Beyond the road to Gethsemane

BEYOND THE ROAD TO GETHSEMANE*

(Deccan Herald, Easter Sunday, 15 April 2001)

P.N.BENJAMIN

 

The path that Jesus last walked as a free man, before the soldiers of Pontius Pilate apprehended him, is known as the Via Dolorosa, the road of sorrows. It was on this road that Jesus had walked his last one-mile to Gethsemane garden where Judas Iscariot planted the kiss of infamy on his cheek.
It was when he set out on this road that Jesus took the crucial decision of his life, where he consented to be part of the Passion play that was to be staged by the Romans and the Sahedrin on the Via Dolorosa. It was the final, most important parable of all his teachings, the only one that he would not live to explain to the faithful. It would become the greatest of his mysteries, an event on such a scale that it could become the central icon of a world religion.
The road to Gethsemane was akin to a bridge, which is crossed once, and no more. It is burned when you cross it; you cannot even look back. Such moments come in every person’s life. On this side lies the security of compromise, of petty, quotidian adjustment. On the far side is the difficult country of uncertainty, principles and sacrifice. Most people take a good look, weigh their options and beat a dignified retreat. The bridge stands unused. The battle is not even joined, lost before it even began.
But, a few do not hesitate. They reach the bridgehead, walk across and welcome the new land on the far side. And as soon as they have walked over, they find the bridge burnt, destroyed. A conscious choice had removed it as an avenue of retreat.
The contemporaries of Jesus did not understand him because they did not have the courage to walk their own bridges. They reached their bridgeheads but returned to the comfort of their compromises. Very few had the courage to reach the land beyond because the bridge would no longer offer an escape route once it had been crossed. There was certain finality about the choice,.
Jesus walked the path alone without fear, without a moment’s hesitation. He knew he had to cross the bridge. Today, I look back down the crowded corridors of history to see how many walked that path alone, how many crossed the bridge. How many placed compassion, truth and love over their own lives. In the darkness I see the profile of a tall figure – a man walking to Gethsemane garden. He was a man in a hurry. He had an appointment on the far side of the bridge, and he was determined that he should keep it.
Via Dolorosa will be remembered as the one traversed by a man of destiny, whose crucifixion served as a reminder that saviours have to die for their faith and to pay for the sins of their own brethren. Jesus was such a man, and so were Mahavira and Buddha before him and Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr almost two thousand years later. What binds them, despite the minor differences in their beliefs, is their fearlessness and their peace with those beliefs. Each was far, far ahead of his time. Each had to speak in parable, in allegory, if he hoped to be even understood.
Christ went with three of his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane, below the Mount of Olives. His soul, he said, was ‘exceeding sorrowful, even unto death’, and he wanted to be alone and to pray. So he left the disciples to sit and wait for him, and withdrew by himself. The earth’s shapes and sounds and colours and living creatures, we should remember, were not less dear to Christ because of his divine destiny than they are to us; rather more so, if anything. To leave them behind, to ‘ die, so early in his earthly life, was still a deprivation even though his death was to put an end forever to dying in the old pagan sense of finality.
We cry when we leave our homes to venture out into a world we long to explore. So Christ was sorrowful that the time had come when he must leave loving friends and disciples and all the familiar scenes and dear companionship he had known on earth. “O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou will,” he prayed, reflecting as he must have done, how easy it would be for him to slip away by himself, back to Galilee, and a happy private life there like other men, with a wife, children and all the other migrations of the loneliness and mystery of our human fate. How easy, and how impossible!
He found the disciples asleep, and rebuked them rather irritably: “What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Then he again went off by himself to continue with his prayers, returning to find them once more asleep. This time he let them be. What did it matter now? Soon the Garden of Gethsemane resounded with the noise of a mob armed with swords and staves who were looking for him. Judas, to earn his thirty pieces of silver, proceeded to identify him with a kiss and a “Hail, Master!” and Christ was apprehended. Someone drew the sword in his defence, but Christ quickly told whoever it was to put up his sword, “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. There upon, we . are told, “all the disciples forsook him and fled”. He was alone.
Now began for Christ the farce of the judicial proceedings against him, intended to give his.execution a show of legitimacy. As I see it, Christ’s real crime was simply that he spoke the truth, which is intolerable to all forms of authority but especially ecclesiastical. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” Christ had said. In the eyes of Caiphas and his associates, as later in the eyes of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, Christ had to die because the truth he spoke and the freedom he offered undermined the authority other men claimed and exercised. There followed the Crucifixion. Christ humped his cross along the Via Dolorosa until he was too weak to continue, when another took it for him. Just before he died he was heard to cry out in a loud voice: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Thus ostensibly it all ended in defeat and despair. “Well, that’s all over,” Caiphas and his friends must have thought. How wrong they were! It was only beginning. Not defeat, but a fabulous new hope had been born; not despair, but an unexampled joy, had come into the world. Christ died on the cross as a man who had tried to show his fellow men what life was about; he rose from the dead to be available forever as an intermediary between man and God.
How, rose from the dead? After his death on the cross, we are told, he was seen by the disciples and others on numerous occasions; the stone in front of the tomb where he was laid was found to have been removed, and the tomb to be empty. These are matters of legitimate historical investigation; what is not open to question is that today, two thousand years later, Christ is alive. The words he spoke are living words, as relevant now as when they were first spoken.
Christ turned the world’s accepted norms upside down. It was the poor, not the rich, who were blessed; the weak, not the strong, who were to be esteemed; the pure in heart, not the sophisticated and the worldly, who understood what life was all about. Righteousness, not power or money or sensual pleasure should be man’s pursuit. We should love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that despitefully use us, in order that we may be worthy members of a human family.
No words ever uttered, it is safe to say, have had anything like the impact of these, first spoken to some scores, may be hundreds, of poor, and mostly illiterate people, by a teacher who in the eyes of the world, was of small account. Besides belonging to eternity Christ belonged to his times.
On the outskirts of the dying Roman civilisation, he spoke of dying in order to live. Today, when human civilisation is likewise dying, his words have the same awe-inspiring relevance as they had then.
What Christ had to say was too simple to be grasped, too truthful to be believed. So the great majority of Christians have never been able to believe when Christ said that the whole duty of man resolved itself into loving God and our neighbour, he meant just that. It seems so simple, so obvious. And, furthermore, there is the question of who is our neighbour. In Christ’s estimation our neighbour is everyone. He said: Feed my sheep – all black, white and piebald.
The rest of the story of Christ belongs to history. Terrible things have been done in his name; the doctrine of unwordliness which he preached has been twisted to serve worldly purposes; the cross on which he died, besides inspiring some of the noblest lives which have ever been lived, and some of the noblest thoughts and actions of man, has also served as a cloak for some of the basest; his gospel of love has been enforced with the rack and the whip, and driven home with the sword.
Let others better qualified than I work out, if they can, the gain and the loss, in human terms. Here, in this world, where he was born, lived and died, we may remember how miraculously, nonetheless, his light continues to shine in the dark jungle of the human will, as I a true child of these troubled times, with a skeptical mind and a sensual disposition, most diffidently, unworthily, but with the utmost certainty testify.
Standing amid our personal Calvaries, confused and disillusioned, we need Easter to remind us that there is always “a third day” on its way. With that knowledge we can look at any evil in the face and say with confidence: “You can’t win”. Easter is the birthday of vibrant hope for every individual and for the entire world. It is also a warning to every evil power that preys on mankind, a warning that truth is again coming out of its tomb. Easter is again a ringing reminder that the human spirit cannot be confined. An eminent theologian once said: “Eternal truth is eternal. It can be distorted but not destroyed. It may have to carry a cross to Calvary or drink a r.utj of hemlock in a Grecian gaol. But after every black Friday there dawns an Easter morn”.

P.N.BENJAMIN

E-mail: benjaminpn@hotmail.com

OF BIRD AND ITS ACTIVITIES

UTC’s heritage and its strong ecumenical base enhance inter-faith contacts, which it often has undertaken in partnership with a sister organization, the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD). For example, UTC hosted a worship service featuring Gandhi’s favorite Hindu and Christian hymns with BIRD and other groups to commemorate the 60th anniversary of his martyrdom. The event showcased Gandhi’s universalism, tersely manifested in his famous statement. “I am a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew.”

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

For its part, BIRD explicitly stated in a January 1, 2007 open letter to the Prime Minister of India, the U.N. Secretary General, the European Union, and the U.S. State Department that it supports peaceful coexistence among Indian religions and opposes aggressive proselytism. The letter was signed by some 650 Christian leaders including BIRD’s founder and coordinator, P.N. Benjamin, and Rev. Dr. Jayakiran Sebastian, Professor of Theology and Ethics at UTC.

Benjamin has spotlighted poignantly the futility of exclusivist religious truth claims by pointing out that not only Hindus bear responsibility for mistreating the Dalits or “untouchables.” He echoes Dr. Razu’s perspective by arguing that even Christians “… have miserably failed in taking care of 16 million Dalits converted to Christianity.”

BIRD members profess the Christian faith, but they value the Hindu tradition of Dharmic tolerance. BIRD not only writes about religious tolerance and pluralism; it also provides forums for mutual dialogue such as lectures, workshops, and conferences. These discussions lead to the formulation of action plans for peacebuilding in India, the U.S., and around the world. BIRD further organizes cultural tours, offers articles and commentary in the media, and conducts rallies and campaigns.

Of special note, BIRD joins with Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), a sister Hindu organization, in sending intervention teams to quell outbreaks of inter-religious violence and to set a framework for post-conflict resolution. In 2002, for example, it intervened to help squelch Hindu-Christian tensions arising from an attack on Mysore’s Holy Family Church. An article in the March 1, 2002 National Catholic Reporter said that a priest and a dozen Catholics were injured in the attack, and the new church was ransacked.

The joint fact-finding team condemned violence on the part of Hindus, while encouraging the Christians to evangelize with awareness that they “… should not cross the limits of decency and should not hurt the sensitivities of adherents of other faiths.” The report thereby pinpointed the Hindu misperception of aggressive proselytizing as a root cause of the violence while reassuring Christians that the joint team shared their anxieties. The joint team also recommended formation of a permanent Hindu-Christian community forum for dialogue “… to prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future….”

In conclusion, I found on my tour that the minority Christian community of South India has contributed substantially to building a culture of peace. This is reflected in the history, curriculum and programs of three ecumenical seminaries and a Christian advocacy group. These institutions have manifested Christian pluralism by embracing the religious stranger and learning from other faith traditions. In joining hands with Hindus and Muslims through education and reconciliation, these Christian institutes have helped thousands of people in southern India to realize Gandhi’s – and Samartha’s – vision of inter-religious harmony and social justice.

STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURES

DR. STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURE SERIES

 

ORGANISED BY BANGALORE INITIATIVE FOR RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (BIRD) SINCE 2001

 

 

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

is a small organization, entirely supported by small contributions from people of diverse faiths who strongly believe in the dire need to preserve inter-faith amity in the true and abiding traditions of India which celebrates religious diversity and inclusivism.

BIRD was formed in 2001 by a group of Hindus, Muslims and Christians in Bangalore to promote inter-faith amity in line with our native wisdom of promoting inclusivism for preserving India’s religious diversity. Towards that end, BIRD conducts seminars and holds an annual lecture series, the latter in memory of Dr Stanley Samartha, a priest and theologian of the Church of South India who took pride in always affirming that he was “a Hindu by culture, Christian by faith, Indian by citizenship and ecumenical by choice”. Dr Samartha rose from being a teacher of theology at Christian Seminaries in Karnataka and West Bengal, to hold the distinguished position as the first Director of the Inter-Faith Dialogue Programme of the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

Following Samartha’s death in 2001, a group of people inspired by his pluralistic vision instituted the annual memorial lecture as the signature event of inter-faith activities undertaken by BIRD in this cosmopolitan city of Bangalore, ever since.

Last year’s Samartha Lecture was delivered by Justice K T Thomas, a former judge of Supreme Court of India, on the “Right to Convert and the Indian Constitution“. Previous lectures were on “The Need for Inter-religious Dialogue”, “Communal Harmony – A Societal Perspective”, “Religion in 21st Century – A perspective of Hope”, “Courage for Dialogue” and “Towards an Ethical Code of Conduct for Conversion“. They were delivered by Mr. Francois Gautier (2001), Dr. C.T.Kurien (2003), M.V.Nadkarni (2004), Metropolitan Rt. Rev. Dr. Philipose Mar Chrysostom (2005) and Dr. Hans Ucko (2006), respectively. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. M.J.Akbar,

well known editor and author, will deliver the 7^th Stanley Samartha Memorial Lecture on Monday, 6 October 2008 at 5 P.M. at the United Theological College, Bangalore. He will speak on“The Power of Religion vs. the Religion of Power”.

P.N.BENJAMIN

Coordinator-BIRD

BANGALORE INITIATIVE FOR RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (BIRD)

“Ashirwad”, 7, 4^th A Cross,

HRBR Second Block,

Kalyan Nagar,

Bangalore 560 043, INDIA.

Tel. 080 25455620, e-mail:

 

benjaminpn@hotmail.com

17^th August 2008

THE SIXTH STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURE*
Delivered by Justice K.T.THOMAS, former Judge of Supreme Court of India
October 4, 2007, St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bangalore

Right to convert and the Indian Constitution

This was a subject of fume and sensitivity. A few years ago when some of the states proposed to pass legislation banning conversion, then it became a topic of debate in public places and also in the columns of the print media. When Jayalalitha government of Tamil Nadu proposed to bring such a legislation, a lot of protests were aired by Christians. At a later stage, she agreed to retrace the step for reasons not disclosed.

Whenever mass conversions took place from Hindus to Budhisim, I never heard even a whisper of criticism. But when conversion of even a small group took place from Hindus to Christians or to Islam, the critics raised their voice, sometimes the criticism became strident and even aggressive on the allegation that such conversions were brought about by allurement, if not by fraudulent methods. Why conversions from Hinduism to Budhism or Jainism or even Sikhism never created any problem in India. Because they are Indian originated religions. But the problem arose only when such conversion is made from Hindu religion to Christianity, Islam or Jewish religion. They are counted as Semitic religions. They are also called Abrahamic religions as the common primogenitor for all those religions was Abraham (also called Ibrahim in Arabic). We can conveniently leave out Jewish religion as no recorded instance could be pointed out when somebody had converted from Hinduism to Jewish religion. When I refer to conversion, it may be understood as conversion either to Christianity or Islam.

I remember four different occasions when conversion from Hindu religion was raised as a political or legal question. First, when the Indian Constitution was made. Second was in 1956 when Justice Niyogi Commission report was published containing a recommendation that foreign missionaries shall be banned in India and also to impose statutory restrictions against conversion. The third occasion was in 1967-68 when the Congress governments of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh passed legislations imposing penal provisions against conversion by allurement and fraud. The fourth was in the recent past when some of the BJP state governments and the AIDMK government in Tamil Nadu brought similar legislations.

Many Christians believe that ~esus Christ issued a mandate to convert all people to Christianity. In support of this, the scriptural sentence often quoted is Chapter. 28 – 19 of the gospel according to Mathew: “Therefore go ye into all the I!; . world and make all people my disciples and baptise them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy spirit”.

The Christians appear to believe that they can afford to ignore or disobey the rest of the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ relating to social justice, but they should implicitly follow the mandate of conversion because it would result in increase the strength of Christian population.

We must remember that no legislation has imposed any restriction on conversion if it is done by one’s own free will. Conversion was made an offence in the Orissa Act and also in the MP Act, if such conversion is brought out by others through compulsion, allurement, force or fraud. I remember the furor created then by the church. The validity of those Acts was challenged before the High Courts concerned and lastly in the Supreme Court. When it reached the Supreme Court, the case was heard by a Constitution bench (minimum 5 Judges). One of the Judges who heard that case was a Muslim by name Justice M.H. Beg. The decision of the Supreme Court came to be reported as Rev. Stanslavos Vs. State. The five Judge bench examined the validity of different provisions of the legislations and held that none of the provisions is unconstitutional.
Even before the Constitution came into force, conversion by persuasion was objected by many Hindu leaders. Conversion was an irritant in Indian society, as almost all conversions were from Hindus to other religions and not vice-versa.

This is because fundamentally Hindu religion did not believe in proselytization. In this connection it will be interesting to read the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he said as early as 19th January 1928 (He was then addressing an assembly of delegates from different religions).”I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful research and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all religions were true, and also that all had some error in them; and that, whilst I hold my own religion, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism from which it logically follows that we should hold all as dear as our nearest kith and kin, and make no distinction between them. So, we can only pray if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu, or if we are Mussalmans not that a Hindu or a Christian should become a Mussalman, nor should we even secretly pray that anyone should be converted; our inmost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, and a Christian a better Christian. I would not only not try to convert but would not even secretly pray that anyone should embrace my faith” .

This was a very unambiguous stand of Mahatma Gandhi whose adoration and admiration of Lord Jesus Christ was convincingly much higher than majority of Christians themselves.

The right to freedom of conscience is enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution as a fundamental right. It is a right conferred not only on the citizens of India, but on all persons. The article says “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of ‘: conscience, and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion”. We ; must remember that the word “propagate” was added to the Article by the Constituent Assembly after heated deliberations. Some persons opposed it on the ground that no secular Republic should allow it. According to them, propagating one religion involves propagating against another religion which could give rise to bitterness and communal hostility. Hence, a permission to propagate religion may sometimes lead to hysterical outbursts. The trend of the debate in the Constituent Assembly shows that if the word “propagate” was not included as part of the fundamental rights, religious freedom as for Christians might remain only a mirage. It is interesting to note that it was Sardar Vallabhai Patel who strongly pleaded for inclusion of the word “propagate”.
When the turn of Kulapathi K.M. Munshi came (he was the founder of Bharateeya Vidya Bhavan and also one of the greatest legal luminaries of India) he spoke like this:

“I know it was on this word ‘propagate’ that the Indian Christian community laid the greatest emphasis, not because they wanted to convert people aggressively, but because the word ‘propagate’ was fundamental part of their tenet. Even if the word were not there, I am sure, under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees it will be open to any religious community to persuade other people to join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognized”

K. Santhanam who was a renowned Constitutional expert of that time spoke like this: I quote:-”A good deal of injustice would be done to the great Christian community in India if we delete the word propagate. After all propagation is merely freedom of expression. I would like to point out that the word ‘convert’ is not there. Mass conversion was a part of the activities of the Christian Missionaries in this country and great objection has been taken by the people to that. Those who drafted this Constitution have taken care to see that no unlimited right of conversion had been given. People have freedom of conscience, then weii and good, no restrictions can be placed against it. But if any attempt is made by one religious community or another to have mass conversions through undue influence either by money or by pressure or by other means, the State has every right to regulate such activity. Therefore, I submit to you that this article, as it is, is not so much an article ensuring freedom, but toleration – toleration for all, irrespective of the religious practice or profession”.

When the word ‘propagate’ was finally included as part of the religious freedom, the word ‘convert’ was deliberately avoided. What is the extent of the right to propagate? Does it include the right to propagate that your religion is faulty and my religion alone is perfect? Can it be permitted to propagate that, if only you follow my religion, you will enter into Heaven, but if you remain in your religion you might land up in Hell. Here comes the role of religious obscurantist. A religious fundamentalist believes that his religion alone is the right religion and all other religions are erroneous if not fake. As a religious pedantic he may be entitled to believe so but he cannot be allowed to propagate it for two reasons.

First is that, his belief that another religion is wrong is based on his ignorance about that other religion. According to me, he is ignorant of his own religion. If he knew of his own religion well, he would have realised that no religion is perfect in itself. Metropolitan Philippose Chrysostum, one of the most profound thinkers on religious pluralism, whose perorations could keep any audience to spell bound attention, once said that “Multiplicity of religion is a gift of God. It is because of other religions that imperfections of one religion can be replenished”. Akbar the Great decided to form a new religion by collecting different principles from different religions. The name of the new religion was “Din lIahi”. It was a bold experiment made by a great secularist monarch. But unfortunately, that religion died out with the death of the emperor. Is it not a stark truth that no religion in the world is perfect by itself.

Let us take the case of Christian religion. What we have is only a very small portion of the vast area of teachings and preaching made by Jesus Christ. We have only what has been recorded in the four small books called gospels. The last gospel writer St. John had said in categorical terms that if what all Jesus said and did were recorded, the whole world could not hold them in books. Do you require more proof to show that Christian religion, as we know it now, is quite imperfect because, we know only a fraction of what Jesus himself said and did.

Based on such a truncated portion, if somebody propagates that Christianity is a perfect religion then you are going against the very gospel precept.

Second is, if every religious preacher is allowed to speak that the other religion is wrong or fake, one can imagine the explosive situation which would be created by such propaganda. Religion has a tendency to erupt hysterical reactions. I have observed that this tendency is more acute among people following Semitic or Abrahamic religions. In all communal riots recorded in history at least one of the sides has been an Abrahamic religion. So a permission to propagate that your religion is inferior to my religion, if not to the extent of saying that your religion is fake, such propagation is very likely to stimulate fury and frenzy. That would snowball into creation of fertile soil for communal riots.

In this context, we must remember that, the right to religious freedom has been conferred in Article 25 of the Constitution by giving greater importance to public order, morality and health and also to the other provisions of the Constitution.

This can be discerned from the initial words of that Article (subject to public order, morality and health etc. all persons are entitled to freedom of religion). Thus public order, morality and health will override religious freedom. In other words, greater importance is given to public order, morality and health. If religious freedom is exercised in such manner as to endanger public order then it is the duty of the state to stop it.

————————————————————————————————

* The lecture was organised by P.N.BENJAMIN, Coordinator,the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

 

 

 

The Fifth Rev. Dr. Stanley Samartha Memorial Lecture-2006

Organised by the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue(BIRD)

7 October 2006

at St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bangalore

 

TOWARDS AN ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS

- Hans Ucko -

1. To convert to and to convert from

We differ in relation to the issue and reality of conversion. Christians have fairly easy conversions into and out of the faith, resentfully accepting people leaving Christianity for another faith. Jews have difficult conversions into and even more out of the faith. Muslims have easy conversions into the faith but have major difficulties with conversion out of the faith. When Dalits in great numbers decide to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism or Christianity it creates tensions and there are calls for legislation against conversion. A Theravada Buddhist-Christian consultation organised by the WCC in 2004 addressed the question of conversion in the following way:

Conversion has become a threat and tension for religious diversity and harmony. We need to understand that conversions take place in different socio-economic-political contexts for different reasons. It can happen due to dissatisfaction with one’s own religion, life-changing experiences, but also through the use of force and aggression. … While some conversions may be genuine and spiritual, some others may not. … We express our concern learning about increased tensions and expressions of intolerance between Buddhists and Christians in some Theravada Buddhist countries.

The issue of conversion into the faith is understood as an integral part of both Christianity and Islam. Although the concept of conversion is understood differently in Islam and in Christianity, it is a complex reality in both religions. Both religions advocate “conversion to” but oppose in very different ways “conversion from”. The Qur’an is very clear about no compulsion in religion (2:256). And yet, as we have seen in the very recent controversy around Pope Benedict’s lecture “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections” in Regensburg in September 2006, there are quite a few Christians, who want to tell Muslims what Islam is all about and polemically insist that Islam is spreading the faith through the sword or teaches the killing of apostates, quoting words like “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” The Western world and quite a few Christians are cashing in on words like these and neglect the Muslim struggle how to interpret such a sentence. It is in this context interesting to read what Iqbal Ansari recently wrote in an editorial in the publication Interreligious Insight: “Islam as a proselytizing religion began by preaching the basic doctrine of the right of the individual to choose his religion freely. It was the insistence by the tribal lords of Makkah on adherence to the ancestral creed, and the rejection of this insistence by Muhammad, that led to conflict and to Muhammad’s prolonged persecution – including the plot to assassinate him – which himself drove him to seek asylum in Madina.”

It is not only the Pope but also many other Christians who need to remember embarrassing texts in the Bible or parts of the uncomfortable history of Christian dealings with people of other faiths. Conversion out of Judaism is looked upon as next to a mortal sin. A convert is almost seen as a traitor. Conversion reduces the Jewish people, already a dwindling minority. Jewish scholar Emil Fackenheim once said that continuing Jewish life and denying Hitler a posthumous victory was the 614^th commandment. Catholic theologian Gregory Baum, himself a convert from Judaism, elaborated on Christian views toward conversion and building upon Fackenheim, saying: “After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust”.

Jews, Christians and Muslims would do well to recall the story about Abraham’s conversion from idol worshipper to becoming a worshipper of one God. The father of faith, the one who brings Jews, Christians and Muslims together is himself a convert.

If Christians and Muslims have a particular sense of mission in the world, other religions have other visions. There is certainly a Buddhist mission to the West but is doesn’t have that absolute ring about it as conversions to Christianity and Islam have it. Other religions are either not explicitly witnessing to make people convert or they have through the course of history given it up or they never engaged in seeking to bring the other into their community.

2. Obliged to invite to conversion?

The conversion of the other is definitely an objective in traditional Christian self-understanding. The statement by theologian Elton Trueblood is said in many different ways and by very many Christians, when the issue of mission and witness is discussed: “There is no such thing as a non-witnessing Christian.” The topic conversion has today become divisive and has the potential of putting not only people of different faiths against each other but also create frictions among Christians themselves. It is a problematic issue within the church. Yes, everyone should have the right to change his/her religion. This issue needs rethinking in many faith traditions but equally important is the question whether we should be involved in making others change their religion. There are those who feel that seeking out others to convert them from their religion is divinely ordained and nothing can thwart this heavenly injunction. I remember one of my first experiences in Jewish-Christian dialogue, meeting a Christian theologian actively involved in a society for Christian mission to Jews. I asked him if the church could honestly and with integrity continue advocating mission to Jews, considering what had happened fifty years ago in Germany. Should not the Shoah rather convert the Church in its relationship to the Jewish people? Could the Church after the Shoah go about its business as usual? The theologian said to me: “I realise what you are saying. What happened in Auschwitz was terrible. It was an atrocity, it was dreadful, but it does not change anything. The gospel tells us that there is no other name by which we can be saved”. He told me that he might personally regret that there was no other way for him to go but to seek the conversion of the Jews. But he had to obey the Gospel. He said, “I wish it were different, I wish I could say: There will be no more mission to Jews – but I cannot”.

The ordinary man or woman in the street in Europe is likely to consider mission seeking the conversion of people of other faiths as something bigoted, intolerant and aggressive. But there are also Christian theologians who feel that the conversion of others is not any more the business of the church, given the history of forced baptism and mission enterprises in the accounts of colonial and other subjugations of people of other faiths. They are seeking to formulate the mission of the church not in seeking converts but in converting our world to become a world, where justice reigns and human dignity is a commandment. They prefer talking about Missio Dei, the mission of God, to which the church as well as people of other religious traditions may be called to participate. But such a view is controversial and contested and by those advocating mission as inviting people to convert often labelled as post-modernist relativism.

3. Conversion through mission or proselytism

I want to claim that seeking the conversion of the other or targeting the other for conversion, is for me the same as proselytism. Many Christians will object and will claim that it is their obligation to follow the so-called Great Commission in Matthew 28, 18-20 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” They will say that not only do they have an obligation. It is also their right to seek the conversion of the other.
Am I avoiding the Great Commission? No, I am reading the same text but cannot make a clean cut between these words and the effect of these words in history. Conversion is not per se a result of proselytism but tensions regarding conversion are often related to proselytising activities by another actor, individual or organisation. The word has changed meaning. A

 

prosēlytos in the New Testament refers to a convert to Judaism hinting at a time when Judaism too was involved in seeking converts. The Acts of the Apostles mention the first Pentecost; there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. One region after the other in Asia Minor, Asia and North Africa is mentioned and finally it is said that there were also “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” (Acts 2, 10).To proselytise has today gained a very loaded meaning. “To induce someone to conversion is to proselytise”, says the WCC Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (1991, p.828). Proselytism has become such a negative word that even those, who are involved in the conversion of others, would prefer using other words than proselytism. What they are doing is, they say, an invitation to others to join the Christian faith. They say that they do not proselytise but they have the right to manifest, the right to teach, the right to express, the right to impart religious ideas. And they would say that the right to issue such invitations is supported by the world community having signed on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is a question of freedom of religion.

4. UN declarations on freedom of religion or belief

The most important international legislation on the freedom of religion or belief is article 18 in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) from 1966. It in turn builds upon article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DHR) from 1948, which says,” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Other statements support the DHR and CCPR, e.g. the considerations in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981). There is also in the UN system a special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

The wording of CCPR article 18 says

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

 

There can be no question about the right to communicate one’s faith. And no one shall be coerced to maintain his/her religion or belief. No one should “impair” the right to change religion; yes, the state has an obligation to actively ensure the right to change religion or belief. Included in the freedom of expression is also a right to seek and to receive information. The freedom of assembly and the freedom of association are important expressions of the UN declarations.

But, those who rightly quote the right to change religion and the right to persuade others to change often forget that the UN declarations also talk about the right to maintain one’s religion or belief. No one shall be coerced to change his or her religion or belief. The right to religious freedom is actually limited by other human rights. In addition, one person’s religious freedom may be limited by the religious freedom of another. Thus one interesting field for exploration is the interaction between the freedom to propagate religion on the one hand and the freedom to practice one’s religion without interference on the other. The CCPR has in article 17 a clause on the right to privacy, which, for instance, will protect the home from forced invasion by people seeking your conversion.

The question is of course how to balance the right to engage in faith persuasion against the right to maintain one’s religion or belief. How do we protect the juxtaposed claims of majority and minority religions? How do we consider the relationship between material aid and missionary activities and questions of unequal distribution of material resources, sometimes along other lines than numerical minority and majority situations? It is important to remember the vital role that factors such as power (cultural, financial, mental etc.) of the proselytiser plays in the relationship with the one who is the object for faith persuasion or conversion.

5. Common Witness and Proselytism

Christians want to make distinctions between what is called “bearing Christian witness” and improper proselytism. The former is therefore rather called true witness or true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. Improper proselytism represents a corruption or deformation of true witness. Improper proselytism may, according to the same report, take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need; it may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others. The Third Joint Commission of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church drew up a document entitled “Common Witness and Proselytism”. The Joint Commission says, “Proselytism embraces whatever violates the right of the human person, Christian or non-Christian, to be free from external coercion in religious matters, or whatever, in the proclamation of the Gospel, does not conform to the ways God draws free men to himself in response to his calls to serve in spirit and in truth”.

The commission document emphasizes these ideals:

• A common witness is given when Christians recognize the spiritual gifts in other churches and testify to what they have in common.
• Christian witness must be coherent with the spirit of the gospel; it should not offend ongoing inter-Christian dialogue.
• God-centred Christian witness focuses on His glory and man’s salvation, not on the advantage of one confession over another. It always respects the freedom of those to whom it is addressed; it never exploits their weakness or their poverty; it never offers material or social benefits resulting from a change of confession; it excludes all methods of compulsion, including the uncritical use of mass media.

• Christians bearing witness to their faith do not denigrate the faith of others. Witnessing Christians do not spread prejudices about other Christians. They do not distort their own spiritual convictions to attract others.

 

Although the document does mention non-Christian faiths, it is obvious that the document first of all is an agreement between Christians belonging to different confessions. And we are still not able to say that we have implemented these ideals in inter-Christian relations let alone in interreligious relations.

Following the implosion of State Socialism, many Christians, not only from evangelical churches and para-church groups but also from mainline churches in the US, in the Nordic countries, in Korea went to Russia to proselytise among Russian Orthodox Christians. Soup-kitchens were established offering soup and bread and the invitation to conversion. Orthodox Christians ask the WCC what it means when advocating “partnership in mission” when the WCC seems unable to make Protestant Christians aware of that also Orthodox Christians are Christians. And Protestant missionaries in Russia retort and claim the right to religious freedom.

6. Proselytism and mission in WCC bilateral dialogues

Proselytism has been and is discussed in bilateral interreligious dialogues. A WCC-document “Striving Together in Dialogue – A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action says”:

• While recognising that mission and da’wa are essential religious duties in both Christianity and Islam, Muslims and Christians need to uphold the spiritual and the material well-being of all. Many missionary activities, and the methods they use, arouse legitimate suspicions. There are situations where humanitarian service is undertaken for ulterior motives and takes advantage of the vulnerability of people. Thus the clear distinction between witness and proselytism become crucial. It is the basis for the recognition that people of faith can enjoy the liberty to convince and be convinced and, at the same time, respect each other’s religious integrity, faithfulness to one’s tradition and loyalty to one’s community.

The issue of mission to the Jews has been a recurrent theme in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. The Ecumenical Considerations for Jewish-Christian dialogue are explicit on the issue:

• Christians are called to witness to their faith in word and deed. The Church has a mission and it cannot be otherwise. This mission is not one of choice.
• Christians have often distorted their witness by coercive proselytism – conscious and unconscious, overt and subtle. Referring to proselytism between Christian churches, the Joint Working Group of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches stated: “Proselytism embraces whatever violates the right of the human person, Christian or non-Christian to be free from external coercion in religious matters”. (Ecumenical Review, 1/1971, p. 11).
• Such rejection of proselytism and such advocacy of respect for the integrity and the identity of all persons and all communities of faith are urgent in relation to Jews, especially those who live as minorities among Christians. Steps towards assuring non-coercive practices are of highest importance. In dialogue ways should be found for the exchange of concerns, perceptions, and safeguards in these matters.

• While Christians agree that there can be no place for coercion of any kind, they do disagree – on the basis of their understandings of the Scriptures – as to what constitutes authentic forms of mission. There is a wide spectrum, from those who see the very presence of the Church in the world as the witness called for to those who see mission as the explicit and organized proclamation of the gospel to all who have not accepted Jesus as their Saviour.

 

 

I referred earlier to a document coming out of a conversation between Christian and Buddhist religious and political leaders in Theravada Buddhist countries. Similar conversations have taken place between the WCC and Hindu leaders, although the WCC has not yet formulated specific guidelines or principles for the relationship between Hindus and Christians. Attempts have been made. A workshop on issues in Hindu-Christian Relations was held in Madurai in October 1995, trying to draw some preliminary guidelines in examining how Hindus and Christians live together in India.

Here some of the challenges in the relationship were boldly addressed. The document says: “The Hindus find the absolute claims made for the Church, for Jesus, the traditional methods of missionary activity and the labelling of non-Christians as sinners etc., very offensive. There are also such accusations as extraterritorial loyalties, deculturalisation, etc. already levelled against Indian Christians.” It goes on to speak of how “Christians are uncomfortable with the tendency of their Hindu friends to minimize the differences that exist between religious traditions and make Hinduism as an all-inclusive umbrella of truth. Likewise, they find it difficult to understand the Hindu’s proclivity to down-play the reality of suffering, oppression and discrimination by reducing them all to Karma and fate. The age-old problem of Untouchability, socio-economic exploitation, and gender injustice still persists in the name of religious sanctions.”

The document called for sensitivity “to the sensibility of peoples to their respective faith traditions. For example, it is customary for Hindus to understand Jesus Christ as one of the avatars. But they must understand that Christian view of Incarnation is historical and so much more than the mythological assuming of a form by God. Similarly, When Christians easily dub Hindu idol worship as idolatry, they must understand that not all Hindus are idolatrous in using idols in their worship.” On the issue of conversion, the document stated that any “form of manipulation or enticement to win over others to one’s own faith community is immoral and irreligious. So also to use religion to gain economic political or any other form of favour and advantage is equally immoral and irreligious.”

The document, although more than 10 years old, would merit another reading and seen as a basis for an ongoing conversation, not only because it is a good piece of work but because it is the situation in India that in many way have sparked off the many-faceted WCC interest in this issue.

7. The WCC is prompted by its constituency

Member churches in India were worried by the attempts to legislate against conversion. They felt themselves to be the victims of what para-church groups, often with foreign funds, were involved in. Their evangelisation campaigns and crusades antagonised Hindus, who either did not want to or could not distinguish which church proselytised and which church abstained from aggressive evangelism. Member churches were afraid that their diaconal work, their schools would be considered instruments for conversion and banned by law.

Intra-Christian discussions followed in the wake of legislative proposals or implementations. The issue of conversion is an interfaith issue. How does a convert relate to that community, religion, which s/he has left? The lay theologian M.M. Thomas said once that a convert to Christianity should remain in solidarity with his original community. But more often the convert learned consciously or unconsciously to denigrate the faith or religion of origin or to allow a polarisation between the religion one had left and the religion one had entered.

The mainline churches find themselves in a dilemma, accused by evangelicals for not fulfilling and living up to the great Commission of our Lord. Their question rings in the ear: “Does the ecumenical church still have conversion on its agenda?”

Although most of the spectacular calls for conversions are made within the so-called “evangelical” camp, it is probably not so easy to dissociate oneself clearly from the proselytism of these Christian brothers and sisters. For Christians conversion is a command. Their opponents see conversion among the poor as an act of Christian cowardice. Gandhi is reported to have said: “Why are you Christians converting the depressed classes? Come and convert us instead.”

But the mass-conversions of Dalits were not necessarily the direct act of evangelism. Dalits were from the beginning not targeted objectives for conversion. The mission of the church focused historically on individuals, on high-caste Hindus. Dalits came by themselves and understood conversion as Ambedkar understood it, a movement towards social acceptance. Their conversions rock the boat and challenge the community and the society.

8. Aid-evangelism

The issue of conversion has in the discussion focused on so called aid-evangelism. It is a recurrent theme. The relief work following the earthquake in Gujarat led to suspicions that Christians and Muslims got less help than Hindus. On the other side of the fence, there were suspicions that Christian relief work was connected with conversion. At the Millennium Peace Conference in August 2000 in New York, I was part of a small group addressing the particular issue of conversion in India. We agreed upon an “Informal Working Understanding – Freedom from Coercion in Religion.”

• We agree that the free and generous preaching of the Christian Gospel is welcome in India.
• We condemn proselytism; we particularly reject the exploitation of the issue of poverty in religious outreach and missionary work.
• We agree that the giving of aid to those in need is a primary commandment of all our religious and spiritual traditions; we are resolved that this act of justice should never be tied to compulsory conversion.
• We commit ourselves to a continuing dialogue in the spirit of interreligious harmony, mutual respect, and the co-operative common effort to build a better world. In this way, we will discover trust in one another that any altruistic work will not be a means for conversion.

The issue of aid-evangelism does not go away. It is not made up. It is practised and there are many who, following the post-tsunami relief work can point to flagrant examples of proselytism that cannot be properly understood unless prefaced by the word ‘coercive’. It is coercive proselytism.

Christians in India were however reluctant to have the WCC enter the conversation on conversion. It might underline, they said, a Hindu perception of Christians in India being more linked to the West than to India and to have their ultimate loyalty in Rome, Jerusalem or Wittenberg than in India.

9. Is there a conspiracy to convert Muslims ?

But also conspiracy theories, particularly rampant in the Middle East, about Christian Church organisations having secret meetings with CIA or Mossad in order to strategize the evangelization of Muslims mar relations between the WCC constituency and its Muslim neighbours and prompt the WCC to seek ways to explain the complexity of Christian churches. In such situations the WCC affirms and reaffirms religious freedom and condemns methods of coercion or “seduction” used for missionary purposes but need also to say that Christians are not a monolithic block. Of course there are Christian churches and Christian groups involved in evangelisation campaigns directed at people of other faiths. Most of them perceive the WCC as liberal and secular. The groups would consider membership in the WCC as a betrayal of the Gospel. Conservative evangelicals in fact criticize the WCC for having neglected the obligation to obey the “great commandment”. We should however not forget that the numerical success of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches throughout the world may be a temptation also for main line churches witnessing their numbers going down.

The 1976 Christian-Muslim conference on Mission and Da’wa sought to find ways where Christians and Muslims address together problems related to conversion and their impact on relations between communities. There have been conversations to establish a Christian-Muslim body whose task would be to protect Christian-Muslim relations from the pernicious and long-lasting effects of sensationalism, exaggerations, misperceptions and politically suspicious propaganda as a follow-up of the conference. The fundamental principles affirmed in the conference was the rejection of all forms of coercion, pressure or undue enticement, direct or indirect, aiming at leading groups or individuals to renounce the religion of their parents and join another religious community. And yet, stories abound about the WCC strategising for the conversion of Muslims world-wide.

10. Conversion as an issue in interreligious relations

At yearly staff meetings between the staff of the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue (IRRD) of the WCC and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue of the Vatican (PCID), we exchanged news from our constituencies. The topic came back: conversion. It concerned above all relations between Hindus and Christians in India and Christians and Muslims worldwide. We heard the same stories about unethical conversion, about aid evangelism, about conspiracy to overturn Islam and we realised that our counter-parts in dialogue or their constituencies not always were able to distinguish between Christians. The WCC tried to articulate the dilemma in its recent Ecumenical Considerations for Dialogue and Relations with People of Other Religions:

Although dialogue by its very nature is direct encounter, there are invisible participants on each side in every dialogue. Our dialogue partners will every so often hold us responsible for what fellow Christians have done or neglected to do, said or not said. While this in some ways is inevitable and even sometimes understandable, we are well aware of deep disagreements within religions and we know that the dividing lines do not always go between religious communities but often within religious communities. The differences may be not only theological, but relate to social, political, and moral issues. We may for various reasons find ourselves in opposition to some of those with whom we share a common faith. We learn that religious communities are not monolithic blocks confronting each other. Plurality of positions on each side should not be ignored or suppressed while defending what is perceived to be the interest of one’s community. Commitment to a faith does not entail identification with what is done or not done in its name. Therefore, we should not be defensive, but remain confident of the potential of dialogue to changing deeply held opinions or prejudices.

In an effort to address the issue, the two offices on dialogue initiated a project entitled “Interreligious Reflection on Conversion – From Controversy to a Shared Code of Conduct”. Although the project is to focus mainly on ‘intra-discussion’ among Christians on the topic of conversion, the project was initiated in May 2006 through a multireligious hearing, assessing the reality. What are the memories, experiences, reactions and comments from our counterparts in other religious traditions on the issue of conversion? What are the issues? What should we as Christians bring to the table from the interreligious reality on the issue of conversion? What do Muslims, Hindus say about conversion? How do we address the fears of people wanting to become Christians but living in countries, where another religion is dominating the religious landscape?

Our intention with this project is to assess the reality of conversion in relations with people of different faiths. The project should then through intra-Christian conversations lead us to conversations with Pentecostals and Evangelicals about conversion? How do we understand together what it means to live and witness in a religiously plural world? Can we arrive at a code of conduct on the issue of conversion? This should be the end result, where we try to respond to the multifaith reality and the theological concerns we have explored.

The report from the interreligious consultation on “Conversion – Assessing the Reality” stated among other things that:

• That inter-religious dialogue, to be meaningful, should not exclude any topic, however controversial or sensitive, if that topic is a matter of concern for humankind as a whole or for any section/s thereof
• That freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.
• That while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others
• That freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.
• That errors have been perpetrated and injustice committed by the adherents of every faith. Therefore, it is incumbent on every community to conduct honest self-critical examination of its historical conduct as well as its doctrinal/theological precepts. Such self-criticism and repentance should lead to necessary reforms inter alia on the issue of conversion
• That conversion by “unethical” means is discouraged and rejected by one and all. There should be transparency in the practice of inviting others to one’s faith
• That humanitarian work by faith communities should be conducted without any ulterior motives. In the area of humanitarian service in times of need, what we can do together, we should not do separately
• That no faith organization should take advantage of vulnerable sections of society, such as children and the disabled
• That we are sensitive to the religious language and theological concepts in different faiths. Members of each faith should listen to how people of other faiths perceive them.
• That there is a need to collectively evolve a “code of conduct” on conversion, which all faiths should follow. We therefore feel that inter-religious dialogues on the issue of conversion should continue at various levels.

11. A Critical moment on conversion

 

The question of conversion emerged as one issue during a major interreligious event, the Critical Moment-Conference organized by the WCC June 6-9, 2005 in Geneva. The charge was made by several participants that the WCC needed to be much clearer on the question of conversion as a problematic issue in interreligious relations. If one wanted to be serious in interreligious dialogue, one needed to speak out against those who sought the conversion of others. A Muslim woman from Egypt said: “It is my assumption, that we have moved beyond the conversion mentality and that we share a post-conversion mentality. We believe in the freedom of religion and everybody must enjoy the freedom of expressing and practising his or her religion and calling others if he or she wishes others to do so. It is my conviction that we should recognise the conversion mentality, that either you are with me or against me as something of the past”. The report from the conference addressed the issue of conversion and said:

In our relationship in dialogue we need to address also issues of controversy as difficult as they may be. But we cannot pretend that they are not there. There is in many of our dialogues an asymmetry, which we must be aware of and attentive to.

The issue of conversion remains for many an issue of pain. The question of mission and conversion is highly sensitive, yet at the centre of some religious traditions’ own sense of self-understanding. Making distinctions on the issues of conversion could be a topic for interreligious dialogue. Such dialogues may help clarify what conduct should be identified as proselytism, and perhaps also lead to greater understanding as to why witnessing is so highly valued within some religious traditions. In addition, Christians and Muslims, above all implicated in mission and da’wa, might through interreligious dialogue be encouraged to pursue this question through intra-religious dialogue within their own communities.

How do we balance the right to individual and collective self-understanding linked to the notion of religious freedom with that of self-defence in the name of preserving often long historical religious traditions? It goes without saying that interreligious dialogue should enable us to share fully our beliefs but we must at the same time be mindful of sharing in a way that it will not offend others. There should be no coercion in religion and we need to reflect on how to refine the ethics of conversion.

Many of us feel that religions should overcome the mentality of conversion as a strategic mechanism to convince people to change religion. A mentality of conversion fails to recognise the integrity of the other and the other’s religion. The subject of conversion is complex. It raises tensions within and between religious communities. Violence and anger are not uncommon results. Although our religions provide tools with which to tackle this problem (e.g., ‘there is no compulsion in religion’, Qur’an 2:256), we have to acknowledge that conversion is a reality present in our religious histories. Conversion can however not be the goal of and is opposed to interreligious dialogue. We denounce conversion by unethical practices such as using threatening behaviour, material benefits (bribes?) or any forms of coercion. Conversion does have a role in religion but historically we need to recognise the instances when it has taken place under duress.

To this end, we need to emphasise less the old meaning of conversion as a change of belief, and practice instead the kind of conversion that requires a change of heart. Without this new kind of conversion process, fears will not be overcome and the building of a stronger interreligious agenda for social transformation towards the common good will remain outpaced by the growing crises of our world. A politics of conversion of the heart is a sine qua non for an honest dialogue that includes the development of joint cooperation for peace and justice….

We recommend that the WCC looks into the question of conversion as an issue in interreligious relations and in particular initiates conversations between our faith communities. An outcome for such deliberations could be to formulate a protocol on conversion. Participants from the Critical Moment Conference will continue a similar conversation in their own communities. Such conversations should not undermine the particularities of our faiths but embrace the divinely-given diversity of religion.

 

 

 

 

12. Thoughts of a convert

What is conversion? It is the transformation of one thing into another. We find the term used in many walks of life. A particular event may result in a transformation or conversion. Europeans may have to convert from Fahrenheit to Centigrade in order to understand how hot it could be in the US. We must be familiar with currency conversion from rupees to Euro. Conversion is also understood as a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to enter another religious tradition. In psychiatry it can be understood as a defence mechanism repressing emotional conflicts which are then converted into physical symptoms that have no organic basis.

It would be interesting to discuss philosophically whether the different usages would allow us to look upon the convert, be it in relation to degrees, currency or change of religion, as basically the same as before, only seen with other glasses or from another angle. But these may be only the naïve wishes of a convert that after all the heat remains the same, the Euro the same, etc.

The convert is looked upon with suspicion by those s/he left and those he joined. There are of course reasons for this. The history of Jewish-Christian relations knows of many cases, where converts from Judaism to Christianity became more anti-Semitic than their new-found Gentile brothers and sisters. Anton Margarita converted from Judaism to Christianity in 1522. His book, “Der gantz Judisch Glaub” (“The Whole Jewish Faith”), greatly influenced Martin Luther, who cites it frequently in his late tract, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (“Of the Jews and their Lies”). Margarita, the son and grandson of rabbis, had a “checkered” career, having denounced his own community to the non-Jewish authorities two years before his conversion. After his conversion he became an instructor in Hebrew at the University of Vienna. At the command of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Margarita debated Joseph (Joselmann) b. Gershom of Rosheim, a leader of the German Jewish community, at the Diet of Worms in 1530.

It is true that many converts become more Catholic than the Pope as the saying goes. I recall Catholic priests in Sweden not very happy with the converts from the Church of Sweden, who left the Swedish church because they couldn’t deal with women ordination. My Catholic friends said; “We don’t want these converts. They are more conservative than the Vatican and are actually stuck in a pre-Vatican II spirituality.”

But it is the whole truth? Is a convert someone, who will have to prove his/her credentials by being more Catholic than the Pope or by denigrating that which s/he left? Is a convert per definition a renegade, someone who looks down upon that which s/he has left? Isn’t it quite often so that converts usually come from the periphery than from the centre and that their conversion is not first of all a conversion from the core of a religion but a move to a core of a religion? Of course, it is difficult to put all converts together as if they were all of one mind. What I want to say is that not every convert hates the religious tradition s/he left. S/he is probably more at home in that s/he found but not necessarily in opposition to what s/he left.

I have earlier mentioned Gregory Baum as a different kind of convert. One could add others. There are reasons to recall the impact of converts on the change that took place in the Roman Catholic Church in relation to Jews. Many Jews, converts to Christianity, brought about the conversion of the church in relation to the Jewish people. When celebrating Nostra Aetate, we should remember that this document would not have existed as it is today, were it not for people like John Oesterreicher and Bruno Hussar? Has not Cardinal Lustiger in many ways supported the French Bishops in their work on changing the teachings of the church in relation to the Jewish people? The question is whether conversion a priori suggests that accepting one religion means rejecting another religion?

Can one be a convert without endorsing conversion? I would like to paraphrase a Swedish stand-up comedian, who said about the prayer, “’And lead us not into temptation…’, thank you very much, you don’t have to lead me, I can very well walk myself into temptation.” Applying it on conversion, I don’t think I need to be converted by someone, I can convert myself. What I mean to say is, the problem with conversion is the arrogance of those who think that they have a right to convert others and particularly so when they refer to UN declarations as a support. Claiming the right to seek out the other for conversion is nothing else but turning the other into an object for my design. It is meeting the other as an object, not interested in the encounter and where it might take us.

There will always be people, who for various reasons will want to break up and look for other pastures. One cannot erect walls high enough to prevent them from leaving. The wall isn’t built that will hinder their flight. It is better to let them leave without clipping their wings. We live in a world, where encounters and dialogues will lead some to seek other ways than the ones just travelled. This is the right that UN declarations talk about and this is the right of and in each of our religious traditions.

 

 

 

The Third Dr S J Samartha Memorial Lecture

6^th Oct., 2004

sponsored by

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

and Fire Flies Ashram

 

Religion in 21^st Century: A Perspective of Hope

 

M V Nadkarni

 

 

I feel greatly honoured being invited to deliver the third Dr. Stanley J. Samartha Memorial Lecture. When I attended last year’s lecture by eminent scholar and my senior, Prof. C T Kurien, I had never anticipated this honour for myself. I have accepted it with great humility, fully aware that my credentials as a religion scholar are only of recent origin. I am more a student of religion than a religion scholar. I am a convert from Economics, who has not given up economics. My conversion is not complete, and will never be complete. This fix perhaps makes me suitable to speak on a platform of inter-religion dialogue, though I do not necessarily count economics as a religion, thank God! My religion background is Hinduism, which I know fairly well. I am keen to know other religions too particularly Christianity and Islam, – not from the point of finding fault with them from a Hindu perspective, but from the point of locating bridges between Hinduism and other religions. I do not have to construct these bridges. They are already there.

 

Dr Samartha himself served as a valuable bridge throughout his life. Samartha in Sanskrit means capable, effective. He was indeed a capable and strong bridge between Christianity and Hinduism. In the Introduction to his book, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ published by the Christian Literature Society, Madras in 1974, he wrote: ‘Christianity need not be in competition with the whole range of Hinduism for the allegiance of the hearts and minds of men but that in certain areas co-operation with it should be possible in the common quest for fullness of life. It also means that Hinduism need not necessarily continue on its lonely pilgrimage in suspicious mistrust of Christianity and proud of its own self-sufficiency, but that in partnership with it can seek the meaning of the material, the personal and historical within the structure of its own spirituality’ (p.1). I think that these observations can be a very useful guide to formulate an approach to better understanding between religions and communal harmony. An attitude of condemning religions and their rituals or of undermining religiosity of people will not serve this purpose. The need for spirituality is inherent in human beings, but we have only to ensure that this spirituality is not divisive. A melting pot or blending of all religions where separate identities are lost, is not helpful here. Equally unhelpful is any attempt to harvest all the souls for one religion from other religions. Pluralism and diversity add colour and richness and any idea of having one uniform common religion for all human beings is likely to be as successful as developing an artificial common language like Esperanto. That is why Dr Samartha’s approach is very useful. On his birth day, we salute him for his valuable contribution and hope that his work will continue to bear fruit.

 

The topic of today’s lecture was suggested to me by Mr P N Benjamin, the Co-ordinator of BIRD. He had actually asked me to speak on Hinduism in 21^st Century, but I preferred to speak on religion in general. It suited my purpose very well. I was just thinking of the concluding chapter for my forthcoming book on Hinduism. I was feeling concerned that religion in practice is one of the most prominent factors behind disturbance of peace in India and even the world at large, though religion should have been a prominent factor of peace. In the concluding chapter of my book, I thought I should go beyond Hinduism and probe in to the reasons for tensions between religions and see under what conditions a better understanding and even a convergence of religions could emerge. The topic thus was tailor-made for me. I am grateful to Mr. P N Benjamin personally and to his laudable enterprise, BIRD – Bangalore Initiative for Religions Dialogue, for so kindly inviting me and giving me this honour.

 

I understand that it was Mr. Siddhartha, Founder of a unique Ashram – Fireflies, who suggested my name to Mr Benjamin. When I visisted his Ashram in August, I had an informal discussion with him on my book on Hinduism in progress, and also on the idea of convergence of religions in a way that they did not lose their respective identities but shed prejudices and misunderstandings against each other. That did it, though I hardly had any premonition of what was to come. A few days later, Mr Benjamin called me up on phone to say that Siddhartha suggested my name for this lecture and I should accept the invitation. I had a further discussion on phone with Mr. Siddhartha and he made some very valuable suggestions for my lecture. I am deeply beholden to him for this and for his generous Introduction.

 

I come now to the topic of the lecture. My canvas covers both global and Indian contexts. The first part of my task is an analysis of the current situation. Then I come to my perspective of hope and set out what I believe to be the conditions which could promote peace and understanding between religions.

 

Religion is a basic necessity perhaps next only to food, clothing and shelter. It is a set of beliefs that lends meaning to our life, gives peace and solace, reduces stress, enables one to cope with tensions and struggles in life. This is the essence of all religions, irrespective of whether a religion is theistic or not. Religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in God, but they are no less spiritual or religious than theistic religions like Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism is by and large theistic, but it provides scope for atheism too and some of its schools like Advaita transcend the concept of personal God. Belief in God is not a defining characteristic of religion. So long as a religion accepts that this visible material world is not the end of every thing, and believes in imparting a moral content to our lives, provides spiritual solace, and enables us to cope with tensions and struggles in life, it is religion in its own right.

 

In its essence, this spirituality is that same for all religions. It is when this basic spirituality comes in different brand names that trouble arises, and religion becomes divisive. If you think of spirituality as a generic service, it looks surprising that identities are defined in terms of brand names of spirituality, creating tension between consumers of different brands of spirituality. Imagine patients going to Victoria Hospital fighting with patients going to Manipal Hospital and the latter fighting with patients going to St. John’s Hospital. Different hospitals may compete with each other by providing best possible service; but patients of different hospitals do not have to fight among themselves, basing their identities on brand following. Pursuing this reductio ad absurdum still further, imagine consumers of Colgate toothpaste fighting with consumers of Vajradanti tooth powder! I agree that spirituality is more profound than using toothpaste and tooth powder, but providing medical service is of no less importance than meeting spiritual needs. Yet, patients of different doctors never think of fighting with each other; even patients following different systems like alopathy and homeopathy do not fight. Then why should followers of different religions fight with each other? Why do we have this uneasy relationship and tension between different religions? Can we look for a better understanding between them during the 21^st Century? What could promote it?

 

Though most religions distinguish between the spiritual and mundane – paramarthika and eihika -, the mundane significance of religions lies in the fact that religion was the main or perhaps even the sole driving force of history at least till 16^th Century. Almost every thing, culture, social norms, morality, politics, wars, music, architecture, sculpture, – everything was mediated through religion. Religion shaped the culture of countries, of people, and formed their identities. Competition for dominance – even in politics – was often mediated through religion. The conflict between religions emerged and aggravated precisely because of this factor, – the competition between groups and even individuals was mediated through religion and identities were based on religion.

 

The Cultural Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution gave a severe blow to this sway of religion, and slowly Market emerged as the driving force of history. Market imbibed science and technology and dominated them, making them its weapons in its march. Economic growth pushed aside spiritual development as the major motive of humanity, at least for a significant part of it. Science and technology were there in the pre-modern era too, but they acquired an enormously greater degree of sophistication and were freed from the shackles of religion in the modern era. Moreover, the benefits of science and technology were no longer confined to the elite, but reached the masses, or at least had the potential to reach the masses. The emergence of democracy on a large scale during the modern era was no accident.

 

Progress in science and technology and also economic growth changed the lives – and what is more – the attitudes of people. Nature did not seem as mysterious as before. There was increasing confidence that nature could be subdued to some extent to meet human needs, and that human beings are not as helpless as during pre-modern days when religion was the main driving force. Poverty, illness and illiteracy were no longer seen as destiny, but something to be overcome. It was thus that rationalism and secularism emerged as significant ideologies, which practically pushed religion to the background and to the private lives of people.

 

Coming to terms with modernity was a major challenge for all religions. Modernity has two aspects: One comprises of science and technology, and the other of values going with modernity – particularly secularism, which in essence, is the separation of the state from religion, and equality of all before law. Coming to terms with modernity, a religion had to face both these aspects. While during pre-modern era, the main factor behind inter-religion tension was that cultural identities were shaped by religions, the main factor thereafter was the reluctance to push religion based identities to the background and come to terms with modernity.

 

Hinduism came to terms with modernity with wonderful skill, right from Raja Rammohan Roy through Mahatma Gandhi and S. Radhakrishnan and on to contemporary Gurus like Sri Satya Sai Baba, Mata Amritanandamayi and Sri Sri Ravishankar. Hinduism had no problem in accommodating modern science and technology. It had its own tradition of science and technology and its religion did not clash with modern scientific findings as Fritjof Capra has shown in his book – The Tao of Physics. Hinduism did not have to object to even family planning. The values of egalitarianism, social service and even human rights were easily accommodated, since the Gita stood both for Samatva and Lokasangraha. The caste system was never intrinsic to Hinduism. Though Manusmriti had supported it, this text was never accorded the scriptural status of Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita, and the caste system was not consistent with the latter scriptures’ teachings. It is also a great misunderstanding to say that Hinduism is not consistent with economic growth. Artha was long recognized as one of the Purusharthas, having a legitimate place of its own among the goals of life, provided it is pursued according to Dharma or rules of moral conduct. Hinduism is not scared of even atheist and secular humanism. Hinduism had a place for atheism too. The modern value of liberalism is actually an ancient virtue with Hinduism.

 

The priests are generally regarded as very conservative and a factor in retaining the status quo. Priests in Hinduism, however, do not any longer play the leading role they did in the Vedic and Upanishadic period. The role of priests is now confined to conducting rituals. Whatever their attitude to values of modernity, and I can say confidently that it is not negative, the priests just do not have the influence enough to shape the attitude of Hindus at large.

 

The task of Hinduism’s coming to terms with modernity, however, is not yet over. The hold of casteism is no doubt weakening. Its ritual significance has almost vanished, but not its economic, social and political significance. Though Hindu religious leaders, including traditional leaders like Mathadhipatis are showing increasing awareness of social problems of poverty and deprivation, enough is not being done. Generally, their social work is limited to their own communities, though exceptions to this are increasing However, non-traditional Hindu organizations have emerged in a big way to render social service irrespective of caste and community. Some Mathadhipatis are yet to come to terms with modernity, as seen from the fact that a token ban by some of them on the foreign travel of their devotees is still in place. It is only a token because after the devotees are back from abroad, they only have to undergo some special but inexpensive purification rites before they are allowed to worship in temples. Other Mathadhipatis are, however, quite advanced and go abroad themselves at the invitation of their devotees and help the latter to keep in touch with their religion consistent with modernity. Social evils in Hindu society have no doubt declined considerably but not yet gone. Prevalence of dowry continues still, and dowry harassment is not uncommon sometimes even resulting in killings or suicides of newly wed girls. In spite of the fact that women are receiving modern education and earn salaries for their families, son preference continues to be a feature of Hindu society.

 

In coming to terms with modernity, Christians and Muslims show dissimilar but interesting patterns. While the Christian Church had no difficulty with accepting values of modernity, it had problems – at least initially – with accepting some aspects of science (e.g. Darwin’s theory of evolution) and some aspects of technology (e.g. contraception). However, I understand that the Church now considers the Biblical account of creation in symbolic terms as God’s power of creation rather than literally. The Catholic Church has still some difficulty in accepting family planning. Religious objection to abortion is understandable, but not objection to techniques that prevent conception. With an Earth overburdened with population, the future survival of human race is at stake. If we have to ensure decent living for all humans who are already born, we may have to control the number that is going to be born in future. However, whatever the Church may say, most Christians practice family planning. They have also a healthy attitude to the fair sex, reflected in better sex ratios than among followers of other religions. Christians are the most well educated in India too.

 

With Muslims, the pattern is reverse. They had no problem with accepting modern science and technology. Muslims played a major role in the spread of science and technology in the pre-modern era. The position of Islam about family planning seems to be ambiguous. The Vice Chairman of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, gave a statement that Islam is not against family planning. But it attracted wide criticism (Cf. Javed Anand’s article ‘Green Signal and Islam is not Opposed to Family Planning’, TOI Sept 16, 2004). On the contrary, Khalid Rasheed, a member of AIMPLB and deputy imam of Idgah, Lucknow, stated that the Board has ‘made it clear that family planning is not permitted in Islam’. (Outlook, 4 Oct. 2004, p.40). Javed Anand however, clarifies that the admonition in Quran to Muslims not to kill children was in the context of widespread practice (in Arabia) of killing female children, and that it should not be interpreted as prohibition of family planning. Quoting well authenticated Tradition of the Prophet, Javed Anand observes that though the Prophet was aware of the practice of a-azl (coitus interruptus) to limit the number of children, he did not forbid it even when asked about it ( Javed Anand, op cit).

 

Yet, Muslims, if not Islam as such, are perceived to be having problems with the values of modernity, particularly the separation of the state from religion. While equality is a major virtue of Islam, in practice the concept is perceived as confined to only Muslims, and the attitude to the equality of all humans – whether Muslims and not, is ambiguous, particularly equality before law. There is first of all a difficulty even in accepting the need for a common law within a given country for all irrespective of religion.

 

The difficulty of Muslims in coming to terms with values of modernity is not Quran, but is supposed to be their clergy who have reservations in accepting modern secular education. Madarasa education made it difficult for a sizeable modern cosmopolitan middle class to evolve at least initially. Sectarian education in Madarasas still plays some role. A problem with sectarian education is that it does not take kindly to modern values. Moreover, one’s own religion gets most of the focus and is viewed in isolation from other religions. The need for building bridges between religions is not felt strongly. When a significant proportion, if not the majority, undergoes such education, it finds it difficult to get jobs in wider society particularly in well-paid modern sectors. This is then viewed as discrimination, leading to fundamentalism. Fortunately, however, more and more Muslims are turning to modern secular education at least in India, and consequently a vibrant cosmopolitan middle class is emerging among Muslims in India who are averse to fundamentalism (as per a reports by Saba Naqvi Bhaumik – ‘The Emerging Indian Muslim’, Outlook, October 4, 2004, pp.32-36, 40).

 

What is fundamentalism? Basically, it is the reluctance to accept values of modernity – separation of the state from religion, equality before law, liberal outlook, and tolerance of differences and diversity. Fundamentalism also insists on putting primary and dominant emphasis on religion-based identity, pushing aside other identities based on country-citizenship or language or culture to a subordinate level. Its appeal is to hot emotion and sentiment, not to cool reasoning. It is not surprising therefore, that fundamentalism constitutes the most important factor behind tension and strife even in the modern era. Fundamentalism need not involve rejection of modern science and technology; it has problems only with the values of modernity. Extremists among fundamentalists master modern technologies of destruction with unmatched vehemence and zeal, and offer tough challenge to the law enforcement machinery. Fundamentalists may not even be devout followers of their own religion. Mohammad Al Jinnah and V D Savarkar were known to be atheists and rationalists. The distinction between ‘us’ and ‘others’ is most crucial in fundamentalism, more than the doctrines of religion. Fundamentalists also tend to be aggressive, arrogant, oppressive and tyrannical, imposing themselves on everybody. No follower of any religion with some self-respect would like to have the tyranny of even his or her own faith at least in this modern age. Yet it appeals to a sizeable number both because modernity has not solved their problems, and also because it is far more consoling to blame others for one’s lot than to introspect and overcome constraints.

 

There is fundamentalism in every religion, but Islamic fundamentalism has received the greatest attention. Not all fundamentalists can be termed as terrorists. A majority of the former may be peace loving, but a small number become extremists and cause all the misunderstanding. Moreover, terrorism is not confined to Muslims. Recently an article in Times of India (12.9.2004, Sunday Edn) listed several non-Muslim terrorist organizations – LTTE in Sri Lanka, Maoists in India and Nepal, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, National Liberation Army in Columbia, Aum Supreme or Aum Shinrikiyo cult in Japan, Basque Fatherland and Liberty in Spain, and IRA in Northern Ireland. Giving religious identity to terrorists can be misleading. However, Muslim terrorism has received global attention because it operates at the global level, whereas others are much more localized. Even Muslim terrorism cannot be attributed to Islam as such, though some may interpret so. Islam means peace and it would contradict itself if it were to preach violence. The West also does not consider its war on terrorism as war on Islam. There is no discrimination against Islam and Muslims in the West, and Islam is the fastest growing religion in USA and Europe. The foreign policy of USA, however, has caused a lot of bitterness in the Third World, particularly in Muslim countries. Islam cannot be blamed for it.

 

We should also recognize that aversion to values of modernity is not that universal among Muslims as is generally assumed. Muslim majority countries like Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia have reformed their personal law, making it more acceptable to women. They treat their minorities with tolerance and respect. There is no exodus of minorities from these countries as far us I know. Even Pakistan and Bangladesh have reformed their personal law, though in India Muslim personal law is yet to be modernized. In Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia, there is a trend towards to separation of state from religion, though it faces resistance from forces of fundamentalism.

 

The blame for tension between Muslims and secularism cannot be laid entirely at the door of Islam. Secularism’s own record is not very clean, as pointed out by Karen Armstrong in her book: The Battle for God. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey and the two Shahs of Iran were known to be very progressive in the sense of being wedded to modernity and secularism, but they were also extremely oppressive and undemocratic. No body likes tyranny and response to tyranny can hardly be in the expected direction. When, for example, there was an attempt to ban the veil, Muslim women tended to protest against it by wearing it. When wearing the veil was made mandatory, they liked not to wear it!

 

Germany was scientifically very advanced and modern. Nazism was supposed to be secular. But Nazis used science, technology and modern techniques of organization and management to exterminate some six million Jews. The Soviet regime particularly under Stalin and Cambodian Pol Pot also proved to be equally repressive and cruel, flaunting progressive and secular credentials. Ironically, secularism behaved like a fundamentalist religion intolerant of conventional religions and their symbols, and forgot that human beings were spiritual animals more than rational animals.

 

A major difficulty of Muslims in coming to terms with the West is bitter memory of history. Colonialism led to the subjugation of Muslim dominance in vast areas of the world, which was too much to swallow for a proud people. Colonialism led to the ruin of local economies and large scale deprivation every where, particularly in Muslim countries. Western colonialism and imperialism is not the same as Christianity, but such fine distinctions did not count with ordinary people. The memory of Crusades kept alive in racial memory further exasperated this attitude.

 

Ironically, the same factor – the bitter memory of the history – in this case the history of Muslim Rule, underlies communal tension in India. The initial communal riots when the Muslims seem to have had the initiative, like the Moplah rebellion in 1921, indicated to the Hindus that a determined and organized minority can play havoc with an unorganized majority, and the Hindus lost no time to organize themselves. Hindutva is not at all consistent with Hinduism, but it emerged in defense of Hinduism and its cultural tradition, which were perceived to be under threat. The awareness of treatment of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which led to a significant decline in their number and to their exodus to India, further exasperated the problem. However, meeting hatred with hatred creates only a vicious circle and solves no problem. The demolition of Babri Masjid and post-Godhra riots in Gujarat succeeded only in besmirching the fair name of Hinduism and achieved nothing else. We need to turn the vicious circle in to a virtuous circle. Whatever be the provocation, people in no civilized country can be allowed to indulge in arson, rape and lawlessness.

 

Where do we go from here? Is there a hope of overcoming these tensions, and creating an atmosphere of communal amity, peace and understanding? There is. I had observed above that religion was the driving force behind change up to about 16^th century, and then came the modern era of science, technology and market. History does not stand still. Tensions between religions, which began in the pre-modern era itself, acquired an added dimension during the modern era in the form tensions between religions and modernity. On the one hand people are fed up with tensions, brutalities and violence; on the other hand, under the influence of modern education with a dominant role given to reason and free thinking, people may not any longer be willing to be manipulated by fundamentalists. I believe therefore that there should be brighter prospects for resolution of tensions in not too distant a future than in the past. That is my perspective of hope. A few steps, which I believe would quicken the change towards this direction, are indicated below.

 

First, we have to realize both in India and at the global level, that pluralism and tolerance of diversity are not just a moral virtue but constitute a political necessity. There can be no double standards here. Hindus, Muslims and Christians cannot follow one policy where they are in majority and an opposite policy where they are in minority. If separation of state from religion is good for a religion where it is followed by a minority, followers of the same religion should accept this principle where they are in majority. Hindus should remember that Hinduism is not confined to India, nor is India confined to Hinduism. Similarly, Muslims are in a majority in quite a few countries no doubt, but they have also to live as minority in many countries including USA and Europe. Communal tensions in the world would ease significantly, if Muslims realize that if they want secularism where they are in minority, they cannot reject it and opt or fundamentalism where they are in majority. Such a realization is already there in several Muslim majority countries, but fundamentalists fight the governments on this issue. Such fundamentalism is not however confined to Muslims as already noted above.

 

Secondly, in the interest of promoting acceptance of a pluralist and diverse situation, the Indian concept of secularism as Sarva-dharma-samabhava, i.e., equal respect for all religions, or Dharma Nirapakshta, i.e., neutrality between religions, is more useful than the Western/Leftist concept of secularism which is contemptuous of religions. In the Indians concept, there is no official religion or state religion as such, and all religions get equal respect. Since the West is not accustomed to this concept of secularism, a new word is coined to express it – agonistic democracy (cf. Elizabeth Shakman Hurd- ‘The International Politics of Secularism: US Foreign Policy and the Islamic Republic of Iran’, Alternatives, Vol. 29, No.2, March-May 2004, p. 130). This involves neither neglecting all religions nor blending them all in to one, but peaceful and constructive co-existence between all religions, and co-operation as Dr Samartha had proposed. Further, it involves preferential treatment of neither minorities nor majority, and application of common law for all as recommended by the Constitution of India, still awaiting implementation. A common civil law, however, cannot and should not be tried to be imposed on an unwilling minority. A consensus has to be evolved through consultation and persuasion, in a way that all – particularly women – benefit from the mutually agreed common civil law. Pluralism and diversity is in the context of religion, language and culture. Diversity and discrimination in the context of law for the citizens of a given country violates the principle of equality before law.

 

Thirdly, all religions should eschew any policy of aggressive competition against each other through conversion by force and inducements. Proselytizing, reviling others’ religions, provocative acts and all such aggressive postures only vitiate atmosphere and act against other steps proposed here.

 

Fourthly, look at the positive and brighter side of history too, and have a balanced perspective. Western Science and modernity may have tended to subjugate religion, but also gave immense benefits to the world – increased life expectancy through control of diseases, greater role to human beings to shape their own destiny, bringing them together through improved transport and communication and so on.

 

Contact with Islam in India further enriched our culture and civilization, helping us to evolve a colourful diversity in architecture, music, dress and even food. Even in matters of religion, there was give-and-take. Khushwant Singh calls Bhakti Movements as ‘Hinduism’s compromise with Islam’, and Sufism as ‘Islam’s compromise with Hinduism’ (in his A History of Sikhs, Vol. I). A syncretism developed. Hindus did not mind worshipping Sufi Pirs without being scared of losing their Hindu identity. Yoginder Sikand has told of several instances of shared faith in his book, Sacred Spaces – Exploring Tradition of Shared Faith (Penguin 2003).

 

Christian Missionaries may have reviled and ridiculed Hinduism in early stages, but they also did immense good. Stung by their criticism, Hindus woke up to evils in their own society and tried to rediscover their own religion thanks again to English translations of ancient scriptures by Max Muller and many others. Emulating Christian institutions, Hindu institutions were also developed to provide social service and take care of the weak. Christian missionaries spread modern education and modern values among masses irrespective of religion and caste even in far flung areas.

 

Syncretism has developed with Christianity too. Right in Bangalore we see how Hindu devotees also worship at the shrine of Infant Jesus shoulder to shoulder with Christian brethren. I have seen in some Hindu homes, an idol of Mother Mary with Infant Jesus in her arms, installed alongside Hindu deities in their place of worship. On their part, many Christians do not mind Sanskrit or Hindu names for themselves and their children and study Upanishads and Yoga.

 

This leads us to the fifth step necessary for communal harmony. Let us not be scared of dialogue and interaction with each other. Let us not be mortally afraid of losing our religious identity if we do so. We have come to a stage where there is a huge consensus that God is one, and that there is no separate God for looking after Hindus, – a separate God for looking after Muslims, yet another God to look after Christians, and yet one more to look after Jews and Parsis and so on. This God who is one for all creation would not want Hindus to harm Muslims and Muslims to harm Hindus, because all are his children. Somehow in our subconscious, there is a lurking fear that if I have a religious interaction with another faith except for the purpose of converting a fellow from the other faith to my own faith, I shall be betraying my faith and my God. Shaikh Mohammed, a Maharashtrian saint of Muslim origin in 16^th Century, but accepted by Hindus as a Sant, emphasized that Hari and Allah are the same, and used to observe in a lighter rein that ‘if there were two gods – a Hindu Hari and Muslim Allah, they would have perished fighting each other’. A remarkable quality of Shaikh Mohammad’s hymns is that they use absolutely Hindu idiom, metaphor and imagery, and Hindu concepts, but he retained his Muslim identity. One of his Marathi hymns goes thus:

 

This Govinda has done such deeds

There is no scope for prudery.

Thorny Ketaki plant

Gives birth to fragrant kevada flower;

Jackfruit of rough exterior

Has lumps of nectar within;

Tough from outside, the coconut

Has sweet water within;

Shaikh Mohammed is a Muslim

Has Govinda in his heart within.

 

If I like Jesus Christ and adore him, let me do so by all means without the necessity of any formal conversion to Christianity. If I feel ecstasy listening to Nusrut Fateh Ali Khan’s Allah Hu song, and like to listen to it frequently, let me do so by all means, without any fear of betraying Krishna or Shiva and without converting to Islam. If a Muslim likes to listen to Purandardasa’s Enna Paliso Karunakara, he can feel an echo of his own faith in this song and enjoy it, without fear of betraying his faith and without having to subjugate his faith to Hinduism. Such actions and sentiments build bridges and promote understanding of the enormous common ground between religions, and help us to overlook narrow differences. Gandhiji made it mandatory in his prayer meetings to recite the Holy Bible and Quran along with Gita. Proselytizing attempts, however, seriously thwart trends to convergence of faiths, and even adversely affect communal harmony.

 

Once we have inter-religious interaction and bridges, we can easily seek and explore common spaces between different religious, where all can join together without any fear or prejudice. There are several common issues of concern for all religions: social justice, eradicating poverty, illiteracy and ill health; securing equal rights for women, and human rights in general; population control and ecological concern. I shall not go into details here, except stressing that there need be no conflict between religions in striving for these goals. Siddhartha, Founder and promoter of his unique Fire Flies Ashram, talks about Earth spirituality. Ecological concern and sustainable use of natural resources become here a matter of not mere secular or mundane concern, but constitute spirituality itself. Such spirituality can encompass followers of all religions, without undermining them. Reducing stress and coping with tensions is a major problem of the modern age, which is a concern of all religions. Techniques of mind control, meditation, relaxation and yoga can be an important area of mutual learning and co-operation between religions.

 

The sixth step would be to rediscover our own respective faiths, out traditions and our scriptures. Rediscovery does not mean fundamentalism. Fundamentalists make too literal and direct an interpretation of scriptures for practical action including politics. Rediscovery applies reason or logic and reinterprets in the light of modern pluralist situations where liberalism and humanism are required. Fundamentalism requires a contrast between ‘us’ and ‘others’. Rediscovery does not involve any such tension. It is only reinterpreting in such a way the all inhibitions and prejudice are removed which hinder acceptance of human values and communal harmony. Take the word kafir, for example. Originally the word was meant to convey a person who is ungrateful and wicked. Later, however, a few centuries after the Prophet, the term was applied to mean persons other than Muslims. This was not the meaning given by the Prophet. The term jehad was also abused in course of time. It was not meant to convey that every Muslim should fight non-Muslims. Jehad meant only a struggle against evil, and the struggle was more internal than external. Similarly, the biblical account of creation is not taken any longer literally by Christians. The account of creation is taken as a symbol and metaphor for creative powers of God. Rejection of caste by Bhakti saints was also a step towards rediscovery and reinterpretation of Hinduism. Gandhiji interpreted Gita as a preaching on non-violence, though its contextual setting is that of a war and Krishna calls upon Arjuna to do his duty of fighting a just war. Gandhiji takes war only as a metaphor. Life is a struggle and one has to fight at a moral and spiritual level. In none of these cases of rediscovery or reinterpretation, rejection of one’s faith is involved. Teachings of every religion need reinterpretation, rediscovery and re-articulation from time to time. Otherwise, religions will become obsolete and die no matter how fanatical we may be about retaining old interpretations.

 

The seventh step is linked with the sixth. In the process of rediscovery, some flexibility and accommodation are needed in this pluralist, multi-faith world. It would be useful to distinguish between what is intrinsic to a religion and what is not. Law books like Manusmriti and Sharia evolved in a certain context and situation and cannot be held to be valid for all time to come and in all situations. Smritis were never given the same status as Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita. Islamic scholars can similarly see if Sharia can have the same status as Quran. Who can play the role of being instruments of flexibility and accommodation? It is the lay followers of religion who will actually lead the change. It is their commitment to decency, humanism, peace and progress that will ultimately check fundamentalism, and not just anti-terrorism laws and law enforcement machinery. Bulk of followers in every religion want peace and accommodation, while maintaining and observing basic values. It is the clerics, the establishment in religions, which is fundamentalist. Religion is too serious a matter to be left to clergy or priests alone. There is need for religion scholars from outside the establishment in every religion as a check on fundamentalist tendency within, and to build bridges across religions. More than the clergy, it is these scholars who can be instrumental in promoting flexibility and accommodation. Where accommodation and flexibility is lacking, peace and harmony cannot prevail. We can count on the desire for peace and progress among the ordinary people to check fundamentalism and divisive tendency of religious orthodoxy. That is why fundamentalism in every religion tries to suppress free thinking among people and to manipulate them.

 

The eighth step here is to avoid paranoid anxiety about the dominance of the West. As Samuel P Huntington shows in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), West’s dominance is declining in relative terms in almost every respect. More meaningful than violently clashing or confronting the West, think over how to resolve the tension between modernity and religion by seeking sustainable and spiritually satisfying alternatives to present ways of economic development and globalization. More than any competing faiths, it is globalization that is a greater threat to retaining one’s cultural and religious identity. Is it possible to modify globalization in such a way that we retain the positive features of it like easy communication with each other, but do away with adverse impact on local economy and local cultures? A decentralized and ecologically sustainable way of development may provide an answer. It may provide an answer to another major problem with the present model of economic growth, the problem marginalizing or depriving a sizeable section of population particularly in the developing countries. We may have to further explore Gandhian approach to development, which is inclusive and employment-oriented. Gandhiji was not against technology that alleviated human suffering and promoted human dignity. He was not against interaction with other countries. He was opposed only to subjugation of human spirit, of higher goals of life. Relentless and unscrupulous pursuit of wealth could not be the goal of human development. If we seek human development based on satisfying needs rather than wants, as Prof. C T Kurien put it in one of his books, it may help even spiritual fulfillment and promote amity.

 

 

 

Finally, develop an inclusive attitude. Develop an inclusive language.

 

I conclude by reciting an ancient but popular shloka, as an instance of inclusive attitude. It is from Hitopadesha, which literally means Benign Precept.

 

Ayam nijah paro

 

ù veù

ti

Ganana

 

ù laghu cheùtasaù

m /

Uda

 

ùra charitaù

nam tu

Vasudhaiva kutumbakam //

 

It means :

 

He is ours, that one is the other

Such is the calculation of the small-minded.

For the broad minded, however,

The whole world is one family.

 

Such an inclusive approach can be found to be intrinsic to all religions. This is unconditional inclusiveness, not conditional to religious conversion and losing one’s identity.

 

 

 

 

 

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD) in association with United Theological College and YMCA organised the STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURE 2003 on 7^th October 2003 in Bangalore. Following is the full text of the lecture:

 

COMMUNAL HARMONY- A SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE

C. T. Kurien*

I am extremely grateful to the organizers of this event for giving me the opportunity to pay my tribute to Dr. Stanley Samartha. I did not know him very well, although my father and he were literally next-door neighbors on this campus in the 1960s. I was only an occasional visitor to Bangalore at that time. But I did have opportunities to have conversations with Dr.Samartha and, in the 1980s, to interact with him at a few seminars and discussions. Of late, I have read one of his books – “One Christ and Many Religions” and I must say that I am greatly impressed by the amazingly courageous openness that he shows in that book.

As is well known, Dr. Samartha was keenly interested in inter-religious dialogue. But I imagine that for him, this dialogue was only a means to ensure that brothers and sisters dwell together in unity and therefore, I have chosen for the presentation here this evening, the topic “COMMUNAL HARMONY”. I must say that it is “a societal perspective”. I may make a modification of that familiar commercial which says, “there is nothing theological about it”.

It may appear that communal harmony will result if we are good to members of other communities. Of course, we must be good to members of our own community, whatever that may be, and members of other communities; but it seems to me that this is too simplistic a view. I would like to submit to you that a proper understanding of community itself is necessary if we are to work towards and strive for communal harmony. And so, although it may appear very elementary, I would like to spend a little time to place before you my own understanding of community. I was introduced as an economist. As you know, economists do not deal with relationships among communities. They deal with relationships among commodities. My concern with communities has resulted from my interest in human beings in general and more so as a result of the close association that I have had with two organizations in Chennai during the 1990s. One was called, “Harmony India” and the other was, “Citizens for a Secular Society”. In the1990s, Chennai experienced unusually but along with some other parts of the country, communal tensions – problems between Hindu community and Muslim community. These two organizations were attempts by people at large drawn from different walks of life to see what could be done to bring about communal harmony in that situation. My reflections on community have arisen from that involvement.

Let me start by saying what is obvious, that any community that we think of consists of individuals. A community is a group of individuals. But, please note that if we want to understand the significance of community, we must recognise that these individuals who constitute community are basically very unlike one another. In other words, one must accept that a community of individual is basically one of diversity. This may be something of a different emphasis but I think it is tremendously important to understand that the underlying element of community is diversity. Take an individual – the individual is an entity with different attributes – physical features, mental capacities, aesthetic sensibilities, religious or spiritual aspirations and all that. And the community consists of individuals like this who themselves are a set attributes, who are, in one sense, the personification of diversity. Two or more individuals like this constitute communities, as we know them. If that is the case, then of course, within the community one should expect to find much more diversity. And so, let us note that one of the key attributes of community is diversity.

There is a second aspect of community that I would like to touch upon, again from a commonsense point of view. You will notice that as an individual I belong to different communities. My family is something of a community – a very important community for me. The apartment complex where I live, that is a community also, although it is a different kind of community. The professional associations to which I belong – these are communities too – and the religious group of which I am a member, if I am a member, that is a community also. That is, if diversity is an important aspect of community, a second important aspect of community is multiplicity, variety of communities. Please note that the accent on diversity holds good even at that level. We must recognize the existence of diverse communities within a society, a country or whatever it may be. Therefore, in real life we are surrounded by, we are members of, a multiplicity of communities, each one consisting of different kinds of individual members. Strange as it may appear, it is because of their diversities that individuals seek communities and create communities. For it is only in a community that an individual has a sense of belonging, a sense of identity, a sense of recognition. Therefore, although a community consists of diverse individuals, these diverse individuals will themselves strive to achieve some kind of commonality within the community or for the community of which they are members. A community, if one may put it that way, is reconciled diversity, and this reconciliation of diversity may come by recalling traditions of the past, by subscribing to a common objective, but also through a series of practical arrangements, some mundane, some very obvious, but some not very obvious. One of these arrangements may be called authority. Authority has meaning or effect only to the extent that those over whom it is exercised accept it as authority. Indeed you accept authority because you know others will also accept that authority. So there are many ways in which the diversity within the community gets reconciled. This is a very tenuous way of existence. There will always be tension between the members who constitute the community, the individuals who constitute the community, and the community itself. Hence, I think it is important to think of community as a vibrant fluid entity -organization, association or whatever it may be.

Let me now turn to a third dimension of community, which arises from diversity and multiplicity. If there are multiple communities, these communities will overlap also. Look at it from your own perspective. If you are a member of a large number of communities, there will be some overlapping among these communities of which you are a member. It is in the very nature of social relationships that while these relationships may be mediated through communities, the communities overlap. Hence, overlapping is a third feature of communities. Associated with this overlapping is what students of society would describe as boundary. Any community has a boundary, which sets itself as distinct from others or other communities. If there is overlapping, this boundary is bound to be porous and yet one of the features that we see in life is the tendency for the boundary to become rigid. A boundary, any boundary at all, will separate those inside it from those who are outside it. We may refer to it as “us” versus “them” or “us” versus “others”. That is fine. But, when the boundary becomes hardened, the others become almost enemies. We become suspicious of them. We then begin to hate them. In this sense, communal harmony and communal discord are separated only by a mathematical line. As long as the boundary is porous, you can work towards communal harmony. If the boundary is made rigid, one can be sure that it is the beginning of communal discord.

Now, these are the building blocks that we can use in further discussions about the community and communal harmony. I mentioned overlapping. This may appear too technical a term, but think of it this way. If there is overlapping among the different communities that one can recognize, what it means is that there is a great deal of shared space. There is a great deal that is common and that does not specifically belong to any particular community. This is tremendously important also. What are these common spaces that exist in the midst of and in some sense arising from, communal boundaries? Take common examples. Civic life is a shared space. Commerce is a shared space. Education, particularly higher education is a shared space. Power is a shared space. So, while communal boundaries may tend to separate people, if you look for shared spaces, you can find a great deal that is common, irrespective of communities. And I shall soon tell you that in striving for communal harmony, one of the most important things is to strive to identify shared spaces and to strengthen them.

But let me place before you a few other thoughts before I pass on to that. Let me now come straight to communal harmony. Communal harmony can be viewed from two angles. If a community consists of diverse elements inside, there is need to look for harmony within communities themselves. That is important because we have started with the premise that within communities a key element is diversity. If for example, you take the opposite view, that within communities what exists is homogeneity, then of course there is no need to talk about harmony within communities. But if you begin with diversity as the key attribute of community, then you see that within communities it is important to strive for harmony. What must one do for this? First and foremost, within the community it is important to recognize the equality of its members in spite of the diversity. One of the most difficult things in most communities, particularly intimate communities, is to accept the equality of men and women although they are different. And we know that the tradition that we have is to make use of this difference, or this diversity, and to use it as the justification for inequality.

If there is to be harmony within communities, therefore one of the first things that is needed is to strive for equality between and among its individual members who will have a great deal of diversity. Second thing required within a community for harmony is to search for principles, institutions, arrangements that will reconcile the diversity. You cannot take this for granted. You cannot take it that somehow there will be reconciliation; somehow within there will be adjustments. One has to strive for this and to the extent that all members within the community are involved in this process of the search for reconciling diversity, there will be move towards harmony. Very often it is thought that if there is some one person who will have control and will impose things, the community will have harmony. It may have the appearance of harmony, but of course we know that it will not be lasting.

If recognition of equality in spite of diversity is necessary for harmony within a community, it is equally important for harmony between or among communities. I must recognise that although my neigbhour and I belong to different communities, he/she is my equal. Community boundaries are not, and should not be allowed to become, the basis for a hierarchical ordering of people. This means that the acceptance of the equality of all human beings everywhere, in spite of their great diversity, is the corner stone of communal harmony. And this why attempts to establish communal harmony must become a means to emphasising universal human rights and to defend these rights in all situations.

A second requirement for inter-communal harmony is the manner in which one would strive to transcend the community boundaries. Community boundaries are realities. There is no point in wishing them away. One has to accept that it comes from the very nature of a community. And yet if one is interested in communal harmony, it is important to strive for transcending these boundaries. Thirdly, I would say, for inte- communal harmony in the larger group, it is important to accept justice as the founding principle of community existence for the simple reason that one way through which an individual will try to achieve justice for himself / herself is to bring together others in the similar situation within a community and then fight for justice. A great deal of community tension, if you reflect on it for a moment, can be seen to be attempts to have justice established. And to add one more I would say, as I have mentioned already, for inter-communal harmony, it is tremendously important that members of all communities try to locate, to create and strengthen shared spaces.

Let me turn now to the last part of my presentation. I want to look at two attempts – two different attempts – to bring about communal harmony, one through the political process and the other through the religious process. What does politics do in terms of the framework I have placed before you? Politics strictly speaking, is or ought to be a way of identifying shared spaces in the larger community – that’s what politics is all about. Granted that the country, or the nation is divided into such large numbers of communities with their boundaries, what is it that they have in common? Politics can play a significant part in bringing about communal harmony by identifying shared spaces and strengthening shared spaces. Also politics in democratic societies try to get people to transcend their narrow communal loyalties by placing before them the notion of a larger community – the nation. So politics can also help in transcending boundaries and a major part of politics certainly is to make sure that there is justice in the system. In one sense, therefore, politics can be a powerful force for achieving communal harmony and yet, it can have its internal perversions as well, of different kinds. For instance, when elections come, the simplest thing is to cater to the community loyalties of the voters, convert communities into vote banks and say – well, the noble task of identifying shared spaces, we will turn to that after the elections; but the immediate task is to get power. The only way to get power is to convert these communities into vote banks and, therefore, start rigidifying the boundaries between communities. That is one way through which politics, which can be a powerful force in bringing about communal harmony defeat its own purpose.

A second tendency is to put a halo around the larger community called the nation saying that we must get rid of all smaller loyalties and accept loyalty to the nation as the ultimate loyalty – absolutising the nation as a community. This arises from the attempt to transcend boundaries, but the absolutising of the nation is a dangerous tendency as several historical instances, such as Hitler’s Germany, have shown. A third manner in which politics corrupts the system in this sense is to place majoritarian power as the arbiter of all issues. It springs from thinking of democracy solely as the rule by the majority and insisting that the minority must always yield to the majority. It arises from not having any principles other than numerical strength to validate issues. These are ways in which politics, which can play a positive role in communal harmony, very often degenerates into powerful forces causing communal discord and tensions.

I turn now to religion. I know I have to be careful in this audience speaking about religion but let me do the same kind of analysis of religion – societal analysis of religion – that I have done with politics. Religion also has certain positive attributes that can contribute towards communal harmony. Let me mention a few – I imagine that all religions fundamentally and basically will accept the equality of all human beings. That is a strong point that religion can emphasize in the search for communal harmony. Religions also speak about the need for transcendence, transcending all narrow boundaries, narrow loyalties, rising above all of these. This is another positive factor that religion can contribute. But religion can also become a corrupting factor in the search for communal harmony. How does this happen?

Consider first the accent on equality. While religions, in principle,or in the abstract, affirm the equality of all human beings, in practice, they set different standards. Most religions effectively give a lower status to women than to men, surprisingly in the very core of their activities, religious duties such as priesthood. Theological justifications have been put forward for claiming that human beings with certain skin complexions are superior to all others. Some religious doctrines consider people doing manual labour inferior to those who claim to work with their brains. According to certain religious considerations, people who by the accident of their birth belong to some geographical territories are more privileged than others. And most religions consider the adherents of their faith more equal than others! In practice, therefore, religions tend to betray the commitment to equality of all human beings that they claim in principle.

Secondly, while religions can contribute to the transcendence of boundaries, there is a tendency to say that that transcendence is not of this world, but of the world to come. Here on earth there are boundaries and tensions, but in the world beyond all of them would be overcome. In other words, religions sprititualise the concept of transcendence taking it away from the earthly realities, tensions and problems.

There is a third and, possibly, bigger distortion that religions bring about in matters related to community relationships. In one of his writings on the subject Wesley Ariarajah, whom many of you may know, refers to religious traditions as “an intellectual dogmatic deposit that has become part of the understanding of life and reality”. This dogmatic deposit consists of converting all earthly realities into religious categories. Totally overlooking all other dimensions of human life, religions tend to reduce human beings into one-dimentional re;igious entities such as Christians, Hindus, Muslims and so on. And ignoring the many non-religious experiential shared spaces of these human beings religions tend to separate them into clear-cut communities, which can be only hostile towards one another. Sometimes, it may be, as a temporary expedient for easy identification, but when religious authorities give a label, whatever may be the purpose behind it, it sticks – communal boundaries become hardened on the basis of these alleged religious differences and tensions, and hatred begin to emerge.

Politics that should put the accent on shared spaces can, and often does, deteriorate into a blatant agent for communal discord. Religions that should uphold the equality of all human beings and should become visible manifestations of the experiences of transcending boundaries frequently become the means to harden communal boundaries. Such are the social relaities. There is also a kind of deadly combination of religion and politics that totally vitiates communal relationships. That is a politics that insists religious homogeneity is the basis of true national loyalty. When that religion is also claimed to have risen from the soil – the sacred land – a “community” is created which is a rigid packaging of religion, nationality, politics and, possibly, numerical strength. Thereby the equality of all human beings is set aside; the possibility of transcendence is negated; the quest for shared spaces is given up. Communal hegemony is misconstrued as communal harmony – the “others” falling in line with “us”. The rigidly composed homogeneity on both “us” and “them” is false, but the chasm caused by the hardening of the boundary leads to discord and conflict.

It is because of these subtle and blatant distortions which are all too common in our midst that a proper understanding of community is a prerequisite to promote communal harmony. Let us accept diversity as the basic ingredient of community and so celebrate diversity. Let us, at the same time, strive to reconcile our diversities. Let us hold on to equality as the prime means to that reconciliation and justice as the binding thread. Let us recognise that each one of us belongs to a plurality of communities and while being loyal to our legitimate communities let us strive to transcend them without absolutising any. And, while we continue to dialogue our differences – for we are different – let us explore, expand and strengthen the shared spaces that unite us. Thus may we experience the blessedness that comes when brothers and sisters dwell together in unity.

 

*Dr. C.T. Kurien is Professor Emeritus of the Madras Institute of Development Studies of which he was Director earlier and Chairman later. He was also Professor of Economics at the Madras Christian College in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

 

 

Dear Friends of late Rev. Dr. Stanley Samartha,

The following is the text of the first Dr. Samartha Memorial Lecture delivered by Mr. Francois Gautier, author and political correspondent of Le Figaro, on 7 October 2001, at Bishop Cotton Boys School, Bangalore, India. The lecture was organized by the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD). The text is retrieved from BIRD’s archives.

Yours sincerely

P.N.BENJAMIN

Coordinator-BIRD

 

 

 

 

 

S.J. SAMARTHA: A CHRISTIAN PROPHET OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Stanley J. Samartha was born on 7^th October 1920, in Karkal, a small village in South Karnataka and spent his early years in Mangalore, where his father was a pastor and his mother a school teacher. He grew-up there in an atmosphere of religious plurality, as he recalls in his memoirs ‘Between two cultures : “although Hindus were in majority in Mangalore, Jains, Muslims and Christians had lived together with Hindus for many centuries without tensions or trouble; I was thus brought-up in a multi-religious society”. After his high school and college studies in Mangalore with Jesuit fathers, he decided to join the Christian Ministry and enrolled at the United Theological College of Bangalore and later graduated from the Theological Seminary in New York. Appointed Principal of the Mangalore Evangelical Mission Theological Seminary upon his return, S.J. Samantha quickly tried to put into practice his vision of Christian religious pluralism, as he had experienced it in his childhood: ” Inspite of differences between them, and even though the evolution of religious thought takes place approximately during the same centuries, there is no attempt on the part of the followers of Buddha, Rama or Krishna to claim superiority over the others. There have indeed been attempts to suppress Buddhism by Hindus, but by and large, exclusive attitudes are avoided. The theory of multiple avatars seems to be theologically the most accommodating attitude in a pluralistic setting that permits recognizing both the mystery of God and the freedom of people to respond to divine initiatives in different ways at different times”.

After working as Director of the Dialogue Programme in the World Council of Churches in Geneva for twelve years, Stanley returned to India, where he eventually became director of the Karnataka Theological College. He died last July, but his message remains more than ever pertinent on this planet torn by religious terrorism: “in a pluralistic word, it is indeed necessary for Christians, as members of the Church, to openly affirm and declare the Lordship and Saviourhood of Jesus Christ. Once this is affirmed, the “onlyness” of Christian parochialism should not prevent people from accepting the “manyness” of God’s love and concern for humanity”…

Stanley could have added that Christians in India are unique: not only did the first Christian community in the world establish itself in India – the Syrian Christians of Kerala in the 1^st century AD – but before the arrivals of the Jesuits with Vasco de Gama in the 16^th century, they developed an extraordinary religious pluralism, adopting some of the local customs, while retaining their faith in Christ and accepting the existence of other religious practices. It should also be said that

Christians are amongst the most educated Indians and even though they constitute only less than 3% of the population, they wield an enormous influence in India through education mainly, as many of India’s top colleges are Christians and also because of the quality care in Christian hospitals and nursing homes. Finally, Indian Christians are often gentle, soft-spoken, friendly and God-fearing.

More than anything, Christianity in India is alive. Few Indian Christians realize that Christianity in the West is on the ebb: church attendance is often dangerously low in European countries; there are very few boys and girls nowadays who wish to become priests and nuns and thus, many parishes, in the French countryside, for instance, have no ministers, whereas till the sixties, the smallest of hamlets had its church priest. Compare this with India, which has such a small percentage of Christians (whereas the whole of France is Christian): India has 14.000 priests, 60.000 nuns, 6 millions of children being taught in catholic schools, 126 seminaries and 44 seminarists for 100.000 habitants (against 3 for 100.000 in France). Do Christians in India realize then that they may be holding high the flame of Christ in the world, because of the innate spirituality with which most Indians are gifted, be they Hindus, Christian, Muslim or Jains ?

It is true that there seems to have crept a certain rigidity in the thinking of Indian Christians in the last few years. It may be due to the feeling of fear they have experienced after many Christians have been attacked since 1998 by Hindu groups. But these are isolated incidents and are bound to abate if Christians and Hindus sit down and iron out their differences. After all, Christians should not forget that they were able to live and prosper for centuries in a multi-religious India, as Stanley J. Samantha had remarked: “the extreme tolerance of India, where Hindu Gurus had Muslim disciples and Sufi saints had Hindu disciples, where Jews and Zoroastrian refugees too came and lived among the Hindus without being disturbed, is unparalleled”.

Today, for instance, Indian Christians seem to have a certain reluctance to accept anything that has a Hindu flavor. Recently, in Shillong, a young Christian, seeing an Art of Living brochure for a course of pranayama, said “yoga” and threw it way as if it was burning his fingers. But does he realize that millions of Christians in the West are practicing yoga, whether it is Hatha-yoga or

pranayama ? That countless Christians all over the world do meditation, as there are a numbers of techniques such as Vipassana, which are totally secular and non-religious ? Samartha had already commented on this in his remarkable book “One Christ – many religions” (Orbis Books, New York):”meditation is no more the preserve of sadhus and gurus, but of serious critical thinkers as well seeking its meaning and relevance in a technological age. Perhaps my Indian Christian colleagues who discuss ‘spirituality’ so often, might join in and, maybe, make a contribution to the discussion in a more pluralistic setting and in the process learn a few lessons themselves”.

Reports also come from places like Ranchi or Tripura, where Christian school authorities discourage girls from putting on bindis, or even wearing saris.This is wrong: there is no reason that Christianity in India, which is much more fervent than in many other countries, should become more fundamentalist and hard line than in Europe. Christians in India have always benefited from India’s immense religious tolerance, not only because it allowed them right from the first century to practice their religion in total peace and freedom, but also because it gave Indian Christians this unique religious pluralism, this tolerance of other people’s religion and beliefs, which make them different. It would be a sad day when Indian, Christians lose their religious pluralism. There has to be a stop of attacks on Christians by Hindu groups, but the Church of India has also to express again openly its acceptance of other Avatars.

The terrorist attacks in New York have shown the world the danger of a religion which believes in only one God and allows its members to wage a holy war to punish those who worship another God. Professor Samartha had also foreseen that: “:exclusive claims isolate the community of faith from neighbours of other faiths, creating tensions and disturbing relationships within the larger community. But when the distinctiveness of a particular faith in a manner that avoids open or hidden exclusiveness, then meaningful relationships between different communities become possible. It is unfortunate that Christian theologians, including Indians have failed to recognize the significance of such relationships for the shaping of an emerging theology of religions”.

FRANCOIS GAUTIER

The first Samartha lecture on Christianity and religious pluralism will take place on the 7^th October in Bangalore, at the Bishop’s Cotton Boys School at 6 PM.

 

 

Remebering 9th of August 1942

Where’s pride of being an Indian?

By P N Benjamin

 

Todays young Indians have no patience or interest to remember moments of national glory or national sorrow

.  

The Ninth of August is an occasion for introspection and re-dedication. On this day, 66 years ago, (August 9, 1942), the Indian people launched their final struggle for Independence. ‘Quit India’ was not merely their call to the British to leave the country to its fate and get out; it also was a pledge to themselves to build a brave new India in line with the dreams of the great freedom fighters.

“Here is a mantra I give you. You may imprint it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it. Do or Die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery.” (Mahatma Gandhi at the AICC session at Bombay on August 8, 1942.)

The August Movement of 1942, spontaneous and nation wide, marked the last phase of our freedom struggle. It was the culmination of the long years of struggle that started from the close of the 19th century. The petitioners started it all without knowing how fast the national movement would grow into a mighty torrent. The galling yoke of foreign rule was not allowed to thwart the personality of a true Indian. Tilak brought in militancy and awakened the collective conscience of the masses. Finally, Mahatma Gandhi introduced new techniques of the struggle against imperialism. His message reached out to the remotest corners of India at a time when communication facilities were close to zero.

And the people who responded to the Mahatma’s dramatic call across the country were the youth. Thousands of known and unknown heroes perished or survived as physical wrecks in the Andaman Islands and in jails all over the country.

But, it is not a season for nostalgia. This August 9 will roll by quietly as others before it. Ritualistic shows to mark the 66th anniversary of the Quit India Movement may be organised by the Congress party and others, but they will not evoke the romantic memories of the battle for freedom because these programmes will leave everybody cold — especially the young.

Today’s young Indians have no patience or interest to remember moments of national glory or national sorrow. The mood is to get on with life, get ahead in the struggle for survival and success. Leave it to the older generation to wax eloquent on the heroic and memorable past. But, our youth are not callous or for that matter indifferent to the nation’s political heritage. But the politics around them is so vile and banal that it is difficult for them to imagine that there was a time when the country’s air was charged with commitment, heroism and sacrifice.

Why blame the youth alone? The intelligentsia is particularly cynical. Mention of freedom fighters only makes educated Indians laugh. They lack a sense of national pride. Regardless, the Quit India Movement will remain a heroic moment in the nation’s history. That was the time that the young and the old acted passionately for the sake of freedom. They gave up comfort and careers and even lives. But, beyond a certain point it is futile to go on talking of the sacrifices of the unknown heroes of our independence struggle. These memories are too precious to be squandered on unheeding ears.

Millions of Indians like this writer with a sense of irrepressible pride of being Indian “live today in the hope that a saviour is coming, that he will be born in our midst in this poverty-shamed hovel which is India. I shall look forward to a turning in history after the cataclysm is over and the sky is again unburdened and passionless.” (Rabindranath Tagore in Crisis in Civilisation).

DECCAN HERALD, BANGALORE 9th Aug. 2008)(

7th Rev. DR. STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURE

BANGALORE INITIATIVE FOR RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (BIRD)

“Ashirwad”, 7, 4^th A Cross,

HRBR Second Block,

Kalyan Nagar,

Bangalore 560 043, INDIA.

Tel. 080 25455620, e-mail: benjaminpn@hotmail.com

 

 

Dear Friends,

DR. STANLEY SAMARTHA MEMORIAL LECTURE-2008

 

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

is a small organization, entirely

supported by small contributions from people of diverse faiths who strongly believe in the dire need to preserve inter-faith amity in the true and abiding traditions of India which
celebrates religious diversity and inclusivism.

The BIRD was formed in 2001 by a group of Hindus, Muslims and Christians in Bangalore to promote inter-faith amity in line with our native wisdom of promoting inclusivism for preserving India’s religious diversity. Towards that end, BIRD conducts seminars and holds an annual lecture series, the latter in memory of Dr Stanley Samartha, a priest and theologian of the Church of South India who took pride in always affirming that he was “a Hindu by culture, Christian by faith, Indian by citizenship and ecumenical by choice”. Dr Samartha rose from being a teacher of theology at Christian Seminaries in Karnataka and West Bengal, to hold the distinguished position as the first Director of the Inter-Faith Dialogue Programme of the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

Following Samartha’s death in 2001, a group of people inspired by his pluralistic vision instituted the annual memorial lecture as the signature event of inter-faith activities undertaken by BIRD in this cosmopolitan city of Bangalore, ever since.

Last year’s Samartha Lecture was delivered by Justice K T Thomas, a former judge of Supreme Court of India, on the “Right to Convert and the Indian Constitution“. Previous lectures were on “The Need for Inter-religious Dialogue”, “Communal Harmony – A Societal Perspective”, “Religion in 21st Century – A perspective of Hope”, “Courage for Dialogue” and “Towards an Ethical Code of Conduct for Conversion“. They were delivered by Mr. Francois Gautier (2001), Dr. C.T.Kurien (2003), M.V.Nadkarni (2004), Metropolitan Rt. Rev. Dr. Philipose Mar Chrysostom (2005) and Dr. Hans Ucko (2006), respectively.Mr. M.J.Akbar,

well known editor and author, will deliver the 7^th Stanley Samartha Memorial Lecture on Monday, 6 October 2008 at 5 P.M. at the United Theological College, Bangalore. He will speak on“The Power of Religion vs. the Religion of Power”.

More than four hundred invitees will be present to hear the lecture. The Lecture will be published in a booklet form for the benefit of the wider community of thinkers.

 

Proposed seminar/panel discussion

 

It is also proposed that this year’s Lecture be preceded by a three-hour seminar/ panel discussion on the role of Christians in preserving the pluralistic culture and religious tolerance of India. Nearly 100 invitees, including Justice K.T.Thomas, Prof. Joseph Pu;ikunnel, Dr. C.T.Kurien, Prof. Mammen Varkey, Dr. Israel Selvanayagam, Rev. Packiam Samuel, Rev. Vincent Rajkumar, Rev. Dr. Thomas Ninan, Fr. Dr. Mathew Chandran Kunnel, Fr. Josekutty, Dr. Ken Gnanakan, Bishop Elia Peter, Brig. Chacko Abraham, Rev. Dr. Mani Chacko and others will participate in this session.

 

BIRD seeks your support for these two programs. Your contributions may be sent by cheques drawn in favour of Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD) and mailed to:

 

P.N.BENJAMIN

Coordinator- BIRD

‘Ashirwad’

7, 4^th A Cross,

HRBR Layout, 2^nd Block

Kalyan Nagar

Bangalore 560 043

INDIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue (BIRD)

 

OFFICE BEARERS OF BIRD

 

Names of Trustees

 

1) P.N.BENJAMIN

Founder Trustee

Chairman & Programme Coordinator.

 

2) EMERSON SAMUEL,

Founder Trustee & Secretary

 

3) GEORGEY C. GEORGE,

Trustee & Treasurer

 

 

PATRONS

 

DR. C.T. KURIEN

DR. M.V.NADKARNI

PROF. N.S.RAMASWAMY

BRIG.(Retd) CHACKO ABRAHAM

SUHAS JEEDE

RAM SUNDER

NOEL NORONHA

Mrs. MOLLY VARGHESE

REV. DR. THOMAS NINAN

AIR CMDE (Retd.) SAJJAD RAHIM

SIDDARTHA, Fireflies Ashram

Dr. C. ALEX ALEXANDER

BISHOP GEORGE NINAN

DR. KEN GNANAKAN
FRIEND VIJAI

Fr. Dr. MATHEW CHANDRANKUNNEL

 

 

 

 

is an organization, founded in 2001 by a group of concerned individuals – Christians, Hindus and Muslims – and dedicated to promote inter-faith peace and dialogue when religious fundamentalism and fanaticism threaten to tear our country apart. BIRD is a registered Trust.