Project Report

Submitted By
Reezu Kaushik
Enrollment No. 15-2480
Session: 2015- 2017

Jamia Millia Islamia

Department Of Political Science
 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PLURALISM IN SOUTH ASIA

Introduction
Most of the countries in South Asia are multi-cultural and multi-national. These countries are
composed of plural societies, communities or cultures. Let us call them groups. They have their
independent cultural traits and world views. Such plurality needs careful management, especially
because it leads to inevitable competition and often conflict among these disparate groups. The
political systems in South Asia are generally biased in favor of majority. Another unfortunate fact of life
has been the numerical preponderance of one group over others. In case of Pakistan, it is the Punjabis;
in case of Bhutan; it is the Bhutanese, and in case of Sri Lanka it is the Sinhalese. This engenders a
feeling of insecurity among the minorities. The majority communities are also internally divided and
can be split into several groups and sub-groups which compete for power and influence in their own
ways. The clashes between various groups are quite visible in all these states and this has posed
problems for national integration efforts, and affected national security as well. The South Asian states
have sought to manage such competitive plurality politically through a state sponsored process which
has been often called 'nation building'.

What Is Pluralism?
Pluralism is a concept which accommodates diversity and regards diversity as inevitable. I Unlike the
advocates of monism who ignore multiple, disparate identities, cultures and traditions and often make
deliberate efforts to roll combine them into one artificial I political unit, pluralism accepts plurality as a
fact of life. It seeks to protect and promote such diversity in spite of (or more so because of) the
differences among them.

Pluralism in a society denotes existence of differences in terms of culture, language, , customs,

traditions, etc. These differences are also known as diversities. But pluralism is different from
diversities. While the latter shows just the existence of diverse groups with political rights. All countries
of South Asia are pluralist.

We are here only concerned with' plural socio-cultural identities within the political system of South
Asia and how the interplay of the politics among various plural groups can be managed in a productive
and profitable way for the South Asian states.

The South Asian Situation

South Asia has often been characterized by some as a melting pot and by others as a boiling pot of
competing and conflicting cultures and civilizations. The countries in the region are unmistakably multi-
cultural. Some scholars call it multi-national. Apart from the Maldives, all the countries have a rich
linguistic diversity. Again, in terms of religion or diversity, all the major religions of the world are
followed in South Asia. There is also the factor of caste cutting-across religious diversity in most of the
states. There are other fault lines on the basis of regional identities and geo-cultural differences.

Pluralism and Democracy in India

India is home to all the major religions of the world. But Hindus and Muslims divide the religious-
cultural matrix in India. The competition for resources between the two communities, basically
initiated by the elite-driven politics during the colonial days led to partition of the British colonial India
into two separate states. One of them, Pakistan, later split up on the basis of language. The Bengali
speaking Muslims of the eastern Pakistan split to form Bangladesh. This single example is perhaps best
illustrates the cross-cutting religious-cultural sympathies that define the South Asian political reality, In
India, in spite of the partition on the basis of religion, the elite ensured the introduction of secular,
parliamentary democracy which has exhibited exemplary capacity for evolution and endurance.
However, in the post-independence India, ironically the system of democratic governance, especially
through the electoral method of selection of the ruling dispensation, has enabled political mobilization
on the basis of all possible group loyalties - caste, class, community, region, religion and language. This
has deeply politicised the peripheral identities and groups and fragmented the polity. At another level
the unifying appeal of Hindu religion has sought to bridge the intra-communal and intra-religious
divide. This has, in turn, communalised the polity and resulted in communal clashes and disturbed
political order in the state.

There have also come up regional demands for the formation of autonomous states within the Indian
union. The cases of Bundelkhand, Vidarbha (eastern Maharashtra), Vindhya Pradesh (northern Madhya
Pradesh), Telengana (north western Andhra Pradesh), Kosala, Purvanchal (Eastern Uttar Pradesh), Harit
Pradesh (Western Uttar Pradesh) illustrate such examples. The provinces within the Indian Union have
been reorganised in the past keeping one or another criterion in mind. Besides, there have also been
separatist movements in certain parts of the country like north - east, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab.

The primary reason for such fissiparous tendencies has been the dysfunctioning of democracy and the
shrinking capacity of the state to deliver. The root cause for the rise of militancy in Kashmir was the
manipuIation of the democratic process by the regional elite and the gross and injudicious oversight of
such a phenomenon by the central administration. The same has been true of the north - eastern
states as well. The primary cause of disaffection in these states has been a perception that the people
there have been discriminated against. The crisis of governance at the local level has thrown up a
secessionist elite at the periphery. The introduction of the element of force into the whole framework
of resistance has created more problems for the Indian state than it has resolved. This in turn has
engendered the right wing and militant politics.
The overwhelming assertion of the Hindu right wing in politics in recent years has emerged as yet
another indication of the nature of political transformation taking place at certain levels. This has
compelled analysts to observe that a hegemonic Hindu majoritarian political culture is in ascendance in
India, which will seek to impose an artificial uniformity on the Hindus themselves. At the same time, in
spite of such assertion, the intra-religious divides have evolved into lasting political constituencies, i.e,
the Yadavas, the Bhumihars, the Dalits or Bahujans. The left wing extremist constituency -Naxals,
Maoist Communists or Peoples War Group, is slowly rising on the political horizon as yet another
political class. This again traces its origin primarily to dysfunction of democracy and inability of the
state to address the grievances of a underprivileged section ofthe population.

Pluralism and Democracy in Other Countries of South Asia

In other countries of the region, democracy has not had a smooth run so far.

In Pakistan the military-bureaucracy combine along with a class of opportunist politicians have
ruled the country for most part of its sovereign existence. The ruling elite has suffered from crisis of
legitimacy from time to time. For example, Nawaz Sharif who was elected into power with a huge
mandate was dethroned by the army chief Parvez Musharraf. 'The main reason for army action is
generally attributed to the undemocratic assertion of absolute power by Nawaz Sharif. The army has in
its own way sought to derive popular legitimacy through rigged referendum, poorly participated local
bodies elections and even a stage-managed national election. An unequal competition, in terms of the
power they wield, has been going on between the military administration headed by Mushamaf and
his crony-democrats in power and the political forces he shut out of the electoral fray. It is also
imperative to add here that the intra-Islamic plurality in Pakistan has come to the fore in recent years
in a militant way. It has been a free for all battle among the Sunnis and within Sunnis among the
Deobandis and Barelvis, the Shias, and the Ahmadiyas. The growing militarisation has effectively shut
the door on democracy. The plural face of Pakistan in the shape of Pakistan Oppressed Nationalities
(PONM), the combination of Balochis, Sindhis, Pathans and Seraikis pitted against majority Punjabis is
also slowly emerging as a political reality in Pakistan.

In Sri Lanka, the majority Sinhalese has effectively displaced an otherwise influential minority
Tamils from the system of governance since the 1950s and this had led to a civil war in the island since
the 1980s.

In Nepal too, democracy has developed in a very warped way where the elites have shamed the
very system of democracy by their fights ever since they shifted from Ranacacy to Constitutional
Monarchy. The failure and malfunction of the democracy has led to Maoists taking control of
hinterlands. The state is fighting a pitched battle and here again no solution will ever be possible unless
and until the ruling political elite demonstrates its wisdom in accommodating the Maoists and letting
them democratically place their demands on the states.

In Bangladesh, the utter criminalisation and deep politicisation of the society has divided it into
two hostile camps: the liberationists or the followers of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and the anti-
liberationists who are now aligned with Islamist right wingers. The latter had opposed the creation of
Bangladesh at one point of time. Democracy is fast establishing itself in Bangladesh in electoral terms
but with a booming population and rising indices of illiteracy and poverty, the real spirit of democracy
may take a hit in Bangladesh.

How Plurality is Managed

As has been shown above, countries other than India in South Asia have adopted a warped model of
democracy. In all these states, a hegemonic 'ethnic order' has emerged which jealously guards its
privileges. If it is the Punjabi elite in Pakistan, it is the Sinhalese elite in Sri Lanka. The Punjabi elite in
Pakistan has accommodated Pushtun elite in some ways, but the Sindhi and Balochi elites are kept out
of the domain of political power. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese elite, ironically empowered by democracy
and game of numbers, has completely marginalised the Tamils.

The state has adopted a coercive style in dealing with cases of assertion by the plural identities. The
state of Pakistan during the early years of its history was seen caught up in a serious power struggle
between the Bengali-speaking East Pakistani popular leadership and the Punjabi dominated political,
bureaucratic and military leadership of West Pakistan. In a bid to overpower the more numerous
Bengalis the Punjabi dominated-west Pakistan leadership brought about a forced unity among
disparate nationalities who had no obvious common thread of unity among them except Islam. This
imposed sense of an artificial unity has been continually reinforced by the ruling elite over the years.
Even an otherwise suave and westernised politician like Bhutto, ~lio gave Pakistan its first well-
negotiated constitution, was seen replicating the coercive measures the Pakistani army had employed
in East Pakistan. He ordered the same army recovering from the shock of a division to silence the
Balochis during 1973-1974. Of late, in view of the Balochi assertion and the united movement by
Oppressed Nations of Pakistan, the military admir.;stration has demonstrated restraint until now. But
the style of management of ett~nc -i~ur,l differences still remains primarily coercive. Some times the
power elite in South Asia have also attempted to accommodate the dissenting groups.

Conclusion
A cursory look at the political situation in South Asia reveals that the system of democracy that has
been adopted in various ways in the countries in the region, with perhaps some exception in the Indian
case, still fall pathetically short of the plural standards they have set upon themselves.
There are large number groups with different culture, languages, customs, ethnicity, etc. These groups
have both harmonious and conflicting relationships. Conflict in South Asia takes various forms -ethnic
conflict / riots, autonomy movements, etc. Autonomy movements even threaten the sovereignty of
the nation-state; the ethnic conflicts threaten the public order. These pose challenge to pluralism in
South Asian countries. There are two models available for managing challenges to pluralism - the
liberal and consociational. The states in South Asia have largely attempted to manage challenge to
pluralism by accommodation and coercion of the various groups.

The South Asian states have sought to manage such competitive plurality politically through a state
sponsored process which has been often called 'nation building'. The basic thrust of such efforts has
been to privilege one dominant perception over others and ignore differences. All cultural and national
identities rolled into a singular whole i.e., 'one nation'. Such assimilative nation - building efforts have
failed because such state sponsored ideas of 'nation' have failed to appeal to all the groups. The
challenge to plurality basically comes from such misdirected efforts by the state.

In the states of South Asia, it is imperative to help build an atmosphere of trust and harmony for
democracy to succeed. The cross-cultural links among South Asian states should enable a regional
model of growth and cooperation. The states in the region will have to evolve further as states and not
representatives of one particular community or group of select communities. At the internal level, they
have to ensure justice and'fairplay and encourage political participatian by the people in the affairs of
the state. The political elite in all these countries will have to show enough maturity to accommodate
the interests of other groups and help other groups develop in their own ways. Plurality will succeed
~nly when differences will be allowed to play themselves out in an impartial, open, liberal and
nondiscriminatory atmosphere.