Rituals, theologies and institutions are unique to every religion and this often leads to misunderstandings. Each religious tradition emphasises importance of certain rituals and theological dogmas as central to that religious tradition and also exerts superiority of its own rituals and theology. For example the Islamic system of worship prohibits worshipping or bowing before idols. Islam lays central stress on unity of God and considers associating any other being with Him as a sin. The Hindus, on the other hand, believe in idol worship and bow before idols. These differences often lead to violent conflict between the two communities in India.

These differences, for a proper dialogue, have to be understood and appreciated rather than fought about. Many sufis and bhakti saints did precisely that. They not only tried to appreciate these differences but also often tried to even reconcile them. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, for example, showed great respect both for Islam and Hinduism and worked out a creative synthesis between the two. Dara Shikoh, the Moghul prince who was greatly interested in sufi traditions had deep appreciation of Hindu religious traditions and he wrote a treatise called Majma' al-Bahrayn (i.e. meeting of two great oceans Hinduism and Islam).

A Sufi saint of eighteenth century India, Mazhar Jan-i-Janan believed that idol worship among Hindus is not essentially polytheistic as idols are a way to reach God, not God by themselves. The sufi saints laid more emphasis on spirituality rather than rituals and hence they could visualise the basic unity among all faith traditions.

The Hindu scriptures also talk of equal respect for all religions and religious traditions. The Bhakti saints in the Hindu tradition laid great emphasis, like the sufis, on intense love in the form of bhakti i.e. devotion to God, the Supreme Being. For them too rituals were secondary and it is spirituality which was fundamental. In the Christian traditions too, the mystics stressed spirituality and devotion to God.

While rituals, theologies and institutions might vary from religion to religion, values are bound to be complementary. For example Hinduism emphasises non-violence and Buddhism compassion; Christianity emphasises love and Islam justice and equality. It will be seen that all these values are complementary to each other.

But this does not mean that rituals and theologies do not matter for the people. There are millions of people who give great importance to their respective ritual and theological systems. An inter-religious dialogue should, as the very basis of the dialogue should accept the central importance of the ritual and theological systems. Here I would like to lay down some ground rules for inter-religious dialogue. The following rules would be of great help in carrying on inter-religious dialogue:

• Those who enter into dialogue should be firmly rooted in their faith tradition and should have inner conviction. It is true conviction without being sectarian which becomes the firm ground for dialogue.

• There should not be any feeling of superiority of their respective traditions in the minds of dialogue partners. The feeling of superiority can mar the very spirit of dialogue.

• Dialogue should never become polemics. Workgroupmical style is the very anti-thesis of dialogue. Workgroupmics try to prove the other wrong while dialogue is conducted to understand the other.

• Dialogue should not only be conducted to understand the other but also should respect the integrity of the other. No dialogue can be conducted if there is no respect for integrity and convictions of the other.

• The idea of dialogue should be to explain ones point of view and not to convert the other to ones own point of view. Even a slightest attempt to convert the other to ones point of view will destroy the spirit of dialogue. It will then be an attempt at conversion and this will lead to resentment. Attempt at conversion also implies that the person sought to be converted has belief system not as good as that of the convertor.

• The dialogue partners should be prepared to recognise the uniqueness of the others belief, ritual or theological systems. It is this uniqueness which makes it different. It is not the question of right or wrong, but rather of uniqueness and diversity. The dialogue partners should also recognise that diversity is the very basis of life. Without diversity life will become drab and would loose all its charm. The Qur'an not only accepts this diversity but also legitimises it. It is Allah's desire to have diversity (5:48; 2:148). Lack of diversity and enforcing one faith system or one ideological system can ultimately lead to fascism and authoritarianism. Thus theological states, like ideological ones, tend to be highly authoritarian.

• Dialogue should promote the spirit of accommodation and adjustment to minimise conflict in the society. The dialogical spirit consists in appreciating others difficulties and complexities of their situation. Accommodation is the very essence of dialogical culture.

• One has to understand the difference between dialogue and monologue for effective dialoguing. The desire to dominate in the dialogue leads to monologue. Each dialogue partner should get equal opportunity to explain her/his point of view. Dialogue can take place only in true democratic spirit recognising the rights of all concerned in the dialogue.

• Lastly one must understand that an effective dialoguing is possible only when not only listens to the others point of view but understands and appreciates it in the given context. Even the scriptural text has to be situated in a particular context unless it be a value-statement. Criticism of the text is often based on ignorance of the context.

If these ground rules are followed in inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogues the result will be quite encouraging. No country today can boast of being strictly mono-religious and or mono-cultural. The rapid means of transportation have brought most diverse religious and cultural groups together in every country. And one wants it or not one has to live with such diversity. One cannot wish it away. Some groups will be in numerical majority, others in minority. Or several minorities put together can constitute majority as is likely to happen in Canada in near future. The mosaic model of society can retain its beauty only in harmony; conflict will only reduce this mosaic into complete disjunction due to stress and strain.

Lastly I would also like to refer to what is called the dialogue of life and this dialogue is continuously taking place at the level of the masses. The dialogue of life consists in living together with all its problems and stresses and strains and sharing each others joys and woes in human partnership. We witness this living in togetherness and celebration of life at the level of masses. There are no theories, theologies and concepts to quarrel about; there are only problems and difficulties to be shared together. This is real dialogue of life, a dialogue through living together and sharing together.

* Director of the Center for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai (India).

Return to Top