Interfaith Dialogue Flourishing As an Industry: Stereotypes and Biases about Different Religions Must Be Removed
By
Mushtaq ul Haq Ahmad Sikandar
16
September 2021
Interfaith
Dialogue Industry Has Retrograded To an Economic Venture
Main
Points:
1. The clashes
are not confined between interfaith groups only but Intrafaith groups and sects
belonging to the same religion do clash with each other.
2. Dialogue
demands execution, practice and application with real life examples otherwise
it just remains an endeavour where so lofty presentations are made that are too
ideal to be realized.
3. The
interaction and co-existence theory even though promoted by a political
theorist Ashtosh Varshney still has its flaws as enumerated by the example of
Kashmir.
----
With the
violence in the name of religion escalating to horrific levels, Interfaith
Dialogue as a remedy and now as an industry is burgeoning. Many Dialogue
preneurs and practitioners are trumping it as a remedy for all ills and helping
bridge the divide between various faiths. The misunderstandings, misconceptions
and stereotypes about different religions are something that can be minimized.
The
adherents of every faith have a perception and prejudice about the other. It
certainly is quite normal because centuries of conditioning have established
these prejudices. They are prevalent even among the sects of the same religion.
It needs huge efforts to overcome these prejudices and still their total
elimination can never be achieved. These prejudices are not problematic as they
rarely hamper the daily affairs, normal routine and interaction between people
of different faiths. But if they are reinforced, propagated and strengthened
then they will result in polarization of the society leading to the rise of
fascism and unprecedented violence.
Photo courtesy/IFYC Interfaith Youth Core
-----
Interfaith
Dialogue aims to overcome these prejudices by interacting with each other, the
stereotypes and biases are overcome. This has been the guiding principle of
Interfaith Dialogues. They are supposed to build bridges between the
communities, while helping narrow down the prejudices and polarization. However
the efficacy of these Dialogues is limited because they are undertaken by an
elite section of the society, be it scholars, theologians, academics,
journalists, activists and civil society members. They all do help frame the
public opinion on different aspects and issues confronting the society.
Religious violence and discrimination is one such aspect. The upholders of this
type of Dialogue believe that Dialogue is an elite venture and cannot be
conducted at a public level. This claim holds water because in these Dialogue
sessions mostly theological issues are discussed and some works of same
scholars like Al Biruni and Dara Shikoh are discussed who did earlier try to
bridge the divide among Hindus and Muslims. In other conferences where
Abrahamic Semitic religions are discussed, the emphasis is more about the
similarity between these religions, their common origins and how their concept
of God, traditions and practices are quite similar.
So if one
participates in these dialogues one gets an idea that religions are not
problematic, so are not these academics, theologians and Ulema who are making
lofty claims in the conference rooms. But once the Dialogue conferences are
over, the stark realities of the adherents of these religions clashing against
each other becomes manifest. At this juncture most of these elite participants
of these dialogic conferences maintain silence because calling for an end to
violence will earn them enemies among their fellow believers. Only few brave
souls can have the cudgels to go against the tide.
Dialogue
demands execution, practice and application with real life examples otherwise
it just remains an endeavour where so lofty presentations are made that are too
ideal to be realized. Organizing, conducting and executing these Dialogue
conferences are a manifestation of the economics of Dialogue. Dialogue as an
industry is an economic venture for many institutions and people. Travel, food
expenses are paid along with a good remuneration for presentations, so these
exercises become an important adventure for dialogue preneurs to make more
contacts and be invited to more conferences all around the world.
Many among
these Dialogue practitioners in the heat of the moment describe all religions
as one, but deep down they do not believe in this claim. Also it is a reality
that all religions are not one. If homogeneity of religions was a reality then
the claim and monopoly over the truth would be absent, that certainly is not
the case. Each believer, their clergy, scholars, theologians and even these elite
Dialogue practitioners believe that their faith is the only path leading
towards salvation, while others are deviated groups from the straight path. But
they cannot subdue, conquer, annihilate the ‘other’, hence they are to be
tolerated and co-existed with.
It is
because of this inevitable co-existence that many are given to believe that
everything is fine. Only politicians and exclusivist religious triumphant are
responsible for every type of violence taking place between adherents of
different religions. They believe that constant interactions and co-existence
breaks the barriers among the communities and different faiths. But experience
proves something else.
The Hindus
of Kashmir valley known as Pandits and the Muslims co-existed for centuries but
few events were enough to trigger a mass migration and breakdown of the
syncretic culture known as Rishism. Similarly in India small incidents are
enough to spark a communal riot, despite the fact that Hindus and Muslims have
co-existed with each other since centuries. The clashes are not confined
between interfaith groups only but Intrafaith groups and sects belonging to the
same religion do clash with each other.
Among
Muslims Shia-Sunni violence is a lived reality of Muslim societies. So this
interaction and co-existence theory even though promoted by a political
theorist Ashtosh Varshney still has its flaws as enumerated by the example of
Kashmir.
What could
be the possible explanation of these violent clashes despite co-existing as
citizens since centuries? Among the variegated explanations can be the fact
that these communities co-existed but not together. There were/are fault lines
that are far deeper to be apparent on the surface. So from the surface on any
given day things appear fine, whereas in reality there is a brewing hatred
against the other that is reinforced among the communities and is compounded
over the years. It just needs a little spark and trigger to render it violent.
Co-existence can be a fact so are the communal riots too.
Any
meaningful Dialogue should overcome the flaws of this co-existence. Classrooms
as institutions of Dialogue can be a starting point that can groom children to
co-exist with each other while respecting the antagonistic religious beliefs.
Classrooms can teach children how to overcome the prejudices we have about the
other and how not to get carried away during communal riots and become part of
violent mob frenzy.
Also
Dialogue should not be constructed as a process of scoring brownies points
against the different participant retrograding it into a debate. Many times
participants degrade each other’s viewpoint by rendering a Dialogue into a
debate, thus killing the very purpose of it. So these flaws need to be overcome
and since efforts with pure intentions of understanding the viewpoint of the
others need to be kept in mind before, during and after the Dialogue. Dialogue
is action based instead of being mired in abstract conceptual framework.
----
M. H. A.
Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/interfaith-religion-stereotypes/d/125368