She fetishised suffering
Vikram Sinha
As usual, heartfelt remembrances and widespread reverence have been the order of the day around the time of Mother Teresa’s birth anniversary. But this sort of hagiographical treatment of her life and work has surrounded Mother Teresa with an aura that makes it impossible to assess it for it
is rather than for what it is said to be. Which is a pity, because there are substantial discrepancies between the two.
Her work for the poor is the most obvious place to start. Certainly, she cared for the poor and the dying. But in the process, she also fetishised suffering. There are several instances of her saying that the suffering of the poor was somehow ennobling. This sort of viewpoint couched in religious terms is particularly galling in a country like India, where our energy should be devoted to lifting people out of poverty, not praising them for it. And so, despite the massive amounts of money donated to her over her lifetime, the shelters operated by her organisation remained as primitive at the end of her life as they had been when she had started them.
As well, at a time when women’s equality and rights should be at the top of the agenda for any civilised society, she called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace in the world while receiving the Nobel Peace prize. When the issue of allowing women the legal right to remarry came up in Ireland, she flew there to oppose it. In a country where we have any number of sacred cows, she has been added to the list. And so the fact that a person of such standing and influence held medieval viewpoints – that would prolong the suffering of the unfortunate rather than end it – is ignored this year as it is every year.
***
RCS: But she herself did not believe in suffering. The poor sick died without medicines, but she had treatment in the state of the art hospitals.
Vikram Sinha
As usual, heartfelt remembrances and widespread reverence have been the order of the day around the time of Mother Teresa’s birth anniversary. But this sort of hagiographical treatment of her life and work has surrounded Mother Teresa with an aura that makes it impossible to assess it for it
is rather than for what it is said to be. Which is a pity, because there are substantial discrepancies between the two.
Her work for the poor is the most obvious place to start. Certainly, she cared for the poor and the dying. But in the process, she also fetishised suffering. There are several instances of her saying that the suffering of the poor was somehow ennobling. This sort of viewpoint couched in religious terms is particularly galling in a country like India, where our energy should be devoted to lifting people out of poverty, not praising them for it. And so, despite the massive amounts of money donated to her over her lifetime, the shelters operated by her organisation remained as primitive at the end of her life as they had been when she had started them.
As well, at a time when women’s equality and rights should be at the top of the agenda for any civilised society, she called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace in the world while receiving the Nobel Peace prize. When the issue of allowing women the legal right to remarry came up in Ireland, she flew there to oppose it. In a country where we have any number of sacred cows, she has been added to the list. And so the fact that a person of such standing and influence held medieval viewpoints – that would prolong the suffering of the unfortunate rather than end it – is ignored this year as it is every year.
***
RCS: But she herself did not believe in suffering. The poor sick died without medicines, but she had treatment in the state of the art hospitals.
