Recently I have been invited to speak on the theme of "Interfaith" at quite a few meetings held in London. Let me share my thoughts on some of the key issues I have touched on.

In the last century we witnessed strife in the name of political ideology. We had two World Wars, with millions of people being killed. The challenge we face in the new century is perhaps even more worrying. This time we are seeing strife in the name of religion. This is a far more contentious issue. Religions are far more emotive subjects and can generate much stronger passions. There is a reason why this happens. Religions have a habit of telling us, "Carry out this much finite activity here on earth and we offer you infinite rewards in the hereafter." The risk/reward ratio is skewed to the extreme. If we kill in the name of religion or be killed in the name of religion, surely, that is a small price to pay for an infinite reward in the hereafter! One can see how the emotive aspects of religions enter the arena. How do we diffuse the situation?

We see the politicians and diplomats working away frantically trying to address the issue. We may think, "Surely these issues will get resolved by diplomatic manoeuvring; or by a bit of political give and take! Surely, all this is to do with economics and the control of oil fields! Or maybe we have to show offer greater justice to some disadvantaged people." But we know in our heart of hearts that all these: Political, Diplomatic, Economic, Judicial or Military approaches, at best are mere patchwork solutions.

The resolution of a problem that arises in the name of religion lies firmly in the field of religion. It is wholesome spirituality that can tackle the issues thrown up in the name of religion.

I suggest that the reason these problems have arisen in the first place is not because the world is somehow becoming more religious and that these tensions are showing up as the world religions are forced to interact with each other. The reason I suggest is precisely the opposite. It is because we are becoming less religious minded that these problems surface. We sometimes forget that we just cannot afford to ignore religions. (Even if some of us were to believe that all religions were erroneous these issues arising in the name of religions have to be tackled and contained).

In a highly secular world that we live in the role of religions in society is no longer very clear. As society can no longer find a role for religions two things begin to happen. On one side we see society adopting a more materialistic stance, and at the other side religions increasingly fall into the hands of fanatic wings. This happens as the mainstream aspirants of these religions are no longer there to guard their religions; the rational and tolerant elements of these religions get pushed aside in favour of the more fanatic elements. What is the solution?

The solution is to become truly religious. Not to be religious only in name but in the real sense of the word. The problems we face are the symptoms of a society that needs religion and yet has difficulty in relating to it. The religion that I come from has important contribution to make in this process.

The issue is: - How can many exclusivist religions co-exist in a single society? We do not have the luxury of living in isolation, practising our own exclusive religion. We live in multi-faith societies and operating, as single faith communities is no longer an option. The resolution offered by Hinduism is unique to this faith.

It is called 'pluralism'. It says that the same ultimate reality sometimes called God can be thought of and approached in different ways. "Why, different ways?" "It is because we are different", comes the answer. The goal may be same but as we are different; coming from different backgrounds; inspired by different prophets and scriptures, thus the manner in which we relate to the same ultimate will necessarily be different. This proposal suggests that however relevant are our prophets and scriptures to us they only have contextual validity and cannot have  absolute validity. They relate to us and only to that extent can they be considered absolute; but not true for the rest of mankind. The simple example I use to illustrate this is - Imagine two children in the playground. One says to the other, "My mum is best."  The other says, "No, my mum is best in the world." They both have tremendous love for their mothers and cannot tolerate the statement from the other so they fight. A wise man comes along and says to both of them, "Why don’t you change your statements and instead of saying just My mum is best, incorporate two little words at the end 'for me' and say: -  "My mum is best for me". Then you are both right and there is no need to fight. 

These children would perhaps take the advice easily but many of my interfaith colleagues have great difficulty with this proposal. The advice suggests that their prophets and their scriptures are no longer absolute but only have contextual validity. Sounds blasphemous!  The best resolution, the mainstream religions have been able to come up with so far is to use phrases like 'we tolerate other religions'. Meaning, we hold the monopoly on the absolute - the others somehow exist by our permission. As we see we still have a long way to go!

I have often wondered how can any religion claim to hold the Absolute within its framework of prophets, scriptures, doctrines and dogmas?  By the very definition of Absolute if anything can encapsulate it then it is no longer Absolute, as the religion that has captured it within its dogmas has now become bigger than the Absolute! Hindu teachings on this matter are very clear they say, "At best even the most esoteric religions can only offer a 'perception of the Absolute' - but never the Absolute."

As we can see, if the mainstream religions adopt this idea of pluralism, the sharp edges seen dividing the major religions disappear. This simple idea says, "Your prophet and scriptures suit you and are best for you, my prophets and scriptures are fine for my purposes so why threaten or feel threatened by each other? This is the Hindu concept of pluralism. 

Many of my Interfaith colleagues shudder at such proposal as it suggests that the prophets or the scriptures they hold so dear are at best a 'perception of absolute' rather than the real thing. Why should this be? The reason I come up with is that we human beings show weakness in dealing with spiritual matters. The Absolute is elusive in all religions, we try hard to grasp the idea but fail. So in our weakness we ascribe absolute stature to what we can grasp in our religions: i.e. The Prophets, the Scriptures, the doctrines and the dogmas. This is the source of our problem. We are not brave enough to recognise the necessary limitation when we are dealing with the absolute. This is the transition I advocate when I suggest: "We need to be truly religious in order to resolve the issue of religious strife".

Some interfaith colleagues ask, "what is involved in being a pluralist?"

Firstly, pluralism does not require that we do water down our convictions. In fact pluralism suggests that our faith is perhaps the most suited to our requirements so there is no need to shop around or change direction. We do not have to emulate other faiths, as that may not suit our own frameworks. We should hang on to our own path with full confidence and vigour. We can see how pluralism would view ideas of 'conversion' from one faith to another. It could best be described as 'perversion'. Why should spirituality, that is supposed to be so universal, be restricted to the teachings of one or two ancient prophets? 

Secondly, pluralism does not suggest that the validity of other faiths somehow compromises of our own faith. If we call God infinite then how can his presence in other religions reduce his presence in our religion? Definition of infinite does not allow that.

In a way, pluralism already exists in an apologetic manner in all the mainstream religions. These religions accept a variation of approaches within their religion. A vast number of denominations and approaches are grudgingly accommodated within these faiths. Pluralism gives all these denominations full dignity and promotes the idea of extending this dignity to cover all other faiths too. 

Pluralism has never promoted the idea that we take bits of all religions and produce a mix of all faiths called Inter-faith. The very idea is grotesque!

One Christian colleague said quite candidly: "No doubt, we are nervous about taking on this idea of pluralism but in a way we are relieved that it is being put across. Thank God for that!"

One of my interfaith colleagues suggested that even though pluralism sounds like a good idea it will not be easy for the theologians of the mainstream faiths to adopt it so easily. Why not be practical and focus on the common ground of humanity and develop interfaith ideals based on shared human values rather than through religious teachings? My response has been: - This is precisely what the outcome will be if the secular lobby gets its way. The secular lobby has been suggesting that religions are responsible for the serious problems we face today hence they should all be toned down or snuffed out. If we adopt this scenario religions would have lost out to the secular lobby.

Second criticism of pluralism comes from the 'main weapon of all philosophers'. (Using logic to show weakness in a logical argument!). In this instance it would translate as: But then 'Pluralism too is also a dogma' hence why should it be given a better footing than the 'Exclusivist agenda'?  Sounds like a valid argument but fails to hit the target in this instance. Pluralism by its own admission recognises its limitations. It never says that 'pluralistic' approach is in anyway is somehow 'absolute'.  It recognises its own contextual nature. But then we can ask why invoke it?  Because there is a great 'contextual' need for it in the world we live in. A world where many religions promoting exclusivist agendas just cannot co-exist without thumping each other! Hence this urgent need to invoke this Hindu concept of 'pluralism'.

The third criticism directed towards 'Pluralism' is that it appears to be a 'Relativist agenda'. 'Anything goes' may be the mantra of pluralism suggesting that there is no underlying absolute. This is not true. Pluralism is not relativism. Let me use a metaphor to explain the subtle difference. Suppose all of us are in a maze and are searching for the exit. For each one of us there will be a fixed prescription that will suit us most and will allow us to get out. (e.g. Go straight take the third right then second left and so on).  The prescription for each one of us will be different and yet binding. If we compared our prescriptions we may be fooled into thinking that all these prescriptions seem random and we may conclude wrongly that we are promoting a 'relativistic agenda' - which is not ture. Pluralism accepts varied pathways but also recognises the binding nature of the methodology we need to adopt. 

We have suggested that we have two options in this matter of resolving the issue of strife in the name of religion: - Either we adopt the idea of pluralism and incorporate it quickly within our faiths to diffuse the serious situation. Or, we may sing the glory of pluralism only after further serious catastrophes. The choice is ours.