365betÓéÀÖ

Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 is perhaps the first significant attempt to bring the representatives of world’s major religions on one platform with a view to exchange ideas.  Readers are aware of the impact of the stirring speech made by Swami Vivekananda on that occasion.  At about the same time, some Christian missions began to show interest in studying closely the doctrines and practices of other religions. The motive of most of them, however, was to evolve the most suitable methods for influencing the followers of other religions to embrace Christianity.  For example, Henry Martyn Institute, now at Hyderabad, was set up in the North western Province of India to undertake Islamic Studies.  It was subsequently shifted, first to Jabbulpur and later to Hyderabad.  Recently, it revised its name and mandate to become a ministry of interfaith dialogue and reconciliation.

The term Interfaith dialogue has gained currency in the west as a result of the efforts of some Protestant churches to bring about an understanding among the different denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, etc.  Papal Encyclicals of Pope John xxii, accepting the merits of interfaith dialogue gave impetus to the spread of the idea among the Roman Catholics.  Now, other religions too are gradually being brought within the ambit of the dialogue, due to various factors, such as demographic changes as a result of large migrations for economic reasons and rapid secularisation and globalisation.  Followers of different religions have been thrown together to live cheek by jowl within the borders of nation-states, which were hitherto home to followers of one religion only, although with different sects. Religious pluralism has thus become the leit motif of most nation-states in the new millennium.  It is no longer possible for any one religion to bring about homogeneity through large scale conversions with the help of state power, example of rulers, inducements or other methods.  The right of an individual to freedom of worship has been recognised as a fundamental human right by the world at large.  In these circumstances, there is really no alternative to a dialogue among the followers of different religions to conducting a dialogue, if the nation-states are to be at peace within or among them.

What are the essential conditions of a fruitful dialogue?  Gandhiji, who practised the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhava in letter and spirit and resisted the attempts of some narrow minded Christian missionaries to convert him to their faith, recommended that four points should be borne in mind.  First, no religion should be torn out of its socio-cultural context, as every religion has the birth-mark of the society in which it was born.  Second, the most important thing in religion is sincerity or inner voice.  Third, it is essential for each participant to the dialogue to approach the religion of the partner in a reverential manner and not in a hostile way. Fourth, it must be remembered that scriptures cannot transcend reason and truth, as they are meant to purify reason and illuminate truth.

Four more points may be added by way of elaboration.  First, each partner should respect the other’s preference in matters of faith.  Second, a conscious attempt must be made to eschew the feeling of superiority of one’s own religion over that of another and thus avoid the usual consequences of such a feeling, viz., excessive pride, aggrandisement, contempt and violence.  Third, it must be remembered that salvation, the ultimate goal of life in every religion, can be achieved only through one’s own efforts and deeds and not on the basis of the activities of one’s co-religionists or one’s religious community. In other words, use of religion for political purposes and acquisition of power is counter-productive in the quest for salvation.  Last, the dialogue must be in consonance with the duties and obligations inherent in living in a pluralist society governed by a constitution that guarantees fundamental rights for all its citizens.  In fact, fundamental rights are a quid pro quo for the fundamental duties expected of the citizens.

If the above conditions are faithfully complied with, the partners to the dialogue are bound to conclude that all religions have common features as well as special features and that the special features of religions are, by and large, the products of the socio-cultural diversities and the historical circumstances of their birth and spread.  These conclusions will inevitably lead to the question whether the special features of religions are so important or irreconcilable that their adherents must fly at each other’s throats in violation of the compulsions of life in a plural and rapidly globalising society.  Hopefully, the dialogue will end in the conviction that inter-faith harmony is essential not only to life on this earth but also life thereafter, that is salvation.

Inter-faith dialogue has to be carried on at various levels, by common citizens, intellectuals, religious leaders and organisations and civil society groups.  Better results can perhaps be expected if the dialogues at some levels at least are properly structured and the state authority lends its support. It is advisable to set up a National Council of Religions, through the initiative of civil society and with the blessings of the state.  Such a Council can be expected to provide suitable methods for the reconciliation of the special features of different religions, keeping the spirit of their common features as well as the constitutional obligations in the forefront.

I conclude with the gist of the thought-provoking observations of Rev. Heredia, the Jesuit Sociologist of Mumbai, in recent article in the Hindu Folio under the title ‘Dichotomy or Dialectic�.  He reiterated Gandhiji’s point that “faith and reason are complementary, not contradictory�, in our quest for truth. He went on to explain that to believe is human and that “what we believe must make us more human, not less�. According to him distinction must be drawn between the belief that is humanizing (good faith) and the belief that is not (bad faith or blind faith or faith not illuminated by reason). Finally, he asserts that “An inclusive humanism must embrace both ‘meaningful faith� and sensitised reason. Inter-faith dialogue alone can lead to such an inclusive humanism.�