Co-existence of Religions in India

In India, there has always been co-existence of religions in an ideal form. With a few minor exceptions, a number of religions, not with standing their different sets of beliefs, have always flourished here together in complete harmony. It is no exaggeration to say that the example set by India in this sphere is quite outstanding.

The most ancient religion of India, dating back to prehistoric times, is Hinduism. Then, in the fifth century BC, a new religion, Buddhism, was founded by Gautam Budddha. During roughly the same period a religion known as Jainism was founded by Mahavira. Both of the latter religions were originally separate from Hinduism, there having been some initial rift. But, ultimately, Buddha came to be recognized as an incarnation, or avtar of Vishnu. Similarly, Jainism became a sect of Hinduism. (EB 8/906).

About fifteen hundred years ago, Christians came to India where they propagated Christianity among the Indian people. Later, Muslims ventured on to Indian soil and, with their advent, Islam began to spread here. But, leaving aside certain exceptional incidents, no clash or confrontation took place between Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

The underlying reason for this is quite specific. It is the remarkable flexibility of their beliefs and teachings. This, indeed, is the basis for the spirit of accommodation which has made possible the continuing co-existence of the various religious groups in this country.

So far as Hinduism, the religion of the majority, is concerned, it serves as the ultimate example of religious flexibility, with its unique concept of the manyness of reality. Its credo amounts to saying, ‘I am right and you are also right.’ It is, thanks to this particular belief that Hindus have such deep respect in their hearts for other religions. For them, all religions are manifestations of the same Truth.

Although neither Christianity nor Islam entertain this plural concept of Truth, they both subscribe to another tenet which is also conducive to harmony, namely, respect for other religions. Christianity and Islam both stress the need to respect other religious groups and to show proper regard for them, irrespective of the circumstances.

Just as religious co-existence is valued in Hinduism, so also is it valued in Christianity and Islam. If any differences arise, they do so as a matter of rationale, and not of actual practice. That is, the goal of co-existence is achieved in Hinduism through co-recognition, while in Christianity and Islam, it is achieved through mutual esteem.

In this way, even with conflicting sets of beliefs (that is, the manyness of reality and the oneness of reality) the desired goal of co-existence is a fully established fact. The basis of this co-existence in Hinduism is the belief in a common, underlying Truth, while in Christianity and Islam, this goal is achieved through tolerance. That is to say that in one case this co-existence is found at a conceptual level, while, in the other, it is at a practical level. Whatever its intellectual sources may be, the end result—co-existence—is the same.

There are many examples of this kind of practical agreement within the fold of Hinduism itself. For instance, a vegetarian Hindu and a non-vegetarian Hindu adhere to different principles, but for practical reasons, they live happily together without ever coming into conflict with one another.

In recent years, India has seen various clashes and confrontations in the name of religion, and the country’s image has apparently been affected by these incidents. But this has been due less to the actual points at issue than to the media’s sensational coverage of them.

For instance, in 1985, a case was filed in the Calcutta High Court by a Hindu, asking that a ban be imposed on the Quran. This incident was given undue emphasis in media coverage, but its outcome only served as a further proof that religious co-existence is to be found in India in its ideal form, for not only was his case dismissed by the court, but his action was condemned by all national institutions and by the whole of the Hindu community.

Another instance of the refusal of the Hindu community to condone a show of disrespect for Islam was in the now infamous case of the Babri Masjid being razed to the ground. There had been discord over this mosque for a long period of time until, finally, on December 6, 1992, a group of Hindus took it upon themselves to demolish it.

It is important to understand that this tragedy took place because of certain misguided policies of political leaders and not because of religious intolerance. That is why no notable Hindu or non-Hindu ever came forward to justify the demolition of the Babri Masjid. And that is also why—with the exception of the Babri Masjid—approximately 350,000 mosques in India are still intact. They are all safe and secure and are functioning as centres of religious worship and practice. Another point worth noting is that Justice P.K. Bahri has ruled in his 340-page verdict that the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya was not pre-planned. (The Times of India, June 9, 1993)

Here I should like to emphasize that one religion versus another religion is quite a different matter from one community versus another community. So far as religion in itself is concerned, it is a fact that religious co-existence has always been found in its ideal form throughout the history of India.

It is interesting to note that prior to 1947 in undivided India, it was non-Muslims who were the biggest publishers and distributors of Islamic literature. It is even more interesting that in divided India, it is still the non-Muslims who are to the fore in this field.

There are, of course, examples of religious intolerance, but these have always been the result of discord between two communities rather than between two religions. It has sometimes happened that members of one religious community have entered into dispute with members of another community over matters relating to their own individual or group interest (as opposed to religious interests) and then used arguments garbed in religious terminology to support their standpoint. Similarly, members of a certain community have been known to raise an issue publicly to serve their own political or material ends, again in the process using religion to further their own, individual, selfish interests. This is not religion. It is the exploitation of religion.

This kind of exploitation is always against the spirit of religion. That is why it cannot be continued indefinitely. It remains limited in its sphere and duration.

In modern India, slogans are shouted advocating the establishment of the Hindu Rashtra. In a plural society, such slogans are obviously against the spirit of co-existence, and, as such, are considered a danger by certain sections of the public. But I personally do not attach any importance either to them or to the present movement launched in the name of establishing the Hindu Rashtra. Those who fear for their future should take heart from the historic outcome of Mahatma Gandhi’s pre-1947 independence movement, launched in the name of Ram Rajya, for, after independence, the system introduced was not that of Ram Rajya, but of secular Rajya.

With 75 per cent of the Indian population being either illiterate, or semi-literate, political leaders regularly make use of religious slogans to secure the public vote. But the roots of co-existence and mutual tolerance are so strong, and go so deep, that I am fully convinced that politics of this kind will never exert any profound or lasting effect on Indian society. Such slogans, which are, in essence, more political than religious, will never succeed in disturbing the religious harmony of India.