|
By Darryl D'Monte This year's Human Development Report comes as a breath of fresh air. It emphasises that enjoying cultural freedoms in the 21st century is a basic human right. And that instead of viewing diversity as a drag on development, we should consider cultural liberty an integral component of social and economic progress
In the first flush of independence, the country, under the influence of Nehru, was firmly wedded to forging a new nation in which differences between communities would be erased. The ‘new Indian’ would share a common vision and would belong to the cultural and economic ‘mainstream’. It was in this spirit that Hindi was accepted as the national language and everyone -- even in the deepest south -- made a determined effort to master it. Till today, some of these tendencies persist: witness the constant references to the need for the northeastern states to join the national mainstream. However, after half a century of freedom, no one is pressing for national integration with such messianic zeal any more. The division of states along linguistic lines, and, much later, violent uprisings in the northeast and Punjab to assert regional identities have forced the state to recognise that there are indeed differences between Indians. In an era where coalition governments appear to have come to stay, politicians have been quick to respect the aspirations of different communities. But this has been a grudging concession, rather than the acceptance of it as a positive force in the country’s political life. On a worldwide scale, the rapid pace of globalisation, and the many cultural influences that follow in its wake, is undoubtedly guiding people to adopt similar lifestyles. English, in the era of information technology, has become the lingua franca of so many computer-literate people today. Call centres and medical transcription services, among other services, have ensured that the young in some developing countries acquire sufficient mastery over the language to answer queries or take dictation. Hollywood films are sweeping through the world and even India, which is the only competitor, has started dubbing a few blockbusters in Hindi. At a more sinister level, the so-called ‘clash of civilisations’ between the Western (read Christian) and Islamic world appears to have deepened differences to breaking point. The ethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Sudan point to an increasingly fractured world, despite the economic integration brought about by globalisation. Indeed, one explanation for the rise of fundamentalism is that as some countries grow more prosperous, and some classes or communities within countries do so too, people retreat to their most atavistic beliefs, of which religion is obviously the most potent. This explains the rise of orthodoxy in Iran, following the reckless lopsided development promoted by the Shah. In many ways, therefore, people have become more conscious of their differences than for many decades. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, many countries within the Iron Curtain have reverted to their religious and ethnic beliefs. With migration increasingly becoming an escape route for countries around the world in the quest for a better standard of living, minorities have become a familiar part of the landscape in most industrial countries. Since ‘jobless growth’ is a facet of globalisation, locals tend to hold these minorities responsible for stealing their jobs, giving rise to strong chauvinistic forces. This is why this year’s Human Development Report, brought out recently by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), comes as a breath of fresh air. It is titled ‘Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World’ and stresses that it is a basic human right for people to enjoy cultural freedoms in the 21st century. Instead of seeing such diversity as a drag on development, it argues that cultural liberty is an integral component of social and economic progress. As Dr Amartya Sen, who has written the overview, puts it: “Even poverty, a central economic idea, cannot be adequately understood without bringing in cultural considerations. Indeed, the close link between cultural deprivation and economic poverty was noted by no less an economist than Adam Smith, whose works have, as it happens, illuminated the relevance of human development.” The deprivation of cultural freedom can result in minorities being excluded from participating in political and economic life -- notably, by being debarred from voting. It may discriminate against a group by withholding certain benefits from them -- education, jobs or the right to own property. Another form of deprivation is to insist on immigrants giving up their traditional lifestyles and adopting the modes of behaviour of their host country. In France, the government’s diktat that schoolchildren should not display any religious symbols -- which include the cross as much as the headdress -- has caused widespread consternation. In the UK some years ago, a Tory politician’s advocated his ‘cricket test’ of patriotism: immigrants were to be judged according to whether they rooted for the British team or the touring side from their country of origin. (A national variant here is whether Indian Muslims cheer for Pakistan when playing India.) As a rule, to expect such conformism is plainly coercive. The report makes the significant point that the new wave of migration today requires support for multi-culturalism, not enforced assimilation. The number of people living outside their country of birth has more than doubled since the mid-1970s, despite increasing barriers, to around 175 million. The number of migrants to the European Union from outside Europe is up by three-quarters since 1980. In London, children in state schools speak no fewer than 300 different languages! Nearly half the population of Toronto was born outside Canada. In the state of California, Spanish speakers outnumber English speakers. More enlightened sections of the American elite -- particularly the academic world -- have put a premium on such diversity. In the UK, Channel 4 TV was given a special mandate to cater to minority viewers. One good index of the extent of cultural freedom is the political representation of minorities in industrial countries. As became abundantly clear over the controversy over whether Sonia Gandhi should be made prime minister, the US specifically forbids a person born in another country from becoming president. Judged by this yardstick, Holland fares the best in recent years, since minorities had 8.7% of the seats in parliament, almost equal to their share in the population. The US had 15.7% and 28%; the UK 1.8% and 8.7% respectively. The Gulf States present a different picture entirely. As much as 68% of the population of the UAE, and 49% of Kuwait, consists of immigrants, but they possess no rights whatsoever. Even a cursory examination of countries which have large minority populations and permit them freedoms shows that they have been considerably enriched, not impoverished, as a result. One of the most obvious influences has been food habits. Chicken tikka masala, which is not Indian or Pakistani but a concoction purely cooked up for western palates, has easily replaced roast beef as the most consumed dish in Britain today. Music is another influence: popular music in the US would be unimaginable without the contribution of Afro-Americans over decades. ‘Cultural goods,’ which include film, books and theatre, have flourished in liberal societies. The report does well to demolish the myth -- among many others -- that ethnically diverse countries are less able to develop and that there is a trade-off between respecting diversity and promoting development, just as some argue that democracy and economic growth are antithetical to each other. Dr Sen refers to the belief that tribal conflict has been a major reason why African countries have been backward, but counters it by observing that this is not intrinsic but because political decision-makers protect ethnic rather than national interests. A country like Malaysia has 62% of its people Malay and other indigenous groups, 30% Chinese and 8% Indian (hence its tourist ad slogan: ‘Truly Asia’) but was the world’s 10th fastest-growing economy between 1970 and 1990. Mauritius stands 64th in the UNDP’s human development index -- as against India’s 127 -- with half its population Hindu, 30% Christian and 17% Muslim. Another myth that the report discards is that cultural liberty means preserving abhorrent traditional practices as well. This would include female circumcision in Africa or the triple talaq in India. It clarifies that culture “is not a frozen set of values and practices,” but changes with time and people’s attitudes. The triple talaq is not practised in many Muslim countries, including Pakistan, but has fossilised in India due to a misconceived concept of sensitivity to minority traditions, if not outright political opportunism. Cultural liberty implies the freedom to retain certain customs, provided these do not conflict with other rights and are not enforced against anyone’s will. It is thus in consonance with basic human rights, and practices which deny these such as barring women from education have to be condemned. Dr Sen debunks Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilisations’ hypothesis that democratic Western states are threatened by a fundamentalist Islamic world, by pointing out that it exaggerates the differences between these two groups and ignores the similarities between them. Arguing, “The West has no monopoly on democracy or tolerance,” he cites the instance of Akbar, who preached religious tolerance in the 16th century. Recent surveys show that people in Muslim societies have as much support for democratic principles as do those in other countries. Once again, the notion that cultures or ‘civilisations’ are rigid is plainly wrong: these keep changing with the times. As Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights lawyer who won the Nobel Prize last year, says: “All cultures embrace certain common principles.” The Human Development Report does not shy away from the tricky issue of religious freedom. As a general policy, it believes that states have a responsibility to protect rights and secure freedoms for all their members and not discriminate on grounds of religion. It is all about protecting religious freedom and individual choice. India recognises holidays for different religions, while France only has Christian holidays, although 7% of its people are Muslim. More specifically, the report advocates the right of everyone to “criticise, refute or challenge the dominance of a particular interpretation of core beliefs…; people of one religion must be allowed to be responsibly critical of the practices and beliefs of other religions, and individuals must be free not only to criticise the religion into which they are born, but also to reject it for another, or remain without one”. As he has underlined in his recent interview on NDTV’s Walk the Talk programme, Dr Sen is by no means opposed to globalisation, but believes that its benefits should be more equitably distributed. The UNDP report deals with the power and force of market culture, especially that of consumerism in a media-saturated world, as well as the disproportionate power in this sphere enjoyed by the West, which threatens local cultures. This often prompts people to seek shelter in conservatism and isolationist nationalism. The most extreme reaction is to shut out foreign influences, a la the Taliban, which is xenophobic and actually regressive, by shrinking rather than expanding choice. One clearly recalls the frenzy in Afghanistan to view Hindi films after the fall of the Taliban regime. The more positive approach to fears of local cultures being swamped by global ones is to strengthen the opportunities that the former possess. France has long fought against Hollywood by spending $400 million a year on its own film industry. In the 1970s, the Indian government sought to place quotas on the import of such films to protect Bollywood. The same purpose would be far better served by promoting bodies like the National Film Development Corporation, which is now all but defunct, film festivals and film societies. One should recall that many fears were expressed when satellite TV invaded India’s shores, but people probably underestimated the persistence of cultural traits. Most ‘soaps’ on Star TV, or any news programme for that matter, are today in Hindi and regional languages. Of course, protecting local cultures against political, social and economic forces -- global as well as national -- is easier said than done. But it is vital to recognise this as a fundamental human right. Ultimately, it is a question of adopting democratic principles, which give people the maximum amount of choice, rather than restricting their freedoms in any way. InfoChange News & Features, August 2004
|
