Pluralism
Mutual accommodation among the different religious, regional, occupational, and professional groups in a society that have had diverse cultural and historical origins. Pluralism often has been treated as a principal effect of globalization and cause of secularization, although these causal directions may be disputed. It is probably best to see pluralism as part of an expanding circle of processes that characterize the development of the modern world system. Partly this entry refers to general characteristics of pluralism and partly to India as a specific case. India may be taken as paradigmatic of both the virtues and the vices of pluralism.
The Political Economics of Pluralism
All nation-states, old and new, are pluralistic in the sense that they contain within their ambit many ethnic groups. Nationally, the modern state rests on the principle of equidistance; all groups have equal access to it. However, there are two obstacles to this goal: First, in nearly all the nation-states, some groups that are in a majority dominate others who are in a minority. Second, in the new nation-states of Asia and Africa, primordial loyalties (based on kinship, religion, ethnicity, region, and so on) often create impediments in the working of a civil society built on democratic values. Nevertheless, many of these new states have provided constitutional guarantees for the equitable treatment of their citizens. In recent years, the Indian judiciary, for example, has made an exemplary effort to uphold citizens’ rights by revoking arbitrary acts of government.
In Western nations, pluralism has evolved through a capitalistic economic system. Here, political ideologies—right, center, and left—have tended to define pluralism through different perspectives, thereby bringing to the fore certain tensions and conflicts. In contrast, J. S. Furnivall (e.g., 1977 [1934]), who served in the Asian colonial administration, defined it in terms of the market principle. Referring to such societies as Burma and Indonesia during the colonial era, he noted that their indigenous people shared economic ties with immigrants from China, India, and so on, but the indigenous/immigrant groups were not united with each other in cultural terms. These societies were politically subordinated to the colonial rulers who also controlled the market transactions.
R. K. Jain (1994), a commentator on the overseas Indian communities, has pointed out that the Furnivallian model is more strictly applicable to settlement societies such as Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, and Mauritius than such civilizations as India, China, and Europe. In the former, there is a short history, a colonial background, and a culturally disparate population. In the latter, a long duration of tradition and cultural unity are conspicuous. Jain notes that Indian civilization has evolved through a diachronic interaction between the Great Tradition (derived from Sanskritic heritage) and the Little Tradition (derived from regional diversities in language and ethnicity). In addition to these, the indigenous bhakti (devotional) movements, the influx of Christianity in the colonial era, and the struggle for independence also contributed to Indian pluralism. Insofar as the settlement societies are concerned, Jain states that in the postcolonial era, there is a need for a replacement of the previous research model of acculturation—which implied the domination of one group over the other—by an intercultural model based on reciprocity among ethnic groups.
Structural Dimensions of Pluralism in India
Through centuries of interactions between different religions and ethnic groups, Indian society has developed a composite culture. Its ethnic groups include the many castes that operate within the framework of Hinduism as well as the non-Hindu groups such as Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. Encounters among these groups have led to the emergence of a symbiotic, rather than consensual, society in which structural tensions persist.
Although hierarchically organized, the Hindu caste system provided some scope for interdependence. The upper castes consisting of intellectual and landowning castes were dependent on lower servicing castes in economic as well as ritual terms. In addition, there was an implicit scope for mobility in the caste system; the bhakti movement opened up channels of upward mobility. Also, a few enterprising individuals could rise to be the rulers of the land through military prowess in spite of their previous low status. In recent decades, the process called Sanskritization (see Srinivas 1966) has enabled low-status groups to adopt rituals and norms of the higher groups to acquire a better status. Hence, despite the apparent rigidity, the Indian caste system has provided for pluralistic accommodation. However, the rising demands of different groups for higher status have created social tensions.
In the post-Independence period, Indian pluralism based on cultural unity has been under great strain. Not only the religious minorities but also the castes are scrambling for power and privilege. Although their aspirations may be timely and legitimate, the competition among them is often marked by distrust or hostility. In the words of G. S. Ghurye (1969), India seems to be heading toward a “Furnivallian” pluralism, with its market orientation rather than a cultural orientation. In this respect, it mirrors a general pattern of Western societies, which have been characterized, at least since Peter Berger (1967), as having a marketplace orientation marked by competition . Political parties in India are likewise often pursuing populist policies that use ad hoc measures to cater to minorities and weaker sections. India has achieved progress in many respects, but social discontent has also proportionately increased.
Historically, secularism in India has not meant a sharp break with religious traditions. Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain rulers allowed different faiths to exist in their realms. The development of secular occupations was not in conflict with religion. Max Weber (1958) noted that India had made progress in the preindustrial economy through its numerous crafts and arts, which were organized into guilds. But the social barriers among different castes placed obstacles in India’s transition to an industrial economy. However, secularism as a political ideology became a topical issue only in more recent times. India’s exposure to the rest of the world during the colonial state and thereafter has been an important factor in this development.
The 1950 Indian constitution defined secularism as the freedom to pursue different religions. At the same time, the constitution enjoins citizens to avoid interference in others’ religious affairs. The policy of the government of India is not atheistic. Also, the Indian constitution recognizes only one kind of minority, the non-Hindu religious minority. Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism are regarded as one for juridical purposes, such as inheritance of property.
Secularism thus needs to be understood in the context of the overwhelming religiosity of the Indian people. No village or town in India is devoid of a religious monument, temple, mosque, or church. Excepting a few elites, for most people, religious obligations have remained a ubiquitous part of their lives. Many of the schools and colleges are still operated by religious organizations. These centers also have provided education to the students belonging to other religious groups. They do not insist that outsiders should follow particular religious tenets. In sum, except where religion has been used for political or antisocial purposes, it has not been an obstacle to the secular development of Indian society.
See also American Religion, Peter L. Berger, Secularization
—C. N. Venugopal
References
P. L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967)
J. S. Furnivall, Studies in the Social and Economic Development of the Netherlands East Indies (New York: AMS, 1977 [1934])
G. S. Ghurye, Caste and Race in India (Bombay: Popular, 1969)
R. K. Jain, “Civilization and Settlement Societies,” Eastern Anthropologist 47 (1994):1-14
D. Mandelbaum, Society in India (Bombay: Popular, 1984)
M. N. Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966)
M. Weber, The Religion of India (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958).