The Role

of Religious Leaders in Peace Initiatives

Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil, SDB

Guwahati

(Talk given in Shillong)

I. Playing an Intelligent and Responsible Role in Civil Society

1. Religious Leaders in the World of Thought and Values

I think that I would be affirming something most evident when I say that religious leaders have a special responsibility to act as perceptive and committed leaders within the social fabric of a nation. I would emphasize that they ought to be particularly leaders in the world of thought and of values. In a democratic state, all citizens have a national responsibility; in the globalized world today, a universal responsibility. There is a Russian saying, ‘Each of us is responsible to all of us for everything”. Religious leaders ought to cultivate this sense of this universal responsibility in their own communities.

In an era gone by, we could claim to be good citizens by merely obeying the laws and paying the taxes. Today, no more. By action or inaction, every citizen contributes ill or well to the wellbeing and the destiny of his/her state/country/and the world. If there is violence in the state, if bribery is rampant, if public works fall behind schedule, if trains run late and electricity fails, if slums multiply, if the universities do not function, if there is national waste; if children are put to hard labour, if women are exploited, if there is the problem of alcohol, drugs, AIDS, if human rights are denied to minorities, and, most of all if elected members do not discharge their duties, every citizen is to be held responsible. It is the duty of religious leaders to promote this consciousness.

2. A Sense of Responsibility for General Welfare

A society ultimately gets the leaders it deserves. We cannot blame the leaders alone if things are moving downhill. We make the leaders. We can unmake them too. We have the right to demand a sense of responsibility from them. Unfortunately, citizens in our country have not yet learned to expect a code of conduct, a style of behaviour, a manner of approach to persons and issues, and a degree of commitment from those whom they have elected as their representatives. Rather, not rarely, they have allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by the very persons they have chosen to serve the common good and promote national interests. Not only, citizens have often condoned the un-civic behaviour and partisan proclivity of their leaders in exchange for some equally partisan advantage to their own personal or sectarian interests.

And alas, going even further at times, citizens have closed an eye to the corrupt, discriminatory and unprincipled conduct of political leaders and civil servants whenever they could draw some undue benefit in compensation. Ignoring all moral norms and ethical behaviour, people seem to tell their representatives occasionally, “Stand with us in our injustice, and we will stand with you in your injustice”, “Defend us in our dishonesty, and we will defend you in your dishonesty”. If this is our attitude, our contribution to civil society is bound to be negative. In this area of personal convictions, religious leaders can exert a corrective pressure and a salutary influence.

3. Exerting an Educative Pressure on Elected Leaders

If citizens abdicate their responsibility for the general welfare of their society soon after elections, the nation takes a downward path. It is one thing being conscientious about casting your vote to keep the wrong people out of power and to exclude unwanted ideologies and interests, it is quite another to place conscientious people into positions of responsibility, and follow them up diligently with an educative pressure.

It is impossible to make this type of intelligent and high-principled contribution to a society’s welfare, if citizens do not remain knowledgeable. That is why it has become imperative even for religious leaders to keep informed of events, social processes, political and economic trends, prevalent ideologies, differing views and their respective merits. The news-hour (TV) should not be a brief interval for entertainment, but a moment for self-education and reflection. The daily reading of newspapers and journals should give religious leaders a deeper insight into current realities.

If abortion and euthanasia find encouragement, environment is being ravaged, globalization injures local economy, violence raises its ugly head in society, every citizen with religious convictions ought to make a positive contribution to resolving the problem. For, religious convictions make meaning, not when they lead believers towards various forms of fanaticisms like the formation of suicide squads, but when they provide convincing motivations for a radical commitment to the common good. Such commitment finally expresses itself in a variety of ways: in the religious field, reflection on current issues inspired by religious principles, classes and courses offering value-based teachings in the context of pressing human problems; in the social field, articles in local journals, letters to the editor, discussion with discerning leaders; and if the problem is serious and issues are clear, direct involvement with prophetic gestures like signature campaigns, protest march on the streets, activities through citizens’ associations, and other similar activities.

No one should underestimate the impact conscientious citizens can make on society through intelligent interventions, by getting their friends and collaborators, even their opponents and ‘enemies’, involved. I say ‘enemies’, for, if upright citizens know how to take a balanced view, stay fair and objective, and remain firm and consistent, even the so-called ‘enemy’ may be compelled to make a quick-turnaround and support their good idea.

4. We are Part of a Bigger Universe

There is a danger that religious leaders and welfare groups carry on their committed activities with no reference to others in the same field. If they do that, they run the risk of scattering their energies and duplicating work, and even wasting scarce resources in competition. On the contrary, if groups doing similar work frequently interact with each other and coordinate their efforts, helping and encouraging each other, evidently much more will be achieved. If the leaders of each movement scout round for talent, good will and commitment, and happily share responsibilities with them, they will be able attain unbelievably great things. They should be ready to welcome part time assistance and even a one-time help.

There are always people with great ability, spiritual motivation and deep religious convictions also among persons of other Churches and other faiths than one’s own, with whom religious leaders could work towards building a more human world. And going further, one may notice even among people who criticize religious authorities and missionary initiatives some persons of great ability, who believe in human values and are committed to the betterment of society, and who place their energies at the service of great human causes like justice, equality, and fairness to deprived groups. In fact, anyone who is capable of looking beyond their own ‘ego’ interests to the good of the larger society is a potential collaborator for a religious leader in his/her effort for the wellbeing of society.

In this context, I would like to emphasize the importance of one more category of people: I am referring to those who influence public thinking and take the rising generations towards new horizons. In this category I would put thinkers, writers, poets, artists, educators and speakers of special ability who provide the living philosophy for the social movements of the day. Religiously motivated people need to be close to such persons, learn from the positive contribution they make to society and initiate a dialogue with them, offering correctives where they are required. Even if they seem indifferent in the immediate context, a day may come when the seeds the leaders have planted bear fruit in abundance and the dreams that they have fostered come to reality.

5. Avoid Exaggerations, Fanaticisms

A religious leader is happy to do a hundred things that one may work. He/she meets a hundred persons that one may help. He sows a hundred ideas that one may grow. He is actively involved in public causes, but keeps to moderation. He leads on with planting ideas in the minds of people, placing ideals before masses, stirring zeal for true religious faith and genuine values, and drawing communities to a committed style life. He takes care to avoid all forms of exaggerations and fanaticisms. I say this because self proclaimed prophets and justice-fighters, in their over-enthusiasm, are tempted to exaggerate….even to the point of creating another form of injustice. Violence leads to violence. Individual or collective vested interests can take such exaggerations even further. Building on emotions, especially on smothered anger and unexpressed resentment of people, justice-fighters can lead matters to such a head that there seems to be no other solution but violence.

It is only after they have caused much harm to people that the public begins to realize that the course of action adopted is not going to yield any beneficial results, and that the apparent idealism of those activists was inane romanticism and utopian self-deception, eloquence in presenting their case mere empty rhetoric, and that there was some imbalance somewhere either in the analysis of the situation or the planning of remedial measures. When representatives of a community or political alliance arm themselves with ideologies of violence in addition, greater disasters lie ahead.

But, on the contrary, when one consistently seeks to be objective, balanced, measured in words, sincere in purpose, eager to take every aspect of the issue into consideration and seriously committed to the benefit of all persons and communities concerned, one is bound to win a hearing and exert a healthy influence all around.

6. The Importance of Interpreting Events and Movements Correctly

Interpreting events and processes is more important than we often think. Politically motivated people tend to embellish and interpret the event according to their own political allegiance. Reporters are tempted to serve particular political or commercial interests. A wrong interpretation or presentation of a case of violence spreads anger and anxiety and can lead to further violence. This type of things keeps happening continuously. Religious leaders who rush in and take public stands before issues and events are clear, may be taking the risk of finding themselves on the wrong side or emphasizing a less important aspect. They make the mistake of those over-ardent justice-fighters I have mentioned above. That is why time and energy spent on study, reflection, analysis (I am referring to realistic analysis, not mere ideological analysis in which facts are forced to fit in with theories) and interpretation are never wasted. A good cause has a sturdiness of its own even before any battle is waged.

Mao thought that political power flowed from the barrel of the gun. Mahatma Gandhi’s political power flowed from the strength of his ideas and the rightness of his cause. This intelligent, righteous and balanced approach won him both admirers and followers on every continent.

7. Religious Leaders’ Special Mission: Inviting People to Think

The greatest contribution of religious leaders in times of crisis is to help people to discern the right manner of handling the problem that they are facing. Though many social activists today would consider denunciation of evil is the right manner of exercising their prophetic mission and the main contribution of religious leaders, I would consider inviting people to think and helping them to make intelligent and value-based decisions as the more important responsibility and the more useful assistance.

Eliciting thought, guiding reflection, being involved in taking the analysis forward, being prepared to revise one’s understanding of a situation as it keeps changing, watching out for opportunities for goal-oriented action, strengthening the religious, cultural and human resources for intelligent reflection and purposeful action, bringing together beneficent forces in the community, linking up scattered energies, helping people to put together scattered resources, leading persons and movements to realistic solutions….with a human touch and a human heart….this, in my view, is the central task of religious leaders when they are engaged in public issues. Any public stand they take can only be an external expression of this service.

It is not a question of telling people what to do or what to think. No one should deal with adult members of society like minors. But a perceptive leader can draw people to reflect on an issue under the light of his/her own Church’s/sect’s/group’s religious principles. He becomes adept at dealing with meanings, insights, purposes, motivations, commitments, and not develop merely into a political mobilizer or a manipulator of a community. He/she persuades. It is only when a person has personalized his own message that he/she is going to change his/her life and the life and value-systems of others. Change of heart, change of life, transformation of society, that is his/her real goal.

He makes his intelligence to bear on every aspect of related issues along with the rest of his community, bringing theology to life. He invites an adequate response from the community. He takes initiatives with other leaders in civil society according to the nature of the matter in hand, always retaining a relationship with the thinking element in the community.

2. Resources and Strengths

1. History as a Resource

a) A Lesson from History: 1. Victory is often followed by Defeat

While trying to interpret an event or a series of events, a religious leader should not close his/her eyes to history. History is full of instructions. It tells us, for example, that in most bitter conflicts, one side is defeated first, then the other. Arnold Toynbee in his “A Study of History” analyses this phenomenon at length showing how the loser is only stirred to life by the rude shock of his defeat and humiliation. He gathers up all his energies and becomes doubly determined to regain what he has lost, and even tries to outdo the winner. He takes the example of the Greco-Persian conflict. Persia’s reckless intrusion into Greece under Darius was a shocking experience for the Greeks. Their defeat persuaded the competing Greek states to forget their internal differences. Their collective determination to pay back Persia in her own coin found its final expression in Alexander’s bold venture deep into Persian territories, which took him even beyond Persia’s eastern borders into India.

After Alexander’s meteoric empire-building career, Greece, and later its successor state in the West, Rome, became the dominant power in the West. Rome held that position for centuries. But this humiliation of the East helped only to stir up a determination against the West that found its ultimate expression in the Arab thrust into Europe. There emerged from the Arabian peninsula a great people who brought together the remnants of the many earlier Asiatic empires, built up energy and carried war to the gates of Vienna on the eastern side of Europe and beyond the Spanish borders in the west. This Arab thrust, after it had overrun all the earlier Roman territories in West Asia, North Africa and Spain was halted only at Poitiers in Southern France by Charles Martel in 732.

This tide flowed back; for, there was stiff European resistance to this reckless venture. It brought into existence the powerful Austro-Hungarian empire in east Europe to halt the Arab thrust on the eastern front; and it also united the two mighty nations on the Iberian Peninsula, Spain and Portugal, to throw back the Arab forces on the west. The energies that these last two nations built up to throw out the Arab intrusion into Western Europe made of them the strongest powers in Europe at that particular period of history and the first colonial nations in modern times. They inaugurated the western colonial adventure which placed the destinies of the world into western hands for half a millennium. That is Arnold Toynbee’s argument in brief.

A curious question we may ask at this point is, ‘will the drama repeat itself with the awakening of China and other Asian giants?’ We pray for greater wisdom in all persons concerned!

A similar pattern can be noticed in the power-struggle between France and Germany during the last two centuries. The revolutionary fervour of France took Napoleon and his conquering armies in all directions in Europe, and pitted the French forces against many German principalities and kingdoms including Prussia. Germany was defeated and Prussia humiliated. It was the humiliation that Prussia suffered at French hands that stirred that country into action. She brought together several principalities and kingdoms into an German Empire and inflicted a crushing defeat on France at Sedan. Did France learn a lesson? Not a bit. On the contrary, France set about rebuilding its own energies and resources to bring Germany low with a vengeance during World War I, seeking the support of the Allied Forces. Did Germany learn a lesson? Far from it. Under Hitler, it invaded France and sought to convince her that all her earlier victories were of no use. At least now, France could have grown wiser and restrained herself from further violence. But she did not. She went through the same cruel ritual of bringing Germany down and dismembering it during World War II together with her Allies. Fortunately at this stage wisdom dawned on European nations. De Gaulle, Adenauer and De Gasperi forged a bond among the central European powers that laid the foundation for the present European Union.

Also in our region, in times of ethnic tensions it is good to bring to the attention of the contestants that those who triumphantly boast of having won a series of local battles may have only provoked their enemy for a determined round of destructive response, and violence may recoil on the present winners.

The wheel of violence keeps turning. Winners and losers change places. But violence does not come to an end. It will never cease, until there are enough people to stand aside from the fateful wheel, and centred in compassion, try hard to break the cycle of violence. But they will first need to reject the win-lose game of power and violence.

b) Another Lesson from History: 2. Sowing Seeds of Peace and giving a new Direction to the course of History

There are many examples of persons who achieved great things for humanity only by following a path of peace. It was after the termination of a hundred thousand lives in 261 B.C, that Asoka gave up his aggressive plans for conquering new territories and adopted the ways of gentle persuasion. And the world changed with him. Under his aegis, Buddhism which was a local sect, became a world religion. Asoka’s message still echoes in the hearts of millions of people. (1)¹

Here is another example closer home to us in the Northeast. Sukapha, the Ahom conqueror, who moved into Upper Assam from Thailand in 1228 A.D. was a great military genius, but also a conciliatory figure. Though he was able to put down strongly the local tribes and ethnic groups that resisted his invasion, he reconciled them and made them his allies. He befriended the Morans, the Borahis, Chutiyas and other communities who lived in Upper Assam, and laid the foundation of a kingdom which grew gradually into a mighty empire covering the entire Brahmaputra Valley, that was able to resist the Mughal army at the height of its power.

If we look carefully into the lives of great conquerors we find that it was not the sword that won them a stable kingdom/state, but the conciliating attitude that accompanied them while fighting battles or following up victories. Wherever this was missing the newly built empire broke up in a very short period of time.

The conquests that religious and cultural leaders make in the hearts of people leave behind far more beneficial results in the history of humankind than any other kind of conquests. Those religious leaders who learn from history and offer their teaching using culture and religion as their resources, get their insights widely accepted.

2. Culture as a Resource

People have debated whether culture is a resource or a restraint. It is in fact both. Every community falls back on its culture (its belief and value-systems, traditions, practices, guiding norms, priorities) as an abiding resource to build on. They can address their problems only within the context of the worldview they have always held, insights that have arisen within their cultural world, and the inspirations that have guided their people in their earlier history. Even a break from tradition can be made only within the context of their culture. Tribal values like a communitarian sense, honesty, industriousness, resolution of problems through dialogue, respect for traditions are great assets in a community.

Perceptive religious leaders seek to strengthen the positive resources in their culture and to help to free their society of the negative restraints it imposes. In times of rapid changes, they seek to strengthen existing values, concepts and commitments and take them to new levels by challenging their community and opening out new visions and possibilities to their people. That is what Jesus did when he affirmed, ‘You have heard it said—do not kill—but I tell you…’. In fact, the period of rapid transition is a time for the re-evaluation of existing traditions and prevailing concepts; it is a time for their rejection or re-acceptance, an occasion for further deepening of ideas, widening of horizons, and redefining of roles. That is why fresh, relevant, insightful re-interpretations of cultural elements in context are necessary from time to time.

Cultural resources of a community are too often underutilized by its members. If their leaders go to the point of forgetting them altogether or marginalizing them excessively, it is the community that is going to suffer. It becomes like a rootless plant. In a globalized world, that is what is happening to many cultures. But those leaders who develop the skill of using cultural resources and symbols effectively move the masses. See how the VHP stirred millions of people to visible fervour merely by using the symbolism related to a temple-construction programme at Ayodhya or that of the Ratha Yathra. We wish they had done it for a peaceful purpose. See what is happening in Orissa. Mahatma Gandhi’s use of symbols made an impact on India’s millions, like those of the ashram, fast, prayer meetings, spinning wheel, homespun and others. Religious leaders who make effective use of cultural symbols can shake the world. It is more powerful than any political manoeuvring or violence. Mother Teresa’s sari-clad image had become an ‘icon of peace’.

3. Religion as a Resource

Many people in our times look at religion as a divisive force. If they were to accept it as a spiritually motivating force and ethically inspiring energy, it would speedily turn into a mighty resource for human growth and social wellbeing. For, only religion can plant into human hearts those profound convictions on which the values that humankind most needs today can take root. “Religion and religious sensitivity are the factories that manufacture morality that society and business both need to function. Faith is authoritative, unconditionally normative. Religion, which is called the depth memory of humankind, gives depth, meaning, unconditional values, norms, motivations, ideals. It is the spiritual home of security, trust and hope.

Kurt Biedenkopf, MP of West German Parliament once said, “We will have to rely on the strength of religion…to make the kind of sacrifices and exercise the self-discipline that will be needed” for human growth. It is religion alone that can impose inwardly binding laws from within. F.W. de Clerk of South Africa was asked whether it was international sanctions that brought apartheid to and end. His quick reply was, “It was not sanctions, but a deep analysis on our knees before God”. Religion is an unfailing resource for human growth, and for peace.

3. Authenticity as Strength

A religious leader’s moral authority comes from his/her inner authenticity. People see him/her through. What he says is what he believes, and his lifestyle is always in keeping with what he believes. Allowing for human weaknesses, he sincerely seeks to be what he professes to be. His words and deeds match. His/her commitment to the larger good of society is proven. His sincerity in wanting to reconcile communities in conflict is evident. His religious earnestness does not make him sectarian, but enables him to open more and more doors to others and build bridges even to his opponents. That is his strength.

III. Lessons learnt from Peacemaking Efforts in

Northeast India

It may be good at this stage to share with you a few lessons that I have gathered over the years from working for peace in Northeast India. I am adopting a reflectional style, but what I was sharing may contain certain ideas useful for working out practical strategies for peace.

1. Let me begin with a general statement valid in any part of the world today. We have been fed for over a century on philosophies of struggle (Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, propagators of Fascist, Nazi and Communist ideologies and their milder versions, and various forms of nationalisms) and are so inspired by the ideals of fighting and struggling for justice and rights, that our combating spirit has grown, and our reconciling skills have sagged. The fighter is the hero today, and the peacemaker is at most a ‘useful botheration’, who may be granted a minimum space grudgingly in our consciousness. Activities of such a harmless do-good-er do not get the headlines or attract attention. We have forgotten that there are certain human skills of immense value like paying respectful attention to the other person’s (tribe’s, community’s) point of view, trying to understand them, showing sympathy for the opponent’s goals, dialoguing, arguing amicably, negotiating, avoiding aggressive language, making extra effort to convince, yielding, conceding, tolerating, coaxing, eliciting compliance, drawing persons into accepting one’s own point of view, evoking collaboration, insisting on friendly solutions, inviting compromise. So, the first learning is that anyone who desires to be a peacemaker needs to unlearn some the earlier mentioned skills and develop the skills needed for reconciliation.

2. If in a conflict, we take for granted that one side is definitely right and the other side totallywrong, that one is a demon and the other a helpless victim, and that we have to take sides and fight to a finish, we shall not succeed to become mediators between the two. Most contenders in the fray are convinced that they are fighting for a good cause. First we listen to one side that makes loud claims that they are struggling for justice for their own people. When we turn to the other side we find that the other side too is waging a war in behalf of fairness to their community or their own set of interests. Both are fighting for justice. Thus, perceptions of justice clash. When justice clashes with justice, the peacemaker is helpless. An important learning, therefore, from experience is that the peacemaker should be prepared to fail. However, he is determined never to give up.

3. Another learning is this: you will not be in a position to initiate a reconciliation-dialogue with contending groups, unless you have a measure of sympathy for their cause in your heart. Excessive preaching and repetition of pacifist platitudes in the early stages of the dialogue when matters are still hot, will sound provocative and humiliating to them. Hasty condemnations will enrage them. Even if you believe that their claims are exaggerated, unless you can empathize with them at depth and are touched by the passion they have for their goals and the sense of justice that motivates them, or their approach to the problem, or at least some aspect of their cause, they will not open out to you.

But if you are profoundly struck by the magnitude of their grievances and are able to understand (not necessarily approve) the excesses to which their ‘legitimate anger’ has driven them to, they will gradually, with caution, begin to respond. The same will be true of the other party as well. Neither group is asking you to condone their immoderation, they are asking you to understand how they felt compelled to go to such lengths. They are not asking you to say much, but to feel much. They are not asking you to appropriate their anger, but to experience their pain in the inhuman situation in which they have imprisoned themselves at the moment ( which, of course, they themselves had a share in creating).

4. There is a fourth learning I would like to share with you: that there is a profound longing for peace even in the heart of the sternest combatant. But peace at what terms? At whose terms? Not certainly at the cost of their central interests. Not certainly at the price of having to compromise their honour or damage their image. If the peacemaker wants to retain his credibility, it must be clear to the contestants that he is not going to sell out the gains they have made during a lengthy struggle, or compromise their future; that he understands that they were compelled to resort to violence only because they wanted to convey a message most powerfully, especially to the opponents.

Carl Jung once aid that the strongman must somewhere be weak, and the cleaver man must somewhere be stupid…otherwise it would not be true to reality. In the same way, the violent man must somewhere be peaceable. Even the fiercest fighters are looking forward to an era of peace. That is why they keep a little door open for the peacemaker, which they can snap shut any time they feel unsure. It is this hidden entry point that the peacemaker tries to target. But often, sadly, that secret door remains bolted and barred for reasons of security. And a truly religious peacemaker has often to fall back on his religious faith to persevere in his effort and inspire confidence in the combatants and their leaders.

5. The most important thing for the peacemaker is to make an acceptable presence in the subconscious of the warring groups. If he or the organization he represents is well known for their beneficent services and non-controversial activities among the groups in collision, the belligerents may turn to him as a peacemaker, or welcome him when he takes initiative. His ability to build up confidence-generating relationships with the parties concerned is the key to his success. Even those who have ‘fought’ hard for ‘justice’ need not consider themselves excluded from the privileged position of becoming peacemakers, if they have always taught non-violence, sought to be fair to all parties concerned, consistently avoided exaggerated ego-claims, have a special skill for establishing warm-hearted relationships with people, and their universal outlook on public issues is respected.

6. The peacemaker begins by interacting with the two groups in hostile relationships. If he presents himself as a self-appointed mediator and arbitrator, he will be rejected. Criticizing one party to the other is not the best way of proving his neutrality. A commitment to humanity that comes through in one’s words, deeds and relationships is far more convincing. This quality is far more important than some techniques that he has picked up in a recent conflict-management seminar. A universal outlook, a sensitivity to human pain no matter who suffers, a keen desire to come to the assistance of people in anxiety…these are some of the qualities that a religious peacemaker needs to cultivate.

7. As the battle rages, bringing the right people together for negotiations itself is an achievement. Now, who are the right people? It is not likely that the frontline fighters will come for peace-talks; their skills lie in another direction. It is not likely either that the war-hawks will deign to sit for dialogue. They have a vested interest in keeping the fires burning. I would describe the people who matter in a peace-dialogue as “socially important people”: people who are respected in society; groups whose opinions have wide acceptability among both radicals and moderates. Such would be thinkers, writers, professors, speakers and people who stir society with their charismatic leadership or prophetic utterances.

8. Always search for ‘effective person(s)’. Such persons during conflicts may not necessarily figure in the list of much talked-about leaders like politicians or bureaucrats, but they are those who think, provide a philosophy for action, keep teams together, develop strategies, keep public contacts, build image for the group, and control publicity. A leader of this definition may be an unimpressive figure, mild-looking, soft-spoken; but he is a perceptive person and has the confidence of the militant ‘boss’ and his confederates. For, the doer is not always the thinker. The doer acts fast, but does not always reflect. So, after organizing a few agitations, he is exhausted; or after killing a few harmless people and inflicting severe injuries on the other party, runs short of ideas, and the entire movement fizzles out. It is the thinker that interprets history, constructs a theory, visualizes a future in order to sustain the movement. I am not referring necessarily to just one person. There may be many such people at different levels of the hierarchy scattered in the various units.

It is not likely that you will easily get the key-thinkers of a militant organization to come to the negotiating-table. The next best thing to do is to draw those who are close to them; and the next best thing again is to get those who are close to those who are close to them. In other words, we may have to work through mediators, or at least such people as we think, have some influence on the guiding-group in the organization. Though we have such ambitious plans, those who really come for dialogue may be persons totally remote from the frontlines and the controlling machinery. But at least they should be respected persons in their own society. For, as long as they have the confidence of their own societies, the message will ultimately reach intended circles. In order to draw such persons to the dialogue-table it is very important to make direct contacts, and not limit oneself to sending out letters.

9. There are times when negotiators representing conflicting interests will feel unprepared to meet each other. Even if they are already at the venue, they feel emotionally and mentally not yet ready for direct discussions. It would be best that they spend some period of time in separate meetings to thrash out their own two different points of view and get themselves ready for actual negotiations. Religious peacemakers can play an important role making a passionate appeal for peace, basing themselves on arguments from human experience, philosophical reflection, wisdom of the ancients in their own respective societies, and the teaching from the scriptures of their own religions. Depending on the charism and the moral authority of the religious animators, a great measure of mental transformation takes place during such an exercise.

10. If ultimately the two groups agree to come together, I would suggest that the religious peacemaker remains a confidence-builder, facilitator, creator of a serene atmosphere…an atmosphere in which interactions become easy. He may suggest the next step, invite further reflection, whisper a solution, allowing the contestants to thrash out their own differences. If he remains inconspicuous and keeps a low-profile, his long term contribution can be greater. The less he interferes in the practical side of the issues and the natural processes of discussions, the better. But the temptation to win recognition is so great, that the peacemaker, if he happens to be successful at the first stage, rushes into the role of a mediator, arbitrator and judge. Even if the contestants agree to such an idea, it would be unwise to assume such roles. Winning headlines may be flattering, but the fruits therefrom may not last too long. Premature publicity can be fatal. Those who oppose peace may track down the peacemaker at any stage and make trip him over. Doing things as though not doing—that is the role of the peacemaker in complex situations. One should feel free from having to play to the gallery.

11. Finally about making compromises. Living together always means being prepared for compromises. This is true of a family, a village, a nation and the international community. The most valuable contribution the peacemaking team can make is to lead opposing partners towards a gradual awareness of this great truth. Self-evident as it is, if you rush to conclusions urging compromise and quoting scriptures and adages when the anger is still high, the pedagogic process you have started may be disturbed. It is far more profitable to draw their attention to the disastrous consequences of on-going conflict. You have to walk a long distance with them sharing the pain of their people. Only when they are mentally prepared to look for alternative solutions, is it pedagogic to propose compromises. However, it is unwise for the peacemaker to prompt specific issues on which a compromise may be made. It is best that they emerge from the participants’ lived-experience and their own agonizing search for a way out of the deadlock they are caught up in. Prodding compromises in the area of their central concerns may appear insensitive to them. What they themselves are willing to concede is their gift to God, to the future of their community, and to humanity.

12. Often the negotiators themselves have no authority to decide on issues in behalf of the two contending parties. But they can make recommendations. And if these are carefully phrased, balanced and corresponding to realities, they usually evoke a good reaction. The participants in the first trend-setting meeting we have described above can make an effort to organize similar meetings at the local levels, try to reproduce the same atmosphere and goodwill, and discuss the recommendations with others. If there is wide acceptance of the proposals, the communities may move on to the final round of negotiations in the presence of civil authorities, in which the religious peacemaker need not necessarily take part at all. If in the process he is clean forgotten or is marginalized, he should rejoice, for it is divine intervention that ultimately brings peace to a situation no matter who served the cause.

13. Having come thus far with the argument, one may ask whether religious leaders should get directly involved in public issues. My answer to the question would be qualified. Certainly yes in the cause of justice and truth, in the defense of the poor and the deprived, in the cause of human rights. But he should avoid certain mistakes: making public statements without having studied the issues from different points of view, taking sides too fast and condemning in haste, alienating persons and communities to whom also he has a responsibility no matter how wrong they are, and similar things. It is not the humiliation of the wrong-doer that the religious leaders aim at, but the change of heart and the transformation of society. And though, as citizens, religious leaders have the right to get involved in any social issue in whatever manner that is open to citizens in a democracy, their role is not precisely that of the social activist. Excessive clerical presence of one religious group in the political sphere is not appreciated by persons of other religious groups, and is often resented even by the members of their own community/Church.

In our own context in Northeast India, while it has been easy for religious leaders to play an active role in all areas of humanitarian interest, like education, health, development, research, peace, promotion of ethical values, it has not been easy or helpful to enter into issues that are politically complex. For example, it is not very clear whether any stand that religious leaders may take on issues like claims of greater political autonomy by particular tribes and communities, e.g. demand for total independence, statehood, autonomous district, some form of political unit, or tribal status will be free of severe criticism. It can be counter-productive. One has to be extremely sensitive in dealing with political problems on this nature. Of this we may be sure, that religious leaders should make of their faith a spiritual resource for human betterment and a guide towards humanity’s Ultimate Future. It is for the leader to discern and decide before God in what manner he may come out directly into the public sphere with his/her prophetic utterances, gestures or actions. His own Church/religious body guides him in difficult situations.

14. Here is another learning. Violence is not broken by superior violence, but by another power, a tremendous capacity for suffering. If you wish to save the lives of others, be prepared for death. This is a teaching that Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were convinced of. Some persons in the groups that are in conflict may be seriously opposed to peace-negotiations. Government authorities may be suspicious of the religious leaders’ motivations. Petty-minded officers may be jealous. Groups opposed to the activities of a particular religious community may be critical. There may be negative interpretations in the press. There may be repeated failures in the peace-promoting work itself. The peacemaker is ready to go through any suffering.

15. Experience tells us that difficulties for the peacemaker will be many. The representatives of the warring groups may refuse to turn up. Their ears may be poisoned against the initiatives of those religious leaders. Follow-up efforts may never take off. People may get discouraged from the recurrence of violence. Collective anger may be rekindled if their community is hit again unexpectedly. Malicious rumours may be deliberately spread. The press may inflate the number of victims, interpret issues wrongly, ignore the peacemaker’s initiatives and successes. He (they) may feel left alone to struggle. But even in the midst of troubles, he should hold his head high. He need not refute every charge and counter every opposition he faces. He could respond to those accusations with a simple explanation or even allowing things to be said and events to take place. He could let people speak just as they wish for a while. But he should be honest and upright in his intent and ego-less in his service. He should never give up. His very non-resistance may prove a turning-point for the current to reverse the flow. And finally the truth will reveal itself.

16. There are times when discussions cannot make headway because the contestants have their own style of using words, e.g. justice, peace, democracy, their own way of interpreting history and the immediate context, their own manner of defending their vested interests, their own strategies of making allegations, their own fashion of creating myths. For example, people who claim to be fighting to save their ethnic identity and cultural heritage, may, in fact be striving to keep the routes of their drug-trade open. Even so, at depths there is some measure of goodwill. The religious peacemaker keeps seeking to tap that goodwill. He does not turn cynical, but tries to ransom people from their own inconsistencies.

17. Often memories of historic injuries remain alive in people’s hearts and negative stereotypes of each other develop. In such cases, every peace-agreement is a truce. Hostilities may be renewed at any time. But the religious peacemaker finds renewed strength and motivation in his faith. He is ready to begin all over again. He gets busy with the healing of historic memories and the demolition of stereotypes. For he believes that God is with him.

18. One last learning. The religious peacemaker firmly believes in what I have chosen to call the ‘mysticism of the brief moment’…in the power of prayer. This is the source of his strength in moments of tension, opposition, discouragement, failure, and humiliation. It is based on this strength that he builds bridges across communities and cultures, sorts out differences, persuades people to forgive and join hands together and strive on to create a better world. He remembers that peacemakers did not always succeed, that some lost their lives, and that their accounts often read like a tragic waste. But he is sure that nothing can be lost in God, that peace comes in its own good time, that there are many ways in which God makes people ‘beat their swords into ploughshares’. He is immensely happy if he plays a very humble part in it.

IV. Inspiring Examples of Religious Leaders

May be at this stage, it is good to turn our attention to the inspiring examples of certain prophetic persons who contributed a great deal to the cause of peace. In the 1980’s Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe, and told the West the he had deprived them of an enemy (Glover 232). Vajpayee’s bus trip to Lahore thrilled millions of Indians and Pakistanis. Everyone remembers Mahatma Gandhi’s message of non-violence, and the skill he manifested in struggling for justice for his people in the most peaceful manner. Following his example Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela adopted a peaceful style of dealing with complex social and political problems. Names like Vinoba Bhave and Baba Amte are much remembered for their contribution to peaceful relationship between communities. The Dalai Lama’s unfailing smile and peaceful approach continue to inspire us.

After having looked at all these wonderful examples in civil society, I would like to conclude my sharing with certain prophetic utterances of religious leaders who have made a great contribution to the cause of peace in our times. May be I will have to limit myself to a few Christian leaders who were perfectly convinced that the Gospel was all about peace. For, the Gospel does not speak of peace occasionally; peace is not one of the themes among many others, but the central articulation and dynamic of the entire Gospel to be found there. On nothing else does the Gospel speak more explicitly and more frequently than on peace. The religious leaders I am going to refer to were convinced that being Christians was identical with being peacemakers, that they had to untrain themselves for war and violence. They remembered the words of Jesus, “Peace I give you, my peace I leave with you” (Jn14:2), the words of Isaiah, “Nation shall not lift sword against nation nor ever again be trained for war” (Is 2:4).

Daniel Berrigan, a Jesuit priest, a prophet of peace in the US, inspired thousands of people of faith and conscience to pursue the Christian vision of a world free of violence. Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968, he continued over a quarter of a century to challenge the conscience of his contemporaries on the issues of War and Violence. He would passionately cry, “We are not allowed to kill innocent people. We are not allowed to be complicit in murder… It is terrible for me to live in a time where I have nothing to say to human beings except ‘Stop killing’… We are where we started. Thou shalt not kill; we are not allowed to kill. Everything today comes down to that … everything”. Fr. Elias Chacour, who had lived through decades of violence in the state of Israel used to tell his fellow Arabs, “We have tried violence. We have tried wars. We are sure that wars will bring wars…I am sure. It’s a vicious circle. It is the logic of violence. We know where violence leads. Even if we are not certain where we are going with non-violence, let us try it”.

It is unbelievable that so many of us can be passive and indifferent before the enormous human tragedy of ongoing violence in our world today. Someone has said, the indifference of good people is more shocking than the malice of evil-doers. We cannot remain uncommitted until we ourselves are direct victims. Niemoeller, a Lutheran pastor, thus described his failure during the agonizing days of Hitler, “When the Nazis came to get the Communists, I was silent. When they came to get the Socialists, I was silent. When they came to get the Catholics, I was silent. When they came to get the Jews, I was silent. And when they came to get me, there was no one left to speak”. A powerful witness in humility. Non-involvement in peace efforts is complicity is violence.

The longer violence rages, the deeper the injury it inflicts on our collective psyche. Mac McCrackin, a Presbyterian minister, says, “The more the war goes on, the more vindictive it becomes. The means we use determine the ends we reach, and nothing has proven that so much as war. If you are defending human rights and life, then you shouldn’t get into a situation where you will destroy life. Not only will you fail to destroy the enemy of life, you will yourself become life’s enemy”. So many peace talks have taken place. So many peace rallies have been held. But things have not got any better. We can be tempted to give up. Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, too used to feel the weight of his mission during the peaceful crusade against apartheid. He would say, “…sometimes there are moments when you are in the depths, or you have to say to God ‘God I am tired’. At those times I throw myself into the strain of faith, and I am carried in the prayers, and not just of those on earth”. How inspiring!

“We are tired of weapons and bullets”, a peasant wrote to the Catholic Archbishop Romero of San Salvador. “Our hunger is for justice, for food, medicine, education, and effective programmes of fair development”. Archbishop Romero, himself an ardent champion of justice for the poor, was never tired of repeating, “Violence resolves, nothing, violence is not Christian, not human”. However, once violence takes roots in a society, peacemaking truly becomes an uphill task. The path seems to lengthen the more you walk on it. You are more likely to see failure at every step than success. We have little choice. “The choice is between non-violence and non-existence”, as Martin Luther King once said. If we do not listen to the voice of wisdom and the cry of our conscience, our worst fears will come true.

As things are today, peacemakers are few. But we continue to hold on to hope. As the Catholic Archbishop Dom Helder Camara of Recife and Olinda (Brazil) used to say, “Today, as always, humanity is led by minorities who hope against all hope, as Abraham did”. May be that is what the Joint Peace Team of Church leaders in the Northeast has done. It has made a useful contribution to the cause peace in times of tension during the ethnic conflicts at Kokrajhar in 1996, at Churachandpur in 1997, and at Haflong and Diphu in 2003. It may be good to note that instances of direct ethnic conflicts have come down. But the task is not over. Many tensions still remain. We need to trust in the strength of ideas, the persuasive power of that inner voice that speaks to us, the help that comes from God. The mission of religious leaders is precisely this: give public utterance to that inner voice that speaks to everyone.

I end with an inspiring teaching from the well-known psychologist Freud, “The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which one may be optimistic about the future of mankind” (Sigumund Freud). May the soft inner voice that prompts peace to us be announced on the housetops, and may joy and serenity return to our hills and valleys!