Addressing Multiculturalism for Ethnic Equations in Manipur
By LIANBOI VAIPHEI

INTRODUCTION

Today, in the era of globalization where different people across the globe have come closer through improved means of communication and technology, different cultures too have started sharing a common space. This has indeed turned the world into a “global village.” As a consequence, there seems to be a gradual emergence of consensus on the popular acceptance of the worldview that democracy essays. However, democracy talks about majoritarian choice and what constitutes the majoritarian choice is determined by the majoritarian culture. This has a deep impact on the relations with regard to those cultures labelled as “minority.” The majoritarian culture, also called as the popular culture, casts a shadow of dominance over minority cultures through processes of subjugation and homogenization. This has been one of the major challenges among states and regions endowed with plurality of ethnos and cultures.

The paper begins with how Canada has adopted the policy of multi-culturalism to address the issue of cultural diversity among its people. Multiculturalism has emerged as a policy of formal instrument in managing the cultural diversity and is seen as Canada’s outstanding contribution in the field of race and ethnic equations⁽¹⁾. In doing so, I will outline the backdrop in which the policy of multiculturalism has been adopted in Canada and then use this as a base to discuss the tenet of what multiculturalism talks about in maintaining cultural diversity and protecting minority rights. Taking this social fact of Canada as a reference point, I shall briefly look into the social reality in India as it depicts the multicultural facets with particular reference to Manipur. The paper seeks to postulate the underlining plural cultures and find the thread that can lead to a common consensus over the issue of sharing of power and resources among the different ethnic communities rather than contesting on the issue of power and space as has been going on. This is where the ideology of multiculturalism seeks and entails rather than proposing a hypothetical exercise that multiculturalism would be a panacea to all the problems that afflict Manipur. It is in this regard that the ideology of multiculturalism is analyzed to find the blueprint for managing diversity through the policy of cultural pluralism.

MULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA: CELEBRATING DIVERSITY

Canada is a country that has all the ingredients of a global village with various segments of the population having different cultures and societies. The birth of Canada as a nation took place when the native peoples reffered to the “aboriginals” encountered with the two European nations, the French and the British. Since then, it has grown through successive flows of immigrants and refugees who have come from across the world. With such great diversity in its population, it was only natural that there would be an engagement in an endless competition over control of power and resources. The manifestation of this tussle is seen in the demand of autonomy over the resources by indigenous people or the Quebec assertion of autonomy within the federal set up of the Canadian government.

When the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau officially announced the policy of multiculturalism in the House of Commons on 8th October 1971, it marked the beginning of the outstanding contributions that Canada would be making in the field of ethnic and race relation as no country had officially adopted such a policy. The policy of multiculturalism has been adopted after the study made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission is a government body that was set up in response to the grievances of Canada’s French-speaking minority who were mainly concentrated in the province of Quebec. The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. However, biculturalism was criticized and opposed by many. In order to accommodate the criticism, the formula had been changed from “bilingualism and biculturalism” to “bilingualism and multiculturalism.” Therefore, Canada has adopted two official languages – English and French – which are used for all the official purposes.

Canada’s Multicultural Policy provides programmes and services to support ethno-cultural associations and help individuals overcome barriers in order that they can fully participate as members of Canadian society. After almost a decade of the official announcement of the Multicultural Policy it was also incorporated in their constitution so that it could be made a part of the constitutional law. In 1982, the multicultural characters of Canada gained constitutional recognition through Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which specifies that the courts were to interpret the charter “in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada.” By virtue of this section of the charter, Canada became a constitutional multicultural state. The Canadian government’s multicultural policies include:
(i) Recognition of multiple citizenship;
(ii) Government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages;
(iii) Support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations;
(iv) Acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general;
(v) Support for music and arts from minority cultures;
(vi) Programmes to encourage minority representation in politics, SET (Science, Engineering and Technology), education, and the work force in general.
Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to the belief that all its citizens are equal, as it ensures that all their citizens can keep their identities, and take pride in their ancestry with a sense of belonging.Through multiculturalism, Canada recognizes the potential of all Canadians, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs.

The official doctrine of multiculturalism that Canada adopts has led to a remarkably ordered society in an ethno-racially complex nation state. The cultural diversity of Canada has been all the more reinforced through their immigrants, who are outpacing the natural birth rate, and accounts for 53 per cent of the overall population growth⁽²⁾. Often dubbed “the global village in one country,” the face of Canada, particularly in the larger urban centres, is changing dramatically. Today, one in six Canadians is a member of a visible minority. With Toronto as the world’s most multicultural city, even ahead of New York and London, and with Vancouver, with the fastest growing and most diverse immigrant population in Canada, will be among the world’s most integrated cities.

MULTICULTURALISM AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITIES

The word “minority” is derived from the Latin word minor, meaning “smaller” or “fewer.” It can refer to a purely quantitative or statistical relationship. The term “minority” was proposed in 1932 by Donald Young⁽³⁾ as a way of transcending the hereditarian implications of the word “race,” which at that time was in popular as well as scientific use to refer to what is called as “ethnic groups” today.

Multiculturalism is not the first paradigm to discuss about the issue of social and ethnic equations. Prior to multiculturalism gaining currency, there were mainly three models that explained social interaction. First, Assimilation, which talks of mingling of the minority social groups into the dominant majority social groups. Here the social process refers to the subordinate group being subjugated by the dominant ones through the adoption of the dominant cultures. Second, Integration, where the two social groups comes together to form a separate force taking some aspect of the former and some of the latter, as exemplified through the melting pot of America. Third is Segregation, where the different groups of the society are allowed to progress through separate allocation of space, which has been best exemplified through the policy of Apartheid in South Africa.

However, today, multiculturalism has become one of the most discussed and debated paradigm on the issue of ethnic and social equations, due to the characteristic of the world which has become increasingly multiple and diverse in the social, familial and communal relations. Moreover, multiculturalism asserts the rights of the minority through this framework as pointed out by political theorist like Will Kymlicka⁽⁴⁾. Multiculturalism by recognizing the differences among the cultural groups seeks to protect the rights of the cultural minority groups and address the issue of their exclusion or dilution from the larger cultural space. This provides recognition of their allegiance to the state without expecting them to be exactly same as the others. Although this may raise several problems, theoretical and practical, the policy of affirmative action has helped in protecting the rights of the minorities. It is through this policy of multiculturalism that Canada has adopted three principal methods by which the problem of unequal opportunity for members of minorities is addressed:
(i) Prohibition of discrimination based on group stereotypes
(ii) Affirmative action in the form of special treatment or consideration to members of disadvantaged minorities, and
(iii) Education programmes

The prohibition of discrimination based on group stereotypes has been very well coded by the Human Rights Code when it was created in Ontario, 1961⁽⁵⁾. The legislation was passed to protect ethnic minorities who had bore the weight of overt discrimination. Ontario Code of Human Rights prohibited discrimination based on race, creed, colour, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, ancestry or place of origin. The Code, which has been established to promote human rights, is meant to protect the rights of all. However, the rights of the ethnic minority had suffered the overt discrimination more than that of the people who are in majority that the operation of the code has helped these minority communities by addressing to the issue of protecting their rights.

Besides the Code of Human Rights, Canada has adopted affirmative action, where members of certain disadvantaged minorities are given special treatment in order that they catch up to average Canadian standards whether or not their disadvantage can be proved to have been caused by someone’s discrimination. It is a remedy that focuses on need, rather than on causation. The disadvantaged experiences by the native people are no less destructive because they are rooted in history or in circumstances, or attitudes for which no individual can fairly be held responsible. The basic concerns of affirmative action are to advance equality of opportunity that need not necessarily be aimed at issues of prejudice. Primacy is given on the need to advance equal opportunity in the social, educational and employment sectors so that the minorities could be well represented in the public space of the state. It is the policy of affirmative action that are used in the educational programmes where they take account of the individual factors and give them special considerations to address to the members of the minority target groups. However, in respect to employment the fact that the individual belongs to the minority group is seen as only one of the several criteria to be considered together with the individual characteristics. For example, entrance to the university faculty position is based entirely upon the individual merit of the applicant for 90 per cent of the students, while the remaining 10 per cent are chosen, after personal interviews on the basis of all those factors plus any “special considerations” to the minorities. Thus, the policy of multiculturalism has not only addressed the issue of diversity among the people of Canada but has also protected the rights of the minorities thereby ensuring the ethos of human rights, and give the minorities a space to assert their identities without any tension among ethnic communities in the country.

ADDRESSING ETHNIC RELATIONS IN MANIPUR THROUGH MULTICULTURALISM

An equally multicultural country is India although no official policy is adopted like Canada. India has around 1,618 languages and 6,400 castes belonging to 6 different major religions of the world. India takes a lot of pride in its diversity as the famous slogan echoes “Unity in Diversity.” Amidst the diversity that India possesses, Manipur is a state that characterizes wide scale diversity. The state holds the unique distinction of being situated at the meeting point of confluence of two major cultures; the Austric (Indian subcontinent) and the Sinic⁽⁶⁾ (South East Asia). This is clearly visible in the religious and ritual practices among different communities in Manipur. The major communities such as the Meeteis, Naga, Kuki-Chin-Mizo groups following different faiths (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Sanamahi) have synthesized not only their respective indigenous worldviews with religious systems from outside, but have also learned from each others’ different rituals and worldviews. The richness of the interaction is visible from the way the state represents its culture and art forms from 33 ethnic communities largely clubbed under the above-mentioned three broad umbrella categories. In fact, Manipur represents the kaleidoscope of diversity that India as a whole has.

While plurality of cultural identities and values shows richness of the state, it also shows vulnerability of being subjected to politics of control and subjugation. One of the most glaring instances is the issue of the cultural identity, which gets influenced by various factors. The challenge that Manipur faces from the onslaught of the Bollywood cultures and similar such forces are quite alarming. Subjugation of the local cultures by majoritarian culture, and/or the mainstream Indian culture, has been visible in public space, the protests against which emerge out in the form of banning of Hindi or Bollywood movies and Hindi channels. It is in this backdrop that the contestation of space and power has emerged in the political arena of Manipur. It has led to a tug of war for power and resources among the people of the different cultural groups. This is inevitable especially in the present political set up where “democracy” of majoritarian culture prevails. This phenomenon has not only been witnessed in the electoral processes but also among the insurgents groups that have organized themselves and made violent assertions on the basis of their community identity and interests.

Policy of multiculturalism can be seen as a viable pragmatic approach to address the issues of conflicts among the different ethnic groups in Manipur. Internal conflicts in the state is often result of the perceived notions or ideas formed by a community against another community on the basis of certain attitude and perceptions driven by biased prejudices and contempt. This provides the necessary ingredients of conflict among the various ethnic groups. Therefore there is a need for a discourse shaped by ideals of multiculturalism in order to inculcate a multicultural attitude to promote the idea of diversity of cultures irrespective of whether they are the dominant or minority community.

The need for multiculturalism emerges out of a concern for having a peaceful co-existence among communities sharing a politico-cultural space. Here, it would be interesting to bring in the ideas propounded by Bhiku Parekh⁽⁷⁾. According to Parekh, multiculturalism is best understood neither as a political doctrine with a programmatic content nor as a philosophical school with a distinct theory of man’s place in the world, but as a perspective or a way of viewing human life. He goes on to illustrate three central insights. First, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organize their lives and social relations in terms of a culturally derived system of meaning and significance. Second, different cultures represent different systems of meaning and visions of the good life. Since each realises a limited range of human capacities and emotions and grasps only a part of the totality of human existence, it needs other cultures to help it understand itself better, expand its intellectual and moral horizon, stretch its imagination, save it from narcissism to guard it against the obvious temptation to absolutise itself, and so on. Third, every culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its different traditions and strands of thought. This does not mean that it is devoid of coherence and identity, but that its identity is plural, fluid and open. Cultures grow out of both conscious and unconscious interactions with one another, define their identities in terms of what they take to be their significant other, and are at least partially multicultural in their origins and constitution. Each carries bits of the other within itself and is never wholly sui generis⁽⁸⁾.

The argument that Bhiku Parekh provides in a way validates the reasoning for the need to protect the rights of the minorities as each culture of humanity. It provides a link to the other cultures and thereby ensures a dialogue. For, a dialogue is required between different cultures so that they can address issues that could be a bone of contention. The dialogue requires that each of the cultures should be willing to open itself to influence and learn from others, presupposing that it is self-critical and is willing to engage in a dialogue with itself. Parekh contends that a culture’s relation to itself shapes and is in turn shaped by its relation to others, and their internal and external pluralities presuppose and reinforce each other. For a culture cannot appreciate the value of others unless it appreciates the plurality within it; the converse is just as true. Cultures need to be opened up as closed cultures cannot [and do not] wish to talk to the other.

This has also been the case in Manipur, where almost each ethnic group delineates its identity as exclusively distinct and different from the other. This of course is driven by contemporary struggle to usurp the politico-cultural space of the state. The case can be witnessed with the Meiteis, Nagas or the Kuki-Mizo-Chins. Each of these larger groups, and also the respective sub-groups, are victims of some form of narcissism, and desire for power driven by exclusive worldviews. The need to initiate a process of dialogue, either through the intervention of the state or the civil society, which can lead to establishment of a multicultural state in Manipur is urgently called for. This is all the more needed with increasing intensity of ethnic tension in the state. The approach of multiculturalism will help in initiating the process of political recourse in addressing the contestation of space and power.

CONCLUDING REMARK

The understanding of the multiculturalism model is quite profound. However, there are pertinent questions that arise. How does the paradigm of multiculturalism fit into the reality of Manipur? Will it encounter value conflicts among the different ethnic communities while interacting with each other socially or individually? Is the differences irreconcilable? Can a reworking of the ethical, political and social worldviews help in addressing the issues?
The answers to the above questions largely lie, as would be suggested by the multicultural model of Canada, in a strong and an urgent need to develop a dialogue across the different ethnic communities. Dialogue allows different cultures to address their differences through conversation(s) from both the sides, and leads to either ironing the differences or at least agreeing to disagree. The preliminary stage of dialogue need not arrive at a common consensus but should seek to sustain the dialogue. The dialogue can be on any issue, be it on culture, governance, representation. At least the issue has to be on an area of common concern as this will help in articulating the construction of different worldviews among the ethnic communities of Manipur.

In the age of globalization, with the world increasingly characterized by individual mobility, communal fluidity and shrinking of space, the approach to cultural difference among the different ethnic communities in Manipur require much more than mere toleration, as there is a need to respect the cultural diversity through the tenets of multiculturalism.

A multicultural perspective can be well said to be composed of creative interplay of three important and complementary insights – namely, the cultural embededness within us, the inescapability and desirability of cultural plurality, and the plural and multicultural constitution of each culture. These insights have to be either traced in the worldviews of the ethnic communities in the state, or special efforts have to be made to inculcate these insights. The Canadian model of multiculturalism gives insight to deal with issues related with contestation of space in assertion of identity and cultures; and much to think of what will constitute as the right response in addressing the ethnic equations so that a situation of peace can be sustained through the dialogues among the different ethnic communities. The dialogues could not only be initiated, but also be sustained to ensure a fair equation for the ethnic diversity in the state of Manipur so that the unique blend of cultural diversity could [once again] create an aura for admiration as a living model of the unique ethno-racial diversity.