Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
India's spiritual entrepreneurs
By Katherine Marshall
FAITH IN ACTION
When British businessmen and civil servants arrived in India in the 19th Century, they were flummoxed by the extraordinary diversity of the religious landscape. It still exists today. Fakirs, swamis, mullahs, imams, monks, nuns, dadis, and brothers are everywhere. When new religious movements emerge in India, they mobilize millions, not thousands, of devoted followers. This rich mixture, one person suggested at a meeting in Delhi on religion and global civil society last weekend, is so endemic that it's even in the curry.
The nice distinctions that we think we can draw in the United States between church and state make little sense to people in India. Religion there is about life in all its dimensions. And, as Amartya Sen, wise scholar, has argued, multiple identities are deeply intertwined, especially for the elites. Many people balk when they sense that they are being pigeon-holed into one simple category, say Hindu or Muslim.
Religious violence is the topic that flummoxes people today. What has transformed a land where religious communities lived side by side for thousands of years into a place of sectarian strife? In recent years, India has been plagued by violence in Kashmir, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, successive waves of communal violence in different parts of the country--and much of the violence is carried out in the name of religion. Even the growing pattern of Maoist or Naxalite violence has some religious dimensions.
Manipulation of religious identities by politicians is fingered as the main culprit for communal violence. With the aim of winning votes, and playing on deep-seated fears and resentments, leaders can transform a peaceful community into one where grievances take on a religious character and anyone who is of a different faith is the enemy. Another commonly cited culprit is globalization. The pressures of social change--urban migration, the erosion of traditional values--shake long-standing habits of tolerance. The result is a combustible mix.
Religious exclusivity, violence, and intolerance were no strangers in India's past. But there is a sense that things have changed for the worse. After a history of bitter conflicts between Hindus and Muslims, India prides itself on its secular constitution and ideal of tolerance. Yet religious politics remain stubbornly alive, threatening understanding and respect. Interfaith efforts abound, but still the image persists of religion as a powerful, often dangerous genie barely contained within its bottle. All this puts a new spotlight on the work of revitalizing India's traditions of non-violence and of inter and intra-faith harmony.
If these threats grow out of religion, maybe the answer is also to be found in religion. In a landscape so diverse, with vast inequalities between genders and castes, there is a crying need for the kind of spiritual clarity and energy that Mahatma Gandhi personified. True, no one leader or group of religious leaders holds a recognized position of authority. But amid the vast array of religious voices, there are many that command deep respect. There is a promise therefore both of soothing violence and tensions and addressing the deeper problems that lie underneath.
Social entrepreneurship is the latest trend in understanding what it takes to bring about change in today's world. The idea is that social causes can be better achieved with some of the spirit of creativity, entrepreneurial pizzazz and discipline that are the hallmarks of business. The social entrepreneurship movement tends not to focus much on religious forces, but the drive and social passions of social entrepreneurs are also qualities that power some great religious movements. After all, Mahatma Gandhi was in many eyes the ultimate social entrepreneur.
In considering the potential of religion in a complex society like India, the ideals of social entrepreneurship offer a path and some insights that deserve more attention. Take issues like female foeticide and child marriage, ancient ills starkly apparent in the modern era. India's traditional religious world and its newer religious movements could be a major catalyst of change. These leaders should be part of the conversation about social entrepreneurship and reform, as well as about non-violence and peace. It's worth a try.
Katherine Marshall is a senior fellow at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, a Visiting Professor, and Executive Director of the World Faiths Development Dialogue.
By Katherine Marshall |
September 24, 2010; 12:09 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Millennium Development Goals: time to get serious |
Next: Restoring ethics in India
Posted by: Secular | September 25, 2010 1:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Katherine Marshall,
Your statement that "Religious exclusivity, violence, and intolerance were no strangers in India's past" is simply incorrect.
The Hindu culture that defines India has an extraordinary history of tolerance and pluralism.
For thousands of years, Hindus have been welcoming hosts to Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Baha'i, and many others.
It is only when the Muslims and the Christians arrived that the violence & conflicts began. Hindus & Buddhists have never fought a religious war in 2,500 years (The leader of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka was a Christian and not a Hindu).
These two religions (Islam & Christianity) have a supremacist attitude about their religion. And this has made them aggressive and destructive. THIS IS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Religious conflict in the world has Muslims and Christians either on one side or both sides of the conflict. A sad observation.
The Hindu Rig Veda, the oldest spiritual text in the world, stated 7,000 years ago: "Truth is One; the Sages call it by many names." This has been the foundation of a profoundly tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse spiritual system called "Hinduism" in the West, but more accurately known as Sanatan Dharma.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | September 24, 2010 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I don't know what to make of this lot of fluff and no substance. She says in two successive paragraphs two completely opposite things,
"Religious violence is the topic that flummoxes people today. What has transformed a land where religious communities lived side by side for thousands of years into a place of sectarian strife? . . . .
. . . . With the aim of winning votes, and playing on deep-seated fears and resentments, leaders can transform a peaceful community into . . . ."
In the first one she says communities lived side by side for thousands of year and then turns around and talks about deep seated resentments. This is utter nonsense, how can it be both. First of all there are two major religions over there the Hindus and the Muslims. Besides these two distinct communities did not even exist for more than thousand years. They have to have existed for at least another thousand years before using the plural. That aside they have not been living harmoniously side by side. Muslims are the conquerors and the Hindus were the vanquished. It is stupid to claim they lived peacefully side by side. Most of the muslims in India are of the same ethnic make up as the Hindus. As a matter of fact there probably is more ethnic diversity within Hindus and muslims from different parts of India than Hindus and muslims from the same part of India. The Indian muslim is a great great great . . .
grandchild of a Hindu who was either forced to convert or saw an advantage in converting. So these two groups never really reconciled except from time to time make alliances of convenience in attacking a third king who was himself a Hindu or a Muslim. That said there is a growing awareness among the Indian muslim contrary to the horse manure they were fed by the separatists in 1947, living under a secular rule is not quite that bad. Especially amongst Shia and other communities, after seeing both Pakistan & Bangla Desh teetering into failed states, they count their blessings that they stayed back instead of moving to either of those islamic paradises.
On the other hand the Sikhs, Zoroastrian, Jains, Buddhists & Hindus have lived quite harmoniously. Partly as the others are very paltry in size hence the only recourse left to them was not to irritate the big DOG. Zoroastrians were refugees who suffered a crushing blow from Islam and their fellow Zoroastrians were all converted by sword and those who could not countenance themselves converting ran to India, they had no desire to challenge Hindus.
Getting late will post rest later.