Chapter – 8

Citizenship and Diversity

Chetna Sharma

A civilization can be judged by the way a society treats its minorities.

Mahatma Gandhi

Citizenship in the modern world is a lot like feudal status in the medieval
world. It is assigned at birth; for the most part it is not subject to change by the
individual’s will and efforts; and it has a major impact upon that person’s life
chances’ Joseph Carens (Carens 1992:26).

Introduction

One day, while traveling in a Karol Bagh - Gurgaon D.T.C. (Delhi Transport
Corporation ) bus, I overheard two people talking about the status of Muslims in
India. One of them made a point about the privileged position Muslims enjoy in
India, and how despite that, they have made a demand for reservation. The other
said that since we are all citizens of the same country, we should all be treated
equally by the state; why, then, are they getting certain privileges? They have a
special status when it comes to marriage and divorce they can have four wives,
while Hindus can only have one. These point raised by the common person are
important. Citizenship means equality, but these exceptions lead one to think: does
the state treat all of us equally? Do the policies of the state discriminate against
different communities? Do the diverse ethnic and national communities receive
equal and fair treatment in the public and political arenas? What needs to be done
in order to provide equal status to different communities?

Citizenship has always been associated with membership to a specifically

defined political community. From ancient Greece to the end of feudalism, and
from the emergence of modern nation- states to the dawn of the twenty – first
century, citizenship has been about the relationship of mutual support and solidarity
that exist among members of a political community and the relationship between
individual and the state. The relationship between individual and the state and
among individuals in a state defines the boundaries of citizenship. However, these
boundaries of citizenship, their meaning and their conceptual framework are
changing in a world in which nation – states have gone through fundamental
changes. States are no longer based on a single homogenous nationality; instead ,
they consist of multiple nationalities, ethnic groups, natives, refugees, immigrants,
etc. The demand of these different groups for better accommodation of their interest
within the polity, their demands for a greater voice in policy-making and the
decision -making process of the state, and recognition in the state challenge the
boundaries of political community and the conception of citizenship. The challenge
lies in restructuring of institutions of the state to ensure inclusion and participation
for all who are members of a political community. Since individuals and groups
with fragmented identities need to live together politically, it means finding some
common basis from which their claims on the state can be judged. Citizenship is
supposed to provide this reference point. Starting from this position, my objective in
this chapter is to identify the various issues and debates currently taking place
around the notion of citizenship and the prevalent forms of diversity in the state,
and to evaluate the current restructuring of citizenship rights in various countries.

Dimensions of Citizenship

 Citizenship is understood as a relationship between the individual and the

state, as well as among individuals. It is based on the principle of equality
among members of a political community. Citizenship denotes a status; being a
citizen of a state implies that each and every member of a political
community is to be treated on an equal footing.
 This status has been identified with a second dimension of citizenship: a
bundle of rights and responsibilities that the state owe its citizens, citizen
owe the state, and citizens owe each other.
 The full exercise of these rights depends upon the existence of democratic
institutions, which guarantee their continuity and provide its citizens with an
opportunity to play a role in the definition and administration of the common
good.
 Another important dimension of citizenship is that it denotes an identity. To
be a citizen is to identify to at least some degree with the political
community to which one belongs, and to be disposed to behave towards
one’s fellow citizens in ways that promote the stability and unity of the state.

All these dimensions indicate the foundation stone of the project of citizenship –
the notion of equality between all individuals within the political community. It was
possible to ignore the existence of cultural attribute and related values because the
borders of the cultural community and the national community were considered to
correspond. T.H. Marshall took for granted the cultural uniformity of ‘the nation’
while describing the expansion of citizenship rights in England. According to
Marshall, national consciousness as an essential component of citizenship is based
on ‘a common loyalty to a civilization which is a common possession of all.’
Cultural differences were relegated to the private sphere, which was less worthy of
political attention. The idea of universal citizenship recognizes only one
membership, namely that of the state and dismisses all other affiliations and
loyalties.

However, in later years a culturally neutral and homogenous definition of the

political community, one that laid more emphasis on socio-economic equality,
became hard to sustain. Along with changing times and changing realities, debates
emerged to alter, expand and restrain these dimensions of citizenship as citizens
contested, debated and redesigned the boundaries of their relationship with political
authorities.

Change in the realities of the state and its Impact on the

understanding of Citizenship:-
Apart from being a legal status bounded by certain rights and entitlements,
citizenship is also a political practice, and is hence not static but dynamic. By the
1960s, new developments had been pointing the nation – state in different directions,
with far reaching implications for the concept of citizenship. An important
development was ethnic resurgence within the nation state. National minorities all
around the world were framing demands for a recognition of their interests, and to
ensure that institutional arrangements guaranteed their cultural differences.

During this period, there was mobilization for claims of equality from other
‘minority groups’ which were also expressed in terms of diversity. A range of
social movements led by women, gays, lesbians and religious minorities made
claims for an inclusion of their interests, and criticized the supposed equal treatment
of social rights for being discriminatory and representing the interests of dominant
sections of society.

During this period, the socio demographic reality of liberal democracies changed.
With the increased and intensified flow of people on a global scale and the
resultant large scale immigration, the issue was how to include immigrant
populations in the receiving state. The important concern was the extent to which
immigrants would adapt to the changing realities of the new state and give up
previous allegiances.
 Due to all these changes what emerged was a multicultural society that
consisted of several well organized cultural communities, each with a more or less
distinct conception of the good life, and a different history, social structure,
traditions, language, needs and aspirations. In order to make it a stable and united
society, it should find ways of fostering a sense of belonging among the members
of these communities, even in cases where they wish to continue to remain attached
to their community. Belonging to a political community is a two –way process: it
involves reciprocity, and one cannot belong to a community unless one is accepted
as a valued member.

In multinational, multicultural societies, the routine assumption of universal

equality often marginalizes the experiences and interests of minorities , because
treating all people equally usually means treating them in terms that refer and are
in relation to the values of the majority. Equal treatment will not be enough in
circumstances where different groups are unequally affected by the policies that are
chosen. It results in minority groups considering themselves either fully or partially
excluded from social, economic, political or cultural systems.

It is very important that citizens be treated justly by the institutions of the

state (courts, police, administration, etc.). They should be able to participate in the
political process and take advantage of the educational, employment, welfare and
health opportunities of their state. But the principle of universal and uniform
citizenship has in fact left many structures of discrimination untouched within the
polity. The identity of a person as a citizen is only one of many identities;
individual often carry their cultural identities into the public domain as well. In the
uniform citizenship model, the chosen standards generally express the culture of the
majority community within the state, that is, what is prescribed as desirable is
shaped by the preferences of the majority. As a result the principle of universal
rights discriminates against the minority community.

The important question is: if some citizens are culturally and ethnically
different should they be treated differently? If yes, what effect would such a policy
have on the principle of equality, which lies at the core of citizenship?

The challenge facing liberal societies is developing a conception of citizenship

that accommodates the linguistic and cultural realities by which different people
may choose to define themselves, without jeopardizing the unity of the political
community in a pluralists society or the concern for the rights of citizens.
Citizenship is a multiple rather than a singular status, and the concept of
citizenship shoulder reflect this complexity.
The Different Kinds of Minority Groups

In today’s world, most states are for a variety of reasons multicultural, multi-
ethnic and multinational. Different groups face different challenges while finding
their place in the larger state, and demand special accommodations of different
kinds. So we first need to consider the sort of groups that exist within a state,
although there is no single unified way to define the prevalent ethno-cultural
diversity in a state.

However, we may distinguish between different groups to understand their

political stakes in a multicultural state. Professor Will Kymlicka divides them into the
following groups.

National Minorities

Communities qualifying as a nation when they are historical communities, are

more or less institutionally complete, occupy a given territory or homeland, share a
distinct language and mass culture and think of themselves as a nation. There are
many more nations than there are states. National minorities are communities within a
nation that share a state with one or more larger ( or more dominant) nations.
They can be stateless nations or nations without state in which they are the
majority. They find themselves sharing a state with other nations for a variety of
reasons, but seek to maintain or enhance their political autonomy either through
secession or through some form of regional autonomy. The Quebecoise in Canada,
the Scots and Welsh in Britain, the Catalans and Basques in Spain, the Flemish in
Belgium, the Germans in South Tyrol in Italy, and Puerto Ricans in the United
States are examples, of this type of minorities. These are examples of regionally
concentrated groups that conceive of themselves as a nation within a larger state.
They want to achieve recognition either in the form of an independent state or
through territorial autonomy within the larger state. In the Asian context, the Karens
and Shans in Burma, the Baluchis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Sikhs and
Kashmiris in India, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka are examples of national minorities.

Similarly, indigenous people such as the Indian and Inuit in Canada, the
Aborigines of Australia, the Maori of New Zealand, the Sami of Scandinavia, the
Inuit of Greenland and the Native Americans in the United Sates are also national
minorities whose traditional lands were overrun by settlers and then forcibly and/or
through treaties incorporated into states run by outsiders. They seek to maintain
their traditional way of life while participating on their own terms in the modern
world. They also wants respect and recognition from the larger society because for
a long time, they have suffered as second class citizens or even as non-citizens.

Immigrants

A second important source of the prevalent diversity is immigration, that is,

the decision taken by individuals and families to leave their original homeland and
migrate to another society. Kymlicka makes a distinction between two categories of
immigrants - those who have the right to citizenship because they have arrived in
another country under an immigrant policy that gives them the right to become
citizens after some time under some minimal conditions. The other category of
immigrants though are the people who are never given the opportunity to become
citizens either because they entered the country illegally, or because they entered as
guest worker but overstayed their initial visas ( like many Turks in Germany, for
instance). Michael Walzer define these group as metics, an ancient Greek term that
means long terms residents who are nonetheless excluded from the polis.

While the first category of immigrants demand some accommodation in the

policy of the state for the expression of some of their religious, linguistic and
cultural differences which Kymlicka defines as poly-ethnic rights the second
category face enormous obstacles to integration and so tends to exist on the
margins of the larger society. Thus, there is always a danger of creating a
permanently disfranchised alienated and racially defined under class.

Refugees, according to Kymlicka, are also migrants seeking asylum; however

the migration is not voluntary, and accommodating these group involves lots of
problems and policy changes.

The United Nations estimated that, in 2005, 191

million people lived outside their country of birth, a
figure that has doubled since 1975 and continues
to rise (Un Population Division, 2006). At the
dawn of the twenty -first century, about one in four
or five residents in countries such as Australia
(24%) , Switzerland (24%), New Zealand (19%), and
Canada (18%) were foreign born, as were one in
eight in Germany (13%), the United States (13%),
and Sweden (12%).
Religious Groups

There are some small groups that voluntarily isolate themselves from the
larger society. These people belong to some religious sect whose theology requires
them to avoid contact with the modern world, such as the Amish in the United
States, who want to withdraw their children from schools to prevent their contact
with the modern world. Spinner- Halev calls the members of such groups partial
citizens, because they voluntarily waive both the rights and responsibilities of
democratic citizenship (Kym-licka 2000; 23).

There are also groups whose members want to shield themselves or their
children from very specific aspects of mainstream culture that are at odds with their
faith, and so require exemption from certain general rules. A classic example is the
case of Sikhs, who seek exemption from certain military and police dress codes
concerning appropriate headgear because they want to participate in the central
institutions of the state without compromising their religious beliefs.

Sui Generis Groups

There are some ethno-cultural groups that do not fit comfortably within any
of the discussed categories, like the African Americans. African Americans do not
fit the voluntary immigrant pattern because they were brought to America as slaves.
They do not have a traditional home land in America and so are not national
minorities. They have distinct demands of their own. They want respect and
recognition from the larger society and an equal say in the policies.

The Amish is a community that began to emigrate to the US in the

early eighteenth century. Amish children learn at an early age that
their self-will must be given up if they want to become children of
God. Devotion to God and to their community is central to their
lives. The Amish do not own cars (although they can ride in them
as passengers), they do not use electricity from conventional 110
volt sources (although gas or hydraulic powered generations are
permissible), nor do they own televisions or radios (Spinner 1994:
19) People who break the rules of the Amish community are
punished, and sometimes even expelled. However, anyone can leave
the Amish community at any time, as the Amish lay stress upon
the voluntary nature of their community.

Amish parents did send their children

to elementary and junior high schools to
learn basic language, math and science
 skills. However, they do not want their
children to attend public high schools
because they feel that the ‘worldly’
influence of such schools would lead
their children away from the traditional
‘other-worldly’ Amish lifestyles. In 1968
in the state of Wisconsin, three Amish
men were arrested for not sending their
14 and 15 year old children to school,
thereby violating the law of compulsory
school attendance through the age of 16.
The state argued that it had an interest in
ensuring that each child received an
adequate education over and above that
the Amish children received from their
community, to live an Amish way of life
only. The state’s argument, however,
failed to prevail in the Wisconsin v.
Yoder case because the Amish wanted to
maintain their distinct identity as a
separate community. Many of their values
and practices are illiberal, as the liberal
state encourages its citizens to be self
reflective and promotes the ideal of
equality and autonomy. However, being
tolerant, the liberal state can only encourage
its citizens to be self- reflective, and not
force them into being so. This means that
within certain limits, people in the liberal
state can reject liberalism.

Ways of Respecting Diversity in Society

In a multicultural society, different cultures articulate diverse conceptions of

what comprises a good life. The ideas is that there is something worthwhile in each
culture, and it is important that its members underscore the value accorded to
cultural diversity. The challenge lies in showing respect for diversity in a pluralistic
society without damaging or eroding the bonds and virtues of citizenship. Through
an examination of these debates, the idea is to learn whether there is a notion of
citizenship for multicultural states that accommodates ethno-cultural differences
fairly, while at the same time maintaining and promoting the virtues, practices and
solidarity needed in a liberal democracy. To accommodate diverse groups within the
state, the following responses have been suggested.

The Liberal Response to Diversity

One proposal suggested by left-leaning liberals is to ensure better inclusion

and opportunities for participation through redistributive justice. Strengthening the
welfare state and social programmes is supposed to have a positive effect on
minorities. This response, however, does not address all the questions of cultural
diversity; cultural minorities may suffer socio-economic disadvantages, but they
usually perceive the root of the problems as lying in the discriminatory policies of
the state. This approach treats identity claims as only a channel through which to
express socio-economic alienation.

Republican Response

Republicans lay emphasis on civic virtues and attachment to the institutions and
values associated with citizenship to create a sense of belonging that is not
associated with cultural identity, but with the capacity to participate in the polity.
According to Republicans, the states should foster a neutral public community
where individuals from various back grounds could meet in search of a common
ground. An emphasis on participation by everyone and real access to political
institutions will mediate cultural differences. This response fails to acknowledge the
cultural bias existing in institutional practice, as the majority has already imposed
its language, values and norms on the public sphere.

Communitarian Response

Communitarians laid emphasis on the individual as embedded in a cultural

environment and in a specific historical setting. They emphasize communal identities
and cultural specificity to promote healthy citizenship, in particular its belonging
dimensions. According to communitarians the cohesion of the political community is
founded on its members solidarity and sense of belonging to that community. Such
solidarity is only possible if individuals feel equal in all respects, including in terms
of cultural practices within the citizenship regime.

Pluralist Response:-
 According to Modood for the plural state, multicultural diversity means
reforming national identity and citizenship and offering an emotional identity with
the whole, to counter balance the emotional loyalties to ethnic and religious
communities(Modood, 2013 : 36) There may be some rights for all individuals as in
the liberal state, but mediating institutions such as trade unions, churches,
neighborhoods and immigrant associations may also be encouraged to be active
public players and forums for political discussion, and may even have a formal
representative or administrative role to play in the state. There is thus both unity
and diversity in public life; communities and identities overlap, are interdependent
and develop common features.

In an increasingly globalized world, people move across borders and nations

frequently for a variety of reasons . This definitely impacts on their
personalities and understanding of their own selves . A person might refuse to
think of himself as defined by his location, or his citizenship, or even his
language or religion . He may live in Bombay and be of Italian ancestry ,
learn Hindi , eat Indian cuisine , wear clothes made in the USA, listen to rock
music, follow Indian politics , work for an MNC , and practice Art of Living
meditation techniques . He is living in the twenty- first century, where the world is a
global village. For this individual, and for many others like him in this world ,
is there any human yearning or need to belong to his cultural group ? The
reverse side of the picture raises further questions ; in the process of adapting
and transforming his culture , would the same individual accept the pressure to
abandon his group life entirely and assimilate into the larger society ? would
he accept the discriminatory attitude of the agencies of the state because he
belongs to a minority group in society ?

Cultural Recognition and Citizenship Rights

Acknowledging the communitarian understanding of the embedded self , certain

liberal scholar suggest including cultural right in the definition of citizenship , while
simultaneously emphasizing the rights of the individual. Prominent among them is Will
Kymlicka. According to Kymlicka, cultural diversity as a virtue enhances the
freedom and equality of individuals . Culture is the basis from which individuals
select the values and references which they use to build their own individuality.
Everyone should be allowed to choose their own cultural reference. Society must
include a diversity of cultures, norms and values within it. The state has a
responsibility not only to protect, but to also allow for the growth of cultural
diversity and of the diverse groups within it .

Different groups have different histories , need , identities and aspirations , and
thus the claims made on the state vary from group to group . Cultural differences
should be taken into account in the formulation and enforcement of laws and
public policies .

Group within Liberal Democracy seek respect for their cultural differences ,
which could be classified as cultural rights in the following ways :

1. Exemption from Laws and assistance to disadvantaged groups:

Exemption rights are granted to members of a religious or cultural group

whose practices are such that a general or neutral law would be a burden on them.

Different sorts of assistance rights are defended on the ground of both

equality and citizenship. In any society, the majority is always in a position to set
its cultural tone, and is able to affirm and express its cultural identity with
virtually no effort. It is therefore necessary that subject to limits, rights should be
extended to the minority as well. Exemptions have been demanded and often
granted for the sake of minimizing majoritarian cultural bias, and group differences
have been incorporated into the public domain and minorities given an opportunity
to continue with their customary religious practices. Exemption also enables the
religious and cultural norms of minority groups related to worship, initiation
ceremonies, dress codes, food habits, etc., to be accommodated within the public
arena. For example, special provisions have been made to allow Sikhs to wear their
turbans, Muslim girls to wear chador to school, and Asian women to wear their
traditional dress to their workplaces. Likewise, many states have provided special
exemption for halal land kosher foods to accommodate the special needs of
Muslims and Jews, respectively. The Amish community has been granted exemption
and allowed to withdraw children from schools at the age of l4. In Western liberal
democracies, exemptions have been given to various communities on a wide variety of
issues.

2. Self-government for national minorities and indigenous communities:

Self - Government is in many ways the most important right demanded by

minorities. In its extreme form, the group may demand secession from the larger state.
Indigenous people demand self-government or some kind of autonomy in the areas
where they form a majority. This could be combined with other cultural rights to
facilitate their participation in the larger society.

3. External rules for non- members:

 Sometimes a cultural group within a democratic state demands the right to
limit the liberty of fellow citizens who are not members of their group. These
rights are demanded to protect potentially fragile elements in minority cultures, for
example, the demand made by the Francophone in the Quebec province of Canada
to restrict the rights of Anglophones.

4. Internal rules for members:

There are usually some expectations from members of a group regarding

how they should behave and one who does not behave in that manner is subject to
different sanctions from other members of the group. Certain rules are clearly unjust
and not imposed by the state. But a group may impose informal or formal yet non
coercive sanctions. For example, a state cannot exclude women from decision
making offices, yet the Catholic Church is allowed to and could even impose
sanctions against Catholics who challenge this principle. These sanctions, however,
could have a very significant impact on the freedom and well-being of group
members. Therefore, it may become necessary for the state to protect vulnerable
members of groups from oppressive internal rules.

5. Incorporation of traditional or religious legal codes within the dominant legal

system :

One can find examples of two or more systems of law operating within a
single political jurisdiction. For example in Canada and the USA, Quebec and
Louisiana respectively have retained the civil law tradition alongside the common
law of the larger state. In Israel and India there are different family laws ( that
cover inheritance, adoption, succession, marriage and divorce) for different religious
communities. However, danger presents itself for the groups or for some of their
members (especially women) when traditional legal systems are incorporated within
the state legal system in the wrong way, or when dominant members of the group
try to impose some norms on the non-dominant members ( women and children) to
protect the values of the community or its cohesiveness.

6. Special representation rights:

Cultural or religious group or women demand special or guaranteed

representation in the decision -making, policy –making bodies on issues that affect
them.

7. Symbolic recognition:

Symbolic gestures granting recognition to minority groups have a profound

effect because on the one hand it gives the members a sense of self-respect and on
the other increases their enthusiasm to participate in the political life of the larger
state. Matters like the name of the polity, its national anthem, its public holidays,
the name by which a cultural group will be known or the way a group history is
presented in school or text books could have a direct effect on granting or denying
recognition.

Immigration, Place of worship and politics of citizenship:

The ideals, values and identities associated with citizenship are produced,
practiced and experienced at multiple sites within nation states and across national
borders ( Ehrkamp and Leitner 2003, Staeheli, 2011). Places of worship are one
such set of sites in which social groups experienced membership and/or
marginalization in society, in which they claim rights and conceptualize social
responsibilities and in which they attempt to shape society according to their
specific moral or spiritual codes. ( Stepick 2005) Places of worship, to begin, are
often the object of debate about societal membership, as seen with wide spread
opposition to the construction and expansion of mosques (Dunn 2005) and the use
of places for ritual slaughter (Trudeau 2006)

But religious structures can also signal a groups arrival in a given social contest
for instance large ‘authentic’ Hindu, Sikh, and Jain temples today in Canada, US
and elsewhere ( Glasman 1991, Shah et al 2012). These material places can be
analyzed in term of the image they are intended to project to the wider public,
and in terms of the reactions they received from neighbors and planning agencies.
The role of places of worship as sites of the production of citizenship speaks to
the complicated relation between religion, community and citizenship in liberal
democracies. ( for details see Patricia, 2012 :628)

8. State assistance for minority cultures:-

Minorities frequently seeks state assistance to promote their culture and give it some
spaces within the public arena. At the very least, they may request financial support
or other related state resources to sustain their cultural institutions such as the
minorities educational institutions, museums for art and craft, community newspaper,
and institutions devoted to learning their ethnic language.

Institutional Modes of Securing Diversity

Apart from cultural rights, federalism with its different manifestations provides
an answer to the accommodation of diverse groups.
  Multination Federalism is the answer to deal with the demands of national
minorities. It recognizes the existence of people and nations within the
boundaries of the state. This means creating federal or quasi-federal sub-unit
in which the minority group forms local majority, and so can exercise a
meaningful form of self-government. Even the group’s language is recognized
as an official state language within their federal sub-unit.
 To accommodate the demands of indigenous people, their claims to land,
cultural rights (including recognition of their customary law), and right to
self-government are needed to sustain them as distinct societies.
 Asymmetrical Federalism, which provides separate territorial jurisdiction and
special status for cultural communities concentrated in a particular region,
could be another mode of securing diversity.
 Multi-level federation, There are example of vast diversity and territorial
solutions are not adequate because culturally distinct groups/ minorities co
exist in a given region. In all such context multi level federation is adopted,
giving diverse communities some degree of self – governance without
bestowing upon them exclusive rights over a territory.
 Consociationalism based on power sharing as suggested by Arndt Lijphart, is
another way to accommodate diverse groups. These principles provide a
broad outline that can be implemented in a variety of ways.

Arendt Lijphart defines consociational democracy in terms of four basic

principles: two primary principles-- grand coalition and segmental autonomy and two
supplementary or secondary principles – proportionality and minority veto.

A grand coalition is an executive body in which the political leaders of all

significant segments participate.

Segmental autonomy means the delegation of as much decision-making as

possible to the separate segments. On all issues of common interest, the decision
should be made jointly by the segments ; on all other issues, decision -making
should be left to each segment.

Proportionality is the basic standard of political representation, civil service

appointment and allocation of public funds. It is important as a guarantee for the
fair representation of minority segments.

The minority veto is the ultimate weapon because it provides essential

protection when vital interests are at stake.

Case Study India

 India is a good example of enormous diversities in religion, language and
culture. From the very beginning India acknowledged rights of minorities and varied
culrural diversity and so acknowledged person as citizens of the state as well as
members of specific cultural communities. Religious communities were allowed the
right to govern their religion and associated social and cultural practices when the
Constitution officially recognized the personal laws of four identified communities –
Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsees. It also gave religious communities an
equal right to profess, propagate and practice their religion.

Linguistic communities were acknowledged when the presence of different

languages was formally accepted along with the national language. Diversity was
further accepted through the linguistic reorganization of regional states, and the
right of linguistic minorities to protect and promote their language and culture.
Within the multicultural structure, the cultural identity of tribal communities was
also given a special right to survival through different provisions :Article 370 gave
special status to Jammu and Kashmir; Article 371 provided the states of Nagaland
and Mizoram with special rights to govern themselves in accordance with their
distinct social practices, customary laws and community control over the ownership
and transfer of land and its resources. In India, recognition of diversity took different
forms. It is a combination of institutional arrangements and cultural rights, and
when the creations of separate territories was not possible because of the
coexistence of culturally distinct groups in a given region, multilevel federalism was
adopted to provide some degree of self-governance to diverse communities; for
example, autonomous and territorial councils provide some cultural and self-
government rights on specific issues without bestowing any exclusive rights over a
territory.

The Indian example shows that recognition of the distinct identities of

members of groups through frameworks of asymmetrical and multilevel federalism
and cultural rights have helped to overcome alienation, thereby inculcating a sense
of belonging to the state and also the unity of the state.

Canada

Canada is a unique example of state promotion of the policy on multiculturalism.

The Multiculturalism Act’s coverage include the recognition of cultural and racial
diversity, promotion of respect for diversity and a commitment to equality.
Canada’s pattern of social and cultural diversity include indigenous people, two
official language, a large and complex immigrant population, and global cities such
as Toronto and Vancouver. In this context, policies and practices relating to
policing, education , health, social and child welfare are all subject to scrutiny on
the grounds of their cultural sensitivity and equality of treatment for different
groups.

Challenges to Accommodate Diversity in the Conception of Citizenship

The challenge before a state is balancing and reconciling cultural demands for
differentiation with the citizenship demand for integration and equality, while
maintaining its political integrity. Granting differentiated forms of citizenship to
group too generously could fragment the unity of the state; yet refusing such
concessions could generate alienation, which would also fragment the state through
rebellion or secession. The following section deals with fears about unity and
integrity in the face of minority rights.

Worries about the Loss of Equal Citizen Status

Minority rights involve differentiated citizenship when we acknowledge the

difference between citizens and grant rights not available to other groups or citizens.
However according to some thinkers when citizenship by definition means treating
people as individuals with equal rights, how can the basic rights of citizenship
vary among citizens? Minority rights are not in conflict with the concept of citizenship.
As Bhikhu Parekh puts it, citizenship is in fact a much more differentiated and far
less homogenous concept than has been presupposed by political theorists (cited in
Kym licka 2000:32). However in some case a particular policy concerning minority
rights could be incompatible with the norms of equal citizenship in a liberal
democracy.

For example Quebec’s language laws, which at one stage banned the use of
English on shopkeeper’s windows, restricted the rights of all citizens to free speech.
Similarly, some aspects of family laws pertaining to the rules for marriage , divorce,
inheritance, and succession set by different religious communities could discriminate
against some members of those communities – women, for instance - and therefore
be incompatible with the norms of equal citizenship. In such cases, the costs and
benefits of minority protection are unfairly distributed because some members of the
group or non-members are asked to bear the cost of cultural rights while others
enjoy the benefits. These examples are of major concern in the context of equal
citizenship.

But there is no inherent conflict between equal status and minority rights
claims; it is the denial of minority rights that poses the greater threat to real
equality. Minority rights are needed to remedy the disadvantages minorities suffer in
the larger society.

For example, the strengthening of official language rights for French Canadian
along with a substantial degree of autonomy accorded to the French speaking
province of Quebec have played important role in the transition of French
Canadians from an economically disadvantaged and politically under-represented
group in the 1950s to a position of social, economic and political equality with
English speaking Canadians today. Far from eroding equal citizenship status, the
accommodation of differences is the ‘essence of true equality’ ( this phrase is from
the judgment of the Canadian S.C., explaining its interpretation of the provision of
equality in the Canadian Constitution. (Citied in Kymlicka, 2000:33).

In a multicultural society, some community practices offend the values of the

majority. It cannot tolerate all practices indiscriminately because on the one hand
it has to raise its voice against morally outrageous practices, and on the other
safeguard the integrity of its own moral culture and the unity and stability of the
polity.

 Muslim girls wearing the hijab or head scarves in schools; although it is

allowed in most Western countries, it continues to arouse varying degrees of
opposition in some of them.
 Sikhs refuse to wear helmets instead of their traditional turbans when driving
motorcycles or participating in dangerous work on building sites; to take off
their turbans when taking oaths in court or bowing before the speaker in the
House of Commons; and to shave off their beards when working in places
that involve handling food.
 Requests by Hindu to be allowed to cremate their decreased on a funeral
pyre and scatter the ashes, and in rare cases to drown rather than cremate
their corpses.
 Female circumcision
 Polygamy
 Muslim and Jews method of slaughtering animals

Worries About the fragmentation or Weakening of Citizenship Identities

Citizenship binds the members of the political community by providing them

with an identity that they share amongst themselves. However, we have multiple
identities, and the identity of a citizen of a state co-exists with numerous others.
Under different circumstances, different identities become important for different
individuals. By recognizing the other important aspects of identity, minority rights
provide members of alienated groups a chance to become full members of the
larger society, Fears about fragmentation are untenable.

Fears about the Erosion of civic virtues and Participation

It is difficult to make prior judgments about the correlation of minority rights

and the motivation and capacity to act as democratic citizens . Minority rights
provide members of diverse groups with an opportunity to participate as full
members of mainstream society . If minority groups are not provided such
opportunities , individuals from these groups are often stigmatized and treated in
discriminatory ways by the majority ( for example, harassment and intolerance of
gay people in many countries , violent attack on Turks in Germany , the
disproportionate attention paid by the police in many predominantly white cities to
black youth) ( Kymlicka 2000 : 39 ) . Some minority rights provide opportunities to
participate as virtuous citizen.

Fears about Weakening the Bonds of Social Cohesion and Political Unity

There is an apprehension that the provision of self – government rights or

federal autonomy would strength the minority cultural identity at the expense of
common state wise citizenship identity . However , scholars like Coulombe , Reaume
and Baubock emphasize that the refusal to grant such groups autonomy is likely to
provoke more resentment from members of national minorities . It is important to
balance recognition and autonomy with other federally guaranteed individual rights
and non- territorial rights. According to Kymlicka , such a ‘ cocktail’ of rights would
reduce opportunities for injustice and reinforce the sense of citizenship in the large
state for members of national minorities . Like any other society , a multicultural
society also needs a shared culture, and in this shared culture society has a dual
function : to unite its diverse cultures around a common way of life and to respect
and nurture their diversity. The political communities evoke and received different
moral and emotional allegiances from different bases. The states should appreciate
this diversity and not expect its citizens to conform to an officially defined model
of a good citizen (Bhikhu Parekh 2000 : 459)

Multiculturalism in 21st century: Has multiculturalism failed?

UK Prime Minister David Cameron in speech of 2011 lamented “Under

the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live
separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We've failed
to provide a vision of society to which they [young Muslims] feel they want to
belong” (Cameron 2011). Similar sentiments were expressed by German Chancellor,
Angela Merkel and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Multiculturalism in
the name of accommodating diversity has encouraged social fragmentation and
deepened social division. Distracting attention from socio-economic disparities
(Barry 2001; Hansen 2006) multiculturalism was blamed for international terrorism
(Phillips 2006; Gove 2006) and thus developed argument, multiculturalism as a
public policy is in retreat. (Brubaker 2001; Joppke 2004) (For details see Modood,
2013:25).

Change was witnessed at policy level when European Council agreement in

2004 on ‘common basic principles’ supported nation-states in educating
immigrants on ‘the host society’s language, history, and institutions’. Germany
had pursued ethno-national citizenship, that focused on the control and return
of migrants amended the Citizenship Law (2000) to introduce the principle of
jus soli. In 2005 introduced the Immigration Law emphasizing ‘integration’ that
expected immigrants to undertake 300 to 600 hours of German language classes
and lessons on German society and history. In Netherlands, new comers were
expected to receive 600 hours of language and civics lessons and in 2003
government tightly restricted immigration and insisted that those who have
settled in the country must have proficiency in the Dutch language as well
as in their own.

According to Joppke, Integrationist policies were supported for serving

utilitarian function of preparing host communities for more immigration in future
and to provide economic benefits. In the United States, sociologist and theorist
of social capital Robert Putnam in a detailed survey of 30,000 individuals in
forty-two separate communities, found that trust and cooperation are highest in
the most homogeneous neighborhoods (see Economist 2004) and bonding
between “people like us” was markedly stronger than bridging with “people
around here,” and the more diverse a society is, the more unequal it is.
( Gillespie, 2007: 198)

This trend accelerated in liberal Democracies as a response to 9/11 and

migration crisis after war and violence in Syria and adjoining areas
reinforcing two trends, one, international terror networks recruit citizens and
residents to commit crime and second, perception of Muslims as cultural and
demographic threat. Fears about terrorism and security, intensified after the Paris
and Nice attacks and renewed concerns about the limits of past efforts to
integrate newcomers.

Scholars like Joppke argued discourse of national identity in Europe

strengthen liberalism because it is defined in the light of universalistic precepts
of human rights, democracy, equality and fairness. Thus at policy level State
appeal to national identity appear to be particularistic has universal content.
Liberalism is ‘our culture’, it is claimed, and others, such as Muslims, cannot
become part of the ‘We’ because they are not sufficiently liberal (Joppke 2008:
541–2; Mouritsen, 2008: 21–2) ( Modood, 2013: 30)

Interculturalism was defended as alternative to multiculturalism that

emphasized on having public space and identity that is not merely about
individual constitutional or legal rights but counterbalances other identities that
citizens value. This public space is neither cultureless nor represent majority culture
but is created and shared through participation, interaction, debate and common
endeavor with the possibility of being remade to include new groups.

Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka have constructed a multiculturalism

policy index (MCP Index) that measures the extent to which multicultural policies
including school curriculum, exemption from dress codes in public laws, acceptance
of dual citizenship, funding to support cultural activities, mother tongue
instructions and affirmative action for immigrant groups appear in 21 Western
nations at three distinct points — 1980, 2000, and 2010. Data indicates
Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland are among the least
multicultural of all countries measured. While Belgium, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom, and the United States are moderate multicultural countries, Canada and
Australia are on top for adopting the broadest range of multicultural policies.

However data also indicate increase in the number of multicultural policies

adopted over time. For instance Sweden's multicultural policies in 1980 and 2000
could be categorized as modest, but by 2010 they were widespread. Spain and
Portugal, countries with very little international migration had moved to a moderate
level of multicultural policy development by 2010.

Perhaps the claim about a “retreat” from multiculturalism has less to do with
any actual changes in state policies and more with concerns about lack of social
unity and increasing tensions among diverse groups in liberal democratic societies
and the sense that multiculturalism is somehow to blame.
Multiculturalism Policy Index Scores for Selected Countries, 1980-2010
(https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/debate-over-multiculturalism-philosophy-
politics-and-policy( accessed on 4th July 2018)

Conclusion

Multiple and complementary identities are not problematic, though it is

important how they are imagined and organized. To manage and accommodate
diversity multiple identities may be nested inside one another, cross-cutting
transnationally or entangled in a way that the various components of an individual’s
identity influence, blends, and mesh with one another. The intense debate on
identity, diversity, and multiculturalism that has taken place over the past fifteen to
twenty years has entered into new phase when multiculturalism in facing retreat.
 Multiculturalism is challenged for reproducing essentialisms or primordialisms
contenting itself with the lesser task of providing a vocabulary allowing multiple
yet discrete cultures to respect and recognize each other, as distinct from
developing a plural-cultural or intercultural alternative to them.

Amartya Sen argues that most multiculturalisms should be dubbed “plural

monoculturalisms.” In this perspective plurality is a stronger concept than diversity
or multiplicity because it is more dynamic and less static. Plurality, according to
Hannah Arendt “ is the condition of human action because we are all the same that
is human in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived,
lives or will live.”

Staurt Hall criticize liberal, communitarian, and cosmopolitan approaches to

multiculturalism. It is not a single doctrine, does not characterize one political
strategy, and better thought of as an adjective than as a noun.. As Hall puts it, “The
double demand for equality and difference appears to outrun our existing political
vocabularies.”( Gillespie, 203) Hall does not believe that philosophical solutions
alone are possible, since the required recognition of particularity and universality is
a practical political and social matter, opening up the “heterogeneous space of
democracy” in which “vernacular modernities” are being established. (For details see
Gillespie)

The rise of far-right political parties in World and their anti- Muslim publicity
campaigns, coupled with the media’s willingness to report often uncritically,
damaged the logic supported by multiculturalism. Patti Lenard argues, alleged
complexity derives from the simplistic and unfair elision between Islamic
fundamentalism and the vast majority of Muslim minorities in Europe who desire
integration on fairer terms of the sort that multiculturalists defend (Lenard 2010,
318). In light of these concerns with immigrant multiculturalism, multicultural
theorists need to continue to make the case that the ideal of multicultural citizenship
stands for fairer terms of integration, not separation and division.

Summary

 Cotemporary debates on citizenship incorporate the idea of the individual as a

member of distinct cultural communities.
 However, both sets of rights – civil, political and social and cultural rights -
are important for the individual. If the absence of a recognition of difference
creates a sense of alienation, the inadequate protection of the basic rights of
 citizens leave members of minority communities vulnerable. Both sets of rights
complement each other.
 By giving members of minority communities the sense of security they need
to interact with the larger society, cultural rights facilitate their integration,
promote harmony and earn their loyalty.

Suggested Readings

Baubock, Rainer, 2006, Citizenship and migration – concepts and controversies in

Rainer Baubock ed. Migration and citizenship: Legal Status, Rights and Political
Participation (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press)

Bhargava, Rajeev and Raifeld Helmut (eds), 2005, Civil Society, Public Sphere
and Citizenship : Dialogues and Perception (New Delhi: Sage Publications).

Bloemraad, Irene, Anna Kortweg and Gokee Yurdakul, 2008, Citizenship and
Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, challenges to the Nation State,
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34, pp. 153-179

Ehrkamp, Patricia, and Caroline Nagel, 2012, Immigration places of worship

and the politics of citizenship in the US South, Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, new series, Vol. 37, NO.4, pp. 624-638

Gillespie, Paul 2007, Managing Diversity in a post – nationalist world in

Nicholas Brown and Linda Cardinal ed. Managing Diversity: Practices of
Citizenship (Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press).

Heater, Derek, 1999, What is Citizenship? (UK:Polity Press)

Hefner, Robert W.(ed.), 2001, The Politics of Multiculturalism, Pluralism and

Citizenship Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia (Honolulu : University of Hawaii
Press).

Kymlicka, Will and He, Bsogang (eds) , 2005, Multiculturalism in Asia (USA :
Oxford University press).

Kymlicka, Will and Norman, Wayne(eds) , 2000, Citizenship in Diverse

Societies(USA : Oxford University press).

Miller, David, 2000, Citizenship and National Identity (UK: Polity Press).

Modood, Tariq and Nasar Meer, 2013, Contemporary Citizenship and Diversity
in Europe: The Place of Multiculturalism in Raymond Taras ed. Challenging
Multiculturalism: European models of Diversity(Edinburgh : Edinburgh University
Press).

Oommen, T.K., 1997, Citizenship. Nationality and Ethnicity: Reconciling

Completing Identities (UK: Polity Press).

Parekh Bhiku, 2000, Rethinking Muticulturalism – Cultural Diversity and

Political Theory (UK: Macmillan Press Ltd.)

Shachar, Ayelet, 2000, On citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability, Political

Theory, vol. 28, No.1 (Feb. 2000) pp. 64-89.

Spinner, Jeff, 1994, The Boundaries of Citizenship – Race, Ethnicity and

Nationality (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/debate-over-multiculturalism-
philosophy-politics-and-policy( accessed on 4th July 2018)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/(accessed on 4th July 2018)