The most effective way of facing the threat of  cultural homogenisation represented by Hindutva is, not so much the projection of varieties of composite culture, as the promotion of cultural combined with tolerance ... To elucidate this argument.

First, we must distinguish cultural pluralism from cultural plurality. The latter is the given datum in India in the contexts of language, religion and lifestyle. Indeed, the immense cultural diversities of India have been considered by many commentators the country's richest treasure, although the same phenomenon was often adduced ... as evidence of the absence of a single Indian nation. The nationalist response was in the form of slogans, such as, defensively, unity in diversity or, more assertively, the fundamental unity of India. It was rhetoric for the furtherance of the nationalist cause. When description of the prevailing cultural plurality is replaced by arguments in favour of or against it, we enter the domain of cultural pluralism as an ideology. From being plural we become pluralists or monists.

Cultural pluralism comes in many forms. Cultural difference may be recognised only to be downplayed as inconsequential. This is the common attitude of 'thin' tolerance; you are welcome to your way of life, but prefer my own. Such tolerance dissipates rapidly under stress. When the victims of violence express their disbelief and anger that their neighbours, with whom they have traditionally had good relations, should suddenly and without warning become their aggressors, they fail to acknowledge that not only the attitude of their 'undependable' neighbours towards cultural difference but their own too, has been at best casual.

Contrastively, cultural monists, or homogenisers, consider cultural plurality undesirable and seek to control or end it. In the field of religion, they are the proselytizers, defending their intolerance as an attitude that ultimately benefits those who are different from themselves ... Such intolerance of difference may characterise not only inter-cultural relations but also intra-cultural relations ...

Moving from the negative attitude towards plurality to the positive, we may speak of 'thick' pluralism. It is based on a self-conscious affirmation of the value of cultural difference. To take the example of religion, it is widely claimed that Hinduism is inherently pluralist by virtue of its long history of gradual transformation through internal dynamics and external impact ... A basic continuity of perspective in this regard is claimed from ancient wisdom to our situation today.

This argument should be critically examined because things are not as simple as they seem. Vivekananda himself treated a statement in the Rig Veda as the basic scriptural authority for his views on the validity of all religions. The quotation, which has gained wide currency, proclaims ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti or, in Vivekananda's translation, "That which exists in One; sages call it by various names". It is quite surprising that Vivekananda or anyone else should read a luralist message into the statement, for the verse from which it is taken (1:164,46) points beyond plurality to the ultimate reality of the `One Being or Absolute' (ekam sad) that lies behind multiple manifestations or names. Plurality is relatively less real.

Vivekananda also declared that Hindus accept all religions, for these are 'so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realise the infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of them marking a stage of progress'. It is clear that although he considered all the 'attempts' valid, he did not consider them to be equal in terms of their potential or achievements. Vedanta was for him 'the mother' of all religions and included all the highest truths, discovered and yet to be discovered. He was ambivalent about Buddhism and thought poorly of Jainism and Sikhism. He never acknowledged having learned anything from Christianity or Islam, although he admired the social egalitarianism of the latter. In short, in Vivekananda ... Vedantic pluralism emerged as hierarchical in the sense that it encompassed the truths of all other religions even when they were seemingly opposed to it. Not surprising that the proponents of Hindutva claim to derive inspiration from Vivekananda, although it is arguable that he would not have approved of their narrowness of vision, coercive methods and above all their implicit political agenda.

Another version of 'thick' pluralism is that of Gandhi. He too spoke of all religions being true, but since the availability of these truths was dependent upon interpretation, the limitations of human reason introduced an element of error into them all. This, in turn, created the need for the refinement of reason and for mutual respect and learning. In his own life, while describing himself a sanatani Hindu, he acknowledged the deep influence of other religions, notably Christianity. Gandhi also spoke about transcendence, maintaining that the religion by which he lived as higher than all the existing.