Interview with Sharath Ananthamurthy

Irenees :

May you present yourself, please?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I am a professor of experimental physics in Bangalore University, India. My interests include popularization of science and scientific ideas and communication in social forums with a view towards creating better understanding leading to peace and harmony amongst different social groups and communities.

Peace, thanks to diversity and the respect of differences:

Irenees :

At the time of the Indian “partition” in 1947, many observers thought that hindus and muslims could never live together. Indians proved that they can. Indian peace actors often identify themselves in terms of different religious identities: How could you explain the fact that in Europe, for instance, revendication of diversity of religious identities is perceived as an obstacle to live together, while in India this diversity is considered as a wealth, facilitating life together?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Let me come to this answer by the following observation: The identification of the people who inhabited the Indian subcontinent as “hindus” was really one which the early Greeks and later, western travelers and scholars of India made. These people consisted already, of a diverse collection of communities, whose religious beliefs and practices were hardly identical and who worshipped different Gods and forms of divinity. Furthermore, there were other practices from Buddhism and Jainism that flourished in ancient India. Thus, the people in the subcontinent always lived in a mileu of diverse forms of beliefs and worship. When Islam and Christianity came in later, these religions were also embraced, although with initial resistance, perhaps as yet other valid “searches for God/higher being”, notwithstanding that the armies and conquerors with whom these religions came in were often met with resistance at various stages in medieval Indian history. Thus, I would say that the spirit of “live and let live” has been that of Indians for a very long time. This environment of a multiplicity of religious forms in coexistence has always been a characteristic of India, perhaps in contrast to the more homogeneous religious identities of the people of the European nation-states, atleast in the beginning of the last century.

Irenees :

India is the most populated country of the world after China. 23 official languages are recognized, and 4 great religions were born in this subcontinent, known as the one of extreme diversities, socioeconomicals, religious, of identity, linguisticals, and so on: How Indians reach to manage peacefully such a diversity?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Although, one does see disturbing signs of intolerance towards differences in religious identities in more recent times, it seems convincing that these are indeed small perturbations in a structure that represents societies with religious harmony. This is largely due to the modern Indian state strongly identifying itself, through both declarations in a well-conceived constitution and through legislations, as a secular state. This encompasses, not so much a lack of interest to the religious identities of Indians, but a healthy acceptance of the equality of all religions with the state not identifying any one religion in India as the official or preferred one. India celebrates the birthdays of all major religious leaders and the important dates of all the major religions are public holidays!

Irenees :

More than fifty years after the promulgation of Indian Constitution, which officialy abolishes caste system and recognizes to every indians equal rights, identification with caste remains, and discrimination is still strong with « untouchables », and, more generaly, this social classification system still rules over the imagination of most of the indians, as well as society organization. Caste system is really difficult to understand for people from different culture : What do you think of this system ?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Caste identities and affliliations perhaps served a function in the absence of government and governing structures in times when feudalism was dominant, especially in rural India. It served a purpose of “allocating different roles” to individuals and positioning individuals in a society. Although the caste system is quite complicated and cannot be slotted into simple categorizations based on ideas of equality, one can say that this was a largely hierarchical structure with a strong sense of the division of labour in a society built into it. The worst sufferers in this system of hierarchy were the untouchables and other Dalits, who remained even outside the caste categorization of the hindus! Although any form of discrimination based on caste is abolished in modern India, caste affiliations are deep-rooted especially in rural India, and this has indeed been an obstacle to peace-building amongst members of communities in villages and cities. One may hope that with increasing urbanization in India wherein people from different parts of India and different caste identities have to live together in neighborhoods and urban communities, these caste identities may become irrelevant to the people. Yet, urbanization in India is not without its toll, especially on the rich cultural practices that have been the products of a rural India.

At the same time, I am not suggesting that indeed caste divisions have always led to clashes. We must remember that synthetic religions especially like Sufism was welcomed by both hindus and muslims in India and still, we come across Indians in the villages and towns who revere and worship the Sufi saints and these saints have had devotees from different castes.

Peace by nonviolence :

Irenees :

Thanks to Gandhi, India gives Nonviolence to peacebuiding across the world. At the same time, India is touched by intern conflictions and many violences. Indians are able of violence, and Ghandi himself has been killed, hasn’t he? Could Gandhi’s NonViolence be a myth? Or, according to you, is it a paradox?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Unfortunately, and in my opinion, Gandhian ideals and his message has been forgotten in today’s world both by Indians and others. But his adherence to nonviolent struggle has led to achieving independence from British colonial rule, so this can’t be a myth. Deeply, Gandhi believed in winning over the heart and mind of the opponent in the process of struggle and this is a compassionate approach. I believe that there are still people who practice the Gandhian way in their struggles. One such living person is the Dalai Lama.

Irenees :

India specialists maintains that nonviolence expresses an indian survival strategy: Indians would not be inclined to self destruction, they would not have suicidal tendencies. Indians’ violence for the lower ranked, or « vulnerable », changes to pacifism when it’s an upper ranked enemy. Indian has always emphasize obstinacy to live, not martyr’s glory. Experience learned to Indians compromise efficiency rather than break. What do you think of it?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I must disagree with this view of seeing nonviolence as an Indian survival strategy, for the reasons that include a lack of evidence that nonviolence results in better survival (it does not!), and moreover for the implication that there is something “essentially Indian” in nonviolence. Nonviolence as advocated by Gandhi, is an idea of an evolved and enlightened mind that sees great value in peaceful coexistence of all living creatures ( and thus Gandhian nonviolence also extends to vegetarianism) and the formation of societies where individuals would be in a happier state than that where violent actions are present.

Irenees :

« My life is my message », endeavour to repeat Mahatma Gandhi. Therefore, he sacrified his life to reveal the only utopia giving hope in human race survival: tolerance and nonviolence. What is Ahismâ? What could be brought by nonviolence to current conflicts and to the building of a more peacefull world?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I think non violent peace building initiatives must be strongly advocated especially at the local communities level. For example in India, in order to prevent communal clashes, attempts should be made continuously, and at the local level, of creating a deeper understanding between hindus and members of other religions and an appreciation of the differences in culture, religious practice etc.

However, countries seem to have the need for armies to defend themselves in case of conflict with an aggressor or from neighboring countries in times of a crisis. We must strive towards a time when such armies would become redundant.

Irenees :

If Gandhi’s nonviolence is closely linked to Indian culture and to Hinduism, is it possible, for other cultural worlds, to import nonviolence, like Ahimsâ, brahmacharya, satyagraha…?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I don’t think this view is correct and “ahimsa” as a concept has as much to do with some concepts of Hinduism as with others, from the teachings of Christ. Satyagraha, is the quest for truth and through means that don’t bring physical harm to others. Though the etymology of these words is from Sanskrit, I would not say that these are closer to Hinduism. Further Hinduism isn’t a religion that necessarily advocates peaceful methods. Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna before war, in the epic, Mahabharata, is a good example to illustrate that nonviolence wasn’t always advocated!

Irenees :

Justified violence ideology rules over western societies, still not leaving much place to nonviolence: What is your opinion on this fact ? As an indian expert, how could you explain this situation?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Actually, although the concepts of ahimsa and the path to achieving goals of independence and self-reliance were the choice of Gandhian movement, one should not therefore assume that modern India also has adopted the path of nonviolence. « Justified violence » seems to be the justification for violent means all over the world and India, too, unfortunately, seems to find itself unable to practice Gandhian teachings on ahimsa. Having said this, yet I feel that societies that accomodate diversities to the extents as does Indian society have the most difficult task when it comes to justifiying violent action, especially when such action is by the state machinery and directed against its citizens. Yet, in modern India we are seeing increasing occurrence of violence directed against minorities and in some situations with the connivance of the state.

Gandhi’s word, reinterpreted today:

Irenees :

In your opinion, if Gandhi were in our time, what would he do now?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

We should remember that for Gandhi, the means of struggle were as important as the ends. Thus, if in order to achieve a goal if the path taken was fraught with means that are questionable or compromise with the ideals of ahimsa, then this was not to be pursued further. Gandhi often found himself being alienated by other worthwhile freedom fighters but yet, for whom the path of ahimsa wasn’t necessarily one to be cumpulsorily followed.

Gandhi in today’s world would perhaps be an individual who often courted arrest! He would be jailed for several reasons, including fights for the rights of indigenous people whose existence and livelihoods are threatened by mega development projects that are insensitive to these people. He would be an ardent environmentalist who would through action, send a message to peoples around the globe for leading lives that don’t push the world further towards an environmental apocalypse. In India, he would be involved in struggles that promoted harmonious coexistence of people of different religious communities. He would continue to struggle against countries like the United States that have and continue in their actions, to invade and subjugate people from nonwestern countries in the name of “fighting terrorism”.

Irenees :

Hindu mythology has often kown great thinkers, who were models for indian people. They are often wise men, meditating on a mountain, like Shiva, for instance, or yoghis. Gandhi acts as a spiritual and political guide, during a critical moment of India’s history. He appeared as a wise man, « awake ». Nowadays, what does he represent for Indians?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

India is a country where many leaders, spiritual and political, have arose amongst the people. But it’s the spiritual leaders, or the political leaders with a spiritual element that have survived in the consciousness of her people. Gandhi, to many common people of India, was essentially a spiritual leader. Thus while achieving independence was a goal, this was not his only preoccupation and on the contrary, Gandhi was deeply engaged with the question of truth and what it means to live a righteous life.

India and peacebuilding :

• Regional level :

Irenees :

According to you, what are the most important factors of the conflict between India and Pakistan, and which are the main challenges of its solving?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I am staying in London now on a sabbatical and it continues to amaze me as to how close and affectionate I feel when I interact with people from Pakistan living here. This indicates the commonalities in culture that we share as members of the Indian subcontinent. In fact, as a south Indian, I perhaps share less in common with a punjabi from the north as he would do from a pakistani person from the punjab province in Pakistan.

Yet, when nationalistic sentiments are roused in the people of these two nations, we each see the other in “abstract terms” as the enemy! We need to endeavour to lessen this continous attempt at seeing the “other” through abstractions.

We need to create forums and societies, for cultural exchanges, academic interactions between our institutions of learning, school exchange programs for students to visit each other’s countries, so that direct interactions between our institutions becomes frequent. We need to encourage to build strong trade ties between our countries. Robust business between two countries often serves to prevent a conflict!

It is very important to create a strong civil society in Pakistan and for the Pakistani people to endeavour towards the creation of healthy institutions that promote and safeguard democracy and lessen the importance of the diktats of extremist religious leaders.

• International level :

Irenees :

The Indian subcontinent is immense. It’s the vastest democraty of the world, since its independance in 1947. This federal state is the pioneer of non-alignment and peaceful coexistance. How can you define India’s role in the building of a multipolar world?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

India in the time of Nehru and Indira Gandhi, stood strongly for the principles of non alignment. In this, she was a strong ally of other nations like Tito’s Yugoslavia. She supported the nationalism of Nasser, and was a vocal supporter of the Palestinian people and their fight against the aggression of Israel at that time. The Soviet Union was a good friend of India and India could offset the animosity of the United States and their closer leanings to Pakistan by this friendship. However, all this changed when the Soviet Union disintegrated and India had to redefine her position in what was then perceived as a unipolar world. Yet, it seems that newer powers (China) have emerged and the influence of the United States as a world power is somewhat on the decline. India is also emerging as a global power and her recent entry into the nuclear club also means a greater degree of negotiating power.

Yet, we must handle this new responsibility with care. India has a big task in working towards strengthening relations between the countries within South Asia and working towards a scenario wherein we can solve our differences through dialogue rather than flexing our muscles and sabre rattling. We must strongly adhere to the democratic ideals and bring pressure on our neighbors that have violated the rights of communities in their nations, examples being that of China in its treatment of Tibet and the military dictatorship that continues in Myanmar. Non alignment needs a newer meaning. India needs to actively engage with neighboring countries like Iran, despite pressure from the US, while at the same time influence and bring pressure on this country to become less of a threat to neighbors in the region. She should also continue to exert pressure so that such countries evolve towards democracies and away from theocracy.

Irenees :

India – next to China – arises and finds its place in « developement » and globalisation race. But for which price?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I feel uncomfortable with the idea of seeing these nations with a hungry middle class, which when put together is a size that exceeds the entire population of the united states, becoming more and more consumerist. Where are the resources today to keep supplying to their ever increasing demands? It is clear that there needs to be drastic measures that prevent us from an inexorable march towards the American way. Yet, perhaps in this rapid development, atleast the injustices suffered by the victims of such development projects come to be known in India, with a vibrant and free press. Sadly, in the “authoritarian capitalism” of China, we don’t even hear about these injustices. In India we are already seeing the rise of mass movements of the people who have suffered displacement and loss of livelihood by development projects, a good example being the Narmada valley movement. I feel in the Chinese situation too, things can’t continue to remain bottled –up and hidden for a long time and we may soon be hearing voices of mass movements against authoritarian practices. A good example is the recent protests in Tibet.

About current situation in India… and all over the world:

Irenees :

According to you, which are the main challenges for peacebuilding in India?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

The increasing communal divide between the hindus and muslims, and more recently the christians and hindus, represents to me the greatest challenge to building a peaceful society. Communal tension between the hindus and muslims, unfortunately also gets exaggerated into anti-Pakistani perceptions by many hindus in India who are resentful of their muslim fellow citizens, because of the view that all unrest related to muslims in India is somehow linked to Pakistani subversive activity. While there is evidence that Pakistani intelligence agencies have often taken advantage of gullible muslims in India for instigating seditious acts it is far from the truth that all muslims therefore are on Pakistan’s side and therefore against India. Patriotism, or the love of one’s own local region, is to be found as much in muslims as hindus.

There is an urgent need to actively work to seek a better understanding between India and Pakistan, as I have elaborated in a previous question.

Irenees :

India is endowed with nuclear weapon: what is, to you, the politic significance – in terms of responsibilities in peace building- of this technical advance?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

My personal opinion is that India’s development of nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the “twisted logic” that with these weapons she has better negotiating power, is a big mistake that has escalated the arms build up and as a consequence, produced nuclear insecurity in the subcontinent. Whether, Pakistan would have gone ahead and developed this capability regardless of India’s precedence in this direction, is another issue. Even then, this tit-for-tat moves has not only made this a more dangerous region, but has diverted vital energies and resources towards weaponization programmes in these countries.

Irenees :

How do you see peace building in the current world context? According to you, is non-violence, as political action method, viable in this context?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Sadly, in the context of India, nonviolent protests and movements have been consistently ignored and sidelined by the state. It is ironical that only when the victims take up weapons the state seems to pay attention. Good examples are the Narmada valley movement, a peaceful struggle based on Gandhian principles, which over the years, has failed to get the state to act in beneficial ways to the demands of the agitators. On the other hand, struggles, such as the Naxal struggles although not achieving their goals in totatility and often resulting in brutal counter action by the state, ironically has the state pay more attention to these violent agitations. Violence cannot be a justifiable means even if it ultimately may achieve the desired goal, if one believes in the process exemplified by Gandhi.

About yourself :

Irenees :

As a scientist, could you tell us what are the links between atomic technology mastery and peacebuilding?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

Here one has to distinguish between atomic technology for energy generation and its use for creating weapons. One can argue about possible benefits of nuclear energy as a clean energy source compared to carbon-based technologies, although for India, this is still too costly and ultimately may result in a small increase ( about 12% of requirements according to current estimates) in satisfying the energy needs of India. We need to pursue more aggressively, exploring other renewable sources (solar, wind, oceanic) than to simply over invest in nuclear power generation.

Irenees :

What is your opinion on the use of atomic bomb as a international deterent weapon in a nuclear proliferation context?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

The logic that possession of atomic weapons by countries that can get into conflict with each other, serves to deter each other from using them, is perverted. One finds that, having built an arsenal of these weapons, countries then embark on the task of building missiles and launchers that can get these bombs deeper in enemy territory, and this exercise is endless. In countries like Pakistan and India, this has resulted in diverting large sums from the budget that could have gone into more constructive uses, into such exercises. Thus, the mere possession of nuclear weapons does not automatically create stability but rather escalates a race to develop more efficient rockets and launchers.

Irenees :

What are the links between scientific knowledge and ethical responsibility?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

At the time when the first atomic bomb was developed in the so-called Manhattan project, there were many physicists involved in the exercise, not so much because they felt the need to contain the menace of nazism as because they felt that this was fun! There was the thrill of testing out to see if the earlier experiments on nuclear fission could ultimately lead to a device of enormous destructive power.

Today science and technology has achieved levels of sophistication wherein it is possible to create situations that can easily push all living forms to extinction. But it is hard to always predict the outcomes of a technology. Yet in today’s scenario the scientist has to be more cautious than ever before in choosing research problems. For Gandhi, one of the seven deadly sins was “science without humanity”.

My own sense about this is that the scientist must be cautious today in subordinating his work to the ever growing scientific-industrial-military nexus. We need to be careful when we choose a problem to work on and I personally would stay away from problems that I can clearly perceive as having a detrimental effect on humanity.

Irenees :

Professor in Bangalore University, you are involved : What were decisive reasons of your peace committment?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

I find that the youth in my country,especially in urban environments, as perhaps in other parts of the world, are increasingly becoming less ideological and depoliticised. They are seldom interested in the ideas that have shaped our thoughts in history but are more pragmatic and pressured towards materialistic goals. I see in this a danger, because it is such youth who can also be swayed by irrational fears, and become less tolerant of poorer people, poor immigrants who come seeking a better livelihood to India, from neighboring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh,or of people who don’t live like them. The lacuna in them can often be filled with communal hatred towards minorities, as in their perception, these minorities and immigrants are the cause of the problems around them.

In my role as a teacher in a university with an advantage of coming in contact with a reasonable cross section of youth from urban and mofussil towns I can communicate with them on both formal and informal platforms so as to make them think and reason about issues that create fear in them.

Irenees :

What does « peace » mean to you?

Sharath Ananthamurthy :

A condition where the ability exists for one to live in a diverse society and respect differences that can exist between communities. Furthermore to enable each individual to realize ones aspirations in this society.