The role of ethnicity, territoriality,religion, etc. in the integration of Indian society can be appreciated in the framework of its civilization. A common mistake in formulating the notion of Indian civilization is in identifying it predominantly or entirely in terms of the dominant Hindu tradition.
Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and several tribal traditions have existed and enriched the civilization of India. The inheretance from the West is not less in many fields. Its mental background and equipment, though largely influenced by the persistance of Indian tradition, have been moulded into their present shape by over a hundred years of Western education extending practically to every field of mental activity. Its socialideals are not what the Hindu society has for long cherished, but those assimilated from the West and derived predominantly from the doctrines of French Revolution, and to a lesser, though to an increasing extent from the teachings of Marx and the lessons of the Soviet experiment. Even the religious beliefs of Hinduism have been transformed substantially during the course of the last 100 years. In fact, it will be no exaggeration to say that the new Indian State represents traditions , ideals and orinciples which are the results of an effective but imperfect synthesis between the East and the West.
This brings us to the problem of diversity in Indian traditions and cultures and its bearing upon the process of unity of the civilization. This unity can be obseerved at several levels, especially in the oeriods before the Western encounter. An important source of unity can be noticed in the process of cultural and technological communication and interaction. Travelling mandicants, traders, storytellers, craftsmen and artists in traditional India established cultural bridges of unity between regions. The institutions of pilgrimage, fairs and festivals provided yet another nodal point for cultural unity in the framework of its diversity. The organisation of Indian cultural tradition at the levels of the folk and the elite have had a large measure of mutual give and takethrough localization of the cosmopolitan or elite traditions and cosmopolitization of the local traditions. This also extended to the levels of social and cultural mobility in the system.
The political economy of the imperial system created administrative, educational, technological, and cultural institutions and personnel whose role was cosmopolitan rather than local. These institutions functioned as bridges among local social systems and cultural traditions. This was also reflected in the inter-structural autonomy of traditional Indian social structure. Indeed, the traditional caste panchayats and panchayats of the occupational groups especially the artisans, craftsmen and service communities such as the washermen, barbers and potters etc. who were linked together under the system, enjoyed autonomy in both self-governance and for enforcement of rules of reciprocity with the larger society.
Social categories like caste, language, religion and region, etc. have a pan-ethnic charecter. The linguistic reorganisation of states in India following independence was based on similar erroneous assumption that a linguistic community articulated homogenous social group phenomena. Half-a-century after Independence we find that a variety of new interest-groups have merged within linguistically re-organised states on the basis of caste, religion and territory. The Indian social structure and civilization cannot be understood onthe basis of a single principle of social organisation, be it caste, religion, language, or community. Each of these manifest vital elements of the Indian social structure and its civilization, but none of themindividually encompass in totality. An organic pluralism is inherent in the principles which define the Indian civilizationand its social structure. Empirically, caste is a local phenomenon, only its ideology , (varna) has an extended effect. Over a period of time, caste has structurally and ideologically penetrated several other religious and cultural traditions like christianity,Islam and Sikhism. Religion and language, though indicative of groups solidarity, at a certain level they are fractured by differentiation of such groups on the basis of caste, region, occupation and wealth. Within each group, there are factors which articulate their internalsimilarity, but there are also strong elements which outcross each respective bond and unite with those based on dissimilar principles. There is diversity, but it also has a framework of unity.
Indian civilization has evolved through many stages providing a network of institutions and ideologies which offer unity in plurality. These institutions and their normative principles do reflect the cultural-religious traditions of HInduism but these also transcend its confine and emerge as a composite system of values, norms and styles drawn from various cultural traditions. This is what constitutes systems of political organisation, of control and administration of revenue, trade and market, military, the intellectual accomplishments in the fields of medicine, art, science, architecture, music, drama, etc. which represent a synthesis of many forms and styles, and combine the sacred with secular in its structure and function. Inter-structural autonomy existed in the framework of unity of civilization.
The process of Western contact through colonialism introduced a qualitatively new orientation. The British followed a mutually contradictory policy in the pursuit of their colonial objectives. First, their policies activated the regional , religious and segmentary impulses of people in India. This set into motion fissiparous tendencies in society and enlarged the territorial, religious, communal consciousness among people which seperated communities and groups rather than linked them together. The British due to the exploitive nature of their rule had to introduce technological, industrial and economic-administrative measures which had macroscopic extensions, such as the railways, factories, police, army, judiciary and roads. Slowly, in course of freedom movement the British also introduced political reforms which laid the foundation of civic culture and democracy. Paradoxically, the British policy on the one hand, strengthened the forces of regionalism and on the other hand established institutions for a pan-Indian consolidation of colonial state with imperial dimensions.
It created a social situation in the country in which a dualism between principles of primordiality such as territory, religion etc. and the principles of civic rights like universal suffrage , democratic freedom, etc. had to be recognized. The Constitution of India reflects and incorporates this dualism. It propounds the foundations of a civic society based on secularism, rationalism, freedom and equality. At the same time, it also recognizes the special rights and previleges of those sections of the Indian society which wee exploited for centuries. The reorganisation of states soon after Independence on linguistic basis also reflects the sensitivity of Indian leaders to reconcile the aspirations of regional and segmentary entities with that of the aspiration to build a modern, secular, democratic, socialist nation-state.
Ethnicity in the form of an encapsulated consciousness of culture, customs and ways of life becomes more articulate through encounter with civilization which represents processes of modernization, economic, political, technological and scientific. Most issues which lead to the rise of ethnic mobilization seek recognition of their distinctive status and represent demands in social, cultural and political fields. A large part of these demand related ethnic movements can be resolved following a strategy of constructive reconciliation. The policies of the Indian state have been responsive to such demands in large measure and have yielded good results in the past. The examples are the seperatist movement in Tamilnadu during the 1950s, the Assam and Mizo accords. The strategy of reconciliation through accords goes together with the process of planning. It is the process of upward mobility and rise of a middle class among the ethnic groups and minorities which gives fillips of demands of territorial and seperatist nature. The policy of reconciliation should, therefore, help in abolition of the deprivation of such groups both at the existential and cultural levels. The Constitution of India, in a way, is designed to promote reconciliation policy in a constructive fashion. It also sets a limit to this process. The means must remain non-violent, and democratic goals must not transgress sovereignity of the state.
The seperatist movement in Kashmir is a glaring example. It sets its goals beyond the limits of the Constitution. Reconciliation with such demends poses organic threat to the very edifice of the Indian nation. Short of the demand for a theocratic political set-up, many channels for the reconciliationof other demands of the movement can be accommodated through democratic processes. The other example is the territorial movement for Gorkhaland in eastern India. This movement demands seperate state within the Union for their self-governance. The irony is that most such demands continue to emerge from states which were earlier reorganised on linguistic lines. As the process of development particularly, growth of education, politicalization, aspiration for social mobility and social justice gain momentum, it is presumable that more and more sub-regionalization of identities would take place. Hence, a reconciliation strategy anchored in creation of smaller and smaller states may not succeed in defusing such demands. It may even prove to be counter productive. Yet, given our political framework of democratic participation and decision making, the principle of reconciliation cannot be foresaken.
Most demands by sections and groups are based on issues which have a political-economical character and can be met within the framework of the Constitution. This can be a success only if reinforced by suitable social and economic policies. These policies would have to be evolved inan inter-related fashionas they are organically inter-linked. Some of the policy measures may be outlined as follows:
The social and cultural institutions of the minorities should be jealously protected and whereever possible, opportunities may be given for their development so that deprivation of any kind may not lead to frustration and alienation.
This policy may be backed with measures of economic development of the groups with suitable mix of the policies of macro and micro planning supported by voluntary institutional efforts. The focus should be increasingly on decentralization and self-help, so that specific nature of the deprivations could be looked after and removed.
The policies with regard to education, information and communication should be suitably formulated to take into consideration the need to create manpower and skill among the deprived groups and providing a basis for their participation in the macro-social institutions of culture and development in the country. The media policy should also orient itself to the need for a balance between the projection of the regional and national levels of social, political and economic profiles of people. Ineducational institutions, too much regionalization due to linguistic demarcation of states has led to negative outcome such as decline of standards and national perspective. It may be necessary to introduce a mix of both regional and national perspectives by amendments in admission, curriculum and employment policies. This has to be done in a phase wise manner.
There is a need for developing linkages between the regional national institutions of planning and social reforms taking into account participation and interdependence. The regional groups should be made a part of the national level institutions and must be made conscious of their reciprocal responsibilities.
All these stategies must, however, be subordinated to the totality of the national ideology of political, economical and social development governed by secular, democratic and non-violent principles. India's strength in nation-building lies in it's legacy of the non-violent tradition raised to the level of a political craft by Gandhiji. The unity in diversity in India can forever be sustained.
