Chapter One

Concept and Development

of Pluralism
 Chapter One

Concept and Development of Pluralism

The Concept of Pluralism

The discourse on Pluralism has attracted attention of scholars from every field in the
contemporary world. For theologians, philosophers and social scientists the
elaboration of this issue has become an urgent and inescapable task. Seif I. Tag El-
Din, a writer on the issues like Pluralism says that in the wake of the new millennium
two main forces seem to be acting concertedly to undermine racial, cultural and
religious barriers among human communities, namely: a highly advanced
communication technology and a rapid process of economic globalization. The living
together of different peoples with different races, cultures and beliefs is, thus,
becoming a matter of major concern for the human conscience. It might not have
been sheer coincidence for the communications revolution to flourish concuiTently
with other revolutionary findings on the Gene Map of the Human Genome, which
confirmed the irrelevance of the race factor - to the disappointment of all racist
claims of uniqueness. Mankind has presumably learned the historical lesson that most
human sufferings and ruthless atrocities were due to either unfounded racist claims or
militant exclusivist ideologies.'

The pluralism is having its roots in the word "plural" which means 'more than one'
used mostly in Mathematics. The very term, Pluralism has several meanings,
depending on the respective discourse to which it refers. Literally Pluralism means
the condition or the character of being multiple or plural but to the Social scientists, it
is having different forms and facets and therefore have different interpretations as
well. The Webster dictionary has defined it as the existence or toleration of diversity
of groups within a society or state, whether ethnic, cultural, political, religious."
Encyclopedia Britarmica explains it as the autonomy enjoyed by disparate groups,
 Chapter One

whether, cultural political ethnic or religious, within a society: Pluralism is,

however, defined by the scholars as per their own perceptions and affiliations.

John Hick an important authority on pluralism states; "different religions are

legitimate responses to the same ultimate reality (the real?) And various religions are
historically and culturally conditioned interpretation of this same reality, salvation is
occurring roughly to the same extent within the major religions". To him various
religions therefore are to be affirmed as equally legitimate alternatives "*

(Ircf^or Mcclcnncn in his hook 'IMuralism' pronounces il as the principle ol "cciual

but different". He explains it as the toleration and the utilization of the diversity of
ideas and approaches while at the same time acknowledging criteria, which afford the
possibility of objective comparison and evaluation of the diverse alternatives. He
perceives that there is no exact criterion for calling a halt to the potentially endless
multiplication of valid ideas, cultures, religions and political groups.^

To FaricI Esack 'it is the acknowledgement rather than tolerance of otherness and
diversity, both within the self and within the other...''

Isaiah Berlin believes that there is a plurality of values which men can do and seek,
and that these values differ. There is not infinity of them: the number of human
values, of values that can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human
character, if finite.^

Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that pluralism in our present world inspires both
exhilaration as manifested in the endless creations of human expression and
exhaustion as experienced through the seemingly irreconcilable conflicts amongst the
followers of different religious traditions. The invocation of pluralism has become
 Chapter One

much as a summons as a celebration; an urgent exhortation to the citizens of the

world to come to the terms with their increasing diversity.^

• Diana Eck identified the theme about Pluralism that it is not simply the same thing as
diversity. One may have people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds
present in one place, but unless they are involved in an active engagement with one
another, there is no pluralism. In other words, pluralism is not and cannot be a non-
participant sport.

There arc olhcr dcllnilions to this elTect given in the pages ahead. Important ones arc
those given by William James, Bertrand Russell, Christian woulf and Immanuel
Kant^

There are some who see Pluralism as a social condition, i.e. distinct ethnic, religious,
and racial communities live side by side, have equitable access to resources, are
willing to affirm each other's dignity, are ready to benefit from each other's
experience, and are quick to acknowledge each other's contributions to the common
welfare and the special obligation of promoting multicultural community based on
mutual-respect and tolerance.'"

Pluralism has classically been considered a metaphysical concept, which raises

certain questions about reality, in the abstract so to speak. Today the meaning of the
word is shifting from a sociological and metaphysical to an existential locus, which
helps us to discover its roots. Pluralism is today a human existential problem, which
raises acute questions about how we are going to live our lives in the midst of so
many options. Pluralism is no longer just the old-fashioned schoolbook question
about the one and many: it has become a concrete day-to-day dilemma occasioned by
the encounter of mutually incompatible worldviews and philosophies. Today we face
in pluralism the very practical question of planetary human co-existence." Most of
 Chapter One

the thinking persons are today convinced that pluralism is the law of reality and life.
Pluralism will not disappear whatever be ones own cherished wishes and desires.
Pluralism is the outward expression of the Infinite riches of the absolute and the
limited possibilities of the finite.'^

Historical Development of Pluralism

Emergence of pluralism is a very significant development of modem global scenario.
It is by no means, a unique feature of present day societies. Pluralism was not
unknown in the past;'^ even the problem it indicates is as old as the human history.
Pluralism as we all know is used both descriptively and prescriptively. In its former
usage the term usually refers to cultural, political, ethnic, racial and religious
plurality or multiplicity. In this sense the term is associated both with a state of mind
and with a socio-political condition. When we talk of pluralism, we refer to a deeply
embedded psychological attitude towards different areas of freedom, human rights,
democracy, secularism as well as our relations with others.''* Although it was
suppressed by exclusive or monoculture societies in the then existing social situation.

The Exclusivism^^ has enjoyed the prerogative to determine its modes of behavior
and fashion, its own institutions independent of any exogenous cultural impositions.
However, even these exclusive societies did not imply total absence of cultural or
ethnic diversity. They did not live in complete isolation. In many parts of the world,
cultural or ethnic minorities lived in proximity with the dominant cultures.
International relations through trade, however limited in scope and frequency,
brought divergent cultures into contact with each other. Military conquests,
migrations, and ups and downs in food supplies also led people to cross-political and
cultural boundaries.

All these and many other factors of life led to the softening of rigors of cultural
isolation and unleashed forces of change in exclusive societies as well. Silence,

10
 Chapter One

subterranean currents of intercultural borrowings always followed vigorously and

altered the social behavior of both the dominant and minority sections of these
societies. Yet the minority cultures were generally marginalized and had little impact
on the polity."'

The contemporary Pluralism is formed on an entirely different pattern. It is different

in at least two important respects. In the first, it confers equal political rights to all,
irrespective of difference of creed or caste. Most of the plural societies have opted for
political democracy, which ensures general participation in the conduct of state. In
the second, this pluralism is generally raised on non-religious or secular foundations.
Leaving aside the philosophical foundations of these plural societies, it may be safely
asserted that economic and political objectives determine the nature, the variety and
depth of social interaction in emergent societies.

A number of powerful forces have contributed in the rapid formation of modem

plural societies. These continue to work unabated. First and foremost has been the
unprecedented growth of the technology of fast travel and transport in the last few
decades. Jumbo jets flying at supersonic speed have made travel to distant comers of
the globe a matter of hours instead of long and arduous journey spread over weeks
and months. Travel and transport are much organized and orderly. The risk and
uncertainty involved in chartering unknown areas is minimum despite the
proliferation of mles and regulations. The ease and rapidity of travel have facilitated
the search for greener pastures for businessmen and job seekers outside national
boundaries. Spatial vastness of the globe has narrowed down to that of a village
turning improbabilities into the realm of accessible realities. People of different
creeds, cultures, modes of behavior and men and women with varying shades of
colour and different languages have traveled from poorer countries to rich,
industrialized ones in search of better jobs and higher standard of living. Integration
 Chapter One

of the world capital and the labour markets has been a significant outcome of the ease
and fastness of travel. People who traveled originally with no intention to settle
abroad changed their minds and made the land of jobs their permanent abodes.
Another stream of people comprising students has also stayed back due to the
attractive job opportunities in the developed countries.

Almost concurrent with the fast and orderly modes of transport, unimaginable heights
were scaled by communication and information technology. The ease with which one
can communicate with his distant kith and kin has dismantled whatever emotional
barriers stood in the adoption of new lands as one's permanent residence. Satellite
communication network and information technology have also worked wonders in as
much as these can prevent the severance of links with the migrants original country
and can transport them to the cultural changes that have accelerated the pace of
migration and making of plural societies. In this way, technology and economics
have joined together in the emergence and reinforcement of the trend towards social
pluralism.

A related development has been the weakening of aggressive nationalism of the

nineteenth century. Under the devastating impact of aggressive nationalism of the
nineteenth century smaller cultural groups and communities were totally submerged.
New technology was seen to be operational only on a large scale. Hence compete
successfully in industrial and economic spheres and act as a deterrent to hostile
forces, smaller cultural entities were, by coercion or persuasion subordinated to the
overall national interest. But recent globalization of the world economy has
undermined the concept of national sovereignty and its ability to keep flocks of
different hues together.

Instead it has reawakened ethnic groups to a vigorous reassertion of their cultural

identities. As examples of this assertiveness we may cite, the Slovaks and Serbs in

12
 Chapter One

Yugoslavia, the ethnic communities in the former Soviet Union, the Irish in England
and so on. Violent conflicts between such ethnic communities have been wide spread
elsewhere also. Examples of such a situation can be seen in struggles of Mizo's,
Assame's, Kashmiri's and Sikh's in India. Ethnic and religious assertiveness among
the Chinese can also be attributed to the same phenomenon. The dismal performance
of the materialistic and scientific culture on the equity and justice front, its failure to
satisfy the spiritual needs of the alienated individual in a dismembered society; has
also contributed to the reassertion of religious and cultural roots.

'['he phenomenon of religious awakening is not confined to parts of Asia only but
Europe, America and China are also witnessing an upsurge of religious fervor. These
developments have demolished the artificially created national identities making a
space for Pluralism. '*

Modes of Pluralism
Pluralism is primarily an attitude and an approach to life and reality says "Vincent
Shakher in his book 'Quest for Harmony'. He says that a multi-dimensional vision or
outlook heals oneself and the wounded world and unites the whole cosmos.
Pluralistic outlook takes various forms in relation to different areas of life. For
instance in a world of violence, it takes the form of non-violence and peace. In
practice, it is dialogue and mediation, active non-resistance, etc. In a world of
religious fundamentalism and fanaticism, it takes the form of religious tolerance. In
practice, it is action oriented mass education programmed to expose the place and
role of religion in society. It demands plans of Positive action on ties between
religious communities. In a world of discrimination and oppression it takes the form
of respect for life in all forms and equality of all living beings. In the field of action it
is exploration of myths concerning discrimination, concretization of both the rich and
the poor on equality, justice and fellowship. It requires teaching and providing

13
 Chapter One

measures for the safety and protection of the marginalized and the needy. In a world
of greed and grabbling, it takes the form of self-content and sharing. It needs one to
put limits to one's wealth and possessions, sharing of wealth for common good,
honest accountability for one's earnings. In the dominion of power and its
indiscriminate use, it takes the form of service. Its implications are the sharing of
power, participatory methods in decision-making, consultations and representations.
In the world of psychology and inner conflicts, and it takes the form of healing and
reconciliation. It infuses self-respect, self-confidence, self-reliance, removal of fear
and other negative emotions.'"^

Pluralism is the affirmation and acceptance of diversity. The concept is used, often in
different ways, in a wide range of issues. In politics, the affirmation of diversity in
the interests and beliefs of the citizenry is one of the most important features of
modem democracy. In science, the concept often describes the view that several
methods, theories or points of view are legitimate or plausible. This attitude may
arguably be a key factor to scientific progress. The term pluralism is also used, in
several different senses, in the context of religion and philosophy.^°

The concept pluralism was initially coined by English Philosophers, such as

Christian ffo//7"( 1679-1754) and Immanuel Kant. They projected it as a doctrine
about the plentitude of possible world-views combined with the invitation to adopt
the universal view-point of a world citizen. In the present day philosophy, the
concept of Pluralism refers to a standpoint that the world may be interpreted in
several ways. It is a science that involves evaluation, which is enhanced by
competitions between several interpretations. In ethics and in normative sociology, it
refers to the problem that modem society is no longer based on an authoritative set of
norms, leaving all ethical questions in the terminology ofJurgen Habermas, subject
to open-ended and rational discourse. From philosophy the term is adopted by other

14
 Chapter One

academic discourses. At the turn of the 20th century, pragmatists such as William
James re-used the concept stressing empirical implications of a pluralistic Ontology.
He traces usage of the term in cognitive sociology.^' He further popularized this term
in his book The Will to Believe. He asserts that Pluralism is distinguished from both
monism and dualism. He explains Pluralism in the world in context of hegemony.
He objected to Monism on the grounds that it puts too much emphasis on totality, and
tended to exclude individuality and free will. Bertrand Russell's account of logical
atomism was pluralistic insofar as it was founded on the "common sense belief that
there nrc mnny separate things". Later abandoning the view of logical atomism,
Russell still held to pluralism given his conviction that the universe lacked a
continuity and orderliness.

In philosophical ethics, value-pluralism is the idea that there are several values which
may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In
addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values
may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in
terms of importance.

Value-pluralism is a theory in metaethics, rather than a theory of normative ethics, or

a set of values in itself. Oxford philosopher and historian of ideas, Isaiah Berlin, is
credited with being the first to write a substantial work describing the theory of
value-pluralism, bringing it to the attention of academia.

Idealistic pluralism is a philosophical position that suggests while an individual's

understanding of the world might be limited to only the ideas within his or her mind,
it can be known in this way by more than one mind. It rejects the idea o( solipsism,
which would be an idealistic monism. In the philosophy of George Berkeley, an
idealistic pluralism is found in his assertion that many minds (each knowing the

15
 Chapter One

world through his own representations) exist; separate from each other, and from
God.2^

The concept of pluralism became popular in political consideration about the

conditions of democracy as opposed to a monistic state apparatus. Hence, in Political
discussions Pluralism may refer to multiple potential parties, to the decentralization
of the state apparatus, or to the distribution of power resources in society. ^^

This views that in liberal democracies power is dispersed among a variety of

economic and ideological pressure groups and is not held by a single elite or group of
elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that the disparate
functional or cultural groups of which society is composed-including religious
groups, and ethnic minorities-should be autonomous. Pluralism was stressed most
vigorously during the early 20th century by a group of English writers that included
Frederic W. Maitland and Harold J. Laski. Reacting against what they alleged to be
the alienation of the individual under conditions of unrestrained capitalism, it was
necessary, they argued to integrate an individual in a social context that would give
98

him the sense of community. The American scholars Robert Dahl and David B.
Truman defended it in the later 20th century.
Pluralism does not mean only the physical proximity of the people of diverse creeds
and ethnic origin. It implies interaction on both the individual and collective planes.
At the individual level friction is not necessarily eliminated. But intermittent friction
has not impaired the cordiality of coexistence at the individual plane. More serious,
however is the challenge of collective behavior. The challenge of co-existence
between different communities, diverse religious, cultural and ethnic entities has
assumed alarming proportions. Public relationship between communities poses the
most serious threat to peaceful coexistence in all plural societies. But attempts to lay

16
 Chapter One

down principles of coexistence have rarely been made with the sincerity they
deserve.^°

Within the context of social science discourse, Ole Riis argues, pluralism in the sense
of recognition of multiplicity in a society and as a pre-condition for individual choice
and freedom is contrasted by two extreme opposites. First, by any form of monism,
i.e. a theocracy, an absolutist state, a monopoly, a total society, an alienated
consciousness, a petrified cultural monolith etc. Second, since the idea of pluralism
implies an identifiable structure, it is simultaneously contrasted by amorphousness
i.e. anarchy, anomie in a cognitive or normative sense, epistemological relativism,
incoherent post-modernism, and so forth. Since social fields are often homologous,
pluralism in one field has often correlatives in other fields of society. However, this
homology is not an outcome of a mechanical law as demonstrated by many examples
of economic, political, cultural and social fields diverging in their respective degree
of pluralisation within a society.

This suggests that the concept of pluralism is used both in a descriptive and in an
evaluative sense. It may on the one hand, refer to an awareness of a muhitude of sub-
entities, while, on the other hand, it may express the positive acknowledgement of
plurality. However, it would be a primary example for a naturalistic fallacy to
conclude from the empirical fact of plurality that such plurality should be embraced
normatively. Furthermore, one may argue that there is a ftindamental difference
between tolerating a concrete range of differing attitudes, beliefs, values and life-
styles, and holding as abstract, universal ideal of toleration, since it accepts anything
in principle and, therefore, nothing in practice. The point of this sketch is to stress
that pluralism is a term with several meanings and associations and that it is,
31
therefore, necessary to clarify its meanings.

17
 Chapter One

Pluralism was stressed most vigorously in England during the 20th century by a
group of writers. Reacting against what they alleged to be the alienation of the
individual under conditions of unrestrained capitalism, it was necessary, they argued
to integrate an individual in a social context that would give him the sense of
community. It has now become an integral part of secular western ideology. It is
seen as one amongst many means of providing checks and balances in the society. ^^
The term Plural society and pluralism of the 20th century has been increasingly used
in anthropology, sociology, political science and international relations, and to
describe societies that arc characterized by substantial racial, ethnic and social
diversities and cleavages. Anthropologists have described many such societies as
composite, multiple and dual societies. In the social sciences the term pluralism has
been used in two rather different senses. In one sense, pluralism is said to be a
property or character of societies that are marked by the coexistence of several
groups and cultural communities within a single political and economic system. By
virtue of the fact that the same economic and political process governs these groups
and communities, they tend to be interdependent. At the same time they have a good
measure of autonomy. In the second sense, pluralism has a distinct political
connotation and is regarded as a necessary condition for the viability of democracy in
complex societies. In democratic pluralism, the decision-making process devolves
upon a wide variety of autonomous political institutions and social groups.

Pluralism provides an invaluable examination and clarification of one of the most

important and problematic terms in the social science. It signals a theorized
preference for multiplicity over unity and for diversity over uniformity. The
democratic pluralism is a guiding principle, which permits the peaceful co-existence
of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Unlike totalitarianism or
particularism, pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it

18
 Chapter One

imperative tliat members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in

good-faitii negotiations.

One of the earliest arguments for pluralism came from James Madison. He posits that
in order to avoid faction, which could lead to the internal strife in America. It is best
to allow many competing factions to prevent any one dominating the political
system. This relies, to a degree, on a series of disturbances changing the influences of
groups so as to avoid institutional dominance and ensure competition. However there
are some objections to it. Critics argue that groups need a high level of resources and
the support of patrons in order to be able to contend for influence and this
observation formed the basis for the theory of elite pluralism which was advanced by
writers such as Elmer Eric Schattschneider who wrote that 'all groups sing with an
upper-class bias'.

Pluralism is connected with the expectation of the common good that is best for the
society because of the process of this conflict and dialogue. This implies that in a
pluralistic framework, the common good is not given a priori. Instead, the scope and
content of the common good can only be found out in and after the process of
negotiation {a posteriori). Consequently, the common good docs not coincide with
the position of any one cohesive organization. Still, one group may eventually
manage to establish its own view as the generally accepted view, but only as the
resuh of the negotiation process within the pluralistic framework. This implies that in
general the operator of a truly pluralistic framework or the state must not be biased: it
may not take sides with any one group, give undue privileges to one group and
discriminate against another one. And its proponents argue that this negotiation
process is the best way to achieve the common good: since everyone can participate
in power and decision-making, there can also be widespread participation and a
greater feeling of commitment from society members, and therefore better outcomes.

19
 Chapter One

By contrast, an authoritarian or oligarchic society, where power is concentrated and

few members make decisions, forestalls this possibility. But the philosophers like
Charles Blattberg argued that negotiation can at best compromise rather than realize
the common good. Doing the latter is said to require engaging in "conversation"
instead, room for which is made within what Blattberg calls a patriotic, as distinct
from pluralist, politics.'^^

The different groups have to agree to a minimal consensus regarding shared values,
which tie the different groups to a society, and share rules for conflict resolution
between them. The most important one is the mutual respect and tolerance, so that
different groups can coexist and interact without anyone being forced to assimilate to
anyone else's position in conflicts that will naturally arise out of diverging interests
and positions. These conflicts can only be resolved durably by dialogue, which leads
to compromise and to mutual understanding.

However, the necessary consensus on rules and values should not unnecessarily limit
different groups and individuals within society in their value decisions. According to
the principle of subsidiarity, everything that need not be regulated within the general
framework should be left to decide for subordinate groups and, in turn, to individuals
so as to guarantee them a maximum amount of freedom. In ultimate consequence,
pluralism thus also implies the right for individuals to determine values and truths for
themselves instead of being forced to follow the whole of society or, indeed, their
own group.^^

In economic theory inspired by models of rational choice, the term pluralism is

associated with the idea of a free market system that may ensure open competition
for suppliers, and the free choice of customers.'*^ Various communities interact as
buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, as employees and employers. They
share the same soil, make claims on the same stock of raw materials, and operate in

20
 Chapter One

the same market. Even when specialized occupations become the hallmark of diverse
communities, the area of togetherness is fairly wide."*^

Structural pluralism, a form of Pluralism is a concept used to examine the way in

which societies are structured, and specifically is a way to explain coverage
differences in media markets. It is associated with philosophical, sociological and
communication literature. Structural pluralism is what makes civic community' a
unique form of civil society. Structural pluralism represents the extent to which the
community ha.s an open and inclusive structure that permits minority voices and
opinions to be heard when citizens and citizen groups are addressing community
problems.

Communities are discussed in terms of having common institutions, such as

governing or other political bodies, religious, educational and economic institutions.
These bodies or institutions help to maintain the social order within the community.
This concept comes from the field of sociology, but prior to that, stems from writings
by Hegel (1821) on civil society. This comes also from the functionalist writings of
Emile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer.'^^

Pluralism may refer to all these meanings in sociology as well. In cultural sociology
and ethnology, it refers to a fragmentation of culture into a set of sub-cultures
demarcated by ethnic, linguistic, religious or other boundaries. In Cognitive
sociology, which is dedicated to the study of interpretation of everyday life and the
world at large, the concept of pluralism, describes a social situation where several
meaning systems are simultaneously presented as plausible interpretations of the
world. In functional sociology, Pluralism refers to the differentiation of society,
which can be observed at the individual level as a differentiation of roles. At
organizational and societal level as limitation of the functions of institutions.'*^ The

21
 Chapter One

social interaction has widened and deepened even as integration of the world
economy has proceeded along hitherto untouched frontiers.

Cultural pluralism exists when all groups within a larger society maintain their
unique cultural identities. In a pluralist culture, unique groups not only coexist side
by side, but also consider qualities of other groups as traits worth having in the
dominant culture. For example, a community center in the United States may offer
classes in Indian yoga, Chinese calligraphy, and Latin salsa dancing. That city may
also house a synagogue, mosque, and Buddhist temple, as well as several churches of
various Christian denominations.

The existence of such institutions and practices is possible because the cultural
communities responsible for them are protected by law and accepted by the larger
society in a pluralist culture. Cultural pluralism is a necessary consequence of a
nourishing and peaceful democratic society, because of its tolerance and respect for
cultural and ethnic diversity. The term cultural pluralism was coined by the American
philosopher Horace Kallen. Another thinker who helped shape this notion includes
Randolph Bourne.'*''

Curiously enough, two contradictory sets of forces have been unleashed as a

consequence of this development. Globalization (single geographical world system)
of the world has taken the form of neocolonialism. Integration of the world economy
has facilitated the dominance of multinationals, and threatens to dismantle
independent decision-making as well. It has made a frontal assault on the values and
cultures of different societies.

The positive response to these developments resulted in the recommendation of

coexistence as the norm; diverse creeds and cultures are asked to live together.
Adjustment to the new situations is now considered an important thing or rather

22
 Chapter One

eligibility. Negatively, however the threat perception of minority creeds and cultures
has forced them to be extra vigilant and hostile towards alien cultures and societies.'*^
The comparison to a few ideas like Multiculturalism and Federalism with the
Pluralism may clarify its position and applicability more genuinely.

Pluralism and Multiculturalism

Another term, which has more or less the same connotation and has rather surpassed
pluralism in usage, is multiculturalism. Culture according to Raymond Williams "is
one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. This is so
partly because of its intricate historical development, in several European Languages,
but mainly because it has now come to be used for important concepts in several
distinct intellectual disciplines and in several distinct and incompatible systems of
thought". We may perhaps agree that culture refers to all the accepted and patterned
ways of behaviors of a given people and includes their material achievements,
intellectual activities and spiritual ideas. Williams's cites the argument of Herder that
it is necessary to speak of cultures instead of culture; there are "the specific and
variable cultures of social and economic groups within a nation". This indicates the
multiplicity of cultures and this concept admits of many cultures in the world and
their right to develop their own way ''^ Most contemporary societies, whether in Asia
and Africa or in Europe and North America, are now plural and muhicultural in the
sense that they are composed of many distinct, self-conscious ethnic groups and
cultural communities as discussed above.

However, multicultural interaction has not always been smooth. People of dominant
communities frequently dislike living in the neighborhood of "aliens". They resort to
silent but systematic discrimination. Thus localities based on racial or ethnic and
sometimes even religious proclivities are the norm. This undercurrent of intolerance
has been further reinforced by the accelerated desire to preserve and foster cultural

23
 Chapter One

identities. We may observe tension between communities in highly developed

countries such as USA where Black and White Americans do not share the same
residential vicinity. In India, despite a long history of a multi-cultural and muhi-
religious society, Hindus and Muslims hardly live in the same vicinity in
metropolitan cities and towns. Social and communal prejudices permeate other
crucial areas of interaction such as recruitment in private and government sector
establishments, public utilities, and law and order machineiy. Indian society has a
bitter experience of these prejudices since they frequently erupt into violent
communal strife's. Nevertheless such prejudices arc remarkably well entrenched in
Western and Eastern societies of England, USA, Australia, and Sri Lanka.''*'

Pluralism is not only indicative of an important facet of the political and social reality
of our times, but also entails a set of moral premises and value-orientations, including
an open and ungrudging acknowledgement and acceptance of ethnic and cultural
diversity. It also demands disapproval of forced assimilation. It requires tolerance,
peaceful coexistence, a human and democratic framework, respect for human rights
including community and minority rights, and commitment to dialogue and other
peaceful methods of mutual interaction.

The great minorities of the post World War II era have altered the demographic
composition of many countries in Europe and North America. They have challenged
the assumption of a homogeneous national culture as the edifice of the nation state.
The phenomenon of globalization as a significant feature of the post-industrial era is
a key process that has generated renewed focus on the issue of cultural and religious
diversity. Globalization has provided a great avenue of the exchange of ideas
between the East and the West.''^ It has accelerated the general awareness of the
Plurality of religions. As a side effect of international communication, trade, politics,
and mobility, people become increasingly aware of the existence of a vast multitude

24
 Chapter One

of worldviews and are compelled to look critically upon their own taken-far-granted
assumptions. Traditions legitimizing the religious identity of a homogeneous region
are thus challenged by globalization. Such a change of perspective may also
challenge the status of religious organizations; a unit which has been a regional
church for centuries becomes sect-like when seen in a global framework.^"^ This
process has brought about an enormous amount of economic, financial, political and
cultural uniformity and homogenization across the world. It has also contributed to
the revival or reinvention of ethnic identities.^'

The focus of contemporary multiculturalism is, therefore, radically different from

earlier notions of pluralism and cultural difference. Unlike pluralism, which points to
the amicable coexistence of different cultures, multiculturalism makes a value
statement. It asserts that the many cultural communities that are present in our society
must live as equals in the public domain. As such, multiculturalism is not just an
assertion of tolerance; nor is it, for that matter, a celebration of eclecticism of tastes.
Multiculturalism speaks of equality of cultures and argues that in a democracy, all
cultural communities must be entitled to equal status in the public domain. That is,
fair treatment as an equal citizen is a matter of right; it is not - and must not be -
dependent upon the largesse or benevolence of the majority community. Indeed, it is
what all individuals, as citizens and members of different communities, might
legitimately expect and receive in a democracy.

Multiculturalism thus speaks of issues that are central to democracy. On the one
hand, it extends democratic sensibilities, and on the other, it is itself an expression of
the democratic urge. The current engagement with multiculturalism and the attention
that this theory has received in the recent past can best be appreciated against this
wider backdrop of democracy.^^

25
 Chapter One

Pluralism and Federalism

Pluralism in its basic meanings refers to the existence of multiplicity of modes and
methods, thought and ideas, culture and political forms, and plurality of identities. It
is deconstructive of any form of monism and uniformity. In the conte>a of social
relationships, political forms and principles, pluralism has a special appeal in a plural
society. The meaning and context of pluralism has not, however, been uniform
throughout its course of development. With shifting emphasis and focus, pluralism as
a concept has been conceived, used and articulated differently. In the contemporary
usages, especially in the context of post-modernism and post-colonialism,
...Pluralism indicates amongst other things: a suitably humble and relativistic
acceptance that there is a range of cultural values; opposition to all forms of
cultural imperialism; release from the dead hands of enlightenment
scienticism and rationalism; fruitful methodological diversity; endorsement of
different ways of knowing and of being; creativity and openness in theory; and
embrace of wide range of social interests and interest groups in the modem
political scene, none of which are primary in any demonstrable sense;
affirmation of democracy as an end in itself; attention to the complexities of
political allegiance; the sense that our social and political identities are now
chosen rather than inherited; anti-utopian political horizons; enshrinement of
the principle of equal but different.^^
However the use and application of the concept of pluralism in the context of
accommodation encompasses federal idea, federal principle and federalism in general
which is premised on the value of collective life and on the recognition of individual
identity. Its political context is based on the prescription that the state should be as far
as possible neutral over the question of personal morality and common conception of
good, and it should offer freedom of choice on the part of individual to choose his or
her own community life. However, the state should provide framework within which

26
 Chapter One

individuals and communities would pursue their own goals, and interference with the
rights of others to pursue their own good should not be allowed or justified under any
circumstances except when such pursuit causes harm to others.^"* It stipulates a
judicious blending of social and political institutions for accommodating pluralities,
and this is precisely the context that pluralism makes appeal and gets its expression in
federal principles.
Pluralism provides framework of accommodation in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural,
multi-lingual, multi-regional, multi-religious, multi-caste-plural society. It is
essentially non-homogeneous and non-hierarchical; corresponding with the two basic
values of equality and liberty. In such a society it is not merely a question of choice
but also an existential condition of peace and harmony. It recognizes and respects
diversities in a given society and provides social and political space for the
expression and articulation of multiple identities. As a principle, pluralism promotes
inter-community understanding and in such a condition it appears both a social fact
and a value. It is found to be independent of individual will and volition; still
constraining on them, and in this sense it constitutes a social fact. It appears as a
value in a plural society where it reduces the possibility of conflict to the minimum,
and thus it is considered to be just, legitimate and desirable.
Any systematic study of the conceptual inter-linkage between pluralism and
federalism reveals a close affinity between them. It is probably because of the
changing meaning and context of federalism. Now federalism has almost liberated
itself from the close confines of strict political-legal formalism. The roots of new
federalism can be traced in the work of W.S. Livingston, and with variations it is
found in the theoretical formulations of W. H. Riker, Ivo Duchacek, R. L. Watts,
Vincent Ostrom, Daniel j . Elazar, Michael Burgess, Thomos Fleiner and many other
federalists in different parts of the world.^^ The new trend of federalism has a wider
application in the Indian situation. Rasheeduddin Khan's work on Indian Federalism

27
 Chapter One

in general and his concept of federal nation catches the essence of changing thematic
stress of federalism. It addresses the Indian social and political reality, and it's
compounding problems of accommodation. The changing contexts and recognition of
the importance of sociological foundation has substantially changed the traditional
views on federalism. It is in this context that federalism comes closer to pluralism as
a social and political principle. Livingston, one of the exponents of the new
interpretation of federalism, maintains,
The essential nature of federalism is to be sought for, not in the shadings of
legal and constitutional terminology, but in the forces - economic, social,
political, cultural - that have made the outward forms of federalism
necessary.... The essence of federalism lies not in the constitutional or
institutional structure but in the society itself Federal government is a device
by which the federal qualities of the society are articulated and protected.^^
In this regard it is, however, important to note that the basic concern of pluralism as a
social and political principle is only to recognize the existence and importance of
plurality which may serve as the basic breeding ground for tolerance and
accommodation; however, it is almost silent on the specific institutionalization of
pluralities with specific political and legal institutional mechanism is the requisite of
Ihc concept of federalism. This is the context; Daniel J. Elazar gives preference to
federalism over pluralism. He observes that pluralism in one form or another may in
deed be safeguard of liberty, but is cannot be relied upon by itself unless properly
institutionalized constitutionally; and federalism differs from pluralism because it
bases its efforts to deal with the realities of human nature on firm constitutional
basis.^^
Considering the overlap between pluralism and federalism in the writings and
treatment of social scientists, the sharp distinction between them is difficult. It can
only be deduced in the light of context specification of accommodation and

28
 Chapter One

institutional meciianisms. Taking a cue from federalists across the globe, especially
from Daniel j . Elazar, Ronald L. Watts, W.S. Livingston and recent developments in
federal theory Rasheeduddin Khan maintains, "... three determinants of federalism
are crucial: 1. Federalism as a social theory recognizes pluralism as the valid basis of
collective peaceful co-existence; 2. Federalism as a political principle seeks to
stabilize a pattern of constitutional diffusion of power in order to reconcile the twin
concerns of common/generalized shared rule with regiment coordinated the
legitimate distribution of power and jurisdiction between general central federal
authority and the constituent units states provinces lenders cantons, etc. federalism in
essence is a covenants based arrangement of regulated partnership in a plural society
»58

In the broadest sense of the term, federalism, as Elazar points out, "involves the
linking of individuals, groups, and politics in lasting but limited union in such a way
as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the
respective integrities of all parties."^^
In essence it strikes a balance between individual aspirations and collective good,
and provides a pattern for harmonization of identities in which individuality of
identity is maintained, preserved and promoted and different identities are tied
together for common goal. The reconciliation between self-expression and autonomy
of units with larger whole is crucial. Identities corresponding with their respective
social-cultural locations are provided a constitutional shield in order to protect the
integrities of the respective units on the one hand and to ensure a federal balance
between them on the other. This pattern of harmonization takes into consideration the
principle of 'maximum homogeneity within and maximum identity without.'^"
In this regard federalism reconciles the twin processes of political unification and
social diversity. As a logical extension, it defines the relationship between society
and state and stipulates the design of constituting civil society. It can best be

29
 Chapter One

concluded with Burgess formulation that "the genius of federation lies in its infinite
capacity to accommodate and reconcile the competing and sometimes conflicting
array of diversities having political salience within a state. Toleration, respect,
compromise, bargaining and mutual recognition are its watchwords and 'union'
combined simultaneously with 'autonomy' is its hallmark."^' Considering the
broader context of pluralism and federalism as principles of socio-political
accommodation, it appears imperative to retrospect the social-cultural bases of Indian
Pluralism. The understanding of the process may provide better prospects of
accommodation in contemporary situation of dissension, discord, mutual suspicion
and mistrust prevailing in social relationships. The relationships between the state
and society, on the one hand, and between the segments of society, on the other, have
to be redefined in order to constitute a harmonious civil society. Taking the lessons
from the history of peaceful coexistence of pluralities and multiple identities of
Indian social life, the contemporary challenges can be addressed and given a
direction corresponding with the idea of pluralism and pattern of federal
accommodation. As a substitutive analytical framework and a model of federal
accommodalion, the idea of religious pluralism, both as an existing reality and as a
framework for resolving the conflict in the multi-religious situation of India, is
important, for religion has been resurfacing as a potential threat to the composite
heritage and federal identity of India. Reacting to this situation social scientists with
different theoretical and ideological persuasion have fallen into the trap of 'circular
causality' which would not lead either to the 'recovery of religious self or to a
pattern of harmonious civil society. In the context, this is to add emphatically that, it
is the idea of pluralism and pattern of federal accommodation that can resolve the
dilemma of Indian and the like societies.

30
 Chapter One

Notes and References:

' Self 1. Tag El-Din, "Islamic Ethics of Religious Pluralism", The Islamic Quarterly, Vol.
XLVII. No. 2, 2003. p. 139.
^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Ed. Philip Babcock Gove, (USA: G &C
Merriamco. Publishers, 1966)
^ The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1768, USA. p. 361
"* John Hick, An Introduction to Religion, (Netland: Encountering Religious Pluralism, 1998)
P,221
^ Grcgor McLennan, Pluralism, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995)
^ Farid Esack, Qur'an, Liberation and Pluralism, (England: One World Oxford, 1997)
^ New York Review of Books. Vol XLV, Nov. 8. 1998.
* Abdulaziz Sachdina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, (Oxford: University
Press, 2001) p.22.
^ Omid Safi, Progressive Muslims; on Justice, Gender and Pluralism, (Oxford: One World,
2006) p.252
'" www.wpi.edu
'' Vincent Shaker, Quest for harmony: An Anthology of Religions in Dialogue, (Bangalore:
Claretian Publications, 2002), p.220
'^/6/^,p.221
'^ F. R. Faridi, Living as a Muslim in a Plural Society, (Chennai: Islamic Foundation Trust,
1998), p. 1
'•* Prof. Mehmet S. Ay Din, "Islam and the Challenges of the Pluralism" in Centrum voor
Islam in Europe, www.flwi.urgent.be/cie/maydinenl.htm
'^ Exclusivism is a term used by the theologians to describe their association with the truth
and the only truth.
'^Faridi, Op'c/V. Pp. 1-2
'' Ibid, p.4
'* Ibid p.7-8

31
 Chapter One

''' Quest for Harmony, Op 'cit. pp.221-222

^" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
^' Prof. Dr. Ole Riis, "Modes of religious pluralism under conditions of Globalisation",
Institute for Religions Vidensakb Det teologiske fakultet Aarhus Universitet DK-8000
Arhus C. Denmark. MOST Journal on Multicultural Societies, vol 1, No, 1. in
www.unesco.org/shh/iims/voll/ issuel/art2
^^ William James, A Pluralistic Universe, Hibbert lectures at Manchester College on the
Present Situation of Philosophy (London: Longmans Green and company- 1912) p. 34
^^ Ibid, p.44
^'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-pluralism
'^ hUp://www.answcrs.com/topic/idealistic-pluralism
^^ Modes of Religious Pluralism, Op'cit.
^^ Britannica.com, Op'cit.
^* The New Britanica Encyclopeida, 9:528. Op'cit.
^^ Britannica.com, Op 'cit.
•''°Faridi, C/j'c//. p.9
^' Modes of Religious Pluralism, Op'cit.
•^^ Britannica 9:528, Op'cit.
^^ "Secularism is not the Way to Peace" in Khalafat Magazine - vol.8 issue. 8, May 1998.
^'' A. R. Momin, "Islam and pluralism", Studies on Islam: Vol. l.No. 1, (2004), p.9
•'^ Ibid. Momin. P. 10
^^ Pluralism in Politics, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
" Pluralism and the common good in http.7/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
^^ Conditions for pluralism in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
^^ Pluralism and Subsidiarity in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
'"'^ Modes of Religious Pluralism, Op'cit.
^' Faridi, Op'c//. p.lO
''^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural Pluralism
'*^ Modes of Religious Pluralism, Op'cit.
^'^ wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism

32
 Chapter One

''^Faridi, Op'czV. P.12

^^ Anisuzaman, Cultural Pluralism, (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1993) p.7
"^^ Momm,Op'cit.p. 10
^^Faridi, Op'c;Y.pp 11-12
^'^ Shaikh Michael Mumisa, "Why as a Muslim I defend Multi-Culturalism ", lecturer Al-
Mahdi institute of Islamic studies, Birmingham.
^° Modes of Religious Pluralism, Op'cit.
^' Momin, Op'c/7. P. 10
*• Ciurpreet Mahajan, 7'hi; Mullicullural path-paths of diversity and nation in democracy,
(New Delhi: Saga publishers, 2002), p. 15
" Gregor McLennan, Op 'cit. Pp2-3
^'^ Bimal K. Matilal, "Pluralism, Relativism and Interaction between Cultures", in Elliot
Deurtsch, ed. Culture and Modernity: East West Philosophic Perspective, (Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidass, 1994), Pp. 141-142.
^^ Abdul Rahim P. Vijapur, Ajay Kumar Singh, Kumar Suresh, Pluralism, Minorities,
National integration: Problems and prospects. Pp. 7-8
^'' W. S. Livingston, Federalism and Constitutional Change, (Oxford: Claredoii Press.
1995), Pp. 1-2
^^ Daniel j . Elazar, Exploring Federalism, (Tuscaloosa: University of Albama Press, 1987),
Pp.87.
^* Rasheaduddin Khan, "From Statism to Federalism-Shift of Paradigm I the Contemporary
Global Political System", (Theoretical Prelude of the paper presented at the lACFS
Conference at Philadelphia, 1995)
''^ Daniel J. Elazar, Op'cit. p.5
^" Rasheeduddin Khan, Federal India: A Design for Change, (New Delhi: Vikas,
Publications, 1992)
^' Michael Burgess, ''Federalism and Federation: A Reappraisar in Michael Burgers and
Alain G. Gagnon. p. 7
''' Pluralism, Minorities, National Integration, Op'cit. Pp. 9-10

33