Cultural
Diversity Challenge
By Masood H. Kizilbash
The beginning of the
21st century has given rise to divisive threats,
especially in the Third World. These threats arise
from the polarization of society along cultural,
ethnic and religious lines in the states and have
already led to the fragmentation of some states
such as Yugoslavia, Indonesia, South Africa etc,
while others are about to meet the same fate.
The cause of the resurgence and assertion of cultural,
ethnic and religious identities and the internal
conflicts and wars that these identities have generated
in the states, is generally ascribed to ‘state
failure’ associated with corruption, neglect
of small-scale agriculture, government control over
the economy and financial repression. In nutshell,
it is considered a purely domestic phenomenon. The
truth of the matter, however, is that the international
forces of globalization and democratic values that
are sweeping across the world at the moment and
are aimed at integrating with the global economy,
have destabilized our societies and intensified
conflict.
The forces of globalization have increased poverty
and unemployment, especially in the Third World
with half of the world’s population living
on less than two dollars a day and one fifth of
humanity — some 1.2 billion people —
surviving on less than one dollar a day. In fact,
globalization has not only brought about a fall
in average income and high levels of unemployment
on account of structural reforms but also promoted
income redistribution, exacerbating a divide between
a group or region and other groups or regions. Economist
Mark Duffield has remarked that “rather than
promoting stability, globalization has helped illiberal
and quasi feudal forms of political economy to expand.”
Poverty in general and the redistribution of income
in favor of one cultural group or the other in poor
and economically vulnerable countries has given
rise to cultural, ethnic and religious groups, each
asserting itself in order to clinching economic
and political power in the state. This is well articulated
by Paul Collier in his paper ‘Doing Well Out
of War: An Economic Perspective.’ He says,
“At one extreme they (rebellions) might arise
because rebels aspire to wealth by capturing resources
extra-legally. At the other extreme they might arise
because rebels aspire to rid the nation, or the
group of people with which they identify of an unjust
regime”. This grievance is based on economic
inequality among groups and regions, manifested
in unequal income or in the unequal ownership of
assets.
The purpose of these groups is to use ‘differences’
as a medium for making economic and political gains.
David Turton in his study War and Ethnicity lucidly
makes this point: “What both sociological
traditions appear to have missed was the possibility
that a cultural, linguistic or religious difference
might be defended and asserted not as only an end
in itself but also as a means — and particularly
effective means — to economic and political
advancement”. The roots of ethnic, cultural
and linguistic conflicts are, therefore, buried
underneath the economic differences among different
classes of society and organizations based on cultural,
ethnic, linguistic and religious lines use them
as a means to demand their economic and political
rights.
Now we come to Mr Sardar Aseff Ali’s article
‘The Question of Identity’. The writer
makes out a case for discarding the ideology of
Pakistan and adopting the cultural identity of the
Indus Valley civilization as the basis of the state.
He goes on to suggest that the Muslims of Pakistan
belong to a South Asian culture that evolved through
a huge South Asian diffusion of language, literature,
food, poetry, architecture, painting, etc. His deductions
are not based on the historical truth of economic
disparity between Muslims and Hindus which motivated
the Muslims of India to organize themselves to demand
economic and political rights in an undivided India.
Neither has he analyzed the causes of contemporary
internal conflicts within states.
The ideology of Pakistan is purely based on a historical
truth that following the wresting of power from
Muslims, the British government of India remained
suspicious of Muslims rising against its power in
India. For this reason, it kept them in a state
of economic deprivation. This was managed by them
through the enforcement of discriminatory policies
against Muslims in the services, business and industry.
These policies helped to improve the economic and
financial status of Hindus and opened up the gates
of poverty for Muslims.
When chances of India acquiring an independent status
emerged, there was fear among the Indian Muslims
that the discriminatory policies of the British
government in India, long embedded in the system,
might be continued by the Indian National Congress
party which was dominated by Hindus. It was this
fear that led our pre-independence leaders to demand
constitutional safeguards for Muslims in a future,
undivided and independent India.
If any examples are needed in support of this reasoning,
there are many: the Lucknow Pact of 1916, the 14-point
rejoinder to the Nehru Report of 1928, the subsequent
warning of Mohammad Ali Jinnah to Congress leaders
at the All-Party Conference at Calcutta about ignoring
minimum Muslim demands for representation in a future
Indian government, the acceptance of the Cabinet
Mission Plan framework by the Muslim League in 1945
and Nehru’s assertion thereafter of the right
of carrying out amendments to the plan.
Surely, the demand of ‘constitutional safeguards’
by a cultural minority of Muslims was asserted as
a means to ensure economic and political advancement
in a future constitutional setup in undivided India.
However, the majority represented by the Indian
National Congress denied it and preferred the division
of India rather than granting this right to a religious
minority. But does it mean that we should reject
the two-nation theory as the genesis of Pakistan
or our statehood and substitute it with the Indus
Valley Civilization? Will this substitution help
galvanize various groups raging in our state on
sectarian, ethnic and cultural grounds and bring
harmony and unity? Will the renunciation of Urdu
or Hindustani which evolved as a link language in
undivided India to ensure cohesion among various
cultural groups in Pakistan?
But these are not causes of our growing divide.
The cause is globalization which has helped illiberal
and a quasi-feudal form of political economy to
grow in Pakistan and has contributed to a redistribution
of income in favor of one group over the other.
Hence, Pakistan today is riven by disparities among
regions and classes. The assertion by these regions
and groups emanate from economic factors. These
groups are articulating their cultural identity
for making economic and political advancement which
has been denied to them since long.
The substitution of genesis of Pakistan by the Indus
Valley Civilization will not bring internal conflicts
to an end because the Indus Valley Civilization
is not a ‘unitary identity’ of all federating
units in Pakistan. The remedy lies in granting political
and economic rights to all regions and groups for
enabling them to make economic and political advancement.
This is what is importunately pressing for the preservation
of our identity as a state. This step needs to be
supported by measures aimed at neutralizing the
negative effects of globalization on our economy
so that the size of the cake is not reduced and
its distribution is not skewed further, giving rise
to an upward swing in poverty levels and an assertion
of cultural identities with renewed force.
Any linkage of the ‘Indus Valley Civilization’
with the huge South Asian culture is an escapist
route and will not bail us out of our present problems.
Identifying the Indus Valley Civilization with the
broad-based South Asian culture amounts to forgetting
the lessons of history that our country came into
existence owing to the deliberate denial of rights
by the majority to the Muslims. The majority in
the South Asia has never rejected their pre-independence
leadership for their political decision. Why should
we? (Courtesy Dawn)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
