Lessons from Indonesia

Recent public discourses and writings in India are dominated by the use of two words: “Constitution” and “religion.” Those who swear by the Constitution declare it a secular document and emphasise its provisions relating to freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one’s religion and the State’s duty not to discriminate on grounds of religion.

On the other hand, the proponents of religion, while expressing their respect for constitutional values, point out that religion has never been a purely private matter in India; religious symbols are publicly displayed and rituals are publicly performed as they form part of the tradition and culture we have inherited.

On the face of it, both statements are true. The question is, how do they translate into practice? People of different faiths live and practise their religion; they go to their places of worship and perform prayers and rituals without hindrance.

But the public sphere has been vitiated by violent incidents and vitriolic speech between different religious groups and communities, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene and ask the government to proactively take action to curb hate speech. Disputes over temples and mosques range from the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to Gyanvyapi and Kashi Viswanath in Gyanvyapi.

Read | A good society for communal harmony

An issue like the hijab pertaining to one school in one town, Udupi, which could have been solved locally, assumes national proportions, reaching the portals of the apex court. Strangely, the two judges on the bench chose to disagree, further complicating the case.

In a multi-religious and multi-cultural society with a long tradition of religious feuds and social conflicts like ours, some issues relating to identities are bound to arise in some form and in some place from time to time.

The challenge before the State and society is how to resolve them or at least contain them without giving room for violence and acts of vengeance. Indonesia seems to have found a way out of dealing with such conflicts within Islam. The arrival of IS in 2013 exacerbated the ultra-conservative doctrines of salafi (authentic Islam) and wahhabi (a Sunni Islamist fundamentalist movement) promoted by Saudi Arabia, which had long dominated the global discourse of Islam. This was in contrast to the traditional practise of Islam in Indonesia, which was more moderate, tolerant, and inclusive and contributed to relative peace and harmony in its society.

Concerned about the propagation of a radical Islam and shocked at the 2002 Bali bombings that took the lives of 202 people, the religious leaders of Indonesia formulated what came to be known as ‘Islam Nusantara’ which interpreted Islam taking into consideration the local customs of its fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence that emphasises human understanding of the divine). Nusantara refers to the Indonesian archipelago.

Thus, Islam Nusantara came to represent the Indonesian brand of Islam that embodied the various cultures of its people and was offered as an alternative model to Saudi Wahhabism. This model received the support of the then President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, who felt it was more compatible with his country’s cultural values. In 2019, the Ulama National Conference expressed its agreement with the concept of Islam Nusantara and helped spread its message.

Can we in India think of a model that embodies our own cultural values of tolerance, compassion and the spirit of unity in diversity, all summed up in the oft repeated principle of vasudaiva kutumbakam -- the world is one family? Before offering it to the world, we should practise the precept in our own country. Islam Nusantara is a model for reconciling differences within one religion, but in India, we need a model that appeals to different religions and cuts across different interpretations. As a democracy, we must also take into account the constitutional provisions and the rights guaranteed to citizens under them.

The ‘argumentative’ Indian is prone to drag any interpretation to court and make it a political issue. Levi Strauss, the German-American anthropologist and political theorist, perhaps anticipated what’s happening in India today when he described religion as a ‘theologico-political problem’. Religion and politics have clearly become mixed, with almost all political parties invoking some god or another and their leaders resorting to temple runs on the one hand and religious seers resorting to political agitations to achieve their goals, such as reservations for their own castes, on the other. This presents a conundrum, calling upon the courts to find solutions within the framework of what is avowedly a ‘secular’ democracy.

In the prevalent politico-religious environment, what is the model best suited to India? In my view, the answer can be found in the Constitution itself. Instead of being obsessed with fundamental rights, let us turn our attention to Article 51A, which lays down the fundamental duties of citizens. Under this article, “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India,” among others, “to promote the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India” and “to preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.” The Supreme Court, while interpreting “composite culture’,” observed: “Hinduism developed resilience to accommodate and imbibe tolerance; cultural richness with religious assimilation; and became a land of religious tolerance... Each religion contributed to the enrichment of the composite Indian culture as a happy blend or synthesis. Our religious tolerance thus received reflections in our constitutional creed” (Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994).

Recognising the ‘compositeness’ of our culture, all political parties and all religious heads must try to promote the ‘spirit of common brotherhood’ among their followers, and instead of running to the courts, they must find a way to resolve differences and disputes in a spirit of brotherhood. But we need a mechanism for this purpose, which can be in the form of an Inter-Religious Commission comprising eminent persons representing different faiths-Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.—with a mandate to resolve inter-religious disputes and at the same time take steps to foster ‘fraternity’, the value enshrined in the preamble of our Constitution. Details about the composition, powers, and functions of such a commission can be deliberated in a transparent manner, and it can be given constitutional status to make it an effective body.

India and Indonesia must consider resuming the Inter-Faith Dialogue initiated in 2018 and consider measures to tackle religious radicalism and terrorism in the two countries and on a global scale to further the cause of peace and harmony.

(The writer is former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)