Religious Fundamentalism and the Media

Author:  Dr Indarjit Singh

TALK GIVEN AT THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN ROME 11 APRIL 2005

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND MEDIA PERCEPTION

Dr Indarjit Singh
Sir Ivor, distinguished guests, friends


Good evening. Before I begin, I would like to offer condolences on behalf of my wife and myself, and the Sikh community, on the death of Pope John Paul II. He was a great and good man and we will all miss his wise and courageous leadership.

In a way, his attitude to life, of looking beyond religious boundaries to a wider humanity, was very similar to that of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, and, as I will be talking tonight from a Sikh perspective, I’d like to tell you a little about Sikh teachings.

Religion on the Indian subcontinent was in a bad way at the time of Guru Nanak’s birth, a little over five centuries ago. In today’s jargon, religion had been taken over by ‘fundamentalists’. The majority Hindu community had forgotten basic ethical teachings, and was sunk in ritual and superstition. To make matters worse, the religion was dominated by a priestly class called Brahmins, who taught that society was divided into castes, in which they, and they alone, as the highest caste, could commune with God. They taught that caste or position in life, was determined by birth, and lower castes were condemned to an inescapable life of misery.

To make matters worse, the country had been invaded by what we today would refer to as fundamentalist Muslims, bent on forced conversion to Islam. There was little dialogue between the two communities, only loathing and contempt. It was against this background that Guru Nanak preached his first sermon, in which he declared, hat in God’s eyes, there was neither Hindu nor Muslim, and by today’s extension, neither Christian, Sikh nor Jew. That God was not in the least bit interested in religious labels, but in the way we lived. He taught that God was in the centre of all that exists, and that different religions were different ways of looking at the same ultimate reality.

There are, of course, differences of emphasis and approach in our religious practice, but the Sikh view is that our different religions are overlapping circles of belief, with much in common.

This core ethical guidance contained in this common area of our different faiths, is extremely easy to state, much of it was covered in Jesus Christ’s sermon on the mount. But, as we all know, it is also extremely difficult to live by. It cost Jesus Christ his life, and it also cost the lives of two of the ten Sikh Gurus. Our ninth Guru, Guru Teg Bahadhur was martyred because of his courageous emphasis on the Sikh teaching of the need for tolerance and respect between religions.

The problem with religion is that we lesser human beings find it very difficult to live true to the high ideals of our religious teachings. It’s easier to put self first instead of others as required by religion. It’s easier to look the other way, than to stand up to injustice, as required by religion, and so on. So over the centuries, we perverse human beings have done other things in the name of religion, and largely ignored essential ethical teachings- the fundamentals of belief.

It’s easier to set religious guidance to beautiful words and music than to live that guidance. It’s easier to bathe in supposedly holy waters than to immerse ourselves in Godly teachings, it’s easier to go on religious pilgrimages than to make our life a pilgrimage in a quest for truth and justice for our fellow beings.

What concerns me is that these rituals, which start off as symbols or reminders of religious guidance, becomes surrogates for living the life taught by religion. To make things worse, questionable cultural practices are incorporated into this distorted view of religion, freezing religion into, sometimes a culture of the past, that frequently has little relevance to today’s times.

Sadly, it is not uplifting ethical teachings, but this distorted view of religion that is defended with such fanaticism by our different religious groupings. Trivial and questionable practices become sacred, to be defended at all costs

This fanaticism is made worse by another human failing that we see in all walks of life. Lets call it Indarjits law: ‘that when two or more people find sufficient in common to call themselves 'us', they will find strengthen their sense of unity by finding a them to look down on’. We strengthen our sense of identity as British by poking fun at the Italians, or as Italians by calling the British insular. Or the British and Italians can get a sense of togetherness by making fun of the Germans or the French. Religions do much the same thing when they talk of others as heathens or infidels.

I’ve been talking of two major causes of religious fanaticism: undue allegiance to ritual and culture, and a desire to show that we are better than others. This dangerous mix of passion and prejudice can, and all too often does, result in active hatred that can spontaneously combust into violent conflict. A responsible media could, at this point, try to calm things. But that’s asking a lot. In reality, the media, in its desire for sensational headlines, or because of ignorance or deliberate bias, takes sides in an irrational and irresponsible way. Governments, for political reasons can and frequently do, add their own spin to conflict or potential conflict.

Let me give you a brief example from the suffering of my own community.
20 years ago, the Indian government attacked the Sikh Golden Temple with tanks and helicopter gunships on one of the holiest days in the Sikh calendar.
It was like attacking the Vatican at Easter or Christmas. The government failed to explain the insensitive timing. Thousands of innocent pilgrims died The government said that some terrorists were ‘holed up’ in the temple complex and had to be ‘flushed out’. (Note the use of de- humanizing language). Nor was it explained why all other major Sikh places of worship in Punjab were attacked at the same time. To date there has been no independent inquiry into the events.

The words Sikh and terrorist were linked together not only in India, but also in other parts of the world to show support for a large and important trading partner. The media had a field day with words like terrorist, fundamentalist and fanatic used irresponsibly, in an interchangeable way to produce lurid and sensational headlines.

Loose use of jargon has its affect on those in authority. It also has its comical side. After the attack on the Golden Temple, there was concern that conflict in India might have repercussions among people from the subcontinent living in Britain. Early one Sunday morning there was a knock on the door. I opened it to find two Scotland Yard police officers on the
Door step. They said they were visiting the homes of prominent Sikhs to discuss tensions in India. Pleased at the word prominent, I invited them in.
They asked me if I was an extremist or a moderate. I said I was extremely moderate. I give the example to show the absurdity of the use of meaningless labels by the media to color our thinking and reaction.

The role of the media should be to inform the public. The reality is that it often only adds to ignorance and prejudice. Let me give another example: It was a week after the terrorist attacks in the United States. I was on my way to a meeting at the Commission for Racial Equality at Victoria in London. It was a time when feelings were running high against the Muslim community, and anyone else who might be mistaken for a Muslim. I'd just come out of the underground station and saw two men talking together and eying me in a hostile way. Then, the older of the two, laughing at his companion's ignorance, pointed to my distinctive Sikh turban and declared, ‘he's not a Muslim, he's a Hindu!’ Ignorance has its own simple logic. Bin Laden wore a turban; Bin Laden is a terrorist. Sikhs wear turbans so Sikhs must also be, at best, suspect. A turban wearing Sikh, who worked in one of the twin towers at the World Trade Centre, managed to escape moments before its collapse. He then found to his horror that he was being chased by angry mob of enraged onlookers thirsty for revenge. Another Sikh was shot dead at a petrol station in Arizona.

I’ve tried to identify the main causes of religious conflict. These are ignorance and bigotry, both within religions and in general public understanding, made worse by the unhelpful influence of a media, generally more interested in banner headlines and greater circulation, than in informed reporting.

I would now like to suggest some necessary steps to tackle both religious bigotry and public ignorance, Only then can religion regain its true role as a positive force for good in the world of today.

The first is the urgent need for clarity of language. I’ve already mentioned some example of the way language is deliberately misused to create stereotypes. Another example is the use of the word terrorism. We are constantly told that that we are engaged in a war against terrorism, or ‘international terrorism’. How can we fight anything so loosely defined? In talking about international terrorism, are we saying that the suicide bomber in Iraq and those who blew up a school in Russia belong to the same organization and have an identical agenda?

The normal use of language suggests that terrorism is a tactic rather than an enemy. It is a repugnant tactic that, through violent action, aims to create fear in innocent and vulnerable members of the public. It can never be justified, whatever the real or perceived sense of injustice. All religions should be challenged to condemn it without equivocation. The use of such terms as ‘freedom fighters’ to improve the image of those that carry out such atrocities, does not make them lesser atrocities. Those in our different religions that fail to make their position clear on this, also stand similarly condemned.

Another word that has been inverted and distorted by the media is ‘fundamentalism’. Strictly this should mean one who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. I would be happy to be so identified with fundamental Sikh teachings on the equality of all human beings, including the full equality of women, and the Sikh requirement to always stand up against injustice. But today the word has
come to mean those that ignore core religious teachings and instead seek an agenda of superiority and hate. Used in this way, it turns the English language on its head, but if we are clear about what we mean, I can live with it.

If the responsibility of the media is to be more objective and less biased in a way that combats prejudice and helps the understanding of real issues.
There are also responsibilities of organised religion.

Over the centuries, leaders of religion have allowed their core teachings to be almost buried by new additions that blur the distinction between ethical teachings and quôstionable cultural practices.
Some ôrastic spring cleaning is clearly necessary to separate the two. Additionally, and I’m sorry for being so frank, the Old Testament religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam make real dialogue difficult by claiming exclusive relationships with God.

In former times, when most people in a country were all of the same religion, there was little harm in this; it helped as we discussed earlier, to create a degree of unity. It did not cause too much offence to talk of God being on our side.

But we now live in different times. When people of different religions once lived thousands of miles away, today they can live next door and share the same citizenship. Today it is important to take a harder look at once perversely unifying talk of exclusivity.







If someone says he believes that his or her way, is the only way to God, that is fine by me. That is his belief. It is the more arrogant statement that my way is the only way that needlessly rubbishes other religions, and in today’s world such a stance is neither necessary, nor helpful.

If religion is to move from a cause of conflict between people to its real role of providing sane ethical guidance, we must urgently demolish unnecessary barriers between beliefs. If long standing walls are demolished in an inner city redevelopment, we see the surrounding landscape in a totally new light. In the same way, I as a Sikh, believe that if we remove arrogance and dated social customs and practices from organised religion, we will find much in common between our different religions; ethical teachings that are the key to peace and social justice in a world that seems to have lost its sense of direction.

-------------------------------------------------