Sixth response; Religious pluralism and interfaith dialogue: a view from India.

I want to begin my response to Eboo Patel's thought-provoking paper with a vignette about an event I attended in the Southern Indian state of Kerala. The event was a day-long "fast against communalism" organized by political, academic and artistic leaders of Kerala who asserted that religious violence was foreign to the tradition of religious pluralism intrinsic to Kerala culture. One of the key speakers was a singer called Yesudas, (1) a famous Christian musician in Kerala. Yesudas is also a devotee of the Hindu God Aiyappan (2) to whose temple he makes a yearly pilgrimage and in whose honor he has composed and sung many beautiful devotional songs. As a religious man who in many ways embodies the very pluralism he asserts is part of the heritage of the state, he managed to convey to a mixed audience of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and indeed atheists present, the importance of mobilizing around the issue of pluralism despite the important differences that might exist between them.

Yet this is not the whole story. Yesudas is absolutely correct in suggesting that Kerala has had a long tradition of religious pluralism. It is a state that has the oldest traditions of Islam and Christianity in India and is known for the relative harmony that exists between the various religious groups. Historically, there have been many instances when refuge has been provided to religious groups seeking freedom from religious and political persecution. However, it is also a state which has recently seen a great deal of violence between its Hindu and Muslim populations which testifies to the fact that clearly not all of Kerala subscribes to this pluralist path, not all share the same vision of religious unities.

What can we learn from this story? Despite the multiplicities of viewpoints that exist in Kerala, the organizers of the fast against communalism were able to bring together people from a wide variety of religious groups and political persuasions and in doing so were also able to spread their vision of religious pluralism as the "authentic" heritage of Kerala.

There are two points about inclusion that are important here. First, clearly, the Hindus and Muslims responsible for instigating the violence were not present at the event. Only those who shared a particular vision, including myself, were present on an entirely voluntary basis. Yet, I believe, the lesson to be learnt here is that we need to capitalize on the diversity of viewpoints that exists in any group and bring people together around issues that they can believe in. Second, while many of those present may have disagreed on a number of issues such as putting on a hijab or cow slaughter, they still came together because of issue based politics. They may not see unity on other aspects but on this point they were willing to be present in large numbers--fasting on what was an exceedingly hot and humid day. What is central here is that they were willing to put aside their differences and unite together because of their common commitment to religious pluralism.

Religious ideas and theologies have historically been affected by politics. Things are no different today. While, as Eboo Patel suggests, we might hesitate to challenge the theologies of some, I would hasten to add that while there are indeed many paths to the divine, there have always been important movements for social justice that have critiqued elitist religious ideas. One example would be the strong critique of caste discrimination and religious dominance in Hinduism that has come from those who have had to suffer such discrimination or those who have simply refused to accept such a world view. Those belonging to these movements, such as Kabir, are today held up as models of religious pluralism despite, or perhaps because of, their stringent critique of the political implications of elite religious worldviews.

This is all to say that interfaith struggles are necessarily implicated in politics and must ultimately take a political stand in order to be effective. The result will be the alienation of some. But such issue based politics will include several others who are committed to a particular political cause. Not all groups, and certainly not all members of any given group, will take part in every cause. However, this focus on issue-based politics will allow many to free themselves from the hegemonies of groups and identity politics to participate in causes they believe in. To refer back to the example of the fast against communalism, people who fasted that day did so not necessarily because they were Muslims, Christians, or Hindus, but perhaps because they were individuals committed to promoting religious pluralism.

Is this perhaps all very well in theory and not as useful in practice? At this point I find it useful to consider the task that Mahatma Gandhi was faced with as he sought to fabricate a freedom struggle for a nation that was still in the making.

In his seminal contribution to post-colonial theory, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World (1986), (3) Partha Chatterjee suggests that nationalism in the colonial context is faced with a peculiar problem. Unlike European nationalisms where there was a linguistic basis for a national identity that could be used to establish the boundaries of the state, in the colonial world, the boundaries of the state have already been arbitrarily defined by the colonial power. In most postcolonial contexts, certainly in the case of India, there is tremendous ethnic, religious, linguistic, and indeed cultural diversity. Therefore the efforts by nationalists to construct a common national identity is inevitably one that excludes a significant portion of the those residing within the boundaries of the state. Yet nationalism cannot hope to overthrow the colonial government and take over the state without the support of a mass base. Therefore the task of the nationalist is to mobilize popular sentiment in support of the movement even when its ideology may not necessarily resonate with the values and desires of the populous.

According to Chatterjee, Gandhi's greatness--among other things of course--resided in his ability to articulate the interests of disparate groups of society around the common cause of freedom for India from British rule. The independence movement in its early days was dominated by the educated elite of the country--really a fraction of the population. In order to create a freedom struggle that could become a force to reckon with, it was necessary to mobilize the thousands of peasants whose interests in many ways diverged from those of the westernized, English-educated elite. More than anyone else in the independence movement, it was Gandhi who managed to mobilize a mass base divided on issues of race, class, education, politics, ethnicity, national language, religion, etc, into a movement that ultimately became a force to challenge British rule.

Again, what lessons can we learn from this? In some ways the social worlds we inhabit are even more plural than they were a hundred years ago. Our social worlds are divided by the politics of class, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, nationality, education, economics and so on. We will never be able to agree on all these issues and yet we can agree on some. We need charismatic leaders who put forth the issues, and like Gandhi, are able to mobilize people by articulating multiple interests towards a common goal.

As a scholar of social movements it is apparent to me that the religious right has been much more successful at doing this than left leaning movements. In my own work on Hindu nationalism in India, I have examined how the members of the movement frame their politics in different ways in order to appeal to diverse audiences. As I found in my research it was not necessarily a blanket espousal of the exclusionary and often violent politics of Hindu nationalism that unites thousands in support of Hindu nationalism, but rather the ability of the movement to frame itself in different ways and successfully appeal to the multiple interests of diverse groups. Perhaps the challenge to those of you working on interfaith issues is one of framing your efforts in different ways to appeal to different groups and individuals. Perhaps this is also the challenge of politics in a world increasingly marked by the pluralism of politics and belief.

Notes

1. The name literally means "servant of Jesus."

2. Aiyappan is the son of the Hindu god Shiva and Mohini, a female form of the god Vishnu. Devotees make a yearly pilgrimage to his temple in Sabrimala. The pilgrimage itself emphasizes the pluralism that is so important to traditions of Hinduism in India. All devotees are required to first pay their respects at the shrine of a Muslim saint before worshipping Aiyappan at his temple.

3. P. Chatterjee. 1986. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.