BACK
A Study
in Interfaith Relations – A Sikh Perspective –
Gurnam Singh Sanghera*
The objective of this work has been to make an extensive
study of the inter-religious relations in the present-day
world marked by religious and cultural diversity. To realize
this objective, we have tried to recognize, elaborate and
analyze the past and present situations and discuss the
challenges and new issues emerging as a result of the diverse
faith-communities having to live together and act and interact
on daily basis. This includes an endeavour to study their
mutual relationship, the past attitudes of one religion
towards the other faiths, shift in the attitude, the reasons
behind it and the Sikh attitude towards this plurality of
religions.
We have accepted the present-day cultural and religious
plurality as existential social reality. A corollary of
this reality is the coming together of diverse communities,
their interaction with each other and ‘the effect
of this on mutual relationships. The social fabric of world
population and especially of the European and North American
countries has been transformed during the past few decades.
In the past, people lived in their own tiny and isolated
socio-religious camps, least concerned with the issue of
plurality of religions and the allied theological and social
problems. We have discerned that in the situation we are
placed today, we cannot run away or wish away the social
reality of religious plurality and the social and theological
issues arising from it. Although the different faiths exist
side by side and different faith-communities live within
the same geo-political unit, yet they live separately and
as aliens. Their mutual relationship is also not always
very cordial and harmonious.
The problem of inter-religious disharmony and strife is
not new. History stands witness to many intra-religious
and inter-religious schisms, controversies and conflicts
leading to stigmatizing the other factions/faiths as heretics
and extremely dangerous. There are examples of one faith
trying to force itself upon others either through allurement
or force. In the Indian context, we have seen conflicts
between sects of Hinduism, between conservative-exclusivist
Brahminism and the relatively liberal-humanist sramanic
tradition. Then there were attempts by Christians and Muslims
to seek conversion of people of other faiths. Both of them
in their own times used the political power to achieve their
objective. Similarly, in the Christian-dominant West, people
of India, Asia were discriminated against when they went
there.
It is evident and widely recognized that no faith or faith-communication
can live in isolation today. India had been since ancient
times religiously plural. The population movements that
followed the breakdown of the colonial era and the inflow
of migrants and the influx of refugees from ex-colonial
countries and from countries suffering from conflicts and
civil wars or from poverty and deprivation have contributed
to the emergence of multi-religious and multi-racial societies
in Europe and North America. However, life in this new social
scenario was not harmonious and peaceful. There were instances
of discrimination on religious and racial counts. Pogroms
and jihads have also been launched against the other faith-communities.
This hatred and violence were caused by the fact that each
faith-community tried to underrate the faith-beliefs of
the other by comparing the truth of its tradition with the
practices of the other, by claiming monopoly over truth.
These mass migrations, flood of knowledge about the variety
of religions, easy and fast means of communication and transportation
and such other developments have made man re-think his earlier
exclusivistic attitude. The global interaction of economics
and the worldwide interdependence of political systems have
also helped in this rethinking and redoing of theologies.
Man has come to realize that his religion is not the only
but one among the many religions of the world. This has
resulted in bringing about a shift in the attitude.
Religion has been used in the past and also in the present
to create distrust and discord. It can also be used for
conflict resolution. We are familiar with the former but
the latter is far too little tried. Harmony in human relations,
social as well as religious, is possible only through proper
understanding of religions. Inter-religious understanding
is a vital component of peaceful and just world order. Efforts
in this regard have been made from time to time. In the
recent times, a movement was initiated in 1893 through the
Parliament of World Religions in Chicago where representatives
of major religions met together to discuss issues of mutual
concern. Since then, many other inter-faith organizations
have come up to highlight the need of rejecting the earlier
attitude of exclusivism and instead adopt an attitude of
acceptance and tolerance so that different faith-communities
live in peace and harmony.
A growing number of religious leaders as well as philosophers
and theologians now recognize the importance of inter-religious
understanding and cooperation, and are seeking to justify
it from their respective perspectives. They are also emphasizing
the moral values held in common and are pondering how religious
people may act more effectively to meet the critical challenges
to our world society. Religions need not make wars, riot
on each other, but on the giant challenges of religious
or inter-religious conflicts, injustice, inequality, poverty
and diseases.
This study begins with a humble attempt to discuss different
attitudes of a faith/faith-community towards the other faiths/faith-communities.
This includes a survey of all the different attitudes from
the earlier exclusivism to the modern-day pluralism. Herein
we have tended to agree with Alan Race’s classification
of these attitudes into Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism:
it is this classification which theologians like John Hick,
Paul Knitter and even Wilfred Smith also gave their approval.
Alan Race seems to hold that religious experience is the
quest for ultimate reality or truth - understanding it,
realizing it or being one with it. In the pursuit of this
quest, adherents of different religions often tend to have
an inherent drive to claims of uniqueness and universality
for their faiths and prophets. They exhibit an inner tendency
to claim that their religion is the only true religion,
it is their religion which offers the true revelation, is
the only and the true way leading to man’s spiritual
emancipation and their prophet or spiritual preceptor is
the only saviour to lead man on the way to salvation: ‘there
is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name
under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’
is their usual refrain. Such an attitude, which Alan Race
categorizes as exclusivism, is not limited to anyone religion:
there are people holding on to this view in many traditions.
Such people fail to accept the expression of ultimate reality
or truth by any religion as authentic except what their
own religion has to say on this: rather, to them all other
faiths are inauthentic and invalid, and other faith-communities
as pagans. They assure a place in heaven for the “faithfuls”
and condemn to ghetto the “pagans” and the “infidels”.
In the second category called inclusivism, Alan Race includes
those who are somewhat tolerant of other religions, but
still feel that truth is limited to their faith only. They
favour dialogue with other religions, but, understandably,
the result of the dialogue is pre-determined in their favour.
This shift represents a change from one’s all-knowing
‘let us teach you’ attitude to ‘listening
to whatever wisdom comes from the other tradition’.
This is aptly summed up in the outcome of the second Vatican
Council (1963-65) which says that “the faith that
I have in Christ and his good news is so important that
I am compelled - necessity is laid upon me - to share it
with all people. But I trust I can listen to your story
and respect your integrity, even though having listened
I may still want to present to you, as to all, the claims
of my Lord.” (stress added). People of other faiths
are no more looked down upon as pagans but at the same time
their religion is not taken as equally valid and true, and
the ultimate truth lay only with their own faith and that
salvation was also possible only through their faith.
Of course, the votaries of this point of view, found mostly
among Christian theologians, agree that there should be
no attempt to pressurize or manipulate, for that itself
would contradict the spirit of the gospel. In fact, there
must be a persevering and painstaking effort to communicate,
the aim being to help the people really grasp the message
of God’s love and mercy in Christ, and to respond
to it as free persons.
Though pluralism is the need of the day yet it has several
social and theological implications. Religious pluralism
rejects exclusivism, Christ’s uniqueness, salvation
only through Jesus, theory of God’s son and monopoly
over truth by any religion. It also dismisses inclusivism,
meaning salvation of non-Christians only through Jesus Christ
– thus ‘anonymous Christians’ having patronage
of Christ. Religious pluralism represents a call for greater
understanding and appreciation of religious diversity. It
represents in this way a non-acceptance of a particular
religion-centrism, ethno-centrism and cultural-religious
superiority complex. It propounds that the different religions
present different images of God; they represent different
experiences of the Ultimate Reality spread widely in history
and culture. It has been labelled as Unitarianism, individual
religious identity assimilation, undermining of homogeneity,
and modification of the existing particularities of religious
affirmations. But pluralism does not oppose any religion,
rather it talks about equal validity of all and invites
equal participation of all. It leaves the different doctrinal
systems intact within their own religious traditions, but
on the other hand it proposes that these traditions, as
complex totalities, are different human responses to the
Real. All different paths are considered valid and authentic.
So pluralism not only accepts the variety of religions but
also accepts their significant differences that they cannot
be reduced to a system or common essence, or common ground.
Pluralism does not dilute any faith but transcends it. We
are of the view that pluralism will help in reducing racism,
discrimination, inequalities and conflicts based on religion,
culture and ethnicity, etc.
We have tried to observe pluralism in India as well as in
the West. In the Indian context, we have discussed inter-religious
relations prior to the arrival of the Semitic religions
as well as after that. In the former, we have discussed
intra-religious relations within Hinduism and also relations
between Brahminism and sramanic tradition. In the latter,
we have discussed the encounter of Islam as well as of Christianity
through colonialists and Christian missionaries. The Christian
missionaries and colonialists came to India from Europe,
especially Britain and Portugal. The attitude of Christian
West towards Indian religions especially Sikhism has been
discussed both when the Western Christians came to India
and when the Indians/Sikhs migrated to the West.
The French and Portuguese encounter with India remained
confined to the south-western parts of India, and they had
very little impact on Punjab and/or Sikhism: the only French
contact with Punjab was the appointment of some French officers
in the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The first significant
contact between Britain/Christianity and Punjab/Sikhism
took place during the regime of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It
was around this time that Christian missions began to be
set up both in the cis-Satluj and trans-Satluj Punjab. The
Christian missions in Punjab and India were often identified
and linked with imperialist expansionism. This resulted
in attitudes of superiority and supremacy. Kipling’s
“The White Man’s Burden” was the justification
for the British imperialism and its policies in India. The
viewpoint and perspective of colonialism, hegemony and Christian
exclusiveness engendered and instigated racism and antagonism
against other religions and feelings against the colonized.
The beginnings of a change in attitude can be perceived
around the middle of the 20th century when a British Member
of Parliament said, in 1948, in the British Parliament:
“No civilized government ever existed on the face
of this earth which was more corrupt, more perfidious, and
more rapacious than the government of the East India Company.”
Later on, the same attitude of superiority, however, persisted
against the migrants and immigrants, especially Sikhs from
ex-colonial countries, presently settled in Britain, Canada,
USA and other European countries. The British domineering
attitude and the British Church missionaries’ campaigns
to convert Indians to Christianity were tolerated in India
(though protests were made by both the Sikhs and Hindus)
because of the British imperial power and in the West because
of the Christians being in power and in majority. The racist
bias and prejudices against non-Christian religions continued
to exist and to be given vent to. Such attitudes continued
to poison the human community even after the Colonial order
had collapsed, and it remained a powerful element in the
mindset that produced and maintained them. When people from
India migrated to the Colonizer’s land, they faced
religious and racial discrimination because of the Christian
exclusive attitude.
However, racial and religious attitudes have undergone a
sea change due to the reasons discussed earlier. The presumption
of Christian superiority has receded prudently into the
background and the ex-Colonizer’s governments have
enacted various laws and established commissions and taken
certain other affirmative actions to ensure religious and
racial equality and human rights. But these wide ranging
changes and achievements have happened due to prolonged
and sometimes intense struggles by the immigrants/Sikhs
as well as to the help rendered by some mainstream people
of those countries. However, there still exist several discriminations
(for example, the turban issue in France and again the turban
issue in the lumber industry and for longshoremen in Canada)
and a lot needs to be done.
In the religious history of humankind especially in India,
Guru Nanak (1469- 1539), the founder of the Sikh faith,
has been one of the earliest, if not the earliest, examples
of advocating an attitude of religious tolerance and acceptance:
Sikhism favours appreciation of all faiths as paths leading
to the same objective. However, the Sikh acceptance of other
faiths is not passive, rather it is critical. It accepts
the revelatory truth in all religions, i.e., the Semitic
as well as the oriental scriptures as true, but criticizes
and condemns those who do not reflect on them or those who
follow practices not in conformity with the message contained
in these scriptures. Sikhism is especially critical of those
beliefs and practices which support the hierarchical division
of mankind and which help let a political authority use
religion as a tool to oppress and exploit a certain section
of society.
The Guru Granth Sahib is the most outstanding and magnificent
specimen of religious pluralism and inter-religious dialogue.
It contains hymns of some holy men coming from both Hindu
and Muslim traditions, apart from those of six of the ten
Gurus. All the hymns put together constitute the Word (the
Sikh scripture) which enjoys the status of Guru in Sikh
tradition. All the hymns, may they be of Kabir, Farid, Ravidas
or Guru Nanak, enjoy the same status and reverence of the
Sikhs. This implicitly means that truth is not the monopoly
of any particular religion or community and that revelation
is not specific to any caste or creed. There are also hymns
in the scripture which proclaim acceptance and validity
of other faiths. The Sikh advice to all humans is to be
true to one’s own self; if one is a Muslim, he should
be a true Muslim, and if one is a Hindu, he should be a
true Hindu. Guru Nanak also says that there is only one
way of reaching at the truth, and that is dialogue -with
one’s own self and with others. One must first listen
to the other and respect other’s view point. As long
as we are in this world, we should listen and then speak:
that is the only way to reach truth, says Guru Nanak in
one of his hymns.
Guru Nanak provides direct and indirect references to various
prevalent religious traditions and various religious paths
which, he says, owe their existence to the same One Creator.
There is no place for proselytization and forcible conversion
in Sikhism and everybody has the choice to follow the faith
of his choice. Guru Amar Das, the third spiritual preceptor
of the Sikhs, declares in one of his hymns all religious
traditions as equally valid for realization of the ultimate
objective. Guru Ram Das, the fourth Sikh Guru, prays to
God in a, what we might call in modern-day idiom, pluralistic
tone when he seeks the grace of God to rain over the whole
world. Guru Arjan Dev, the fifth spiritual guide and the
compiler of the Sikh scripture, supplicates to God for the
welfare of the whole humankind: “Be merciful, O God.
Keep all beings in your care. Let grain and water be in
plenty; shatter their suffering and penury, and ferry them
across the Ocean of Existence (Guru Granth Sahib, p 1251).
In the Sikh tradition we find Guru Nanak having dialogue
with the holy men of different religious traditions during
his preaching journeys. This was perhaps the first example
of inter-religious dialogue with a view to understanding
and appreciating the other religions and their beliefs and
practices. The Sikh scripture is also quite emphatic in
stating that “man throughout his worldly existence
must seek to converse with others by first listening to
others’ view point and then putting forward his own,
for this is the only way to attain truth” (Guru Granth
Sahib, p. 661). The best example of interfaith dialogue
in the Sikh scripture is Guru Nanak’s Sidh Gosti.
The Sikh Gurus broke down the barriers of hostility and
prejudice between religious communities and Guru Arjun Dev
pronounced that “None is our enemy, nor is stranger
to us. We are in cordial accord with one and all”
(Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299).
Sikhism is a way of life and the Gurus lived it and exhorted
others to live that while leading a householder’s
life. The Gurus participated actively in the community life,
stood for and with people especially the subaltern class,
performed extraordinary and exemplary services, created
history and established ideals and traditions by their remarkable
deeds. Some of the devoted followers of the Sikh Gurus and
gurbani also became legends by implementing gurbani in their
practical lives. Gurbani states that truth is the highest
but higher still is truthful living, thus recommending an
ethical and righteous life, full of filial and social obligations.
The Sikh Gurus and the Sikhs suffered and sacrificed so
that others could enjoy the freedom of faith. Guru Tegh
Bahadur laid down his life to protect the religious freedom
of man. One of the most moving Sikh affirmations of the
validity of other religions can be found in Bhai Kanahaiya
who perceived the same divine light in all the wounded soldiers,
no matter what their religion. Later on we have discussed
the pluralistic trends which prevailed during the reign
of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He did not rule in his own name,
rather did so in the name of Sarkar-i-Khalsa: he preferred
to be called Bhai Sahib or Singh Sahib instead of being
addressed as His Highness. His reign was also known for
its impartiality and generosity towards all faiths and faith-communities.
We have also explored the definition of tradition and its
significance and have provided numerous examples from Sikh
history and tradition which testify to the Sikh view of
tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, and appreciating
the otherness of the other.
The Sikh Gurus lived their precepts and were engaged in
dialogue and towards building harmonious and loving inter-religious
relations. The lives of the Sikh spiritual teachers, the
message of the Sikh scripture, and Sikh tradition and history
all stand witness that Sikh religion rejects exclusivism
and inclusivism and supports pluralism. It favours inter-religious
dialogue and engagement so as to relate to one another and
heal the mutual antagonism; and opposes the absolute truth-claims
by any tradition because such claims can easily be exploited
to incite religious hatred and violence. The Sikh Holy Book
is, as we already said, an excellent specimen of pluralism
– containing the hymns of six of the Gurus, alongwith
some of the holy men belonging to both Hindu and Muslim
traditions.
If we want a world free from the prevalent distrust and
disharmony, oppression and violence, we must improve inter-religious
relations and see people from other traditions as our brothers
and sisters. The acceptance of other faiths could mean,
at least to some, following a theocentric approach which
involves searching for a common God dwelling within different
religious communities. We do not agree to this, rather we
have favoured pluralism which, on the other hand, stands
for an engagement with other faiths with a shared commitment
to promoting eco-human welfare. It involves globally responsible
dialogue. In such a dialogue and inter-religious relations
no one will dominate or assimilate or stand in judgment
over the others; it is an egalitarian approach which has
salvation or well being of humans as the starting point
and common ground for our efforts to understand other faiths.
Religiously pluralistic attitude has a vital role to play
in inter-community peace. The Sikh teachings are at the
core of this pluralism and can play a significant role in
this process.
¤
