By Pervez Bari, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: “Our dialogue should have a common agenda while allowing everybody or a group of people sticking to their own identity and respect each other’s faith. For this we need able and courageous leaders with grass-root connection, not leaders who are remote controlled.”
Expressing the above views Dr. Samir Qasim Fakhro, Vice Chancellor, Arab Open University, Bahrain, here on the second day of the three-day international conference on “Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue”, said the leaders’ role was very important but the problem was that the present leaders didn’t have the ability to understand the issues and reach people with a common agenda. A faith needed culture and tolerance, he added.
Dr. Samir Qasim Fakhro of Bahrain (second from right), (L-F): Gurtej Singh (retd.IAS), Prof. M H Qureshi and Dr. A K Pasha on the dais
He also said that culture could unite people, not break them. According to him, when a good culture would come, marginalization and injustice would itself go and there would be equal opportunities for new generation everywhere.
The international conference is being organized by the Institute of Objective Studies (IOS) and IOS Centre For Arabic and Islamic Studies along with Universal Peace Foundation (UPF).
Presiding over a business session under the sub-theme “Relevance and Dynamics of Dialogue in the 21st Century”, Dr. Fakhro said good and able leaders could emerge only when good culture would be allowed to flourish. “You can contribute to your nation as a follower of your religion from your own way,” asserted the internationally known scholar.
However, Gurtej Singh, IAS (retd.) from Chandigarh (Punjab), opined that the scenario for a dialogue in the 21st century India was grim but there was no alternative and prospects of it must be relentlessly promoted. In his view, this also called for a united effort by other nations and minorities, at least at the academic level, to pursue the aim of establishing a meaningful dialogue.
Singh said that the situation calls for closer examination to assess the possibilities of dialogue in 21st century. The Sikhs believe on the strength of their experience that the Indian polity as well as all instruments of state power in India are in the firm grip of the permanent cultural majority (pcm). The pcm is not convinced about the efficacy of the democratic processes to smooth out differences. It has faith in its ancient methods of resolving conflicts violently and eliminating them totally by disarming and enslaving the entire population of the country as the Dalits have been disarmed and enslaved for centuries, he opined.
“The causes have never been clearly spelt out and neither has any secrecy about them been maintained. The permanent cultural majority believes that the Mughal (read as Muslim) and the British (read as Christian) empires have treated Sikhs badly in the past. In particular they forcibly converted the Hindus to Islam and Christianity. That both Muslims and Christians, representing alien cultures, are now trying to reduce them minority in their own land by means of large scale conversions and by multiplying freely. They are perceived to be doing this to impose foreign rule on India once again. In these circumstances permanent cultural majority sees no possibility of a dialogue to settle issues. When the very existence of a people is an issue and revenge is sought for centuries of grievances, there is no possibility of a dialogue”, Singh averred.
He lamented that in 1947 the Sikhs came into India hoping to be acclaimed as heroes of the country, hoping that their shrines would be treated as national monuments and will be maintained at the state’s expense. But in one of the earliest orders of the state regarding the Sikhs, they were dubbed as “criminals” available for shooting at sight.
Singh bemoaned that M. K. Gandhi, without even calling him a Mahatma as the Father of the Nation is addressed, carried out relentless propaganda in his “prayer meeting” against the Sikhs proclaiming them to be malcontents and unruly elements. Many attempts to establish a dialogue with him to explain the inaccuracy of his assertions miserably failed. Many a time they were thwarted by his “silence days”. It was no doubt a stunning silence, Singh remarked.
Prof. M H Qureshi, former Professor of Geography, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, said there were three kinds of power— power of intellect, power of economy and power of polity. According to him, the power of intellect had a superior role to play, but the problem was that today it had disappeared and power of economy was dominating the scene with power of polity taking a back seat.
Dr. A K Pasha was of the view that a dialogue should be done between two equal partners but in today’s world it didn’t happen so. He also said there was no match between hegemony and dialogue. He said in each and every case whether it was of Afghanistan or Palestine, “we would have to ponder over the root cause”.
Meanwhile, three other sessions were held during the day under the sub-themes of “Dialogue Among Faith Communities for Peace and Justice (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism); Information and Communication Technologies as Instruments of Dialogue” and “Wastia – Middle Path of Peace”. ([email protected])