M.
Ramakrishnayya
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.”