Stages of dialogue

[Guest guest]

Stages of dialogue

 

Having looked at various literature on Hindu-Christian dialogue, I have

come to the conclusion that the whole exercise has effectively been a

sham. I have read papers over the last fifty years which talk about the

need for a dialogue and the methodology. Then the papers say that the

dialogue should be to determine what is common between the two

philosophies. Finally they end up with lamenting that given the

tensions in the society, the dialogues are not moving forward.

 

 

 

The reason why the dialogues have been a sham is because of a refusal to

discuss what are the differences. Hence, I think a dialogue should have

the following four steps:

 

 

 

One: The objective of a dialogue is to find out if there are differences

between two groups. If there are no differences then the dialogue

becomes unnecessary.

 

 

 

Two: If there are differences, the next step is to find out if they

could be a source for tensions between the groups. If they are not,

then further dialogue does not become necessary.

 

 

 

Three: If they are a source of tension, then dialogue should try and

work out how these can be reduced if not eliminated. If this is

achieved, then again no further dialogue is necessary.

 

 

 

Four: If the differences create tension, then a dialogue is necessary to

effectively appropriate the blame, so that there is a proper

understanding of action and reaction.

 

Namaste.

 

Ashok Chowgule,

 

President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Maharashtra