Le Professeur Michael Amaladoss, s.j. est un jésuite du Tamil Nadu, Inde du Sud, né en 1936.  Après avoir fait des études en langues, éducation, musique, philosophie et théologie, il fit son doctorat à l’Institut Catholique de Paris sur la Théologie Sacramentaire. Actuellement directeur de l’Institut du Dialogue entre les Religions et Cultures, à Chennai en Inde, il a été professeur de théologie à Vidyajyoti College de Delhi, professeur invité dans divers instituts théologiques, à Manille, en Thaïlande, à Paris, Bruxelles, Louvain, Berkeley, Washington D.C et Cincinatti. Prof Amaladoss s’intéresse particulièrement à la théologie et à la spiritualité indienne, au dialogue entre l’Evangile et la culture et les religions. Il a édité 7 livres et est l’auteur de 29 livres et environ 410 articles. Il a aussi composé la musique de 150 cantiques en tamil et pour le Bharathantyam (danse classique indienne).
Deux ateliers de travail sur le dialogue interculturel seront organisés : le premier se tiendra le mardi 24 janvier 2012 et le mercredi 25, et sera  orientée  vers une perspective chrétienne alors que le deuxième atelier qui aura lieu le vendredi 27 janvier 2012 et le samedi 28, sera se fera dans une perspective plus globale.
Les deux ateliers se tiendront à l’ICJM, (Institut du Cardinal Jean Margéot) à Rose-Hill de 9h à 17h et sont ouverts au public. Les frais d’inscriptions sont de Rs 900 par atelier de travail. Pour plus de renseignements, vous pouvez appeler sur le 464 41 09. La date limite d’inscription est le 15 décembre 2011.
Voici un extrait du texte intitulé Ethics in a multi-religious context du Professeur Michael Alamadoss. 
The role of ethics is to offer us guidance about what to do in the different circumstances of our lives.  It has to particularize the general principle: « Do good and avoid evil. »  In a community it governs our relationship with each other.  It also helps us in acting together when we are pursuing common goals.  There are many situations in life in which it is not easy to specify what is good and evil.  One such situation is the multi-religious context in which we are living today.  Each religion has its own way of looking at life and reality. Of course, this situation is not peculiar to us.  Most of the world is today pluralistic.  Even in countries dominated by one religion, there are small minority groups belonging to other religions.  Within the majority religious group itself there may be people who are secularized, agnostic or non-believing.  There may also be differences between personal and public life.  At the level of economic and political life people may be guided by various ideologies.  This context is very sensitive precisely because of the intimate relationship that exists between ethics and religious belief.  Religious pluralism therefore involves ethical pluralism. Generally speaking two kinds of attitudes are possible in the face of ethical pluralism.  The first is to deny it.  We cannot of course deny the fact of pluralism.  But we can simply assert that our own convictions are right and whoever disagrees with us is wrong.  So there are no alternatives to choose from.  If we have the power we may try to impose what we consider right on everyone.  The second approach is to recognize and accept the pluralism and search for ways of adjusting with each other so that we can still live and act together at least in what concerns the whole community, even when we are faithful to our convictions in our personal life and in the group to which we belong.  No one would seriously advocate the first way of proceeding.  There may however be differences in the manner in which the second way is understood and practiced.  I shall start with the Christian tradition.  I am not going back into history, but just see how the Second Vatican Council handled it.  It did not speak about ethical pluralism, but did address the question of religious pluralism.  But what it said had ethical implications, as I shall try to show.  Then I shall move towards a more general theory that may be acceptable to every one.
Error has No Rights
The Christians did pass through a stage when they denied the existence of pluralism.  This was based on the supposition that our religion is the true one, revealed by God.  Every other religion is false.  People who belonged to them were in error.  As the popular axiom went: « Error has no rights! »  This meant that where and when we have the power we can impose our truth and morality on others, if necessary by force.  When there emerged a distinction between sacred and secular power, the sacred power demanded the help of the secular arm to impose the truth.  Those who refused to accept the truth could be done away with. They were often burnt at the stake in the Middle Ages.  People who were not Christians, not only missed salvation in the next world, but did not have rights even in this one.  Till new areas of the world like sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and South and East Asia were « discovered » by the people from Europe and the Mediterranean, they took for granted that the Gospel had been preached every where.  Those who had not become Christian therefore were guilty of not obeying God’s call.  And so they deserved punishment.  The Jews were considered guilty of murdering Jesus.  So they were marginalized and persecuted in various ways.  Crusades were organized against the Muslim infidels.  When the people in the Americas and Africa were « discovered » they were considered sub-human.  So the colonizers felt free to enslave them, appropriate their land and property, treat them as human commodities and use them as cheap labour.  Many of these poor ‘natives’ would consider themselves lucky to soften, if not fully escape, such treatment by embracing Christianity.  Many indigenous groups do not enjoy their full rights even today.  They live in « reservations ». The Australian Aborigines were not citizens in their own land till about 40 years ago.  Many Euro-American countries which pride themselves as paragons of human rights and democracy, often limit their benefits to their citizens.  Migrants are expected to adopt the local culture.  The local religion is not imposed on them only because the local people themselves are not very religious.  The human rights that they claim in their own countries are not recognized for people in far away poor countries who can be imprisoned and disposed of at will.  They can be freely exploited by unjust commercial and economic policies.
Voici deux ouvrages publiés dans la collection Mauritiana (Photos de Béatrice Julien) de Christian le Comte : Laboutik sinoi et Cyclones à Maurice. Ils font suite à des expositions qui ont eu lieu au Blue Penny Museum à l’initiative d’Emmanuel Richon. La boutique chinoise est plus qu’un bâtiment traditionnel avec une fonction commerciale, c’est un lieu de convivialité où les gens achètent, boivent. Tous les villages de Maurice possèdent ce lieu de rencontre. Construite en bois ou en tôle, la boutique chinoise constitue le noyau de la vie sociale mauricienne.
Cyclones à Maurice d’Emmanuel Richon (Mauritiana, 2011), traitent de ces phénomènes climatiques qui constituent une part importante de notre identité insulaire et font partie de l’imaginaire collectif. Emmanuel Rcichon revient sur ces grandes tempêtes tropicales, sur leurs spécificités, sur des aspects de la météorologie.