Saturday Dec 14, 2024
Saturday Dec 14, 2024
Wednesday, 21 June 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Laksiri Fernando
The task of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka involves not only building bridges between ethnic communities but also religions. Many interethnic issues overlap closely with interreligious differences, suspicions, misunderstandings and friction. Therefore, I would propose that the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) and the Ministry of National Coexistence and Dialogue undertake such activities to promote interreligious dialogue at various levels in order that religious amity, coexistence and peace prevail in the country.
I have not mentioned the Ministry of National Integration and Reconciliation separately as I understand ONRU is pivotal in that ministry. The other ministries that should come together for this purpose might be the ministries in charge of various religious affairs. These are scattered among different ministers and ministries. That also shows the gravity of the separation or distance between religions, and the need for interreligious dialogue. There are around 25 countries with ministries of religious affairs but none with separate ministries for different religions. For example, in Indonesia there is one ministry but different directorates for different religions, including one for Buddhism.
The need for an interreligious dialogue in Sri Lanka is an urgent task given the recent attacks on several Muslim mosques and shops and reported assaults on evangelical groups. Religious friction was also reported because of the arbitrary or forceful erection of Buddha statues in Hindu-dominant localities in the north.
Law enforcement undoubtedly is a requirement to curtail the spread of these activities, including bringing clear anti-hate speech and activity laws. Impartial law enforcement on the other hand requires education for police officers on interreligious matters and observing impartiality in respect to different religious groups. This could be part of interreligious dialogue, different religious leaders addressing police officers jointly with other experts.
The need for interreligious dialogue is not only a national priority but an overall international task. Religious friction, conflicts and violence have increased around the world in the recent past, primarily due to political reasons and power politics. Certain trends have even grown into terrorism. Many western cities are not safe today as a result.
The conflicts are not only between different religions but also between different sects within the same religion. Although this has been the case throughout history, the present stakes are more dramatic given the lethal weapons and methods that adversaries use and the vast populations that are affected by these conflicts. Therefore, a country like Sri Lanka just coming out of a devastating war should be extremely careful.
Interreligious dialogue at various levels between religious leaders, practitioners and followers can bring communities together to iron out their misunderstandings, ill feelings or grievances if the dialogue is conducted in a proper manner. However, there shouldn’t be any illusion that the violent instigators also could be reformed through these dialogues. The instigators might use these forums to further their objectives and disrupt activities. Therefore, law enforcement is necessary before undertaking such dialogue.
The purposes of interreligious dialogues are visualised differently by different people under different circumstances. There are those who advocate interreligious dialogue for theological or religious purposes. The long-term and spiritual advantages of such efforts cannot be denied. Interfaith dialogue is a more contemporary term for such efforts for those who wish to learn from all religions or follow all of them.
Raimon Panikkar (‘Interreligious Dialogue’ 1999) came close to this objective, saying: “In the present world context, one can hardly fail to discover positive and true values – even of the highest order – outside of one’s own tradition. Traditional religions have to face this challenge. ‘Splendid isolation’ is no longer possible.” (p. 6).
Even in a social sense ‘splendid isolation’ is not an admirable situation. Organised religions and their priests, monks and imams do have social obligations. Those are mostly ethical and moral. This is another aspect of interreligious dialogue, mostly applicable to Sri Lanka or elsewhere under the present circumstances. That is why interreligious dialogue should be a part of the National Reconciliation Policy.
There were such efforts in the former Yugoslavia and in the Balkans in the aftermath of several terrible ethno-religious conflicts. There are books written on these efforts. Those efforts, however, were after the event. Although Sri Lanka is in a post-conflict situation, the past conflict was not purely a religious one. The country therefore needs to be more proactive on the religious front before unnecessary situations flare up. Interreligious dialogues are generally necessary in multi-religious and pluralistic societies.
UNESCO and even the UN have been promoting interreligious dialogues at one time, particularly after the events of 9/11. However, there are not many activities today at a juncture when these are most necessary and important in the Middle East, North Africa and even in the West and elsewhere. However, Sri Lanka might be able to get some inspiration from some of these UN bodies, particularly from UNESCO’s work.
The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted resolution 60/10 in 2005 and its title is most appropriate for Sri Lanka - Promotion of Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace. This is exactly what is required in Sri Lanka and national reconciliation can be easily added after peace.
The resolution lists around a half a dozen summits and dialogues carried out around the world from 2004-2005.
It is true that the situation in Sri Lanka was not conducive for such a summit or dialogue at that time. Although there was a truce (CFA), it was terribly fragile. The issues were different. However, now the situation is different. Therefore, using these examples, Sri Lanka might be able to go for one in an effective way. This is a suggestion.
More importantly, the resolution highlights the importance of interreligious dialogue in four operational paragraphs. One and three are quoted below.
“Recognising the commitment of all religions to peace,
1. Affirms that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue constitute important dimensions of the dialogue among civilisations and of the culture of peace;
3. Invites the Secretary-General to continue to bring the promotion of interreligious dialogue to the attention of all Governments, regional organisations and relevant international organisations, including ways to strengthen the linkages and focus more on practical actions in the implementation of the initiatives on interreligious dialogue and cooperation for peace;”(See UN Resolution for 2005).
The above reinforces what I have suggested.
(1) As interreligious dialogue is necessary for a culture of peace, it should be given priority in the National Reconciliation Policy.
(2) As the UN and UNESCO are committed to this endeavour, Sri Lanka should use this opportunity to seek their assistance.
(3) As a member of the UN, Sri Lanka is also duty bound by this resolution as paragraph three indicates.
It is in the above context that a lacuna in the now publicised ‘National Policy on Reconciliation and Coexistence’ can be highlighted (See ONRU website). In that document there is a good understanding of some of the intractable problems but there are several areas lacking both in diagnosis and pragmatic action. A lack of a strategy for interreligious dialogue is one.
In the whole document of 13 pages (in English), there are only five places where religion is even mentioned. The only substantive reference is in the section on ‘National Coexistence and Diversity’ where it says, “…thereby recognising the existence of more than one religion...” That is all.
Whether we like it or not, according to the Gallup Poll 2008, Sri Lanka is the third-most religious country in the world. Therefore, religious animosity to the extent that it exists, is unhealthy for peace and national reconciliation.
The four main world religions, Christianity (31.5%), Islam (23.2%), Hinduism (15%) and Buddhism (7.1%) are present in this county but in the opposite order. According to the 2011 census, 70.19% of Sri Lankans are Buddhists, 12.6% Hindus, 9.7% Muslims and 7.4% Christians. This opposite order could be one reason for the perceived antipathy. No one can be 100% sure.
The National Policy on Reconciliation and Coexistence was approved by the Cabinet on 2 May. This is exactly the period when apparent religious tensions surfaced, of course instigated by some political activists in the name of Buddhism. However, if there were proper understanding and cooperation between the true leaders of these religions, most of these attacks could have been nipped in the bud. At least the law enforcement agencies could have acted more effectively.
The National Policy document is based more on general principles and action in the political sphere, but not so much on social action. It is weak in terms of ‘Implementation Strategy’ and in that section only five policy areas are mentioned in general terms. It is highly State or Government-centred. It is in this section however that action for interreligious dialogue should have come in, of course highlighting the need for religious amity and peace as a requirement in national unity, peace and reconciliation in other sections.
Dialogue is an accepted methodology in knowledge building and understanding each other. This is something we use day-to-day in a rudimentary form. Most of the Buddha’s teachings, in my understanding, were in a dialogical method.
When Rhys Davids translated many of the Pali canon, he called them ‘Dialogues of the Buddha’. The secular tradition of the method goes back to Socrates and Plato. This is an accepted methodology in all religions. What is important is not monologue but dialogue in trying conditions such as those in Sri Lanka today.
Interreligious dialogue is not about religious leaders amicably participating in State functions such as Independence Day or Republican Day. It is also not about an enactment of another ‘Panadura Vadaya’ (Panadura Debates). The purpose should be to come together, respecting the differences between each other and advising followers to adhere to the peace and non-violence that are fundamentals of all religions. The task is moral and ethical, and definitely not political.
In addition, religious leaders can advise adherents to follow the rule of law of the country because under modern circumstances, we all are in organised societies where there is a State and even an elected Government in charge. The freedom of expression and other rights should prevail, but miscreants should not be allowed to create violence or chaos.
Interreligious dialogue is not unknown to Sri Lanka. Even at present there is an Inter-Religious Council. This has potential. But it can go beyond these limited participation and agendas.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, during President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s time in power, I myself participated in many of these discussions at various levels attended by different top ranking religious dignitaries from all religions. I have seen them interacting most amicably, promoting peace and harmony.
It is possible that what President Maithripala Sirisena said while meeting with the Inter Religious Council on 31 May was misunderstood or misinterpreted. What he said was, as clearly reported on his website: “All religious leaders should come to a single stage to solve religious conflicts.” This is about interreligious dialogue. There can be various ways of implementing interreligious dialogue for peace, harmony and reconciliation. There can be a centre to promote dialogue at various levels. Religious scholars should also take part. There can be a website. There can be meetings and statements and even publications. These are just some preliminary ideas.
