Mahatma Gandhi in the context of Globalization, Multiculturalism and Peace Building in Twenty First Century

Understanding Multiculturalism in the Centenary of First World War

Gandhi lived and worked in three continent- Asia, Europe and South Africa.  He was in that sense a citizen of the globalised world. His ideas are, therefore, of enduring relevance. The theme “Globalization, Multiculturalism and Peace Building: Challenges and Prospects for Twenty First century” is of crucial significance for our time. The subject assumes greater currency in the context of widespread apprehension that in a globalised world the uniform spread of western culture and values pose a major threat to cultures of other peoples who are in a disadvantageous position in reaping the benefits of globalization. The aspect of peace building which has been so considerately incorporated in the theme acquires special meaning when we observed the centenary year of the First World War. Hundred years back large parts of Europe was engulfed by war and bloodshed the magnitude and intensity of which was not known in earlier period of its history. Before the war broke out relative peace prevailed and the celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes famously wrote that a Londoner of that period could order anything from any part of the world by sitting at home and enjoying peace and tranquillity which he thought would last and become a permanent feature. However, with his remarkable insights into future he cautioned that the projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, rivalries of culture and races and policies based on restrictions, monopolies and exclusion would act as serpents in the paradise of peace. Today when we are focusing attention on multiculturalism in the context of globalization and peace, it is rather noteworthy that Professor Keynes described, among others, the rivalries of cultures and races and polices of exclusion as serpents in the paradise. It meant that if cultures and races remained engaged in rivalries their coexistence would become impossible and, therefore, multiculturalism would be endangered and thereby putting peace in jeopardy.

Affinity with Ordinary People a factor for Peace

Less than three decades later the “serpents of the paradise” became lethal and wrought havoc. The onset of second world war started the   spiraling process of violence and bloodletting at the root of which remained the venom of the serpents which were nurtured in the form of cultural rivalries and exclusion. Before the horrific Second World War began many peace loving people were quite exercised to find ways and means of preventing it. Some of them wrote to Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle and practitioner of non-violence in the modern period of twentieth century, to do something for averting the war and   saving the world from its catastrophic consequences. He wrote two letters to Hitler and in one such letter he wrote something which is very striking and is of abiding significance for building peace for the twenty first century world. He appealed to Hitler to stop that war because he could hear dumb cry for peace from among Europeans as he was tuned to the dumb millions of India. Therefore, the fundamental prerequisite for peace is to remain tuned to the life style of dumb millions or in other words the ordinary people who often become victims of injustice, discrimination and exploitation. The peace building measures call for such affinity and kinship with vast masses of citizenry who are yearning for a social order free from violence and abounding with opportunities to pursue cultural liberty, celebrate their faiths and have access to social, economic and health entitlements without any discrimination solely because they followed a particular creed, spoke a specific language or belonged to a particular race or ethnic group.

Homogeneity a Factor behind violence

Earlier reference was made to the pronouncements of Professor Keynes that rivalries among cultures and races and policies of exclusion would endanger peace. Those insightful observations have to be seen in the context of emergence of nation States in Europe which were built around one king, one faith and one law and evolved accordingly. The homogeneity of those nation states in terms of faith, language and race generated intense competition and rivalry which eventually gave rise to aggressive nationalism, war, violence and colonialism.  In the globalised world of early twentieth century homogeneity in a nation was thought to be a desirable factor for the purpose of safeguarding the unity and coherence of the nation and introducing democratic method of governance. The statesmen of those nations who understood the evolutions of their modern societies around one faith, one law and one king could never conceive that nation building and governance would be possible in a vast and diverse country which had many faiths, languages and ethnicities. When Indians while engaging themselves in the struggle for independence,  under the leadership of Gandhi,  demanded introduction of democracy and democratic institutions the British authorities scoffed at it and one such leading British leader Lord Northbrooke who was a Member of the House of Lords famously stated in 1930s that “…to think that India with all its vastness and differences in religion, languages and castes would ever be able to work a parliamentary institution is the wildest of dreams that has entered the mind of men”. He said so in spite of the demand of Mahatma Gandhi for an institution of Parliament in 1917 around the time when the First World War was on.

Diversities Promote Relative Peace

Diversities were thus considered as divisive endangering unity and cohesion. Diversities were considered to be a stumbling factor for purposeful action for nation building. Homogeneity and uniformity were per se counted as salutary conditions for a coherent approach for uniting a nation and governing it by employing democratic or parliamentary method. Indian society which was defined in terms of its variety and plurality was considered as incompatible with democracy and democratic method of governance. However, over the decades it has now been deeply realized that diversity instead of retarding progress and development can be a factor for onward advancement. Indian society which is diverse through thousands of centuries remained a standing refutation of what was erroneously interpreted as clash of civilizations. Mahatma Gandhi’s articulations that he did not want India to be wholly Hindu or wholly Islamic or wholly Christian, but wholly tolerant with all its religions co-existing side by side and flourishing, testified to the authentic multiculturalism of India which dates back to thousands and thousands of years. What is achieved by India in fostering unity, progress and democratic management of a diverse society is a distant goal for many nations or group of nations. The European Union is a clear example of an attempt to put together people of different nationalities, languages and ethnicities. Yet it has nowhere come near the achievements registered by India. Its reluctance and refusal to accept Turkey as a member of the European Union on account of it being a Muslim country brings out the reservations against full-fledged multicultural policies which the European Union aspires to embrace.   

In twenty first century world no nation can be counted as a homogeneous nation in terms of culture, religion, language and ethnicities. Most of the nations are diverse and plural. In fact, globalization driven by information technology and lightening flow of information, data and image and faster movement of people and goods and services have been factors for promoting pluralism even as there are reactionary groups and movements which put in jeopardy the freedom of people belonging to other nationalities, minority faiths and linguistic groups and deny them access to their social, economic and many other entitlements which are fundamental for a wholesome living. No wonder that Mahatma Gandhi had eloquently said that “Our ability to reach unity in diversity will be the beauty and test of our civilization”.

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity

In 2001 the UNESCO for the first time adopted a Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and stated that cultural diversity is as essential for human society as biodiversity for forests.  It is clear from this that cultural diversity and biodiversity are seen separately and their importance is understood in the context of human society and forests respectively. But it is interesting to note that Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore in one of his illuminating essays on forests wrote that diversities of society flowed from diversities of forest life. So if there is mass extinction of life and plants in forests then that would lead to loss of diversity in society. In other words, we have the Indian insights flowing from the writings of Tagore which teach us to value biodiversity for protecting diversities of society at the core which remain multiculturalism. Therefore, in defending multiculturalism we defend biodiversity. This is how the larger significance of the theme has to be understood.

Multiculturalism and Human Development

While the UNESCO adopted Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, the United Nations Development Programme in 2004 brought out the Human Development Report on the subject “Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World”. It states that cultural diversity empowers and widens choices for people.  It also affirms that while addressing the exclusion of people from economic, social, health and other opportunities and entitlements we cannot promote human development if they suffer from cultural exclusion which deprives them to pursue their faiths, speak their languages and follow their customs and cultural practices.  It does not mean conservatism or cultivation of reactionary outlook which arise out of outmoded cultural practices.  To remove cultural exclusion, the Human Development Report of 2004 states that multicultural policies are essential as these widen choices and expand the mind. 

There are major think tanks in the world which in their thoughtful reports articulate that wherever there is multiculturalism and social diversities there is relative peace and non-violence.  If Indian society has never witnessed any crusade or religious wars throughout its long history, then it can be attributed to co-existence of many faiths which became the texture of lives of people Therefore, multiculturalism can be an important factor for peace and tolerance which promotes human development and broaden choices of people and expands their mind.  Therefore, Declaration on Cultural Diversity adopted by the UNESCO in 2001very appropriately put in Article 3 that Cultural diversity is a factor in development.  In 21st century world when economic development and progress is the defining aspect of international relations and politics we need to have multicultural policies for accelerating such development and providing opportunities to all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups to be beneficiaries of such development.  It is, therefore, important to not only recognize and adopt multicultural policies but also widen opportunities to people of all faiths, linguistic groups and ethnicities to have access to social, economic and other entitlements. 

Muscular Liberalism threatens Multiculturalism 

There are very discordant and disturbing voices against multiculturalism emanating from some of the leaders of the developed democracies.  In 2012 while participating in the European Security Conference organized in Helsinki Prime Minister of Britain Mr. David Cameron observed that Muslims in British society failed to imbibe British values which stood for respect for women, cultivation of democratic outlook and acceptance of dissent.  He put forth the point that failure of the Muslims in British society to imbibe such values led to the failure of multiculturalism in Britain.  He argued that to enable Muslims to imbibe British values what was needed was not multiculturalism but muscular liberalism.  Such kind of articulations made by the British Prime Minster invited criticisms from many quarters.  It is rather strange that in 21st century world when multicultural policies are being embraced by large number of countries for peaceful co-existence and human development we hear about muscular liberalism which is a negation of multiculturalism and liberalism.  In fact, it is revealed by the World Values survey that Muslims wherever they may be living, be it predominantly in Muslim countries or in other countries, are as much supportive of democracy and democratic values as people professing other faiths.  Such stereotyped notions that Islam is incompatible with democracy has to be rejected lock, stock and barrel for projecting it in correct perspective and harnessing its immense potential for success of multiculturalism.  It is very appropriate to refer to the statement of a counter terrorist expert from Israel who during his visit to India some years back observed that Indian variety of Islam would be an effective antidote to terrorism because it is based on Sufism. 

Diversities are Empowering

Gandhi's worldview is based on celebration of diversity.  We need to make diversity delightful, exciting and empowering.  Any attempt to make diversities “disquieting and disempowering” , as the Human Development Report of 2004 cautioned, will be extremely dangerous for a globalised world which is inevitably becoming conscious of social diversities and cultural pluralism and which is using them for making globalization work.

Multiculturalism and Gender Equality

When one talks about multiculturalism one is conscious of not only co-existence of different cultures encapsulating diverse faiths, languages and ethnicities but also common policies based on commonalities of manifold cultural streams which give shape to our society and nourish it.  It is in this context that one has to also locate gender equality, human rights and the culture of acceptance and tolerance for sustenance of multicultural policies.  Women in all cultures have suffered discrimination and deprivation on account of their gender.  For the success of multicultural policies, we need to have cultural practices which are supportive of gender equality, women’s empowerment and affirmative action for women so that they are represented adequately in politics, legislature, economics and many other spheres of our society.  The critical mass of 33 per cent of women which have been calculated by the United Nations to be the indispensable factor for greater representation of fair sex in politics has to be necessarily factored into multicultural policies for advancing the cause of peace and establishing a corruption free polity and society.  The statement of Gandhi in 1947 that he would prefer women to men in legislatures bears significance in this context.

Making Globalization and Multiculturalism Work

In a globalised world multicultural policies can be promoted in a positive manner if globalization process is made pro-poor.  In his book Making Globalization Work its author Joseph Stiglitz very clearly stated that multiculturalism is taken forward more vigorously in a globalised world.  However, he stated that globalization can be made workable by adopting policies so that the developing countries get fair treatment in doing trade and commerce and getting represented in a fair manner in the financial institutions such as World Bank and IMF which are responsible for shaping the contours of globalised world at the heart of which remain the economic issues and factors. 

Ancient Wisdom of India a Source of Multiculturalism

An American author Mr. Bruce Reach visited Odisha in 2008 and went to the place where Kalinga War was fought in 3rd century BC.  He was stunned to note that the Emperor Ashoka renounced war as a policy after winning that war and ruled his vast empire, stretching from Kandahar to Kanya Kumari and from Gujarat to Easter Frontier of India, based on non-violence, ethics and respect for life.  He observed that if Ashoka was ruling such a vast empire in 3rd century BC in modern parlance he in fact was ruling the whole world.  Based on his illuminating understanding he wrote a book entitled “To uphold the world: A call for global ethic from ancient India”.  In it he argued that if Ashoka could rule such a vast empire based on non-violence, ethics and respect for life then we in 21stcentury can recall that approach and rule the whole world by following the same principles.  In other words, the ancient wisdom of India as outlined in Ashokan edicts can uphold the world.  And the central aspect of Ashokan edicts revolves around acceptance of diverse faiths and cultures.  This means adoption of multiculturalism as a framework for growth, development, wider choices, non-discrimination and above all for peace.  By harnessing the ancient wisdom of India and combining it with modern understanding of multiculturalism we can promote peace in a globalised world and make globalization a positive force for preserving cultural diversity, biodiversity and providing social, economic and health entitlements to those who are deprived of these. 

The author served as Officer on Special Duty and Press Secretary to President of India late Shri K R Narayanan and had a tenure as Director in Prime Minister's Office and Joint Secretary in Rajya Sabha Secretariat.