Multiculturalism, state and the nation

On multiculturalism, the state and the nation

A few years ago, while strolling down the beautiful esplanades of Copenhagen, a group of young children noticed me, looked intensely and remarked,’ look, a painted man’. I had been travelling across Western Europe and had acquired a bit of a tan. I was amused. I smiled and waved and the children waved back bemused at having seen a brown skinned person who was very different from what they were exposed to. This did not come as a surprise to me: Western Europe, especially Scandinavia, was not (and is not) like the Anglophone multicultural countries where I had lived. The brown, black and yellow man was still a novelty and considered exotic. This was a far cry from Anglophone and Anglosaxon countries like the United States, Australia and Canada or neo wests where difference was no longer an issue and different peoples formed and comprised the respective firmaments of these countries. Respect for and even appreciation of difference and diversity was and is the norm in these countries.

The fact of difference being the defining feature of most societies dawned upon me again recently. This was driven home to me by the remarks of a Kashmiri friend and a colleague from Jammu. The Kashmiri friend , whilst travelling with me in my car remarked that there was nothing in common that Kashmiris had with the people of Jammu. Everything- customs, religion, language, mores and worldviews- was different. This observation was eerily echoed by a colleague of mine who is from Jammu. However, both set of peoples found themselves bound by a common state framework where they interacted on a functional and need based basis. Whilst there was reaction against multiculturalism by disgruntled elements in the Anglophone west, this was more or less cancelled by the broad acceptance, recognition and appreciation of difference and diversity in these countries.

What lessons does it hold for non -western cultures and societies like ours defined by tremendous diversity and difference as they are? Broadly speaking, what this mean for the state and the nation and nationalism? And how should the state everywhere respond?

Diversity and difference is not unique to the west. It is ubiquitous. Witness even a small, homogenous place like Kashmir: people of different shapes, sizes and features form the Kashmiri firmament. This difference is subsumed by a common language with different accents and dialects, common customs and culture. Or , broadly speaking, consider India. The country is many countries rolled into one. A Maharashtrian is as different from the Punjabi or the Assamese or the Tamilian as chalk from cheese in terms of culture, customs, mores or even religion. Yet they all comprise the firmament called India. However, while as the state recognizes difference and diversity, multiculturalism as a socially accepted concept and reality is not that strong. There is an element of distance –emotional and psychological-between various cultures and sub cultures. This must change. People must see people as people first and Punjabis, Kashmiris, Tamilians later. The same should and must hold true for other countries defined and marked by diversity and difference. This is the essence of humanism and human rights.

Broadly speaking, this means that the model of nationalism that animated countries – a model which saw the nation (a homogenous entity ) coterminous with the state should change. Assimilative straitjackets should not be foisted and forced upon people. It should be perfectly okay for different identities of a person- primary, secondary and tertiary- to be in harmony and in accord with each other. A Sindhi from Pakistan should be as comfortable with being a Sindhi as he/she is with being Pakistani. Or a Tamilian equally comfortable with being Tamil and Indian at the same time. The same should hold true for different peoples forming the western firmament. There is no reason tension between the various identities of a North African Muslim living in Australia. He/she can be Tunisian, North African, Muslim and Australian at the same time. This has practical and prudent effects: it can potentially obviate the estrangement and alienation that defines many immigrants in different societies. Consequently, then, to twist the Andersenian phrase, new communities have to be imagined.

Nationalism premised on homogeneity and sameness is passé: it does not speak to the contemporary condition. Multiculturalism has to be the new mantra. However, this should not lead to the narcissism of small difference where minor differences are amplified and magnified leading to deleterious consequences. The modern or post-modern state should respond by promoting multiculturalism and making it a reality. This should be followed by acceptance, recognition and appreciation of multiculturalism and its concomitants diversity and difference by society. It is perhaps only when the state and society are on the same page regarding difference and diversity that can lead to peaceful and prosperous societies. And it is then that I ‘wont be seen as a painted exotic species in Denmark and my friend from Kashmir and the colleague from Jammu will recognise and appreciate difference as well as the sameness inherent in all of us.