THE emergence of a global village, where people from different civilisational backgrounds are coming together in increasing numbers to work, study, and live together, is creating fault lines that often erupt in violence.

This phenomenon has led to an academic and political debate heightened by Samuel Huntington’s thesis on the ‘clash of civilisations’. Predicting future inter and intra-civilisational conflicts, he argues: “The most pervasive, important and dangerous conflicts [in the future] will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within civilisations.” These projections have been given further credence by the unfortunate events of 9/11.

The ‘clash position’, so to speak, sees the encounter of civilisations as an occasion to heighten or revive historical confrontations, while completely hiding or understating historical symbiotic links among civilisations.

On the other hand are those who perceive civilisational encounters as desirable, productive and necessary. They believe in promoting civilisational exchanges and building a culture of dialogue among civilisations. These dialogues occur at three levels: individual, institutional and state.

Civilisations have two choices before them.

At the individual level, people, including writers, media, and many far-sighted community leaders, are promoting dialogue. Enormous quantities of literature are published to promote better understanding among civilisations.

At the institutional level, many civil society organisations and educational institutions have structured programmes to teach diversity and pluralism as a ‘language’ of the civilisational discourse. John Esposito in The Future of Islam provides some examples of these programmes in the Western context.

Many organisations, whose actions were previously restricted to their own communities, are now opening up to, and welcoming, others. Schools, colleges, universities, and social welfare institutions, are good examples of this. In fact, they are an example of dialogue within civilisations, a lofty feat indeed.

This dialogue is not necessarily restricted to verbal discussions or conference presentations. It has to do with a wider meaning which encompasses people-to-people contact, as well as cultural, educational and diplomatic exchanges. Such channels of communication, which focus on the perspectives of others in a non-judgemental, and what Marshall Rosenberg calls ‘non-violent communicative mode’, give further impetus to the dialogue of civilisations.

An international Muslim leader once remarked that in a pluralistic world, the consequences of ignorance can be profoundly damaging — ignorance of other people, and a lack of understanding of the valuable benefits of plurality, can lead to contempt, hatred and even war. It culminates in misery for all. On the other hand, knowledge of other cultures and civilisations can promote better understanding among nations. Learning more about other cultures leads to a better understanding of oneself.

Dr Ali Asani, a professor of religion at Harvard University, in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in November 2015 argues, “As we engage [in a dialogue] with ‘the other’, we see that we’re actually engaging with other viewpoints, and in the process, coming to know ourselves better.”

At the state level, many countries (a prime example being Canada) have promoted policies, laws and positive actions aimed at cultivating diversity.

Globally, there is heightened awareness about dialogue — although much more needs to be done. For example, in December last year, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus jointly celebrated the births of the Prophets Hazrat Esa and Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon them) at the Lincoln Memo­rial in Washington. The event was intended to highlight the role played by these great prophets.

A good number of people participated in the gathering, appreciating the effort of bringing people of different faiths together on common themes such as peace.

Admittedly, cultural clashes have always been part of the human story. However, inter-cultural cooperation has also equally been a major part of the mosaic of history. So, what should we opt for today — clash or dialogue? Those who support dialogue among civilisations also support building on historic traditions of acceptance, accommodation, and even celebrating each other’s heritage.

In sum, we may say that dialogue among civilisations today is not just a pragmatic need, but a strategy to better understand oneself and others. If this is the case, we then need to ask ourselves: what can support dialogue and contribute to mitigating clashes? To conclude this discussion, let us recall one of Rumi’s verses that remind us of the need for coming together: “Tu barai wasl kardan aamadi; Ne barai fasl kardan aamadi” (you have been commanded to unite, not divide [the people]).

The writer is an educationist with an interest in the study of religion and philosophy.

Published in Dawn, April 8th, 2016