Multiculturalism and Identity Crisis

SHARMILA BOSE
1868/14, Govind Puri Extn.
Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110 019
Ph – 9811915670
Email. : bosesharmila@rediffmail.com


5th February, 2009

The Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi.

Kind Attn. : Dr. Manmohan Singh

Sub : Multiculturalism and identity crises

Sir,

I hope you are keeping fine. This is further to my papers on State-Society relations I am giving my views on multiculturalism and identity crises.

As, I view the society is an extension of human body and the governance is based on the human virtues i.e. emotion, reason and faith. Understanding ‘terrorism’ will be incomplete without enhancing the significance of culture in cultivating the social character.

Culture is not an entitlement of the society rather it is a manifestation of human character that nurtures the society. Since the human kind is heterogeneous in nature so there is an existence of multiple culture. Culture and religion have the similar base. Religion is a bigger form of culture. Religion is a fabric that binds the society together to give a specific identity. Culture is the base that relates to that identity. Culture is micro and religion if macro.

We, India, being the plural society, various cultures have nurtured us ever since its existence. Many sustained and many perished. The adoption of culture or the assimilation of cultures signifies that there is no absolutism in the strength of any culture that signifies its permanence.

Protection of culture in the form of rights is blurred in understanding the importance of culture. ‘Right’ is a political entity. When any claim is considered to preserve a specific culture or cultures signifies weakness in the culture itself. Any culture that is not able to enhance the human character perishes gradually and no political claim can preserve it since culture nurture human behaviour and it has a natural existence but not governed, and if the State restricts any culture to flourish, under-qualifies as statehood.

The next aspect of this discourse is castes in Hindu culture. There are various explanations on ‘caste hierarchy’, which I feel has a limitation in understanding of Hindu civilization. ‘Human evolution’ has not been considered while interpreting the existence of Caste in Indian society.

Historically, I see Caste as an evolution of the society and it was based on the structure of society that led to state. The four structures i.e. Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya and Brahmin. In the historical doctrine it has the placing of feet, thigh, arm and head. If we analyse the evolution of the society, the first were the cultivators (Shudra) who were self-sufficient. Gradually, the increase on interdependence created exchange of goods (by batter system). This exchange of goods further enhanced to the coinage system which were termed as trade (Vaishya). When there is exchange of goods and creation of purchasing power i.e. monetary system led to accumulation of wealth. Accumulation of wealth created insecurity and hence a community that rose as protector (Kshatriya) of the wealth. When power protects accumulation of wealth leads to subjugation and exploitation of the grass-root people, i.e. cultivator/creators (Shudra). Subjugation and exploitation leads to deterioration of the society. When there is a fall in the society, some people who come up to give directions and elevate morals and values are known as scholars (Brahmins). These four pillars are extremely essential for the structure of Indian society, since it is the land of cultivators and the land of spirit i.e Shudra and Brahmin. Economy (Vaishya) and Administration (Kshatriya) are the support pillars.

Non-existence of educational/training institution, the legacy of knowledge was transformed from generation to generation that led to character of inheritance in structures. The exploitation (an academic vocabalary) of a particular caste structure needs to be studied more elaborately. More emphasis is given on the exploitation by the feudal lords (kshatriya) in the society. I view this otherwise. The exploitation of human essence is done for the maximizing the profits and the said are achieved in trading. The only way to earn maximum profits was by devaluing human labour. The said concept was benefited to the group called Vaishya (traders). Traders were the intermediates to feudal lords and the cultivators/artisans (Shudra). Feudal Lords could not exploit the cultivators since they were the work force of the land and could be the victims of the revolts. Whereas, the traders had a clear escape and hold no responsibilities. Feudal Lords were getting only the share of the profits (royalty) that was further used for administration of the society.

The guilt earned by the exploitation done for the maximizing profits by the traders to the society were further washed up by performing rituals that were undertaken by Brahmins (intellects). Since, intellect is the attribute that could not be inherited, led to the deterioration in the Brahmin structure and hence became the tools of trader (Vaishya) and further became catalyst towards the exploitation of one section of the society.

The groups Shudra, Kshatriya and Brahmins inherited the attributes cultivator/creators, warriors and intellect. But the community of traders manipulated these attributes for their sustainability. As they remained undercover they were never in the lime light as exploiters. Traders did not possess attributes, their survival was based on speculation, manipulation and appropriation. This led them to be insecured and hence lived in a closed community and followed the rituals religiously. The said group’s interaction among the other groups were mainly formal i.e. transaction. This group further created a gap amongst the rest of the three communities and hence became separate identity. The survival of Brahmins by the donations on religious act performed by these traders led them to create a social stratification where the cultivators / artisan did have a neglected placing. Also the Kshatriyas were happy with the royalties from the said group and were not very responsible towards the grass-root people, i.e. Shudra.

During the freedom struggle, Indian nationalists realized the destitution of Shudra. Post Independence gave them an identity of ‘dalit’ along with the ‘preferential law’ (reservation) to upgrade the destitute of the said group. The ‘preferential law’ was given to them with a view that they should not be neglected by the rest of the groups as they were the victims historically. The said law has given them enormously exposure in the society by way of identity and protection of their identity, i.e. the identity that they have inherited historically. But the question is whether this identity has strengthened the said structure or just became a tool for further exploitation.

The said ‘preferential law’ towards dalits gave them an opportunity to come in the main stream for education and employments in different sectors. There is an ample protection when it comes to dignity of the said group (at least constitutionally). But what went wrong the role and the attributes of the said structure remained unrecognized and uncorrected. The dignity of the said group cannot be attained unless the structure is well build. This led to a creation of Naxalism which is a biggest threat to the country than ‘terrorism’.

We have (globally recognized) strong economy (vaishya), strong administration (kshatriya) and scholars (Brahmins), but smashed cultivators/creators (shudra), which led to a limping growth of the society even though we are absolutely equipped.

Whereas, in Islam, the community called Muslims have a different stand. Muslim is an egalitarian society, since they do not have structure. They are traders by legacy and they are governed by religion i.e. Islam. (Any community that is governed by faith is closed and narrow) Since they are traders, for their protection they have equipped military. They have no bond with the Land and hence they are Community bond. This community has no Shudras or Brahmins. This structure is standing on two pillars, and hence the growth is inappropriate. Brahmins are too essential in harmonizing the community. This community creates a balance in the structure and hence cannot be overlooked. Shudra are the base of the society. Unless the base is strong the structure will not be durable. Hence, I see Muslims a structure which has no base and no roof
.
I view caste as a structure that has base (Shudra), walls (Vaishya & Kshatriya) and a roof (Brahmins). All four are equally essential and see no hierarchy in this. If the state focus on the governance of economy, then we will have non-colonized scholars, equipped administration and this will further strengthened the grass-root people i.e. cultivators. Shudra and Brahmins are very essential in the human society, i.e. base and roof. Any society, where there is non-existence of these two groups or either will lead to deterioration and hence will be Muslims (culturally, politically and socially).

Another major academic discourse is the question of private property or unequal distribution of wealth or accumulation of wealth in small section of the society. The two major thoughts Liberals & Marxists have given significant arguments to justify their strands where one advocates for private property as an incentive / motivation to efforts and other claim as an abuse of the community property. But both of these thoughts did not discuss the ‘curse of inheritance’.

Inheritance is a phenomenon, which has created individualism and communalism that led to identity crisis. Inheritance leads to accumulation of wealth for the successors. Inequality in the attribute leads to unequal distribution of wealth. Motivation of acquiring private properties further paved the way for subjugation and exploitation that is further responsible for the collapse of human society.

What will happen if we erode the phenomena of ‘inheritance’? We cannot inherit attributes, but can only acquire through dedication. These attributes get rewards/ incentive by way of wealth. If the wealth is the reward and incentive to one’s attribute, then how can we ‘will’ those rewards or incentive to our successors? When the private property is the essence of ‘individualism’ (liberals), then how it can justify ‘inheritance’?

Historically, land grants given to warriors or scholars as incentive against their contribution in the war or intellect. But what went wrong, the said became ‘inherited’ by the kin without earning. This led to ‘birth right’, which has no significance in the ‘nature’s law’. Wealth is common property and has no significance to the ‘birth right’. Inheritance creates dynasty and dynasty is not permanent. Anything that is dynastic is prone to invasion and collapse since attributes are not inherited, it is individual’s assets. Inheritance creates province boundaries and these boundaries further create identity. When boundaries became dynastic, then it leads to identity crisis. Anything that is dynastic, whether state governance, political parties or corporate, is bound to deteriorate. This is further relevance to the individual inheritance as well. All the family conflicts arise from inheritance crisis.

If inheritance will erode, how the society will be. The rewards/incentive earned by the community will not be a legacy. It will be only an incentive to individual efforts. Secondly, it does not erode the provision of private property that Liberals are quite worried about. Thirdly, since the wealth is not inherited by the private successors, the said wealth will be utilized for the community for the well being and by this the community will grow sustainable, without exploitation, hence resolves Marxist’s concern. This will also resolve the Naxal crisis. Eroding ‘inheritance right’ will create a return path for the transition of our country’s enormous wealth that is being drained in the private account of few individuals in the foreign bank in the foreign land.

Erosion of inheritance will erode two world crises. I can see that this will lead to a Utopian society.

With best regards and with you a GOOD HEALTH,



(SHARMILA BOSE)

(In my concluding paper ‘On Submission’, I will look for a way out how the political representation should work to the best of the abilities of the representative so that it can be used for the good governance and how the virtues of the society i.e. reason (law), emotions (power) and faith (spiritualism) can bring the social harmony within the frame of ‘dejure’.)