190-Note for Authors


Prajñâ Vihâra, Volume 7, Number 2, July-December, 2006, 110-123 110
© 2000 by Assumption University Press

TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING THE RELATION

BETWEEN RELIGIONS AND CULTURES IN

SOUTHEAST ASIA

Joseph I. Fernando

Assumption University of Thailand

Abstract

In the face of Modernity and its erosion of traditional values,

we need to preserve something of the wisdom of traditional culture.

The traditional cultures have taken thousands of years to evolve and

are necessary to preserve. They are the carriers of the accumulated

wisdom of the people since antiquity. They give man a sense of

belonging, acceptance and assurance.  They enshrine the values,

which define meaning, guide, motivate and lead people to fulfillment.

We find cultural traditions still alive in the rural communities of South

East Asia. It is to these communities that we need to turn to guide us

on our road to the future.

The Significance of Religion

Marx wrote in the Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s

Philosophy of Right “Religion is … the imaginary realization of human

being, because human being possesses no true reality. Thus the struggle

against religion is indirectly the struggle against that world whose aroma is

religion … Religion is the opium of the people. The real happiness of

people requires the abolition of religion, which is their illusory happiness”.1

Feuerbach argued in his The Essence of Christianity that ‘the secret of

theology is anthropology’. Whatever man says about God is an expression

in mystified terms of his knowledge about himself. “God is the imaginative

projection of man’s species-essence, the totality of his powers and attributes

raised to the level of infinity… man’s knowledge of God is an attempt to

perceive himself in the mirror of exteriority; man exteriorizes his own essence

before he recognizes it in himself, and the opposition between God and



man is a ‘mystified’ version of the opposition between the species-being

and the individual … Man asserts in God what he denies in himself”.2 Is

religion really the opium of the people? The answer is both yes and no.

There is a distinction between religion in principle and religion in practice.

Religion in practice can be exploitative. In fact, exploitation by religion has

been prevalent all over the world. One can think of the exploitative religious

practices, for examples, in ancient India and Europe.

The materialists known as Lokayatikas or Charvakas in ancient

India held that only this world or loka is real. “The materialist theory had a

good deal to do with the repudiation of the old religion of custom and

magic”.3 The common man was weighed down by the burden of rituals in

India in 6th century B.C. Orthodox Hinduism was excessively ritualistic.

Many could not afford the cost of the rituals. Without the rituals it was

almost impossible to establish contact with the deity. Religion was in the

hands of the priests. Priesthood had become almost priest-craft. “The

masses of men were addicted to the ceremonies and observances

prescribed by those who lived on food provided by the faithful ... The

priest who pretended to be the channel of divine power dominated the

religion of the country … he pretended to be in the confidence of the gods

and addressed the needy: ‘Son, make a sacrifice to God and a payment

to me, and thy sins will be forgiven thee’. The system of salvation by silver

could not answer to the deeper needs of the human heart”4. Gautama

Buddha was aware of this. “The cruel rites with which worship was

accompanied shocked the conscience of Buddha”.5 He searched for a

way to free people from the clutches of ritualism. His departure from

orthodox Hinduism was a protest against all that was not humane. He was

silent on God but emphatic on the practice of morality. His stand could be

it is not necessary to be vociferous about God but obligatory to be good

and do good. As the Christian Scripture says, “Not everyone who says to

me: Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does

the will of my Father in Heaven.”6 Is it not the will of the Father in Heaven

people must be good and do good?

Marx, Nietzsche and Freud vehemently opposed religion.  For

Marx, religion is part of the superstructure resting on the base of economics.

In the feudalistic Europe, the serfs would listen to the sermons by priests

who exhorted them to obey their feudal masters. Their suffering on earth

Joseph I. Fernando  111



was negligible compared to the eternal happiness they would have in heaven

after death. They were told “You will get a pie in the sky after you die.”

But the serfs were in need of the pie ‘here and now’. No wonder he

considered religion as the opium of the people. Nietzsche was disgusted

with the Christianity of his times and declared in his The Gay Science,

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” (aphorism

125). For Freud, religious beliefs are considered infantile illusions.

Yet just because religion has been abused by certain so-called

religious people and others, it cannot merely be condemned as the opium

of the people. Religion has been a panacea for the ills of the soul. In a

country like India, from time immemorial there has been a longing to

become one with the Divine. Earthly life has been understood as a prelude

to eternity. This longing expressed itself in simplicity, austerity, learning,

meditation and contemplation. This longing was manifest in philosophy,

literature, music, painting, sculpture, dance, architecture and so on the

antiquity of which is unparalleled in human history. Although secular themes

too found their expression in human creation, the predominant theme was,

of course, religious.

With the advent of Christianity, the barbaric tribes of Europe found

themselves civilized and tamed. The barbarians were the Celts, Germans,

Slavs and others ‘the non-Italic and non-Greek peoples of Europe who

inherited the Greco-Roman civilization and formed most of the present-

day European nations. Like the Italic peoples, they were speakers of

Indo-European dialects.’7 Many were called to a life of holiness. Towering

intellectuals like St.Augustine, St.Anselm, St.Thomas Aquinas,

St.Bonaventure were holy men. The founding of monastic orders by

St.Benedict, St.Dominic, St.Francis of Assisi, the Gothic cathedrals and

the cathedral schools which eventually evolved into such great universities

as Oxford, Cambridge, Padua, Salamanca, the works of artists like Michael

Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci, literary creations and immortal musical

compositions; these were all inspired by religion.  In the Islamic and Buddhist

worlds we also find amazing creations which evolved from deep religiosity.

Religion has been the bedrock of hope for millions of people down through

the centuries. It has been the source of purpose and fulfillment in their

lives. Religion has given them a reason to live and a meaning to their death.

It has enabled them to live, to give, to forgive, to serve, to suffer for

112  Prajñâ Vihâra



worthy causes and to work for peace and unity. Without religion, the

world would be engulfed in spiritual darkness. For millions of people human

life would be unthinkable without religion as they are guided by the precepts

of their religions. The fact that people take their religions seriously indicates

that man is not only a rational, social and political animal but also a religious

animal. Scores of people have laid down their lives and are ready to do so

even today in defense of the values upheld by their religions. Religion has

a tremendous hold on man. Man as a mortal being realizes death puts an

end to his earthly existence. All his toil and moil will come to a halt one

day. As Heidegger puts it, man is a being-towards-death. His life is fleeting,

temporary and finite. St.Thomas Aquinas demonstrates in his Summa

Theologica man has only one end: God.8 His happiness consists only in

God, not in wealth, honours, fame, glory, power, bodily good, pleasure,

some good of the soul and created good. Is it not, then, wise to seek the

ultimate reality, which is his final end and source of all happiness?

Interestingly, Asia is the cradle of religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism,

Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and so on. It is worth

investigating into the relation between religions and cultures especially in

Southeast Asia.

The Southeast Asian Context

Plato aptly remarked that philosophy begins in wonder. Man is

not only a wonderful being but also a wondering being. He wonders about

the things around him, within him and beyond him. This sense of wonder

and the curiosity to search for answers to perplexing questions have led

him to philosophy and religion. There have been several stages in the

development of the religious consciousness of man from animism to

monotheism. There is hardly any culture without religion. Religion has been

a major force propelling great cultural accomplishments. The great epics

of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia

and Borobodur temple in Java are some examples of the impact of religion

on literature and architecture respectively

A.L. Basham writes in his The Wonder that was India: “ The

whole of South-East Asia received most of its culture from India … Other

Joseph I. Fernando  113



cultural influences, from China and the Islamic world, were felt in South-

East Asia, but the primary impetus to civilization came from India.”9

Traditionally, in mainland Southeast Asia, Burma, Laos, Thailand,

Cambodia and Vietnam have been Buddhist nations. Malaysia, Indonesia

and Brunei are predominantly Islamic nations. The Philippines is the only

predominantly Christian nation in Asia. Singapore is truly a cosmopolitan

city-state. The religions of Southeast Asia today are Buddhism, Islam,

Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism. None of these religions were native to

Southeast Asia. Indian Buddhist missionaries, Hindu priests, merchants

and settlers introduced Buddhism and Hinduism respectively in Southeast

Asia from India.  The Sufi merchants and masters from India, Persia and

Arabia introduced Islam in Southeast Asia.

The Filipinos became Catholics due to the colonization of the

Philippines by the Spaniards in 16th century and some of them later became

Baptists due to the American presence in the country. Although these

religions have contributed much to the cultures of Southeast Asia, the

natives of these lands had their own cultures prior to the advent of these

religions. What are the values and practices of these indigenous cultures?

Were these cultures enriched or hampered by the advent of the new

religions? Have there been conflicts between the native cultures and the

adopted religions? How much of the native culture is preserved? Has

there been an enculturation of these religions in Southeast Asia?  If some

of the native cultural practices were abandoned in the wake of embracing

a new religion, can we rediscover their values and preserve them for

posterity? This is an urgent task today especially in the context of

globalization which allegedly threatens to some extent the existence and

continuity of our cultures.

The Filipinos converted by the Spaniards became more like

Spanish Christians, just as those converted by the Portuguese in Goa,

India became like Portuguese Christians. Yet they have also developed

their own Asian Christian identity distinct from their western roots. Likewise,

to be a Muslim in Indonesia or Malaysia is not to be exactly like a Muslim

in Arabia. A Muslim in Arabia is a product of Arabic culture with its own

history, ecology, and traditions. Indonesian and Malaysian cultures have

existed long before the advent of Islam in these countries

114  Prajñâ Vihâra



Has there been a symbiotic relationship between religions like

Islam and Christianity and the cultures of Southeast Asia? In this context

what come to mind are the pioneering efforts of the Italian Jesuits Matteo

Ricci in China and Robert de Nobili in India in 16th and 17th centuries

respectively, with regard to enculturation of Christianity. Ricci and de Nobili

attempted to present Christianity not as a Western religion with Western

trappings but as a universal faith of salvation to people everywhere. They

believed the Christian faith must incarnate itself in the native cultures of the

people. Ricci and de Nobili were not mere missionaries but visionaries of

enculturation. Nearly 400 years later, the Catholic Church for the first

time spoke about the need for enculturation and the interrelationship

between the Gospel and culture in the Vatican II Documents.10 In the light

of this paradigm of enculturation, what is the impact of religions like

Christianity and  Islam on Southeast Asian cultures?

Significantly, when a native culture encounters a non-native religion,

there may be a mutual impact. For example, Christianity had its impact on

Indian culture. The Christian presence in India influenced the abolition of

Sati (burning the widow in her husband’s pyres), of child marriage, and of

devadasi system (temple prostitution). The Christian missionaries threw

open their schools to all children in a country where some sections of

society were traditionally denied education. The Sermon on the Mount

profoundly influenced Gandhi in his advocacy of nonviolence. Hinduism

has had its impact on Christianity. The Christians learnt from the Hindus to

appreciate religious tolerance. The Hindu belief in divine presence in the

natural phenomena – the trees, mountains, rivers and so on – has enabled

the Christians to understand better divine immanence in the universe besides

being aware of the transcendence of God. Likewise, has there been a

mutual impact of religions and cultures in Southeast Asia? It may be said

that religion is the core of culture. Just as culture preserves religion within

itself, religion too has to affirm the values of culture in which it is embedded.

Religion and ethnicities seem to go hand in hand in Southeast Asia.

It appears as if to be a Thai, Burmese or Cambodian is to be a Buddhist;

to be an Indonesian or Malay is to be a Muslim and to be a Filipino is to

be a Christian. The religion of the majority seems to determine the national

character. This is not how Southeast Asia should be. In fact, religions

transcend ethnicities and are universal. The minorities too play significant

 Joseph I. Fernando  115



roles in the life of the nation. Some microscopic minorities do make

enormous contributions to the nations. For example, the Christians in Asia

have been pioneers in the fields of education and health care. People of all

religions constitute the rich diversity of the nation. The minorities are not

left to the mercy of the majority in democratic polity. Democracy is where

all the citizens are equal under the law and have equal opportunities. A

nation is judged by the character, dynamism and quality of life of its citizens,

which include both the majority and the minorities. Therefore, to be a Thai

is more than to be a Buddhist; it is also to be a Muslim, Christian and so

on. To be a Filipino is also to be a Muslim. To be an Indonesian Or

Malaysian is also to be a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and so on.

One’s identity as belonging to a particular religious or ethnic

community cannot be a threat to another’s identity as belonging to another

religious or ethnic community. As autonomous persons, people profess

and practice a religion, which they find meaningful. Therefore, there is no

question of threat to anybody’s identity as long as the citizens recognize

the value of peaceful coexistence, mutual appreciation, cooperation and

collaboration. Threat arises when religious groups become fundamentalist,

fascist and have misguided motives and vested interests. In fact, the Church

or the religious body is the only moral voice of society. Holiness is nurtured

in a religious environment. More holy men and women are needed today

that in any other time in human history. Holy persons who are committed

to the love of the divine and the human are called upon to bring light, love

and healing to the lives of people. In the absence of holiness, spirituality,

devotion and service, mere organization and administration of the Church

or the religious body would be lifeless and meaningless. Without holy men

and women who are meek, simple, caring and loving, the world would be

a hell. Truly holy persons transcend the barriers of language, religion, race

and ethnicity and reach out to all human beings in loving service. Such

persons respect the sentiments, freedom and rights of others. For example,

truly holy Hindus and Muslims would not impose on others abstinence

from eating beef and pork respectively. Similarly, those living in

predominantly Hindu and Muslim areas would voluntarily abstain from

eating beef and pork respectively as a mark of respect for and identity

with the brethren of other religions.

116  Prajñâ Vihâra



St.Paul expresses this concern so well in his letter to the Romans

(14:15-23):

But if you hurt your brother because of a certain food, you are no

longer walking according to love…the kingdom of God is not a matter of

food and drink; it is justice, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit… Let us look,

then, for what strengthens peace and makes us better. Do not destroy the

work of God because of food… And it may be better not to eat meat or

drink wine, or anything else that causes your brother to stumble. Keep

your own belief before God, and happy are you if you never act against

your own belief. Instead, whoever eats something in spite of his doubts,

is doing wrong, because he does not act according to his belief and

whatever we do against our conscience is sinful

Religion, of course, primarily meets the moral and spiritual needs

of man. It guides him to the realization of ultimate reality. This does not

mean religion is indifferent to the other aspects of human life – the political,

economic, social, cultural, technological and so on. Religion sees man in

his wholeness. Man is not a fragmented being. Religion guides the whole

man to his final destiny. So, all aspects of human life are the concerns of

religion. Religion seeks to integrate all these aspects of life into a meaningful

whole. Whenever human wholeness is threatened by politics, economics,

business, technology, and so on, religion has to intervene in an effort to

redeem it. Moreover, religious bodies have to cooperate with governmental

and nongovernmental agencies to promote human welfare. Such an

alignment presupposes solidarity among religions themselves.

Like the World Parliament of Religions, there should be a Southeast

Asian Confederation of Religions to promote social action. Each Southeast

Asian nation should have a federation of religions. All these federations

can be formed into larger Confederation of Religions. Such organizations

can enhance the effectiveness of each religion in solidarity with others for

social action. Religions must come out of their isolation and forge a unity

for social action. Sometimes religions are represented on the occasion of

inter-religious prayer service. This is not enough. Despite the difference of

doctrines among themselves, they have one common goal of serving man.

This common goal is sufficient to lead them to form a Confederation of

Joseph I. Fernando  117



Religions with a view to work for human wholesomeness in the context of

modernization, technology and urbanization.

Modernization, Religion and Culture in Southeast Asia

I would like to probe into the role of religion and culture with

regard to the quality of life in Southeast Asia in the context of modernization.

Modernization is a postcolonial phenomenon in Asia. After gaining

independence from their former colonial powers, the nations of Asia with

their right to self-determination embarked on the course of modernization.

Modernization is the fruit of science and technology. It includes

industrialization, effective means of transport, communications, medical

care, timesaving utilities, liberal education, international trade and so on.

Modernization was expected to improve the quality of life. But has the

quality of life really improved in these nations? What is meant by the quality

of life? Does the quality of life consist only in economic development?

Although economic development is certainly a major contribution to the

quality of life, there are several other desirable things to improve the quality

of life. The quality of life has much to do with what is to be human and

what is a good life. Does a good life mean only satisfaction of economic

needs? No. Man has other needs too to fulfill in order to be human. What

are they?

For man to live a truly human life means primarily to live with

dignity. His dignity and worth as a person should be affirmed. This means

he should live a decent life. Decency requires satisfaction of basic needs

such as food, shelter and clothes. Decency also implies rights and freedom:

right to life, security, livelihood, education, property and so on; freedom

of thought, expression, and assembly, freedom of belief and opinion,

freedom of mobility, tastes and pursuits. A decent life can be quantitative

and qualitative — quantitative in so far as the things people need are

measurable; qualitative in so far as people achieve their well-being in terms

of relationships, community, freedom and creativity. Amartya Sen speaks

of development not merely as economic but also contributing to the

enhancement of the capabilities of people.11 People have many capabilities

such as to live a healthy life, to develop their talents, to decide freely what

118  Prajñâ Vihâra



is good for them, to pursue careers of their choice, to interact meaningfully

with others, to develop their emotions, to be creative, to participate in

activities of the community, to be part of decision- making, to work for

environmental protection, to promote peace and harmony, and so on. The

development of numerous capabilities contributes to the growth of persons

and communities.

Although modernization has accelerated economic growth, it has

caused some other problems in the region. There has been an exodus

from the rural areas to the cities in search of job opportunities.

Overpopulation in the cities affects the quality of urban life. Congested

traffic, pollution, overcrowding, shantytowns, poor sanitation, crime, mafia,

and so on are the problems in the cities. The exodus to the cities affects

the rural economy too. Farming suffers, the environment decays, cottage

industries and handicraft shrink and villages wear a forlorn look due to

neglect, desertion and lack of resources. Both the cities and villages need

redemption. They can be saved from further ruin by limiting the exodus

from the villages to the cities. One of the most urgent tasks today is rural

development. The villages must be developed in such a way that the

necessary amenities are available to the villagers so that they do not migrate

to the cities in search of them. As far as possible, people must be enabled

to live satisfying lives in the developed villages.

Modernization has its impact on the moral values of the people

too. Moral values like honesty, integrity and so on tend to suffer a setback

in a highly competitive and success-driven society. Interpersonal relations

are likely to be measured in terms of economics. Family as the most

fundamental and vital unit of society is threatened by divorce, unfaithfulness,

separation and so on. Moneymaking activity takes too much of one’s time

leaving little time for spending with family, caring for others, performing

meaningful religious rituals to maintain cohesion in the family and community.

Gradually cultural traditions slip out of one’s consciousness within this

concrete jungle. In this context, how important it is to understand why

Gadamer upholds the importance of tradition!

Asia is traditionally known for the values of simplicity, religiosity,

hospitality and joy. The Asians have generally preferred a simple life-style

which is marked by possession of a few things needed for daily use.

Consumerism and greed have crept into the Asian societies because of

Joseph I. Fernando  119



globalization and aping the West. A difficult task is how to strike a balance

between simplicity and modernization. A profound sense of religiosity

generates hope, meaning and purpose in the lives of the people of Asia.

The Asians view earthly existence as transitory and seek the ultimate reality

according to their religious traditions. But of late, the values of religion

have been affected by consumerism, materialism and hedonism. Traditional

Asian hospitality has been transformed into hospitality industry today.

Hospitality has become a marketable commodity. How hard it is to be

hospitable, warm, generous and caring without being paid! Joy has been a

distinguishing mark of the Asian spirit. The Asians laugh, joke and are

cheerful even if they are poor. They are seldom given to despair, depression

and gloom. Dominique Lapierre’s The City of Joy is an ample proof for

this.12

How can the erosion of cultural values be stopped?  In what ways

can culture be preserved and promoted? How is a holistic approach to

life possible?  Searching for answers to these questions is essential because

it is part of one’s search for meaning in life. What is the role of religion in

contributing to a good life? What are the dynamics of religion in providing

meaning to life? In Southeast Asia, has religion been hijacked by economy

or has it adapted itself to the changing times or compromised with

modernization? Has any religion undertaken a critique of Southeast Asian

society, which it seeks to serve? It is a matter of great concern not to lose

one’s consciousness of cultural heritage amidst the flux of modernization.

Another concern is how religion can interact meaningfully with culture.

Such an interaction presupposes dialogue among religions themselves.

The religions of Southeast Asia in trying to understand more of each other

can foster friendship and solidarity for social action. Dialogue requires

openness to plurality, diversity and recognition of the other. They need not

shy away from dialogue saying dialogue is a Western concept and the

Christians are interested in it with the motive of conversion. Dialogue is

not for conversion, but to understand the other. All understanding eventually

leads to self-understanding. There is a need for committed dialogue among

religions.

The purpose of religions coming together in dialogue is not to

brag about each one’s religion. It is not to say, ‘My religion is the only true

religion’, as if others are false. Of course, one may be legitimately proud

120  Prajñâ Vihâra



of one’s religious heritage and rightly so. That does not mean one can look

down upon other religions. In dialogue, a sincere attempt is made to

understand the other’s position. As Gadamer says, dialogue is guided by

the subject matter and not by the personalities involved in it.  It requires

openness and respect. As persons seek to understand each other in

dialogue, the emphasis is not on the theoretical. Dialogue is praxis. It is a

commitment and an opening towards grasping the common ground on

which all stand. It is a revelation of the shared humanity and the human

condition that is inescapably everyone’s lot. Religions coming together in

dialogue ought to seek the praxis of addressing situations that need to be

rectified. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and other religions of Southeast

Asia need to create a platform for praxis. In a joint venture they can

address a number of issues more effectively. That is the way religions

become credible in a society where many tend towards materialism,

skepticism, individualism and indifference. Religion ought to retain its moral

voice in relation to the concrete situations in which people find themselves.

In the absence of dialogue among religions, the people of

Southeast Asia may not visualize their shared destiny and will lack a sense

of direction towards the future. Religion needs to do a lot of soul-searching

with regard to being a moral force in defining what is to be human. To

grasp what is to be human has much to do with overcoming situations

people are in: human trafficking, profiteering, racketeering and so on. In

fact the call to rediscover the values of religion and culture in Southeast

Asia is linked to the destiny of the people of the region. The perennially

relevant question remains: What is to be human?

Traditional cultures have taken thousands of years to evolve and

are worth preserving, since they are the carriers of the accumulated wisdom

of the people since antiquity. Culture gives man a sense of belonging,

acceptance and assurance. Culture enshrines the values, which define

meaning, guide, motivate and lead people to fulfillment. This does not

mean everything in cultural tradition is good. Culture needs purification

too. Superstitious beliefs, for example, are not wholesome. The caste

system is an aberration and a blot on Indian culture. Caste is dehumanizing,

divisive, discriminatory, oppressive and fascist. It recognizes the intrinsic

dignity and worth of only some and not all persons. It builds walls, not

bridges, between people. It is a denial of brotherhood.

Joseph I. Fernando  121



Modernization may be a threat to traditional cultures. With the

advent of modernization, there is a tension between change and continuity.

How much of the traditional culture changes and how much of it continues?

How best can modernization and cultures be integrated? Does religion

have a role in this? Religion cannot be a mute witness to the destruction of

traditional cultures. People need to be part of traditional cultures. Culture,

like the hearth and home, is necessary for man, without which he will be a

wanderer and dispossessed. The rural communities with their closer ties

and bonds of union should be preserved as an antidote to the faceless

technological society, which may dehumanize people and threaten the

survival of nature. Whatever contributes to human wholesomeness, sense

of belonging, loveliness, beauty, rustic simplicity and the joy of rooted in

the soil must be protected, preserved and fostered.

ENDNOTES

1 Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents in Marxism, 1. The Founders, Oxford

University Press, New York, 1989, pp.128-129.
2 Ibid., p.115.
3 S.Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol.1. Oxford University Press,

2000, p.283.
4 Ibid., p.356.
5 Ibid., p.354.
6 The Bible, Matthew 7:21.
7 New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 2. The Catholic University of America,

Washington, D.C., 1967, p.86.
8 Summa Theologica, I-II,Q.1-5.
9A.L.Basham, The Wonder that was India, Rupa & Co., New Delhi,2001,

p.485.
10 Vatican II Documents, Gaudium et spes 53-62.

122  Prajñâ Vihâra



11 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York,

1999.
12 Dominique Lapierre in his The City of Joy narrates his unique experiences

in Calcutta where he finds the people strikingly joyful although many are poor.

 Joseph I. Fernando  123