I've been asked to speak this evening, on the Role of Religion in Education Today, and if I may, I'd like to extend it to the wider role of religion in society. In the Sikh view, education is all about preparing our children to make a positive contribution to the well-being of the world around. While we rightly teach our children the 3 Rs: to be literate and numerate, we seem to place less emphasis on the other equally important 3 Rs which are the essence of religion, namely right wrong and responsibility. Many believe that this responsibility lies with parents; others assume it lies with the school. In the Sikh view it's the responsibility of both parents and teachers to help children to grow up to be considerate and responsible members of society. Unfortunately, it sometimes slips between the two and children are left to develop their own sense of right and wrong, guided by TV to soaps and so-called comedies, in which infidelity is seen as something of a giggle, that ignores the hurt that transient, adult relationships, can cause to children.

A simple glance at continually escalating crime or family breakdown, or a glance at the record of the 20th century, in which more people were killed by their fellow humans than in the rest of recorded history put together, reminds us that we have a long way to go in learning to live with each other in a responsible way. And the first few years of this century haven't been much better. Until very recent times, we could all grow up in the comfort and security of a religion that we shared with those that lived around us. It was common and patriotic (it still is for some), to go into raptures about our way of life compared with the inferior ways of foreigners. Many believed that even God acknowledged our natural superiority, and was always on our side. And schools, in the teaching of literature and history often contributed to the promotion of false ideas of superiority and difference.

Remember the famous words of John of Gaunt in Shakespeare's Richard II, which we learnt at school.

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war

This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea Which serves it in the office of a wall Or a moat defensive to a house Against the envy of less happier lands …………………………And more!

We learnt to criticise the literary style, the use of figurative language.We never thought to criticise the xenophobic insularity of its general sentiment. Nor did the possibility occur to us that other nations mighthave had different explanations of God's purpose in isolating the British.

Seriously though, it's important to understand that this sort of thinking was common to most nations and cultures. Many in India even argued that to leave the shores of the subcontinent would pollute them for ever.

In the past, we could strengthen our sense of cohesion and identity, including religious identity, by misrepresenting the ways and beliefs of others, or describing them in disparaging terms. And not only in the West. Here in Britain, the dictionary definition of heathen is ‘those who are not Christian, Jew or Muslim'. So you can see where that leaves me!

Today, politicians and many religious leaders still talk about the three monotheistic faiths Christianity, Judaism and Islam, ignoring the fact that that Sikh scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib, begin with the words ‘there is but one God'.

It is not only nations and world religions that behave with a reluctance to see the good in others. We all do it.I recently met someone from the DfES who reminded me of my very first Radio 4 ‘Thought for the Day' broadcast, some 20 years ago. At the time, I was working with a large civil engineering contractor in their London office, on the 7th floor of an 8 storey building. My talk was about my end of day experience. We were home civil engineers and above us were the international civil engineers. They saw themselves as superior people with stickers of Seychelles, Hong Kong or other exotic places on their brief cases.

At the end of the day we would head to the lift and as the lift door opened, those inside, the superior people from the 8th floor, would stick their stomachs out a little to give the impression that the lift was fuller than it was. Undeterred, we'd barge in, and the 8th floor stomachs would grudgingly recede. We were now all civil engineers, working for the same Company. When the lift reached the floors below inhabited by the lowest of the low, the Department of Health and Social Security, we would mutter ‘cripples, why can't they walk down a few flights of stairs'? As the lift door opened, we would stick out our stomachs to deter this lower form of life entering our lift. Undeterred, these civil servants and bureaucrats, who did nothing but drink tea all day long, would get into our lift. Grudgingly, we pull back our stomachs and we all went down to the ground floor, where we got out, all differences forgotten, until the next day. We see the same sort of behaviour when we get on a train, or a bus. Those inside become ‘us', and like the Poles and other newcomers to the European Union, look on those outside, in a less than friendly way.

There is a law of life, lets call it Indarjit's law: that when two or more people find sufficient in common to call themselves ‘us', they will find a ‘ them', to look down on, to strengthen their sense of unity.

You see this search for unity at the expense of others, in a milder form with conflict between football supporters, but, all too easily, it can lead to active hatred of whole communities. I saw a reminder of this descent to evil, on a visit to Auschwitz in Poland, where many Jews blamed for all the ills in Europe, were murdered. While going round the former concentration camp, I saw the shower area where new arrivals were asked to wash before receiving promised new clothes and food. Once in, the doors would be closed and deadly gas fed in through vents in the ceiling. I saw the gas canisters, the conveyer to the incinerator and mounds of human hair; but what really got to me was a huge pile of infants' shoes. In my minds eye, I could see little children skipping and laughing, blissfully unaware of what was to befall them. A few years ago, I did some work for Amnesty International, looking at genocide and human rights abuse in a number of different countries; abuse which often involved unbelievable depravity. Almost as bad as the abuse, was the realisation that those who we learn to trust are often the perpetrators: police and soldiers, and, even worse, priests and teachers and previously friendly neighbours. Why do people behave in such ways?

The sobering conclusion, is that our human family has only a thin veneer of civilisation that differentiates us from those we call savages; a veneer that is all too easily shed at times when we are persuaded to see others as lesser beings.

Goulding in his book 'Lord of the Flies', about a group of children marooned on a remote island, puts forward a thesis that without moral and ethical guidance, children, and by implication, adults, gravitate "to less civilised behaviour. It is a disturbing view that unfortunately, has the ring of truth. It's not only so on fictional islands, or other countries. We see such behaviour in this country, in for example, the murder of an old lady for the few coins in her handbag, or in the recent gang warfare in Manchester, the murder and rape of an elderly woman for the few coins in her handbag, and appalling crimes against children.

The reality of human nature, and the evidence is all around us, is that we humans do not come with preloaded software of right, wrong and responsibility. Decent responsible behavior has to taught and learnt. We cannot have a better society without better people. We cannot have better people without responsible teaching. The question is, who should do the teaching? It is important to differentiate between two levels of behaviour. The first is behaviour that keeps us out of trouble. There are two levels of behaviour. The first is behaviour that keeps us out-of trouble. For the small child it' s not throwing food about, or not kicking aunts and uncles in the shins. For adults it's being reasonably polite to those around us, and complying with those in authority and the rules and laws of society. Is religion necessary for teaching behaviour at this level? Of course not.

No more than it's necessary to involve religion in teaching a dog to stand on its hind legs, or a dolphin to perform tricks. Sanction or reward, are sufficient motivators. In many ways, the teaching of citizenship, to help children understand and appreciate the society in which they live, falls into this category. It's important for children to learn about national institutions, democracy, the media, ethnic identity and the consequences of bullying and racism. These teachings of citizenship, or conforming behaviour, are not however the same as the teachings of religion. Conforming behaviour, or the social norms of society are constantly changing. For example, unlike the law in this country, the law of the land in France prohibits the wearing of the hijab for Muslim girls, and the turban for Sikh boys, in state schools. Citizenship education in French schools would support such a policy. The reality however, is that the prohibition is bound to harm integration, and hurt self-esteem by forcing children to have one identity at school and another at home. State policy in France is at odds with both common sense, and the ethical imperative for its citizens to understand and respect different ways of life. It is a policy that has rightly been condemned by the Catholic Church, and others. Some of you will recall that in this country in the 60's, accommodation ads in shop windows often had the words ‘no blacks or coloureds', perfectly legal at the time. Citizenship teaching at the time would not have crticised such behaviour.

I'd like to believe the changes brought about since then, were all due to enlightened thinking but studying the literature of the time, it is apparent that it was more a fear of social unrest that that led to anti-discriminatory legislation. Religion bases it's teachings on what it sees as fundamental truths that unlike the law of the land do not change with time and place. In his very first sermon, Guru Nanak declared Na koi Hindu, Na koi Mussalman that in God's eyes there is neither Hindu nor Muslim, and by today's extension, neither Christian Sikh nor Jew. God, he taught, is not interested in our religious labels, but in the way we behave. I'll give other examples to show how religion aims to move us towards, not only to being better citizens, but to a better and fairer society Citizenship teaching can help an individual understand and respect the norms of society and thus enhance his or her opportunities in life. Skills in citizenship, often help an individual's material progress and standing in society. The teachings of our great religious leaders on the other hand, frequently challenge social norms. Religious teachings have nothing to do with conformity, or, equally importantly, individual or material advancement. They are about improvement of society as a whole. Religion takes us away from obsession with self, to active concern for others.

Guru Nanak the founder of the Sikh faith taught, where self exists there is no God, where God exists there is no self. Or as a Christian theologian put it, it's the ‘I' in the middle of ‘sin', that makes it sin. Religion then, is fundamentally different from civics or citizenship in that far from conforming, it has its own standards and frequently challenges existing social norms in looking to deeper truths. Let's look then at how can we make ours a more cohesive and caring society.

Voluntary effort and increasingly government and other statutory effort are becoming more alert to social ills in our society. But in focussing on problems, rather than more holistically on causes, we sometime tend to look through the wrong end of the telescope, and seek to treat spots and sores of social maladies, rather than look further to underlying causes. Let me give some examples. If problems resulting from drug abuse take up too much police time, the call is legalise their use and free police time, rather than question why the use of drugs has risen so dramatically. The huge rise in child and teenage pregnancies is met with a call to issue condoms in schools. Surprise, surprise, the rise in teenage pregnancies has increased almost in direct proportion to contraceptive education. Increasing alcohol abuse?

Let's extend or abolish licensing hours to spread the incidence of drunken or loutish behaviour. Result a rise in binge drinking. Too many people ending up in prison? Lets raise the age of criminal responsibility and curb sentencing powers of magistrates.. Extend this thinking, of looking to the wrong end of a problem, to the behaviour of little junior who greets visitors to the house by kicking them in the shins. Solution: issue said visitors with shin pads as they enter the front door!

Lets face it, today's society that seeks happiness in consumer goods, drink or drugs or in pampering ourselves because 'we're worth it, or making money through exporting the means of killing to distant lands in the name of a defence industry, clearly needs a bit of ethical uplift. I'll take my examples from Sikh teachings, and I'm sure that in these you'll find ready and resonant echoes of the teachings of your different faiths. Sikhism sees other religions as different paths to a truer understanding of God; like paths up a mountain. We can start from different points, but still reach the same goal. Nor are the paths mutually exclusive. They frequently merge in ways that give us a heightened understanding of our own faith. Take for example the Sikh teaching ' There is an inner- light in all; and that light is God.' Exactly the same sentiment is conveyed in the line of the Christian hymn 'to all life Thou givest to both great and small; in all life thou livest the true life of all'. It is important to remember that that a major benefit of our study of other religions is that it gives us a wider view of religion and a new and fuller perspective on our own beliefs. We learn that different religions are not barriers between people, but gateways to a greater understanding and enrichment of life. Far from accepting the status quo on social practices, Guru Nanak was boldly critical of divisive practices such as the caste system or superstitious, dietary customs, and taboos on eating with, or socialising with those of other faiths. He and his successor Gurus taught the oneness of our human family and in this, emphasised the dignity and complete equality of women; teachings wholly at odds with the practices of the day. Religion puts today's obsession with the material in balanced perspective.

Guru Nanak did not condemn material comfort, but taught the importance of a life of balance between the material and the spiritual dimensions of life. There is the story Dunni Chand, a rich merchant who used to put another flag outside his house every time he made a million rupees. And there were lots and lots of flags outside his house. He went to Guru Nanak and said 'I've made it in this world, will you help me get the same sort of success in the hereafter? Guru Nanak said that's easy. Take this needle with you when you die. It will guarantee your passage to heaven. Dunni Chand rushed home excitedly to his wife and told about the needle. She laughed aloud and said how can you take anything with you when you die. And then the penny dropped and the foolish miser began giving away his wealth to the poor. Another story illustrates the foolishness of the opposite extreme. Guru Nanak once met some hermits who had left their homes and were now living in the mountain wilderness in search of a greater understanding of God. They asked the Guru, 'how goes the world below? Guru Nanak was angry in his reply and said the world is suffering and how can it be otherwise when those with knowledge and understanding desert it in such a selfish way. The Guru reminded them of the importance of meeting our social obligations, including the need to stand up against injustice. Today there's not much wilderness left, but it is all too easy to spend our life in a virtual wilderness, surfing the internet for hours on end, or in front of television, or, in other pursuits that leave us little time for those around us.

Religion reminds us of the need for balance in life. Sikhism, for example, requires us to live in three dimensions at one and the same time. Naam japna, kirt karna and wand chakhna. Naam japna is meditating on God or reflecting on our direction in life in a way that allows us to distinguish between the trivial, which so often obsesses us, and the real priorities of life. Kirt karna is earning by honest effort, and wand chakhna is the sharing of our good fortune with the needy a common and important teaching of all our great religions. Let me conclude. Whenever I undertake any sort of do- it- yourself activity, I inevitably get into difficulties. When all else fails, and only then, I turn to the book of instructions. Today, our do- it- ourselves efforts for a fairer and more contented society have clearly failed It's time to turn to the book or Books, of instructions on balanced and responsible living. I'd like to emphasise that one of the greatest gains in our study of the actual teachings of our different religions, is the discovery that they are not all that different. Our different religions are in essence, overlapping circles of belief and ethical guidance, in which the area of overlap is far greater than the smaller areas of difference. Sikhs believe that in that area of overlap lie common values of tolerance, justice and compassion. Values that make us more considerate and responsible human beings; Values central to our different religions that are the key to both to personal happiness, and the well being of wider society. Values that should be central to the education of our children.