One of the purposes of religion is to serve as a glue, but what it binds together is not people, but principles. A truly religious person will strive to harmonize the various principles in their life. When contradictions or conflicts arise, they should address the issue based on the specific value or principle involved, not on the label of religion. Religion, in itself, is not a principle or value but a platform that offers various principles to work together harmoniously. When people lose sight of this, they attempt to find so-called ‘religious’ solutions to resolve conflicts among principles, which can create further division.
Take caste, for example. Caste has both positive and negative aspects when applied as a principle. The issue should be addressed as a sociological problem, not a religious one. When a religious solution is proposed, it often seeks someone to blame for the failure, which can lead to ‘religious fundamentalism’ rather than addressing the actual sociological issue of caste.
Many forms of religious fundamentalism have similar origins. Instead of treating religion as a platform for harmonizing principles, some use it to unite people around supposed religious values or principles. The contradictions and conflicts that should be addressed in their own context are instead brought into the realm of non-existent religious principles. Those who disagree with these manufactured religious values are treated as enemies. If we examine closely, most religious fundamentalism arises not from true religious differences, but from issues related to economics, society, culture, or natural resources (such as oil). Fundamentalists often use religion as a convenient excuse to address these problems, which naturally leads to conflict between religions or within religious sects.
However, when people recognize that religion’s purpose is not to bind people, but to provide a platform for principles to work together harmoniously, conflicts and contradictions can be resolved within their appropriate fields. Religion can then continue to serve its true purpose, free from the distortions of fundamentalism.
Leaving aside religious fundamentalism, India finds itself in a unique situation. Despite all religious communities sharing a common Dharmic civilization, especially in their social life, fundamentalist tendencies often arise when discussing faith. These tendencies create an “Other,” a concept frequently exploited by politicians. Sudhir Kakar’s chapter “CONFLICT: Hindus and Muslims” (Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar, Indians: Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2007 [2009],pp. 152-179) provides a clear depiction of how the notion of “the other” emerges from personal identities shaped by caste or faith. He explains:
“Communalism is a specifically Indian concept that signifies a strong identification with a community of believers based not only on religion but also on common social, political, and especially economic interests, which conflict with the corresponding interests of another community of believers—the ‘enemy’—sharing the same geographic space.”—p. 154
Kakar further highlights the creation of “the other” by noting:
“It is interesting to observe that a Hindu’s self-identification as a Hindu generally occurs only in the context of discussing Muslims. In other conversations, Hindu identity is more often defined by caste. A Hindu becomes aware of his identity primarily when interacting with Muslims. Hindus cannot think of themselves as such without simultaneously recognizing the presence of Muslims. This is not the case for Muslims, who do not require Hindus for their self-awareness. The presence of Hindus may enhance a Muslim’s sense of religious identity but does not constitute it.” (ibid., p. 157)
Although his proposed solution may seem idealistic, it reflects the reality faced by India and several other countries dealing with similar fundamentalist issues:
“We are moving towards an era of recognizing Hindu-Muslim differences rather than pursuing their illusory commonalities. We are transitioning toward a multicultural society rather than a ‘composite’ culture. Such multiculturalism is neither harmful nor dangerous but necessary, as it enables different religious groups to engage with the modernizing process actively rather than retreat into lamentation over the inequities of modernization or endure it as passive victims. We may need to relinquish Gandhi’s dream of ‘lasting heart unity’ and instead focus on creating a common public realm while regarding the other community with ‘benign difference’ in private.” (ibid., p. 179)
Given this reality, seeking or prescribing a purely ‘religious’ solution to life’s problems will not effectively address life’s needs.
Mathigiri, February 14, 2007] Revised on 11-9-2024
Leave a Reply