Multiculturalism disintegrates India - I
by B S Harishankar on 14 Sep 2018 14 Comments

An orchestrated attempt has recently emerged in the contemporary Indian academic, cultural and political scene to define, elucidate, interpret, explicate and emphasize our past and present within the framework of multiculturalism. This new theory has been launched when the exclusively European secularism has been routed from India. Multiculturalism which has taken the seat aims to expunge our ancient idea of integration, assimilation and diversity. It shall also be projected as a slogan in 2019 general elections to counter cultural nationalism.

 

To understand multiculturalism in the Indian context, it is necessary to comprehend the origin, development and impact of this ideology in the west, since its crux lays in Europe. Its aftermath has been apprehended, analyzed and discussed by various research institutes, think tanks, authors and statesmen in the west.

 

The notion of a multicultural society developed steadily in the 20th century by continuous waves of immigration to Europe and America by the rather uncomfortable post-WWII legacy of toxic ethno-nationalism. Western liberal democracies advocated that ethnic minorities have rights to retain their cultures within certain limits. Since the 1970s, multiculturalism has been the official policy in Canada, Australia and Western Europe due to growing urbanization and migration. A festival of multiculturalism is celebrated by the Halton Multicultural Council throughout the region of Halton, in Canada.

 

As a response to a new growth of European imperialism in sub-Saharan Africa and the huge immigration of southern and eastern Europeans to the United States and Latin America, thinkers, philosophers and sociologists such as Charles Sanders Peirce, George Santayana and Alain Locke developed ideas of cultural pluralism, from which emerged the current  multiculturalism. Notable ideologues of pluralism include Robert Alan Dahl and Seymour Martin Lipset.  

 

Although America exerted powerful cultural influence to export such an ideology since the civil rights movement in the 1960s, its most ardent supporters across the world have been left-wingers. Multiculturalism today is generally associated with post-colonial immigration and the juxtaposition of different ethnic groups within European countries. Race is important in multiculturalism. Current debates over multiculturalism center round whether or not multiculturalism is the appropriate way to deal with diversity and immigrant integration in the west.

 

Multiculturalism, the ‘elite cult’ of Euro American think tanks, enforced by many EU states through “diversity” programmes, has begun to lose its old glamour and lustre. Since the last two decades, Western Europe which propagated ideas of multiculturalism has disowned it. One of the most dangerous theories of balkanization that has emerged globally is rooted in the idea of multiculturalism. Many commentators worry that multiculturalism has nurtured what Germans call Parallelgesellschaften or parallel societies segregated from a country’s socio-cultural integration.

 

Alibhai Brown in his work, After Multiculturalism, cautioned that different cultures are to be valued, but it is always wrong for them to take precedence over fundamental human rights. Samuel Huntington observed in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order that multiculturalism is basically an anti-Western ideology. The multiculturalists claim to be fostering a progressive cultural cosmopolitanism distinguished by superior sensitivity to the downtrodden and dispossessed. Huntington says the multiculturalists wish to create a country of many civilizations, a country not belonging to any civilization and lacking a cultural core. In his noted work, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society, Arthur Schlesinger pointed out that the multiculturalists are very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the western heritage other than western crimes.

 

Beyond its outward claims of equality and opportunities, it is important to understand the targets of multiculturalism. In a paper presented at the conference on European Approaches to Multiculturalism and Integration, organized by The Smith Institute and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in 2011, Rene Cuperus said multiculturalism has a two-fold implicit message. A false comforting message to newcomers/migrants: “You do not have to integrate in or adapt to your new home country”. And a disrupting message to the native population: “Your majority culture will in the future just be one of many multi-cultures.”

 

In an article for the Council for Secular Humanism in 2006, Dutch legal philosopher, Paul Cliteur, considered non-western cultures as anachronistic, and multiculturalism as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism. He argued that multiculturalism leads to the acceptance of barbaric practices (brought by Muslim immigrants to the West) including slavery, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and female genital mutilation.

 

Professor Olivier Roy, an eminent French scholar on contemporary Islam, has explicitly declared that both assimilation and multiculturalism have failed. The Council of Europe, guardian of the European Convention on Human Rights, has backed the growing number of heads of government denouncing multiculturalism as a failure, warning that it poses a threat to security. Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary-general of the council, said, “multiculturalism allows parallel societies to develop within states, since some parallel societies have developed radical ideas that are dangerous such as terrorism”.

                                          

Robert D. Putnam conducted a decade-long research on how multiculturalism harms social trust. After surveying 26,200 people in 40 American communities, he highlights that the more racially diverse a community emerges, the greater the loss of mutual trust. People in diverse communities lose faith in state media and institutions.

 

In his speech  on the topic ‘Pluralism: a key challenge of the 21st century,’ Kofi Annan, the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, observed on 23 May 2013 that if diversity is seen as a source of strength, societies can become healthier, more stable and prosperous. Annan stressed that there is another side of the coin if we fail to manage the conflicting pressures that pluralism inevitably brings. He emphasized that without the institutions and policies to manage diversity, whole communities can feel marginalized and oppressed, creating conditions for conflict and violence.

 

This is why pluralism is a key challenge for the 21st century. Within Europe, pluralism is currently seen as a threat. According to French reporter Alexandre Mendel, multiculturalism is leading to the separation of European societies. American historian Andrew Michta, also Dean at the European Centre for Security Studies, argues that the elite policies of multiculturalism, group identity politics, and the deconstruction of Western heritage, has contributed to the fracturing of Western European nations and has weakened the overall sense of mutual responsibility for one’s fellow citizens. But everywhere, the overarching consequences have been the same as observed by Kenan Malik: fragmented societies, alienated minorities, and resentful citizens.

 

Europe allowed excessive immigration without formulating integration into mainstream, a mismatch that has eroded social cohesion, undermined national identities, and degraded public trust. Terrorism has been the final outcome. The numbers of attacks of left-wing terrorists increased in 2016 compared to 2015. Twenty-seven attacks were carried out and EU member state authorities arrested 31 people. Italy, Greece and Spain were the only EU member states to experience left-wing and anarchist terrorist attacks.

 

According to EU reports, jihadism accounts for the most catastrophic forms of terrorist activity as nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the number rose for the third consecutive year. The European Counter Terrorism Centre at Europol supported 127 counter terrorism investigations in 2016, which shows a clear indication of the growing range of jihadist activity.

 

The Gatestone Institute, International Policy Council in October 2017 said that according to Policy Exchange, a think tank report, “The New Netwar,” the Islamic State is still producing, at a conservative estimate, about 100 items of new content each week, including execution videos and bomb-making instructions, reaching an internet audience of, at minimum, tens of thousands, including large numbers of users in the UK. British Muslims are twice as likely to espouse anti-Semitic views, according to a survey conducted by the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research. British universities hosted 110 events featuring extremist speakers in the last academic year, 2016/17, with the highest proportion taking place in London institutions.

 

On April 2014, a paper was released by Russia’s Ministry of Culture, entitled ‘Fundamentals of the State Cultural Policy’. The authors assert that the basis of cultural policy should be the idea that ‘Russia is not Europe.’ They called for the abandonment of the Western cult of liberalism, specifically noting that “Multiculturalism” is dangerous to Russian society, and projects which are not consistent with traditional Russian values must be deprived of all state support. The paper was signed by Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Aristarhova, and submitted for consideration to the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation. On March 2016, Konstantin Romodanovsky, head of Russia’s Federal Migration Service, said multiculturalism has failed.

 

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill warned in 2016 that multiculturalism has no future in Europe because it creates a dangerous cocktail of people cut off from their deep-rooted traditions. He observed that if multiculturalism implies weakening people’s connection to their values and traditions, it automatically makes them victims of discrimination and forces them to be defensive. The Patriarch said this very approach contains a dangerous source of division, the fundamental division of the family.

 

Data from PEW research showed that more than 70 per cent of people in 10 European Union countries surveyed said multiculturalism made their country either a “worse” place to live, or made “no difference” at all. In Greece, 63 per cent of respondents said increasing diversity had made their country a worse place to live. In Italy, 53 per cent held a similar view.

 

Speaking at a security conference in Munich in February, 2011 British PM David Cameron launched a devastating attack on multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and Islamic terrorism. Earlier in December 2006, former Prime Minister Tony Blair made a major appeal on Britishness. He said there is a right to ‘our own different faiths, races and creeds’; but we have a ‘duty to express any difference in a way fully consistent with the shared values that bind us together’. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in October 2010 that the multicultural idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily “side by side” did not work. Later in December 2015, she said multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie’.

 

French president Nicolas Sarkozy admitted in February 2011 that multiculturalism did not lead to integration and has failed in France. He said “Our Muslim compatriots should be able to live and practice their religion like anyone else ... but it can only be a French Islam and not just an Islam in France.” “If you come to France,” said Sarkozy, “you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.” Australia’s former prime minister John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar have also perceived that multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants in their countries.

 

A revamping of the educational system in Europe began a decade back to counter the dangers of multiculturalism. In 2006, British Minister of Education announced plans to implement teaching of core British values in the school curriculum as British identity is hardly touched in education. It was frequently noted that London bombings were perpetrated by British citizens whose loyalties lay with their ethnic and religious identities rather than Britain. It was also identified that lack of a successfully mobilizing inclusive civic British identity was seen as the cause behind such anti national trends.

 

Former Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, claimed in 2017 that political support for multiculturalism had created a “fifth column” of terror supporters in western societies. From Moscow to Marseilles, from Stockholm to Sicily, the western world sees the Muslims pouring in and creating tiny nations within the nation and being unwilling to embrace a new identity as English, Italian, French or German. It is this menacing and threatening multiculturalism that is being hastily launched in India.

 

There is an emerging trend across Africa and the Third World in implementing ideas such as multiculturalism framed in Europe due to socio-political conditions peculiar to the region. For blindly adopting western theories, Malaysian academician Syed Hussain Alatas condemned third world intellectuals with their persisting obsession with imported and inherited theories from the West, unfamiliar to their culture and society and their intellectual traditions. In June 2011, for the same reason, at the Penang International Conference, Claude Alvares criticized the Indian academic society for blindly submitting to western intellectual tradition

 

(To be concluded…

User Comments Post a Comment
The hindutva intellectuals do not have any sense of independant thought process. They were always reactionary, either to communism, or to christianity or islam. They define their arguments, only based on negating western ideologies.

For eg, just because the christian missionaries are protesting in thoothukudi against sterlite, these people take the opposite stance, and ignore the merits of the case.

This article also follows that line. He categorizes multi-cultural as western and cultural nationalism as indian, without knowing both are imports of alien ideologies. The very concept of nationalism , patriotism is itself western.

I would like to challenge the author to define what he means by socio-cultural integration?

For eg, in what way the culture i follow in the southern most part of india is integrated with the culture followed in north india?

In the name of integration, the hindutva brigade is creating monotheism and mono-culture across india. And this mono-culture is itself half-baked and based out of urban uprooted society.

And far worse is that they define culture only in terms of religious festivals, and worships. They confine every bit of their argument within the framework of religious thought process. For them there does not exist any world outside that. So if any alien forces come and exploit our national resources, or alter our economic system or implement an alien administrative system, these brigades will never worry about them as long as they are shown the chocolote of festivals.

This is the root cause of why we are still in slavery. The rot lies within us, with the intellectuals who claim to work for Hindu society.
senthil
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
B S Harishankar is quite simply and historically wrong.

Multiculturalism was never a western ideology and was never to spontaneously emerge in any western country.

In point of fact, its genesis was the United Nations, later identified as a strategy launched by the Rockefeller's and Rothschilds (ie Soros), as a triple-pronged weapon to dilute nationalism, create social division, and to inundate social programmes.

Its launching pad was countries needed for oil and gas pipelines, inhabitants being morphed into refugees. This saved the invaders from the requirement of comprensation.

Refuting Harishankar's claims about Australia... the Policy of Multiculturalism was first promulgated in 1979 when Canberra bureaucrats sent Multiculturalism Committees to all states and territories to acquaint government community development departments with the new unilateral policy.

The first target in the Northern Territory was the Director of Welfare, Bruce Alcorn, who deftly deflected these zealous committee members for me to host.

I listened to the delegates and was stunned to realise they had no idea what the word culture actually meant, let alone appreciate that each culture possesses elements that are in endemic conflict with other cultures.

Moreover, as tens of thousands of world travelers had so incredulously discovered, Darwin was then a city which was home to 73 disparate cultures, yet all lived together without racial or cross-cultural tension. There were no ghettos, no wealthy suburbs, nor enclaves of poverty. Darwin was the epitome of egalitarian democracy... the Australian Dream realised in spades

We all knew this and were proud of it. That these uncomprehending troglodytes were trying to 'ship coal to Newcastle' really got up my nose and I wasted little time on diplomacy is assisting them to comprehend the sheer inappropriateness of their intrusion.

Unfortunately, comprehension was beyond their abilities so I connected them by phone conference to world-renowned paediatrician Alan Walker, to explain extreme cultural conflict in the form of female circumcision versus Australian child protection laws.

Even this could not penetrate their profound ignorance and the woman member accused me of fabricating the practice.

This, dear readers, was the calibre of multicultural proselytiser let loose on an unsuspecting Australia and, to this day, my own surveys show that more than 90% of Australians reject immigrants who are not prepared to adopt Australian culture and language.

Multiculturalism is just another globalist strategy, inflicted on unwilling citizens. If Indians get sucked into this con you have nobody but yourselves to blame for gullibility.
Tony Ryan
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
I hold no brief for "multiculturalism" but I would like to understand what is meant by "American culture" or "European culture" or "Australian culture". White Christian "culture"?
Bharati
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
Around 2010 or do I wrote a four part series on this isdue titled "Multiculturism is for the birds".
Radha Rajan
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
By definition most people cannot be multicultural. Multiculturalism is a feature of few individuals raised in various countries and inheriting a mixed capital (for example from parents belonging to different languages,religions, origins and civilizations), The vast majority necessarily belongs to one culture, however composite this culture may be in its origins, If you try to mix them with other cultual groups what you get is either confused people with not much culture left or mutual rejections and reinforcement of separate identities. As French philosopher Volney wrote: you don't unite people by gathering them.
Anon
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
There is a fundamental difference between the Indian and European social traditions. Our's is fundamentally inclusive because of the belief in Karma. No Hindu can tell another what to think of God, how to pray or who to associate with, because all are matters of individual karma. The result has been an enormous freedom of belief and tolerance of differences. We assimiliate anything and everything, even fundamentally intolerant semitic religions. In Europe, the individual has never been free to choose. The tribes of Europe did not unite their own Vedas but under Paul's intolerant version of the teachings of Jesus. That meant enormous oppression of Pagans, and then, during the 19th Century nation-building process, of every kind of minority. The movement towards "multiculturalism" is a 20th Century movement to soften the harsh results. It has no place in India. We have a different system based on individual freedom, not on social rules. Senthil's North-South differenciation is fundamentally European. It is a difference the British sought to create. Throughout the history of India, the people of the Vedas have interacted on the basis of individual Karma and Dharma. That is why we have survived.
Bhaskar Menon
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
An excellent analysis on the relevance of multi culturism by Dr Harisankar. Bharat since ancient times, was the first in the world to declare "loka ssmastha sukino bhavantu" (let the world be happy). However, this noble concept has been misused and misinterpreted to mean assimilation of different cultures.. Bharat had in the past, kept its doors open and unguarded, but now, it is well guarded. This guarding has become essential. It is no wonder, that break India forces are becoming desperate and protesting against the hindhutva brigade who are trying to foil their nefarious designs. Multiculturalism is just a sofisticated weapon to destabilise and de hindhuise Bharat and pave the way for multi - nationalism.

Both Christianity and Islam have narrow out look by saying that their just One Book is the only authentic source of knowledge and salvation. Communism, on its part, does not tolerate any religion. The intolerance of these three, breed hatred and consequently, gives rise to terrorism in various countries. Apart from terrorism, western vulgarity, females drinking wine and smoking, resulting in marital discord are a few other evils springing from multi culturism. As Harisankar rightly pointed out "when multiculturalism has been rejected by most countries, what is the need to import it into India".

It is clear that this "bomb" called multi culturism has been imported into India to blast, de stabilise, devastate and destroy its national and cultural unity. The aim or conspiracy is to create many nations out of bharat. In short, multi culturism is nothing but multi nationalism in a hidden garb - wolf in sheep's clothing.
Panikkath krishnanunni
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
About hindhutva intellectuals not being independent in thought, I would like to ask Mr Senthil, if he is free from the grip of his narrow minded "dravidian thought" - a bias that springs from a false theory of Aryan invading the dravidian.

Hindhu festivals like Diwali, Vijayadashami, Krishna janmashtami and Shiva Ratri are celebrated throughout the length and breath of india, thus expressing cultural unity and nationalism in india.

Sendhil's view that nationalism and patriotism are western, seems rediculous. The need to stand united as a nation is a universal urge, and is therefore universal in nature, not western or Eastern. Christianity and Islam failed to unite countries of those religions. Communism failed to unite China and Russia. This is the ground reality. This proves that Nationalism and patriotism are far more powerful than any religion or communism or multi culturism.. Lastly, to state, Senthil drags in unnecessarily the hindhutva brigade and thuthukudi incident which has no relation with the main issue of multi culturism. Overall, to sum up, senthil has lost his logical clarity by mixing up irrelevant issues.

Multiculturalism never existed in india, but is being forced into India at present. If multi culturism did not exist in India, where else could it have originated? Obviously either in the west or in Europe.. What is more important in the Indian context, is not the place of its origin, but what is more relevant, is its need and role in india.

Tony Ryan stated that multiculturalism is a global strategy inflicted on unwilling citizens. For the hindhu, however, both multiculturalism and Christian convertion are global strategies to destroy this ancient hindhu nation.

Harisankar has given an apt warning about the Leftists - Church nexus in attempting to destroy the culture and national consciousness of india.
Panikkath krishnanunni
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
Is multi-culturism practised in any Muslim country ?
Dipak
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
Thank you for writing this idea beautifully.
Pradeesh
September 14, 2018
Report Abuse
Malaysia and Indonesia are multicultural (because of the Hindu-Buddhist heritage and the strong Chinese presence) but there are growing tensions and perils.
Anon
September 15, 2018
Report Abuse
@Tony Ryan

You are spot on. Multi-culturalism is a conspiracy designed by rothschild to destroy all independant / unique culutures across the world. It is a ploy to force conflicting cultures upon the native people of different parts of the world.

In India, the Hindutva brigade do the same in the name of Hinduism. They speak wide upon their mouth about diversity, but will then impose homogenous form of thought process in the name of Hinduism. They could not even digest the thought process that some cultures within india can be independant and unique, and different from the so called mainstream urban hinduism they are warped in to. A kind of intolerance.


Multi-culturalism existed in each and every village of bharat, for centuries. In any village, there would be atleast a dozen jaathis (Castes) that practice their own culture, that may be in contrast to the other jathi's culture and practices. A brahmin does not eat meat, but non-vegetarian communities live in the same village in different part without disturbing each other. Each one recognized each other. Everyone lived at certain distance from each other.

Every jathi had their own resources, their own autonomous administrative setup, their own temple etc. This independance and mutual recognition enabled diverse people groups to live peacefully in bharath.

Europe also had the same setup till the invasion of christianity.

However, what the rothschild and rockefellers and ford foundations wants is the destruction of all native system, and bring them under a common administrative system and common laws. In order to achieve that, they encourage migration, and refugees, so that native people will lose their rights over their land, and become dis-integrated.

The Hindu intellectuals will never be objective enough to deal with these realities or open minded analysis of world history.
senthil
September 17, 2018
Report Abuse
A well researched article by Sri Harisankar. I would like to state that the theory of multi culturalism propagated by the Leftists and so called Liberal pseudo secularists, is not scientific, for which I am putting forth two models (1)the Mule paradym and (2),psychology model.
The MULE MODEL:
The mule is a cross breed between a donkey and a horse. While cohabitation between the same species, ensures Nature's scientific law of propagation of species and genetic continuity of its existence, this is not possible for the mule that has a genetic disorder due to cross breeding. In course of time, such artificial and even original species will be eliminated,or become extinct. In the light of this model, all types of culture will be destroyed by multi culturalism in due course of time. The unique identity of a culture and identity as a nation is destroyed.
An extract from the book autobiography of a yogi by paramahansa yogananda (page 381), is worthy to note. The book says "inclusion in one of the four castes originally depended not on man's birth but on his natural capacities. The four castes are marked by the gunas, rajas, tamas and satva and a mixture of the three. To a certain extent, all races and nations observe caste in practice, if not in theory. Where there is great licence or liberty, particularly in inter marriage between the extremes in the natural caste, the race dwindles away and becomes extinct. The caste system of india is credited by her most profound thinkers with being the check or preventive against licence, that has preserved the purity of the race and brought it safely through mellenniums of vicissitudes, while many other races have completely vanished "History establishes this fact.
PSYCOLOGICAL MODEL
Psychology says that a happy marriage is possible only when similarities between the couples are more than the differences. If differences are more, quarrels and divorce will be the result. Multi culturalism therfore cannot guarantee positive results. In the Indian context, secularism means appeasement of the minorities at the expense of the majority, which very often, leads to communal clashes. Equality of all is nothing but a platonic theory.
MPK Kutty
September 18, 2018
Report Abuse
@senthil :
I feel pity for this gentleman, senthil, who, for sure, cannot be extricated from the treacherous whirlpool of Dravidian disruptive politics of dividing Hindu society.
Right at the outset, let me point out that clubbing together all Hindu organisations into a single phrase like "hindutva brigade" right wing "etc is not in order. It is an insult to the entire Hindu society. Those who are not bold adopt such phrases. If by hindutva brigade, senthil has the RSS in mind, let me state that the concept of Hindutva has little variation from the original concept of sanatana Dharma. The phrase, however, is used to mean the Rss in particular and to insult that noble patriotic organisation.
About senthil's baseless, biased accusations like "Hindutva imposing homogenity, intolerance, not open minded etc, the Times of India, pune dtd 20th Sept 2018, has quoted the Rss chief thus" bunch of thought, (by Golwalkar), woh paristhithi vash boli gayi, woh sashwath nahi, sangh bandh sangatan nahi, "meaning, whatever the founders of Rss said, was on a particular time and situation, which was valid then and not now. Sangh (rss), is not a closed orgn. Its philosophy changes as time changes.
Except ex president, Pranab Mukherjee, a cong. man, no body else from the opposition parties had the broad mindedness to attend an RSS function recently held. The event revealed that the RSS showed tolerance, but others displayed hatred, intolerance, political untouchability and unwillingness to even listen one sentence from the rss chief.
About homogenity allegations, an analysis of the name RAMA, proves unity in diversity of concepts. The name Rama is derived from two mantras - Aum namo narayana and, Aum namashivaya. The RA in Narayana and MA of namashivaya were joined together to form the word Rama. This means Rama =Shiva =God, which is ONE. This also proves that Rama is not Aryan and Shiva is not dravidian. They are just One, wise men call it variously.The false concept of Aryan and dravidian was introduced by the British to divide India. It would be better for senthil to stand united with a nationalistic sentiment instead of separatist mentality like the kashmiri Muslims and Nagaland Christians.
Panikkath krishnanunni
September 20, 2018
Report Abuse