Michael Amaladoss

Asia has been the cradle of all the world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, |Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, etc. Asian countries have been multi-religious. Thanks to migrations caused by the desire, either to escape war and oppression or to seek economic betterment, supplying at the same time a necessary labour force in rapidly developing economies, most countries in the world today have become multi-religious. Owing to economic and political rivalries, multi-religiosity has become a source of tension and even violence. This is true of most of the countries in the world, except, perhaps, Latin America. Even there some tension between the Catholics and Pentecostals seems to be present. In India particularly, Hindu-Muslim tensions and violence flame up periodically in certain parts of the country almost regularly for nearly a century. Hindu-Christian tensions have also started, especially after the party supporting Hindutva has come to power.

Reasons for Tension and Violence
The reasons for tension and violence seems to be four. First of all, India is not secularized and religions remain a source of deep identity as they deal with ultimate questions concerning life. Religions then becomes causes for social differentiation. Secondly, this awareness of identity may become fundamentalist, when the members of a particular religion are convinced that theirs is the (only) true religion. It needs to be, not only defended, but propagated. The other religious believers are seen, not only as different, but as inimical, challenging one’s own truth and faith. People may be tempted to defend and/or impose their truth, not only through persuasion, but even through violence. Thirdly, there is the phenomenon of communalism, which is the political use of religion. People who share the same religious faith are made to feel that they also share the same economic and political interests that need to be defended. The focus here is more on politics than on religion. Finally, there is a historical memory. Where inter-religious violence has become endemic, the hurts are not easily forgotten, family or community members who lose their lives become martyrs and suppressed feelings of anger and vengeance are ready to break out into violence at the least provocation.

What can be Done?
What can we do in such a situation? We need to promote a spirit of ‘secularism’, in which all religions are recognized as equal and respected. People have the right and the freedom, based on their human dignity, to practice any religion of their choice. Living together as a community, people need to go beyond tolerance towards recognizing, respecting and accepting the religious other as part of the community. Life together should promote collaboration towards achieving common social goals like freedom, development and peace.

The Indian Tradition
How do we understand and live this challenge of religious pluralism in India? Religious pluralism is not new to India. India has Hindu roots. Buddhism and Jainism emerged in the 5th century BCE. There is a believable tradition that one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus, namely Thomas, can to India. Since there were commercial contacts between India and the Middle East during this period, it is quite possible. Islam came around the 8th century and even established an empire. Sikhism was founded in the 15th century. So India has been a multi-religious country for nearly 2,500 years. But we also have a tradition of inter-religious tolerance.

Emperor Ashoka, in the 3rd century BCE, challenged by the violence and destruction of war, became a Buddhist. But as a ruler he was supportive of all religions. He had a special minister charged

with the welfare of all religious groups. In one of his rock edicts, he says:
King Priyadarsi honours men of all faiths… The faiths of others all deserve to be honoured for one reason or another. By honouring them, one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others. By acting otherwise, one injures one’s own faith and also does disservice to that of others… Therefore concord alone is commendable. (Edict XII)

The Muslim emperor Akbar in the 16th century showed himself open to all religions. He invited of scholars of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity to a ‘dialogue’ among themselves in his presence. He even attempted to found a new religion, Din Ilahi, taking what he thought were the good elements in the different religions. There were many religious poets who showed a remarkable openness and inter-religious sensibility. Kabir was an example. He sings:

If God be within the mosque, then to whom does this world belong?
If Ram be within the image which you find upon your pilgrimage, then who is there to know what happened without?
Hari is in the East; Allah is in the West. Look within your heart, for there you will find both Karim and Ram. All the men and women of the world are His living forms.
Kabir is the child of Allah and of Ram: he is my Guru, He is my Pir.

Kabir was one of inspirers behind Guru Nanak, who founded Sikhism, which sought to promote love and devotion to the true and only God, who is beyond all name and form.

Such openness to all religions continues with leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and even acquires a secular tone with poets like Rabidranath Tagore, who sings:

Leave this chanting and singing and telling of beads! Whom dost thou worship in this lonely dark corner of a temple with doors all shut? Open thine eyes and see they God is not before thee!

He is there where the tiller is tilling the hard ground and where the pathmaker is breaking stones. He is with them in sun and in shower, and his garment is covered with dust. Put off thy holy mantle and even like him come down on the dusty soil!

Tagore would have found God in the thousands of people, young and old, who helped the victims of the floods in Chennai recently (Dec. 2015) without bothering about religion or caste.

Mahatma Gandhi was well known for his inter-religious prayer meetings for the promotion of inter-religious peace and harmony. Actually he was killed on his way to one of them in Delhi. He said:

I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. I believe that they are all God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed. And I believe that, if only we could all of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoint of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom all one and were all helpful to one another another. (Harijan, 16-2-1934)

Kinds of Secularism
It is this secular tradition that inspired leaders like Nehru and Ambedkar to inscribe secularism as a feature of the Indian Constitution, though the term ‘secularism’ does not figure in the Constitution of 1950, when India became a republic. The leaders thought that secularism, as the equal and positive treatment of all religions, was part of the Indian ethos and did not special mention. Accordingly, every Indian citizen had the freedom and the right to believe, practice and propagate the religion of his/her choice. The minority religions were specially protected by the right to preserve and promote their identities.

We can understand the specific nature of Indian secularism only if we look at other forms of secularism prevailing in other countries. Of course, we are not talking about countries that have a state religion, like some Muslim countries, where other religions are tolerated, if at all. Secularism in France is almost anti-religious. Religious belief and practice is totally privatized. Manifestations of religious identity in public life like the Muslim scarf, the Sikh turban or even a too prominent cross over one’s dress are forbidden. Of course Marxist countries like China and Vietnam are against all religions. We are not considering them. Modern states emerging after a period of inter-religious wars in Europe and affirming their political freedom from the control of the Church tend to be primarily anti-clerical, which slowly leads to an anti-God (atheistic) attitude.

The United States of America is a country which maintains a strict separation between the Religious institutions and the State. But religions can play an active role in public, civil, life. The state is not anti-religious and allows the religions to play a public role while respecting the autonomy of the State. There are tensions however concerning questions like whether state agencies could put up Christmas cribs or whether the state can subsidize private schools conducted by religious groups or whether the state can permit or forbid abortions, etc. Such issue are usually raised during the elections. Such a, more or less, sharp institutional differentiation between the Church and the State is not possible in countries like India where religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and even Islam are not institutionalized like Christianity. We may have Hindu or Islamic parties. But they do not represent Hinduism or Islam.

Indian Secularism
The Fathers of the Indian Constitution considered India as a religious country. So they refused even the term secularism since it brought to their mind the anti-religious French model. They respected and were open to all religions. They may have liked the second kind, but could not strictly apply it in India since Hinduism and Islam were not institutionalized. So they worked out their own model. The right to religious freedom was affirmed. The minority religions were protected from any interference by the majority in living and promoting their identity. Religious pluralism, therefore, was recognized. At the same time, an attempt is made to distinguish between what is strictly religious and other civil dimensions of religoiuis behaviour. The State therefore claims the right to interfere in religious affairs to protect “public order, morality and health”. (Indian Constitution (IC), 25,1) The State also seeks to control the non-religious activities of religious groups like matters concerning “economic, financial, political and other secular” aspects. (IC 25, 2a) The Constitution also speaks of the need to work out a “uniform civil code.” (IC 44) The Sha Bhanu case, is illustrative. A divorced Muslim woman claimed alimony and was told that it was against Islamic law. The Supreme court pronounced itself in her favour. But the government rushed through a law protecting the Muslim personal law. One can easily consider this a civil, not a religious, matter. Though the minorities fear that a ‘uniform civil code’ may turn out to be a majority Hindu code, I think that it is worth working towards a uniform civil code through proper consultation and participation of all the groups involved, so that we can make a clear distinction between strictly religious and civil matters, especially in the context of the growing interest in fundamental human rights, especially concerning women and other oppressed or marginalized groups. Ambiguities remain however. The Parliament, soon after India became a republic, did pass a number of laws regulating the Hindu civil code. Hindus, of course, were a majority in Parliament. But some of them did protest against the non-Hindu members participating in the discussions and voting.

The Constitution spells out some fundamental duties besides rights. (cf. IC 51A). I shall just cite two of them that are significant in the context.
To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. (C. 51Ae)

To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. (C 51Ah)
Though the ‘duties’ do not have the same force as ‘rights’ the one concerning the dignity of women can certainly context the law hurriedly passed by parliament to protect the Muslim personal law. The second provision quoted above about the ‘scientific temper’ supposes that some of such discriminatory practices would eventually disappear. Leaders like Nehru must have thought that the ‘scientific temper’ will reduce the influence of religious belief in personal and social life and promote a more ‘secular’ orientation.

The Indian Challenge
The problem is that it is not easy in the present Indian context to promote a democratic order in which every citizen is equal. The hierarchical caste system is still very strong and the dominant castes still control the social order since they own the ‘means of production’. Some Dalits and Tribals may claim that they are not Hindus. They may even move to other religions like Ambedkar with his followers. But the caste inequalities follow them. The members of Islam and Christianity, having their origin outside India, are considered as foreign religions by some Hindu groups. So equality among the different caste and religious groups in India still remains to be achieved. We cannot really speak of secularism as long as such inequalities continue, simply because basic human rights are not accepted and respected. Inter-caste violence may be becoming more prevalent in India that inter-religious violence. We need to promote a democratic order in which caste and religious affiliations are not significant in respecting the dignity and equality of all citizens. In so far as caste distinctions have a religious basis and sanctions they become religious factors that interfere in secular, political life hindering the equal dignity of all. How then can we promote ‘fraternity’ and ‘justice’ that are essential elements of a democratic society? Castes as social groups may not disappear, as many sociologists suggest. But there is no reason to hierarchize them. E.V.R. Periyar and Ambedkar himself suggested inter-caste marriages as one way of promoting social equality. Inter-religious marriages may have a similar role. It appears that such inter-caste and inter-religious marriages are becoming a little more frequent in the country, especially in urban areas. They need to be supported by the wider society and the government itself as a socially progressive development.

Inter-religious Dialogue and Collaboration
A crucial question in this context is whether the different religions help in this process of promoting equality. With regard to the caste discriminations, Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism and Islam do not justify it, like Hinduism, though they may accept it in practice. But with regard to inter-religious harmony with which we are immediately concerned here, in the context of the promotion of a secular democratic order, the religions seem to be open. We often speak of inter-religious dialogue. Inter-religious encounter can take place in many ways at many levels. The basic level is when people or groups belonging to different religions come together in order to promote common human and spiritual values. I suppose that every one, whatever be the religion s/he belongs to, will be interested in defending religious freedom and social equality. Every religion may justify it in their own terms in accordance with their own beliefs. But they all agree on this common goal of promoting freedom and equality and they are ready to collaborate in doing so. Collaboration may mean writing and speaking about it, conducting seminars, organizing protests and agitations where such freedom and equality is denied, campaigning for the change of laws, when necessary, etc. Doing all this as a mixed religious group has its own importance and benefits.

Common involvement in such collaboration may lead them to question each other on their own faith perspectives. Sharing at this level can lead to mutual understanding and enrichment. Prejudices may disappear. Since God is one, even if each group claims a special revelation and special symbols, it may be possible to reach out to God together, going beyond the symbols that limit. It is not a question of denying the symbols, but recognizing that God is beyond all name and form and we can reach out to the one God through these many symbols and at that stage feel an oneness that is very precious. We may or may not be able to pray together. We may pray with our own words and through our own symbols. But the goal and purpose of our prayers are the same. At some stage we may be able to find common symbols to express our common prayer. This may lead to an enrichment of our experience of God. This will also contribute to our togetherness in our common struggle in the defence of freedom and equality.

These two levels of dialogue should be kept separate and not confused. The primary dialogue is to work together for the defence and promotion of freedom and equality. This may be helped by the other type of dialogue where we are encountering each other, not merely as social activists, but as believers with the conviction that God is one, whatever be the different names and symbols through which that God is approached.

Even at the level of political theory, the perspective of dialogue has been gaining ground. Charles Taylor has written extensively on multiculturalism, especially with reference to Canada. He has enunciated three basic principles that are worth reflecting upon and practicing. When we are faced with other cultures that determine the identity of different groups of people our attitude should be three-fold: recognizing, respecting and accepting the other. It is the only way of building community. Another political scientist, John Rawls, in his early years promote the liberal political theory which focused on the individual liberties that should be protected by the state by creating a level playing field. But the experience of multiculturalism lead him to speak later of a process of an overlapping consensus in which many groups can contribute to the evolution of common perspectives and objectives.

Religions are Helpful
A rapid look at the different religions seems to encourage such an approach to interreligious encounter. Our Hindu brothers and sisters will often quote a text from the Rig Veda: “Being is one; the sages call it by various names” (Rig Veda 1.164.46). Lord Krishna assures Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita: “In whatever way men approach me, in the same way they receive their reward.” (Bhagavad Gita 4:11) In modern times great Hindu leaders like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda spread the idea that “All religions are paths to the one God – as all rivers flow to the sea.”

Our Muslim friends will point to many texts in the Quran: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran: 2, 256); “If it had been thy Lord’s will they would have all believed” (10:99); “Unto you your moral law, and unto me, mine.” (109:6) Mohammed, though he considered himself the final prophet recognized other prophets and their revelations. The Sufis were more open to other religions. Jala ad-Din Rumi, for instance, said: “Though the ways are various, the goal is one.” (Jalal ad-Din Rumi)

With regard to Christianity, I shall limit myself to one quotation from St. Paul: “God will reward every person according to what he has done. Some men keep on doing good, and seek glory, honour and immortal life; to them God will give eternal life. Other men are selfish and reject what is right, to follow what is wrong; on them God will pour his wrath and anger. There will be suffering and pain for all men who do what is evil, for the Jews first and also for the Gentiles. But God will give glory, honour, and peace to all who do what is good, to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles. God judges every one by the same standard.” (Rom 2:6-11) Contemporary leaders like John Paul II recognize the presence and action of the Spirit of God, not only in individuals, but in all cultures and religions. In recent times, Pope Francis has been insisting on the importance of the individual conscience in guiding our behaviour.

Conclusion
All that I have been saying about inter-religious collaboration may sound utopian and abstract. I am the director of the “Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions” in Chennai. We had a three-years research project on “Religions and Violence”, based on fieldwork in Coimbatore where there had been inter-religious violence more than 10 years earlier. Out basic discovery was the real causes of the conflict were not the religions, but economic interests and communalism. When we began thinking of what we can do to help to bring peace, we realized that it would be impossible for a small group of people to do anything concrete in the field, which was still tense with memories of loss of lives and people in prison. Anyway, nothing could have been done without the collaboration of the government and the police, besides the people themselves. So we decided that the next best thing we can do is to educate our youth. So a youth programme was launched to bring together young college students of different religions, expose them to each other and to the leaders, places and practices of different religions with the slogan “No mere tolerance, but acceptance”. The programme has been very successful and now we are seeking to extend it to school children with the help of the same college students. Our experience has convinced us that we can build up a community of mutual acceptance based on freedom and equality.