Conflict Of Religions
By Eduardo Faleiro
Religion has emerged as a major source of conflict across the globe. Wherein, ideological strife has now given way to the “clash of civilizations and religion would be the cause of clashes within and among nations in the foreseeable future.
Besides, as famed historian Samuel Huntington points out, the possibilities of conflict are greater in what he calls the “fault lines of civilization”, those areas like India where different cultures and religions do meet. Adding, such clashes could be prevented if appropriate strategies are formulated and implemented at
an early stage so as to ensure religious harmony.
How many remember that Europe pioneered the modern concept of secular democracy. But today, whilst there is an effort to accept multi-culturalism and respect for all religions, there is also another perceptive of growth of racism and xenophobia.
This trend is primarily due to the rapidly changing cultural and political landscape in Europe resulting from increased immigration into European countries. Alongside, the end of the Cold War, reform of the welfare State and economic globalization are transforming European society thereby creating a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Pertinently, most Europeans want a solid and stable ground to stand on, and this, they feel, can be provided by traditional churches and religion as opposed to new cathedrals and faiths. Notwithstanding, this mindset is a step backwards in the cause of religious freedom.
In fact, French law is the most sweeping rule on religious minorities which currently exists in Europe. It is feared that it might pave the way for religious intolerance in France as it pursues a restrictive legislation which stigmatizes minority religions and associates them with dangerous “sects”.
Recall, in June 1995, the French National Assembly established a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission Gest nee Guyard Commission, named after its Chairman and rapporteur. The Commission’s purpose was to
study new religious groups appearing in France which were labelled as sects wherein 172 groups were identified.
Interestingly, many of these were Christian groups originating mainly from the US but some like ISKCON, Association of Sri Satya Saibaba, Brahma Kumaris, Sri Ramakrishna Mission etc were organizations
relating to the Indian cultural tradition.
Resulting in the French Justice Ministry issuing a directive to all Government offices to be vigilant against abuses by these “sects” and monitor abusive cult activities. The only redeeming feature was the
widespread international condemnation this law received which might reflect in its actual implementation.
Add to this, the Parliamentary Commission of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution in June 1999 giving priority to prevention of “dangerous sects” which stated that “major legislation in this direction is undesirable”. Even as it pointed out that any such law might interfere with the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.
Further, a document “The challenge of proselytism and the calling to common witness” was formulated in September 1995 by the Joint Working Group of the World Council of Churches, which represents the major
Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church.
This refers to “serious concerns about tension and conflicts created by proselytism in nearly all parts of the world”. Defining, proselytism as “a conscious effort with intention to win members of another church” and mentions “instances in the developing world in which proselytism takes advantage of people’s misfortunes and situations of poverty in villages, to induce them to change their church affiliation”.
Calling for awareness of “the reality of diversity rooted in theological traditions and in various geographical, historical and cultural contexts” it also denounced “the use of coercive or manipulative methods in evangelism”. Thereby, rejecting “all violations of religious freedom and all forms of religious intolerance
as well as every attempt to impose belief and practices on others or to manipulate or coerce others in the name of religion”.
Consequently, “proselytism could violate or manipulate the rights of the individual and exacerbate tense and delicate relations between communities and thus destabilize society”.
Elucidating on the nature and characteristics of proselytism, the essay talks of extending explicit or implicit education and health care offers, material inducements and using financial resources to convert people. Along-with manipulative attitudes and practices to exploit people’s needs, weaknesses and lack of education especially in situations of distress whereby they fail to respect their freedom and human dignity.
This is not all. It pointed out that “while the focus is on the relationship between Christians, it is important to seek the mutual application of these principles also in inter-faith relations. As Christians and other faiths communities complain about unworthy methods of seeking converts from their respective communities.
Undeniably, the increased cooperation and dialogue among people of different faiths could result in persons respecting one another along-with deference for human freedom and dignity, thus freeing all
from negative activities.
Notably, it warned of organized attempts at mass conversion and re-conversion backed by financial or political power having an explosive backlash to the point of undermining public order. In India, mainline Christian theologians see both the Sangh Parivar’s Hindutva ideology and Christian campaigns for evangelization of India as having a fundamentalist attitude and an aggressive methodology to achieve
their respective goals.
Most Indian Christian theologians disapprove of organized conversions, favour inter-religious dialogue and express the need to study other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and even tribal faiths, so
that Christianity learns from their many valuable spiritual insights. Clearly, organized drives for conversion and re-conversion should stop as they violate the Constitution. Yet, specific legislation such as anti-conversion laws would only promote religious intolerance and animosity, could be misused by executive authorities. Hence, it is not justified from the very limited positive results obtained.
Indeed, the Government should subtly promote an agreement among religious heads of all major faiths in the country and stop proselytism. Given the positive mindset of theologians belonging to different religions in India, this is doable.
In sum, it is vital to ensure religious peace and harmony. Towards that end we need to formulate a national policy and an action plan to combat religious intolerance, including proselytism by creating an independent national institution.
Furthermore, the Government must formulate adequate training and awareness programmes about religion and religious harmony for young leaders at all levels and bureaucrats specially the police and other
law enforcement agencies, judges, teachers and social workers
The victims of religious intolerance should be assured adequate support and speedy administrative and judicial remedies. Also, we need to combat all forms of expression which incite sectarian hatred and
take action against dissemination of such material in the print, electronic and social media.
Our leaders must pay specific attention to development of vulnerable groups such as tribals, those who are discriminated and other weaker sections by providing adequate access to all citizens to education,
health and employment. As also protect the religious, ethnic and linguistic identity of persons belonging to minorities. All citizens should be made part of the decision making process. What gives? —–INFA
(The writers is Ex-Union Cabinet Minister)