Inclusivity in religion : Gandhian principles to reinvent religious discourse towards promoting plurality

by A K Merchant :

The 93rd anniversary of the Salt Satyagraha which lasted for 24 days can provide important lessons for appreciating India’s pluralism in terms of religions, castes, languages, cultures, governance, ideologies, etc. The 78 trusted volunteers who accompanied Mahatma Gandhi along the march came from various backgrounds and cultural sensibilities. As the march progressed, a large number of people joined the group. And when Gandhiji broke the British Raj’s salt laws in 1930, it led to unified action by millions throughout the country. From the perspective of the Constitution of India, the Dandi March created a national space, drawing international attention to the freedom struggle. The Constitution addresses the issues of diversity and pluralism in a number of explicit and specific ways:

Salt Satyagraha and Gandhian approach to non-violent protest and dissent, people-centric economics, environmental conservation, and adherence to moral principles provide important lessons. Salt Satyagraha and Gandhian approach to non-violent protest and dissent, people-centric economics, environmental conservation, and adherence to moral principles provide important lessons. Salt Satyagraha and Gandhian approach to non-violent protest and dissent, people-centric economics, environmental conservation, and adherence to moral principles provide important lessons. Through the Preamble to the Indian Constitution; Through detailed provisions on federalism [Articles 245 to 263] and multilingualism [Articles 343 to 351]; Through individual Fundamental Rights; Through Directive Principles of State Policy, including the principle that the “State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations” [Article 38(2)]; Through the Fundamental Duties of every citizen of India, which include, “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” and “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture” [Articles 51-A(e) and (f)].

In a nutshell, it is important to recognise that diversity and pluralism are recognised through at least three (there may be more) distinct forms in the Indian Constitution: Elements and values that pertain to the State identity: this includes, for example, democracy, secularism, republicanism, federalism, and multilingualism; Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties that pertain most directly to the individual; Political and cultural rights that pertain to identity-based groups.

Role of the judiciary

Despite the wisdom of the Constitutional text on diversity and pluralism, a number of extremely difficult challenges and new realisations have arisen. These situations and tendencies call for a response that is not to be found easily in the text of the Constitution. This is where one must recognise the remarkable role of the Indian judiciary. To give some examples, issues of secularism, caste discrimination, gender equality and freedom of sexuality, freedom of speech and expression, environment and biological diversity, and federalism have received careful attention from learned judges.

In a judgement concerning ‘religious education’ in non-minority educational institutions, Supreme Court of India Judge DM Dharmadhikari, on September 12, 2002, noted: The words ‘religious instructions’ have been held as not prohibiting education of religions dissociated from “tenets, the rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sect or denomination”… A distinction, thus, has been made between imparting “religious instructions” that is teaching of rituals, observances, customs and traditions and other non-essential observances or modes of worship in religions and teaching of philosophies of religions with more emphasis on study of essential moral and spiritual thoughts contained in various religions… Special care has to be taken for avoiding the possibility of impairing ‘religious instructions’ in the name of ‘religious education’ or ‘Study of Religions’... This distinction between ‘religious instructions’ and ‘religious education’ has to be maintained while introducing a curriculum of religious education and implementing it… In a pluralistic society like India which accepts secularism as the basic ideology to govern its secular activities, education can include study based on the ‘religious pluralism’. ‘Religious pluralism’ is opposed to exclusivism and encourages inclusivism. Exclusivism in religion has been explained to mean—the view that one particular tradition alone teaches the truth and constitutes the way to salvation or liberation… The comprehensive approach to religion which should be inculcated in a society comprising people of different religions and faiths is described as inclusivism… The study of religious pluralism can be articulated in generally acceptable way and such attempt has to be made particularly in India which time and again has suffered due to religious conflicts and communal disharmony... The attainment of Constitutional ideals is possible only if side by side with sharpening intellect, moral character of children, is also developed to make them good citizens…. The real meaning of secularism in the language of Gandhi is Sarva-Dharma-Sambhav meaning equal treatment and respect for all religions, but we have misunderstood the meaning of secularism as negation of all religions.

Challenges and the way forward

Despite the G20 motto of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (one planet, one family, one future), questions of diversity and pluralism continue to pose a number of challenges in India and across the world today. The three most pressing challenges include: The resurgence of fanatical religious fervour occurring in different countries is not simply a sign of dying convulsion. Those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular orthodoxies are responsible for the conflicting interpretations, and for disrupting the culture of liberty, tolerance and mutual respect that have been the mainstay of our constitutional approach to diversity and pluralism; The economic and social challenges, and the new questions raised by the global refugee and ecological crises — these are, in part, produced by a poor or faulty political and legal approach towards diversity and pluralism; Cultures and technologies that disrupt or challenge mainstream ‘Bhartiya’ notions of culture and sensibility. Salt Satyagraha and Gandhian approach to non-violent protest and dissent, people-centric economics, environmental conservation, and adherence to moral principles provide important lessons. In recent studies, suggestions have been made to revisit Gandhian pathways and alternatives. While the world is acknowledging their relevance, India is losing the essence of Gandhi. The commitment of society and polity to educating, grooming and nurturing its citizens eventually manifests itself in the latter’s approach to civic participation, standards of personal responsibility and adherence to Constitutional morality. The Gandhian paradigm provides such an understanding of the positive shaping of our nation-state.

_______________________

*The writer is a social worker and an independent researcher based in New Delhi. Views expressed are personal