India is not the only country that has a plural society. USA too has a plural society. But India is unique in the sense that at no point of time did Indian society try to brush the pluralities under the carpet or pretend that they can be melted down. Till recently, USA thought that it was a melting pot and the pluralities would vanish in time. But in India, pluralities were always recognised and given an integral place (but not always an honourable place) in the social scheme. Unity in diversity has been its theme all along. Now USA too has begun to subscribe to this theme and celebrate the diversities, albeit with emphasis on overall national unity. Indian pluralities are unique in another sense also, as some of them have behind them scriptural sanction and have thus acquired rigidity of an objectionable nature.
... Existing pluralities ... are products of history and are based on factors such as religion, sects within religions, castes and sub-castes, languages, tribes and ethnicity.
The founding fathers of our Republic made conscious efforts to safeguard the interests of pluralities, assure social justice to all and thus build a united nation in India. Freedom of religion, special provisions for religious and linguistic minorities, fundamental rights without regard to caste and creed, affirmative action in favour of historically disadvantaged groups like scheduled castes and tribes and the like are the more important steps they took. Subsequently, with the formation of linguistic states, and the retention of English as one of the official languages, language-based pluralities have been satisfied to a large extent. The process of co-opted pluralities into the mainstream is not a one-shot affair. It is a continuing exercise. Some more steps are due, e.g. the activation of the principles of cooperative federalism which were kept dormant in the interests of planned progress, the uplift of socially and educationally backward classes in some parts of the country, decentralisation of power to village communities and above all the effective implementation of the social justice policies already announced ..
In a democracy, pluralities tend to multiply by sub-dividing themselves and by building new identities as a result of rising political consciousness and the lure of rising expectations. Thus, the numerous sub-castes based on crafts and occupations have begun to claim separate identities ... in contrast to the blurring of sub-castes among the forward castes ... Most of the castes ... have no sanction in the Hindu Sastras and are clear perversions of the so-called Brahminical order or Chaturvarna system and the 'guna' based system of Bhagavat Geeta ....
Politics may be defined as the social process by which human beings, individually or in groups, seek to influence others in order to protect their interests and to secure larger allocations of available resources to the causes close to their hearts. How ubiquitous from the following phrases in common usage: family politics university politics, organisational politics, electoral politics and above all, political parties. However, remarks here may be confined to political parties and electoral politics which aim at influencing the polity and controlling the instrumentalities of the state.
Hartod Laski described the modern state as an association ... The instrumentalities parties which compete with each other can be said to be in a single association called the state, as they swear allegiance to the Constitution and willingly bind themselves to the preservation of unity, integrity sovereignty of the country. The question that arises is whether present political parties formed different social forces, that is, the existing pluralities in society, are in fact, adhering to the principles of the Constitution and strengthening national interests as contrasted from sectional interests.
The question is how to ensure that in a plural society like ours, political parties do behave as responsible members of a larger association called the Nation-State and how the existing pluralities in the society can be harnessed to the larger political task of building a nation.
First, there must be a law stipulating the duties, privileges, and functions of political parties as well as penalties for breaches of legal provisions ...
Second, as regards religious pluralities, the Constitution has tried to reconcile their demands with the needs of unity by incorporating certain principles of secularism, without mentioning that particular word. After 50 years, however, it appears that the result in terms of truly viable Indian nation is not yet within reach ... The saving feature is that every political party, including those which have religious sounding names, protests loudly and claims that it is really secular and that its opponents are doing false propaganda against it ... We have seen major parties playing the communal and secular cards periodically according to the needs of electoral politics ... Communal feelings based on religion and caste are always present, like dormant embers that can be fanned into a flame at will. Our political leaders take these communal feelings seriously, only after the flame has erupted. A continuing social engineering effort is needed ... Ideas of communal harmony are comparatively ineffective during a highly surcharged juncture, if religious fanaticism and the attendant social hostilities are allowed to be nurtured by motivated groups and their leaders .... As in the case of liberty, eternal vigilance and continuous endeavour are the price of communal harmony and nation integration of religious pluralities.
Three lines of action may be suggested for adoption by our political leaders:
(a) Inter-faith Dialogue;
(b) Sublimation of Historical Memories; and
(c) Emphasis on composite culture.
The first suggestion is based on the following seven propositions:
(a) Religion is an ever present and important element (in) life and has proved to be an efficient tool of mobilisation. It cannot be put aside by ignoring it through the western interpretation of the concept of secularism;
(b) Secularism in India must mean equal respect for all religions by the State as well as the citizen and all concerned have to put this into practice to the maximum extent possible;
(c) Respect for another's religion is born out of correct knowledge of the essential principles of another's religion in addition to one's own;
(d) Inter-faith dialogue is the best means for promoting equal respect ...
(e) Ignoring religion or outlawing it from the educational curriculum in the name of secularism is not the best means of encouraging inter-faith dialogue. In fact this attitude leaves the field wide open for one-sided propaganda;
(f) ... The current decline of values ... can be traced, to an accusation of undue interference against the self- proclaimed secular state; and
(g)... It is reasonable to expect similar constructive behaviour from (religious leaders) if they are made to meet periodically in the forum of a properly constituted National Council which may be established by order of Parliament through consensus among different parties ...
As regards historical memories and their sublimation, the following five propositions may be considered:
(a) Historical memories are partly based on incontrovertible facts and the accretions and emotional exaggerations down the years and partly on the interpretations by historians, writers, folk-lore artists, foreign rulers and others;
(b) Historical memories usually generate two kinds of reactions, negationism and revanchism. Those who consider themselves to be the successors of the injured groups, be they based on religion, caste or ethnicity, develop feelings or revenge; and those who recognise themselves as the heirs of the injurers try to downplay the incidents or deny them outright. Obviously, both the attitudes are wrong and out of tune with the demands of the present and the future in regard to harmonious living;
(c) The correct attitude to historical events is to identify all the complex factors that led to their occurrence, not to stresss one or two factors only at the expense of the others and understand them in consonance with the ethos of the age in which they occurred and not for deriving advantages for, or imposing disadvantages on, one group or the other in the present age;
(d) Both the groups must agree to sublimate them through a process of truth recognition, regret for the offensive incidents, forgiveness and reconciliation in the interests of current life and future progress;
(e) The writing of history books and the teaching of history in schools and colleges have to be completely revamped ...
As regards the third suggestion relating to composite culture, it is not a new one and the Constitution refers to it in Articles 51A(f) and 351 ... Politicians ... talk of mainstream culture, dominant culture and cultural nationalism and thereby accentuate the confusion ... To claim that one variety under each element of culture dominates the other varieties is not correct. What is correct is to say that a large number of people subscribe to one variety of culture, while other varieties are owned by smaller numbers. Again, to claim that any one variety of culture exists in isolation, does not influence or is not influenced by other varieties is also incorrect. As in a salad bowl or in a mosaic, each component has its role and must not vitiate the other components. Just as the dressing enhancing the taste of the salad and the design integrates the colours or pictures of the mosaic, there must be something that accentuates the taste, beauty and utility of the different components of composite culture too. This we must find, emphasise and glorify ... Co- existence inevitably leads to modifications which we must recognise, encourage and glorify.
Lastly, politicians and political parties must recognise that excessive emphasis on group identities, albeit in the name of social justice and exclusive concentration on selected groups lead to erosion of national unity and consequently a breach of the constitutional obligations. Further, in the long run such acts do not also save their chosen interests. For, measures of social justice can be better implemented through a national consensus than through a confrontational approach ... In a democracy, every plural identity has to secure the support of the majority of the people constituting the other identities as well as the relevant constitutional authorities for putting through social reforms successfully, although it may undertake agitational programmes in the beginning. For this purpose, a political party has to plan for wider social base and not confine itself exclusively to one of the plural identities. In other words, it has to bring about a coalition of multiple social forces at the grassroot level and function more or less like an umbrella sheltering diverse interests ... In Indian circumstances of plurality, no political party can get to grasp governmental power unless it represents the interests of more than one identity and in the process actively promotes harmony and equilibrium among all the relevant identities. Hopefully, this will help make the separate identities realise that the mutual social bonds among them, visible and invisible are not insignificant and that the ever-arching societal and national identity is a necessary condition for their survival as well as advancement in a democracy. (Source: The Politics India, April, 1998)
