Culture
in the Changing World:Living with Multiple Identity.
The concept of identity emerged from
the consciousness over history and that had only cultural and ethnological
description in early ages. But in modern age it has economic description also.
The social dynamism is modeled through the course of economic movements today.
Civilization has brought the changes through education and thus the historical
consciousness is awakened and different meanings of rights originated. That consciousness has radiated the concept
of right to be different from each other because the term identity is nothing but another term of
elitism or restrictedness. The process of historical consciousness surfaced in
the phases of times through conflicts between stronger and weaker. Weaker
naturally never succeeded over the stronger, but they never become totally untraced
also. Times always reawaken their consciousness and bring back struggle for existential
survival into course. The struggle for the survival of the weaker is the
struggle for identity, because it is the identity of the weaker that is ever
threatened by the stronger. Stronger, forever-and-a-day, tries to integrate the
smaller and build up a common identity, where the later has to forgo everything
of their existential identity. That is the point of conflict that integrity
defined by stronger is always challenged by the smaller and battle is never
given up by the two sides.
Identity is not a problem unless it
is questioned by somebody. What are the factors that are responsible for
generating questions and conflicts within identities? When the India was
invaded by Ariyan, they were resisted by the indigenous local people because
indigenous people were not ready to accept the name of identity as defined by
them. But Ariyan people categorized the resistant forces with the names like
Danavas, Asuras, Suar, Jana and etc. in the history created by them. History is always a document of stronger group
of people, where their success and achievements are highlighted with pride.
Weaker never creates history, only their stories are furnished as necessary
inputs to glorify the victory of the stronger in the construction of history. Present
names of all indigenous and tribal people are given by the invading forces and
the last invaders Britishers categorized them as Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste
and others. This shift of identity was
always unnatural (convergent) not the natural (divergent). In the history it is
always depicted that the group of scheduled tribe people always escaped and
saved themselves from any kind of onslaughts of colonial aggressions. Those who
could not escape from such hostilities are therefore categorized as Scheduled
Caste or Other Backward Classes etc later. Scheduled Tribe could also save
their tradition, culture and characteristics from any such aggression and
maintain their distinctness as ethnic group. The categorization of any
community or ethnic groups for the convenience of the formation of constitution
or law itself is also a course of assimilation because by such process identity
of smaller nationalities are intermingled. Ethnicity is not a different subject
from the identity because it is an associated identity incorporating various marginalized
ethnic identities.
The issues of multiple identities are
the issues and questions premeditated by new economic world order. It is such a
truth of this age from which no one could completely escape. New economic order
wants to expunge or alter the ethnic concept aiming at to establish a common
bigger identity intended by dominant cultural group. They have set a motion against the
multiculturalism to harvest cosmopolitanism. In cosmopolitanism cosmopolites
attempt to bring all ethnic communities into common code and definitive
economic relationship. Dominant forces always in-script the manifesto of such
order for the world and create directive order of development to be followed. They are like melting pot where every
identity gets dissolved their distinctness. Multiculturalism is originally
Marxist idea that recognizes and accepts the cultural differences too. It
opposes the dominant national culture that campaigns for assimilation or
integration and support the rights and privileges to be enjoyed by different
ethnic groups. Some time multiculturalism is defined as Salad Bowl where
identities can survive together without affecting each other. But
Multiculturalism sometimes goes up to such extend where they embraces all new
migrant cultures and ethnicity also and allow them to grow. In such situation
marginalized ethnic group is encountered by new threats that push them for new situation
of compromise.
Every person lives with varied identities is interpreted
as far the mode of their lives. Individual question isolated, never build up
any issue but when the question of group identity in the form of ethnicity, language-culture
and community emerges that becomes issue.
Religion, race, language and culture are some serious areas of identity
where issues and conflicts are built up. Most of the world conflicts for
identity are found in those areas. When the regime of colonial rule started in
the world the question of group identity came into view. In India bigger and
racial identity like Dravidians and Mongolians became fundamental quests for
some Indian people to save them from the Ariyan aggression. After the advent of Britishers only the
Indian or Bharatiya identity was also harmonized in a vibrant manner. After India
attained independence the term Indian or Bharatiya became National identity. Indian
territories were distributed in the names of
Maratha, Rajputana, Pathaliputra, Magadh, Murya etc in the history. It
was only the emergence of identity war, in terms of area or race, that forced
to build up new collective identity and thus identities like national, regional
and ethnic identities came into being.
Significantly Indian states were
reorganized on linguistic basis and the question of linguistic and cultural
identity played a dynamic role there for the formation of territorial identities.
Territorial perception has given a conclusive theory of maintaining ethnic
identity and historical process of recent past has justified the theory. In the
North Eastern Region some states had been created with such small land area and
less population just to protect the identity of some ethnic groups. As for
example Mizoram has only 22,082 sq km land area with maximum 11 lakhs
population and Nagaland 16,579 sq km land area and maximum 20 lakhs population.
Mainly three reasons were considered when these states had been created-
Geographical condition, National Security and protection of identity of Mizos
and Nagas. The Identity issue on the linguistic basis ruled the justification
of the re-organization of Assam at that time. Today along with identity crisis the
questions of regional disparity in development, ethnic discriminations, land
disputes and cultural conflicts are playing as principal factors of another
Assam Reorganization movement. Present demands for Bodoland, Karbi-Dimasa land
and Kamatapuri are offshoots of that historical process and condition of the
misrules. Bodoland demand stands stronger than the any of the north eastern
states in terms of population and land area and Bodo people’s claim for distinct
identity is locked within that search.
Regional identity is also a much
talked issue but limit or jurisdiction of regionalism is never defined
specifically. South East Asia in the global context and North Eastern Region in
Indian context are also considered as regional identity. Regional identity is
built up in terms of territorial perception to counter the aggressive national
or global identity. But ethnic or community identity is formed to resist the
bigger cultural aggression. Cultural challenges may come by the way of
aggression, domination or integration. The term “integration” is very often
used for positively greater sense but when it encroaches upon the language and
cultural barrier also then it becomes threat to marginalized culture. Territorial
identity is not a problem for any linguistic or cultural group of people and
that is always the convergent identity. But if any process to build up a common
cultural or linguistic identity is initiated on the basis of territory then it
becomes unnatural and naturally it invites collision from other groups. The process
of new identity building always happens at the behest of stronger because
weaker always try to uphold their traditional identity only. Today in India
conflict of ethnic identity is not only the problem of external infiltration
but also internal infiltration too. Tribal people, of-their-own, never evolved
the theory of exclusive living on the basis of territorial perception in the
past because distinct nationality was never been their aspiration. Their
aspirations were to be exclusive in character, tradition, culture and of course
language factor emerged later. It is the
majority ruler who developed the same and structured a certain kind of autonomy
for their convenience. By that way territorial concept of identity emerged
first among the tribal. Alienation of culture, tradition and lands never
tolerated by tribal but it happened ruthlessly in the past and at present also.
Today territorial aspiration is causing
several ethnic movements in India and all movements have their legitimate logic
and arguments. Bodoland movement,
Tipraland movement, Karbi-Dimasa movement, Telengana movements are legitimized because
their aspiration of distinct identity is assured in territorial boundary only.
Bigger cultural group go beyond territorial perception for establishing their extroverted
identity. But smaller cultural groups are given this situation that without
territorial protection and preservation the safeguard of their identity from
any kind of new cultural migrant is impossible. As Bengalese, Tamils and
Assamese have problem with Hindi in national phenomenon, the Bodos, Karbis,
Dimasas and Tripuris have also problem with locally dominant identity like
Assamese or Bengalis. But it does not mean that one is always unreceptive to
another because amidst contradiction also such identities always have to
survive co-dependent. The case of
Tripura always indicts migrant culture for gulping down the local indigenous
Tripuri culture. Kok-Borok language and their cultural identity are now
absorbed by the migrant Bengali Language and Culture. Irony of the fact is that
indigenous Tripuris want another bifurcation of present Tripura and claim 7,000
sq km for them out of total 10, 492 sq. km land area. Reason is clear that the migrant
language and culture is dominant and only one Tripuri got opportunity to be CM
after independence in their own land. The boundary of the certain amount of
autonomy provided to them has been crossed by their newly growing aspiration
for absolute identity. They are really a
victim of new cultural hegemony their existential identity sacked by the same.
Ethnic conflict is a part of natural
population conflict that has been witnessed throughout the civilizations of the
past. The war of ideology has been replaced by the war of identity defined by
the power of economy. In other words identity is coined by economic power; any
cultural identity may not be viable if it is not compliant to the certain
economic route. Struggle of marginalized
people of particular place always invites intrusion of power of outsiders.
Whenever any ethnic group struggle for rights they are first tried to be kept
under suppression but when the same receives external interference, then only the
process of integration or co-existence are thought. Present state of North
Eastern region is upshot of that situation where we have been given the
situation of arms conflicts to witness. We have the problem of development also
because 80 percent of our population is not yet privileged and living under disadvantage.
Their struggle for basic rights is also gradually transformed to the struggle
for identity in organized way. I don’t
know how long the new consciousness of cultural identity will help us in long
future. But our struggle for self dependency in every aspect like capacity,
productivity, earnings and self respect may give us safety house to survive
amidst the challenges of all kinds.
The changing world practically has no
definite cultural interpretation; it is only commentary of changing mindset in
changing economic situation. In most of the time globalization is believed to be
key factor of rapid development in the world. But globalization is a process of
mutual economic co-operation only; it cannot help every parts of the globe to
grow equally. Otherwise the concept of first, second and third world should not
have existed. Multiple identities is also not a new concept, we all are already
within that situation. Only thing is that the competition between identities is
also being amplified by the growing sense of identity itself. Fittest survive
and best excel; rest also continue to survive but don’t excel. Globalization
and multiculturalism are not fearful terms; it is only a circumstance where the
scales of challenges are redefined.
-Urkhao
Gwra Brahma
(presented
in a seminar as Keynote address)
