Cultural diversity and National integration

Rajendra Kshetri *

(This is an enlarged version of a speech delivered on 11th December, 2015 as Resource Person in the Winter School on Socio–Cultural, Religion, Political & Value Education for National Integration (7-29 December, 2015) conducted by UGC – Human Resource Development Centre, Manipur University).

Good morning everybody. It is more than a pleasure for me to be here this morning as it gives me an opportunity to be part of this Winter School (even if it is for a single day). I must thank Dr. H. Sudhirkumar, Co-ordinator of the school for inviting me to be a Resource Person and deliver a lecturer on "Integration".

Integration, you know, is the buzz word these days. Whether it is the territorial and the administrative integration of Manipur or Naga integration or National integration, it is integration, integration and integration. All the way. Isn't it? That is why "Integration" is such a value loaded concept/term. It is therefore not always easy to talk about integration as it involves several diversified issues such as religion, culture, race, language, community, etc.

Today, this morning, I shall speak on the cultural aspect of integration – cultural diversity to be precise. Why Culture? Because culture matters. Culture is what basically identifies you. What is culture then?

One of the very tedious tasks in social science discourse is definition, especially of abstract terms. The term "culture" is a case in point. Culture means many things to many people. Culture from a sociological perspective, refers to a set of beliefs, practices, rituals and traditions shared by a group of people with at least one point of common identity (such as their religion, language, race, community or nationality).

In other words, culture may be taken to mean the "way of life" of an entire society. What is at core at the sociological understanding of culture is the sense that it is different from nature in that it is a product of conscious choice and not the instincts (biological determinants).

Of the many things that I have picked-up and/or learnt from my chosen field of profession, one stands out for its ever-increasing relevance. There are and should be different ways of looking at things, or say, in the language of social sciences, issue(s) and/or problem(s) can and should be appreciated/understood/explained from different perspectives. I shall therefore, to begin with, share with you or place before you two (2) perspectives vis-à-vis cultural diversity of North East and National integration. First is the regional perspective and the second, the national perspective.

Regional Perspective:

We all know that the North East, a land of 8 states (including Sikkim), is a cultural mosaic of various ethnic groups having its own unique history, culture, languages/dialects, identity, religion, social customs, practices, etc. The people of north–east are always proud of their cultural heritage, as is wont with all ethnic communities of the world.

What is worrisome and in fact a matter of great concern is that this unique cultural heritage/identity of the region has not even been partially, let alone fully, accepted/recognised by the rest of the country.

For the last couple of years, the north–east is always in the news and hit the headlines. For all the wrong reasons, though. You see, we have been hearing, experiencing, reading about hate crimes, racial discriminations committed against the north-east people in different parts of the country.

Whether it is in New Delhi, Bangaluru or Chennai, people belonging to the north-east are targeted, beaten up, murdered, molested, teased and mocked at. More often than not, the north-east people have been taunted, jeered with racial remarks such as 'chinky', 'momo', 'Chinese', etc. What happed to Richard Loitam in Bangaluru and Nido Tania in New Delhi are but only two instances of such several incidents.

All these recurring patterns of events/crimes committed against the north-east people made me wonder and ponder whether India, the largest democracy in the world, is a mature nation. What went wrong with the Nehruvian idea of secularism? What happened to his grand idea of "idea of India" so eloquently discussed in such illuminating manner by Sunil Khilnani in his "The Idea of India".

I must mention here, though, that Khilnani betrays his mainland mentality by ignoring/excluding (deliberately?) the socio-cultural and political history of a culturally distinct section of India's population – the Mongoloid population of the North East. Is it because the North East population is too small and meager to be given any serious consideration?

Is it because the people of the North East lack something that mainland population has? Have this region not contributed enough to the nation-building process? Have the people of the region not fought against the British during India's freedom struggle? Have the North East not produced T-Ao, Bhupen Hazarika, Ratan Thiyam, Kunjarani, Mary Kom and made the whole country proud? Or is it because mainland India has a prejudiced and pre-determined mind when it comes to the North-East?

National Perspective:

India is a land of NOT one culture but multicultures. Pluralism and multiculturalism is what India represents and should represent. There is, of course, the question of 'dominant culture', versus less dominant culture. Dominant culture generally believes in assimilating less dominant cultures resulting into identity crisis/loss of the latter.

If, on the other hand, assimilation is not possible, for some reasons or the other, dominant culture then, rejects the less-dominant cultures altogether and never allow them to be anywhere near the national identity/ culture.

Is this, then, the case that is unfolding before us between the north-east and mainland India so far as the cultural identity of the country is concerned?

Now, having given/placed before you the two perspectives, let me state categorically that India is too large a country to be obsessed with and dominated by one single culture. The very idea of having a super culture dominating others is inimical to the idea of an inclusive India. It is, in fact, self defeating as it will be against the very fundamental idea of "unity in diversity", the corner-stone of 'National Integration'.

Let there be a hundred flowers. Let each one of them, bloom, flourish, nourish, and nurture. Let every single flower shine in all its glory. Let there be 'diversity in unity'.

I shall end my speech with a few posers: Are we a nation? Do we have a pan India national identity? Do we have a national character (like the Japanese and the Chinese)? Do we identify ourselves first as an Indian who happens to be a Manipuri, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Tamil and so on, or/and vice-versa?

Thank you, thank you all for bearing with me all along.