Interview with Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil
In February 2024, Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil visited Marquette University to deliver the Center for Peacemaking’s Ignatian Peacemaking Lecture during the university’s Mission Week celebration. Following the lecture, he shared insights from his decades as a religious leader, peacemaker, and lifelong learner.
Archbishop Menamparampil was ordained a priest in 1965 after completing his seminary studies in Darjeeling and Shillong (in Northeast India). He served as Bishop of Dibrugarh, Bishop of Guwahati, and eventually Archbishop of Guwahati. Since retiring, he has continued to engage in peacemaking efforts, resulting in his being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and receiving the Ambassador for Peace award from the International Human Rights Council.
His responses have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Can you share about the inter-ethnic peacemaking work you’ve done? How did it start and how did it evolve?
It was in Guwahati in Northeast India where I encountered a situation of conflict between two major tribes. There were hundreds of thousands of people in relief camps, many people dead. This is part of what moved me into the field of peace.
We worked together with the other churches to provide relief; giving food, drink, medicine, warm clothes, and other kinds of assistance to people in the camps. This is how we got to meet more of the people. They were of many religions, yet they all encouraged us to take initiative in the area of peace. So, we started by appealing to the natural goodness in their hearts as human beings rather than by religious concepts.
We brought together people in responsible positions from both sides of the conflict. Many of these people were known and respected individuals whom we thought could influence their side to come together to propose some formula for peace. At first, it was not so easy. They were committed to the causes of their own group, but they eventually started to see the need to come to some conclusion to the conflict. That was the beginning of a process of dialogue toward a mutually agreeable solution.
It is not so easy to conduct a meeting where two groups come together, but gradually those who look to the future — the shared future — see that unless you collaborate, they have no future together. So rather than blame either group for their past and the injustices they had done, we looked to a shared future which would ensure co-prosperity for the two groups. Then, once they agreed on a few suggestions, we requested them to take these suggestions to their respective groups, to discuss them and possibly get them accepted by the decision makers on either side.
The decision makers on either side were more important to influence than the actual fighters. Although the actual fighters seem to do the greatest harm, they are also being used by the decision makers who know they are young and angry and vulnerable. In order to influence the fighters, you have to get through to those who are shaping their ideas and giving them directions. It’s a gradual process, a long process.
Through this, I developed a great concern for the actual fighters. Whatever they tell me may be exaggerated, but I try to remove the exaggeration and still accept the basic substance of what they suffered. I think this helped me because even if I disagreed with them on the issue, I was able to demonstrate that I recognized the reason they were fighting, the commitment to their cause, their situation. That made a difference in their psychology, their attitude. They calmed down and were willing to listen. They were willing to accept some suggestions because I seemed to have understood them: the actual fighter is as much a victim as they are a violent person.
You have a lot of experience working through cultural differences. What have you learned from these efforts?
Today we live in societies that are intercultural in almost every part of the world. We are constantly learning from each other. Through prolonged interactions we are able to understand another’s culture — their ways of interacting, their gesticulations, their manner of expressing dissent, their manner of expressing agreement, their manner of showing annoyance, their manner of showing approval, appreciation. Understanding emotions is an important part of understanding culture.
At the beginning it’s easy to misunderstand somebody. If someone’s talking strongly, I might think they are angry, but they may just be trying to be clear in what they are saying. Or someone may think they are arrogant, but they are just eager to make themselves clear in their message. It takes some time to understand people of various cultures, but once you cross the bridge you can become a culture translator — you can help others to cross the bridge.
This intercultural situation helps us to reflect on our own culture too. There are strong points in my culture and weak points in my culture, so intercultural interaction helps to stimulate thought about my own culture and want to take it in a new direction as well. For example, in modern culture we can go too far in the direction of being fast paced. Reflecting on ancient cultures encourages us to stop for a while and reflect, to think deeper, to meditate.
Can you tell us about what you call the philosopher-friend? Who are they and what role do they play in society?
Plato wrote about the philosopher-king. He recommended the philosopher-kings should rule society. I thought I would change the phrase into a philosopher-friend. I think philosopher-friends are our modern intellectuals — ones who intervene in helping society to be more reasonable.
Philosopher-friends help us understand how to make our lives purposeful. While the economy is important — we need to consume things for our own survival — we can easily fall into traps. If you get caught into consumerism, you become a victim of advertisement rather than an intelligent interpreter of advertisement. It can draw you into things that have no purposefulness. This does damage to yourself. We need philosopher-friends who have a deeper perspective of reality and can exert a healthy influence on others.
I think that people can become philosopher-friends in their own contexts so long as they promote the well-being of society. They may be scientists, they may be writers, they may be doctors, they may be engineers or lawyers — they all can belong to that category of philosopher-friend. And they can be those who communicate to people at a deeper level whether it be through writing, or music, or painting, or architecture — whatever it may be.
What are some of your own deeper reflections of the modern time through your explorations of the world? Do you have any advice for young people searching for what drives them?
I believe the cosmic reality is evolving towards something great, and I want to be a little positive force in that evolution. My advice to young people is to dream great dreams. Not only dreams about a good job and good money, but also a great life that is of service to society. You may be a small figure in the whole of the cosmic reality, but you want to be a positive stimulus. You want to be useful to others. You want to develop yourself to your full potential because you might not yet know the talents, the power, the possibilities that are buried within you.
Also, commitment is very important. Piety does not only mean devotion, but it also means living a committed life. Mother Theresa was a committed person. The Dali Lama is a committed person. Pope John Paul was a committed person. Pope Francis projects an image of commitment to humanity, the common good, and the long-term good of society. A committed life can be expressed in whatever calling you are drawn to.
Sometimes when you are absolutely at the service of others, you forget about yourself. This can be an ecstatic experience when you forget yourself in the service of others. This is an ecstasy of purposefulness of your life. You are doing just what you’re made for — doing something purposeful and good.
