The existence of the R-20, an inter-religious forum created as part of the G-20 some years ago reflects the evolution of that body, which gathers twenty of the world’s most significant economies, as a putative alternative United Nations Security Council, in the economic and social domains, given the basically unfair structure of the UNSC created by the winners of the Second World War and factually held hostage by the veto-wielding permanent members. Accordingly, the G-20 has taken on board the longstanding notion of inter-religious dialogue and cooperation in order to harness the world’s principal faith-based organisations in the service of its global agenda and resolutions.

The difficulty of achieving concrete and constructive outcomes through inter-religious dialogue is well known. By definition, organised creeds depend on the support of their followers and are usually diffident about the consequences of supporting extensive interactions with other religions which are seen as potential competitors when not traditional adversaries and detractors. Whether or not they encourage and sponsor conversions, religious hierarchies wish to protect their flocks from extraneous influences and this is also true amongst the various sections of what we may broadly call faith families such as Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, within which many deep and often bitter doctrinal and historical divisions endure. Many religions also have no universally accepted leadership, unlike Catholicism where the last word in principle belongs to the Pope (although the Roman community is now deeply divided by Conservatives and ‘Progressives’). Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and even Judaism have multiple branches and currents so that no one can be seen as the only authoritative spokesperson for them. In certain countries, religious bodies are under the control of the State or of a political party while other nations such as France describe themselves as strictly secular, so that religions have no official role in any public issue. On that background, it is not easy to achieve a comprehensive consensus in any inter-religious assembly, outside of general statements of principle which are unlikely to carry much meaning or weight.

The last few years have brought about a general deterioration in inter-religious interactions, despite some punctual and local commendable achievements. There is a process of radicalisation and growing intolerance in certain faith traditions and they are unfortunately the ones which tend to show greater dynamism and expand outside their traditional home-grounds. On the other hand, religions which have become less dogmatic and rigid by embracing modern non-denominational humanitarian ideas at the expense of their own core beliefs and practices have lost many faithful, in some instances to the point of near extinction. Apart from leaving behind an increasing number of confirmed atheists often professing to be only interested in material issues and benefits, the decline of old religions tends to feed in reaction the rise of new sects and more or less spiritual ideologies, usually under the authority of some charismatic figures who don’t always show tolerance for any other creed. We allude here to certain Evangelical new churches in Latin America and elsewhere, to the disappearance of traditional African creeds and their replacements by variants of Christianity and Islam, to Neo-Paganism in Europe and the US, often based on a rather questionable reconstruction of long vanished beliefs (Scandinavian, Celtic or ‘Aryan’ cults) and even to some more or less openly ‘demonic’ chapels which attract people in search of the bizarre, the exotic and the erotic. The religious scene can thus appear to be increasingly heterogenous and confusing and makes it difficult to select, among the many influential faith leaders, those who can agree on a common agenda and still make it acceptable to members of their wider tradition.

One of the ills that continues to affect attempts to make religions come together or at least share certain common goals is the mutual rejection of many of their respective core beliefs. We witness everyday the effects of such disputes between Christians and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, Buddhists and Muslims, Muslims and Hindus, not to omit the hostile attitude that many Christian churches and movements display towards Hinduism which they routinely accuse of fascism, fanaticism and backwardness, in order to justify the continuation of proselytising missionary inroads into India and adjoining countries.

Following these few reflections, I will now reproduce some relevant paragraphs of the official description provided by the G-20 online for the activities and aims of the R-20.

The G20 Interfaith Forum (IF20) offers an annual platform where a network of religiously linked institutions and initiatives engage on global agendas (primarily and including the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs)…The G20 process has evolved since it was established in 2008, with various platforms (ministerial meetings, engagement groups) that allow different sectors and communities to present ideas and recommendations to global leaders.

The G20 Interfaith Forum builds on the vital roles that religious institutions and beliefs play in world affairs, reflecting their rich diversity of institutions, ideas, and values. These include interfaith and intercultural organisations, religious leaders, scholars, development and humanitarian entities, and business and civil society actors.

Beginning in Australia in 2014, the G20 Interfaith Forum has convened annually in the G20 host country. The Forums have considered wide-ranging agendas, including economic models and systems, the environment, women, families, children, work, humanitarian aid, health, education, freedom of religion or belief, global security, governance, human rights, and the rule of law. The agenda for each Forum is framed taking into account the annual G20 priorities (outlined each year by the host government), together with topics that the various networks of religious actors recommend that the G20 leaders’ address. 

Mission

The G20 Interfaith Forum (IF20) advances global solutions by collaborating with religious thought leaders and political representatives. Global recognition is increasing for the vital roles faith and religion play in promoting peaceful and harmonious relationships within and between nations…The G20 Interfaith Forum is an annual event where such contributions can be shared, highlighted, and advanced.

The Forum features both international opinion leaders—including scholars, lawyers, and politicians—and global interfaith activists for three days of discussion and interfaith dialogue. In showcasing the broad, global impact of various faith traditions and philosophies from around the world, the Forum fills important gaps in the discussions of the G20 Summits. Social cohesion is strengthened between political representatives and religious thought leaders, and new opportunities are provided for relationship building among all participants.

 Objectives of the G20 Interfaith Forum

1. Exploring the links between economic development and religion and religious freedom through informed, scholarly discussion.
2. Facilitating constructive dialogue between societal leaders in faith, government, business, media, education and other social institutions, on how interfaith resources can enhance social, economic and cultural policies and programs for the well-being of all.
3. Fostering communication channels between the different faiths and sharing ideas, experiences, and “best practices” in building peace and harmony.
4. Identifying and affirming common values, virtues, and principles among diverse faith and philosophic traditions

A Network of Networks

The G20 Interfaith Forum has consistently sought to build and draw on an inclusive network of networks of public, religious, humanitarian, and academic institutions engaged in a variety of ways in promoting interactions of religious voices, religious studies, and religious communities with the public sector in formulating and implementing global policy initiatives. 

Working Groups

The G20 Interfaith Forum organises its work through a series of Working Groups which focus on areas of recurring relevance to G20 policy priorities. In particular, these standing Working Groups organise research, analysis, and Forum activities that relate to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and other matters of recurring concern. In any given year, additional task force groups may be set up to address issues of particular concern in light of the G20 host country’s priorities or in response to other critical emerging issues. The following standing Working Groups have been established (with sub-focus areas noted in several cases):

• Reducing Poverty and Inequality (includes job creation and zero hunger)
• Religion, Health, and Wellbeing (includes COVID-19 responses)
• Education (includes religious literacy)
• Gender Equality (includes equal pay issues and trafficking/slavery)
• Religion and the Environment
• Religion, Technology, Innovation, Infrastructure, and Media
• Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (includes sacred sites, corruption, rule of law, freedom of religion or belief, peace building and diplomacy)
• Refugees, Displacement, and Migration
• Disaster Preparedness and Relief, Humanitarian Aid
• Children and Youth

In addition, an Anti-Racism Initiative has been established to examine how responding to the challenges of overt and systemic racism can be addressed across the entire spectrum of issues being addressed by the G20 Interfaith Forum.  More information on the various Working Groups is available here.

Outputs of the G20 Interfaith Forum

Each year, the G20 Interfaith Forum develops policy briefs that are designed to provide substantive input benefiting from insights of a range of religious communities designed to be of assistance to those in official policy-making roles.   In addition, each year’s Forum develops prioritised concrete recommendations for those engaged in the G20 process—recommendations that are both designed to be delivered to G20 Summit leaders, but have broader relevance to policy-making at the level of public bodies operating at the international, regional, and national levels and to those concerned with global policy issues in religious, inter-religious, and academic settings. 

We will have to wait for the outcome of the next R-20 meeting to be held in November to see if it is anymore concrete and impactful than the previous ones which did not attract much public notice. Most formally religious people tend not to show great interest in other faiths while those who are agnostic, atheistic or define themselves as ‘spiritually curious but not religious’ and pay little attention to the policies of mainstream religious organisations.

Author Brief Bio: Mr. Côme Carpentier de Gourdon is currently a Distinguished Fellow with India Foundation and is also the Convener of the Editorial Board of the WORLD AFFAIRS JOURNAL. He is an associate of the International Institute for Social and Economic Studies (IISES), Vienna, Austria. Côme Carpentier is the author of various books and several articles, essays and papers

References:

https://www.g20interfaith.org/historical-support/.

The concept of cultural nationalism has for quite some time been on the centre stage of global debate and academic discussion. Culture, in all its facets and dimensions, is a crucial constituent and instrument of human development. It is a state of being, a mode of thinking, a way of living, and a set of commonly shared values, belief patterns, practices and efforts. It is a complex whole comprising stock of knowledge, beliefs, customs, conduct, morals, law, and artistic, scientific and technological pursuits, humanities and social sciences. It is an individual as well as social affair. It is a totality of heritage borne by a society. It is crystallisation of material, mental, intellectual and spiritual wealth generated and preserved by the society. It contributes to discovery of meaning of life and enhances quality of life. Thus, it enriches life, enlarges fullness of life, brings delight of mind, and sharpens intellect and ushers in plenitude of peace and bliss.

Indian culture has a hoary past and a pretty ancient history with inspiring ideas and ideals. India has the fortune of possessing one of the finest cultures in the world in the form of Vedic wisdom. It is characterised by integral, holistic and spiritual view of Reality and a way of life based on that. It advocates fundamental unity of all existences, both animate and inanimate. Every existence is at bottom spiritual, pulsating with life and consciousness Everything in this cosmos has common source and sustenance. In fact, whatever existed, whatever exists and whatever shall come into existence, all are manifestations of the same Divine Being, declares the Puruṣa Sūkta of the Ṛgveda. The īśāvāsyopaniṣad of the Yajurveda states that in this mutating world every element is divine and is permeated by the Divine. It is one, unitary, self-existing principle which manifests Itself diversely, says the Nāsadīya Sūkta of the Ṛgveda. It is also experienced and expressed diversely.

It is a unique feature of Indian culture which exhorted not to have the mentality of “I versus thou”. Instead, it advocated the attitude of “I and we”. This is spiritual globalisation which is cherished and inculcated by Indian seers and sages all the times. The ‘other’ is not to be considered as external or alien or separate. The ideal to be emulated is universalisation of ‘self’, feeling oneness with the entire cosmos. In this schema of global family, there are both individual entities (piṇḍa) and their organic totality (brahmāṇḍa), in a harmonious relationship. A distinction has to be drawn between the two but they are not separable. This attitude is due to its openness and catholicity to accommodate and absorb the diversity. It has displayed a remarkable symbiosis of two sensibilities of belongingness to the whole and of being a part of the whole, of relatedness and of self-identity. It advocates a communitarian or participatory mode of living implying distinctness of its members along with solidarity with the whole enjoying an individual existence and yet partaking and sharing experiences with the whole. It is an inclusive social pluralism.

Indian culture has been holistic and integrated, catholic and symbiotic. This has provided it an inherent vitality. There are some noble ideas and ideals contained in it which are not only endearing but also liberating. That is why it has permeating influence within and outside India. This is what the Urdu poet Mohammad Iqbal has very convincing pointed out some time back in his well-known poem, “Sāre jahān se achhā Hindusatān hamārā” in which he proudly declares that,
Kucha baat hai ki hasti, mitati nahin humaari
Sadiyon rahaa hai dushman daur-e-jahaan hamaara
-Taranaa-e-Hind, 1904
(There is something momentous in Indian culture because of which it could not be wiped out in spite of the onslaughts of inimical forces for centuries together.)

Iqbal refers to the survival instinct of Indian culture which contains inherent vitality, the perennial force, the elan vitae. It has a vitalising and animating force of its own and yet it does not deny nourishment and nurture from extraneous sources as well by incorporating and absorbing them as its own. Both the variety and continuous identity are the assets of Indian culture. It is living and has vitality to live. Because of its organismic nature and character, it displays a unity-in-multiplicity and becomes conducive to self-identity and self-preservation as well as group solidarity and group-cohesion.

We have to remember that India is a nation which has essential identity with multiple diversity all intertwined. As Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya has put it in his Integral Humanism, “It is essential that we think about our national identity. Without this identity there is no meaning of independence, nor can independence become the instrument of progress and happiness. As long as we are unaware of our national identity, we cannot recognise and develop all our capacities.”

Indian identity is embedded in the multi-faceted Indian culture, which has been eternal bedrock of India’s glorious past, adventurous present and bright future. In order to discern Indian identity, one has to look precisely to the diverse cultural and sub-cultural traditions, which have evolved over times, in which the Indian people have been born or nurtured and by which their general human sensibilities have been refined and shaped. This is so whether they are Indian citizens or Indian Diaspora or adopted Indians.

The Vedas constitute the pristine foundation of Indian culture. They exhort for establishment of a virtuous society (vratī samāja). They inculcate a healthy and robust attitude towards life. They have provided ideas and ideals, moral and spiritual values, beliefs and practices, and patterns of behaviour—individual and social—on the basis of deep insight into the nature of Reality, which have universal appeal and inherent vitality to survive in spite of all odds and vagaries of history and which still continues to provide life sap to its adherents and votaries. It would be certainly beneficial to the whole humanity if those sublime ideas are reiterated in their pristine purity so that the discerning human mind can evaluate and emulate them.

Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya floated a seminal concept of Chiti which comprehends individual consciousness, national consciousness and cosmic consciousness. Chiti provides self-identity and autonomy to all these. It is the animating principle. Upadhyaya particularly emphasised Chiti of a nation, calling it as the soul of a nation. It is on its foundation that a nation rises and develops and becomes strong and virile. Strength and energy activating a nation is ‘Virāt’. It is like vital breaths (prāṇa). It infuses strength in every element of the nation. But it has to be channelized by Chiti. It is Chiti which awakens a nation’s Virāt. Every nation should have this vital energy for its survival and enhancement. Every nation should try to preserve, protect and augment it. This is what Swami Vivekanand and Sri Aurobindo also insisted on in their discourses.

Cultural Nationalism

Emphasising national identity and the necessity of national awakening Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya was against western type of narrow nationalism. His idea of nationalism was cultural, based on the principle of dharma which is the sustaining principle of the entire cosmos. Nation is an organic whole which is to function in harmony and cooperation with the entire cosmos. He rejected the idea of regional consciousness and advocated common national consciousness widening into cosmic consciousness. Pointing out the significance of national consciousness he maintained that there should ofcourse be political independence, but it becomes meaningful only in the context of national identity and cultural independence. Under alien subjugation, a nation, like individuals becomes a prey to numerous ills when its natural instincts get disregarded or mutilated and perverted. He argued that the diseased organs are to be amputated and healthy ones are to be nourished. He averred that it was essential that we think about our own national identity. Without this identity there is no meaning of independence, nor can independence become the instrument of progress and happiness. As long as we are unaware of our national identity, we cannot recognise and develop all our potentialities.

State and Nation not the same

Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya highlighted the clear distinction between state and nation and the respective roles of the two. Nation is an organic entity which comes into existence of its own. It is not created, but a nation creates institutions. Nation consists of several institutions and state is one of them. It is important but not supreme. It is to be based on Dharma. Dharma is sovereign. Dharma is depository of nation’s soul and should permeate all its institutions. Fundamental principles of dharma are eternal and universal. But they are not rigid and need to be adapted to changing times and place. He retained the merits of the present day prevalent democratic patterns shorn of their demerits. According to him democracy is preferable form of governance but it should be based on dharma. It should be dharmarājya or Rāmarājya, a dharmocracy and not theocracy.

Though the modern concept of nationalism has emerged in the given historical context of western social development, the underpinning spirit behind the Indian cultural nationalism is the universalistic and unifying dharma-centric world view and life vision sustained by the Sanatana dharma.

The concepts of Varnashrama dharma and Purushartha which were the guiding principles of the social, cultural, economic and political organisation of life in Vedic period were based on this dharma-centric vision of life. The historical experience derived from centuries of subjugated social, cultural, economic and political life of Indian people bring forth the fact that culture, as a key factor in promoting unity and solidarity among different social groups, has become only a wishful thinking. It is a social reality that majority of Indian people have historically been outside the dominant stream of Indian culture. The creative character of the Vedic culture was lost post Vedic period onwards, especially since the eclipse of Ᾱtmajñāna mārga fostered and sustained by the ancient Guru and Rishi Paramparās and the advent of the present form of Hinduism and the caste system.

The universalistic and unifying life vision of Sanatana Dharma was misinterpreted and wrongly explained in conformity with the rising requirements of the caste system based social, cultural, economic and political organisation of Indian society. The caste system with its denial of knowledge and education for the majority of Indian population over a long period of time had contributed to the cultural, social, emotional and mental division of Indian masses leading to social disintegration and cultural decay of the society. If the culture is to be the agent of social unity and solidarity the religious practices, traditions and customs that are contrary to the universalistic and sublime vision of the Indian culture and have segregated and divided people, they are to be identified and demystified grounding on the basic premises of the wisdom tradition of India.

Therefore, the objective of the present write up is to revisit and evaluate culture as means to foster unity and national integration and examine the factors that have historically disrupted and destroyed the creative transmission and progress of the Indian culture. It is also purported to explore and suggest the means by which the arrested social evolution can be resumed and cultural creativity and awakening achieved so as to bring about unity and solidarity of the people beyond caste and religion. Similarly, it is important to examine the religious and cultural onslaught of foreign powers and modern western civilisation on the Indian spirituality, religion, society, culture, economy and polity and suggest appropriate measures to counter the same and establish the rationality and spiritual science behind Indian ethos, religious faiths and practices.

Several scholars and studies have questioned the relevance of cultural nationalism in the emerging Indian social scenario characterised by the rising conflicts and violence among various castes and social groups. With vested interested they have tried to project a distorted picture of age-old Indian culture and civilisation. Of course, they have failed in their nefarious design as the unbiased mind has not acceded to their sinister move but some are still active and more vehement out of frustration. They need to be enlightened as to what “India that is Bharata” has been and will continue to be so in spite of all malicious attempts by misguided or ill-minded persons. India has a pretty ancient history with sublime ideas and all these cannot be wiped out However, while examining India’s robust cultural past and civilisational achievements, there appears to have future prospect to promote and develop cultural nationalism provided the spiritual masters, religious leaders and followers along with political leadership strive to promote cultural creativity and social change by de-fossilising the traditions and rectifying deviations and distortions in the religious faiths and practices. Indianness is based on the principles of cooperation and reciprocity regulated by the spirit of duties and obligations rather than demands and rights. Unfortunately, this base is dwindling very fast in modern times and there is an urgent need to revive, revitalise and consolidate it.

Author Brief Bio: Prof. S. R. Bhatt is Chairman, Indian Philosophy Congress; Chairman, Asian-African Philosophy Congress; National Fellow, Indian Council of Social Science Research, Government of India Former Chairman, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, and Former Professor & Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi.

References:
1 http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Apr%20012/s.r..htm
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sare_Jahan_se_Accha

Introduction

Harmony – In the context of music, it means “a pleasant musical sound made by different notes being played or sung simultaneously.” In a social context, it usually refers to “a situation in which people are peaceful and agree with each other, or when things seem right or suitable together.” However, an artist regards harmony as a combination of separate but interconnected parts in a way that employs their similarities to bring unity to a painting or any other object of art.

All the above definitions need to be recalled when discussing inter-religious harmony to see the underlying commonalities that bind various religions, primarily the spiritual seeker. In Indian religious traditions, harmony involves experiencing (anubhava) the Divinity that exists in every human being.

Bharat and Religious Traditions

Bharat has been a land of spiritual harmony since ancient times. Religious freedom, acceptance, and harmony are the very substratum of Bharatiya ethos. “Let noble thoughts come to me from all directions,” expresses the Vedas, and this indeed is an inherent nature of Bharatiyas. Sanatana Dharma teaches us to be reverential to life and nature around us.

Bharat has seen its share of a diversity of religions. Sanatana Dharma has allowed various schools/religions to spring from its essence and has accepted and accommodated many faiths. In the well-treaded path, significant turns were taken by many learned masters. New philosophies and practices were propounded by the leaders of these new religions. What reasons compelled them to develop and propagate a new belief system? In India, the reason was neither vanity nor self-seeking behaviour on the part of those who founded these religions, nor was it for practical conveniences. It stemmed from insightful investigations. For example, Nanak Dev, the first guru of the Sikh denomination, equipped his followers with an amalgam of social welfare and spiritual upliftment. In his time, this proved to be an effective method of bringing together many people who adhered to the path of devotion.

The religious and spiritual traditions of Bharat run more profound than mere faith. As noted by many commentators, Bharat’s religious, cultural, and spiritual practices are knowledge-based. Any interfaith dialogue needs to recognise this as it helps to outline, understand and communicate commonalities and differences. People who follow faith-based religions usually define the goal of human life as salvation through faith.

The oldest text of the world, the Rig Veda, proclaims, “The Truth is One, the wise express it in a variety of ways.” Sanatana Dharma recognises this maxim and constantly reiterates it through its literature to its society and people. The people of a country can remain united through the worst of times if there is a robust spiritual and cultural foundation.

Spiritual Oneness: The Vision that can lead to Harmony

Spiritual Oneness of the whole universe is India’s view on life, and Rishis of yore constantly strove to help people understand this idea. The Oneness expands from the individual to family, to society, to the nation, to existence, and to Ishvara. In light of this vision, all that is under our purview and that which lies beyond is Ishvara. This framework is ecologically sound and scientific in nature. We have borne the brunt of its after-effects whenever we have exploited nature.

Agriculture was adversely affected due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides that led to the death of earthworms, and it required a significant movement to impress upon farmers the need for vermicomposting. Research has suggested that wiping out the bee population will lead to humans’ extinction in about four years. Animals, birds, trees, plants, and all other beings are one with us, and nature is but an extension of humans. This is the basis of Sanatana Dharma. Most Indian religious traditions subscribe to this thought.

Those religions—or even some ideologies—that consider humans separate from nature and live with the assumption that nature is merely for the enjoyment of humans must mend their ways. Else, nature will continue to be exploited.

We face many life challenges, so we each need a solid support structure. Family, clans, community, religion, and society serve as this unwavering footing to successfully build our lives. But they are effective only if we can feel the connection with each one of these collectives – that feeling of Oneness. We are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. To emphasise this, Swami Vivekananda aptly declared, “One atom in this universe cannot move without dragging the whole world along with it.”

It is essential to record that Vedanta believes there are many paths to the one Truth. Each person on this planet has a unique mind and a distinct way thereof to reach the destination—the Truth. Depending on our individual nature, we need to approach this game of life. The Shiva Mahimna stotra voices: “As different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, O Lord, the different paths which people take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”

Culture – the Injection to Infuse Doses of Oneness  

The grand vision of Oneness which emphasises that nothing and no one is separate from us, needs to be imparted not through lectures or posts but rather through shared practices. India has been a land where many such shared practices constantly highlight the unity underlying all diversity. Namaste (namaskar) is how we greet people in this land of Bharat. This seemingly simple greeting has a deeper meaning. We internally recognise the Divinity in another and offer our prostrations to the divine within whom we meet. Worshipping animals, rivers, trees, inanimate objects, and so on are all age-old cultural practices of the land. Pooja/Upasana, festivals, and rituals are all forms of experiencing this vision of life. The Sanskrit word for festival is “utsava,” meaning “that which elevates.” Every festival is a means of elevating us.

If Truth is One, why is there turmoil in the name of religion? This perhaps is because those religions that come together in brotherhood allow into their exclusive groups only those that belong to their particular sect. Consequently, fissures and turmoil within the society is created. Religious conversion too is a significant problem to religious harmony. Swami Vivekananda, in the final session of the Parliament of the World’s Religions said on 27 September 1893: “The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth”. Following such advice would constitute an important step forward to enhancing religious harmony.

An exclusionary religion is a significant threat to religious harmony. In “inter-faith” conferences, there are globally accepted ethical practices on which religions claim to share common ground. The religions profess that they teach their followers to be compassionate to other beings, not to kill, steal, lie, etc. Such universal ethical principles are appreciated by all, including atheists.

When the theological laws and principles of various religions are explored, some of these “common” ethical principles are outweighed and overrun. If the religion teaches a set of laws that justify violating these fundamental moral principles, then harmony is disturbed. The adherents of that religion kill or convert people of other faiths claiming a religious justification for the same. Now it culminates in a fight between believers and non-believers. And if religious law and religious injunction stand taller than all other laws of acceptable behaviour, then an inter-faith dialogue becomes a non-starter.

Exploring some pathways to harmony

The first step towards arriving at harmony is perhaps acceptance of the belief of others. Meaningful dialogue between different faiths is critical in our journey towards harmony. Interfaith gatherings have transpired for a long time. To ensure that significant progress is achieved in such congregations, it becomes vital to arrive at an agreement on specific concepts, the most necessary of which is to accept that all paths are valid. We have seen earlier how Indian religious traditions revert to the idea of recognising all courses of the land as being valid. Not stopping at merely proclaiming the One Truth, it is backed by various devoutly adhered-to customs that put this concept into practice. Every religious faith should delve into the source of their knowledge and bring out the wisdom of their religion that points to a logical starting point—this elemental acceptance that all paths are valid. A firm commitment by leaders towards this quintessential goal sets a positive foundation for a harmonious society and nation. Acceptance may serve to be more impactful than mere tolerance.

Views from Inter-Faith Conferences

When asked to briefly talk about Judaism and Torah, Rabbi Hillel said, “What is hurtful or hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow men.” One of the world’s oldest organised religions, the fundamental principle of Judaism has its core belief in the Unity and Oneness of the universal creator.

Take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, say the Buddhists. In our current context of harmony, it is to rely on a state free from suffering, imbuing positive qualities and being beneficial to others. It is to rely on wisdom as the antidote to suffering. It is to associate with people of knowledge and understanding who are capable of guiding others in their spiritual journey.

Employing all available and impactful mediums of communication, be it social media, movies, books et al., to propagate this message of religious acceptance needs to be sketched as an essential activity for all religions. Today, more than ever, there is an irrefutable need for sensitivity towards our contemporary world. While interpreting the scriptures, there is a need to provide modern analogies. This requires a thorough internalisation of the faith’s core ideas. Many words in today’s context – like heathen, kafir, and mlechas – have acquired many hues for many reasons, including politics and irresponsible media. Religious influencers must ensure that using divisive language is strongly discouraged, which will, in turn, slowly begin to shift the minds of their followers.

Education – the best solution

Only when people in a society are educated about divergent faiths and beliefs can there be a shared understanding amongst them to plan a harmonious way of life. Does that mean the nation should shed its secular credentials and teach religion and moral values in school? While debates over this idea have been raging for many years, children and adults must understand the divergent faiths and beliefs that make Bharat.

A pressing concern for policymakers is what if the nation-state gets accused of promoting one religion over another. A variation to that concern is the fear of thrusting the nation’s majority religion that may lead to the oppression of minorities. Also, the interpretation of religion by teachers in school and parents at home may differ, and children may get confused with the inconsistency they encounter between what is taught at both ends.

Before addressing these concerns, it becomes essential to bring the focus of education upon the following:

1. Character building
2. Personality development
3. Teach regional languages that hold the culture and traditions of the land. This will also enable us to unlock the treasure chest of literature in regional languages.
4. Preserve nature, culture, and heritage.

There are consequences to not educating our children and adults on these issues. Consider a scenario where a religious minority in the country is unwilling to learn about other faiths. Typically, this has led to the nation conceding for religious or other institutions to be opened to impart spiritual and other forms of education. The child growing up in such a school/institution will not be exposed to other communities’ faiths. In numerical terms, this would mean that a minority percentage (significant or insignificant) of the population grows up in an excluded environment. This leads to them developing a sense of suspicion of people from other faiths. Having been brought up in such a setup, there is a greater likelihood of them falling prey to aggressive beliefs that may harm members of the rest of society.

A step in the direction of harmonization through educational policy

Education plays a primary role in creating a contemporary, integrated, harmonious India (and the world at large). It is an important step in the direction of harmonisation through educational policy. The new educational policy has tried to address many vital areas required to create a more integrated society. While many key aspects are addressed in the policy, some crucial areas relevant to our topic include:

• Recommendation for exposure to the rich literature in the various Indian languages by great Indian authors ranging from Tagore, Raghavanka to Kamban and Kabir.
• Recommendation for instruction in the local language of the area, learning of other Indian languages, and including a parallel instruction in English from Class 8.
• Recommendation of teaching history from a more native point of view.

Conclusion

Animals, plants, birds, water and celestial bodies, seasons, and even inanimate objects function in perfect synchronicity. In human relationships, we see sorrow and jealousy. To bring about harmony in human relationships, there is a need to develop thoughtfulness and respect between individuals.

As Swami Chinmayananda says, “To live a life of harmony is to recognise ourselves as members of an interdependent humanity, living in a composite universe. It is to merge our life with the resonant cadence of the whole and to bring about a beautiful melody of harmonious existence… Man has to be delivered from his own misconception of himself. When he develops respect for the Divinity in him, he develops a sense of holiness, and his reverence toward other human beings increases. Then alone can all economic, political, and social disturbances end. Religion or philosophy, whether reached through the church, mosque, or temple, cultivates in man this self-reverence. The seeker is taught to perceive a greater Reality, a greater and more divine Presence in one and all”.

Om Tat Sat

Author Brief Bio: Swami Mitrananda is a Spiritual Teacher of Chinmaya Chennai. He is Director National Projects, All India Chinmaya Yuva Kendra (AICHYK) and Publisher of Chinmaya Udghosh – an international youth magazine. Swami Mitrananda is an inspiring tutor, daring adventurer, vibrant speaker, creative writer, vigilant administrator & a mentor for many youngsters across the world.

References:

1. Swami Vivekananda’s Speeches (The World Parliament of Religions, Chicago) Sept 27, 1893
2. Ethics in Vedanta – Harmony or Ekabhava, https://www.chinmayaupahar.in/blog/ethics-in-vedanta-harmony-or-ekabhava/

Religion and the idea of India            

As we celebrate the 75^th year of India’s independence and count our achievements as a nation, we will need to appreciate how astonishing a feat it has been to achieve and preserve the unity of India as a political entity. When in August 1947 British rule over the sub-continent ended, bringing into existence two new nation states, the India that came into existence was a patchwork of territories formerly ruled by the British and 565 princely states ruled by maharajas and nawabs. India could easily have ended up as more than 500 different nations. But it was not just the fragmented political landscape that the leaders had to contend with. This new nation had large populations of people belonging to all the major religions of the world. Its inhabitants spoke more than a thousand languages recorded in over 66 different scripts. Further, this nation which was impoverished by centuries of colonial rule and by injustice had chosen to be a democracy. As a social and political experiment, nothing so bold and ambitious had been attempted in the world before. Not surprisingly, many western observers at the time had predicted that India would not survive as a unified entity. Winston Churchill famously remarked that the moment India passed out of British rule it would “will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages.”^[i]

And yet, seven and a half decades later, India stands tall in the family of nations as a young and energetic member that is the world’s largest democracy with one of the world’s largest, most dynamic and fastest growing economies. Over the decades it has emerged as a world leader in areas such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, it has largely/widely overcome the problems of food shortages and famine, more than halved its absolute poverty rate and made immense progress on a host of development indicators including literacy and health. To be sure, this journey has not been without its share of crises and even today India continues to face issues such as poverty, environmental degradation, corruption in institutions, separatist movements and sectarian violence. Yet, its unity as a federal republic gives it the strength and resources to endure crises with resilience, to learn from its collective experience and to continue to advance as a nation.

While there are many factors contributing to keeping India together as a nation, few can deny that a vital cohesive force that binds the nation together is the spirituality of its people. This spirituality finds expression in a culture that values human beings as the creation of the Divine, is open and accepting of people of all backgrounds, that views in all living beings the reflections of the sacred and therefore enjoins respect, gentleness and non-violence in all relationships as the ideal way of life.  It is this spirit of an all-embracing oneness that is conveyed in the ancient Indian ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family). This ethos implicitly envisages that the unity of the nation will be a stage in the process of the progressive manifestation of the spirit of oneness in the social and political realm; it reaches its fruition when the principle of the oneness of humankind is firmly established in the consciousness of people, and when India and is sister nations across the world unite as one family.

This spirituality of the Indian people is not a free-floating, amorphous, superficial condition, but rather a state of being that is rooted in the religious beliefs of its people. India remains a deeply religious nation where its peoples’ spiritual convictions have a strong bearing on the way they understand and carry out their civic duties. Thus, living together in peace and unity is viewed not just as an outcome of citizens fulfilling their formal obligations to each other in a social contract – but rather as the expression of the profound spiritual principles that govern interpersonal relationships where the individual finds joy and fulfilment in the well-being of the other. While religion plays a powerful role in India in strengthening the social fabric through its altruistic injunctions, it is a historical fact that from the time of India’s independence, religion has also been made into the cause of conflict and social tension in the country. Following the bloodbath that accompanied the Partition which led to the loss of nearly one million lives, religious differences continued to simmer as an undercurrent of unresolved tension erupting time and again in the form of communal violence.

Over the past few decades there has been a worldwide resurgence of religious fundamentalism. Voices that represent religious extremism and intolerance have increasingly entered the political and social mainstream and, in many countries, they now dominate public discourse. This has created an atmosphere of confusion around the concept of religion where its unifying and constructive role has been steadily obscured by the tendency to view it solely through an identity lens. India too, has not been immune to it and these challenges come at a time of great uncertainty in world history when the need for internal unity is vital to successfully navigate the waves of present and impending crises that can gravely undermine the nation’s progress including the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing geopolitical instability and war, economic recession, climate change, terrorism and a global food and energy crisis.

The need of the hour then is for a constructive discourse involving leaders and representatives of all religions in India on the role of religion in contributing to social harmony. The ground for such a discourse must be laid by clarifying the fundamental nature and purpose of religion as a system of knowledge and practice, and the common foundations of all religions. Such a discourse must show a practical path forward for inter-religious collaboration in contributing to the progress of the nation.

The Oneness of Religion

An analysis of the teachings of the major religions of the world and their impact on human society will reveal that they all share a common nature and purpose. The purpose of all religions has been to develop the spiritual potentialities latent in human nature and through such moral and spiritual development to provide a powerful impetus to the advancement of civilisation. The following quote elaborates on this:

Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. …A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breath-taking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilising process.^[ii]

While every religion bears the stamp of the particular historical circumstances and cultural setting in which it appeared, the essential spiritual and moral teachings at the core of all religions are one. All religions enjoin upon their followers to develop qualities such as honesty, justice, truthfulness, uprightness, kindness, love and trustworthiness. The Founders of all the major religions exemplified to a superhuman degree perfection in these qualities and set for humanity an abiding example of moral excellence. Although the social teachings, laws and rituals of different religions have differed based on changing historical needs and circumstances, they ultimately can be seen to serve the same purpose of advancing humanity’s collective maturity.

At its heart then, inter-religious harmony is more than a mere expression of interfaith goodwill. Its basis is the oneness of spiritual reality itself to which all religions give expression. As the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of the worldwide Bahá’í community, wrote in a letter to the world’s religious leaders:

It is evident that growing numbers of people are coming to realize that the truth underlying all religions is in its essence one. This recognition arises not through a resolution of theological disputes, but as an intuitive awareness born from the ever-widening experience of others and from a dawning acceptance of the oneness of the human family itself. Out of the welter of religious doctrines, rituals and legal codes inherited from vanished worlds, there is emerging a sense that spiritual life, like the oneness manifest in diverse nationalities, races and cultures, constitutes one unbounded reality equally accessible to everyone.^[iii]

A discussion on religion’s nature and purpose must also address the many harmful attitudes, beliefs and practices that are perpetuated in the name of religion and that have their basis in superstition, blind imitation and prejudice. Such beliefs and practices are not only inherently harmful because they stunt individual and collective progress, they can also gradually grow into a dense thicket of dogma and rituals that chokes the vivifying spirit of religion. When religion gets reduced to such beliefs and practices that are neither morally edifying nor amenable to reason, it is a short step away from turning into a source of prejudice, hatred and contention. In this context, the Bahá’í writings identify two conditions that true religion must fulfil if it is to be distinguished from superstition, blind imitation and prejudice. The first is that religion must promote unity and serve the social good. To quote the Bahá’í writings:

“Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act.”^[iv]

The second condition is that religion must be in agreement with science and reason. To quote from the Bahá’í writings:

If (religion) does not correspond with scientific principles and the processes of reason, it is superstition. For God has endowed us with faculties by which we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and science, faith is impossible; and when faith and confidence in the divine religion are not manifest in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.^[v]

Communal Harmony as a lived reality

For most of India’s masses living in rural and urban areas, inter-religious harmony is a lived reality where people of different religious communities live side by side in friendship forged over generations. It finds expression in a syncretic culture where neighbours belonging to different religions participate in each other’s festivals, visit each other’s holy places and protect and honour the sacred traditions of each community as a part of their common heritage. A recent case study of two informal settlements in Indore carried out by the Bahá’í Chair for Studies in Development at Devi Ahilya Univserity illustrates these deep traditions of inter-religious friendship and tolerance. The study which was carried out in North Toda, a predominantly Hindu settlement, and Kabutar Khana, where the majority of the inhabitants were Muslims, explored how residents of these neighbourhoods drew upon their spiritual convictions of the oneness of humankind and their interconnectedness with nature in addressing common challenges related to water scarcity and flooding. In the process, it uncovers a richly-layered culture of fellowship. To quote from the study:

During the festival of Navratri, Muslims join Hindus in the traditional garba folk dance program in the public square. …During Raksha Bandhan, Hindu and Muslim girls tie (rakhis) on the wrists of their ‘brothers’ of the other background. On the days of Eid, for example, a steady stream of Muslim visitors from Kabutar Khana could be seen at the local medical shop belonging to a Hindu resident, wishing him on the festive occasion and celebrating together.^[vi]

The story of these neighbourhoods is the story of countless villages, towns and cities in India. This friendship between people of different religions in neighbourhoods is cemented by the experience of facing common challenges and by sharing in a community’s social and economic processes. As a temple custodian and an owner of a small grocery shop in North Toda explained in the study:

The unity between us is a result of us growing up together, side by side. We have become used to one another. We love each other. If we don’t get along with each other, where else are we going to go? If something happens to me at night, I am not going to go looking for a person of my religion to help me. I turn to my neighbour for help—whatever his religion may be.^[vii]

The study further reflected the many ways residents of different religious backgrounds helped each other in addressing the crisis water shortage or flooding. To quote from the study:

When it floods, they provide shelter and food for each other and help one another carry their belongings to safety. The well that is located in the Noori Mosque in Kabutar Khana provides water to Hindus and Muslims when the need arises. Similarly, a yogi in Kabutar Khana provides water from his bore well to Muslims in his neighbourhood particularly during the holy month of Ramadan when they are fasting and they need more water at certain times of the day.^[viii]

While the participants in the study spoke eloquently of the inter-religious fellowship in their communities, they were also conscious that they could not take this unity for granted. They were conscious of forces in society that sought to divide them along religious lines. The way they countered these challenges was not by distancing themselves from their own religions to arrive at a neutral ‘secular’ space with the other but rather by countering narrow-minded propaganda that promotes divisiveness with a broad-minded reading of their own scriptures where acceptance of the other becomes an element of one’s own faith and serving the other becomes a duty enjoined by the recognition of their common humanity. The following extract from the study featuring voices of residents in these neighbourhoods captures the way their faith inspires them to overcome barriers and arise to help the other:

A member of a handful of Sikh families who lived in Kabutar Khana, emphasised, “Guru Nanak, our divine teacher, tells us that all humanity is one. There are no real differences between human beings. We have to learn to ignore the worldly differences between people based on caste or creed and serve all human beings.” Participants in this study mentioned that helping people learn to live together harmoniously and with mutual understanding was one of the main aims of religion. …“The purpose of life,” commented a man from North Toda, “is to do some good to those who are less fortunate than us, to be of some use to them, to be a source of happiness to them… Living for ourselves—this is something anyone can do. But to live for others—that is the key to life.” …Some Hindu participants in this study highlighted that the ‘dharma’ of a neighbour is to be a source of strength and support during difficulties and a joyful companion during all the happy occasions of life. The implications of this sense of duty towards one’s neighbour was discussed by a shopkeeper in Kabutar Khana: “Even if my neighbour wakes me up in the middle of the night, I will get up and go to help him. Whatever his difficulty may be—whether he has got into trouble with the police or has to be taken to the hospital—it is my duty to support him and help him.”^[ix]

Religion in the 21^st Century

Preserving these traditions of inter-religious fellowship and perpetuating them requires efforts from individuals, communities, religious leaders and institutions of society such as the media, the education system and the State. However, such efforts can close-in on themselves if inter-religious unity is considered an end in itself and is not viewed in the context of society’s needs at this moment in history. Unless united communities are driven by a common objective to contribute to the transformation of society and to ever increasing material and spiritual prosperity, unity can become a pretext for passive conformity with the status quo, with all its attendant challenges and injustices. The most secure basis of inter-religious harmony would thus lie in religious communities coming together to apply spiritual principles common to all religions for building a more united, just and prosperous world.

Addressing the complex and unprecedented challenges of the twenty-first century will require the masses of humanity to make deep changes in their patterns of thought and behaviour and a willingness to make profound sacrifices for the common good. The kind of structural and systemic changes that are needed to become more just, united and to restore our balance with nature will require selfless efforts from the masses of humanity on a scale and for a duration never before witnessed. History bears witness that other than religion no other power or man-made ideology has been capable of stirring the depths of human motivation and calling forth the spirit of nobility, sacrifice and initiative needed to achieve such an objective. The world today is in dire need of the power of religion to once again course through the veins of a beleaguered humanity and to stir a common and collective response to humanity’s challenges.

Religious leaders have a unique role to directing the attention of their congregations to the needs of the world. Many heartening examples of religious leaders coming together to rally their congregations around the national drive to address common challenges could be witnessed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. In one noteworthy example, 25 religious leaders and representatives of interfaith movements in India issued a joint statement to the followers of all religions in India to “reiterate those principles common to all religions that have the greatest bearing on people’s response to the crisis.”^[x] The statement which was issued as an initiative coordinated by the Baha’i community of India, called upon adherents of all religions to unite in a common commitment to four spiritual principles that have the most relevance to this crisis: recognition of the oneness of religion, the oneness of humankind, selfless and sacrificial service to the common good and the complementarity between religion and science. Although this was a modest effort, it illustrated the tremendous potential for positive social change that resided in the untapped spirituality of the masses which faith leaders could come together and channelize for the well-being of all.

Conclusion

In final analysis, it is the objective of religion to enable human consciousness to outgrow the tendency of drawing lines between members of the human family. It implies developing qualities of heart and mind that see the reflections of the divine in all human beings regardless of background and to love all humanity unconditionally. This is in essence the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. The ancient sages of India who contemplated this vision as an ideal state of collective existence did not live in a globally interconnected world. This generation of Indians, on the other hand, has witnessed the physical interconnectedness of the human family through technological development and therefore can envision humanity as one family. The task ahead for this and coming generations of Indians is to work to translate that vision into a reality in all its fullness by harnessing the immense resources of faith that we all have access to. Let unity and harmony become our dominant narrative and become associated ever more strongly with the reputation and reality of Indian identity, relegating conflict and contention among the religions to an earlier and less mature stage of our history. Let us harness the edifying power of religion towards constructive endeavours that can bring about the spiritual and material prosperity of our nation. In this way India can truly lead the world morally and contribute to global peace and harmony, assuring its rightful place as a leader in spirituality and inter-religious harmony.

Author Brief Bio: Ms. Nazneen Rowhani Secretary-General of National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of India.

References:

^[i] https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/our-duty-in-india/

^[ii] https://www.bahai.org/library/other-literature/official-statements-commentaries/one-common-faith/1#525095225

^[iii] https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/the-universal-house-of-justice/messages/20020401_001/1#024035169

^[iv] https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-132.html

^[v] https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/promulgation-universal-peace/21#981649643

^[vi] https://bahaichairdavv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/isgp_hope_and_reslience-pdf.pdf. Page.28

^[vii] https://bahaichairdavv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/isgp_hope_and_reslience-pdf.pdf. Page. 21

^[viii] https://bahaichairdavv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/isgp_hope_and_reslience-pdf.pdf. Page.42

^[ix] https://bahaichairdavv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/isgp_hope_and_reslience-pdf.pdf. Pages. 32-33

^[x] https://opa.bahai.in/role-of-religion/joint-statement/

Notes:

• ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Paris Talks. Bahá’í Reference Library. https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/paris-talks/5#089115387
• ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. The Promulgation of Universal Peace. https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/promulgation-universal-peace/21#981649643
• Bahá’í Chair for Studies in Development, DAVV and Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity. Hope and Resilience: The Application of Spiritual Principles to Community Life. https://bahaichairdavv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/isgp_hope_and_reslience-pdf.pdf
• Churchill, W. Our Duty to India. March 18, 1931. Albert Hall, London. International Churchill Society. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/our-duty-in-india/
• Office of Public Affairs of Bahá’ís of India. The Role of Religion in the Fight Against the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Joint Statement by Representatives of Various Religions and Interfaith Organizations. https://opa.bahai.in/role-of-religion/joint-statement/
• Universal House of Justice. Letter to the World’s Religious Leaders. Bahá’í Reference Library. https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/the-universal-house-of-justice/messages/20020401_001/1#024035169
• Universal House of Justice. One Common Faith. Bahá’í Reference Library. https://www.bahai.org/library/other-literature/official-statements-commentaries/one-common-faith/1#525095225

“One area where peaceful co-existence has been enormously problematic in the history of humankind is in the relations between world religions. In the past, conflicts generated by religious differences may have been significant and regrettable, but they did not threaten the future of the planet or the survival of humanity.”

His Holiness The Dalai Lama^[1]

The challenge of religious harmony and peaceful coexistence will define the task of humanity in the 21^st century. The recent rise of religious images in conflict around the globe displays its increasing presence in world affairs. Its relevance in the foreseeable future cannot be undermined. The compelling task for humanity in this century is to pursue the path of religious harmony conquering the stresses of confrontation. The emotive power of religion where a single spark can ignite volumes of risky undercurrents are visible. Hence, religious pluralism, reciprocity and dialogue are some of the rational ways of ensuring communal amity by mellowing mutual attitudes of suspicion and trust.

For this, an in-depth analysis of contemporary society’s spiritual poverty; the enhancement of the view of religion’s embracing role in contemporary society; its ability to present a persuasive, critical appraisal of the modern predicament, particularly in the context of a healthy debate, leading the communities, nations and the world ahead, are vital.

The Indian Context

India, in its seventy-fifth year of Independence stands tall in the comity of nations as a plural, secular democracy. For centuries it has evoked boundless respect with the tremendous privilege and rare opportunity to be the epicentre of innumerable faith traditions along with unprecedented contact with the world’s many cultures. Few countries can boast of such unity in diversity.

For India, championing the idea of religious harmony is not a narrow necessity of electoral politics. Its nationalism is not based on language, geography, ethnicity or religion but a land emerging from an ancient civilisation united by a shared history and sustained by a pluralist democracy.

‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the whole world is one family),” a Sanskrit phrase found in  texts of the Maha Upanishad is a key concept embodying peaceful co-existence, diversity, and secularism within its structure, is engraved in the entrance hall of the Parliament of India.^[2]

The sentiment of religious harmony, likewise originating in the ancient Indian scripture of the Rigveda, admirably displays plurality of religious thought with its mention “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” (wise people explain the same truth in different manners). It also literally means “Truth is one, the wise perceive it differently”.^[3]

Indias’s call for unity and solidarity, regardless of religion, language or ethnicity is the idea of one nation that excludes none and accepts differences. In his historic speech in the Parliament of World Religions, Chicago, in 1893, Swami Vivekananda said; “If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world, it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character.”^[4]

Composite Religious Harmony in the Indian Context

Even the most cynical cannot dismiss the essential necessity for religious harmony for a peaceful, progressive India. The idealist perception of a meeting ground of mutual respect enshrined in our Constitution can best serve our democracy. The requisite of moral legitimacy of the burden of peace and harmony therein, obligates a wholesome approach.

In the recent decade, the question of ultra-religious nationalism or creating national identity to the exclusion of religious minorities has stimulated much academic interest and space. It is ironic that Muslims in India must be perceived simultaneously as worthy of emulation and exclusion. Positive stereotypes are often intertwined with negative ones. This paradox of approval and contempt is a typical narration of ideas to serve political narratives.

Further, much deliberation has centred around irreconcilable facets between the Hindu-Muslim identities. For peace to be a continual process, ethnographic studies concentrating on mechanisms to focus on a composite religious harmony must be granted equal space. Dissonance invites adverse repercussions, hampering progress, tilting the scales of harmony, while the amplifying, lightning speed of social media without sanitisation further creates its own nemesis. It must be unequivocally stated that a small band of determined detractors cannot hold the Republic to ransom. The templates for inciting violence, an old conflagration needs to be arrested. The exogenous shock of terrorist attacks, in Paris, India and elsewhere over religious issues still reverberates. Prudence of strategic actors, the efficacy of the state agencies to capitalise in the pursuit of security and harmony is indispensable.

Also, matters of settling scores, and regaining turf harnessed in terms of scoring dividends cannot compensate for the resultant fracture in human relations that can consequently spiral out of control. Those who collude in the matter incongruously emphasise on conflict alone. As a Muslim, it is crucial to reiterate that presently Islam, on several fronts, faces an existentialist crisis—there is an ongoing battle for “the soul of Islam”. The recent murder in Udaipur was a demonic act under the facade of religiosity. Intolerant elements have made every attempt to challenge what has been held as unpardonable attempt with no Quranic validation. Consequently, it created its demons. Perceived profanity leads to confrontational approaches.

A Canvas of Religious Tradition in Islam – Brief Outline

Although Islam’s norms are encompassed in a composite religiosity, in its large canvas of tradition, over a period of time, a variety of streams of thought emerged during its socio-historical-political expansion. Details of these developments are beyond the endeavour of present thesis. Nonetheless, it suffices to mention that various strands of religious thought emerged, ranging from the cosmic-spiritual-assimilative to the exclusive-orthodox-dogmatic.

While the cosmic, spiritual, assimilative traditions embraced by the Sufis later dwindled in numbers, exclusive and orthodox numerically increased with the formation of the clergy at the political behest. These remain high on impact, exerting a sizeable influential at the end of the spectrum.

Correspondingly, the line between exclusivism and fundamentalism has, over a period of time shrunk, as between fundamentalism and extremism. Further, it is generally held that some Muslim majority countries have, by and large, remained inflexible in the advancement of pluralism and yielded to the exclusion and persecution of their religious minorities. This is glaringly visible in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Even in India, Kashmir and some districts of Bengal and Kerala have not taken care of minorities or lived up to the espoused secularism. But this issue also encompasses a larger part of the world including secular democratic republics where the plight of minorities, whether in ethnic, black, religion or gender issues is unenviable.

However, the horizons for optimism are broadening. It must be mentioned that the process of engagement and liberalisation in the Middle East has begun.  It is significant that Arab countries and Israel have taken a step towards peace and normalisation of relations. A joint statement between the state of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America has been signed in 2020. Subsequently, Bahrain also signed an agreement and Morocco and Jordan followed.^[5] The way forward may be arduous and strenuous; nonetheless the effort is remarkable.

Islam’s Interface with India

There is the contentious question regarding Islam’s interface with India. Critics claim that the indelible legacy of hostilities, tyranny of rulers, forced conversions, destruction of temples, abduction of women still haunt the world. Indubitably, these were lapses by some Muslims, though not Islamic virtues. Moreover, it needs be also stated that there is in India a history about saints, sufis and scholars who sat in opposition to the conquerors. Thus, even while a section of the nobility was concentrating on consolidation of their powers, citizens, both Hindus and Muslims, philosophers, poets, writers, artists, architects, musicians of both communities were engaged in consolidating the syncretic, harmonious trend. The Ganga-Jamuna Tehzib is well known.

Heterogeneity along with adaptability, accommodation and attendant creativity flourished. It was the core characteristic of the socio-cultural-philosophical landscape. The inter-communal fusion is visible in the Bhakti-Sufi Movement of syncretism in the works of Tulsidas, Kabir, Khwaja Moinnuddin Chisti, Ramananda, Guru Nanak, Nizamuddin Auliya, Namadeva, Sri Chaitanya, Farid-ud-din Ganj-i-Shakar, Amir Khusrau and several others. From early times, in the 9th and 10th centuries prior to the advent of conquerors, the works of al Kindi, al Jahiz, ibn Khudadbeh, Yakubi and al Masudi testify to it. Al Beruni, in the early 11th century studied the Indian religion, philosophies, sciences, traditions and culture in his monumental work “Kitab fi tahqiq mafi I-Hind”.^[6] A closer reading of his chapter on religion, might have been the terra firma for overcoming theological misunderstandings.^[7]

A later manifestation of this was Dara Shikoh’s attempt to identify the convergence of the two faiths discernible in his treatise “The Confluence of the Two Oceans,’’ where he sought to comprehend the Truth. Another example is a mid-17th century work, Dabistan-e-Mazahib, described by a scholar as the greatest book ever written in India on comparative religion.^[8]

Ijtihad (Independent Reasoning)

It is true that the silent majority of Muslims in India are peace loving citizens. Belonging to different ethnic groups, sects, races, caste and creeds, they follow the uniform laws of the land. However, most of them remain under the sway of rigid clerics.

In the age of Islamophobia, the time is ripe for Muslims in India to play a lead role in progressive engagement. It is also time for liberal ascendance to take dominance over conservatives fears. Using coercive tools, imposing a narrow litmus test of “Islamnicness” has raised questions on Islam’s compatibility with a “composite religiosity”. The alternate vision of Islamic understanding of ihsan (to do good things) over enforced adherence to religious mores, is dwarfed.

The revitalisation of the legal device of Ijtihad, (independent reasoning) necessitates revival over the doctrine taqlid (imitation, conformity to legal precedent) is imperative. To activate the spirit of inquiry is as necessary now as it was in the past. Legislative inquiry is necessary in every age due to the pressures of growing conditions. To limit juristic discussions to a definition of terms or doctrinal differences or hair-splitting dialectics, turning a dictionary into a fortress, is not in consonance with the dynamic spirit of Islam.

The rich heritage archetypes of foundational Islamic thinkers like Ibn Rusd, al-Farabi, al-Mawardi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyyah, Saadi of Shiraz, and several others, especially on social realism and jurisprudence, besides philosophy and political thought, are a requisite for the focal point of edification. Spiritual underpinning in Waḥdat ul-Wujūd or the transcendent Unity of all Being, the core concept of Ibn ‘Arabī’s philosophy, is a fundamental doctrine in Sufi Islam.

Further, the philosophy of reform and renewal is a recurrent theme in Islamic intellectual thought; the idea of tajdid (renewal) and Islah (reform) is not new to Islamic thought. Ibn Taimiyyah, Shah Walliullah, Mohammad Iqbal, Abdullah al Naim, Tariq Ramadhan, Arshad Arslan, Khalid ibn Abul Fazl, have all sought rejuvenation and transformation.

Muslims in India need to provide adequate answers without apologia. To begin with, religious pluralism in the context of Islamic hermeneutics as the cornerstone suggesting diversity or a pluralist order is not resisted by Islam. Nor is truth the exclusive possession of other many viable religious traditions.  Spiritual sacred space is shared and respected. “In truth, God hath sent thee the Book which confirms those that precede it” (Q 2:2); “We have sent Messengers before thee. Of some we have told thee and of some we have not told thee (Q 40:70); “We have sent you in truth, as a Messenger. And there was never a people without a messenger being sent to them (Q 35:24); (Do not revile the gods of others…”(Q 6 :108)

The Medina Charter, the first ever written, displays that Islam rejects the use of enforcement in religion (Q 2:256); (Q 5:32). Violence, brutality and barbarism ignited by terrorist outfits ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaida, al Shabab, Jaish-e-Mohammad or any such outfits are condemned by Islam. “What the classical jurists of Islam never remotely considered is the kind of unprovoked, unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations that we witness regularly. For this, there is no precedent and no authority in Islam”.^[9] Similarly, Timothy Winters writes that the proclamations of bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri “ignore 14 centuries of Muslim scholarship,” and that if they “followed the norms of their religion, they would have had to acknowledge that no school of mainstream Islam allows the targeting of civilians”.^[10]

The Prophet has stated that, “He who knowingly lends support to tyranny is outside the pale of Islam (Tabarani). He further stated “The worst form of class prejudice is to support one’s community even in tyranny.” (Baihaqi). Violence and terrorism find no sanction in religion, morality or international law. Such acts are in total contradiction to Islam’s reverence for peace, explicit recognition of tolerance, compassion, social equality, high moral order and spiritual depth.

Unfortunately, in India, perceived hurt Muslim sentiments ensuing in the shedding of blood in the name of religion (sar tan se juda), to proselytisation of violence in the name of the Prophet by a small minority of Muslims are extinguishing the original spirit of Islam. Muslims worldwide agonise, when religious leaders and laity remain silent after there is violence in the name of the Prophet whose mission was to establish peace in a nation where ferocity was the order of the day. Internalising puritanicalism, turning it into a point of mistaking it for a universal truth, is negating the basic tenet of peace in Islam.

This is call to the Muslim leaders, Imams, the madrassas and parents in particular, to deradicalise youth, instructing children that such acts are not only detested and abhorred by Islam but are in total contradiction to Islam’s reverence for peace, explicit recognition of tolerance, compassion, social equality, high moral order and spiritual depth.

Islamic organisations in India, have openly condemned the act of beheading while organisations in Pakistan, have not. Vigilance from the dangerous radicalisation of young minds is a priority as is modernising madrassa education by inclusion of the largest range of secular subjects to equip students to broaden horizons and compete in a wider world and education of Imams to deliver Khutbas (sermons) on a wide range of subjects like peaceful coexistence. Muslim intelligentsia must engage in releasing fresh energy to occupy a vantage point in the public domain.

In this connection, it is imperative to recollect that although Muslims, including from almost all of the Arab world, were severely critical and enraged of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses as it was apprehended as a methodical effort to inflame Muslim sentiments, they ignored Imam Khomeini’s fatwa to execute Rushdie. The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) restricted itself to call upon member states to ban the book.

Most Prophets in their life time were ridiculed, mocked and threatened. The Quran said to them “Be patient over what they say and leave them graciously” (73:10). The Prophet himself never lowered his dignity when confronted with defamatory remarks or physical attack. Instead, he kindly and patiently went on with his spiritual soul-searching and message of peace. Arguments of the Prophet conducting himself with dignity even though defamed, ridiculed, humiliated and even attacked are ignored.

Misconceptions and contextamonies (quoting out of context) on the subject of apostasy, blasphemy, jehad, kafir— are the general categories of words where misunderstandings abound. Islam does not permit taking the life of a person on the score of religion, “anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (5:32).

It is important to note that favourable trends to move away from rigidity are fast emerging in the Muslim world. It is heartening that the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the Indonesian Muslim political party and world’s largest moderate Muslim movement, has made a noteworthy breakthrough with Islamic conservatism in an unprecedented decision to abolish the legal category of “infidel” (kafir meaning one who hides the truth) for non-Muslims. Kafir has become a very derogatory term for non-Muslims. Human dignity is not negotiable.^[11]

Similarly, numerous Muslims diagonally across the globe currently question the conventional perceptions regarding violence on blasphemy, apostasy. A self-proclaimed clergy “a moral thought police” is not omniscient and Muslims feel the rulings or “fatwas” delivered by them are contextual. Recently, in a pioneering interview with “Al-Arabiya”, the distinguished Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, initiated a ground-breaking suggestion on concentrating the Constitution and laws on the Koran, eliminating many hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) that are not muttawatir (well known). He speaks of the need for a current “interpretation” of the Koran.^[12]

Political Moderation

Currently, rhetoric is a powerful weapon in conflict situations. Hate, particularly with relation to religion has taken dangerous dimensions. While safeguarding freedom of speech, challenging hate through adjudication would be a deterrent. Hatred is ‘a threat to everyone,’ declared Guterres, calling for global effort to end xenophobia and ‘loathsome rhetoric’. “A disturbing groundswell of hate-based violence and intolerance aimed at worshippers across all faiths, must be countered soon before it’s too late,” he said.^[13]

Presently, political moderation, a composite religious dialogue for peaceful co-existence is a seminal factor. Allegedly, determining the definition to legitimise citizenry; supremacist approaches, reinventing the convulsions of partition, questioning Muslim patriotism, considering them a breeding and a threat to national security have been disturbing issues. On the other hand, the fringe Muslim belligerency, hard-line urgings instead of reasoned argument, intolerance spilling in collision with other ideologies especially when it comes to religiosity, scornful of their traditions attacking the Hindutva movement, not mentioning thirteen centuries of Islamic fundamentalism or oppression, disrespecting the National flag, has drawn equal angst.

Educational levels yet remain below the national level. Although the graph of women’s education is rising, yet the pace of slow social reforms also results in slow movement and workforce participation. Presently, while autonomous correctives remain a single facet of the matter, communication with the mainstream community is another matter necessitating a forthright dialogue and a cautious calibration as equal citizens. The failure to communicate with the larger community in adequate measure has inclined to limit the boundaries of diversity that are a benchmark of Indian society.

The moorings and ideology of Muslims reflect an inclusive composite society with no room for the practice of violence or intolerance; “All creatures form the family of God and he is best loved of God who loves his creatures” (Baihaqui: Kitab ul Iman). Hubbul watan Minal Iman “love for one’s nation is a part of faith” (Sakhawi). As the Holy Qur’an states, “And break not the oaths after making them firm” (16:92).

Conclusion – India as Homeland – The Road Ahead

India is the cherished homeland—a rhapsody of serenity, peace and security, with a limitless horizon for all Indians where the idea of the “other” is not conceptualised. The task currently is to tutor the outlook on xenophobia, a circumscribed nationalism and a proscriptive democracy. The remarkable enrichment of the heritage of India’s inimitable reciprocity, accommodation and dialogue are rational ways of ensuing communal amity. The values of a composite religious harmony, synchronisation, congruence was not gifted to India. On the contrary they have been ingrained in India’s composite culture.

On December 13, 1946, the Constituent Assembly, when outlining the objectives of the Constitution that later grew into the Preamble, assured the people of the core democratic values of Justice, Liberty and Equality. Fraternity was added as a core value by Babasaheb Ambedkar on February 21, 1948. The preambular values are unexceptionable. Promotion of Fraternity is the pillar in strengthening unity, integrity and social ties assuring that the dignity of the individual citizen is non-negotiable. This fundamental duty is defined in Article 51A(e).

Leaders of the Indian Independence movement—Mahatma Gandhi, Vallabbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and numerous others from both communities, adhered to the notion of composite nationalism and communal harmony. Muslims in India must be part of the process of India’s advancement as a global power and not mere spectators or beneficiaries. In the past and present they have produced some distinguished social reformers, scientists, educationalists, attorneys, artists nurturing India’s splendorous progression. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Begum Aijaz Rasul, Abadi Babo Begum, Bi Amma, Begum Hasrat Mahal, Maulana Mumtaz Ali Khan, Maulvi Chirag Ali, Justice Ameer Ali, Saif Tyabji, Dr Zakir Hussain, Dr. APJ Abul Kalam, Salim Ali, Azim Premji, Ustad Vilyat Khan and many others have contributed to India’s magnificence and accomplishment.

Currently, centrality of civil society to enable a composite religious dialogue conceptualised in interpersonal relationship as a process of dynamic engagement and function is quintessential. Silence is not an option. Emerging trends imbued with greater realism can discard inherited ideological inertia to realise greater possibilities.

A leap of faith moving towards an aspirational civilisation, intersecting, firming the thread for a religious dialogue would be motivating. A civil society outreach strategy could focus on the promotion of a composite religious dialogue, strengthening national integration, fostering diversity through collaborate action programs and greater inter-faith interchange with religious leaders. Cultural and social organisations representing key sections of society could open fresh vistas for alliances. The requisite conversation among the people of India solicits commencement. As the venerable Buddha said, it is time to turn the poison into medicine.

“Chaman mein ikhtelate rango buh se baat banti hain,

Hum hi hum to kya hum hain, Tumhi tum ho to kya tum ho”

Sarshar Sailani

(In the garden there an integration of colour and aroma, togetherness is when we integrate)

Author Brief Bio: Zeenat Shaukat Ali is the Director General, Wisdom Foundation (World Institute of Islamic Studies for Dialogue, Non-violence, Gender Justice and Peace).

References:

^[1] His Holiness, The Dalai Lama; “Towards True Kinship in Faiths. How the World’s Religions can come Together”; ABACUS, London, 2012 p xi

^[2] Maha Upanishad, Chap 6, verses 72,73

^[3] Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” is a Sutra quote from of all the over one hundred Upanishads. This aphorism means: “That which exists is ONE; sages call it by various names.”

^[4] Swami Vivekananda’s Speech, Parliament of World Religions, Chicago 1893; Edited by: Sanchari Chatterjee, September 11, 2017.

^[5] “Israel, UAE and Bahrain sign Abraham Accord; Trump says “dawn of new Middle East””. Press Trust of India. The Hindu. 2020-09-16.

^[6] Al-Biruni (d. after 1050) translated Sanskrit classics into Arabic. He then wrote his monumental “Kitab fi tahqiq mafi I-Hind” in order to acquaint his Ghaznavid rulers with Hinduism. He claimed that barriers separating Hindus from Muslims were based either on lack of education, political reasons or language barriers.

^[7] Ibid, Al-Biruni ; “Kitab fi tahqiq mafi I-Hind”

^[8] The Dabestān-e Mazāheb  “school of religions” is a Persian language work that examines and compares South Asian religions and sects of the mid-17th century. The work, whose authorship is uncertain, was probably composed in about 1655 CE. The text’s title is also transliterated as Dabistān-i Mazāhib , Dabistan-e Madahib, or Dabestan-e Madahe.

^[9] Lewis, Bernard (27 September 2001). “Jihad vs. Crusade”. Opinionjournal.com.

^[10] Winters Timothy; “Abdal-Hakim Murad, Bin Laden’s Violence is a Heresy Against Islam”. Islamfortoday.com; 3 January 2010.

^[11] The word been abolished the Legal Category of kafir “Infidel” within Islamic Law, Unprecedented Rulings Issued by the Highest Authority of the World’s Largest Muslim Organization Historic Effort to “Transform the Prevailing ‘Muslim Mindset,’ for the Sake of World Peace and to Achieve a Harmonious Communal Life for All Mankind” . (Barnabas Aid, World’s Largest Islamic Organisation Drops Legal Category of “Infidel” in Historic Decision (October 22, 2019 )

^[12] HRH Mohammed Bin Salman attempts Reform in Islam; Al Arabiya, by Kamel Abderrahmani; 5/08/2021, 11.06. MBS says the reform is clear: “The government, where Sharia is concerned, has to implement Quran regulations and teachings in mutawatter (well-known) hadiths, and to look into the veracity and reliability of ahad hadiths, and to disregard “khabar” hadiths entirely, unless if a clear benefit is derived from it for humanity. So, there should be no punishment related to a religious matter except when there is a clear Quranic stipulation, and this penalty will be implemented based on the way that the Prophet applied it.” In this case, according to this criterion, only 10% of the valid hadiths remain, which are those converging with the Koran. (Published by Buletin Al Anwar on August 21, 2020; Hubbul Watan Minal Iman 26th January 2021 Republic Day||Baughe Mufaddal|

^[13] UN News, Global Perspectives, Human Stories, TOI, April 29th 2022

After the abolition of the pernicious practice of ‘Instant Triple Talaq,’ it is time to focus attention to the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code across the country. In India, the issue of uniform civil code is oft debated in the context of prevailing religious pluralism and secularism, but is there a logical correlation amongst these three.  Secularism, in the sense of respect for all religions, is a logical corollary of religious pluralism. It is a socio-political approach to religious pluralism. Now the question is whether the need for uniform civil code is also not socio-political and why it should not be shorn of all religious considerations. Based on the distinction between the sacred and the temporal can we not confine it to temporal sphere only and do not allow religious consideration to overshadow it?  Do national unity and social solidarity not demand uniform civil code?  Religion is a matter of personal belief but uniform civil code is an interpersonal matter. Should the two not be separated? These and such other concerns need to be discussed in the contemporary debate.

Secularism and Uniform Civil Code

Secularism and uniform legal code are the hallmarks and requirements of a civilised and developed society. Though initially religion evolved as a human response to the ‘transcendental’, it has come to involve both the sacred and non-sacred life of human being. But in an ideal situation, role of religion should be restricted only to the sacred. The immanent worldly life is distinct though not separate from the religious life. The nature, mode of living and goal of the two are different; in a pluralistic society they must neither be mixed nor conflated. An absence of this requirement results in complicated problems which need to be thrashed out for integrated and peaceful living. A meaningful solution to these problems, which is agreeable to all concerned, requires conceptual clarity and logical analysis of the issues involved so as to draw out their clear-cut distinctions and interrelations. This is particularly so in case of a uniform legal code to regulate the mundane life of all citizens of a country. This is not a matter of feeling or sentiment but of understanding the realities of life in a given situation. It is not an imposition of some pattern of living on an unwilling section of the society but a rational acceptance of the need and utility of uniformity of laws in some spheres of life.

The problems involved here are essentially sociological but they acquire religious and political overtones by viewing them in the background of religion and politics. They pertain to the way of life of a particular society which is religiously pluralistic and in which different sections follow different sets of beliefs and practices traditionally handed down and claimed to be sanctioned by religion. But the problems are not at all religious and religion has nothing to do with civil life in a secular set up. In a theocratic society, civil life is bound with and is governed by a particular religion but that is not the case with a secular society. Whatever be the meaning of secularism, be it state’s indifference to all religions or equi-distance to all religions or equal regard for all religions (and here again a distinction can be drawn between Sarva Dharma Samabhava and Sarva Dharma Sadbhava^[1] the spheres of religious life and civil life need to be clearly demarcated. The human life is an organic whole and therefore, one sphere of life cannot be separated from another, but this does not mean that they cannot be distinguished and treated separately and differently. It is just like an organism consisting of multiple organs that are inseparable in a holistic and integral living but each organ can be looked at separately physiologically and treated separately medically for cure of ailments. The concepts of ‘separability’ and ‘distinguishability’ follow different sets of logic and they need not be confused in a scientific thinking.

These problems get further complicated when a distinction is drawn between majority and minority sections of a community on religious grounds. In fact, in a secular set up, such a distinction is illogical and irrational since the very connotation of the term ‘secular’ is antithetical to such a distinction. But in practical life we often care little for logic and reason, particularly when vested interests get entrenched. In a democracy, where people are less educated and where vote-bank politics is rampant, these problems take political colouring. Purely sociological problems are posed as deeply religious. In a society where no distinction is drawn between religious education and education about religion, the so-called protectors of religion acquire an upper hand to exploit religiosity of the masses and lead them to believe that these problems are intimately related with their religious life. The political leaders take shelter of these ‘protectors of religion’ for their own political mileage. It must be made clear that no satisfactory solution can be arrived at if these problems are approached from the ill-founded religious or political considerations because these are not only irrelevant but they bring in extraneous considerations also. If these considerations are allowed to play their nefarious role, they will not only cloud the real issues but will also generate ill will among the sections of the society, endangering peace and harmony.

Need for a Uniform Civil Code

A true religion is never dogmatic and obscurantist and it cannot be so, but some so-called protagonists of a religion are so and therefore they will never permit solution or dissolution of any such problems, since there lingering on is helpful to their self-aggrandisement. Inter-faith dialogues and means like this are of no avail firstly because these problems are not genuinely religious and secondly because those who get involved in these may not have an open and positive mind. A political approach is also bound to fail because the party in power and the party or parties aspiring to come to power have to care for the support of the concerned sections to get votes. It is not helpful to resort to referendum to ascertain the views of different sections because there will be no unanimity. It is misleading to talk of mass approval or disapproval through referendum to ascertain the views of different sections because such a process is generally vitiated by the opinion of a handful of vocal people who may influence the minds of the masses. It may happen that the masses care little to express themselves or they may be incapable of doing so because of lack of knowledge and true information and they may be carried away by a few influential people who may claim to be their leaders. These handful people, quantitatively very insignificant, pose to be elite and their views are passed on as majority opinion. To be influential is one thing and to be scientific is an altogether different thing. Only a scientific mind can have dispassionate and objective temper and may approach issues logically without taking sides. Through proper education, that solution can be made known and disseminated among the concerned people. Of course, what is stated above is theoretical and its actual implementation is not easy, but it is not impracticable either. Given a will, there can be a way.

Against this background we have to view the problem of Uniform Civil Code in the democratic and secular Republic of India. The problem has been lingering on since independence. The judiciary has voiced concern about it. It has pointed out anomalies in the provisions of our Constitution, which the Indian Parliament has to rectify. Indian lawmakers cannot escape their duty on the specious grounds that the Supreme Court has only given a suggestion or advice and not a ‘directive’. The argument also cannot be used that pending amicable agreement, any such enactment may lead to more fragmentations. These are all excuses which vested interests will put forth to further their own agenda. If the Constitution can be amended by inserting the notion of ‘Secularism’ why should its necessary corollary of ‘Uniform Civil Code’ be not incorporated? Simply put, if the demand has come from one section of the community and is opposed by another section, this does not diminish the need and desirability of Uniform Civil Code.

The issue of Uniform Civil Code has to be approached scientifically and in a broader national perspective, but unfortunately, we have not done so. We have not only failed to discern that it is a sociological problem and not religious or political, we have also failed to make a subtle but very vital distinction between change in ‘Muslim Personal Law’ and enacting a ‘Uniform Civil Code’. Logically, these two are not the same. A sociological issue has to be viewed taking it out from its religious, rather sectarian, and political confinements. If this is done, not only will the controversy wither away, there will also be dissolution of the problem. It has to be understood that the scope and canvas of Uniform Civil Code is much wider than the scope and canvas of Muslim Personal Law.

The Muslim Personal Law has been taken up for consideration here because the need for Uniform Civil Code has primarily and initially arisen in the context of the Muslim section of Indian community and the support and opposition to it has come from some vocal elements of the community. But it will hold good for other sections also. The advice of the Supreme Court first came in famous Shah Bano case. But this should not be misunderstood as isolating and singling out Muslim section of our community. One can as well take the example of any other section. This point needs to be emphasised because otherwise there is a danger of its being misunderstood as anti-Muslim.

Islam is a religion adhered to in India and outside. “Muslims in India” is a sociological entity. Some enlightened Muslims have realised and appreciated this distinction. Islam is the same all over, whether practiced in India or elsewhere, but “Muslims in India” does not mean ‘Muslims outside India’. The two are not to be equated. The expression ‘Indian Muslim’ is meaningfully and legitimately used to distinguish Muslims outside India and this is acceptable to all. We can profitably make use of this distinction in approaching this problem. Anything concerning Islam is religious but anything concerning ‘Indian Muslim’ is not necessarily so. Indian Muslims do have facets other than religious. It has been unfortunate that we have very often overlooked this distinction. The same thing has happened with Urdu language which is identified with Muslims though it has been a language or mother tongue of many non-Muslims as well.

Change in Muslim Personal Law and enactment of Uniform Civil Code are not one and the same because there can be change in the former without affecting the latter though not vice versa. Muslim Personal Law touches only one section of the Indian community whereas enacting Uniform Civil Code affects all sections of society. There are many sections and sub-sections in Indian community based on religion or sectarian tenets. Had there been only two sections, say Hindu and Muslim, even then, the two phrases would not have been synonymous because uniformity would have demanded transcendence from both the sections as no Code of anyone could be regarded as standard. The reality is that we have a multiplicity of social groups not based on religion alone and one has to take cognisance of all of them. Since it is a social issue, social groups and not religious groups should be the basis of our consideration.

When some Muslim men and women asked for a change in Muslim Personal Law they had limited objective of bettering the lot of Muslim women. The need for Uniform Civil Code has altogether different considerations. It cannot be argued that even though desirable it is not possible because the Muslim Personal law is based on ‘Shariyata’ which incorporates divine injunctions unchangeable by human beings. Firstly, this argument is irrelevant because it obliterates the distinction between the sacred and the secular. Secondly it is untenable because it is based on the confusion between changing the ‘Shariyata’ and changing an inadequate interpretation of ‘Shariyata’. Change in Muslim Personal Law only calls for change in an inadequate interpretation of ‘Shariyata’. The traditional interpretation is inadequate and outdated. Many Islamic countries have modified it though some retrograde minds have strived for its ‘Talibanisation’. The progressive minds do not approve this Talibanisation. This apart, every divine injunction is meant for human beings and it is to be interpreted by a human being. This is done in accordance with an individual’s noetic or intellectual capacity. Corresponding to the advancement in knowledge, there is also a change in the noetic capacity of the human being that calls for a change in the interpretation. History of humankind has witnessed such a change from time to time as also resistance to such change. This is the law of nature. If, with the advancement in knowledge, no change is instituted in the interpretation, there will be no correspondence between knowledge and reality, theory and practice and this will surely retard the growth of society. The backwardness of Muslim women is a testimony to this. Let it be made clear that whatever is stated about Muslim women is equally applicable to some other sections of the Indian community.

Even if it is argued that a change in Muslim Personal Law involves a change in the ‘Shariyata’ there should be no objection to it if the change is desirable. In this world, God has permitted change. Change is the law of life. It is the basis of cosmic development. Evolutionary thinkers like Darwin have argued that if we do not keep pace with change, in the absence of adjustment with the environment we shall not survive in the struggle for existence and the consequence will be total extinction. Whether Darwinianism is true or not, the point relevant to our analysis is that good change is not something derogatory or condemnable or uncalled for and even God is not averse to it because He has created a changing universe. If it is so, why to create unnecessary fuss about unchangeability of divine injunctions. Further, every law is enacted in accordance with the needs of the time, place and circumstances and a change in them calls for and admits a change in the law. The ‘Shariyata’ is based on the circumstances prevalent in the Arab world centuries before. Now the circumstances have radically changed and therefore, there is no justification for its continuous rigid adherence. Any resistance to it is sheer obscurantism.

Confusing the change in Muslim Law with Uniform Civil Code, it has been argued that this will result in losing of identity by the Muslims in India. It is a bad argument. It should be asked whether continuance of this harmful and outdated law is the only means or the real means of to preserve identity. This smells of narrow-minded sectarian approach. If we approach it as Indians, all such talk will appear meaningless. If we consider national unity and solidarity as desirable ideals, and there can be no two opinions about this, then also it demands a uniform pattern of social and lawful behaviour for the whole nation. Uniform code of social behaviour is not the only means of national unity and solidarity but surely it is one of the most important and essential means.

Religion is   primarily a personal matter though it does have social dimension. But in a civilised and advanced society, it should not be allowed to cloud social concerns. There should be meaningful separation between the two. This is particularly so in a secular state. Law has to distance itself from religion.

The need for Uniform Civil Code has a humanitarian aspect as well. There is no denying of the fact that the place and position of women in our society is far from satisfactory, if not pitiable. On the one hand we put forth equality, liberty, fraternity and all other egalitarian ideals as the objective of our social existence, on the other hand we have been continuing with unjust practices, maltreatment and deprivation of women. The preamble of our Constitution enshrines these cherished ideals but they should not remain merely decorative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it must be reiterated that whatever is said about the Muslim Law holds good about Hindu, Christian, Parsi and other sections and groups in India as well. There are many harmful customs of the tribal communities which need to be brought within this purview. For this enterprise, though noble and desirable, mutual trust is needed and this can be cultivated by proper education which is the sole remedy of our country’s ills and evils.

Author Brief Bio: Prof. S. R. Bhatt is Chairman, Indian Philosophy Congress; Chairman, Asian-African Philosophy Congress; National Fellow, Indian Council of Social Science Research, Government of India Former Chairman, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, and Former Professor & Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi.

References:

^[1] Sarva Dharma Samabhava is often translated as “All religions are the same” or “All path’s lead to the same destination (In a religious sense)”, although its literal meaning is closer to “All dharma/faiths are possible”. The term ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ means literally equal respect for all religions.