294. identity
of this paradox for everyday life is that the demands of a pluralism committed to the
liberal idea of free speech are high.
The key question is whether a pluralist framework of some sort will deliver suf-
ficient intellectual satisfaction to both scholars and adherents. Pluralism seeks to
guarantee even conflicting values. Its framework must therefore rest on metavalues
that are derived from neither the liberalism of scholars nor the beliefs of adherents
but nevertheless accommodate both. These metavalues, articulated in principles of
engagement between those with conflicting or at least asymptotic approaches to
Hinduism, should guarantee these approaches and yet not exclude the other.
The final section of this essay seeks to present some such principles of pluralist
interlogue. But before moving on to that, we have a final query: Is tolerance
enough? Tolerance is a liberal value par excellence; scholars in recent controversies
have been baffled and enraged by the refusal of adherents to “tolerate” interpreta-
tions that the latter deem incompatible with Hinduism. Tolerance is valid as a value
only when it has already been granted that every individual has a right to hold and
express any view that he or she wants; hence the standard debates over hate speech
and so on. Clearly, many Hindu adherents (like Muslims, Christians, and others, in
America and elsewhere) find that presupposition impossible to assimilate into their
worldview. Yet we (the authors), at least, find no appeal in intolerance. We cannot
grant the right to verbally abuse, to threaten physically, or to issue death threats,
even religiously sanctioned ones. So we ask for modes of engagement that practice
tolerance, but whose appeal comes from pluralism.
In genuine pluralism, one acknowledges symmetrical commitments to allow one-
self to be constrained by the sensitivities of the other: thus the adherent is con-
strained by the scholar’s deep commitment to rigorous inquiry, while the scholar is
constrained by the adherent ’s equally deep commitment to cultural and religious
sensibilities. Persons who are able to count themselves members of both communi-
ties simultaneously will of course be able to move freely across these boundaries,
but they too must be mindful of the need in their work and life to acknowledge and
respect plurality. Pluralism, then, should not be seen by scholars as a weak-kneed
surrender of academic responsibility, for its insistence on mutuality does not sacri-
fice intellectual integrity. For adherents, similarly, pluralism should not be seen as
an abrogation of faith or religious loyalty.
We have found in everyday exchanges between Hindus and non-Hindus that cer-
tain forms of committed, long-term coexistence, as exemplified in the relationships
enumerated above, are especially conducive to this highly demanding kind of plu-
ralistic discourse. In teacher-student, brother-brother, guru-disciple, in-law to in-