On FCRA in South First

Understanding Tribal Conflicts: Lessons from Cain and Abel

Friedmann W Golka Memorial Lecture: UTC, Bangalore Jly. 8, 2026

Tribal Conflicts Yesterday and Today

Dear and respected Principal, professors, Teachers Students and friends, good afternoon.

I am very much grateful to you the UTC family particularly Dr. Laila Vijayan for inviting me to this lecture. I am indeed honoured very much. Thank you

UTC has always been so nice to me ever since I joined this great institution for my pastoral and theological training. I did my B.D and MTh here during the period 1977 to 1984. Usually after BD, MTh admissions are given only after two years of pastoral or otherwise service. I got it after one year, thanks to Dr. Russel Chandran. Again, the teachers I got for all subjects helped me become what I am today in terms of a theology (Old Testament) teacher, a pastor and a person not to specially mention a Christian. From the first year of my study itself I was able to get a direction of what I should do in academic discipline and which line of study I should chose. Starting with Rev. Fr. Dr. V. C. Samuel, my Hebrew teacher followed by Dr.  Rudolf Ficker, my OT professor, with whom I always kept my relationship, helped me in this direction. I should also mention Dr. Pithamber, Dr. Collison, Dr. J.R. Chandran and Dr. E.C. John. These are only few who helped me make me what I am today. A special mention is to be there about Dr. Gotfred Rothermundt who became a good friend of me. He visited my parental home during my student days and later with his family my bishop’s house. Incidentally he is turning 90 this week and his family asked me a message to be included in the public note during the event to mark the date. I did send a video message which was appreciated by his wife very much.

At UTC, I was invited to lead a Quite Day in 2020 March. In November last year UTC hosted Dr. V.C. Samuel memorial meeting and I was invited to present the theme of the event. I had other occasions of honour in the past years including, publication of one of my articles in UTC magazine. There are several other events that happened at UTC that enriched my life.

I made my Church become a member of UTC Society and I was nominated by the Church as the first representative. I served in the Executive Committee for two terms. I was honoured to be on the nomination committee of two principals, the present and the former ones. I can with confidence, say I did make valuable contributions to the administrative system of this great institution.  Once again, I am so much indebted to UTC for what I am today.  

Today we are remembering Dr. Friedmann W Golka, eminent Old Testament scholar who did his studies in Heidelberg and Oxford. I have only two books that he worked on, namely “The Leopard’s Spots: Biblical and African Wisdom in Proverbs” and the book he edited written by Claus Westermann, “What does the Old Testament Say about God”. He was a university lecturer in England and later held the chair for Protestant theology at Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. He, as you all know, was a guest lecturer at UTC and has made great contributions. His donation books and financial donations along with his academic contribution as a teacher at UTC is remembered through this annual memorial lectures.

Coming to the issue at hand, I start with a question, why Cain killed Abel?

The text would come with an answer in a round about way. First of all, it states that the brothers chose two occupations for their living. Cain became tiller of the ground or a peasant and Abel was a shepherd or keeper of the sheep. Both of them brought part of what they produced to sacrifice to the Lord. Then it is said, “the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering”, but for Cain and his offering he “had no regard” (Gen. 4:4-5). The text doesn’t say why or what was the reason for these two different attitudes of God.

This is the beginning of the conflict. Cain was born first. But the text gives the occupation of Abel first (Gn. 4:2). There is no reason given for the Lord not being happy with the offering of Cain. We are also not told how did Cain learn that his offering was not accepted. We have several missing links here. von Rad would say “the only clue one can find in the narrative is that sacrifice of blood was more pleasing to Yahweh” (Old Testament Library: Genesis Revised Edition: Genesis 1972. p.104). He further states that, nevertheless, the decision to accept or reject a sacrifice is on the ‘free will of God’ and he quotes Ex. 33:19 (“I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy”). But then the question would be, what kind of a picture we would get about the divine? There are people like U. Cassuto who would say that, ‘Able chose the best of his flock and Cain just picked without much of a care. This however, cannot be seen in the text. Westermann would say, ‘the question of acceptance or rejection is seen through the fact that it was seen like that only, and “it is fated by God to be so” (Gensis vol. 1. 1-11 p. 296), He further says that it does not point to the quality of the sacrifice or the attitude of the giver. There are people like J. Gabriel who would say, ‘it shows the younger son motive of J tradition’. This would say that the whole story comes from the editors and has nothing to do with God, Cain or Abel. We may have to conclude that the editors had preconceived notions on the tribes of peasants and shepherds. There are several scholars who says that even while Israel got settled, they had the hang over and a greater sentiment toward semi nomadic or nomadic life in the wilderness and hence Abel’s career was more acceptable.

The second question is, as mentioned earlier, how did Cain know that his offering was not accepted by God?  Westermann suggests that experience in life would tell whether the offering was accepted or not. This seems to be a correct reading. So, we may have to say that it is a natural phenomenon. The result of toil on the part of human can be good or not so good. But then a further question can be, can this be attributed on God or it need to be accepted as a natural phenomenon in the world. But for ancient cultures there is no choice as they would attribute everything that happens in the world or life in relation to the divine. But for us, if Cain experienced a setback in his agricultural work after the sacrifice, he should have accepted it as a natural phenomenon.  But that was not how he took it. Of course, we cannot judge from today what he should have done. But what was said earlier, about the editors’ contribution, there is a clear tribal conflict working.

Coming back to the story as it is narrated, naturally Cain got angry and it was shown on his face. God asks him why he was angry. God is seen like a person who saw Cain face to face. Because the word used vyaflu fine   would suggest that, God saw the change in Cain’s face. But it should also be noted, as F. Delitzsch pointed out, this is a repetition of what we see in v.5b of Genesis chapter 3.

In verse 7 also we see a repetition of what is said in 3:16 where the way of desire is talked about. There seems to be an artificial comparison of relation between husband and wife and between bother and brother.  On God’s part Cain was not abandoned but cautioned him of what he could do in his anger. Cain should have accepted the effect of his sacrifice as natural and normal and listened to God’s advice. Unfortunately, Cain did not take the advice seriously, but went and killed his brother. God again confronted Cain and explained to him the consequence of his deed. But that also was not taken positively. God was explaining to him about the law of nature. Actually, this was the law which worked earlier in relation to the sacrifices. Probably God’s cautioning and advice is quite fitting to the divine nature. God’s words usually are taken as a response to the kind of sacrifice he presented rather than the way he became angry. But it should be counted as a response to Cain’s angry attitude. Anger against something could lead to doing something drastic and that was what God was cautioning him. But this time also Cain failed to accept reality but complained that he has become a loser and a wanderer. God confronted him again to try to establish him. Here we see the kind of God the tradition is trying to present. A God who doesn’t abandon any one at any situation, but keeps on being patient and follow His creation to bring them back to a progressive goal. This is a strong theological motive. Unfortunately, we humans do not understand this most of the time.

But the issue doesn’t conclude there. According to Hendel, Ronald (Hendel, Ronald: How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. Yale University Press. pp. 81–82), the text’s final shape came in the post Exilic period (J Wellhausen agrees to this). That was the time of the return of exiles from Babylon and had a tough life due to their weak social situation and also due to the opposition from the North. Naturally tribal animosity would have been in the highest level and have affected the final shaping of the story. When exiles came back, they had to face opposition from the Northerners (or former Samaritans) and the governor of Babylon in the region. On the other side, for the Northerners, the exiles were intruders in to their territory and divine abode, Jerusalem. They used all available means to oppose them getting established. The returners already had stories of creation and establishment of human race in the world from Babylon. During the very first stage of origin of the world, as the story they got would say, one is against the other and they experienced it on their return. This experience is reflected in the Cain Abel story. Though Cain killed Abel, a new baby was born and the race of Adam continued. Cain on the other hand went away but sure survived on God’s mercy. God’s grace is seen experienced by both tribes. But Cain will always be known as killer and abandoned one by those in Jerusalem.

Westermann would say that this has nothing to do with tribal animosity but two brothers’ fight for survival. But the problem is, we cannot say that we are talking about historical figures and brothers here. Cain and Abel are to be taken as representatives of two tribes in the same region. The cultural context of the region would tell us that there has always been struggle between tribes not only in Israel but in every community of the region. This is the case that make the region unrest even today.

I would here go with Golke’s theory he presented with regard to Israelite wisdom literature saying “(better) look to living oral cultures to understand how biblical wisdom was actually born” (p.23). This theory can be applied here. This means, the story of animosity between the two brothers needs to be seen as born out of the existing situation of people. So, we have a truly genuine social context of people responding to concrete situation not as individuals but as groups or tribes, based on the cultural setting of the region.

The result of the matter is that, one tribe claims that they are not accepted by the divine when they experienced some set back in life, and they take it on others whom they think have successful life. It can happen the other way too. It is simply an assumption that the other tribe is more flourishing because the divine is pleased of their life and their sacrifice. This leads to an attempt to take annihilating measures on the other and that leads to tribal conflict in action. This may take any shape and size. I don’t think anyone, would today, say that historically Adam was the first male person created by God and he had two sons in the beginning and they were in enmity and one killed the other and ran away.  

The result of the discussion is, Cain tribe saw Abel tribe successful and became envious and acted against Abel tribe. This we see all through history of humanity. The powerful or the cunning will levy it’s power on the other and try to wipe them away from the face of the earth. The story of Cain and Abel is a reflection of the situation among the tribes of the region.

Now let us turn to the situation today in our own, Indian, world. The works of M.S. Golwalkar entitled “We or Our Nationhood Defined” (1939) and “Bunch of Thoughts” (1966) need to be considered in this context. In these works, Golwalkar says, ‘Muslims who maintain a separate communal identity and foreign allegiance, Christians who are an internal challenge like the western colonial powers and communists who are people of foreign ideology should be sent out from the country.  If at all these communities want to be in this country, they either have to accept the Hindu culture and language, must hold Hindu religion in reverence, lose their separate consciousness, and abandon foreign allegiances’. These people will “entertain no claims, deserve no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights”. If not ready to follow these directions, they will have to leave the country. He sees, like Cain, these three communities are threats to them and their community and hence should be done away with. The question is not whether they are blessed by the divine, but they believe their deities and religion require this from them.

Now the ministry of foreign affairs of India has declared that government issued passport as not a valid document for citizenship. Earlier the Supreme court has wiped away the constitutional full validity of Aadhaar, but heavily restricted where and how it could be used. This means an official can say that it is not valid in this office or in this particular situation. New amendments on FCRA is obviously aimed at preventing Christian humanitarian efforts in this country among other agencies. In the recent Special Intensive Revision of voters list about sixty million enrolled voters names were deleted. 

If we go back in history, the Kandhamal killings and atrocities on Christians during December 2007 to October 2008, which I am an onsite witness to the effects of it, is a clear example of Abel being killed by Cain simply because God was working with Christian missionaries who helped the downtrodden, tribals and out casts (but the reason stated was different: death of a Sanyasin). Murder of Graham Stuart Staines, an Australian Christian missionary, and his two young sons, Philip (aged 10) and Timothy (aged 6) was for the same reason. They were burned alive on January 23, 1999, in Manoharpur village, in Odisha. In Gujrat riots more than two thousand Muslims were massacred in 2002 again on false charges. Father Stan Swamy (84) had to face death in jail without trial for nine months. He was not even given a straw to drink from a glass as he his hands were violently shaking from Parkinson disease and could hold a cup to drink from it. Catholic sisters are arrested if they travel with girls who seek education or job in public.  No correct number is recorded how many were killed in Manipur till date. R. Rajagopal, a media person was given passport once denied, only on widespread voicing from general public.

Anyone who criticises the powerful will be put to prison without trial. Enforcement Directorate will be after anyone who criticizes the powerful. But if they join their group, they will be cleared and posted on high positions. Cain lives and is very much active even today.  This certainly is based on the argument that Aryans (or Aryan tribe) are the lone people of the land and should only have favour in the sight of the divine. They only have the right to Indian citizenship.

But this is totally against the general findings of researchers in Indian history. The Aryan contention is that even Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro civilization was of Aryan tribe. First ever research in this subject, the Asiatic Society of Bengal, that was begun by William Jones in 1784 that used literary sources like Vedas and Upanishads, says that the language used in them is an offshoot of proto-Indo-European languages. This will show that Aryans, who use the language, originated in central Asia and migrated to various parts of the world. One group came to India. At the same time the languages that was used in southern part of the region was Dravidian according to Madras Collector Francis Ellis (1816). Max Muller argued that Aryans are not just a linguistic group but also a human race (or a tribe). It is especially noteworthy that French historian Arthur D Gobineau argued that they are not at all a linguistic group but a special race that is claiming superiority over all other races that they can control other races. The British of course used this to establish their superiority. In 1920 excavations were undertaken in places like Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. It proved that there was a well-established culture as old as 4000 to 5000 years ago. This was much earlier than that of Aryan culture according to people like John Marshall and R.D. Banerjee. Of course, this position was challenged by people like T. N. Ramachandran, K. N. Shastri, S. R. Rao, B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta who said this ancient culture in India was Aryan. But this view did not get acceptance among major historians. Literary evidence shows that Aryans came from west of the region to East and hence they came late. Painted Grey Ware (PGW) of archaeological excavations in Indian Sub-continent show that they are different from Harappan cultural evidences. PGW evidences from Gandhara Grace culture from the Swat River valley in Afghanistan confirms this.  On the top of that, evidences related to cow caring, which is an important element in Vedic culture of Aryans, is almost nil in Harappa culture. On the other hand, bulls are seen widely used there. In 2018 the DNA studies conducted in West Asian countries like Kazakhstan and Iran also testifies to the Aryan migration from central Asia. John Marshall’s extensive studies show that the scripts in the seals found there proves that there was an Indus Valley culture equal to or better than Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures. The main occupation of the people there was agriculture and they lived in well planned residential cities.

It is generally accepted by historians that the Aryans came in more than one group came from the Eurasian Steppe that is spread through a vast grassland region stretching across modern-day southern Russia and Kazakhstan and they were basically shepherds and grassland people. This happened during the decline of Indus Valley civilization and through 2000 BCE to 1500 BCE. A clear witness to this is that the Vedic period is calculated between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE. As said earlier, of course this has been challenged by certain historians, but not accepted as authentic on several reasons.

Le me not dwell too much on this, but just point to the fact that there is a strong argument today that Aryans were here from very beginning of cultures and every other community came later and started living under the mercy of the early dwellers. They have domination in the region and hence others should live under the mercy of Aryans as pointed out by Arthur D Gobineau noted earlier. If other communities or tribes try to establish themselves by any means, the Aryans have the authority to wipe them out. This is what we have seen in various parts of India. Here we have new era of tribe conflict where Aryans trying to take dominance and annihilate other communities or tribes. One of the arguments they use is Muslims grow in number and Christians grow powerful financially, education wise and culturally. Christians attract backward community people, whom they include among Hindus (but do not treat them equal) and convert them to Christianity. Muslims are supporters of Pakistan and they are terrorists. So, these two groups need to be controlled by “any means”. Communists try to abolish the caste system which will make Chathur Varnyam irrelevant. So, these “tribes” are threats to the Hindu tribe and need to be made to be wiped away at any cost and by any means or at least brought under their control without any citizen’s right.

Conclusion

What I wanted to say is Cain and Abel conflict is to be understood as attempt to establish dominance of a particular tribe over the other. God has nothing to do with this. But based on the kind of socio-religious culture of the people who created the story made God the controlling power in the conflict. That is the tribal conflict of yesterday.

But for now, today in our part of the world politically and numerically powerful community playing domination and trying to be smarter to subdue other peoples. They are using the divine, Rama for example, to work out their plan. This is what we see in Babri Masjid conversion to Rama Temple. Recent events show that they are not really concerned of the divine, rather power and money, but of course use the divine for their motive. Same was the case of yesterday’s events in case of Cain and Abel.  

The message for us today needs to be what God said to Cain, “sin is couching at the door, it’s desire is for you, but you must master it” (Gen. 4:6b). We need to tell the people loud and clear, ‘sin in your desire, to take away the life and liberty of others is couching before you’.  This should be our mission. Claus Westermann in his book, “What does the Old Testament Say about God” edited by Friedmann W Golka, says, “God need to be understood and talked about in dialogue” and that dialogical process should be worked out through humans. Yes, we need to call the world for dialogue with God and with one another and tell the powerful that sin is crouching at their doorstep. This is our mission to be carried out without fear and favour.

Thank you…

My Presentation at Karmalagiri Seminary on Unity Octave Prayers

Unity Octav 26Download

My Theme Presentation at Fr. Dr. V. C. Samuel Memorial Seminar, 22,23 Nov. 2025. UTC Bangalore

Keynote Address: Rev. Fr. Dr. V.C Samuel Memorial International Seminar 2025.

Dear ….

I am extremely pleased to have been invited to this prestigious seminar in which the life and thoughts of my good old teacher is presented.

Famous Process theologian Alfred North Whitehead has stated “Upon death, every person’s life and experiences are forever integrated into the memory of God, who is the ultimate conserver of all that has happened” (In process theology, death is seen as a natural transition where individuals are “objective immortals,” with their life experiences preserved forever in God’s memory. While some thinkers, like Charles Hartshorne believe in, only this form of immortality; others propose that individuals may have a form of “subjective immortality” or continued personal existence within God, potentially continuing to grow and develop as subjects. This perspective views death as the natural end of a temporal life that enriches the ongoing, changing life of God). I may add to the statement of Whitehead saying, when  it is entered into the memory of God (I believe subjectively), certainly it is integrated into the memory of humans too. Yes, that is what happens to anyone that goes beyond this physical world. This is the whole reason why we are here.

It is therefore quite fitting that we remember the life, teaching and work of our beloved Samuel Achan (19912- Wednesday 18, November 1998) who passed away from this physical world and have been integrated into our memory just as into the memory of God. The only question is, whether the phrase “Memory” will articulate the presence of Achan withing us just as he in our God. He lives in me as an active (subjective) person, at least in the area of my articulation and expression of faith.

I met Samuel Achan at this very institution, the United Theological College, Bangalore. He was the teacher of Hebrew language for first year students when I joined for Bachelor of Divinity programme here. I always do and now too, a student of TANAK (Old Testament) in the advanced stage, testify that I got into my area of study because of his classes. He was much more than a teacher to me. We talked outside class rooms, on the way to his residence in Kengeri in his Premier Padmini car, at his home there and in the market where we went to buy provisions for him and of course for me too when I was at his place; we talked about our Church, its concerns, his dreams about the Church, his life, about me and my tastes and dreams.

I strongly believe, he is the lone genuine theologian who the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church produced in the discipline of patristic theology. Our Church was at fault in not using him untill it was too late. He got married after he was ordained a priest and that was considered by the church as a fault on his part, which I dare to contest. In Malankara Orthodox Church which adapted West Syriac liturgical and clerical tradition can not have an unmarried priest. Either he should be a married priest or a monk from the time of his deacon (m’Semsono) stage. Malankara Church introduced unmarried clergy system, copying from the Roman Catholic tradition, but did impose no marriage after that in line with Syriac tradition. Being unmarried and not part of a community for priests is always a challenge in life to stay like that. On the top of this imposing 20 years of abstinence from performing any clerical duties is another injustice levied on clergymen. There is another eminent priest, Rev.Fr. Dr. C. C. Mathew in USA, who also faced this unreasonable punishment.

Samuel Achen’s classical work, “Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined”, his doctoral thesis in print, has been a source of historical and theological insight for me about the Alexandrian School of theological position and synodal discussions. The “en” and “ek” controversy tells us of lack of mutual understanding and respect that was in the very beginning of the Church that controls the community even today. In the book he presents a detailed history of theological dialogue and historical growth of the faith of the Alexandrian School of theology. This book was my first and foremost textbook when I was teaching “Faith of the Church” at Malankara Syrian Orthodox Theological Seminary at Puthencruz, Kerala in late 80s.

A major concern of Achan was our lack of readiness to travel through time and space. He asked us, “Is this an Indian Church”. A Church that would be meaningfully worshipping God need to stand in the given context and speck from it to God and to one another in the liturgical context which will have contextual and life relevance. Instead, we got a slavish approach to liturgy and many a time our prayers and liturgy became irrelevant to newer generations. We still send diseased persons with oil anointment to fight against evil and hostile forces in the ‘Oyar’ (abyss), as we are stuck in the archaic world view understanding. We also give best wishes to the newly wedded couple by saying that they will receive ‘mildew’ from sky in a land where we need plenty of rain for better crop in the region we live in.  

In the world of Ecumenism, Achan was an active forerunner and pioneer. He was the chief organizing force behind the first ever Conference of Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches held in Addis Ababa, 15-21 January 1965. He was one of the driving forces behind the Pan-Orthodox Consultations under the auspices of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. The first Consultation was held in Aarhus, Denmark in August 1964, which expressed full agreement on the essence of the Christological dogma based on St. Cyril’s famous clause (a single, united person of the incarnate Word, where the divine and human natures are united without confusion, mingling, or separation). Next Consultation in Bristol in July 1967 agreed that since the 5th century different formulae were used to confess the common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, agreeing on the union of natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The Third Consultation in Geneva in August 1970 more or less re-affirmed the agreement in Bristol. The Fourth Consultation in Addis Ababa, January 1971 discussed the need for removing mutual anathemas and on the criteria for recognizing the saints of both factions and on the restoration of communion. These Consultations have become the model for subsequent Consultations between the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church and Samuel Achan was a key figure in all these consultations.

He was actively involved in the life of his mother church both in Bangalore and in Kerala, irrespective of the “injustice” done to him by keeping him forbidden from conducting divine liturgies. He never complained, to my knowledge, about what the Church did to him. He at the advanced age was allowed to teach at Orthodox Theological Seminary in Kerala.

He was a man of high integrity and simplicity which I was able to experience during my days in Bangalore.

His proficiency in multiple languages like, Malayalam, Syriac, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, Latin etc. was commendable. His articles and books show his deep faith and commitment to what he believed in.

I am sure this conference will once again bring back to us the richness of his life and thoughts and will help us make him alive in our generation and those to come.

The question before us today would be how we can make our communities relevant to the changing scenarios in history and work together to become truly a community lead by the Holy Sprit that was promised to “lead us to all truth” (John 16:13). Samuel Achen’s vision can be accomplished only through that and help him being integrated into the memory of generations to come and through that to memory of God.

The task of anyone who has integrated the memory of Samuel Achan with God is twofold:

1. Assess the evolving realities in the world in general and in each community in particular and create a relevant spirituality in response to that with liturgical and practical life of the respective communities to make them humane.
2. To re-assess the faith in the Triune God and bring together denominations and faith communities to prepare humanities for the coming of the Kingdom of God

I wish our meetings will be really successful in achieving the goal. I wish all the best. God bless us

My Retirement Home

The Church has recommended that Bishops of the Church may retire at the age of 75 to 80 from active service. I wish to retire at 75, four years left. But to have a smooth transition, I wish to move from the Bishop’s House at Mannnuthy to a house I built with my personal resources from my friends all over the world. The house, called Metraniye’ was built and blessed on 3rd July 2025 and conducted Grahapravesam on August 17. I live with my birds, cat, dogs and the flowering and fruit bearing bushes and trees at Pazhayannoor in Thrissur District. This movie is on these two events and our First Onam celebration on September 1st.

Video link

Morth Mariyam Vanitha Samajam Annual 2025: Talks

A Proud Event in Borivali, Mumbai

I had the honor of being the chief guest to inaugurate the facility in Borivili, Mumbai where adult education programs and job opportunities facilitated jointly by Masoom charity organisation and St. George Orthodox Church, Borivali April 30, 2025.

My Eulogy and Final Words at the Vanitha Samajam Regional Meeting on July 20, 2024

My Bible Class during MorthMariyam Vanitha Samajam Regional Meet at Pazhayannoor, Thrissur Diocese, April 19, 2024

My interview