The months of April-May mark the birth anniversaries of three of the greatest individuals India has produced -- Gautama Buddha, Basaveshwara and Babasaheb Ambedkar. Separated in time by centuries, ranging from the 6th century BCE to 12th century ACE to the 20th, and in the space, from the north to the south and the western parts of our country, all three were imbued with the same spirit of humanity. The languages they spoke were different -- Pali, Kannada and Marathi/English, but the essential message they conveyed was the same -- compassion for all, and equality of human beings without distinction of caste, community, religion or social status.
It is interesting to note that all the three were men of faith and men of action. Gautama Siddhartha was trained to be a king but chose the path of seeking knowledge to deliver mankind from suffering. Basaveshwara served as a minister in the kingdom of Bijjala in Karnataka, but gave up his position and power when the king wanted him to deviate from the path of dharma (virtue) and went into exile to lead a spiritual life. Ambedkar, born in penury and subjected to oppression, rose to become one of the makers of modern India. He yet opted to quit his position as a minister, refusing to be party to a decision that went against his conscience.
What is more striking is the fact all three were great democrats. Not content to have achieved personal enlightenment, the Buddha went on to share his knowledge and wisdom with the common people. He did not impose his ideas on others; he exhorted his followers to deliberate and choose the right path which he himself had walked. It stands to the glory of the Buddha and to the credit of his followers that Buddhism became the first democratic religion in the world. The Buddhist Councils, convened from time to time, the first held just after the passing away of the Buddha in 483 BCE, served as a forum to discuss the Buddhist tenets and spread the message of the Master.
Basaveshwara launched a movement aimed at promoting equality among different sections of society. He created the Anubhava Mantapa, an Experiential Forum, where people of different castes and denominations could gather and deliberate on issues and exchange ideas. This was a democratic body where the participants could express their thoughts freely. Basaveshwara was also a great social reformer and attracted a large number of followers, who came to be called Veerashaivas/Lingayats, and have now emerged as a major force in Karnataka.
Ambedkar’s contribution is too well known to warrant elaboration; suffice it to say, he was one of the principal architects of modern Indian democracy and the prime mover behind the Constitution. A strong advocate of a casteless society, he strove tirelessly for the upliftment of the downtrodden, finally seeking solace in Buddhism, towards the end of his life.
Being the inheritors of such a lofty spiritual legacy, it is indeed a tragedy that in the 21st century, when we boast of a modern civilisation and unprecedented economic and technological progress, we must be witnessing people fighting for rights over places of worship. Is the God of the Hindus different from that of the Muslims and the Christians? The ancient Hindu scripture Ishavasyopanishad opens with the words: “The entire universe is enveloped by God, Ishvara or Siva (Ishavasyamidam sarvam)”. So, why are we confining Siva to Kashi Visweswara temple and Allah to Gyanvapi Masjid or Christ to a church?
Let us listen to what the other religions say: The Buddha declared, “There is a universal existence that pervades all existence. He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all and all beings in his own Self”. The Bible of the Christians appeals to the people: “All of you should be of one mind. Sympathise with each other as brothers and sisters”. The Holy Quran of the Muslims proclaims: “Humanity is but a single brotherhood, so make peace with your brotherhood”. Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh faith clarified who is truly religious: “He who regards all men as equal is religious”.
Despite all the positive things the sacred texts and religious leaders might have said, there is also a negative legacy of religion. From the Crusades between the Jews and Christians to Jihad of the Muslims, militancy of the Buddhists and Hindutva of the Hindus, much blood has been shed in the name of every religion. If we have to ensure peace and order, Hindus who are not only in a majority but claim that tolerance is a key element of their religion, must assume greater responsibility. Strangely, the boldest critique of Hinduism comes from one of the greatest of Hindu religious leaders, Swami Vivekananda:
“No religion on earth preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty strain as Hinduism, and no religion on earth treads upon the necks of the poor and the low in such a fashion as Hinduism. The Lord has shown me that religion is not in fault, but it is the Pharisees and Sadducees in Hinduism, hypocrites, who invent all sorts of engines of tyranny in the shape of doctrines”.
Unfortunately, there are Pharisees and Saducees in every religion, who in the name of religion, promote hatred and violence. What we need today is religious or spiritual democracy that will unite and not divide people. This would mean involving the people at the grassroots level in fostering social and communal harmony. In my view, the institutions of panchayats and municipalities can take on this responsibility. It is here that elected representatives are closest to the people -- at the village, town and city level where people live and work, which are also the sites for conflicts and disputes. They can play a strategic role in prevention of incidents detrimental to communal harmony and bring about an amicable settlement, avoiding matters being taken to courts. Committees for peace and harmony comprising legislators and prominent persons belonging to different religions can be set up at the state level which can act as friend, philosopher and guide to the local bodies and interact with government to create a conducive environment for peace and progress.
This is the concept behind creating a decentralised religious democracy. This should of course be inclusive and free from party politics. How to make legislators and members of local bodies act in a non-partisan manner in this endeavour and promote human and constitutional values of equality and fraternity will be a challenge. The idea can be debated.
(The writer is a former Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka)