Author: S Gurumurthy
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: April 16, 2006
URL: http://www.newindpress.com/column/News.asp?Topic=-97&Title=S%2EGurumurthy&ID=IE620060415135149
Does monotheism -- belief in a single, omniscient
God - impede globalism? If it does what other kind of religion or God will
be compatible with globalism? Here is likely an interesting debate.
For over a decade the world has been debating
about clashes among civilisations powered by religions. Samuel Huntington
triggered this debate in the year 1993 foreseeing clashes emerging between
orthodox Islam and modern West.
For many in the West the Islamist attack on
the World Trade Centre was validation of Huntington eight years later.
The West viewed 'illiberal' Islam as incompatible
with 'liberal' West. And this incompatibility was seen as the source of the
emerging civilisational clashes.
Since the 9/11 terror, this debate, premised
on Islam as the bad boy and the West as its victim has dominated the world,
particularly the West.
But this debate now seems to be moving up,
logically, to another level. Slowly some in the West seem to feel that the
debate should not be limited to merely examining the clash between the 'liberal'
West and the 'illiberal' Islam.
Says Jean-Pierre Lehmann, the advisor to Dr
Supachai Panitchpakdi, the previous head of the World Trade Organisation,
that organised, monotheistic religions as a class - that is not just Islam
but also Christianity - are incompatible with globalism.
Presently Professor of International Political
Economy at the International Institute of Management Development in Switzerland,
Lehmann heads the Evan Group, a global think-tank composed of government,
industry and opinion leaders from Asia, Europe and the US.
Asserting that there is link between monotheistic
religions and violence and intolerance, Lehmann points out that 'monotheistic
religions have caused so much turmoil throughout history - and continue to
do so even now'. He sees 'a new global ethical and spiritual model' as today's
need.
He sees - what will shock, even shame, the
seculars here at home - India as the best candidate to supply that model to
the world!
In a provocative article in 'the Globalist',
a daily on-line magazine, he makes some profound points on globalisation and
religions.
He says that both Christianity and Islam,
the fountainhead of monotheism, have been hijacked by fundamentalists.
He argues that for progress of human civilisation
all organised religions have to be eradicated by persuasive secular humanism,
but admits that people cannot live without God or religions.
His suggestion is 'rather than eradicating
religion per se, 'we should instead eradicate monotheistic religion in favour
of polytheistic religion'.
Why prefer polytheism - the worship of many
Gods - over monotheism?
He answers: 'If you have only one god, and
you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient and you come across someone
who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.
If, on the other hand, you believe there are
hundreds, indeed thousands of Gods, and that none can be totally almighty
or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant'.
Precisely for this, Lehmann looks to the only
surviving polytheistic society in India as the hope for the world.
For him India because of 'its remarkable ability
to have managed multiculturalism to such a brilliant extent' is a living illustration
of how globalisation can work.
What has made this possible is obvious. Hindus
have millions of Gods to worship. Divergent Gods are inadequate rather than
wrong or objectionable.
Hindu Gods are related by marriage and other
relations. Such vast range of inter-related Gods to worship itself has ruled
out clashes among the followers in the name of the only God without a second.
Lehmann admits that 'India is not a Utopia'
and has its own problems of inequality part of which, he says, is sanctioned
by religion.
Yet asserts that the 'global environment is
desperate for ideas, philosophy and religion'.
'India is the most prolific birthplace of
all three' due to 'the great synergy of democracy and diversity' and greater
degree of 'self-confidence' in Indians now'. He adds 'Indians and members
of the enormous Indian Diaspora are thought leaders in economics, business,
philosophy, political science, religion and literature'.
He asserts that 'the Indian religious and
philosophical traditions can provide' the 'sense of moral order, spirituality
and an ethical compass' which the world desperately needs.
Recalling his conversation with an Indian
religious guru Lehmann says, 'I could adhere to his religious tenets' and
still 'maintain my secular convictions', which, he says, 'no imam or priest
would allow'.
For him Indian philosophic traditions are
secularism-compatible and monotheism is not.
Lehmann asserts that the planet needs an alternative
geographical force to the American Christian fundamentalist thinking that
drives the Bush establishment. Who could be that alternative?
Europe being 'spent force' and China 'dictatorship',
he rules them out as alternatives. He disqualifies the Islamic world as it
is going through, putting it mildly, an 'awkward moment'.
That is how he zeroes in on 'the important
role India must play both because of its innate qualities and also because
there no other serious contender'.
He hopes that 'the 21st century better becomes
the century inspired by the virtues of Indian polytheism'.
Else, he warns, 'We are headed for disaster'.
This is precisely what Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, said decades
back.
But, ironically, as Lehmann looks to Indian
polytheism to save the world, the 'seculars' here condemn it as 'saffron poison'.
Thus what according to Lehmann is the elixir
for the survival of the world is evil for India and the world according to
our seculars! How positive he is and how perverse they are.
Comment: gurumurthy@epmltd.com
