India AND MULTICULTURALI SM

FAHIMA KHANUM M.PHIL (IIND SEM)

Introduction:
MULTICULTURALISm
The term multiculturalism has become very popular over the past four decades of the 20th century. This is largely due to the articulation of demands for equality by culturally diverse groups like the national minorities, immigrants, indigenous people, feminists, gays who wanted the society to recognize and accept their differences. These minority groups demand to be treated at par with the majority groups and not to be discriminated against. Multiculturalism reflects a concern to make the liberal democracies of the west more sensitive to the existence of cultural pluralism within the boundaries of the nation state, which had till then been considered to be culturally homogeneous. It thus represents the extension of liberal principles to those sections of the society which had been disadvantaged and thereby excluded from the polity. According to Bhikhu Parekh, multiculturalism is not about differences and identity, per se, but about those that are embedded in and sustained by culture, that is, a body of beliefs and practices in terms of which a group of people understand themselves and the world, and organize their individual and collective lives.1 Hence, multiculturalism is about cultural diversity or culturally embedded differences. There are 3 types of cultural diversity - subcultural diversity, perspectival diversity and communal diversity.2 Subcultural Diversity Members share a common culture in which some of them evolve or follow a different set of rules. They broadly share society dominant value system but they do not entirely follow it. This different group does not represent an alternate group but only pluralises the existing system. For example, gays, lesbians, miners, transnational executives. Perspectival Diversity Some members of the society are highly critical of some of the central principles or values of the prevailing culture and they seek to reconstitute it. For example, feminists criticize and challenge the patriarchal
1 2

Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism(New York: Palgrave, 2000), p.2. Ibid, p.3.

structure. These groups represent neither subcultures nor distinct cultural communities but, intellectual perspectives on how the dominant culture should be reconstituted. Communal Diversity Most modern societies also include well-organised communities living by their own system of beliefs and practices. For example, newly arrived immigrants, indigenous people, religious communities, Jews, Parsis. So, a multicultural society is one that exhibits atleast two of these diversities, if not all. Although, these three kinds of diversity share several common features, there are some differences as well. Subcultural diversity is embedded in a shared culture which it wishes to open up and diversify and not replace with another. Perspectival diversity represents a way of life that the dominant culture either rejects altogether or accepts in theory but ignores in practice. It is more radical than subcultural diversity and cannot be so easily accommodated. Communal diversity arises and is sustained by a plurality of long estabilished communities. This diversity is socially well-organised. A multicultural society is one which includes two or more cultural communities. It might respond to its cultural diversity by either cherishing it and respecting the cultural demands of its constituent communities or by seeking to assimilate these communities into its mainstream culture, fully or substantially. In short, multiculturalism is state of social, cultural, ethnic diversity within the population of a specific place- school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation.

RISE AND GROWTH OF MULTICULTURALISM

Societies had long assumed that they had a single national culture into which all their citizens should assimilate. Multiculturalism was brought forth on the public agenda when these societies were faced with new distinct culture groups who wanted to preserve their own culture and no to assimilate into the existing one.

1960s

In the United States, the black struggle took a cultural turn where many of its leaders insisted on the recognition and preservation of their distinct culture. They were joined by other minority groups like the immigrants, native people, Puerto Ricans who wanted to affirm their cultural identity and declare America multicultural. In Britain, multiculturalism came forth on the public agenda due to the presence of a sizable number of Asians and Afro-Caribbeans who refused to assimilate into the majority culture. British conservatives refused to call Britain multicultural saying that, Britains culture was integrally tied up with its national identity and calling Britain multicultural would imply that minority cultures are equally central to its identity. Israel began to see itself as multicultural in the late 1960s oriental and sephardic Jews began to demand revision of its national culture.

1970s & 80s

Canada declared itself multicultural because of its language problem. In 1971, French was officially adopted as a language in response to its French speaking minority population. But it attracted a lot of criticism from people who spoke neither French nor English. So biculturalism was changed to multiculturalism when the Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau promulgated the policy of multiculturalism within the bilingual framework in the House of Commons in 1971. This was followed by the passing of the multicultural Act in July 1988. Australia was the next country to adopt an official policy of multiculturalism after Canada in 1978 due to its increasing Asianization. This was done to preserve the cultural identity of the immigrants and the indigenous people. In 1966, John Howard came up with his view of one Australia which called for a reduction in Asian immigration. So multiculturalism advocated the idea of shared identity.

COUNTRIES WHERE MULTICULTURALISM FAILED:

 In Germany multiculturalism appeared on the national agenda with the arrival of immigrants from Turkey and elsewhere who did not wanted to assimilate into the existing majority culture. But now it seems that multiculturalism has failed in Germany. In October 2010, Gemanys chancellor, Angela Merkel said that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have failed. The immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany's culture and values. France has 6% of the ethnic minority population but it refuses to call itself a multicultural society. The French political tradition is based on a strong notion of citizenship. It recognizes only the citizens and has no space for the concept of minority. Minority cultures have no claim to recognition and acceptance. The growth of multiculturalism is largely attributable to 20th Century but international recognition could be seen through UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of year 2001.3 This Universal declaration recognizes, for the first time, cultural diversity as a common heritage of humanity and considers safeguarding of the same to be a concrete and ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. The most important conviction of this Universal declaration is the growing belief that intercultural dialogue is the best guarantee of peace and to reject outright the theory of the inevitable clash of cultures and civilizations. The recent rise in debates on multiculturalism refers to an increasing presence of immigrants in the Europe, United States, Canada and Australia which is not only a quantitative fact, with several consequences on many social and cultural dynamics but also a serious stability factor for the continuing system of governance. Immigrants or settlers are never culturally neutral and any culture for that purpose needs room for propagation and expansion. This strategic phenomenon of a culture or religion creates reasonable apprehension in existing religions or cultures leading to an unending conflict. In absence of a constitutional or legislative framework things go unattended and at times bring conflict situation troubling political stability and law and order.

INDIAN MULTICULTURALISM
Multiculturalism or cultural pluralism is fundamental to the belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism in India ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging.
3

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001, Adopted by the 31st session of the General Conference of UNESCO held on 2nd November 2001 in Paris.

Acceptance gives each Indian citizen a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. India has embraced diversity or cultural pluralism in both policy and practice. Cultural diversity is viewed as one of India's most important attributes, socially and economically. Through multiculturalism, India recognizes the potential of all citizens, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs. Our advantage lies in having been a multicultural society from our earliest days. Multicultural concerns have long informed Indias history and traditions, its constitution and political arrangements. Many of the writings on Indian history, culture and politics are marked by some kind of multicultural consideration. Multiculturalism in India is the by-product of the collapse of the vision of a culturally homogeneous nation state. The Indian Constitution which is a source of many state policies can be said to be a multicultural document in the sense of providing for political and institutional measures for the recognition and accommodation of the countrys diversity. Multiculturalism is a relationship between the state and the Indian people. Our citizenship gives us equal rights and equal responsibilities. By taking an active part in our civic affairs, we affirm these rights and strengthen India's democracy. The essence of inclusiveness is that we are part of a society in which language, colour, education, sex and money need not divide us. Multiculturalism is best understood neither as a political doctrine nor a philosophical school but as a perspective on or a way of viewing human life. In India it has three central insights: First, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organize their lives and social relations. Second, different cultures represent different systems of meaning and visions of the good life. Since each realises a limited range of human capacities and emotions and grasps only a part of the totality of human existence, it needs other cultures to help it understand itself better, expand its intellectual and moral horizon, stretch its imagination, and so on. Third, every culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its different traditions and strands of thought. This does not mean that it is devoid of coherence and identity, but that its identity is plural, fluid and open. Cultures grow out of conscious and unconscious interactions with each other, define their identity. A culture cannot appreciate the value of others unless it appreciates the plurality within it.

Demographic Multiculturalism

India is the second most populous country after China, and socially and culturally the most diverse in the world. India is very much multicultural from time immemorial-different caste, different religion, different language, indigenous population. Although predominantly inhabited by Hindus who are regionally rooted, plural in beliefs and practices and divided by castes and languages, Indias population also includes a large proportion of Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and Jains. Linguistically too, India is very diverse. It is the home of some hundred languages and dialects and, so far, eighteen languages have been officially recognised and placed under the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. There are, however, sizeable sections of the population, most notably in the North-East, who are a majority in their locality but whose first language is not yet officially recognized. Most of the states have some dominant ethno-linguistic and ethno-religious groups (Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, North-East), although within each of them there are religious and linguistic minorities.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARADIGM

The Indian Constitution is a liberal document that takes into consideration minority integration as its principle objective. People from all religion, caste and ethnicity were to be included in the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution of India prepares not only a legal framework for multiculturalism and privileges amongst the different sections of the society, but also lays down a pre-pondering structure of multiculturalism in India. Indian multiculturalism is not politically imposed rather it evolved through a growing complex system of different kinds of ethnic integration, assimilation and mutual habitation, which is imbibed in the constitutional system. The Indian Constitution does not declare India to be multicultural. But, there are guarantees in the Constitution that have made a multicultural society possible in India. For example, Hindi has not been made compulsory in non-Hindi speaking states, there is no uniform civil code in India, the Indian Parliament has never made laws that would take away minority rights. Inspite of the absence of any law describing India as multicultural, the Indian Constitution is perceived as not only secular but multicultural as well. This is because the Indian state not only recognizes differences but guarantees equal citizenship and equal rights. Constitutional recognition and protection is offered to religious, cultural and linguistic minorities.

The Constitutional multiculturalism is based on integration and not on segregation as could be seen through the history of independence of India, which bears testimony to the fact that the concept of segregation and bitter experience of religious conflicts which arose in about 150 years of British Rule in India led to the demands for special care and protection of religious and cultural rights. The Constitution of India has made an attempt to recast the age-old multicultural fabric of India. Recognition of right to development within the constitutional paradigm further strengthens multiculturalism in India. The Preamble of the UN declaration recognizes that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible and interdependent. All Nation States are concerned at the existence of serious obstacles to development and complete fulfilment of human beings, denial of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In order to promote development, equal attention should be given to the implementation, promotion and protection of civil, political, and economic rights. Indias commitment to international forum reiterates constitutional proliferation of multicultural society in India.

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF CULTURAL RIGHTS Article 29(1) of the constitution of India guarantees the protection and
preservation of the cultural rights of minorities: Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. It is also a safeguard against discrimination based on cultural differences by the state and other cultural groups.

Article 29(2) seeks to protect the educational rights of minority communities:

No citizens shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. This is a safeguard against discrimination that may arise out of the ethnic orientation of India states.

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS

According to Article 25(1) of the Constitution, All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propogate their religion. This article gives Indians the freedom to workship or not to workship, to confess their faith or not and they have the right to preach.

India is a secular country with a plural society. The state does not has any religion and does not discriminate between individuals on grounds of religion. Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants every religious community the right to estabilish religious and charitable institutions, manage its own religious affairs and acquire and administer property in accordance with law. This right is further strengthened by Art 30(1) which gives all minorities whether based on religion or language the right to estabilish and administer educational institutions of their own choice.

LINGUISTIC REORGANISATION OF STATES

India created states according to linguistic territories. This creation of linguistic states provided people with a new cultural identity on the basis of language. Article 3 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Union Parliament to reorganise the states for territorial adjustment. Parliament may legally: (1) form a new state by separation of territory from any state, or by uniting two or more states, or by uniting any territory to a part of any state (2) increase the area of any state (3) diminish the area of any state (4) alter the boundaries of any state (5) alter the name of any state, etc. The Indian Parliament through the power vested in it by Article 3 of the Constitution, passed the States Reorganisation Act in 1956 to redraw the boundaries of states on the basis of language. For example Andhra became the first linguistic state in India in 1953 by the separation of sixteen Telegu-speaking districts from Madras state. Madras spearheaded the anti-Hindi agitation in 1938. Sikhs are the only community in India where region, religion and language coincide. But there was a fear that a Punjabi speaking state would eventually mean a Sikh state and would ultimately lead to communal conflict. The Anandpur Sahib Resolution in 1973 described the Sikhs as a separate nation and demanded a separate nation-state named Khalistan. The Anandpur Sahib Resolution was a political statement made by a Sikh political party, the Shiromani Akali Dal. In 1971 at the elections to Indian Parliament, Sikhs represented by their premier political party, the Shiromani Akali Dal, were able to capture only one seat out of 13 from the Punjab portion. In the Punjab Assembly elections which took place in

March 1972 their tally was a mere 24 seats of a total of 117, and the Punjab Government passed in to the hands of the Congress Party, with Giani Zail Singh as chief minister. This electoral debacle led to self introspection on the part of the Shiromani Akali Dal which appointed on 11 December, 1972, a sub-committee to reflect upon the situation and to proclaim afresh the programme and polices of the Dal. The 12 member committee consisted of Surjit Singh Barnala, Gurcharan Singh Tohra, Jiwan Singh Umranangal, Gurmeet Singh, Dr. Bhagat Singh, Balwant Singh, Gian Singh Rarewala, Amar Singh Ambalavi, Prem Singh Lalpura, Jaswinder Singh Brar, Bhag Singh, and Major General Gurbakhsh Singh of Badhani. Together they drafted a document which was unanimously adopted by the working committee of the Shiromani Akali Dal at a meeting held at Anandpur Sahib. Since it was adopted at Anandpur Sahib, the resolution came to be known as the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. In 1986, a violent movement erupted in West-Bengal for the estabilishment of a separate Gorkhaland state. This movement led by the Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF) came to an end with the estabilishment of the autonomus Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. Communists viewing India as a conglomeration of linguistic nationalities, support the continuation of linguistic states. The creation of linguistic states in India, provided people with a new cultural identity on the basis of language and led to cultural resurgence.

IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL MULTICULTURALISM

Ideological and political multiculturalism provide the most effective answers to questions of Indias unity and integrity. Although Indias nationalist leaders, swore by the countrys multicultural reality, it was Jawaharlal Nehru, whose thoughts on the issue proved decisive in giving it a constitutional legitimacy and determining the policy framework in post-independence governance. Nehru was respectful of the traditional values and institutions of Indian society and of its contemporary diversity. He simultaneously recognised Indias diversity and emphasised unity in diversity. Nehrus profound concern for the cultural plurality and his respect for the values involved, were reflected in his practical approach to governance. Commenting on the problems of integration in his state and nation-building efforts with regard to

various territorial units of the country, most notably in the north-east (characterised by the complex diversity of tribes, religions and non-tribal groups), he advised the chief ministers in his Letters to Chief Ministers in the early 1950s not to treat them by some single formula because they differ greatly among themselves. It seems obviously undesirable to deny them some kind of self-government or autonomy.4 He simultaneously cautioned against any attempt at homogenisation of different culturally specific people. Nehru, however, was not opposed to assimilation. But his idea of assimilation was not a forced or externally imposed one. He said that such an assimilation process would develop of its own accord through education and contacts, without any special effort. In such a process, he emphasised, every care should be taken to retain the individuality of cultures. Further, he said that people living in these areas should feel that they have perfect freedom to live their own lives according to their wishes and that India should signify for them a protecting as well as a liberating force. He pointed out that the policy of the state was not to interfere with tribal affairs but to offer the largest measure of autonomy.5 He also attached great importance to the customs of ethnic groups. The Naga ethnic groups posed the most powerful challenge to the nascent state in India, which after protracted struggles and negotiations ended in 1960 with the establishment of the state of Nagaland as a federal constituent unit of India. Nagaland, i.e. the land of the Nagas, was carved out of Assam. But Nehru took cognisance of the democratic custom of the Nagas. He wrote: Last month (August 1957), a big Convention was held in Kohima in the Naga Hills District with the permission of the Assam government. At this Convention every tribe sent its representative which totalled about 1,760 apart from about 2,000 Naga visitors. For several days, they argued heatedly. Ultimately, it was clear that the majority wanted to pass a certain type of resolution. There is a custom among the Nagas that once the majority is known then the particular resolution is passed unanimously and becomes binding on all the tribes. A good custom, which, incidentally, shows the discipline of these peoples6 Nehrus approach to the problem of the management of ethnic conflicts, and to the issue of nation and state building, thus was at once democratic and multicultural. His was an attempt to find the common ground between the general and the specific. This was not obviously a cultural formulation, but a political one, which incorporated the essentials of Indian culture. Nehrus approach, as a whole, thus
4 5

Nehru 1986, p.364 Nehru 1985, pp.151152. 6 Nehru 1988, p.558.

showed acute sense of realism, accommodation and adjustment in the state approach to communities, and was an instance of how modernity relativized7 in a non-Western context.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, India is multicultural although it does not proclaim itself so. The objective of multiculturalism is that it is not enough to have plurality-Difference must not be a source of discrimination. This is the major concern of multiculturalism. There are guarantees in the Indian Constitution that have made a multicultural society possible in India. For example, Indian parliament has never made laws that would take away minority rights, all the minorities are free to follow their own personal laws-there is no uniform Civil Code. The Constitution recognizes and protects religious, cultural and linguistic minorities and it gives them enough autonomy to either reaffirm or abandon their cultural rights. That is why the Indian democracy is called Power-Sharing Democracy. The aim of multicultural policies in India is the achievement of political and legal equality between the different linguistic, caste, religious and cultural communities.

Bhattacharyya:2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 1997). Parekh, Bhikhu, Rethinking Multiculturalism, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2000). SINGH, G, Ethnic Conflict in India: A Case Study of Punjab, (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000). Mahajan, Gurpreet, Identities and Rights Aspects of Liberal Democracy in India, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998). Bhargava, R., Bagchi, A. and Sudarshan, R., Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy, (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999).