The thick line between “Tolerance” and “Mutual Respect”

You must not forget the following. “Roman Catholicism is the only religion in the world with the status of a sovereign state, allowing the pope’s most senior clerics to sit at the top table with world leaders”.

Usually, you don’t get respect just by demanding it. Rajeev Malhotra is coming from a fair and just point of view, but one must not forget that those with whom he is trying to discuss the idea are coming from power, both political and monetary.

Malhotra is taking the point of view of Mahatma Gandhi. I doubt whether Sawarkar, in his later years, would have been satisfied just with that point of view.

Shantanu,
There can be no tolerance or respect based on religion. there can be tolerance or respect for human beings by human beings. Conceptually a religion is a way to attain salvation or self realization. It also means that other religions or other ways are wrong. For example Hinduism essentially preaches the ways of the Vedas to be the key source of truth (most paths in Hinduism are derivates). This means that Islam is not a way to be followed, nay respected as it does not have the same philosophical grounding. So a person following Hinduism does not have to tolerate or mutually respect Islam. He can choose to respect a person following Islam but not the religion.
Unfortunately people think that religions are like schools of Physics which can overlap and conceptually coexist.

I beg to differ with some of the views expressed here – I would side with Rajiv Malhotra on this one .

Religion being a highly subjective matter a call for religious amity (both tolerance and mutual respect) is essentially a call to the followers of religions to imbibe such an ideal in their interactions with followers of other religions. These ideals should not be looked on as abstractions (as a dynamic between religions) but as how ordinary humans would employ these ideas in their lives.

The objective of religious amity (which hopefully is the aim of both tolerance or mutual respect) is an ideal only imperfectly achievable – much like justice. But the means to reach there should not have inbuilt flaws to derail the objective.

The point Rajiv is trying to make is that tolerance as an ideal is an incredibly condescending conceit. Power dynamic dictate which groups tolerate whome. When these dynamics break down it leads to calamitous consequences. Jews though persecuted for millenia were tolerated in various parts of europe. But when sanctified and long entrenched hate won out we had events leading up to the holocaust.

What is not acceptable in the case of other social constructs – like one race tolerating another, one community tolerating another, or one caste tolerating another is suddenly rendered perfectly acceptable when it comes to religion. I believe this is only because the powers controlling prevailing discourse on this issue are not favourably inclined to extend respect to followers of other religions. Why this is so is another discussion.

Rajiv’s argument perhaps is that mutual respect is a higher ideal. The emphasis here is on the word mutual – on reciprocity of respect between followers of various religions – which in intent is unequivocally against hate.

So I think that in order to achieve real amity it is imperative that religions try to cultivate mutual respect as an ideal and not tolerance.

Another matter – as a net recipient of “tolerance” from other abrahamic religions (and given not so old history) – most dharmic faiths have reasons to be extremely skeptical of others tolerating us. Besides a call for “mutual respect” is also a declaration that respect cannot be a one way street.

Why would I want to respect religions that categorically say that their way is the only right way? That is a huge difference between Abrahamic faiths and Indic faiths – the latter don’t care for what path a person adopts or which god s/he chooses (whatever works for you, sarv dharm sambhav, laissez-faire, freedom), whereas the former have a perpetual itch to scratch by converting others (non-Muslims, non-Christians) to their way (or killing them, as was the case with Islam historically, or persecuting non-Muslims as it happens today). How can one have mutual respect in such a situation? How can someone who is considered a kaffir, an infidel, a non-believer talk about getting mutual respect from those who think that this non-believer will burn in hell unless he converts?

For any talk of mutual respect, the first thing that needs to happen is abrogation of the very concept of kaffir/non-believer that is so central to some faiths.

Shantanu,

I think the article is talking about respecting religious beliefs.

I can respect the right to have a belief and I could be tolerant of the individual with that belief (as long as it doesn’t “affect” others), but I just can’t respect the belief itself.

Could it be that Malhotra is conflating the two? I mean, he actually wants respect/tolerance for the individual with beliefs than respect for the belief it self? In my opinion most of the comments correctly question the respect the belief argument.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I agree the word tolerance does imply grudging acceptance. I do not like word tolerence. But I am not sure whethere I want to go so far as mutual respect. I would suggest instead we use the word ‘acceptance’. We just don’t tolerate we accept all religions.
Some religions are down right wacky and we do not have to respect them equally.

I think Shantanu by implication is suggesting that it is only the xianity that is unwilling to accept the mutual respect. He points out that even a pakistani(i.e. muslim) is willing to go along with the idea of mutual respect. That is absolute nonsense. A Pakistani wants mutual respect because this person is a minority in a xian country. There is no evidence of any mutual respect in any muslim country in the world. At least in almost all xian liberal democratic countries you are entitled to fair and equal treatment under the law regardless of your faith and the respect for it is not an issue. And that is the best one can expect. To expect more than that is impossible and unnecessary.

Both the gestures (tolerance/mutual respect) reciprocal in nature give and take. Unfortunately except Hinduism other wants to take and not ready to give up any thing.

The idea of Rajiv Malhotra of respect for other religions is replete with all manner of implications which can hardly be imagined. Christianity and Islam by their nature seeks to occupy the whole of the space. Those are their lofty ideals for a perfect world and universe explained completely by the power of their ideas. For them to seek mutual respect for such ideas is a contradictions in terms: toleration is the best that has been achieved and that is only because the power of religion has diminished in the West by the power of science. Respect which Rajiv Malhotra wants to earn for Hinduism (and he is right to want that so much) can only be had by the liking of it beyond the superficial. Almost whole basis of Hinduism is the denial of the world as it is and self absorption into the denial of existence. The importation of the impurity of caste in religious practice has proved offensive to right thinking people. Can Hindus earn anyone’s respect with such ideas? There is no reason why Hinduism cannot dismiss from our cherished beliefs as Sikhism has done. In any case the world respects the power of ideas that work. The best way for Hindus to earn respect is to earn respect for their country the only how. The religious sphere tales of into insignificance when a country is powerful.

Khandu Patel

“Can Hindus earn anyone’s respect with such ideas?”

Perhpas Not. But then all religions have shortcomings of one kind or another and one can argue that none is worthy of respect. That is not the point when we go along with ‘mutual respect’ approach. I do not agree with Malhotra. But I can understand his views. I do not believe he was simply motivated by his desire to get respect for any specific religion.

“There is no reason why Hinduism cannot dismiss from our cherished beliefs as Sikhism has done.”
Dismiss what? I suppose you mean caste system. Do you?

Khandu Patel

I am having difficulty understanding you. You have to help me understand what you are saying.

“very big egos needed to be softened.”

I don’t know what you mean.

“Religions on the whole should serve as the handmaiden of the state so that at the end of it the nation comes out stronger and able to face all challeges.”

What exactly do you mean by that? In any secular country there can be more that one religions. You mean all religions should serve as such? I don’t think that is the role of any religion in a secular country.

“In religion the idea of focusing on God is to get people to do noble rather than selfish deeds.”

I am not sure whether that is why people focus on God. But I agree that if one is sincere about it the result should be integrity, honesty and truthfulness.

You say Hinduism is performing poorly. Performing poorly compared to what? I am sure you have stated before, but you care to briefly tell on what basis you say this? I am no expert on Hinduism, for that matter on any religion, but I do not believe on the whole Hinduism with all its numerous problems is any worse than others. I think the politicians in India are exploiting the caste divisions and keeping the system healthy and thriving. But there is not much you can do about it. That is the nature of the politics. Ultimately it is the people and changing them will require generations.

@kaffir (#23),
Enjoyed a lot.

Mr. Malhotra’s article reminds me of an article by Bernard Lewis that I found in The Atlantic:

Tolerance is, of course, an extremely intolerant idea, because it means “I am the boss: I will allow you some, though not all, of the rights I enjoy as long as you behave yourself according to standards that I shall determine.” That, I think, is a fair definition of religious tolerance as it is normally understood and applied. In a letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, that George Washington wrote in 1790, he remarked, perhaps in an allusion to the famous “Patent of Tolerance” promulgated by the Austrian Emperor Joseph II a few years previously, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.” At a meeting of Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Vienna some years ago the Cardinal Archbishop Franz Koenig spoke of tolerance, and I couldn’t resist quoting Washington to him. He replied, “You are right. I shall no more speak of tolerance; I shall speak of mutual respect.” There are still too few who share the attitude expressed in this truly magnificent response.

@Morris,
You don’t need to a rocket scientist to figure out that in a multi-religious society the only way to live in harmony is to accept mutual respect. That is’nt the point. That is agreed.
Really? Who agreed that and when?
The “contradiction” that you were speaking about can only be solved with a religion that teaches tolerance and does not claim the sole ownership of the divine agency.
The value of religion in human life is always higher than political ideology, liberal atheism may be an attractive way for few educated elites but this is not a formula for everyone. Look, atheism has got some ground in Europe recently and right now they have become so intolerant that they are declaring that Christmas greeting is too communal for western civilization ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy ). It is only religion that can teach the followers to stop reacting violently in the name of religion.
This religion does not have to be Hinduism or Buddhism but it has to borrow significant philosophical ideas from them because it is only us in the entire world who has not gone to war in the name of religion.

@Morris,
Unfortunately that is not so. Religions do not teach such tolerence let alone mutual respect and they do claim to be the only answer.
Ok, substantiate that all religions claim to be the only answer. I want specifics from scriptures.
Leave the religions out of politics completely. And that would resolve this contradiction.
How did that work so far? The fallacy of the argument is the assumption that religion has no connection with society or culture and it can be thus eliminated without any impact to the society. But that is not so. A religion that dominates in a particular land shape the society and culture of the inhabitants of this land profoundly. Indian society/culture is so deeply influenced by Dharmic religions that even those who are newly converted to monotheistic-prophetic religions talk about their “karma” at times.
Communists at least got that part right. In their effort to take religion out of their society, they sponsored some of the biggest massacre in the history. Stalin’s collectivization program or Mao’s cultural revolution is so well documented that I would not have to tell you their impact. You want to remove religion and that is your only way out – an authoritarian regime. A democracy can not do that and it have to devise it’s way to stay with religion.
All I am saying is that religion is a personal matter for any individual and the state has no business in it so long as it does not conflict with any laws of the land.
There is a problem. State has a complex relationship with individual. Politicians are individuals and these individuals form laws. Would a Hindu politician believe that stopping cow slaughter is part of his personal belief and should not be enacted as law? Would a Muslim politician believe that his belief in Jihad (of higher kind as per Hadith) is only part of his personal belief system and should be forbidden in the law? Would a devout Catholic politician agree that population explosion is a big problem in India and therefore contraceptives should be promoted even if he personally believe that contraceptives are against the will of his God? Is there any reason to believe that Nehruvite socialists did not consider their personal anti-Hindu attitude while creating Hindu Endowment Act that allowed Government to take over Hindu temples?
No matter how hard will you try, personal beliefs eventually creep into the legislation. If legislation is created to prevent it, then it would boil down to that excellent question: who will bail the cat?
You mean hinduism. But that is not true for all religions.
Agreed. But then all religions are not responsible for the violence, right? Then why do you need secularism if dominant religions in your land have no role in statecraft and does not claim the sole agency of the divine?
Someone had said rightly that generally good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes the religion to make good people do bad things.
The quote is by Steven Weinberg, an atheist and Nobel laureate physicist. The problem is that most western intellectual atheists understand Judaism/Christianity/Islam as the only religion. Therefore, they conclude that a prophet, a book and a monopoly of divine agency are the sole attributes of religion. If that is the definition, then I find nothing wrong in Mr. Weinberg’s quote. The original definition of secularism was based on that idea. And both share the same fallacy.
But my religion is very different. Why should I accept it in the context of my religion?
You can point me to the inter-caste violence that is visible in Andhra Pradesh or central Bihar, but that is not Hindu Dharma, that is Hindu tradition in certain pockets. It is necessary to indicate that this is indefensible and should go away. But it is also necessary to remember that in our tradition there are many things which has no basis in our Dharma. Some of it has gone and some will go.
I can accept Mr. Weinberg’s quote if you can show me how it is applicable to Dharma.

@Morris,
If this is true for one major religion than it becomes true for all.
How? Because some other person’s name is Morris, he/she would look like you?

Moreover, not to accept their claim to be the only answer is contrary to Hinduism which claims that all paths are valid including the one that claims to be the only one.
You are confused. Hinduism believes that all paths to God is correct which is in total contradiction with monopoly of divine that some other religions came. Unlike secularists, Hinduism does not claim that all belief systems with their own idiosyncrasies are equal, it believes that all method of worship is true path to God. That is why a Hindu does not find going to Church and fold their hands in front of Christs’ statue sinful. I myself did that before but I never bought the Christianity bullshit about heaven-hell-sin.

Your point about a religion that dominates does not have any merit in our multi-religious society.
An unfortunate generalization. Before Islam’s entry into the subcontinent, you will not be able to show me large scale bloodshed in the name of religion even if Vedic/Shaktism/Buddhism/Jainism did not always agree about the low level details or even Shaivites/Vaishnavites used to compete between themselves. Vedic Hinduism always dominated in India, but when it did it never allowed religious conflict. Even after Islam lost some shine during the brief period of Maratha-Sikh dominance in central India, there is no single instance of destruction of any mosque or reversion of Mussalmans.
The concept that one or other religion can dominate a society is not only contrary to secular values but also to Hindusim.
Hinduism and secularism are not same thing. Hinduism has worked before in this subcontinent, while very achievement of secularism is not properly understood yet.

But they should not be permitted under the constitution of the country to enact laws based on their religious beliefs.
Who writes the constitution? Investigate why and how the word “secularism” was introduced into Indian constitution. That would give you an understanding that constitution is a great safeguard against legislative folly only when the constitution is held in extremely high regard (like in USA). In India, our constitution is treated like a whore who could be slapped around every time it gets in the way of ruling politicians. Hindus (at least not-educated-in-JNU-type-places) hold their tradition in very high regard. If there is a safeguard it has to be based on tradition, not following western standard.

That is only emotional point. They all claim to be different
Ok, please substantiate. Every time I challenge you to show me how Hinduism can be equated with Christianity or Islam, you avoid the point and make the same claim. Why do not you face that question directly?

The real issue is that religiosly dominated societies tend to marginalize the minorities and create conflicts.
That is the pearl of wisdom distributed by lefty secular. The underlying assumption is that every religion is same and they are envious of each other. I may agree to them if you can prove that Hinduism is as envious as Christianity/Islam. Please refer to the above question in bold.

Sid

“How? Because some other person’s name is Morris, he/she would look like you?”

No, not because what I said, but simply because you ignored to read why I said that. Read and think, do not respond with emotions only.

“You are confused. Hinduism believes that all paths to God is correct which is in total contradiction with monopoly of divine that some other religions came.”

Here you may be right and maybe I am confused. But my understanding is that Hinduism does not say that only those paths that do not claim monoploy are right and those that claim monopoly are wrong. My understandind has been that even Ramkrishna Paramhansa used Xian and/or Islam way of practice and had said to have achieved the same result. So give me some further explanation for your interpretation.

“An unfortunate generalization. Before Islam’s entry into the subcontinent, you will not be able to show me large scale bloodshed in the name of religion………..”

So what is your point? But Islam is there. I agree with what you are saying But there is no way you are going to live in the past. Islam is here to stay. If you don’t want to believe it, just look at Pakistan. It exists. It is there. The problem of Kashmir is self evident.

“Hinduism and secularism are not same thing.”

Of course not. So you are saying that I am for Hinduism and not for secularism. Sure that is the choice you have to make. I suggest to you that is trying to live in the past and it will not work.

“Who writes the constitution?”

That is a good point. That is exactly what Iran and even Saudi Arabia are doing. Their Islamists are writing constitutions. If you like to go their way, that is your choice.

“That is only emotional point. They all claim to be different
Ok, please substantiate. Every time I challenge you to show me how Hinduism can be equated with Christianity or Islam, you avoid the point and make the same claim. Why do not you face that question directly?”

What is there to substantiate? Isn’t it evident. All religions are claiming to be different and divine. Just listen to all these preachers from other religions. What is your challange? Give me a reason why Hinduism cannot be equated with other religions.

“The real issue is that religiosly dominated societies tend to marginalize the minorities and create conflicts.
That is the pearl of wisdom distributed by lefty secular.”

Islam has been fighting with Hinduism for almost 1000 years on the Indian subcontinent. It began long before the term lefty secular was invented.

Sid

We are not getting any where with this discussion. Perhaps you right. I will talk about only couple points.

1 How did you conclude that I believe all religions are same? I never said that or even came to close to saying that all religions are same. On the contrary I disagreed with the idea of mutual respect because I believe some religions do not deserve our respect.

2 It is not whether minorities are persecuted or not is as important as what minorities feel. Pakistan did not happen because muslims had any evidence that they will be perescuted. In fact Kashmir problem is not because Hindu dominated secular India (let alone Hindu nation) is persecuting muslims, it is because they do not wish to be with India period. The truth is exactly the opposite. India is bending over backward to keep muslims happy. But they rather be unhappy and miserable in Pakistan. So think of how 150 million of them will feel in Hindu nation.

“The point is that religious persecution is a term that is not known in India before Islam entered here.”

My friend, it makes no difference whether religious persecution is known to (you mean Hindu) India, because India has seen a lot of religious persecution. It is the perception that is important.

Sid

If this is true for one major religion than it becomes true for all.

When I stated the above I was not making any qualitative judgement about any religion. We were simply discussing THE claim to be the only answer however absurd that claim may be. The sentence that follows made it clear.

Because you cannot deny its claim to be so without asserting your claim to be the only answer.

“For a change, I am interested to know what they will think about issues like Love Jihad, exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, Godhra train burning and Digvijay Singh’s remark (to name a few).”

Sid, the answer is very simple. This is not in our hands. And no amount of debate between you and I will alter their thinking. We are trying to find a way to live in harmony with all. I think the approach you are suggesting will increase conflicts and will be counterproductive.

Islam cannot separate politics and religion. You must devise a system that gives legitamacy to such a separation. And I think what I am suggesting will do that. I am not very hopeful about living in harmony with muslims. But I think this problem is gradually becoming worldwide and not that of India alone. Accomodation should be replaced by strict laws for overall good of the society rgardless of religious beliefs of the citizens.