INTRODUCTION
The right to practice one’s religion freely is one of the most basic human rights, and it is protected under various international and national legal instruments: such as Canadian Charter for Rights and Freedoms, Universal Declaration on Human Rights among others. Religious intolerance poses a major challenge in two scenarios in Canada in its ability to be democratic, receptive, open and tolerant. It is often said that none of us can be free if someone else isn’t. Different cultures, including the one we live in, have been established according to specific traits or qualities that people have while leaving others out. Such traits may include being white and thin or fit, a man or woman, speaking English, not being disabled, Christian, comprising heterosexual marriage only etcetera. As a result, quite a number of individuals and societies experience discrimination which is brought about by various aspects. Raising awareness and increasing understanding about the different forms of religious intolerance in Canada is deemed essential, when it comes to dealing with it.
DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Religious Intolerance is tolerance against other religious beliefs or practices. It can sometimes produce violence acts and even wars. It is an intolerance towards a person’s religion or their religious beliefs or practices; it arises from negativity against particular faiths. Religious intolerance is hard to measure and quantify because people’s attitudes towards it differ greatly from one another but it is easier to recognize in deeds. It occurs in various ways including micro-aggressions, non-accommodation and acceptance of religion practices, destruction of religious buildings as well as hate speech even physical attack on believers; all such behaviours are discriminatory against religious beliefs; such intolerant tendencies among people have grave long-lasting effects psychologically, societally and economically. It can be considered as the inability to accept others’ religious beliefs and practices as valid. It basically refers to looking down on or disparaging a person or group not only because of their religion but also based on divisons of castes systems.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Every religion has experienced hostility towards and from other belief systems. The modern concept of religious tolerance emerged from Europe’s religious wars during the Reformation period in the 16th to 18th century. Specifically, it was a result of the War of 30 years that ended in Peace of Westphalia in 1648. After the 30 Years’ War was fought by the Catholic Hapsburgs as well as newly Protestant nations such as Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, the idea of ‘religious toleration’ arose. It was at this time that rulers aimed at doing away with religious feelings and convictions within their territories of power. Under the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, states were granted sovereignty while at the same time permitting for minority Christian sects’ coexistence within the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire.
Another side of this historical backgrounds lies in the 2nd century BC where the Patanjali argued that the relationship between Brahmins and Buddhists is like that between the snake and the mongoose and as we all can relate that it is actually a violent manifestation which is supported by a plethora of historical evidence. According to evidences, there is a copious proof of the Shaiva-Vaishnava antagonism. Also in the 11th century, Alberuni argued about the hindus.
CAUSES OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Causes of religious intolerance includes the following:
- ego of the self
- mine versus theirs mentality
- ignorance
- lack of religious knowledge
- desire to be superior
- wasted political benefits like personal vendettas.
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN INDIA
Religious intolerance has been a major issue in India, perpetrated through many ways including violence, discrimination, and political polarization. In this scenario, the religious makeup of India is very diverse with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and others.
Historical background of religious intolerance in India—-
The strong traditions of cultic and religious syncretism were an early hallmark of India, ample evidence shows that religious and sectarian antagonisms have been in evidence since very early times.
Privileging Hinduism over others:
This was an objectification of tolerant Hinduism, which appears to have been a relatively recent development, with its first manifestations in Western writings about India. At the end of the 17th century, the French doctor Francois Bernier, a much-travelled writer about India, was one of the early European writers to comment on the tolerance of the Hindus.
In the 19th century, some Indians also began to speak of the tolerance of Hindus, but clearly privileged Hinduism over other religions. Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj in 1875, claimed to believe “in a religion based on universal values above the hostility of all creeds”. Ramakrishna, his contemporary, spoke of the equality of religions, but in his view “the Hindu religion alone is the Sanatana Dharma”. His disciple Swami Vivekananda 1863-1904 also laid emphasis on toleration.
The same views were expressed in the early 20th century by some leaders. For instance, Bal Gangadhar Tilak voiced his opinion in the lexicon of tolerance and frequently quoted the above Rigvedic passage but actually preached militant Hinduism. Even the Muslim-baiter MS Golwalkar spoke of the Hindus as the most tolerant people on earth, though it sounded like the devil citing the scripture as he termed the Muslims, Christians and Communists as threats from within to the country.
Emphasizing the syncretism:
Many historians and social scientists have spoken and written about this inclusive character of Hinduism and produced a copious literature highlighting the syncretic traditions. It is often said that the Vedantist philosopher Madhava Acharya (14th century) displayed an exemplary tolerance of opposing points of view in his Sarvadarshanasamgraha, which begins with the school of Charvakas, criticizes it, and ends with Shankara’s Advaita “as the conclusion and crown of all philosophical systems”. What is forgotten is that this was done in keeping with the traditional Indian practice of presenting the opponent’s view before refuting it.
Further, Adinatha, the first tirthanakara of Jainism, was accepted as an incarnation of Vishnu in the Bhagavatapurana. The Muslim sect of Imam Shahis who held that the Imam himself was the tenth avatara of Vishnu and that the Quran was a part of the Atharvaveda. It is however overlooked in all this that neither Adinatha nor the Imam, nor Christ nor Akbar nor even Victoria occupied an important place in the Brahmanical scheme of things. In other words, the non-Brahmanical religions were not treated at par with Brahmanism but as religions that, unwelcome though they were, did exist and hence had to be tolerated.
CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE
Some countries and states have set provisions barring discrimination on religion, albeit not through constitutional clauses directly related to religion. The provision made by these states’ constitutions usually does not have a sure guarantee that all facets of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice may vary widely from country to country. Other nations may provide for religious preference, with one or several state religions, and yet do not allow religious intolerance. For instance, in Finland, even with its Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as state religions, the free expression of religion is a tenet of its constitution under article 11.
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom termed India Tier-2 in persecuting religious minorities, the same category as Iraq and Egypt. A report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF of 2018, charged Hindu nationalist groups for their campaign to “saffronize” India using violence, intimidation, and harassment against non-Hindus. Some countries have retained laws that forbid blasphemy and hold one liable for defamation of religious belief. Several countries also criminalize apostasy—renouncing one’s old religion; in Afghanistan, for instance, Abdul Rahman very nearly became the first person to be sentenced to death for becoming a Christian, but was subsequently released. The United Nations confirms the right to freely express one’s religious beliefs both in the UN’s charter and in articles 2 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.
Art. 2 does not allow discrimination based on religion. Art. 18 holds the freedom to change religion. Since only a treaty imposes legal obligations, not a declaration, the act of signing the human rights declaration is a political commitment in public. Out of a fear to appear before an international court, in 1998, the United States chose to enact the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and demanding the United States government address any country found to have violated the religious freedoms under the United Nations Convention or face economic sanctions. Article 9 of the binding European Convention on Human Rights, to which all European Union states are signatories, prohibits limiting an individual’s freedom in manifesting devotion and in changing their religion, and also in article 14, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion. In North Korea, there were reports that the regime continued to repress the religious activities of unauthorized religious groups. The DPRK is an atheist state; refugees, defectors, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) continued to report that in prior years they witnessed the regime arrest and execute members of underground Christian churches. This activity remained difficult to verify because of the country’s inaccessibility and the inability to gain timely information. The United States State Department has, in its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, announced China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan to be among the worst persecutors of people for religious faith and practices.
WAYS TO IMPROVE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
- erasing religious discrimination
- propagate and practice a view point on religious tolerance
- religious freedom and rights given to all religious communities implemented
- the UN should pay its role in resolving all the religious based disputes
- arranging methods to teach tolerance in schools all around the world
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the above facts that religious intolerance leads to conflicts among communities through the use of strategies, practices, and ideologies. It can also be noted that the likelihood of violent religious intolerance rises if it has support from a political elite or through local extremist groups.Throughout various years, actors have kept communal tensions by introducing communal ideology intermittently such that when something happens one can think it is just but another manifestation of broader community conflict (Jafferlot, 2003). These networks can mushroom uncontrolled unless put under control by law enforcement agencies or community organizations; if these are not constrained, they might easily breed large-scale bloodshed (Quoted in Riot Politics, 2011, Ward Berenschot).As intolerance gets worse, liberal thought, pluralism and scientific attitude will suffer. It is an established fact that apart from a state which is unafraid, firm, secular in nature and steadfastly dedicated to the Constitution there can be no counterforce against the dangerous growth of religious chauvinism and bloodshed.
