The Birmingham branch hosted a timely panel discussion titled Creating Inclusive Communities in Challenging Times, bringing together community leaders and academics to explore how trust can be built and sustained at a local level. The discussion examined practical approaches to strengthening relationships between communities during periods of uncertainty and social pressure. This column summarises speakers’ presentations.
Dr Arun Sinha
Dr Arun Sinha is a recently retired consultant surgeon who worked at Birmingham City Hospital, Sandwell Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital. He participated in the event as a representative of the Hindu faith, having volunteered following an invitation circulated through his local temple. Dr Sinha framed his contribution around the question of how trust can be fostered within inclusively diverse communities, with particular reference to Birmingham’s multicultural and multifaith context.
Dr Sinha began by outlining the conceptual foundations of his presentation, drawing on Hindu philosophy, scripture and lived experience to offer insights into interfaith cooperation and community cohesion. Central to his analysis was the Sanskrit concept Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, derived from the Mah Upanishad, which translates as “the world is one family.” Dr Sinha argued that this concept moves beyond models of coexistence based on tolerance and instead promotes a framework of kinship grounded in shared humanity. Within a city characterised by linguistic, cultural and religious plurality, this principle provides an ethical vision for inclusive community relations.
The nature of trust was then examined through a Hindu philosophical lens. Dr Sinha defined trust as confidence grounded in ethical conduct rather than blind faith, identifying three foundational principles: dharma (righteous duty), satya (truthfulness) and ahimsa (non-violence). These principles, he argued, operate synergistically and form the ethical basis upon which trust is established and maintained. Trust was presented as operating across multiple levels, personal, familial, communal and universal, with ethical living acting as the unifying element across these domains.
In elaborating on Dharma, Dr Sinha distinguished between its personal and social dimensions, arguing that integrity in one’s role alongside broader civic responsibilities underpins predictable and ethically consistent behaviour, thereby enabling trust within communities.
The second principle, Satya, was defined as alignment between thought, speech and action. In interfaith contexts, Dr Sinha emphasised transparency, honesty about difference and acknowledgment of uncertainty, noting that institutional trust depends on consistency between values and practice.
The third principle, Seva, or selfless service, was discussed with reference to the Bhagavad Gita and karma yoga. Dr Sinha argued that service undertaken without expectation of reward demonstrates genuine commitment to community welfare and plays a key role in fostering trust across religious and secular boundaries.
Dr Sinha then turned to the experiences of second-generation British Hindus, characterising their identities as shaped by both domestic cultural traditions and engagement with wider British society. He emphasised the distinction between integration and assimilation, arguing that integration allows for full participation in society while preserving cultural distinctiveness, whereas assimilation demands the abandonment of heritage and may generate resentment. Second-generation individuals were described as uniquely positioned to act as cultural intermediaries, demonstrating the compatibility of multiple identities.
Several challenges to trust-building were subsequently identified. These included misconceptions about Hinduism, particularly characterisations of the tradition as polytheistic idol worship, which Dr Sinha sought to clarify by highlighting philosophical monism and the symbolic function of religious imagery. Additional challenges included pressures towards assimilation and the marginalisation of religious expression within ostensibly secular institutional spaces such as universities and workplaces. Addressing these challenges, he argued, requires inclusive policies that recognise diverse spiritual practices without privileging any single tradition.
Universities were highlighted as key sites for trust-building and interfaith engagement. Dr Sinha described them as environments in which student-led organisations can facilitate dialogue, cultural exchange and collaborative social action. Activities such as religious festivals, academic study, service projects and interfaith forums were presented as mechanisms through which mutual understanding and cooperation can be cultivated. Investment in such initiatives was framed as contributing to long-term community cohesion by shaping future leaders.
In concluding, Dr Sinha articulated a vision of Birmingham as a city in which diversity functions as a social strength and trust operates as a normative feature of community life. He emphasised that trust is developed incrementally through sustained relationships, dialogue and shared practices rather than through abstract ideals. The presentation concluded with a Hindu peace invocation, which Dr Sinha used to underscore the universal and inclusive ethical orientation underpinning the principles discussed.
Joy Warmington
Joy Warmington is the CEO of BRAP, a national equality and human rights charity. Their mission and vision is to close inequality gaps, whilst challenging individuals to transform the way they think about inequality. She posed the question of a much needed conversation question – How do we live in a cohesive and collaborative world better together?
Drawing on over two decades of engagement with the city, Joy examines how demographic change, generational expectations and institutional lag have reshaped civic life, and why Birmingham now faces a crisis of alignment between its people, its institutions and its power structures.
Identity, Demographic change and Institutional lag
Joy delves into the current predicament that faces Birmingham’s diverse population, particularly youth. Whilst we are more connected than ever, we are not connected to each other. We are connected to digital spaces, such as social media, but not each other. This may be a product of structures, institutions and ways of thinking that uphold our society that haven’t evolved with what our people need – institutional lag. They still rely on rigid and obsolete ideas of identity and representation. We are surrounded by multifaceted generations of migrants, with layered identities, moulded by our faith, global and local culture. As a consequence, it has not adapted to our complexities, therefore treats citizens in a one-dimensional way.
This gap is catalysed by narrow assumptions about representation: who can speak, who is authorised to speak, and which organisations are considered legitimate voices of the city. Such approaches no longer reflect lived reality, particularly for second, third and later generations of migrants. The issue is therefore not simply representation, but recognition, embracing people as Birmingham citizens in all their complexity, rather than as fixed categories.
Generational Expectations and Inclusivity – What does it mean?
The second theme that Joy explores is the evolution of expectations, particularly amongst younger generations. While generalisation should be approached cautiously, younger people consistently demonstrate higher expectations of inclusivity across workplaces, universities and public institutions. Inclusivity is no longer viewed as symbolic, but as something that must be experienced materially and emotionally.
For many, this includes psychological safety, the ability to challenge power and norms, and the expectation that institutions will respond meaningfully to critique. These expectations often clash with the experiences and assumptions of older generations, as Joy mentions how her own generational experiences, such as endurance, conformity and silence were frequently normalised. Such tensions can feel destabilising, but they are also a predictable and necessary feature of social renewal. Historically, young people have always played a critical role in challenging established power and reshaping civic norms.
The challenge for Birmingham is whether its institutions can adapt to these expectations or whether they will continue to worsen the distance, mistrust and disengagement, across communities.
Dialogue, Power and Democratic Practice
The final theme addresses dialogue itself. Despite widespread rhetoric around consultation and engagement, Joy explains that current practices of dialogue are deeply limited. Listening is often instrumental, often engaged with only in order to agree or disagree, rather than to understand. Discomfort, conflict and polarisation are avoided, rather than worked with.
Yet conflict, understood as the expression of difference rather than violence, is inevitable in a plural society. Democracy depends on the capacity to live with disagreement. Difference does not always need resolution; it needs recognition and containment. Increasingly, however, society struggles to engage with views that feel uncomfortable or challenging, even when those holding such views remain part of the same civic and democratic community.
This inability to engage across differences contributes to declining trust in democratic institutions, low levels of political participation and deepening social isolation. Dialogue, therefore, cannot remain a peripheral activity. If democracy is to be sustained, it must become a routine civic practice.
Dr Andrew Smith
Dr Andrew Smith, Director of Interfaith Relations for the Church of England in Birmingham and chair of The Feast, began his reflections with characteristic warmth and candour. Thanking the audience for the invitation, he briefly outlined his role, one he jokingly described as having a “grand and vague” title, before acknowledging the breadth of work it permits him across the landscape of interfaith dialogue in the city. He was quick to deflect praise for The Feast onto its staff and volunteers, noting that while he chairs the charity, it is others who carry forward its creative and imaginative work with young people.
Before turning to his central themes, Dr Smith paused to situate himself within the conversation. As a white Englishman working for the Church of England on questions of diversity, inclusion and integration, he insisted on naming his own positionality. In recent years, he reflected, he has spoken about being English more than ever before. With debates about national identity intensifying, he has felt compelled to “claim” Englishness publicly. For him, being English is not about separation or exclusion; it is about sitting in diverse rooms such as this one and participating in shared civic life. He expressed frustration at narratives that frame Englishness as inherently divisive and was clear that, from his perspective, this open and dialogical engagement is precisely what Englishness ought to look like.
Dr Smith then turned to three well-known teachings of Jesus Christ that shape his approach to interfaith work. The first, “love your neighbour as yourself,” he described as both familiar and profoundly challenging. Love, he argued, is far more demanding than tolerance or respect. It implies a familial commitment: looking out for one another, taking an interest in each other’s lives, and being genuinely pleased to see the other. He challenged his own Christian communities with this standard, suggesting that if love is authentic, it should manifest in visible delight at the presence of those who are different. Agreement is not required, he stressed, but a willingness to embrace the neighbour as neighbour is.
The second teaching, often referred to as the Golden Rule, “do to others as you would have them do to you”, was one he had heard repeatedly in childhood. For Dr Smith, its implications are radical in the context of interfaith engagement. If we want our faith to be taken seriously, we must take the faith of others seriously. If we desire welcome, we must extend welcome first. Reciprocity, he suggested, transforms dialogue from passive coexistence into active participation.
The third inspiration, “blessed are the peacemakers,” prompted reflection on the distinction between supporting peace and making peace. Most people, he observed, are peace supporters; they prefer calm and the absence of overt conflict. Peacemaking, however, requires deeper work. It demands engagement with structural issues, sustained relationships across difference, and a commitment to living well together even when disagreement persists. For someone who grew up in relatively peaceful East Sussex, this calling required rethinking what it means not simply to inhabit peace but to cultivate it.
Addressing the wider climate of polarisation, Dr Smith reflected on how public discourse has narrowed into a perceived binary of commonality versus division. Referencing the late Jo Cox’s oft-quoted phrase about having “more in common than that which divides us,” he suggested that this framing can inadvertently overlook a third and vital category: difference. Difference does not inevitably produce division, nor must it be dissolved into sameness. At its best, difference becomes a doorway to discovery. One may fundamentally disagree with another’s worldview and still share friendship and hospitality. Preserving that space, he argued, is increasingly urgent.
Turning to the relationship between faith communities and Birmingham’s cultural institutions, Dr Smith spoke of spaces such as the Ikon Gallery and Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery as potential sites of encounter. These are not neutral spaces, he acknowledged; they carry their own values and histories. Yet at their best, they enable new forms of conversation. He described leading groups through exhibitions and simply asking, “What do you see?” In front of a work of art, religious or otherwise, divergent perspectives often surface in illuminating ways.
Recalling a visit to an exhibition critiquing empire, he recounted inviting a Bangladeshi friend to walk through it with him. Expecting her to find it insufficiently critical, he was surprised when she felt it overly negative. Their differing responses revealed how identity shapes perception and underscored the value of encountering art, and history, through another’s eyes. Similarly, standing before a biblical painting with a Jewish friend opened up interpretive dimensions he had never previously noticed. Cultural spaces, he suggested, can provoke these unexpected and enriching exchanges.
Yet Dr Smith was equally candid about barriers. Drawing on his own upbringing in a low-income family in East Sussex, he described how art galleries once felt distant and unfamiliar. Museums were visited when free and accessible, but galleries seemed to belong to “other people.” Hesitancy, he suggested, is often not hostility but uncertainty, about belonging, about what might be encountered, about whether such spaces are truly for everyone. Questions of poverty, geography and confidence all shape participation in the city’s cultural life.
He concluded with a note of pragmatic encouragement. While systemic change is important, not everyone is tasked with transforming an entire city. Sometimes faithfulness lies in tending one’s corner well, building relationships on one’s street, in one’s school, in one’s congregation. Dialogue, at its heart, is not about erasing disagreement but about sustaining relationships within it. In claiming Englishness as something inclusive and relational, and in advocating peacemaking as active work, Dr Smith offered a vision of civic life grounded in curiosity, reciprocity and the courage to embrace difference without fear.
Have Your Say