This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. RELIGION, RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN INDIA: AN INTERROGATION MUTHURAJ SWAMY PHD UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH APRIL 2012 i ii DECLARATION I hereby declare (a) that this thesis has been written and composed by me resulting from the research I undertook as a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, and (b) that this thesis is my own and original work, and, (c) that this work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification in any other University or academic institution. Signature: Name: Muthuraj Swamy Date: 06.08.2012 iii iv Abstract This thesis is an assessment of interreligious dialogue in India developed as an approach to other religions in the context of exclusivist attitudes. While dialogue is important in such a context, nevertheless, in terms of its wider objectives of creating better relationships in society, it has some limitations which need to be addressed for it to be more effective in society. Studying the past 60 years of dialogue in India and undertaking field-research in south India, this thesis discusses three such limitations. Firstly, critiquing the notion of world-religion categories which is fundamental to dialogue, it argues that such categories are products of the western Enlightenment and colonialism leading to framing colonised people’s identities largely in terms of religion. Dialogue, emphasising the plurality of religions, has appropriated these notions although people live with multiple identities. Secondly the idea of religious conflicts serves as the basic context for dialogue in which dialogue should take necessary actions to contain them. While the concern to do away with conflicts through dialogue needs to be furthered, this thesis considers the multiple factors involved in such conflicts and works for solutions accordingly. Analysing through a case study a clash in 1982 in Kanyakumari district which continues to be termed as Hindu-Christian conflict, this thesis shows that there are multiple factors associated with each communal conflict, and dialogue needs to understand them if it is to work effectively. Thirdly it critiques the elite nature and methods in dialogue which ignore grass root realities and call for ‘taking dialogue to grassroots.’ The argument is that grassroot experiences of relating with each other in everyday living should be incorporated in dialogue for better results. What is proposed at the end is a necessity of re-visioning dialogue which can lead to fostering ‘inter-community relations based on multiple identities and everyday living experiences of ordinary people’ that invites one to enlarge the horizons to comprehend the plurality of relations and identities, not just plurality of religions, understand and address real-life conflicts and question naming conflicts as religious, and incorporate grassroot experiences of everyday living in continuing to work for a more peaceful society. v vi This work is dedicated to Rev. Mrs. Jessy Nesakumar (died 6 January 2010), who taught me Social Analysis at the Madras Theological Seminary & College (MTSC), Chennai during 1993-1997, and who introduced to me the United Theological College (UTC), Bangalore, where many of my teachers have played a major role in developing my critical thinking on religion and society, while doing my BD and MTh studies, which has also led to do this research. & Rev. Dr. John V. Sundaram (died 26 January 2005), who taught me Church History and English in MTSC, who first instilled confidence in me for doing my studies in English when I just joined college completing my schooling in my native village, and who envisioned my higher studies abroad and encouraged me towards that, when I was still doing my BTh Studies. vii viii Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge the guidance I have received from my supervisors Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Koepping and Dr. Jeanne Openshaw. Dr. Elizabeth Koepping, as the principal supervisor for my research, has offered fitting and timely directions in undertaking this research. Even though I had originally in mind a library based research for PhD to articulate the concept of dialogue, the discussions I had with her, and the comments and suggestions she offered, motivated me to incorporate field research as well. She has been also kind enough to read my writings several times and make appropriate corrections for which I remain extremely thankful. Dr. Jeanne Openshaw’s directions, especially making me aware of the perspectives in Dissent studies, were much helpful and her comments on my chapters dealing with religions were very much helpful. The Department in Religious Studies in New College in general has influenced my research to a greater extent, particularly exposing me to the contemporary trends in critiquing ‘religion(s)’ and religion-secular distinctions through personal discussion and discussions through Religious Studies Seminars, and offered a platform for me to present my research in the Religious studies seminar, which have been greatly helpful for my research. In this regard, I also acknowledge the help of Dr. James L. Cox and Dr. Steve Sutcliffe. I remain thankful to the School of Divinity and the College of Humanities and Social Science of the University of Edinburgh for granting me Postgraduate Scholarship Awards to take care of my tuition fees. For my living costs in Edinburgh St. Augustine Foundation, Canterbury, extended their generous support, which allowed me to bring my wife and children for a greater part of my stay in Edinburgh, for which I am thankful. I thank the trustees of the Foundation, and also Rev. Canon Roger Symon, the former Canon of the Canterbury Cathedral, who also was instrumental in helping me to receive this support. I thank Bishop G. Devakadasham, the present Moderator of the CSI Synod, and Bishop of the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese, in which I am a member, who has been supportive and encouragement in my studies since my BD days. He has extended his support to my PhD research also, especially in arranging to get financial support for ix my studies. My thanks are also due to Rev. Justin Devadasan, a senior presbyter in the diocese, and Dr. Jonathan Gnanadason for their encouragement for me and confiedence in me in undertaking my higher studies. I also acknowledge the support and encouragement from Rev. Dr. Sathianathan Clarke who was my teacher at UTC. Being my tutor during my BD studies, he encouraged and recommended me to do my further studies in the field of Religious Studies. He helped me to join UTC for my MTh, when I was on the verge of losing my admission because of lack of financial assistance, and taught me to apply social scientific methods to study the subaltern aspects of religion, and then made sure that I joined the University of Edinburgh for PhD. In the same vein, Rev. Dr. Jayakiran Sebastian, mentor for my MTh research, and whom I always remember for the word ‘encouragement’ extended his help. His support was also crucial for me to join Edinburgh and I remain grateful to him for that. The initial proposals for this research (which I submitted for PhD admission) was discussed with Rev. Dr. Israel Selvanayagam and Rev. Dr. Eric Lott at UTC. Being a dialogue thinker himself, Dr. Israel encouraged me to move forward with my proposal and extended his suggestions even though my proposal critiqued dialogue so as to widen the horizons in resolving conflicts. While in the UK, Dr. Israel was supportive and introduced me to various forums. My selection of modern approaches to religion in this research was initially influenced by Dr. Eric Lott, who himself nevertheless has worked on classical approaches to Hinduism. I remain thankful to him. In a research context, dialogue partners are essential – where one can present and test his or her studies. I have often realised the importance of this. In this regard I remain thankful to Rev. Dr. S. Sahayadhas (currently Associate Professor at UTC), for being a dialogue partner during my MTh studies at UTC, while he was a doctoral student, and many of the ideas of this research I had shared with him during my MTh days. Even though sometimes (or may be many times) we don’t agree with each other, his listening to my ideas, comments suggestions have been very helpful. More recently Mr. Asish Thomas Koshy and Mr. David Muthukumar, Lecturers at the Union x Biblical Seminary, Pune, have also been helpful in this regard and my thanks are due to them. Regarding my field research in India, I remain thankful to all the dialogue activists in Kanyakumari district, people in Gramam who accepted me and shared information, offered interviews and attended focus-group interviews. Special thanks are due to Rev. C. Rajamony who was instrumental in approaching many dialogue activists in the district. Thanks are also due to Dr. Peter, and Dr. K. Sukumaran who helped me to find materials about the district which were helpful in establishing alternative approaches to conflicts in the district. Especially I remember Dr.