a dominant character supporting the dominance of adults. In other words, adults represent

Christ’s headship in the Kingdom of God to wield dominance over children. This is theologically justified in Child theologies in the West and Child theology in Asia and practical mandated in Holistic Child Development in Asia.

However, Grobbelaar’s explanation of child theology provides an exception to the above dominant models where Grobbelaar considers contextual realities that influence children’s views. He also explains that children’s pathos and pain make them come out with their agency that is either resistant of the dominant models or complement the available models.

Thus children’s agency should be provided space to enhance the notions of postcolonial agency.

With regards to praxis, Holistic Child Development has proposed interdisciplinary methods that include praxis as a way of bringing the significance of children to the centre of theological discourse. It includes justifying children’s rights and working towards their care and protection. However theologically, the model of praxis is still the dominant inclusivity where adults define childhood and children’s context for children’s agency. This is strongly justified by the biblical mandate just as in Child theologies in the West. White proposes to combine theory and praxis to organise new modes of ecclesial communities. White, while

271

recognising praxis as enriching theological reflection, takes it away from its definition as actions of humans. He equates it to the action of God because God’s praxis is prior to the praxis of the humans. This makes human action in line with God’s action yet with human independence. In this sense, White emphasises the action of God, whereby humans can determine their praxis. However, Grobbelaar’s exposition of child theology in the African context provides ample scope to explain how agency in child theology could be opened up to a liberation theological way of explaining agency.

At the level of the methodologies in liberation and postcolonial theologies in India, liberation theologies have expressed varying degrees of qualitative relationships between the colonisers and the colonised. The methodology of praxis has shown that when there is a greater degree of inclusivity especially in the local people’s movements, it has moved closer to questioning the bigger structures of theological dominance, like the classical Indian theologies or even the methodological exclusivity which is least open to an engagement among the methodologies.

Praxis has shown contrapuntal elements of opening up exclusive boundaries to negotiate and advance the agency of the colonised. Therefore praxis retains pathos as significant to understanding the agency of the colonised, yet cautiously engages with the dominant communities to continue the engagement and to strengthen the liberative resources. The dominant offer their advocacy to strengthen the views of the colonised and exercise new powers to recognise the dignity of the colonised. This also involves a self-critique of the dominant to review its responsibility to advance the agency of the colonised.

The outcome of the understanding of the agency and its interaction with advocacy in praxis is in contrast to methodological inclusivity where the advocacy is excessively driven by the pathetic experiences of the colonised. This is well attested in the category ‘theological

272

inclusivity’ by Sathianathan Clarke where inclusivity is expected to move towards identity- discourse as greatly emphasized by the exclusivists. In other words, the inclusivists predominantly embrace the liberative resources and the ensuing agency of the colonised leaving less space for significant liberative resources from the inclusivists. The identities of the colonised and the colonisers are rigid and minimise the potential interactivity between them. Therefore, my observation here is that the above explanation of the inclusivity is less advanced in the light of the sense of inclusivity proposed by postcolonial theologies.

Explaining it postcolonially, the above proposal moves beyond Spivak’s notion that the subaltern cannot speak because their voices are absorbed into the dominant narrative. While agreeing that children’s voices are subsumed in the adult-discourse, this research claims that children’s agency is present in the views and expression of children and they have the capacity to interrogate the adult-dominant structure like liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies. This research also recognises that the same dominant structures that suppresses or overpowers children’s agency have the ability to transform into responsible advocates for children. The responsible adult-advocates (as I discussed in Chapters 2 and 7) create a space for their advocacy without impinging on the potential space for agency of the colonised. They understand the contexts of children and allow their agency to flourish. They willingly overcome their privileged positions, and further involve in activism and question exclusive and established notions of agency.

However, the postcolonial theological expositions of contrapuntality have their limitations.

While they strongly suggest a context-specific mode of working, they do not make practical suggestions as to how these context-specific interactions could take the shape of praxis. This lack of a praxis-oriented approach is made good by a strong sense of postcolonial advocacy.

273

As we observed in Taylor, the postcolonial advocacy pitches for an active grassroot- participation through people’s movements. It becomes clear that an effective agency could be worked out in convergence with agency and mystery.

274

Chapter 8. A Renewed Understanding of the Agency of Children towards a Children-related Theology relevant to an Indian Context

8.1. Introduction

In this concluding chapter, I present a renewed understanding of the agency of children resulting from a contrapuntal reading of the agency of the colonised children, the advocacy of the colonising adults and the immanent mystery as construed from liberation theologies in

India and children-related theologies. I then demonstrate the renewed themes in the education-labour debate about children in India that influences an understanding of the agency of children. I discuss the education-labour debate in the light of a recent elucidation of children, agency and postcolonial India by Sarada Balagopalan. 419 Balagopalan argues that the paradox of the colonial educational system in India strongly and less-critically promotes the traditional caste and class system. She also draws a connection, albeit indirectly, to the theological understanding of the adult-children binaries by explaining how missionaries promoted technical education through educational institutions, thus strongly continuing the caste-education-christian religious traditions. 420 Through this short analysis of the themes, I demonstrate how the themes of children’s agency, adult-advocacy and mystery reconfigure at the intersections of theological, socio-cultural and political discourses and influence the understanding of the agency of children.

419 Sarada Balagopalan, Inhabiting ‘Childhood’: Children, Labour and Schooling in Postcolonial India (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 420 Sarada Balagopalan, Inhabiting ‘Childhood’, 67. 275

8.2. The Agency of Children, the Advocacy of Adults and the Immanent Mystery: A

Renewed Understanding

I began this research by stating that the investigation in the research is more than just about defining that the real voices or expressions of children constitute their agency. Hence it began with the supposition that children do have agency but their agency is lost or scarcely recognized in adult-centric theological discourses of liberation theologies in Indian and children-related theologies. Therefore, this research was to critically investigate the understanding of the agency of children in relation to adult-advocacy and how the notion of mystery enhances the understanding of the agency of children in the adult-children interaction. Therefore my research is not just a simplified response to the issue to claim that children do have agency. Rather, it is to show how children’s voices get lost or silenced in dominant discourses not just because of children’s biological stature as smaller beings but also due to adult dominace interlaced with caste and other cultural factors.

To further problematize the interconnections and to see how the notion of children’s agency challenge different contours of liberation theologies in Indian and children-related theologies,

I deployed contrapuntal methodology enabled by Bignall’s qualitative agency and Taylor’s responsible advocacy to claim that the responsibility of adults as advocates of children’s agency is crucial in advancing the agency of children. The adult advocates could also redefine mystery in practical sense to see children as mystery, as explained through Wall and

Marty, to further signify and advance the agency of children. Along with critiquing the silencing factors of children’s agency, the research attempts constructively to explain a postcolony in which children’s voices could be recognised by identifying their potentials as well as recognizing the adult potential as advocates for children’s agency. The postcolonial

276

critique of the silencing factors in the liberation theologies and in the children-related theologies identifies that agency is not only about creating exclusive domains to revitalise the agency of the colonised. The exclusive domains are exhibited in methodological exclusivity or the largely exclusive responsibility of the adults in the children-related theologies, but also to bring into engagement liberative resources outside the exclusive domains.

I have critiqued children-related theologies’ claim that children are passive and silent and symbolic presence is adequate enough to treat them as subjects and meaning-makers. In reality, children are virtually are non-agents in what continues to be adult-dominant discourses. Postcolonially explaining, Child theologies in the West and the theologies that are influenced by them in Asia and Africa (chapters 5 and 6) continue to depict a colonial stance about children as those communities that need care and support because they do not have agency or near-adult experience which are assisted by autonomous rationality. Liberation theologies in India resonate with the delay of children-related theologies by not considering children and their agency as strong liberationist themes. As observed in chapters 3 and 4, they have addressed the agency of men, and then the agency of women making liberation theologies discourses discuss only the adult-agency. However, the complexity of missing voices of children intensifies when the discussion on the agency of children is posited in context of child labour and its debate alongside the educational system in India. This is the context in India where the agency of children is most violated, and where the adults who are expected to be the responsible advocates violate the dignity and subjecthood of children.

Postcolonial discourse exposes context-specific modes of colonisation and the need to engage at different levels conversations between the colonised and the colonisers in those specific contexts. It also interrogates homogenizing tendency of a community. Children in India are

277

not a homogenous community. Indian context alerts us to the danger of homogenizing children community as they are separated on the basis of caste, class, gender and economic globalisation. Caste discourse in India, as critiqued in dalit theology, sees class, gender and neo-colonial forms of economic movements like globalisation as establishing and developing internal dynamics that eventually shape the caste discourse. A case study of child labour in

Indian captures these dynamics to show that the communities of children in India cannot be homogenized as they are largely born and socialized into different caste categories influenced by other cultural movements.

8.2.1. Liberation and Postcolonial Theologies in India

In chapters 3 and 4, I discussed that liberation theologies in Indian did not amply explore the potentialities of postcolonial criticism. They started by claiming to be in the lines of postcolonial theologies but restricted the understanding of a postcolony to only understand the exclusive agency of the colonised. Methodological exclusivity is less interactive with and demeaning of other disciplines like classical India theologies or children-related theologies.

If liberation theology in India in general and methodological exclusivity in particular had identified the potential of postcolonial inclusivity, it could have maintained the exclusive identity of the colonized as well as drawn liberative resources from other inclusivist liberationist approaches. There were movements as depicted in Nalunnakkal and the interpretation of praxis by Rajkumar on how exclusivity could still be retained while also being inclusive. These instances emphasize only the historical strand of postcolonial criticism and not the conceptual strand.

278

Even when the conceptual strand was explored in Postcolonial theology by Sugirtharajah and

Melanchthon, they only deployed the definition of Edward Said but did not critically investigate the limitations or the internal dynamics of Contrapuntality, which offers spaces for exclusive voices and yet desires to engage with various liberative resources. Therefore, through Bignall’s interpretation of Contrapuntality, I extended the interpretation of

Contrapuntality for Indian context to suggest that exclusivists like Clarke, Nalunnakkal,

Nirmal and also praxisists like Rajkumar could further explore qualitative interactions of the colonizes with their colonizers.

Liberation theologies were slow to discern the internal colonies they had created by strongly advancing the exclusive agency of the colonised and overemphasising the victimhood of the colonised. They were caught up in modernity hierarchy like male dominant, adult dominant and anthropocentric. Children issues did not feature in the discourse but in principle they were treated as the marginalised. The agency of children was not considered as a significant factor to shape the hermeneutics of liberation theologies.

I highlighted that praxis and postcolonial theologies were some of the immediate helpful hermeneutical directives available that have demonstrated that the agency of the colonised was advanced at the same time a cordial interactive space was sustained. Yet, as have I mentioned, praxis and postcolonial inclusivity could be taken further if the notion of

Contrapuntality could be explored further as recommended by Bignall. As its contribution to the understanding the agency of children in Indian theological context, liberation theologies and postcolonial theologies in India offer the following understandings of their methodologies:

279

Inclusivity is manifested in different degrees in liberation theologies. A sense of inclusivity emerges as a crucial factor when we observe the dynamics of the colonised-coloniser relationships in methodological inclusivity, praxis and in postcolonial theologies. Even in methodological exclusivity, we could observe a faint sense of inclusivity when it offers theological inclusivity. This goes on to explain that the agency of the colonised is best advanced in a context that involves the liberative resources from the dominant.

Therefore, creating a negotiable or compossible space facilitates a greater advancing of the agency of the colonised. It also implies that resistance of the colonised and their activities to advance their agency exclusively has the danger of recreating a counter-hierarchy leading to clash of hierarchies thus relegating the discourse of agency of the colonised to sidelines.

Praxis, as explained by Rajkumar, has shown that a great degree of inclusivity and openness could be practiced without sacrificing exclusive agency of the colonised. It is significant to note that when theologians work within strict methodological boundaries, they do not challenge the bigger colonies; rather they reinforce the structure but interrogate and smaller structures and colonies within bigger colonies. This is clearly manifest in Nirmal, Clarke,

Nalunnakkal (see chapter 3).

8.2.2. Children-related Theologies

Children-related theologies began by offering a positive vision of making children the subjects of theologies where their views and presence would help theologies renew their understanding of God and context. They also proposed to reread scriptures from the perspective of children. They also provided hints on how understanding children in the context of the violation of their rights helps us further understand the modes of the agency of

280

children. The exploration of contextual theological hermeneutics explained that the agency of children is clearer in the context of the violation of their rights. Therefore, contextual considerations are significant as much as children as universal symbols.

While investigating their claims, I questioned the limited understanding of the definition of agency with words like lens and centrality of children because these terms were only referred to passive children who were placed in the midst of the adults but were not expressing their views. This also explains why children-related theologies deliberately shy away from using the term agency. They also fear that accepting and advanced an understanding of the agency of children would destabilize the centrality of Christ in Christian discourse and in turn would also unsettle the strong adult dominion in Christian theology.

In its methodologies, Child theologies in the West exhibit a dominant perspective of

‘offering’ resources to other children-related theologies like Holistic Child development than seeking to engage is mutually enriching conversations.

Children-related theologies have anticipated the agency of children by beginning to see the centrality of children through their methods Child-in-the-midst and elaborating the method by employing the hermeneutical keys of liberation theologies that prescribe the agency of the marginalised. As Grobbelaar has explained, a contextually faithful analysis helps in observing and listening to the voices of children especially when they emerge in the context of the violation of their rights. This anticipation of children-related theologies could be supplemented by the contextual theological analysis of liberation theologies. While liberation theologies have not incorporated the understanding of the agency of children in a hermeneutical framework, they are fundamentally open to wider liberation of human communities including children. Liberation theologies can draw from intergenerational

281

conversation to include the issue of children, not as patronising acts but to include children as they enhance the understanding of the agency of the colonised in general through their own views.

Child theologies do mention the significance of praxis to collude with liberation theologies as it involves communities to explore jointly the centrality of children in various contexts.

However, White backtracks on this notion when he mentions that context is not very significant for his exploration of children’s centrality. Therefore, praxis cannot be proposed without a strong insistence on the understanding of the context.

As far as praxis is concerned, Holistic Child Development offers a better understanding of praxis as it promotes the care of children in the contexts where children’s rights and dignity are violated. It opens to an explorative and interdisciplinary approach which helps children related theologies further explore the strengths of liberation theologies.

By subtly or strongly advancing the notion of silent or passive children and further promoting the notion of care and protection of children, the children-related theologies are less critical about the adult entitlement and the need for an authentic adult advocacy. They use scriptures and theological interpretations to justify the traditional God-adult-children hierarchy and retain the dominant agency of the adults. Therefore they do not open up to any shared space that explores the agency of children with greater clarity. Therefore the idea of mystery offered in children-related theologies reinstates colonial dominance of the adults. Therefore postcolonially, it neither advances the agency of the colonised nor brings a transformation among adults from their colonising self to potential authentic advocacy.

282

8.3. Contextual Conundrum: An Indian Context to demonstrate the Agency of

Children

In this section, I briefly present the conundrums that postcolonial India has carried forward from the erstwhile colonial times without critically examining the colonial biases that silence children’s voices in many dominant discourses. The education-labour debate in postcolonial

India offers insights into where the agency of children gets misplaced in Indian context and where adult-advocacy could be immensely necessary. The debate on the children in regular educational systems as against children in labour creates crucial discursive spaces to see how the immanent agency of children is seen in shallow binary oppositions. On the one hand, the educational systems are deemed to present the best situation of the awareness of the rights and the agency of children whereas on the other the children in labour are deemed completely devoid of their subjectivity and agency. Such circumstances are more than just binary oppositions or, as Nieuwenhuys call it, a paradox. Niewenhuys argues that the governments, while condemning the relatively uncommon forms of waged labour as exploitation, sanctioned a broad spectrum of other activities like house-keeping, child minding, helping adults for no pay, working in family farms and shops, delivering newspapers, and seasonal works in farms and workshops. This establishes a borderline between morally desirable and pedagogically sensible activities on one hand, and the exploitation of children on the other. 421

The paradox also highlights that the rights-based society propagates education-debate without exposing the limitations of the rights debate. It is a paradox that human rights generally apply to full-fledged citizens and, children are not sufficiently recognized as full citizens. Shelly

421 “The Paradox of Child Labour and Anthropology,” The Oxford India Companion to Sociology and Anthropology, Veena Das ed. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 940- 941. 283

Wright explains how women, children and indigenous peoples have usually not been treated as full citizens. Because of this “invisibility”, they suffer through inadequate recognition in international economic policies. While children in labour contribute to the state economy like any adult, they are deprived of protection by law for various types of violation of rights they undergo. The seriousness of these issues is much deeper. Sheila Nair discusses that human rights do not investigate the links between global capital and human rights violations.

It is in such a conundrum that I place my understanding of the relationship between the agency of children, the advocacy of the adults and the understanding of mystery that could enhance the agency-advocacy debate.

Postcolonial India continues to practice caste and class politics which has deep significance in the understanding of children in India and their agency. One of the deplorable practices where the agency of children is violated is in the practice of child labour. The overwhelming majority (around 85% 422 ) of child labourers in India comes from communities and groups which are at the lower rungs of the traditional, caste-based social hierarchy, i.e. the Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and minorities, especially Muslims. This amounts to the majority of the Indian population. 423

A crucial question that could be raised here is: has the agency of the marginalised dalit

Christians brought about the liberation of dalits? Interestingly the history of domination in

Indian Christian theology is a glaring reflection of the socio-historical context of India albeit the difference at the statistical level. In the larger Indian context, dalits are a minority

422 Azadi India Foundation, Child Labour in India, http://azadindia.org/social-issues/child-labour-in- india.html (14 November, 2011). 423 Encyclopaedia of Child and Family Welfare- vol. 4, 141. Also see, Manoranjan Mohanty, Class, Caste, Gender , 20. 284

dominated over by a larger socio-religious group. However among the Christian population, dalits are the majority, yet being dominated by the higher groups in the caste hierarchy even within the Christian church and its theologies. This intriguing dynamic indicates a conundrum that to address the colonial structure within the confines of Christian theology,

Christian theologians have to not only be aware of the wider colonial dynamics and their implication but also negotiate their way through the maze of caste systems in the context of many religions. To add to it is the sub-caste dynamics which are again different in different regions of the country.

8.3.1. Education versus Labour debate to elucidate the Agency of Children in India

Postcolonial discourse exposes context-specific modes of colonisation and the need to engage at different levels of conversations between the colonised and the colonisers in those specific contexts. Therefore, it interrogates any form of homogenizing tendency of a community.

Children in India too are not a homogenous community. Indian context alerts us to the danger of homogenizing the children community as they are separated on the basis of caste, class, gender and economic globalisation. Caste discourse in India—as exemplified in dalit theology—sees class, gender, and neo-colonial forms of economic movements like globalisation as establishing and developing internal dynamics that eventually shape the caste discourse. A case study of child labour in Indian captures these dynamics to show that the communities of children in India cannot be homogenized as they are largely born and socialized into a caste category.

Specifically in Indian context we notice that the agency of children is largely violated among child labourers. To redress this issue, the argument of the state is to empower the children

285

through education. Therefore, I take education-labour debate as contesting categories in our attempt to understand the context in which I place the findings of my research.

It is a common knowledge that India has the largest number of child labourers in the world. 424

The deliberations on child labour, being situated at the intersections of economic, cultural, legal, religious, and social institutions, have eluded attempts to comprehend, address and confront the phenomenon of child labour. These intersections are perceived not only as the determinants of the economic activity like child labour but also as the ones “producing and circulating meanings” and identities of the labouring children. Another intriguing challenge is to comprehend and evaluate the sector that child labour conceptually comes under: the

Unorganised Sector or the Informal Sector. 425 Prakash Louis observes that being in the workforce of unorganized sector is not only an economic reality but also social and political in the Indian context. Most of the workers of informal sector come from the Dalit, Tribal, minority and most backward caste communities. It is this reality that escapes many social scientists who examine this phenomenon. Caste, class, ethnicity and gender are fundamental contributing factors to analyse the work force in the unorganised sector. Since the ruling elite comes from the dominant communities, it has no political will to address these issues. Rural- urban bias is another factor one has to observe in this sector.

424 Avtar Singh, “Child Labour Problems and Prospects: Socio-Legal Measures ,” Social Action vol. 54, no. 4 (Oct-Dec), 396-97. Most of the literature on Child Labour, especially of Child Labour in India, attests to this fact. 425 The features that characterized unorganized work include lack of regulation of employment, seasonality of employment, denial of benefits under the labour laws, lack of social security protection and the absence of an employer-employee relationship. The reasons to so disorganise the labour is due to evasion of tax as well as excessive governmental regulation of market sector. Siddhartha Sarkar, “Theorizing in Informal Sector: Concept and Context”, Social Action vol. 54, no.4 (Oct-Dec 2004): 359-373; Supriya RoyChowdhury, “Globalization and Labour”, Economic and Political 39/4 (Jan. 3 2004), 105; NCC Review CXXVII/ 7 (Aug. 2007), under the theme: ‘Labour and Life in India’; Prakash Louis, “Editorial,” Social Action vol. 54, no.4 (Oct-Dec), iv- v. 286

8.3.1.1 Education-Labour Debate in Postcolonial India

In her discussion on the agency of children in postcolonial India, Balagopalan rightly sees that the agency of children is being absorbed into the discourse of the subjectivity of children.

Balagopalan explains that circumstances of children in streets and child labourers, who have not taken up basic education, complicate our understanding of childhoods that are fluidly constructed between the discourses of education and labour. The education-labour debate is trapped in adult and colonial discourses. Balagopalan states that just as in colonial India where the educational system “naturalized” the labouring skills of the families that the children came from, the current schooling systems too are drawn by “colonial modernity” that largely see children inherit the wisdom of caste and labouring categories that their parents did. 426 She adds:

More significantly, the state managed to advance this agenda—of reproducing caste and class hierarchies through schooling—by deploying the language of liberal benevolence, which was their sympathetic identification with what they perceived as native adult ‘preference’ for children’s continued immersion in labour. And as this ‘preference’ was far from true, these efforts largely failed to deliver the desired results. 427

Balagoplan examines the startling turnaround that caught the British colonial system by its own educational system in pre-Independence India which was started to strike a balance between education and labour. The British system was taken aback when it noticed that more children from lower castes joined schools that Christian missionaries had started. Balagoplan explains again:

426 Balagopalan, Inhabiting ‘Childhood’, 60-61. 427 Balagopalan, Inhabiting ‘Childhood’, 61. 287

Their [children of lower castes] increased enrolment, as noted in various official reports, sat uneasily with the growing recognition by the colonial state that for most lower-caste children, entry into modern schools affirmed the possibility of a different future outside of manual work… Schooling as that which served less ‘as a means to improving a boy’s mind so that he might bring more intelligence to his hereditary occupation of agriculture but as leading to some small post in which literacy was required’ was for the colonial state a terrifying prospect. 428

The empowered and educated children started to seek and claim jobs outside their traditional caste based labour contradicting the expectation of the missionaries. The educational objectives of the missionary schools were to provide them with a basic education and so to make the children skilled in their own caste-based occupation. Therefore, the caste-class nexus, which liberation theologies in India have always questioned, is clearly shown to have been entrenched in the educational system. Through this educational system, the western colonial powers in India were to preserve the caste-class nexus.

While highlighting the caste-class nexus that Balagopalan presents and which the liberation theologies in India have been interrogating, I wish to highlight here that this research differs from Balagopalan’s views. The difference is in the way the debates on the agency of children have been sidelined in the course of debating the subjectivity of children. Balagopalan’s focus has been more on the colonial historical context that has shaped and influenced the educational system in India that remains to date. But she does not pay a significant attention to what it means to consider children’s views that define the agency of children in current contexts. Restricting the colonial system only to historical contexts has largely been the case with liberation theologies in India too (Ch. 3 & 4). Therefore, a restricted historical critique

428 Balagopalan, Inhabiting ‘Childhood’, 68. 288

does not recognise the present discourses where adult-children and inter-caste engagements are possible which enhances the possibility of understanding children’s agency.

Also in Balagopalan, there is an excessive focus on the ongoing colonial tendencies which will take the attention away from the potential advocacy of the adults. As much as it is significant to identify the views and expressions of children, it is also important to identify the advocating role of adults. Such identification implies the recognition of the colonial state that children continue to be in and the same time identify a way forward for an intergenerational interaction.

As a significant step further in this discussion, this research identifies the immanent mystery in children as a positive factor that enhances the understanding of their agency. This theological factor gives an edge over other non-theological discourses in Indian context where religious discourse plays a significant role in advancing or diminishing the agency of the colonised.

8.3.1.2 Child labour and Illiteracy Debate

Some commonly cited arguments for the families not sending their children to school is

“inadequate schools”, “lack of schools”, or even “the expense of schooling” and therefore leaving some children with little else to do but work. Nearly 53.95 million children did not attend school in 1999-2000 which converts to 27.32 per cent of the child population between five to 14 years of age. In India, the 1999-2000 National Sample Survey (NSS) data indicate

289

a high incidence of child labour, with 8.4 million children active in the labour force. 429 If the wider definition of child labour is accepted, which is that all the children who do not attend school should be counted as child labour, the incidence of child labour is enormous.

Varying attitudes of parents also contribute to child labour: some parents feel that children should work in order to develop skills useful in the job market instead of taking advantage of a formal education. The vicissitudes of rural agricultural and non-agricultural work and the schedule of schools do not necessarily preclude school-going children from working for wages or in family occupations. Schools, which could be a source to wean children off the labour market and put them through a process of learning, skill enhancing would not implement the necessary objectives.

Shanta Sinha argues that if the official sources put the figure of child labour at 17 million and those not attending schools in the 5-14 age- group are nearly 74 million, the government’s schemes and legislations on child labour would cater only to those 17 million. Her contention is that these school dropouts are never “idle” but are invariably drawn into various forms of household labour but are deprived of the attention and benefits promised by the schemes and legislations. Therefore, they are missing children, and any later legislation would ignore their presence as child labourers. 430

429 Azadi India Foundation, Child Labour in India, http://azadindia.org/social-issues/child-labour-in- india.html (August 2015). 430 Shanta Sinha, “Child Labour and Education.” Seminar 474 (Feb. 1999): 15-16. 290

8.4. Revisiting Contrapuntality to Understand the Agency of Children in Indian

Context

The education-labour debate presents heterogeneous categories of children in postcolonial

India. These categories are caste, class, age, and urban or rural. The heterogeneity presents children from a class of families who can afford education as a means of developing their agency. Their caste and class backgrounds and their family heritage contribute and advocate largely to their desire to gain their agency. This is in stark contrast to those children who are driven to labour by their parents societal constraints. We have seen that children in labour sector largely come from dalit and other backward caste groups confirming that the traditional caste-class nexus practices are still strong in driving children to labour. Therefore, it is noticeable that caste and class factors should be considered as crucial for discussion while formulating an understanding of the agency of children along the lines of liberation theologies.

However, we also noticed the down side of liberation theologies while addressing caste issues that could be overcome for children-related theologies. Dalit theology had so far emphasised adult-pathos as the norm. This research has explained that children’s pathos is as significant in reformulating its idea of pathos. To develop a self-critique method, liberation theologies could move from their earlier notion of historically motivated post-colonialism to a broader view of self-critiquing postcolonialism. Only then liberation theologies would be able to see the dominant ideology build into its discourse.

Problematising the understanding of children through education-labour debate provides clear indications on how liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies could

291

reassess their discussions on subjectivity and agency of the colonised. In all these discourses, one can notice elaborate discussions on the technicalities surrounding the economic issues in the labour market sans human face. Geetha Chowdhry contends that comprehending child labour as an economic process also “requires an examination of the production and circulation of commodities as well as meanings”. 431

In liberation theologies in India, we observed that there are indicators close to that of contrapuntality to envision a postcolonial discussion, a postcolonial discussion which insists on engagement or interrelationality which moves further from a resistant form of postcolonial engagement. The resistant form of postcolonial theology in India was introduced by

Sugirtharajah who later experimented with contrapuntal ways of understanding postcolonial agency. Therefore there are movements that clearly take the discussion further away from merely resistive forms of agency. This is also partly yet significantly manifested in the understanding of praxis in Dalithos and Organic Womanism. However, Dalithos and Organic

Womanism fall back on the exclusivity notions of the marginalized for a greater thrust on subjectivity and agency than on negotiations and engagements. Even in these limitations, there have been beginnings to move away from the subalterns as the sole interpreters of their contexts to further see their multiple state of identity as enmeshed in gender and adult- dominant discourse. The postcolonial critique of Indian liberation theologies circulates multiple levels of identities of the marginalized to say that the claims of the marginalized as historically entirely underprivileged is not accurate. This is true of the situations where the dalits and women were able to tactically comply and forge context-based alliance with the

431 Geeta Chowdhry, “Postcolonial Interrogations,” 227. 292

dominant to highlight the possibility of creating an agency for themselves. However, the mention of exclusivity in liberation theologies cannot be completely ruled out because it from the desire of the marginalized also emerges the sense of agency. Methodological exclusivity alone however is not an exhaustive critique of the dominant discourse in Indian theologies.

As recognised in postcolonial theologies in India, exclusivity is a certain degree is necessary to recognise the absence of the assimilation of agency of dalits and women and the confrontation created by such recognition. This recognition highlights liberation theologies as having adopted liberative tendencies in principle but not created hermeneutical spaces to include liberative perspectives children and their adult-advocates.

It has to be significantly mentioned here that the resistive form of postcolony exhibited in liberation theologies is not adequate enough to negotiate greater spaces to explore subjectivity and agency of the colonised. Therefore, Bignall’s notion of qualitative agency as contrapuntality along with Taylor’s proposal for advocacy offers strategies for a constructive form of agency (chapter 7.3).

Even when postcolonial theologies critique liberation theologies in India, they have failed to explore how an understanding of the agency of children in Indian context could widen the scope of Christian theologies in India in general and liberation theologies in particular. Even postcolonial theologies so far have addressed the issues of adult men and women. It is with this critique of the adult-dominant discourse in Indian liberation theologies, I open up initial spaces to accommodate discussion on the agency of children. As I have clearly highlighted, liberation theologies in India cannot overlook the education-labour conundrum. While liberation theologies have given enormous attention to the critique of caste dynamics, it is also timely to see that caste and related issues collaborate with the dominant adult psyche

293

when it colonises children.

Dalit theology has amply exhibited how it has benefitted from grassroot movements and secular academic disciplines. Within theological discussion it has richly enhanced its argumentative base after drawing from various theological disciplines. The Indian theological context has been highly interdisciplinary in that it has drawn from all possible resources to step up the momentum of liberation and wider participation. The flexibility is exhibited by drawing hermeneutical directions from the Latin American liberation theologies and by being interdisciplinary. However, it has been a selectively flexibility that Indian liberation theologies have exhibited.

When methodological inclusivity critiques the theme of methodological exclusivity, the inclusivity stance presents evidences of flexibility to define the agency of the marginalized.

Methodological inclusivity draws its motifs from two main strands: first, motifs of dialogue and interdisciplinary nature of theologising present in various theological discourses in India.

This attempt was to consciously keep in check impending dangers of the excessive pathos experience as a dominant criterion for theologizing; and second, drawing from the historical experience of interrelatedness of communities based on common themes of suffering and continued dialogue. It critiqued the dualism that exclusivity created and promised interrelatedness in liberationist hermeneutics as a significant part of liberationist methodologies. This would open up to praxis to enhance the vision of liberation. As explained in chapter 3 the socio-cultural contexts that Indian liberation theologies critique are historically connected. Also beyond the notion of historical connected is the minority status of dalits and other marginalised communities.

294

The methodological inclusivists have reckoned that internal resistance would not bear the desired results. Therefore a spirit of dialogues between religious communities—as Rajkumar points out—emphasises convergence and interdependence reminding liberation theologies to exhibit methodological flexibility that strengthens the identity of the marginalised. This makes it necessary for liberation theologies not to replicate the theological models that promote strong binaries. This model—as Rajkumar and initially Balasundaram envisioned— would be more relevantly applicable for praxis.

The methodologies of Indian liberation theologies have presented various instances of intergenerational interactions. Clarke and his theological inclusivity within methodological inclusivity project the trajectory that universalises theological knowledge. And the theological justification for the call to this solidarity is the “universality of God and inclusiveness of all human beings in the purpose of this one creator”. 432 This theological justification has the tendency to make the category of experience in identity specific theologies as essentialist category, as Vinayaraj points, and later elaborate them as universal experiences.

Significantly, what contrapuntality offers to liberation theologies is more than just a critical analysis of the methodological exclusivity and methodological inclusivity or praxis. This is more so when the concerns of children’s agency is brought into the understanding of the methodologies of liberation theologies. Contrapuntality reminds us of the spaces that could be worked out for a conversation between the colonizers and the colonised. It also facilitates the colonised to identify the absence of the colonisers for a potential conversation. While

432 Sathianathan Clarke, “Dalit Theology”, 21. 295

placing the critique of the methodologies in the context of education-labour debate and the violation of children’s agency in the context of child labour, contrapuntality exposes the explicit absence of children from the liberative discourses which is a denial of the presence of children in our context, further hindering a debate on the agency of children.

8.5. Contrapuntal possibilities in Children-related theologies for an understanding of the Agency of Children

Contrapuntally bringing insights from the children-related theologies in conversation with liberation and postcolonial theologies in India makes an interesting argument for the study.

The violation of the agency of children in the local education- labour debate, which has not found a place in liberationist and postcolonial theologies in India, engages with a global discourse on children and theology which largely presents a universal and symbolic notion of the child with less emphasis on the contextual and agency.

White’s presentation of children as universal symbols is from his understanding of the universal beyond the local/global binary. He develops his understanding of the symbol from a biological category which would make every human essentially a child either currently or earlier one in their earlier stage of life. Experience here is not exclusive to any one stage of life. While White takes the child as a universal image, he does not say how the universal image of a child would enhance the agency of children. However, I argue that the universal status of a child itself is a starting point to draw the adults into defining the agency of children, because the agency of humans is already made up of the agency of children.

A striking difference between Indian liberation theologies and Child theologies in deploying experience as a methodological category is the way the notion of exclusivity is played out.

296

While any degree of exclusivity played out in the methodologies is that of the oppressed marginalized, interestingly Child theologies as represented by White, Willmer and Collier try to retain the exclusive agency of the adults at the expense of children’s agency. Theologies of

Childhood and Holistic Child Development through their contextual hermeneutics provide space for the agency of children yet rests the decisive agency with adults. Presenting a passive child in the midst of the adults poses an uncertain argument for the agency of children. The uncertainty also continues the adult-dominion in children-related theologies.

Therefore, the methods of children-related theologies stand on shaky grounds with their present child-in-the-midst method.

However, Grobbelaar’s interpretation of children’s context is significant in pursuing the understanding of children’s agency as Grobbelaar encourages an interdisciplinary approach.

By adapting to interdisciplinary approach, Grobbelaar—in comparison to White, Willmer and

Collier—is able to expound the contextual stories of children where children in their experiences of marginality could express their views as responses or suggestions to the issues that surround their lives. Opening up his interpretation of children’s significance in a context,

Grobbelaar seeks the adults to keep themselves open through listening mode to the indefinite ambit of children’s views that augment adult perception and enhance meaning making activity. This is in stark contrast to intra-disciplinary approach that White, Willmer and

Collier take through biblical theology about the narrative of child that Jesus placed in the midst of the disciples. Their interpretation also presents an exclusive notion of the Kingdom of God. Their interpretation restricts the notion of the agency of children to at least three limitations: first, the limitation of seeing only one child of a certain time and context as a universal symbol representing children in all contexts and times; second, to restrict the understanding the agency of a child to a passive agency when it is certain that children do

297

express their views either in accordance with or in opposition to adult views; and third, failure to see children’s own views and agency in other biblical narratives.

It is evident that when children-related theologies have considered context-specific varieties, they have exposed themselves to the possibilities of interdisciplinary benefits that help discussions on the emergence of the agency of children and a certain level of engagement between adults and children. This corresponds to Bingall’s qualitative agency where an engagement towards compossibility opens up to at least recognises the presence of the agency of the colonised. This gradually propels an interrogation of adult-centric views that are dominant discourses.

Even as we claim that children do have their agency, the challenge that has to be deeply addressed is the reverse exclusivity that reinforces the exclusive dominance of the adults rather than advancing the agency of children. Apart from promoting only the passive agency or the silent child, children-related theologies have also not discussed the adult advocacy. The closest form of adult advocacy is suggested in Holistic Child Development where adults care for the betterment of children. However, this notion of caring does not realise the patronising attitude of adults over children. Therefore, imagining silent or passive children in the midst could lead to a theological fantasy where contexts of the children are supposed to be more superficial than real. Holistic Child Development as represented in Jeyaraj rejects children’s agency especially if is it inconsistent with a conventional adult perspective. Therefore adult- dominance is redefined within the context of providing care to children for their wholisitic development. Therefore the claims of the children-related theologies for the centrality of children towards their agency are highly ambiguous.

298

Bold reading of the Scriptures

It can be observed that even the theme of mystery could be reined into the adult dominant discourse to perpetuate adult domination. In such a hermeneutical difficulty to advance the agency of children, mystery comes as a strong theme in support of children’s agency.

Children are different from adults and therefore adults could recognise the sense of mystery in the differences. The differences should not be restrictive, but rather a recognised acknowledgement from the adults that children are significant with their difference. The mystery that comes from childhood as a stage in itself, challenges the passivity-position of the adult-dominant Child theologies. And it also provides directions for an understanding of adult-advocacy that children-related theologies largely lack the discussion on adult-advocacy.

Invoking the notion of mystery as a strong theme could also mean reinforcing children’s insignificance in human terms because adults have to resort to an extra-human language to understand children. This could imply that the adult-dominant language need not be reviewed and revised at least for a while to make it inclusive of children.

The above thought highlights that children-related theologies are bent on a moral assessment of children to strategically restrict the claims of the agency of children; Protection and rehabilitation are associated with the notions of power and control. By this, I do not mean an unrestricted agency of children. The agency of children does get constrained within the confines of adult-advocacy. Therefore, in children-related theologies the acknowledgement of the agency of children was a hesitant step or two forward but certainly a step backward. It is a step forward when the theologians desire to bring children to the centre of theological discourse acknowledging children’s agency albeit a shallow method, the child-in-the-midst.

But it is step backward when the hesitantly acknowledged agency is invested in a passive

299

child that largely taken out of context. Therefore, they do not offer even scope for a broader discussion on subjectivity and agency. The child-in-the-midst is a sub-text in the larger adult- dominant interpretative schemes.

Benefits of Interdisciplinary Approach

Of the children theologies so far Holistic Child Development and Theologies of Childhood explore to a large extent interdisciplinary methods to strike a balance between promoting the agency of children and pursuing children’s liberation. They pursue children’s liberation by advocating their cause in the context of care and development through liberative resources found in Christian religious scriptures and their theological interpretations, in sociological interpretation of the context that deprives children of their significance presence and agency.

Holistic Child Development keeps the purview of the agency of children more open than

Child theologies by understanding a child both in the context of the bible and cross- culturally. However, within Holistic Child Development, what is convincingly clear is that children should constantly seek support and care in a way that patronizes the already dominant. The sense of advocacy of the adults does not clearly signify a space for the agency of children. This is clear from Jeyaraj’s ambiguous position. Just as significantly as he proposes to take children’s views seriously, he also suggests children’s own should be reviewed in the immediate context and reinterpreted as a wider gospel by adults. By implication, Jeyaraj posits the agency of children in the control of the scrutinising adults who retain the largely structure of the interpretation to perpetuate adult discourse. Here Jeyaraj’s views fall within the scope of Child theologians in the west when he says that children’s views could be imagined even in the absence of a child. However, a notable positive movement in Jeyaraj’s interpretation towards recognising the agency of children is in

300

acknowledging that children’s views bring about significant changes. In these discussions, there is an uneasy yet a creative tension between caring for children and avoiding patronizing them into the binary. The possibility of a better understanding of the agency of children is open with interdisciplinary approach.

A postcolonial contrapuntal analysis of the agency of the colonised, especially to understand the agency of children could have its own limitations. As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter in particular and this research in general, understanding of the agency of children does not bring into debate the real voices of children. Rather it takes a leap into the discussion on how the agency of children is enmeshed in the dominant adult discourse and what could be done to re-recognise the agency of children in such circumstances. Therefore, even as I suggest ways to understand the agency of children in a postcolony, it is not an ideal postcolony but a postcolony where adult-dominion is clearly recognised.

8.6. Concluding Remarks

Having analysed different forms of agency in liberation theologies in India and children- related theologies and the manner in which advocacy and mystery significantly contribute to the understanding of the agency of children, I propose the following understanding of the agency of children, the advocacy of the adults and the understanding of mystery towards a children-related theology for an Indian context:

The agency of children I propose is a positive notion of agency that enhances the subjectivity of children but does not get completely absorbed by the notion of subjectivity where subjectivity does not completely shape the agency. I began this research with a view that children do have their agency but it is absorbed or misplaced in an adult-dominant context. In

301

reality children’s subjectivity is shaped by an adult-dominant context. However the agency of children could be recovered by the listening ability of the dominant.

Explaining it postcolonially, the above proposal moves beyond Spivak’s notion that the subaltern cannot speak as their voices are absorbed into the dominant narrative. This research moves beyond that position to claim that children’s agency is present in the views and expression of children and they have the capacity to interrogate the adult dominant structure like liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies. While moving beyond the

Spivakian position, this research recognises that the same dominant structures that suppresses or overpowers children’s agency have the ability to transform into responsible advocates for children. The responsible adult-advocates create a space for their advocacy without impinging on the potential space for agency of the colonised. The adult-advocates understand the contexts of children to allow their agency to flourish. They also willingly overcome their privileged positions, and further involve in activism and question exclusive and established notions of agency.

The established and exclusive notions of agency are largely exhibited in liberation theologies in India and children-related theologies. While liberation theologies continue to emphasise the exclusive agency of the marginalised, the children-related theologies have all agency on the side of the adults. The child-in-the-midst method only tries to silence the children in the pretext of a narrowly understood authentic advocacy. This narrow understanding is mediated by the heavy theological theme, the Kingdom of God, which is presented as an adult-domain.

Therefore, the child-in-the-midst method could only partially contribute to the understanding of the subjectivity of children and does not pressingly promote their agency.

302

Positively, while praxis in the liberation theologies is sympathetic to compossible engagement, contextual understanding of child-in-the-midst shows initial signs of opening up to the expressions and views of children that advances the understanding their agency.

The listening ability of the dominant-adults, that I hinted to in the beginning of this section, could disclose itself in two ways: by recognising the mystery that is inherent in children and by observing and carefully listening to children’s stories of aspiration and violation of their dignity in their respective contexts. Therefore, the context of listening ability of the dominant-adults is crucial in recognising the agency of children.

The understanding of the role of mystery in defining children’s agency in historical contexts is not necessarily by invoking the language of Jesus the Christ, but by seeing the abilities of children beyond just the singular categories of age or biological or social or political affiliations. The authentic adult-advocacy would look at children as those who constantly journey across these categories and therefore allow them their creativity, varied expressions that interrogate the adult-dominant language and their views and expressions of suffering and grief where they are able to express themselves. The understanding of mystery does not deny the divine mystery that children as humans are created with. Even the divine mystery has the ability to homogenize the humankind overlooking age and socio cultural differences that colonize children. Therefore the theological explanations that invoke the metaphors of children like ‘humans as the children of God’ and ‘all humans are created in the image of

God’ have homogenizing tendencies. The mystery that is proposed here critiques such homogenising tendencies but also draws a positive place of children in the context of the violation of children’s dignity to state that children too are created in the image of God and they too are the children of God. These positive outcomes strengthen the subjectivity of

303

children. However the mystery that is strongly proposed in this research is the mystery that emerges in the adult-child differences or in the child as the significant other. The significance and the agency of children emerge in the interaction between children and adults where the adults recognise “limitless contingencies” (Marty). It is the limitless knowledge of mystery of the children that enhances the subjectivity and agency of children.

While the theme of mystery overcomes the adult-child binary, I do not claim the exclusive significance of mystery. Nor do I put prioritize the authentic advocacy of the adults over agency and mystery just because adult-dominant context largely defines the subjectivity of children. Neither of the themes replaces the other. They work in varying combinations according to the demands of the context. Therefore, a contrapuntal reading of the agency of the colonised in Indian liberation theologies and the agency of children in children-related theologies help understand the agency of children will have to work along with authentic advocacy of the adults and the mystery that emerges from an intergenerational interaction between adults and children.

______

304

Bibliography

Books

“Post-colonialism/Postcolonialism.” In Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts , edited by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, 186- 187. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Amirtham, Metti. Women in India: Negotiating Body, Reclaiming Agency. Delhi: ISPCK, 2011.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Understanding ‘Post’ in Postmodernism and Postcolonialism.” In Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader , edited by Padmini Mongia. London: Arnold, 1996.

Ayrookuzhiel, Abraham. “Distinctive Characteristics of Folk Traditions. A Proposal for the Study of the Religious Heritage of the Dalits: Some Methodological Considerations.” In Religions of the Marginalized: Towards a Phenomenology and the Methodology of Study , edited by Gnana Robinson. Bangalore/ Delhi: UTC/ISPCK, 1998.

Balagopalan, Sarada. Inhabiting ‘Childhood’: Children, Labour and Schooling in Postcolonial India . London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Bastiaan Wielenga, “Liberation Theology in Asia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology : Second Edition, edited by Christopher Rowland. Cambridge University Press, 2007

Bennett, Zoe. “‘Action is the life of all’: the praxis-based epistemology of liberation theology.” The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology . 2nd edition, edited by, Christopher Rowland. 39-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture . Abingdon: Routledge, 1994.

Bignall, Simone. Postcolonial Agency: Critique and Constructivism . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Boff, Leonardo. “Christ’s Liberation via Oppression.” In Frontiers of Theology in Latin America , edited by Roselin Gibellini. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1979.

305

Brewster, Dan. “Themes and Implications of Holistic Child Development Programming in Seminaries.” In Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges, edited by Jesudason Jeyaraj, 32-48 . Bangalore: Christian Forum for Child Development/ISPCK, 2009.

Chowdhry, Geeta. “Postcolonial Interrogations of Child Labour.” In Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class , edited by Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, 1st Indian Reprint. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.

Clarke, Sathianathan. Dalits and Christianity: Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India . New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.

______. “Dalit Theology.” In Dictionary of Third World Theologies , edited by Virginia Fabella and R. S. Sugirtharajah, 64- 65. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2000.

______. “Dalit Theology: An Introductory and Interpretative Theological Exposition.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 19-37. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Collier, John. “Preface.” In Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church , edited by John Collier, 7-10. London: Child Theology Movement, 2009.

Coorilos, Geevarghese Mor. “Foreword.” Revisiting the Other: Discourses on Postmodern Theology . Vinayaraj Y. T. Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2010.

Davidson, Donald. “Agency.” In Essays on Actions and Events , 3-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Dayam, Joseph Prabhakar. “Gonthemma Korika: Reimagining the Divine Feminine in Dalit Theo/alogy.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 137-149 . New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Dietrich, Gabriele. A New Thing on Earth: Hopes and Fears facing Feminist Theology, Delhi/ Madurai: ISPCK/ TTS, 2001.

Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Colombia University Press, 1998.

Grey, Mary. "Feminist Theology: A Critical theology of liberation." In The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology : Second Edition, edited by Christopher Rowland. 105-122. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

306

Grobbelaar, Jan. Child Theology and the African Context . London: Child Theology Movement Ltd: 2012.

Illaiah, Kancha. Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindu Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy . Calcutta: Samya, 2005.

Jayachitra, Lalitha. “Jesus and Ambedkar: Exploring Common Loci for Dalit Theology and Dalit Movements.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 121-136. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Jayakumar, Samuel. Dalit Consciousness and Christian Conversion: Historical Resources for a Contemporary Debate . Oxford/ Delhi: Regnum International/ ISPCK, 1999.

Jensen, David H. Graced Vulnerability: A Theology of Childhood . Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2005.

Jeremiah, Anderson H. M. Community and Worldview Among Paraiyars of South India: 'Lived' Religion . London: Bloosmbury Academic, 2013.

Jeremiah, Anderson H.M. “Exploring New Facets of Dalit Christology: Critical Interaction with J. D. Crossan’s Portrayal of Historical Jesus.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 150-167. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Jeyaraj, Jesudason B. “Child in the Midst: Incarnation and Child Theology.” In Children at Risk: Issues and Challenges, edited by Jesudason Jeyaraj, 49-72. Bangalore: Christian Forum for Child Development/ISPCK, 2009.

Larbeer, Mohan P. Ambedkar on Religion: A Liberative Perspective . Madurai /Delhi: DRC/ISPCK, 2003.

Longchar, A. Wati, ed. An Exploration of Tribal Theology . Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre, ETC, 1997.

Longchar, A. Wati. An Emerging Asian Theology: Tribal Theology, Issue, Method and Perspectives . Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre, ETC, 2000.

Lott, Eric. Religious Faith, Human Identity: Dangerous Dynamics in Global and Indian Life . Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation & United Theological College, 2005.

307

Marty, Martin. The Mystery of the Child . Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Massey, James and T. K. John SJ. “Concept Paper: Centre for Dalit/ Subaltern Studies.” In Frontiers in Dalit Hermeneutics. Edited by James Massey, and Samson Prabhakar. Bangalore/ Delhi: BTESSC/ SATHRI & CDSS, 2005.

Massey, James. Dalits in India: Religion as a Source of Bondage or Liberation with Special Reference to Christians . New Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1995.

______. Down Trodden: The Struggle of India’s Dalits for Identity, Solidarity and Liberation . Geneva: WCC, 1997.

Melanchthon, Monica Jyotsna. “Akkamahadevi and the Samaritan Woman: Paradigms of Resistance and Spirituality.” In Border Crossings: Cross- Cultural Hermeneutics, edited by D. N. Premnath. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 2007.

______. “The Servant in the book of Judith: Interpreting her Silence, Telling her Story.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 231-241. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

______. “Bathsheba Reconsidered: Sexual Violation and After.” In Gender, Religion und Kultur, Theologischen Akzente, Band 6 . Edited by Renata Jost. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2010: 77-100.

______. “Dalit Readers of the Word: The Quest for Hermeneutics and Method.” In Frontiers in Dalit Hermeneutics , edited by James Massey and Samson Prabhakar. Bangalore/Delhi: BTESSC-SATHRI/CDSS, 2005.

Minz, Nirmal. "The Study of Tribal Religion in India." In Re-visioning India's Religious Traditions , edited by David C. Scott and Israel Selvanayagam. Delhi/Bangalore: ISPCK/UTC, 1996.

______. Rise Up, My People, and Claim the Promise. The Gospel Among the Tribes of India . Delhi: ISPCK, 1997.

Mohanty, Manoranjan. Class, Caste and Gender, 3rd reprint. New Delhi, SAGE, 2006.

Mongia, Padmini, ed. Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader. London: Arnold, 1996.

Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics . London: Verso, 1997.

Mor Coorilose, Geevarghese. “Dalit Theology and its Future Course.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited

308

by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 168-177. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Nalunnakkal, George Mathew. Green Liberation: Towards an Integral Ecotheology . Delhi: IPSCK/NCCI, 1999.

Nambissan, Geetha B. “Social Exclusion, Children’s Work and Education.” In Child Labour and the Right to Education in South Asia: Needs versus Rights , edited by Naila Kabeer, Geetha B. Nambissan and Ramya Subramanian. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003.

Nirmal, Arvind P. “A diaologue with Dalit literature.” In Towards a Dalit Theology . edited by M. E. Prabhakar. New Delhi: ISPCK, 1988.

______. “A Dialogue with Dalit Literature.” In Towards A Dalit Theology , edited by M. E. Prabhakar. Delhi: ISPCK, 1988.

______. and V. Devasahayam, eds. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Centenary Tribute . Madras: Gurukul, 1991.

______. “A diaologue with Dalit literature.” In Towards a Dalit Theology, edited by M. E. Prabhakar. New Delhi: ISPCK, 1988.

______. “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology.” In Heuristic Explorations. Madras: CLS, 1990.

Olga Niewenhuys, “The Paradox of Child Labour and Anthropology,” The Oxford India Companion to Sociology and Anthropology , edited by Veena Das (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 940- 941.

Omvedt, Gail. Caste, Land and Politics in Indian States . New Delhi: Authors Guild Publication, 1982.

______. Dalit Visions: The Anti- caste Movement and the Constitution of an Indian Identity . Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2006.

Privett, Peter. “Prologue: The Thirtieth Anniversary of the International Year of the Child.” In Through the Eyes of the Child: New Insights in Theology from a Child’s Perspective, edited by Anne Richards and Peter Privet, xv-xx. London: Church House Publishing, 2009.

Pui- Lan, Kwok, Don H. Compier, and Joerg Riegers, eds. Empire and the Christian Tradition: New Readings of Classical Theologians . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Rajkumar, Peniel. “The Diversity and Dialectics of Dalit Dissent and Implications.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning

309

Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 55-76. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

______. Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and Dalit Liberation . Surrey: Ashgate, 2010.

Said, Edward W. Reflections on Exile and Other Literary and Cultural Essays . London: Grants Books, 2001.

Shah, Ghanshyam, ed. Dalit Identity Politics: Cultural Subordination and the Dalit Challenge , Vol 2. New Delhi/ London: Sage Publications/ Thousand Oaks: 2001.

Shier-Jones, Angela, ed. Children of God: Towards a Theology of Childhood . Peterborough, UK: Epworth, 2007.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravarti. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. New York/London: Routledge, 1988.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation.” In Voices from the Margin , Revised and Expanded Third Edition, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. Maryknoll: Orbis Book, 2006.

______. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice . Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

______. Postcolonial Reconfigurations , London: SCM Press, 2003.

Syiemlieh, B. J. “Contextual Interpretation of the New Testament in Northeast India: A Search for Principles and Methods.” In Tribal Theology and the Bible: A Search for Contextual Relevance , edited by Yangkahao Yashum. Rajabai, Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre/Eastern Theological College, 2011.

Taylor, Mark Lewis. ‘Subalternity and Advocacy as Kairos for Theology.’ In Opting for the Margins: Postmodernity and Liberation in Christian Theology , edited by Joerg Rieger, http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/019516119X.003.0002.

Vinayaraj, Y. T., “Envisioning a Postmodern Method of doing Dalit Theology.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty- first Century: Discordant Theological Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke, Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 93-103. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Wall, John. Ethics in Light of Childhood . Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2010.

White, Keith and Haddon Willmer. “Our Response” In Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church , edited by John Collier London: Child Theology Movement, 2009.

310

White, Keith. “The Child in the Midst of the Biblical Witness.” In Toddling to the Kingdom: Child Theology at Work in the Church , edited by John Collier, 154-160. London: Child Theology Movement, 2009.

______. “’Come Over to Macedonia and Help us’: Reflections on Child Theology and Holistic Child Development.” In Repairers of Broken Walls: Essays on Holisitic Child Development, edited by J. B. Jeyaraj et al. Bangalore: CFCD-India, 2014.

______. “Child Theology, Loder, and Holistic Child Development (HCD).” In The Logic of the Spirit in Human Thought and Experience: Exploring the Vision of James E. Loder Jr. edited by Dana R. Wright and Keith White. Oregon: Pickwick, 2014.

Journals

Ahearn, Laura M. “Agency.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology , Vol 9, Nos. 1-2 (1999): 12- 15

Ahmed, Aijaz. “The Politics of Literary Postcoloniality.” Race and Class. Vol. 36, No. 3 (1995):1-20.

Aleaz, K.P. “A Tribal Theology from a Tribal World- view.” Indian Journal of Theology Vol. 44, No. 1 & 2 (2002): 20- 30;

Arul Raja, Maria. “Living through Conflicts: The Spirit of Subaltern Resurgence.” Vidya Jothi Theological Review , Vol. 65 (June 2001): 465- 476.

______. “Perspectives of Dalit Hermeneutics.” Gurukul Journal of Theological Studies Vol. XVI, Nos. 1&2 (Jan. and July, 2005): 25-30.

Azadi India Foundation, Child Labour in India, http://azadindia.org/social-issues/child-labour -in-india.html (August 2007).

Basu, Kaushik. http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000413.pdf (9. 11. 2007).

Bhakiaraj, Paul Joshua. “From Invisibility to Indispensability: Sketches for an Indian Child Theology.” Dharma Deepika 28/12/2 (July-December, 2008): 54-67.

Bignall, Simone. “Deleuze and Foucault on desire and Power.” Angelaki 13/1 (2008): 127- 149.

Bunge, Marcia J. “Theologies of Childhood and Child theologies: International Initiatives to Deepen Reflection on Children and Childhood in the Academy and Religious Communities.” Dharma Deepika 28/12/2 (July-December, 2008): 33-53.

311

______. “The Child, Religion, and the Academy: Developing Robust Theological and Religious Understandings of Children and Childhood”, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 86, No. 4 (October 2006): 549- 579.

Caldwell, Raymond. “Agency and Change: Re-evaluating Foucault’s Legacy.” Organization Vol. 14, No.6: 2 (2007): 1-24.

Clarke, Sathianathan: “Viewing the Bible through the Eyes and Ears of Subalterns in India, Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 10, No. 3 (2002): 245-266.

______. “The Jesus of Nineteenth Century Indian Christian Theology.” Studies in World Christianity Vol. 5, no. 1: 32-46.

______. “Viewing the Bible through the Eyes and Ears of Subalterns in India.” http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2444 (20th Dec. 2012)

Dietrich, Gabriele. “Why should Postcolonial Feminist Theology need to relate to People’s Movements?”, Asian Journal of Theology Vol. 19, No. 1 (April 2005): 166-187.

Dillen, Annemie. “Children between liberation and care: Ethical perspectives on the rights of children and parent–child relationships.” International Journal of Children’s Spirituality . Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2006, pp. 237-250.

Estep, James Riley, Jr. “Childhood Transformation: Toward an Educational Theology of Childhood Conversion & Spiritual Formation.” Stone-Campbell Journal . Vol. 5, No. 2 Fall (2002): 183-206.

Core Values of Global Alliance of Holistic Child Development: http://www.Holistic Child Development-alliance.org/intro/aboutus

Ives, Peter. “Language, Agency and Hegemony.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8/4 (December, 2005): 455-468

Jeyakumar. “Children as impressions of God’s reign.” Iraiyiyal Malar 1990: 9- 10

Lachman, Kathryn. “The Allure of Counterpoint: History and Reconciliation in the Writing of Edward Said and Assia Djebar.” Research in African literatures Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter 2010): 162-186.

Louai, El Habib. “Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical developments and new applications.” African Journal of History and Culture (AJHC) Vol. 4, No. 1 (January 2012): 4-8.

Louis,Prakash. “Editorial,” Social Action Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct-Dec), iv-v.

312

Melanchthon, Monica Jyotsna. "Dalits, Bible, And Method." http://sblsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=459

Nalunnakkal, George Mathew. “Towards an Organic Womanism: http://www.elca.org/What- We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/December-2003/Towards- an-Organic-Womanism-New-Contours-of-Ecofeminism-in-India.aspx (23.5.2012).

National Council of Churches Review Vol.. CXXVII, No. 7 (Aug. 2007).

Nkurunziza, Deusdedit R. K. “African Theology of Childhood in Relation to Child Labour.” African Ecclesial Review , Vol. 46, No. 2 (2004): 121-138.

Oommen, George. "The Emerging Dalit Theology: A Historical Appraisal." Indian Church History Review , Vol. XXXIV, No. 1 (June 2000): 19-37. http://www.religion- online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1121

Racevskis, Karlis. “Edward Said and Michel Foucault: Affinities and Dissonances.” Research in African Literatures , Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn, 2005): 83-97.

Raman,Vasanthi. Globalisation and Child Labour, http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/childlab.htm (Children’s Day, 2007).

RoyChowdhury, Supriya. “Globalization and Labour.” Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 39, No. 4 (Jan. 3 2004), 105.

Rufus, Penieel [sic] Jesudason. “The Problem of ‘Methodological Fidelity’ in Identify- Specific Hermeneutics and the Pertinence of ‘Ethological’ Hermeneutics.” Bangalore Theological Forum Vol. XXXVIII, No. I (June 2006): 120-144.

Sarkar, Siddhartha. “Theorizing in Informal Sector: Concept and Context.” Social Action Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004): 359-373;

Schmalz, Mathew N. “Dalit Catholic Tactics of Marginality at a North Indian Mission.” History of Religions , Vol. 44, No. 3 (February 2005): 216-251.

Sebastian, J. Jayakiran. “‘Can We Now Bypass that Truth?’ Interrogating the Methodology of Dalit Theology.” Transformation Vol. 25, Nos. 2 & 3 (April & July 2008): 80-91.

Sebastian, J. Jayakiran. “Creative Exploration: Arvind P. Nirmal’s Ongoing Contribution to Christian Theology.” Bangalore Theological Forum , Vol. XXXI, No. 2 (December 1999): 44-52.

Shiri, Godwin. “Study of Religion: Ayrookuzhiel’s Search for a New Approach in the Context of Dalit Theology.” Religion and Society , Vol. 43, No. 3 (September 1998): 39- 53.

313

Singh, Avtar. “Child Labour Problems and Prospects: Socio-Legal Measures.” Social Action Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct-Dec), 396-97.

Sinha, Shantha. “Child Labour and Education.” Seminar 474 (February 1994), 14-15.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty interview by Leon de Kock, “New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa.” Ariel: A Review of International English Literature Vol. 23, No. 3 (1992): 29-47.

Thatcher, Adrian. “Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood.” Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Vol. 23, No. 194 (2006): 194-199.

______. “A Theology of Liberation for Children”. http://www.adrianthatcher.org/data/resources/a%20theology%20of%20liberation%20fo r%20children.pdf

UNICEF, India- Child Labour, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html1 (14 Novemeber, 2007).

Verma, Amit. “Why Child Labour?” http://www.org/rdv4n1/childlab.htm (November 14, 2007).

Wall, John. “Children and Political Representation: The Challenge of the Gift”, Journal of childhood and Religion , Vol. 1, No. 5 (July 2010): 1-32.

Interviews:

Israel Selvanayagam. Interview by researcher, Chennai, India, April 15, 2013

J. B. Jeyaraj. Interview by researcher, Madurai, India, March 16/17, 2013.

Siga Arles. Interview by researcher, Bangalore, India. April 16, 2013.

Email Correspondences:

E-mail to the author on June 1, 2013: Sunny Tan

E-mail to the author on August, 2013: Keith White.

______

314