In India, the BJP has deprived the adivasis of their claim to be the original inhabitants and conferred the privilege on Aryans, who are now said to have originated in India. As a consequence, the adivasis have been redesignated by the Sangh Parivar as vanavasis or forest dwellers. The reason why India has been identified by the saffron lobby as the original home of the Aryans is that it demolishes at one stroke the theory of Aryan invasion and leaves only the Muslims as the sole invaders of the sub-continent.

Had this not been done, and if the Muslims had been allowed to share the distinction of having entered India from outside like the Aryans, it would have created political difficulties for the pro-Hindutva forces to propagate the theory (as articulated by Savarkar) of India being the only punyabhu (holy land) and pitribhu (father land) of the Hindus. From this sleight of hand follows the obvious conclusion: that only Hindus can be true patriots. ...

This attitude, which regards a society as unicultural and excludes virtually everyone else outside the master race as aliens, is epitomised in the Nazi slogan of "ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" which echoes the BJP's concept of "one people, one nation, one culture". The thrust is clearly against the minorities and is reflected ... by the BJP's opposition to the constitutional privileges for minorities. Behind this urge to elevate one culture, evidently that of the majority, above the rest is the attempt ... and by the BJP the feeling that the religious minorities in India are really outsiders whose patriotism is suspect and who must accommodate themselves with the wishes of the majority.

The multi-cultural concept ... advocates that no single culture, or way of life, or religion can take precedence over another, that the different cultures can run parallel or integrative courses without outside interference, especially from the state which must remain strictly neutral; and that it is the pluralism of such a society which must be highlighted rather than the glory of a single race or community or religion. The objection to this theory from the "one people, one culture" group is that it pampers the minorities and dilutes the role of the majority by making them far too defensive about the sensitivities of the smaller communities. But while such self-assertive tribal solidarity of the bigger group may have been necessary at an earlier, insecure stage of human history, an insistence on majoritarian tenets in the far more complex societies of today is bound to undermine social cohesion and ultimately harm the country.

... They depend almost wholly for their success on primitive atavistic sentiments which are contemptuous of rational arguments. To them, any reference to social peace and harmony, and respect for the religion and culture of others, is a plaintive cry of bleeding heart liberals which has to be brushed aside. From this aspect, the xenophobes' world is one of blood and sword, as in the "heroic" ages of the past.

A central point of the "ein volk" concept is identity. Who is a true German? Who is a true Hindu ?.

... According to The Economist, the 22-member (French) team comprised eight who were either black or brown, and "another four who were wholly or partly of recent Armenian, Argentine, Kalmyk or Spanish descent (not forgetting a Breton and a brace of Basques)". Zidane the man who scored the first two goals, is the son of a poor Algerian labourer ... What is his identity? Is he a Frenchman? Does he know who he is?

President Jacques Chirac, in a post-victory speech, said that "this tricolour and multicolour team has given a beautiful image of France and its humanity". ... What the French President is in effect cheering is the ideal of pluralism, and the vibrancy which it brings to national life. What is more, this "multicolour" team is really pointing to a future world of fewer barriers and boundaries, moving further and further away from the tribalism and cultural antagonisms of the past.

Europe has already travelled a considerable distance on this road, putting its medieval religious wars behind it, though not everywhere ...

India's secularism did mark the beginning of its journey for the enrichment of pluralism in the years after independence, making its experiment with democracy all the more unique. In contrast to the totalitarian and theocratic Asian and African countries, India presented the model of a multi-cultural society of which it could be justifiably proud.

But failures at various levels have led to the unfortunate emergence of ultra-right forces which have little faith in such an ideal. The only hope lies in fascism's poor track record. In the end, it is democracy and pluralism which usually defeat the forces of hate.                                                                                                  (Source: The Hindustan Times, 24 August, 1998)