Cultural integration obtains when everybody within the polity is not simply in it but of it. It is a situation which imparts a sense of belonging to all citizens wherein the distinction between the ins and the outs is done away with. Viewed thus we have to travel a long distance to achieve cultural integration in India. One of the main obstacles in achieving cultural integration is the persisting tendency to characterise the followers of some of the religious faiths as 'outsiders'.
... Religions which are believed to be products of conquest (Islam) and colonialism (Christianity) ... are dubbed as 'alien' religions ... They are also proselytizing religions. Further, their numbers, particularly that of Muslims, are so large that they have considerable political clout. It is important to note that being proselytizing religion. Muslims and Christians of India are primarily converts from native peoples and that too mainly from Adivasis, Dalits and Dravidians who are . pre-Aryan ... At any rate, pre-conquest Islam and pre-colonial Christianity existed in India. Thus Islam is 13 centuries and Christianity is 20 centuries old in India.
Indian Muslims and Christians do not constitute cultural communities in that they do not have a common language or adhere to the same lifestyle ... Muslims and Christians are not races. They do not occupy a common geographical space; they are not 'regional' communities. They are born, live and die in different parts of India and speak a multiplicity of languages. What is, however, common to them is their religion which they share with fellow Muslims and Christians all over the world. Therefore, to identify religion as the sole basis of their identity is incorrect and illogical ... To stigmatise Christians, three false ideas were invented and propagated. First, conversion to Christianity was motivated by material considerations ... Second, Christians did not effectively participate in the anti-colonial struggle as the colonisers were also Christians ... Third, ... some Christians are secessionists and hence anti-national. The fact is that the Indian Christians have not claimed any part of India as their exclusive homeland ...
The case of Indian Muslims is more complex. They are held responsible for the partition of India. But three facts are important here. First, the allegation that Muslims were responsible for partition is applicable only to Muslims of North India, particularly of UP. Second, a substantial section of the Muslims were vigorous participants in the anti-colonial movement. Third, at the time of partition only a small section of Muslims from ... India migrated to Pakistan; the vast majority stayed back.
The fact that India has two Muslim majority states as its immediate neighbours makes the situation more difficult for Indian Muslims. The continued contentions between India and Pakistan about Kashmir render the Muslims in India an object of instant suspicion ... The problem of Indian Muslims is basically political. But in order to construct them as an object of hatred which is politically useful, they are characterised as culturally different from the rest of the Indians, particularly the Hindus. The point is that culture is not an important basis of distinction between the different religious communities of India ... We need to know the different layers and levels of culture ... One may distinguish between cultural universals, specialities and alternatives. Cultural universals are shared by the entire humanity. But within this universe one can speak of cultural differences across civilizations and societies. In all societies there is an elasticity of permissiveness at the individual level in regard to dress, food, and style of life in general. Cultural alternatives indicate the individual variations in cultural practices within cultural universes, that is, societies and civilisations. If a sufficient number of individuals follow similar alternatives they come to constitute a cultural sub-group.
Cultural specialities are identity markers of particular cultural groups - religious, linguistic, tribal etc. What distinguishes Indian Christians and Muslims ... is their cultural specialities. Cultural specialities of religious groups are their beliefs and rituals ... Social rituals are shared by those who belong to the same linguistic community. There is hardly any social ritual shared by the entire Indian population. That is, the cultural groups which practise the same social rituals are Maharashtrians, Punjabis or Tamils and not Hindus, Muslims or Christians. Thus, a Maharashtrian Muslim or Christian shares most of his social rituals with other fellow Maharashtrians and he shares his canonical rituals with the fellow community spread all over the world.
To invoke religion as the sole identity marker ... is to misrepresent their identity by ignoring all other aspects - social, economic, political and cultural. The majority of the Hindus in India know this but are often silent. But a section of militant - communal Hindus deliberately choose to highlight one element from the identity - set of Muslims and Christians. This is deliberate, false and mischievous. This should be exposed, questioned and resisted
... The proportion of cultural speciality practised by Indian Muslims and Christians is very limited and in fact increasingly diminishing. This is evident from the changing dress pattern, dietary practices and social rituals. Thus, the degree of cultural integration, save the religious beliefs and rituals, is steadily increasing. In fact, the cultural specialities of the linguistic communities are more elaborate and persisting than those of religious communities ... But the irony is that the religion-based cultural specialities are magnified and utilised to mark out the religious minorities.
A set of cultural traits are attributed to Muslims and Christians whether they practise them or not (e.g.) polygamy in the case of Muslims. This imagined identity is then invoked to stigmatise and castigate them. To get over the difficulty they are advised to Indianise even as they share most of the cultural practices of the rest of Indians. Some Muslims and Christians ... defensively declare that they are Indians first and Muslims or Christians second. This creates a false dichotomy between Indian citizenship and religious identity ... In reality there is no hierarchy of loyalty but only contexts of identity.
