Authority,
Autonomy
And Religious Conflict
By Sarbeswar Sahoo
20 March, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On
our way back from Fateh Sagar Lake to Seva Mandir (Rajasthan), where
we worked as volunteers, we had some wonderful religious discussions
with Janneke and Marjolaine – the former from the Netherlands
and the later from France. Clearing their queries and curiosities about
the complex cultural customs and traditions of Indian pluralism, Pankaj
(from TISS) and I made some efforts as the students of social sciences.
While making a point on the rising religious conflicts and intolerance
in the present day society, an important point came to the discussion
which forms the foundation of ‘communal/ ethnic conflict’
and ‘clash of religious identity’ through out the world.
Since 9/11, Islam has been
portrayed as the evil and held responsible for the rising religious
conflicts and terrorist activities everywhere. Mahmood Mamdani, a Columbia
political theorist, in his book on Good Muslims and Bad Muslims, debunks
the orthodox idea that the modern and secular Muslims as good and the
traditional and religious Muslims as bad. However, the point here is
neither about good Muslims and bad Muslims, nor about good religion
and bad religion; it is about how and when religion become communal.
The answers to this question are authority, politicization and labeling.
Religion and politics nexus is well known to all, and we also know pretty
well about who labels whom as communal and intolerant. However, the
question of ‘authority’ and its role in politicizing religion
still remains hidden from the agenda and is yet unexplored. It is not
the ordinary people who politicize religion and label other religion
as the evil monster. It is the ‘people in power’ (not only
those in politics) who enjoy the legitimate right (by virtue of their
position) to misinterpret, miscommunicate and manipulate the popular
will against one another. No religion is bad.
Politicization of religion
by the people in authority is one of the important reasons of religious
conflict in many parts of the world. The “intensity of the politicization”
is higher in monotheistic religious traditions due to the centralization
of their authority. The “choice of opting out” (freedom)
in these traditions is very much unlikely not because of the strict
regulations of the religion but because of the existence of an authoritarian
religious monarch. In contrast, the polytheistic traditions like Hinduism
which have no single authority structure are plural in culture, practice
and belief. It becomes impossible to ‘organize’ the whole
community for a petty political agenda. The plurality of structure (various
castes and sub-castes), belief and ideology are the raison d'être
of less politicization in Hindu tradition. There is no dominant way
of thinking, and no absolute authority to guide the Hindu religion.
However, this does not mean that Hinduism is good; the introduction
of authority structure and the entry of various organizations who claim
(in fact self-proclaimed) to be the representatives of Hindus have caused
many violent conflicts and have also threatened the long-standing secular
and syncretic cultural traditions of Indian society. Their exclusivist
definition of Hinduism has created a “sense of suspicion and fear”
among the people from other religious communities. Their loyalty is
questioned and religion is (mis)interpreted as intolerant. This sense
of suspicion never existed before; religious communities were marked
by their harmonious and syncretic living. “Community living”
instead of “communal living” used to be the foundation of
social life. This hostility appeared in communities when representation
of religion was made through religious or political authorities. That
means people relinquished their liberty, freedom and autonomy to the
authorities who now guide them on religious affairs. And the authorities
in power have got the legitimate right to interpret, misinterpret and
manipulate religious issues for their petty political gain. Monotheistic
religion is more likely to have centralization in authority; and polytheistic
religion is more likely to give autonomy to the people. This does not
mean monotheistic religious groups, like Islam and Christianity, should
start believing in many Gods, but to find out an alternative that could
give the masses more autonomy in religious affairs and could create
Weberian “disenchantment” with the “traditional/charismatic
authority” structure in a modern world where “democratic
rationality” has become the order of the day.
One of the latest examples
of this is the controversy between the Hindus and the Muslims on the
singing of Vande Mataram in schools on September 7, 2006 which resulted
in the exchange of hostile ideas, arguments and counter-arguments between
the self-proclaimed leaders of both the communities. This became a political
issue around which the authorities tried to widen their legitimacy among
the masses. No one really bothered about the public opinion. What the
people exactly want? Do they really have any problem with this? On the
contrary, the public also never bothered about the controversy in their
social life (as they know this is another political manipulation). Another
aspect of this debate is that religion no longer remains confined to
the private life of the people; it has come to the political market/
public space searching a suitable offer (in terms of political profit)
being traded by the authorities. This politicization and publicization
of religion by authorities are the reasons of mistrust and growing violence
in society. The state, which was founded on the principles of secularism
and religious neutrality, has now started interpreting and propagating
religious relevance for the communities. Similarly in the Western context,
Christianity and its propagator – the political state, have been
restricting individual’s personal preferences and choices related
birth, death, abortion and sexual preferences. This is where the legitimacy
of the authorities in power needs to be questioned for not to interfere
in private affairs and religious life.
As our experience says, where
the ordinary people are autonomous to decide and where there is a strong
influence of the public opinion (not the opinion of the people having
authority) on the affairs of social life, conflict finds very little
scope to express itself. Thus, autonomy would provide the foundation
for acknowledging cultural differences, respecting social pluralism
and accommodating the other/unknown without urging for their assimilation.
Let religions be autonomous from their authorities.
Authority, Autonomy and Religious Conflict
Sarbeswar Sahoo
is a Ph.D Candidate, Department of Sociology, National University of
Singapore; [email protected]
Click
here to comment
on this article