C. T. Kurien

As is well known, Dr. Samartha was keenly interested in inter-religious dialogue. But I imagine that for him, this dialogue was only a means to ensure that brothers and sisters dwell together in unity and therefore, I have chosen for the presentation here this evening, the topic "COMMUNAL HARMONY”. I must say that it is “a societal perspective". I may make a modification of that familiar commercial which says, “there is nothing theological about it”.

It may appear that communal harmony will result if we are good to members of other communities. Of course, we must be good to members of our own community, whatever that may be, and members of other communities; but it seems to me that this is too simplistic a view. I would like to submit to you that a proper understanding of community itself is necessary if we are to work towards and strive for communal harmony. And so, although it may appear very elementary, I would like to spend a little time to place before you my own understanding of community. I was introduced as an economist. As you know, economists do not deal with relationships among communities. They deal with relationships among commodities. My concern with communities has resulted from my interest in human beings in general and more so as a result of the close association that I have had with two organisations in Chennai during the 1990s. One was called, "Harmony India" and the other was, "Citizens for a Secular Society". In the1990s, along with some other parts of the country, Chennai experienced communal tensions - problems between Hindu community and Muslim community. These two organisations were attempts by people at large drawn from different walks of life to see what could be done to bring about communal harmony in that situation. My reflections on community have arisen from that involvement.

Let me start by saying what is obvious, that any community that we think of consists of individuals. A community is a group of individuals. But, please note that if we want to understand the significance of community, we must recognise that these individuals who constitute community are basically very unlike one another. In other words, one must accept that a community of individual is basically one of diversity. This may be something of a different emphasis but I think it is tremendously important to understand that the underlying element of community is diversity. Take an individual - the individual is an entity with different attributes - physical features, mental capacities, aesthetic sensibilities, religious or spiritual aspirations and all that. And the community consists of individuals like this who themselves are a set attributes, who are, in one sense, the personification of diversity. Two or more individuals like this constitute communities, as we know them. If that is the case, then of course, within the community one should expect to find much more diversity. And so, let us note that one of the key attributes of community is diversity.

There is a second aspect of community that I would like to touch upon, again from a common-sense point of view. You will notice that as an individual I belong to different communities. My family is something of a community - a very important community for me. The apartment complex where I live, that is a community also, although it is a different kind of community. The professional associations to which I belong – these are communities too - and the religious group of which I am a member, if I am a member, that is a community also. That is, if diversity is an important aspect of community, a second important aspect of community is multiplicity, variety of communities. Please note that the accent on diversity holds good even at that level. We must recognise the existence of diverse communities within a society, a country or whatever it may be. Therefore, in real life we are surrounded by, we are members of, a multiplicity of communities, each one consisting of different kinds of individual members. Strange as it may appear, it is because of their diversities that individuals seek communities and create communities. For it is only in a community that an individual has a sense of belonging, a sense of identity, a sense of recognition. Therefore, although a community consists of diverse individuals, these diverse individuals will themselves strive to achieve some kind of commonality within the community or for the community of which they are members. A community, if one may put it that way, is reconciled diversity, and this reconciliation of diversity may come by recalling traditions of the past, by subscribing to a common objective, but also through a series of practical arrangements, some mundane, some very obvious, but some not very obvious. One of these arrangements may be called authority. Authority has meaning or effect only to the extent that those over whom it is exercised accept it as authority. Indeed you accept authority because you know others will also accept that authority. So there are many ways in which the diversity within the community gets reconciled. This is a very tenuous way of existence. There will always be tension between the members who constitute the community, the individuals who constitute the community, and the community itself. Hence, I think it is important to think of community as a vibrant fluid entity -organisation, association or whatever it may be.

Let me now turn to a third dimension of community, which arises from diversity and multiplicity. If there are multiple communities, these communities will overlap also. Look at it from your own perspective. If you are a member of a large number of communities, there will be some overlapping among these communities of which you are a member. It is in the very nature of social relationships that while these relationships may be mediated through communities, the communities overlap. Hence, overlapping is a third feature of communities. Associated with this overlapping is what students of society would describe as boundary. Any community has a boundary, which sets itself as distinct from others or other communities. If there is overlapping, this boundary is bound to be porous and yet one of the features that we see in life is the tendency for the boundary to become rigid. A boundary, any boundary at all, will separate those inside it from those who are outside it. We may refer to it as "us” versus “them" or "us” versus “others". That is fine. But, when the boundary becomes hardened, the others become almost enemies. We become suspicious of them. We then begin to hate them. In this sense, communal harmony and communal discord are separated only by a mathematical line. As long as the boundary is porous, you can work towards communal harmony. If the boundary is made rigid, one can be sure that it is the beginning of communal discord.

Now, these are the building blocks that we can use in further discussions about the community and communal harmony. I mentioned overlapping. This may appear too technical a term, but think of it this way. If there is overlapping among the different communities that one can recognise, what it means is that there is a great deal of shared space. There is a great deal that is common and that does not specifically belong to any particular community. This is tremendously important also. What are these common spaces that exist in the midst of and in some sense arising from, communal boundaries? Take common examples. Civic life is a shared space. Commerce is a shared space. Education, particularly higher education is a shared space. Power is a shared space. So, while communal boundaries may tend to separate people, if you look for shared spaces, you can find a great deal that is common, irrespective of communities. And I shall soon tell you that in striving for communal harmony, one of the most important things is to strive to identify shared spaces and to strengthen them.

But let me place before you a few other thoughts before I pass on to that. Let me now come straight to communal harmony. Communal harmony can be viewed from two angles. If a community consists of diverse elements inside, there is need to look for harmony within communities themselves. That is important because we have started with the premise that within communities a key element is diversity. If for example, you take the opposite view, that within communities what exists is homogeneity, then of course there is no need to talk about harmony within communities. But if you begin with diversity as the key attribute of community, then you see that within communities it is important to strive for harmony. What must one do for this? First and foremost, within the community it is important to recognise the equality of its members in spite of the diversity. One of the most difficult things in most communities, particularly intimate communities, is to accept the equality of men and women although they are different. And we know that the tradition that we have is to make use of this difference, or this diversity, and to use it as the justification for equality.

If there is to be harmony within communities, therefore one of the first things that is needed is to strive for equality between and among its individual members who will have a great deal of diversity. Second thing required within a community for harmony is to search for principles, institutions, arrangements that will reconcile the diversity. You cannot take this for granted. You cannot take it that somehow there will be reconciliation; somehow within there will be adjustments. One has to strive for this and to the extent that all members within the community are involved in this process of the search for reconciling diversity, there will be move towards harmony. Very often it is thought that if there is some one person who will have control and will impose things, the community will have harmony. It may have the appearance of harmony, but of course we know that it will not be lasting.

If recognition of equality in spite of diversity is necessary for harmony within a community, it is equally important for harmony between or among communities. I must recognise that although my neighbour and I belong to different communities, he/she is my equal. Community boundaries are not, and should not be allowed to become, the basis for a hierarchical ordering of people. This means that the acceptance of the equality of all human beings everywhere, in spite of their great diversity, is the corner stone of communal harmony. And this why attempts to establish communal harmony must become a means to emphasising universal human rights and to defend these rights in all situations.

A second requirement for inter-communal harmony is the manner in which one would strive to transcend the community boundaries. Community boundaries are realities. There is no point in wishing them away. One has to accept that it comes from the very nature of a community. And yet if one is interested in communal harmony, it is important to strive for transcending these boundaries. Thirdly, I would say, for inter-communal harmony in the larger group, it is important to accept justice as the founding principle of community existence. This is for the simple reason that one way through which an individual will try to achieve justice for himself / herself is to bring together others in the similar situation within a community and then fight for justice. A great deal of community tension, if you reflect on it for a moment, can be seen to be attempts to have justice established. And to add one more I would say, as I have mentioned already, for inter-communal harmony, it is tremendously important that members of all communities try to locate, to create and strengthen shared spaces.

Let me turn now to the last part of my presentation. I want to look at two attempts - two different attempts - to bring about communal harmony, one through the political process and the other through the religious process. What does politics do in terms of the framework I have placed before you? Politics strictly speaking, is or ought to be a way of identifying shared spaces in the larger community - that's what politics is all about. Granted that the country, or the nation is divided into such large numbers of communities with their boundaries, what is it that they have in common? Politics can play a significant part in bringing about communal harmony by identifying shared spaces and strengthening shared spaces. Also politics in democratic societies try to get people to transcend their narrow communal loyalties by placing before them the notion of a larger community – the nation. So politics can also help in transcending boundaries and a major part of politics certainly is to make sure that there is justice in the system. In one sense, therefore, politics can be a powerful force for achieving communal harmony and yet, it can have its internal perversions as well, of different kinds. For instance, when elections come, the simplest thing is to cater to the community loyalties of the voters, convert communities into vote banks and say – well, the noble task of identifying shared spaces, we will turn to that after the elections; but the immediate task is to get power. The only way to get power is to convert these communities into vote banks and, therefore, start rigidifying the boundaries between communities. That is one way through which politics, which can be a powerful force in bringing about communal harmony defeat its own purpose.

A second tendency is to put a halo around the larger community called the nation saying that we must get rid of all smaller loyalties and accept loyalty to the nation as the ultimate loyalty - absolutising the nation as a community. This arises from the attempt to transcend boundaries, but the absolutising of the nation is a dangerous tendency as several historical instances, such as Hitler’s Germany, have shown. A third manner in which politics corrupts the system in this sense is to place majoritarian power as the arbiter of all issues. It springs from thinking of democracy solely as the rule by the majority and insisting that the minority must always yield to the majority. It arises from not having any principles other than numerical strength to validate issues. These are ways in which politics, which can play a positive role in communal harmony, very often degenerates into powerful forces causing communal discord and tensions.

I turn now to religion. I know I have to be careful in this audience speaking about religion but let me do the same kind of analysis of religion - societal analysis of religion - that I have done with politics. Religion also has certain positive attributes that can contribute towards communal harmony. Let me mention a few - I imagine that all religions fundamentally and basically will accept the equality of all human beings. This is a strong point that religion can emphasise in the search for communal harmony. Religions also speak about the need for transcendence, transcending all narrow boundaries, narrow loyalties, rising above all of these. This is another positive factor that religion can contribute. But religion can also become a corrupting factor in the search for communal harmony. How does this happen?

Consider first the accent on equality. While religions, in principle, or in the abstract, affirm the equality of all human beings, in practice, they set different standards. Most religions effectively give a lower status to women than to men, surprisingly in the very core of their activities, religious duties such as priesthood. Theological justifications have been put forward for claiming that human beings with certain skin complexions are superior to all others. Some religious doctrines consider people doing manual labour inferior to those who claim to work with their brains. According to certain religious considerations, people who by the accident of their birth belong to some geographical territories are more privileged than others. And most religions consider the adherents of their faith more equal than others! In practice, therefore, religions tend to betray the commitment to equality of all human beings that they claim in principle.

Secondly, while religions can contribute to the transcendence of boundaries, there is a tendency to say that that transcendence is not of this world, but of the world to come. Here on earth there are boundaries and tensions, but in the world beyond all of them would be overcome. In other words, religions spiritualise the concept of transcendence taking it away from the earthly realities, tensions and problems.

There is a third and, possibly, bigger distortion that religions bring about in matters related to community relationships. In one of his writings on the subject Wesley Ariarajah, whom many of you may know, refers to religious traditions as “an intellectual dogmatic deposit that has become part of the understanding of life and reality”. This dogmatic deposit consists of converting all earthly realities into religious categories. Totally overlooking all other dimensions of human life, religions tend to reduce human beings into one-dimensional religious entities such as Christians, Hindus, Muslims and so on. And ignoring the many non-religious experiential shared spaces of these human beings religions tend to separate them into clear-cut communities, which can be only hostile towards one another. Sometimes, it may be, as a temporary expedient for easy identification, but when religious authorities give a label, whatever may be the purpose behind it, it sticks – communal boundaries become hardened on the basis of these alleged religious differences and tensions, and hatred begin to emerge.

Politics that should put the accent on shared spaces can, and often does, deteriorate into a blatant agent for communal discord. Religions that should uphold the equality of all human beings and should become visible manifestations of the experiences of transcending boundaries frequently become the means to harden communal boundaries. Such are the social realities. There is also a kind of deadly combination of religion and politics that totally vitiates communal relationships. That is a politics that insists religious homogeneity is the basis of true national loyalty. When that religion is also claimed to have risen from the soil – the sacred land – a “community” is created which is a rigid packaging of religion, nationality, politics and, possibly, numerical strength. Thereby the equality of all human beings is set aside; the possibility of transcendence is negated; the quest for shared spaces is given up. Communal hegemony is misconstrued as communal harmony – the “others” falling in line with “us”. The rigidly composed homogeneity on both “us” and “them” is false, but the chasm caused by the hardening of the boundary leads to discord and conflict.

It is because of these subtle and blatant distortions which are all too common in our midst that a proper understanding of community is a prerequisite to promote communal harmony. Let us accept diversity as the basic ingredient of community and so celebrate diversity. Let us, at the same time, strive to reconcile our diversities. Let us hold on to equality as the prime means to that reconciliation and justice as the binding thread. Let us recognise that each one of us belongs to a plurality of communities and while being loyal to our legitimate communities let us strive to transcend them without absolutising any. And, while we continue to dialogue our differences – for we are different – let us explore, expand and strengthen the shared spaces that unite us. Thus may we experience the blessedness that comes when brothers and sisters dwell together in unity.

Dr. C.T. Kurien is Professor Emeritus of the Madras Institute of Development Studies of which he was Director and Chairman. He was Professor of Economics at the Madras Christian College.

Next article: Buddhists, Christians and the Doctrine of Creation - John May 

Back to list of contents