Some people in India insist that one should have only a single identity, that is the national identity. All other identities should be either given up or subordinated to the national identity. Such a position is difficult to main even under an authoritarian regime, let alone in a vibrant democracy. Every citizen has multiple identities and these are equally important.

A citizen has his regional, linguistic, religious, sectarian, caste and professional identities. All these matter to him though one may be more important that the others in a given context and the context may keep changing. Thus, in the vent of external invasion the national identity may take precedence ... When there is caste conflict, the caste identity assumes importance ..

The democratic process intensifies power struggle and hence the assertion of various identities assumes vital importance. Authoritarian regimes may suppress or subordinate various identities but a democratic regime will not do that. Democracy is nothing if it does not give free play to the power struggle among various sections.

In India, three identifies have played a seminal ro'e since colonial rule was established - religious, caste and regional (or ethnic) identities. In fact, the religious and caste identities played a much greater role than the regional identity during the colonial period but the regional identity became equally aggressive after independence as we witness in the northeast and Kashmir. The colonial period was known more for its religious conflict ...

The religious identities were not as intense in the pre-British period as it became after the British rule was consolidated. Earlier, the religious identities were quite diffused among the masses ... They had a greater awareness of their caste and professional identities. In fact, in the pre-British period as it became after the British rule was consolidated. Earlier, the religious identities were quite diffused among the masses ... They had a greater awareness of their caste and professional identities. In fact, in the pre-British period the whole social dynamics depended on caste functions. A person belonging to a weaving caste was more aware of his caste identity as a bunker (weaver) than of his religious identity. However, the dynamics of the British rule were such as to throw up religious identities as of vital importance ... The politics of identities plays an important role in the democratic process. It has an emotional basis and its politicisation has a greater emotional impact. Precisely for this reason, it is cleverly manipulated by politicians. Various identities - religious, caste and regional - are shaping the politics of the country ... Their internal unity will be possible only when there is a threat from the "other identity" ...

... There have been Hindu-Muslim conflicts in independent India ... A multi-religious democratic society can hardly avoid inter-religious conflict as different religious groups are bound to assert their identities to bargain for a greater shape in power. In independent India, the upper caste Hindu elite had been enjoying power ... With the deepening of the democratic processes .. the religious minorities and the lower castes began to assert their identities vigorously, accentuating religious and caste conflicts ... When the upper caste were forced to concede a bigger share in power to the minorities and backward castes, they asserted the religious identity most aggressively by launching the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Though apparently religious, this movement was also essentially a political struggle, with the upper caste Hindus seeking to consolidate their power. However, they did not succeed and had to concede a greater share in power to the lower castes ..

The regional elite is also calmouring for a share in political power. It is no longer possible for any national party to rule at the Centre and in the States. The States are controlled by the regional parties and they are sharing power at the Central level too ....

In any democracy, various identities are bound to assert themselves politically and this assertion, within limits has its own legitimacy. It can lead to a correction of the balance of power in society. But if it crosses the limit and uses violence, it can cause serious conflicts and

destablise the country. The democratic aspirations should not be ignored and violent assertions should not be permitted ...                                     (Source: The Hindu, 12 December, 1997)