Some Clubs of India

Last week I received a copy of the Platinum Jubilee Souvenir of the prestigious Lotus Club, Cochin. The Committee that brought it out deserves high compliments for the excellent production, which is not only about Lotus but also a good reference book on the history of Cochin.

Though a member of this club for decades, I didn’t know that W. Somerset Maugham was one among the several illustrious visitors to the club including the Maharajas of Cochin and Mysore, and Lord Linlithgow when he was the Viceroy of India.

Linlithgow actually played tennis at Lotus during a visit to Cochin during the early 1940s. Tennis always had a prominent place in the activities of this family club, which used to conduct an All India ranking tournament. By 1990s the interest in tennis waned, but it has been revived recently with the laying of a synthetic court. Last week I was happy to see a group of young children being coached by an expert.

Bridge is another favorite at Lotus. Prof. Robins Jacob, Honorary Secretary of the Kerala Bridge Association writes, “Lotus Club is credited with the unique distinction of hosting the oldest uninterruptedly conducted Duplicate Tournament in India, perhaps in the whole world.”

The souvenir contains an interesting article titled ‘The Club Culture in India’ by David T. Mookken who has the rare distinction of having been President of Cochin Club and Lotus Club. David traces the origin of clubs in India and the transition of the club culture from British times to post-Independence days.

The first club outside Britain was perhaps Calcutta Cricket and Football Club (1792). A year later Calcutta Racket Club was established. Cochin Club was formed in 1821. Some of the other old clubs in South India are Madras Club (1832), Bangalore Club (1868), Coimbatore Club (1873), Secunderabad Club (1878), Coonoor Club (1885), and Kodaikanal Club (1887).

These were known as ‘English Clubs’. No Indian was allowed entry to them. This exclusiveness led to the formation of the Lotus Club by Lady Gertrude Bristow. Her husband, Sir Robert was a representative of the British Government who was entrusted with the task of developing a modern port at Cochin, a job which he completed admirably. But the Bristows were denied admission to Cochin Club because Lady Gertrude was not English born!

The lady was not disheartened, though. With the cooperation of some prominent families of Cochin, she had a suitable piece of land assigned by the Maharaja of Cochin and started the Lotus Club! The Maharaja himself attended the first Club Night of Lotus on September 9, 1932 as Chief Guest.

Lady Gertrude Bristow was the Founder President of the Club, and remained in that position from 1931 to 1941.

Ends.

Some memories of WW II, Cochin and the 1940s.

The Yad Vashem Controversy

The Inside the Vatican Newsflash of May 7, 2007 carries a staff written article titled ‘Nuncio Battles for Truth’ about the Yad Vashem controversy that erupted last month. This piece is scheduled to be published in the May issue of the magazine.

Yad Vashem is Israel’s Holocaust Museum. The problem arose with the rather dramatic protest by sixty-nine-year-old Archbishop Antonio Franco, Papal Nuncio in Jerusalem against ‘inaccurate’ statements displayed at the Museum on role played by the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII during the genocide. The nuncio announced that he would not attend the memorial service for the Holocaust victims on April 15 unless the offending exhibits were removed.

This immediately became a full blown dispute. Earlier, Franco’s predecessor had also protested against the Yad Vashem display in a milder and more diplomatic manner. But the salvo by a seasoned diplomat like Franco surprised many. It also generated apprehensions about the future of the Catholic - Jewish dialogue and the Pope’s to visit to Israel on invitation by their government.

The Yad Vahsem authorities handled the situation admirably. They insisted that the disputed exhibits represent verifiable facts according to ‘current research’. But they were willing to examine any new documents made available (it is said that there are several secret documents relating to this in the Vatican Archives) and were prepared to go by the evidence. Graciously accepting this as fair enough, the nuncio decided to attend the function on April 15 and the storm blew over.

Was this a conviction based action-reaction situation or is there something more to it? One assessment by Inside the Vatican is: “Franco made a wise choice to try to deal with the Pius issue immediately. As serious as prejudice against Pius is, it does not compare to some of the other complications in the Jewish-Catholic relationship. The injustice against Pius is a manageable problem -- for impartial, fair-minded scholars.” This could very well be true.

The journal presents several points to establish that Pius XII and the Church did, in fact, help in many ways the cause of the Jews under persecution by the Nazis, and that the details are known to the Israelis. If that is so, why did Franco concede to the demand by Yad Vashem for fresh documentation for further study?

The Pope Pius XII-Nazi matter seems to be the greatest PR fiasco ever by the Catholic Church. The accusations against the former Pope have been going around for decades. For some strange reason, Vatican has been apparently defensive on the subject.

Given here is a quote from an article this author wrote some time back: “Notwithstanding all these, terror, undoubtedly, was Hitler’s main weapon for enforcing the kind of control that he desired. Many Germans genuinely supported him. They appreciated the socio-cultural stability that was established. The Church was maneuvered into doing a tightrope act, but retained a considerable degree of independence. When severe practices like euthanasia and the gassing of the Jews came into light the Church did protest. But an unsavory feeling that the Church could have done more to prevent the outrageous events that occurred, remains. This is accentuated by the fact that those who suffered most were not very friendly to the Church.”

When criticism about the role of Pope Pius XII in the unprecedented tragedy surfaced, the Church tried to ward them off by ineffective measures like accusing the Russians of false propaganda to help the expansion of Communism in post-war Europe. These tactics proved futile and we find a strange situation where the man whom the Nazis once denounced as ‘the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals’ being accused by the Israelis for abetting the genocide.

Perhaps the Church’s initial reaction to the accusations was influenced by the words of Pius XII himself. Inside the Vatican Newsflash quotes the former Pontiff: "We owe no greater debt to our office and to our time than … 'to give testimony to the truth'…We shall not be held back by mistrust or opposition, by rebuffs or lack of appreciation, nor yet by fear of misconceptions and misinterpretations." -- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 1939. These words were spoken long before the Holocaust.

Rather belatedly, the Church is taking a more forceful stand on this question. In 2005 Inside the Vatican started an ‘oral history’ project to record accounts by Jews whom the Church had helped to escape the Holocaust. By then most of the refugees involved had died. In the present article the journal comes out with convincing arguments against the display at Yad Vashem. But how many people get to read them?

Archbishop Franco’s protest brought the issue back to public attention and now it is left to the academics to sort out the matter with support from both sides. Fortunately, a stand off like the one between Turkey and Armenia on the 1915 tragedy has been avoided. If Yad Vashem had taken an uncompromising stand on the issue, the nuncio would have been in an unenviable position.

This leads one to think that the whole episode was, perhaps, choreographed with consensus from both Israel and Vatican to pave the way for the Pope’s visit. Inside the Vatican mentions that according to a high ranking Vatican official the Pope may decline the invitation from Israel if the offending exhibits are still on display at Yad Vahsem. This possibly was an impromptu reaction.

Let us objectively analyze the situation. Pope John Paul had visited Yad Vashem but that was before the statements about Pius XII were introduced. If the present Pope were to call at the museum without any publicly known mutual understanding about the exhibits it would have been not only highly embarrassing but also could have led to a major controversy damaging the Jewish-Catholic dialogue.

Franco has changed all that. He has registered his protest, Yad Vashem has agreed to look into the matter positively and the Pope can see for himself what exactly the Holocaust Museum has displayed about Pius XII. May be the Israelis would be more generous during the Papal visit. In any case the dialogue can and would continue effectively and meaningfully.

Strange sometimes are the ways of diplomacy!

Ends.

Also see:

Nazi Era - Looting of Cultural Treasures.

Twin Churches

Read

Back to the twin churches.

at Song of the waves.

Church demolition - addenda.

Three pertinent questions have been raised by ‘anonymous’ about my post Churches on demolition line.

- Is there any chance whether the Cardinal in Cochin will be able to prevent the demolition?

- Who is funding these activities?

- Can these funds be used for more appropriate purposes like teaching the priests the value of cultural heritage?

The Cardinal who is the Major Archbishop and Head of the Syro-Malabar Church can certainly prevent demolitions of old church buildings. Being a learned priest, he certainly would be aware of the importance of preserving the heritage landmarks.

But does he have the will or the capability? The Ernakulam Archdiocese, the seat of the Cardinal, is already involved in court cases regarding attempts to demolish two Parayil built churches - the family’s private oratory (1869 - see A Kerala Tharavad.) and the beautiful St. Rafael’s Church (1859) at Ezhupunna. There could be more such litigation relating to other churches.

Once the Cardinal came out with a strong statement deploring the construction of chapels and other structures flush by roads and disruption of traffic by church processions. An admirable stand. But nothing really happened.

Now, about the funds. Some of the churches like Ramapuram, are rich because of large number of offerings by devotees/pilgrims. Many Non Resident Indians also contribute generously. For them it is a payback to their home church, which of course is noble. But unfortunately, instead of restoration of old churches, the concept of building anew came up. Can the priests escape the responsibility for this? Can anyone conceive of old temples being replaced by modern structures?

The money can certainly be used for much more worthwhile purposes. When incompetent people play architect, cost of construction escalates and concrete monstrosities result. It is a pity that the Syro-Malabar Church (as far as I know) does not have design parameters for its churches. A classic example of the approach of the Church authorities is described in Laurie Baker - A Tribute.

A place of worship, like liturgy, should reflect the hopes, aspirations, ethos and history of the people who are to use it.

Ends.

Churches on the demolition line.

Photo: INTACH Post Card

Beautiful, isn’t it?

These are the historic twin churches at Ramapuram, one of the cradles of Christianity in Kerala. The smaller of these, in the name of St. Augustine, was built around 1450, and the other in 1864. These may be razed to the ground soon. What no invader, no government, no other community, have dared to try, is being done with abandon by the Church itself.

Aisanet TV reported last evening that a referendum is being conducted among the parishioners of Ramapuram on Sunday, April 29, 2007 about demolishing these famous shrines. The Church officials have taken a strong stand in favor of the destruction. Therefore the outcome of the vote is a foregone conclusion. The priests do not seem to be worried whether such actions and procedures conform to the laws of the country.

The move to demolish the twin churches and build a ‘modern’ one in their place has been on for some time. The Hindu carried a report about this on February 18, 2005. The reason given for this proposal by the Vicar was that more space is required to accommodate the increased number of pilgrims! Apparently he was not alert to the fact that the newer of the two churches was also built for the same reason, but people who were responsible then had ensured that the old one was preserved.

The vicar went on to give a piece of wisdom to the world: “God created the whole world for man. Archaeology is for the benefit of man and not vice-versa''. Shades of Benito Mussolini! Il Duce was reported to have said when his car knocked down and killed a boy, “What is the life of a child in the matters of state?”

The Syro-Malabar Church of Kerala, under which Ramapuram comes, is the second largest (after Roman /Latin) Rite in the Catholic Diaspora. It is headed by a Major Archbishop who is a Cardinal. Can the authorities of the Syro-Malabar wash off the responsibility for the demolition mania, like Pontius Pilate? There is something called acts of omission and commission.

What about the Pope?

In the recent Apostolic Exhortation, ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’, the Pontiff states, "A solid knowledge of the history of sacred art can be advantageous for those responsible for commissioning artists and architects to create works of art for the liturgy. Consequently, it is essential that the education of Seminarians and priests include the study of art history, with special reference to sacred buildings..."

[The response of some priests in Kerala to this might be, ‘Oh, it’s about some paintings in Europe’, like Stalin who once asked during WW II, ‘How many Divisions does the Pope have?’ In Kerala itself, invaluable frescos were lost by recent demolition of Thycattussarry Church. See my post ‘A historic church is no more’ by clicking on the title.]

Indiscriminate destruction of heritage structures should be a matter of concern not only for Christians, but also for all people. If you agree, please email this to as many people as you can. The procedure is very simple. Just click on the ‘envelope’ icon below and give the email IDs.

Let us preserve our heritage.

Ends.

(Cross-posted to Song of the waves.)

Amazing Grace.

Amazing Grace, written by John Newton (1725-1807) in 1772 is one of the most popular hymns of all time. This article takes a brief look at the song, the poet and the people who supported him.

Newton’s life story is amazing. Son of a ship master, he went out to the sea at the age of 11 with his father. He was forced to join the navy after that and was caught while trying to desert. Later he was exchanged to a slave ship where he faced many travails. But finally he had his own ship that he commanded, and engaged in slave running.

Newton had no religious convictions during his seafaring days though he was born to Anglican parents. There are two versions of how his ‘conversion to Christianity’ came about. One is that his ship ran into a violent storm and was saved because, due to some amazing grace, he suddenly turned to God and prayed. The other is that he fell seriously ill out at sea and eventually pleaded with God to cure him.

The first stanza of the hymn Amazing Grace seems to describe this turnaround in the man’s life:

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

Newton gave up sailing and took a shore job. During that time he learned several languages. Then came the desire to be a minister. Initially the Bishop of York turned down his request. After a few years of frustration, he was ordained by the Bishop of Lincoln. Another stanza of the hymn is appropriate at this point:

Thro’ many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

John Thornton, a philanthropist and evangelical layman sponsored Newton as curator of Olney. In his later life, Newton was involved in a campaign to abolish slave trade along with William Wilberforce, MP and others.

It was at Olney that Newton wrote the lyrics of Amazing Grace and several other hymns. John Thornton helped to publish them, along with some poems by William Cowper (Cooper?), in a volume titled Olney Hymns.

Thornton continued to support Newton all along. After the death of the financier, Newton wrote this about him,

You know something of my peculiar obligations to him. . . To him,
under the Lord, I owe all my consideration and comfort as a
minister (Bull 300-301).

It is interesting to note that Milton Klein named his biography of John Thornton ‘An Amazing Grace’ after the famous hymn.

And the hymn began to gain popularity. Many church choirs in English speaking parts of the world took up the song. The 20^th century saw several recordings of the hymn. It featured in movies and the television. In the UK it attained top ten rating in the charts during the early 1970s, two centuries after it was written!

The concluding stanza of the hymn says:

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine

Till then, Amazing Grace will live in the hearts of men and women who have heard it.

Ends.

Cited works:

Bull, Josiah. But Now I See, The Life of John Newton. The Banner of Truth Trust. Carlisle.1868, 1998.

Klein, Milton M. An Amazing Grace. U.P. South. New Orleans. 2004.

New­ton, John. Ol­ney Hymns. W. Ol­i­ver, London. 1779.

Lili Marlene

What makes a song immortal? Is it the lyrics? Or the tune? Or the way it is rendered? Perhaps it is a combination of all these and some more.

Take the rather baffling case of the song Lili Marlene (English version: Lilly Marlene). It has been hailed as the most popular war song of all time. But is Lili Marlene really a war song? It is a love song, a romantic, sentimental piece that was, rather strangely, set to a marching tune. Lili Marlene was written during a war and attained the pinnacle of popularity during another war.

A German soldier, Hans Liep wrote the lyrics on which Lili Mrlene is based, in 1915 during World War I. After gathering dust for twenty two years it was discovered in 1937, when Nobert Schultze set it to music. The original recording of Lili Marlene by Lale Andersen in 1939 did not create any waves. Joseph Gobbles, Propaganda Secretary of Nazi Socialist Party, is said to have hated the song. But Field Marshal Erwin Rommel intuitively identified the potential of Lili Marlene and it was broadcast daily over Radio Belgrade for his Afrika Korps.

The effect was stunning. From underneath the lantern Lili of the lamplight reached out to the soldiers on the desert. The song had pathos, romance, and intensity of feeling. It talked of love and longing and loneliness. It captured the hearts and the souls of the fighting men. Imagine the impact of the following words (by Tommie Connor in the English version of Lili Marlene) would have on lonesome soldiers far away from home:

Resting in our billets, just behind the lines
Even tho' we're parted, your lips are close to mine
You wait where that lantern softly gleams,
Your sweet face seems to haunt my dreams
My Lilly of the Lamplight, my own Lilly Marlene

In what could possibly be termed a faux pas, Rommel apparently had not considered that sentiments transcend national boundaries. Soon the Allied soldiers too picked up the song. According to one story, when a senior officer berated a British soldier for singing Lili Marlene in German, the victim answered with a counter question, “Sir, do we have an English version?” A translation was made quickly and BBC started broadcasting it. Thus came about a strange situation where both sides in the war were using the same song, Lili Marlene, for propaganda and to boost the morale of their troops.

The Marlene Dietrich rendering of Lili Marlene was perhaps the pick among the many recordings of the song. Even after World War II, Lili Marlene continued to be a favorite with versions by Vera Lynn and others. It is said to have been translated to nearly fifty languages. When asked about the reason for the popularity of the song, Lale Andersen, the German singer who first recorded it, is reported to have stated, "Can the wind explain why it became a storm?"
The storm might have abated but even 6o years after the World War II, the passion for Lili Marlene lives on. A Web search for the song would turn up over a million results. On several of these sites you can listen to Lili Marlene and download it.

Lili Marlene is still waiting where that lantern gleams softly.

Ends.