International Colloquium at the Vatican 27.3.08

Author:  Dr Indarjit Singh

Intercultural Education and Religious Pluralism

It’s a pleasure and a very real privilege to be asked to talk to you today.
I note that I have been described in the Programme as a member of the Sikh community. While this is correct, I need to emphasise that Sikhism is a religion in its own right. A religion that emphasises:
• belief in one God; creator of all that exists
• the oneness of the human race
• respect for different ways of life
• an uplifting moral code
• a welcome to those of any faith or cultural background but does not seek to actively convert others
• and importantly, how to live positively in peace and harmony with others in our increasingly global society.

I very much welcome the opportunity to give a Sikh perspective on intercultural dialogue in education and, if I may, I’d like to extend it to the wider role of religion in society, particularly in helping our children become responsible citizens in a fast changing world. In the Sikh view, education is all about preparing our children to make a positive contribution to the well-being of the world around. While we rightly teach our children the 3 Rs: to be literate and numerate, we seem to place less emphasis on the other, equally important, 3 Rs which are the essence of religion, namely right wrong and responsibility.

Many believe that this responsibility lies with parents; others assume it lies with the school. In the Sikh view it’s the responsibility of both parents and teachers to help children to grow up to be considerate and responsible members of society. Unfortunately, it sometimes slips between the two, and children are left to develop their own sense of right and wrong, guided by television, with its questionable output, including dramas and so-called comedies, in which infidelity is seen as something of a giggle, that ignores the hurt that transient adult relationships, can cause to children.


Until very recent times, we could all grow up in the comfort and security of a religion that we shared with those that lived around us. It was common and patriotic (it still is for some), to go into raptures about our way of life compared with the inferior ways of foreigners. Many believed that even God acknowledged our natural superiority, and was always on our side. And schools, in the teaching of literature and history often contributed to the promotion of false ideas of superiority and difference.

We see it again and again in literature. Some of you may recall the famous lines of John of Gaunt in Shakespeare’s Richard II.

This happy breed of men, this little world
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or a moat defensive to a house
Against the envy of less happier lands
…………………………And more!

We learnt to study the literary style, the use of figurative language.
We never thought to criticise the xenophobic insularity of its general
sentiment. Nor did the possibility occur to us in Britain, that other nations might have different explanations of God's purpose in isolating the British. Seriously though, it’s important to understand that this sort of thinking was common to most nations and cultures. Many in India even argued that to leave the shores of the subcontinent would pollute them for ever.

In the past, we could strengthen our sense of cohesion and identity, including religious identity, by misrepresenting the ways and beliefs of others, or describing them in disparaging terms. The dictionary definition of heathen is ‘those who are not Christian, Jew or Muslim’. So you can see where that leaves me!

It is not only nations and world religions that behave with a reluctance to see the good in others. We all do it. I recently met a government minister who reminded me of my very first BBC Radio broadcast some 20 years ago that he still remembered.. At the time, I was working with a large civil engineering contractor in their London office, on the 7th floor of an 8 storey building. My talk was about my end of day experience.

We were home civil engineers and above us were the international civil engineers. They saw themselves as superior people with stickers of Seychelles, Hong Kong or other exotic places on their brief cases.

At the end of the day we would head to the lift and, as the lift door opened, those inside, the superior people from the 8th floor, would stick their stomachs out a little to give the impression that the lift was fuller than it was. Undeterred, we’d barge in, and the 8th floor stomachs would grudgingly recede. We were now all civil engineers, working for the same company.

When the lift reached the floors below inhabited by those, we in our prejudice, considered, the lowest of the low: the Department of Health and Social Security, we would mutter ‘cripples, why can’t they walk down a few flights of stairs’? As the lift door opened, we would stick out our stomachs to deter this lower form of life entering our lift.

Undeterred, these civil servants and bureaucrats, who, in our view, did nothing but drink tea all day long, would get into our lift. Grudgingly, we pull back our stomachs and we all went down to the ground floor, where we got out, all differences forgotten, until the next day.

We see the same sort of behaviour when we get on a train, or a bus. Those inside become ‘us’ and those outside ‘them’. As with the lift we pretend that the vehicle is more full than it actually is by placing a bag on the empty seat next to ours.

There is a law of life, lets call it Indarjit’s law: that when two or more people find sufficient in common to call themselves ‘us’, they will find a ‘them’, to look down on, to strengthen their sense of unity. You see it when a person leaves a small group talking together. The odds are that those remaining members of the group will make some negative comment about the person that has just left! We often see this group or mob unity in conflict between rival football supporters. More dangerously, our human tendency to see fault in those we perceive as different, can lead to active hatred of whole communities.

I saw a reminder of this descent to evil, on a visit to Auschwitz in Poland, where many Jews, blamed for all the ills in Europe, were callously murdered. While going round the former concentration camp, I saw the shower area where new arrivals were asked to wash before receiving promised new clothes and food. Once in, the doors would be closed and deadly gas fed in through vents in the ceiling. I saw the gas canisters, the conveyer to the incinerator and mounds of human hair; but what really got to me was a huge pile of infants’ shoes. In my minds eye, I could see little children skipping and laughing, blissfully unaware of what was to befall them.
A few years ago, I did some work for Amnesty International, looking at
genocide and human rights abuse in a number of different countries; abuse which often involved unbelievable depravity. Almost as bad as the abuse, was the realisation that those who we learn to trust are often the perpetrators: police and soldiers, and, even worse, priests and teachers and previously friendly neighbours. Why do people behave in such ways?

The reality of human nature, and the evidence is all around us, is that we humans do not come with preloaded software of right, wrong and responsibility. Decent responsible behavior has to taught and learnt. We cannot have a better society without better people. We cannot have better people without responsible teaching. The question is, who should do the teaching ?

Today, with the increasing movement of people in our global society, there is an instinctive and understandable reaction to hold on to the past and rediscover national norms of behaviour and responsibility. This is seen in calls for formal declarations of allegiance, with emphasis on citizenship training and conforming behaviour.

I think it’s important here, to differentiate between two types of behaviour. The first is behaviour that keeps us out of trouble. For the small child it’s not throwing food about, or not kicking aunts and uncles in the shins. For adults it's being reasonably polite to those around us, and complying with those in authority and the rules and laws of society.

Is religion necessary for teaching behaviour at this level? Of course not. No more than it's necessary to involve religion in teaching a dog to stand on its hind legs, or a dolphin to perform tricks. Sanction or reward, are sufficient motivators. In many ways, the teaching of citizenship to help children understand and appreciate the society in which they live, falls into this category. It’s important for children to learn about national institutions, democracy, the media and our view of the world about us. These teachings of citizenship, or conforming behaviour, are not however the same as the teachings of religion.

Conforming behaviour, or the social norms of society are constantly changing. What is acceptable today may seem narrow and bigoted to others and ourselves with passage of time. For example, the law of the land in France prohibits the wearing of the hijab for Muslim girls and the turban for Sikh boys, in state schools. Citizenship education in French schools would support such a policy.

The reality however, is that the prohibition is bound to harm integration, and hurt self-esteem by forcing children to have one identity at school and another at home. State policy in France is at odds with both common sense, and the ethical imperative for all of us in today’s world, to understand and respect different ways of life. Sikhs are grateful that the French policy of insisting that children grow ignorant of the values of others, has been strongly condemned by the Catholic Church in France,

Last year we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade which was perfectly respectable at the time. In the UK in the 1960's, accommodation adverts in shop windows often had the words ‘no blacks or coloureds’, perfectly legal at the time. Citizenship teaching at the time would not have criticised such behaviour.


Religion on the other hand bases it's teachings on what it sees as fundamental truths that unlike the law of the land do not change with time and place. In his very first sermon, Guru Nanak declared Na koi Hindu, Na koi Mussalman that in God's eyes there is neither Hindu nor Muslim, and by today’s extension, neither Christian Sikh nor Jew. God, he taught, is not interested in our religious labels, but in the way we behave.

It is important then that we look beyond labels, customs and dress to the reality behind different ways of life in our increasingly multi faith and multicultural society. You will all be aware that in a fog or mist, normally familiar objects can assume frightening proportions. In the same way, looking at the customs and practices of others through the fog of ignorance can lead to genuine fear and alarm. What is so important in education today is that in our schools and workplaces we work to remove this fog of ignorance and see and respect others as they really are.

Take for example Sikhs and the wearing of a turban. This, to those who see virtue in dress conformity, may be seen as an obstacle to integration.
But further probing as to why Sikhs feel they should be recognised for what they are, will reveal an episode in Sikh history that has strong parallels with a key moment in Christian history when Jesus Christ’s disciples denied their association with him.

The wearing of the Sikh turban is linked to a similar incident in Sikh history.In the mid 17th Century. Guru Teg Bahadhur, the ninth Guru of the Sikhs, true to the Sikh teaching of tolerance and respect for other ways of life, was publicly beheaded by the Muslim rulers for defending the right of Hindus, people of a different religion to his own, to worship in the manner of their choice. The Mughal rulers challenged Sikhs, who then had no distinguishing appearance, to come forward and claim their master’s body. But, in the event, courage failed them and the body was removed under cover of darkness.

Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the Sikh Gurus decreed that in future, Sikhs should never hide under anonymity, but should always be prepared to stand up and be recognisable for their ideals Our turban reminds us of this, particularly the need to stand up to injustice in all its forms. It enables visible appearance to be measured against actual behaviour and action. It reminds us that we should be true to Sikh teachings 24 hours a day, and has much the same purpose as a the dress of a priest or other cleric. With knowledge, the turban, far from being a stubborn impediment to integration, becomes a re-assuring symbol of a commitment to high ideals.

Let’s now look at how can we make ours a more cohesive and caring society. Voluntary effort and increasingly government and other statutory effort are becoming more alert to social ills in our society. But in focussing on problems, rather than more holistically on causes, we sometime tend to look through the wrong end of the telescope, and seek to treat spots and sores of social maladies, rather than look further to underlying causes.

Let me give some examples. If problems resulting from drug abuse take up too much police time, the call is legalise their use and free police time, rather than question why the use of drugs has risen so dramatically. The huge rise in child and teenage pregnancies is met with a call to issue condoms in schools. Surprise, surprise, the rise in teenage pregnancies has increased almost in direct proportion to contraceptive education. Increasing alcohol abuse? Let's extend or abolish licensing hours to spread the incidence of drunken or loutish behaviour. Result a rise in binge drinking. Too many people ending up in prison? Lets build more prisons. Extend this thinking, of looking to the wrong end of a problem, to the behaviour of little boy who greets visitors to the house by kicking them in the shins. Solution: issue said visitors with shin pads as they enter the front door!
Lets face it, today's society that seeks happiness in consumer goods, drink or drugs or in pampering ourselves ‘because we're worth it’, or making money through exporting the means of killing to distant lands in the name of a defence industry, clearly needs a bit of ethical uplift. The Catholic Church is doing much to provide this uplift through its courageous stance on combating poverty and working for social justice throughout the world. Much more can and must be done by religion to move drifting society away from an obsession with a futile pursuit of the mirage of material happiness, towards more positive, peaceful and ethical living.

Sikhism sees other religions as different paths to a truer understanding of God; like paths up a mountain. We can start from different points, but still reach the same goal. This is not to say that all religions are the same. There are important differences that should be understood and respected. The paths however are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the Sikh view, they frequently merge in ways that give us a heightened understanding of our own faith.

Take for example the Sikh teaching ' There is an inner- light in all; and that light is God.' Exactly the same sentiment is conveyed in the line of the Christian hymn 'to all life Thou givest, to both great and small; in all life thou livest the true life of all'. It is important to remember that that a major benefit of our study of other religions is that it gives us a wider view of religion and a new and fuller perspective on our own beliefs. We learn that different religions are not barriers between people, but gateways to a greater understanding and enrichment of life.


As I mentioned earlier, the role of religion is to challenge the often inequitable norms of society and lift society to a more ethical plane.
Far from accepting the status quo on social practices, Guru Nanak was boldly critical of divisive practices such as the caste system or superstitious, dietary customs, and taboos on eating with, or socialising with those of other faiths. He and his successor Gurus taught the oneness of our human family and in this, emphasised the dignity and complete equality of women; teachings wholly at odds with the practices of the day.

Religion reminds us of the need for balance in life. Sikhism, for example, requires us to live in three dimensions at one and the same time. Naam japna, kirt karna and wand chakhna. Naam japna is meditating on God or reflecting on our direction in life in a way that allows us to distinguish between the trivial, which so often obsesses us, and the real priorities of life. Kirt karna is earning by honest effort, and wand chakhna is the sharing of our good fortune with the needy a common and important teaching of all our great religions.

Let me conclude. Whenever I undertake any sort of do- it- yourself activity, I inevitably get into difficulties. When all else fails, then, and only then, I turn to the book of instructions. Today, having pushed the ethical teachings of religion to the margins of society, we see that our smug do it ourselves approach to a fairer and more peaceful society has clearly failed. It’s time to turn to the book or Books, of instructions; to our holy scriptures for true guidance on balanced and responsible living.

One of the greatest gains in adopting a wider view of religious education in today’s world is that in our study of our different religions we discover common, uplifting ethical imperatives lacking in materialistic society. Our different religions are in essence, overlapping circles of belief and ethical guidance, in which the area of overlap is far greater than the smaller areas of difference.

Sikhs believe that in that area of overlap lie common values of tolerance, justice and compassion. Values that make us more considerate and responsible human beings; Values that should be the essence of both national identity and wider human aspiration; values central to our different religions that are the key to both to personal happiness, and the well being of wider society.
---------------------------------------