Pluralism, Identity Politics and Working of Democracy in India

Pluralism, Identity Politics and Working of Democracy in India

 Though I initially felt inadequate to deliver a talk on the three vital issues that are today  revisited in order to preserve and sustain our democracy  for the future, I took courage to give it a try. I am neither a Sociologist nor a Political Scientist who has the requisite scholarship to critique these concepts. I am a generalist who like any student of literature  read about them in order to understand literary works that reflect these concepts while exploring Man and his relationship to the society s/ he lives in.

The theme, apart from being topical and relevant discusses the three key issues that are in need of reformulation today as they represent the basic objectives enshrined in our Constitution such as Secularism, Pluralism, Fundamental Rights etc. It is a trifle disconcerting that these have not been fully realized even after 70 years of India becoming Republic. While the founding fathers of our Constitution envisaged the efflorescence of a new India as a harmonious and integrated nation with citizens’ shared ownership of the nation’s resources, the nation today has fallen way below the fulfillment of their expectations. The two days deliberations with a futuristic focus on the shape of Democracy in India  cannot remain a purely academic discussion,  but have to go beyond the four walls of this room to be  disseminated among the people to enable them to understand, appreciate and work towards re-establishing the idea of India as envisioned by the makers of our Constitution.

Let me attempt my own understanding of the three cardinal terms –Pluralism, Identity Politics and Democracy. All the three terms have to be strengthened as they have moved away from their original definition and need to be reworked through a restructuring of our present society. We need all the three concepts to work in unison to save and sustain democracy. Kindly note that I am here only to critique the three words in contemporary context, and do not have a political agenda to insinuate or indulge in party politics. To critique these concepts in the light of what we witness all around us today is not to start a blame game. This is because collectively we all have to share the failure of not living to the expectation of our democracy and collectively take responsibility to restore democracy in its true sense.

What is Pluralism? While the term straddles many disciplines like Sociology, Philosophy and Religion, it basically refers to the condition of being multiple. As a Sociological term, it refers to a condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society which will prove beneficial to one and all. Similarly as a philosophical term it sums up the belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life. It advocates the condition in which minority groups participate fully in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural difference and thereby benefit the society. The best analogy for pluralism is the five finger phenomenon, where the five fingers are different, each endowed with a different capability and function. Together they hold up the palm. If one of the fingers is not functioning or fractured, it handicaps the person. Pluralism consists of widely divergent groups, each with its own unique potential and works within the compass of allotted work. We do not cut the finger or injure our palm if one of the fingers is incapacitated.

Another way to represent pluralism is to liken it to the chemical term ‘mixture’, that is distinct from its allied term ‘compound’. Mixture is a mix of two or more substances without a chemical bonding while compound is a homogenous substance made up of the bonding of two or more elements that does not lend itself to separation. A society comprises people of different ethnicities, different cultures, different religions and if they have a national bonding, the society becomes homogenous. At the same time if the different groups fiercely retain their individuality without any bonding with others, it may lead to friction and collapse of the society. The debate that rages today in our country is whether our nation should be like a homogenous compound or a heterogeneous mixture? The different groups in India are clashing with one another in the name of religion, class, caste and ethnicity, without the binding substance of nationalism. At the same time, if in the bargain, the different groups feel an erosion of their individual culture and identity, they will feel alienated and cannot believe in being a part of the nation. The current crisis in pluralism- is due to the inability of different groups to be both compound and mixture – to simultaneously retain their individuality and be a part of the national identity. The value of pluralism is that it is like a rainbow made of the seven Vibgyor colours where each colour has its place in the overall arc of all the spectral colours. If you understand the significance of the seven colours, you will appreciate the individual attributes of each colour and how when they blend they submerge themselves into a single white colour. Red signifies passion and vitality, orange represents creativity, yellow denotes wisdom and energy, green reflects balance and growth, blue depicts higher thinking that of spirituality and divinity, indigo depicts intuition while violet is a combination of inspiration and imagination. All these colours correspond to multiple human attributes that are not invested in one single individual but spread through in varying degrees among many. When they coalesce, all the distinct colours submerge into white that stands for faith and purity. Depriving people of their individual uniqueness and forcibly rolling all into one in the name of nationalism or patriotism is at the root of identity conflict. The sociological term Cultural Pluralism describes  a condition in which minority groups participate fully in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural difference, a doctrine that benefits  society. The need of the hour is to celebrate diversity and transform it into pluralism. M.A. Kalam, anthropologist and Professor of Applied Social Sciences, Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, calls our attention to the need to reverse the current majoritarian and unitary tendencies.  He writes “Rewording the Preambular phrase from ‘We the People’ to 'We the Peoples...',  would recognize India's rich heritage of multiple thoughts and faiths coexisting in society, and reflect the nation as the 'salad bowl' that it is.” Mahatma Gandhi, born in Gujarat, worked in South Africa, educated in London, and returned to India to free the Nation from the British rule.  The most unique among his many  contributions was his bringing  together  different people from different regions, North, South, East and West– from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Arunachal Pradesh to Andaman and Nicobar islands, from Shillong to Mumbai- under the overarching umbrella of belonging to India. His classic statement “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” (Mahatma Gandhi (1921), ‘English Learning’,                          Young India, 3(6).p.2) is a testament to Indian Pluralism. In short Pluralism can be best defined as one in many and many in one. It is akin to the ocean where the waves dance on its surface before flowing into it. The waves are a part of the ocean  whence they come and where they go into.

 Cultural pluralism seeks the preservation of individual culture within the National culture and leads us to the second term Identity Politics. The simple and composite definition of Identity politics as given in the Dictionary points to “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances and moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.” The term Identity Politics comprises the two terms - identity and politics. Identity that is used in many ways such as family identity, national identity, genetic identity, class identity etc., is here used to denote shared distinctiveness of a group that gives it a specific individuality. Among the many definitions of the term politics, the one that relates well to identity politics is its reference to “internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.” Identity politics is often seen in a unsavoury light denoting the internal maneuvering among distinct groups to gain control over each other.  But the positive aspect of identity politics is its focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, class, caste and sexual orientation. The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, during the Civil Rights Era in the US.  During this time, identity politics was used by a minority group to form a coalition with members of the majority. The oppressed groups came together to articulate their experience of oppression by dominant groups with the sole aim to raise consciousness and awaken people to root out oppression  and restructure the existing society as  a liberal democracy with an emphasis on human rights.  But the criticism against Identity politics is the view that it promotes reactionary responses and brings divisiveness in society. Intellectual writers like Eric Hobsbawm extended Identity Politics to the idea of Nationalism and expressed concern that  national identities would result in jingoism and proliferation of wars. This was expressed by Rabindranath Tagore who favoured globalism to narrow parochialism in the name of hyped nationalism. In contemporary times,  in

                   India identity politics has brought caste and class conflict to the fore where marginalized groups demand entry into main stream, having been for centuries suppressed and denied any kind of identity and justice as  a  group. The clash between dominant groups and the marginalized groups is a source of worry as it has often resulted in  anger, violence and disruption of normalcy in society. Identity politics is today often used as a pejorative term as it causes divisiveness in society.

                     One has to understand, empathize and support marginalized groups that have suffered injustice and inhuman treatment for many centuries. But the other side is the concern that in this process  is the danger of weakening the state as a political entity  These are the two views that keeps playing out in the political arena.  I would like to cite the example of present day American politics that has a close parallel with identity politics of our country. A fortnight back, days after President Trump’s State of Union address, Stacey Abrams , the democratic leader has come out with a strong advocacy of Identity politics saying that it strengthens democracy. Speaking   on behalf of marginalized groups,  she says they should unite against the dominant groups. For her Identity politics is the most effective form of revolt, as it gives voice to the voiceless and enforces equity and justice to all sections of society. She has contradicted the view of Francis Fukuyama, the well known American political thinker and author of The End of History who is concerned about identity politics wherefore “marginalised groups have come to believe that their identities—whether national, religious, ethnic, sexual, gender, or otherwise—are not receiving adequate recognition.” Fukuyama warns that such grievances articulated by assorted and aggrieved small groups will result in America fragmenting “into segments based on ever-narrower identities, threatening the possibility of deliberation and collective action by society as a whole.”  Fukuyama and other critics of identity politics contend that the focus should be on broader categories such as economic policies and reforms to redress the grievances rather than on the substrates of inequality. Fukuyama and other scholars argue that by enumerating and celebrating distinctions, these groups provide the larger majority justified reasons for excluding them and thereby harden their opponents against any possible solution for redressal. Identity politics in India also has a similar contention between those who feel such activism will strengthen democratic rule by ensuring democratic justice and equity for all people and those who resent it in the larger context of nationalism.  When the groups most affected by these issues insist on acknowledgment of their intrinsic difference, it should not be viewed as divisive. But if this results in the destruction of property and vehicles, lives of people and affect the normalcy of everyday life, one has to look for a solution that factors in both nationalism and individualism.

So the question is, is there a third alternative? I go back to Fukuyama who speaks about the idea of a national identity which he specifies as “creedal national identity” that has the potential and the possibility to erase the  tension caused by identity politics.  What Fukuyama gets right here is the fact that human beings have a fundamental need to belong beyond their group/social identities, as they provide them a basis for esteem and regard that is larger than people’s individual selves. As Fukuyama suggests, identities efficiently satisfy the human need for respect and dignity. So the binary choice  between a national identity without social group identity and narrow group identity that conflicts with the larger interest of a national identity can be bridged by seeking creedal national identity . It is possible to leverage those identities to cultivate and deepen one’s sense of belonging to the nation- and that in our context developing a sense of  Indianness. Creedal national identity is not an empty vacuous phrase. It refers as Samuel Huntington says, to participation in National life, use the national language along with one’s mother tongue, absorb national culture and customs   and identify primarily with the nation rather than with  group identity. This, in essence is a commitment to inclusive identity  but not at the cost of exclusive cultural identity of one’s origin. Creedal identity helps people to develop universalism and individualism simultaneously. When Indian cricket team plays, we are happy if anyone batsman scores a century or any bowler takes the wickets. At that time we feel a sense of pride in India doing well and not grudge that the scoring has not been done by a Tamilian or a Delhiite or a Bengali or a Bombay player. One does not have to relinquish either of the two as it is like the analogy I had earlier given about the wave and the ocean. The waves emerge out of the ocean and after their ebb and fall they become one with the ocean. 

Is it a utopian solution? It sounds so, but not so if it is disseminated among the public. Today the intellectuals do these armchair discourses and feel satisfied at their intellectual grasp of things, but they have abandoned their responsibility to educate the people who have no access to such intellectualism. From the seminar room and our drawing rooms, these discourses have to reach the aam admi. Shared experiences without recourse to aggrieved and angry tone will increase empathy and harmony. Rather than dividing people, the act of reflecting on the marginalization of a social group—be it current or historical—can encourage societal cohesion. We have to be wary of nationalist populism that threatens liberal democracy. Nationalism cannot be right wing or left wing or centrist. Nationalism is like the top of the mountain that can be reached from any side so long as the goal in sight is the focus. Populist nationalism  and identity politics may gain votes in the short run, but in the long run, this legitimacy they get from winning the elections will undermine liberal democracy and also liberal institutions that include the media, the courts and bureaucracies. The damage to a liberal world order is at stake and the future of democracy appears shaken. What we need is not specific group identity or nationalist identity of one kind, but integrative identity to create a cohesive national democratic community. Fukuyama with his incisive understanding has given a possible solution. He says: “Liberal democracy cannot exist without a national identity that defines what citizens hold in common with one another. Given the de facto multiculturalism of contemporary democracies, that identity needs to be civic or creedal. That is, it needs to be based on liberal political ideas that are accessible to people of different cultural backgrounds rather than on fixed characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or religion.”. Let us caution our people about how privileged groups turn the nation xenophobic through populist nationalism and how the lachrymose splinter groups  endanger the cohesiveness of the nation.  We need to be more proactive, more participatory and more engaged in reaching out to the masses who are today driven by political leaders who have their eye on immediate gain in the elections.  This seminar with its splendid theme of three key issues will serve a national purpose if each one of the participants here will take the responsibility and the pledge  to educate the public on integrative identity- the concept of one in many and many in one.