Introduction:

Our main topic being on bandh culture, it is therefore necessary to be familiar at first with the concept and meaning of this new emerging culture which has made a long in-road into our day today life in our country. The word 'bandh' has its origin from a Hindi word which means 'closed.'

In examining the origin of bandh, Mrinal Bose stated that, "the bandhs had their genesis in the sixties when these were spontaneous and focused on some real and sensitive issue[s], but from the seventies onwards, these fell in the hands of over-enthusiastic leaders who used it often and blatantly in their own interests." In short, we can define bandh as a "device resorted to by political parties, organizations and unions to focus attention of people on some issues by disrupting the normal life like closing down shops, banks etc."

Various political parties, innumerable trade unions and different student associations, and women groups would summon bandh in order to push up their charter of demands to the Union Government and the State Governments etc. Bandh sometimes cover only one town, one city, one district, the whole State or even the whole country! Admiral (Rtd.) J.G. Nadkarni remarked, "Until a few years ago, leaders used to be modest in their demands. They called for a city or at most a state bandh. No more. Now a Bharat bandh."

Bandh is more rampant in our region and it may not be an exaggeration to say that, at least some groups would summon bandh at least in one corner of North- East India almost everyday! Therefore, bandh often paralysed the functioning of the Government offices, business establishments and banks incurred innumerable financial losses. The student community as a whole are often the innocent victims and the vast marginalized poor people who constituted majority of the population who live from hand to mouth are indeed the worst sufferers.

Culture is a way of human life. It may be appropriate to define "culture as learned and shared attitudes, values, and way of behaving." Thus, bandh culture means a way of behaviour which disrupts normal life to a grinding halt by some organizations or pressure groups to achieve their demands to the Government or to the higher authority.

Therefore, the definition of bandh culture in itself has a very strong negative impact on our society. Bandh in general is a national issue. Thus, bandh culture has shaken and swallowed the very foundation of our country.

This paper will highlights the motives and causes behind the holding of bandhs. It will further examine the attitude of the Government in holding bandhs. The response of the church in holding bandhs being the main focus of this paper will be examined closely. Lastly, this paper will give brief recommendations on what the Church should take up in order to avoid or at least reduce the rampant holding of bandhs in the country.

Motives and causes of holding bandhs:

Before we examine the Church response to holding bandhs, it is important to be familiar with the motives and causes behind the holding of bandhs in the country. India is known for its uniqueness of having diverse ethnic groups with different social and cultural identities. The people in general have a series of problems in the spheres of political, social, cultural and economic issues. All the different ethnic groups have a tendency to preserve and protect their own identities.

The first motive of holding bandh is related with political issues. There has always been large-scale charter of political demands from all parts of the country. Some parties and organizations would demand for the creation of their own separate political units of administration like having new administrative blocks, district councils; separate union territories, separate autonomous States or to attain even independence from the mainland India.

The second motive of holding bandhs would be because of a desire to transform the social and cultural settings of the people. Every ethnic group in the country would like to preserve and transform its own social status and cultural heritage. The third motive relates with a demand for more economic packages like installing new industrial units etc. The fourth motive of holding bandhs is due to frequent inter-tribal conflicts and inter-ethnic misunderstandings which lead to aggressive clashes and conflicts. People live in a cluster of villages with only unmarked village boundaries.

These inter-tribal disputes, inter-village boundary conflicts have been one of the most frequent reasons for holding bandhs in the country. The fifth motive of holding bandhs is due to a large-scale demand made by various pressure-groups affiliated to some national political parties. The sixth motive of holding bandhs is because of religious issues.

India being a multi-religious country, the people have been easily offended and are very sensitive to any religious issue. Even a small minor religious issue can flare up and hurt the feelings of the people. This often led to a great outbreak of civil riots, clashes and bandhs in the country. The seventh motive of holding bandh would be to resist the harsh actions of the Armed Forces, para-military and police personnel in the course of performing their duties. The eighth motive of holding bandhs can be termed as minor issues and this concern some specific lesser charter of demands like getting some more teachers or lecturers in the schools and colleges etc., etc.

The attitudes of the Government in holding bandh:

It is important to know the views and attitudes of the Government in regards to holding bandh. It is indeed not easy to define and examine the attitude of the Government. Bandh is a complex issue for all the political parties and trade unions in India. Any political party who commands a simple majority in the Parliament and State legislative assemblies can form a Government in India.

The political parties who are in the opposition normally are holding bandhs in order to counter challenge and resist the political party in power on certain issues. Mrinal Bose commented in this way, "The yesterday's bandh-lovers are now the greatest critics of the bandh. They even candidly admit that in the past they were irresponsible and headstrong in indulging bandhs." This is the common game often played by all the political parties in India.

All the political parties in India do not seem to have any concrete ideology and policy in regards to holding bandhs. The Telegraph Daily newspaper reported in this way, "In West Bengal, where the CPI(M) leads a coalition in power, CPI(M) leaders speak out against bandhs and the damage they cause to productivity and work culture. But in Kerala, where the CPI(M) leads a political formation which is not in power, it is actively involved in promoting and organizing bandhs." It is a difficult problem for any political party in the country to have a clear-cut ideology on the holding of bandhs. The word 'bandh' therefore, becomes a complex problem for all the political parties in India.

Many of the political parties and the leaders in India understand the negative impacts of holding bandh and the difficulties it caused to the people. The Sangai Express daily newspaper reproduced Dr. S.S. Sidhu, the Governor of Manipur's Republic Day, 2006 speech concerning frequent holding of bandhs, strikes and road blockades in Manipur as follows: "The main sufferer in these bandhs and strikes are the common people and specially the weaker section of the society who are living from hand to mouth and earn their livelihood through their day's toil."

Mrinal Bose opines that, Bengal would definitely be the home of bandhs in India. He says, "Bengal has cultivated a culture of bandh since long. The bandh-savvy Bengalis regard bandh as another holiday, and like to stay home eating delicacies and keeping glued to the TV. Few of them really bother about the issue, whatever the bandh."

In the case of North-East India, the whole region is lying within a very sensitive zone of holding bandhs. I may not be wrong to comment that, amongst all the states of North-East India, Manipur would definitely get the first place in holding of bandhs. It is true that holding of bandh in any particular place always have a great diverse impact on the social, economic and educational life of the people.

The Government is aware of the diverse impacts bandhs have on the people. In order to suppress and at least reduce the rampant holding of bandhs, "the Supreme Court of India has banned bandhs, but political parties still organize them. In 2004, the Supreme Court of India fined two political parties, BJP and Shiv Sena for organizing a bandh in Mumbai as a protest against bomb blasts in the city."

It is not the Government policy to support the holding of bandhs in the country. However, one very crucial question still remains unanswered. Will there ever be any possibility to get rid of holding bandhs in India or North-East India? This is a good question even the big political bosses in India could not give the correct answer.

Church response to holding bandhs:

If, even the political leaders could not give correct answer to holding bandhs, what will then be the role and response of the Church as this bandh culture has already shaken and swallowed the very foundation of our society. What will be the responsibility and measures the Church should initiate in order to hold bandhs? Is it more appropriate for the Church just to remain a silent spectator on this issue? Do we think that it is not at all necessary for the Church to actively interfere in this kind of socio-political activity? If we are to ask more questions on this matter it will indeed continue to keep on going without any end.

The Church need to examine and study the following factors as it may serve as the remedial response to holding bandh:
(i) The main responsibility of the Church is both evangelistic and social concern: The utmost task of the Church is evangelism. However, it is the duty of the Church to focus both evangelism and holistic ministries as they are inseparable in the ministry.

The Lausanne Covenant, 1974 specifically contains statement on the nature of evangelism and social responsibility. In this covenant, "it affirmed that, evangelism and socio-political activity are both part of the Christian duty." Accordingly, it is the utmost task of the Church as a body of Christ to examine issues like holding of bandhs as this issue is facing the concern of the community. However, the Church's method and strategy must be with love and by peaceful means only.

Though the social and political demands may be genuine, the Church should not encourage the use of violence in any form. As we find in Romans, 12: 16, 18; being a Christian we must live in harmony with one another. Above all, we are advised to live at peace with everyone. Therefore, the Church must not encourage violence and protest against our rulers. Instead, it is our bounden duty to submit ourselves to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13: 1). So we must be obedient to our rulers. In case if there is any dissatisfaction which may hurt the sentiments of our religious, social, economic and political rights, as a Church we have the right to bring these issues to the authorities concerned by means of peaceful legitimate system. The main objective of holding bandhs may at the initial stage seem to be good, peaceful and non-violent by nature. Later, it often turned to be violent and finally at the end it led to the use of brute force. Thus, whenever there is a call for bandh, there can be no peace and harmony in the society.

Stanley Hauerwas, must be right in his comment on the Church in a divided world, he says: "Christians can often be found on nearly every side of any issue, but they may not be found there as Christians." Accordingly, some Christian interest groups may participate as the staunch supporters of the bandh, but they may not actively involve there as a Christian. In any way, as the end justifies the means, the motive of holding bandh can by no means be a norm for the social and political goal of the Church.

Therefore, the Church should not come forward to support and encourage the holding of bandhs in any form whatever its flavours may be. If the Church encourages and openly favours the holding of bandhs, it would mean that the Church advocates handling of our religious, social, political, and economic rights into our own hands.

(ii) Is not the duty of the Church to fight against injustice, for the oppressed and for the poor? The most important responsibility of the Church is to care and concern for justice, for the oppressed, the downtrodden and for the poor. The Church can initiate various reform measures to uplift the oppressed and poor people. Proverbs 31: 8-9; encourages and urges us to, 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

The Church should assist and help the destitute and poor people in the community. God wants us to count on in this world of injustice, for the oppressed and for the poor. God always loves, cares and have maximum compassion for the poor. Gary A. Haugen rightly states, "We who know God, however, trust that he hears and cares, for he is a God of compassion. The cries of those who suffer injustice move him. We have hope because we know we serve such a God." The Church as a community must not forget the needs of the people. The Church needs to introduce and follow Nehemiah's strategy of advocating poverty and injustice in his times (Nehemiah ( 5: 1- 13).

Dino L. Touthang states that, "We as Christians are called to advocate for justice for the oppressed, poor and the needy of society by interceding for them through prayer and acting on behalf of those whose cries go unheard by the rich people." As a Church, we have to adopt the instructions given to us by Timothy. He urged the Church that, requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority (1 Timothy 2: 1-2).

The Church instead of taking the law into our hands, we need to pray for the rulers and the governments, for peace and justice, for friends and enemies and for freedom and stability in the world. Our omnipotent God hears and answers the sincere prayers of his people. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Church to openly declare and hold bandhs against the Government.

In this short paper I do not intend to comment against all the ideologies on liberation theology. Liberation theology advocates their solidarity and struggle for the poor, the oppressed classes and for fighting injustice in the world. I would however like to comment briefly on the statement made by Gustavo Gutierrez, who is known as the founding father of liberation theology in his view on oppression-liberation axis.

He stated that, "the building of a just society means the confrontation-in which different kinds of violence are present - between groups with different interests and opinions. The building of a just society means overcoming every obstacle to the creation of authentic peace"… to be with the oppressed is to be against the oppressor… to be in solidarity with the 'poor', understood in this way, means to run personal risks - even to put one's life in danger."

In short, liberation theology fully seems to advocate even violence in order to obtain a just society and to risks even one's own life in their struggle for their solidarity with the poor. I assume that this system would be a radical strategy for the Church to attain our aims and objectives. For the Church our authority is neither in society itself nor in the individual, but it is in God alone.

(iii) The Church needs to be Salt and light to the World: We need to accept that the Church still plays a great role even in our super-technological age. We must fully be aware and understand that the Church is not nearly as dead as many people may think. Therefore, the Church need to be salt and light to the world which is surrounded by various clouds of injustice, poverty, immorality, materialistic greed and violence.

The Church must retain its teachings, its distinctness and influence to the non-Christian world around us. John Stott says, "We have to permeate non-Christian society, and immerse ourselves in the life of the world. On the other, while doing so, we have to avoid becoming assimilated to the world. We must retain our Christian convictions, values, standards and lifestyle."1 As a Church we need to be distinct and different from non-Christian community. It is our foremost duty to be salt of the earth and light of the world (Matthew 5:13, 14). God calls us to be different from the world as we also need to be holy as He is Holy. Thus, it is not fair to live and do what other people just do and enjoy. 'Do not be like them' says the Lord' (Matthew (6:8).

It may be more effective if the Church can lay down some policy on social issues so that this will give great awareness to the members. Therefore, the Church needs to follow God's way so that our salt will retain its saltiness and our light will shine in this dark world. At this present juncture, it seems that the Church is silent on the issue of holding bandhs. The Church has been immersed and assimilated within the social, political and economic structures of the society.

Therefore, the Church is reluctant in many ways to confront with the people. In general, the Church is keeping quiet on issues like holding of bandhs as the Church leaders too are part and parcel of the community. Therefore, in handling issues like holding of bandhs, people particularly turn to the politicians and the student leaders not to the Church leaders for advice and for future course of action. The Church prefers to be a silent spectator on many certain religious, social, and economic issues facing the community. The Church should not, therefore, hesitate to condemn those issues which often destabilise and weaken peace and harmony in the community. The light of the Church must shine brightly so that our good deeds can be seen by others.

(iv) The Church must be the main agent of peace: As we live in a turbulent and competitive world, the Church has been confronting with large scale atrocities, violence and wars. The world is facing all these realities but we are to hold fast to our faith in God. Our God is a peace-maker. God has made peace with us through his son, Jesus Christ.

The peace-makers will be called the sons of God. As children of God, we must be peace-makers too and must at all cost pursue to confidence-building in the society. The Church cannot be this authentic agent unless it strives towards making reconciliation among the conflicting communities. The Church has to rise up and prove to be God's effective witness to be the main agent of peace in the world. Therefore, the Church should not encourage and support any measures which may lead to any communal hatred and violence in the community. The Church should follow the path of making peace among the various communities at all cost.

Recommendations for the Church response to holding bandh: This short paper would like to bring the following few recommendations for the Church response to holding bandhs:

(i) It is recommended that a declaration on socio-political policy of the Church based on the common fundamental principles as its aim and objectives should be framed and adopted at the national or regional level. The North-East India Christian Council can serve as the pilot agent to implement this policy. Hence, this will give maximum greater awareness to the Church.

(ii) It is recommended that, the North-East India Christian Council should initiate more seminars and consultations not only for the Church leaders, but for the North-East India Christian Council- Women and Youth front leaders on this kind of issue as they are more directly and indirectly involved in the contemporary social-political-economic and cultural issues. If more seminars and consultations can be organised for them on issues like, 'the Church response to Bandhs and the Church, response to gun culture etc. This may definitely be more effective and this will have more awareness and convincing result in their respective Churches and communities.

(iii) The North-East India Christian Council can act as the main agent of change for the Church and the society at large. It is strongly recommended that, more consultations and workshops should be held mainly for the political leaders, youth leaders, student leaders and insurgent leaders for a consultation and share together with them on certain crucial issues like the holding of bandhs; the need for rapid transformation of our society from gun culture to God culture etc. In this way, the Church can convey our viewpoints and suggestions to them openly and this may impart positive awareness to the leaders effectively. This system may serve as the best channel to reduce and minimise issues like the rampant holding of bandhs in the region.

Conclusion:

It would finally be fair to conclude that holding of bandhs is a very complex national issue. The practice of holding bandhs will continue in India until the common masses, the political gurus and the so called trade unions babus change their old attitudes to make a new India. This will require a long road to total transformation of the social systems, political ideologies, religious belief systems, economic revivals and restructuring the mind-set of the masses in India.

The Government of India as a whole is not at all in favour of holding bandhs. Even the Supreme Court has banned bandhs as we already have stated. However, the people of India irrespective of religions, castes, creeds or colours are still tempted to continue holding of bandhs at any time and any place. The Government is indeed actually helpless to get rid of this issue.

The Union Government and the State Governments are just seems to be satisfied only so long as the bandh is peaceful and tension does not flare-up among the communities.

Though, the Church may not have a great contribution and influence to the people on this crucial issue. It is a high time that all the Churches in India and North-East India in particular join together and raise our voice to resist, denounce and condemn holding of bandhs in the country.