Conflict, Peace and Religion - Some reflections

On 8th March, 2014 i.e. Women's Day I had the wonderful opportunity of being part of a national seminar on 'Religion, Secularism and the shifting goalposts of Democracy in India. These are the three buzz words in the current political milieu which is soon going to be dominated by elections, votes, alliances, shifting loyalties etc. It was interesting to note that the discussion focused on complex issues such as religion and secularism which we usually avoid as these are believed to be sensitive and touchy issues on which a public discussion seems rarely possible. What I liked about the seminar was the openness and frank nature of the deliberations. I believe that it is a must to come out in the open and discuss these issues, not bury them in the closet. This is why I chose to reflect on conflict and peace with reference to religion.

I think religion is important but at the same time it is also turning out to be the root cause of confrontations the world over. Religion is something that is deeply personal; now however a matter of public and political debate. What then is the relationship between conflict, peace and religion? Does some kind of a relationship actually exist? Even in this liberal, interdependent modern world, I believe religion continues to hold a sway over people, continues to dominate people's lives and dictate the way they live. It also informs the way we perceive the 'other'. Somethings that do not seem to suit our religious beliefs is unlikely to be accepted by us. In the arena of conflict and peace, religion is most likely to be used as a double edged sword ... it can be used as a tool for cooperation and as a tool for perpetuating confrontations and even aggravating them. The speakers in the seminar seemed to suggest that all religious denominations proposed similar messages of peace, harmony, love and tolerance. If this is true, it baffles me as to why religion ends up being the cause for bitterness, hatred and violence. Is it because religion was meant to be kept in a sacred, personal space and all that has been done is to politicize it, use it for malicious ends? Can secular ideals (the way they are practiced and professed today) visualize a world free of conflicts? The speakers presented highly idealized versions of religion and claimed that religion should not be brought to the public space at all. It all seemed fine but practically religion still holds so much of power that it can make people insane. I had questions like - are all religions really similar in their preaching? are all religions equal? what about the domain of unorganized religions (here the talk concentrated on organized religions that had a sacred text and some religious ideals to be followed)? Somewhere down the line, I began to sense a sort of sweet talk about religion - hinting towards the fact that religions have no problems at all. It is only how humans interpret religion that remains a problem. Personally, I do not think so. There are a lot of problems with religion that need to be addressed at this point of time and just harping upon the similar teachings of religions, equality among religions is not going to in any way address pertinent issues of conflict and peace. Also, the way in which we understand and interpret secularism is a challenge. Some issues raised during the seminar were: 

• Secularism does not mean being irreligious or non-religious i.e. indifferent to religion.
• Secularism does not also mean giving up our distinct religious identities and assuming neutrality.
• Religion must be a personal matter in a state, it must not intrude public life.
• State should not patronize any religion.
• Secularism should be looked at from the perspective of all - the majority as well as the minority community.
• Secular ideals should be examined in relation to democracy.
• Secularism and religion are not monolith ideas and each can effectively contribute to democracy in a meaningful way.
• We need to go back to the fundamentals of religion to remove the problem of fundamentalism in religion.

Another very well taken point expressed in the seminar was related to religious education. Universities in western countries offer the scope for an academic examination of religion. However, Indian universities and research centres have yet not opened up to such an idea - of an academic inquiry. This becomes important because we need to expose our young people to teachings of different religions to let them understand the messages of each one of them. This will go a great deal ahead in promoting inter-religious harmony which is the need of the present times. Religious bonhomie is good and accepting the 'other' is also welcome ... but if that comes at the cost of denouncing one's own faith, it may not be acceptable to people at large. There has to be some middle way, some creative channelization of religious thoughts in a democratic set up ... where religion is not totally redundant as also it should also not completely usurp the political discourse. What is sad however, and I am referring to India here, is the appropriation of religion by political actors, religious heads and people at large leading to incidences of communal violence and bigotry. I wish religion and its inquiry were taken up a bit more seriously and debates about it encourages so that there is more transparency with regard to the discussion of religion. 

At the centre of the discourse on conflict and peace, I see religion - it has the ability to both heal as well as to hurt. I think it should be used to heal and bind, not otherwise. I believe we need to go back to the similar message offered by all religions and use it to heal the wounds of humanity. Lets not make religion a tool for inflicting these wounds.