Abstract
Challenges to Multiculturalism in Canada and India
Monoculture, like pure race, is dead as a dodo, given the long interactive human history. Roberto Toscano of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre describes culturally homogeneous society as ‘merely a reactionary utopia’. Biculturalism lost relevance with the heavy immigration of people from very diverse backgrounds to a wide variety of countries. They included what Alvin Toffler once called modern nomads, the ‘techies’. The UNESCO’s 2009 World Report uses the term ‘cultural diversity’ as the buzzword; it is believed to be friendly to globalization with undertones of de-territorialization, commoditization and Americanization. Since the debate on multiculturalism (the term first used in Book VI of the 1963 Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism, pp. 6–7), is once again vigorously on, the book under review, comprising papers presented at an international seminar, remains both topical and of abiding interest. The problematique and praxis of multiculturalism thesis and formulation have admirers and detractors, the concept being both relished and reviled in equal measure across the ideological divide of the Left and the Right with passion. It has currently degenerated into Islamophobia and immigration angst. Why should the core majority of a nation yield to multiculturalism, inviting threats to their own core cultural values, especially when, after a long spell of time, cultural minorities refuse to get assimilated in their countries of adoption or refuse to feel one with the host country and its core values? Hispanics in the United States and Muslims in Europe and the United States have rebuffed benevolent incorporation, assimilation, integration, and homogenization, giving a lie to ‘melting pot’ (the title of the 1908 play by the Anglo-Jewish writer Israel Zangwill) or salad bowl and autonomy-unity theses. While culture mattered most for American political scientist Samuel Huntington, and national character was an absurd idea for Hamilton Fyfe, cultural relativism and the denials of absolute position, à la post-modernism, proffer no perfect solution either. The phenomena of globalization and terrorism have compounded difficulties for theoreticians and politicians alike. The Conservative British Prime Minister, David Cameron, joined Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in proclaiming the failure of multiculturalism. On 5 February 2011, David Cameron called for ‘an active muscular liberalism’, which the immigrants must be made to abide by.
Thirteen experts from Jawaharlal Nehru University and University of Montreal have expatiated on the comparative study of the versions of multiculturalism extant in India and Canada. They concentrate on policy issues and problem areas. In Canada, biculturalism (a term first introduced by Graham Spry in 1929) failed to cut ice as Quebec-Ottawa no longer remained only ‘two solitudes’ like the ‘two scorpions in a battle’ in Canada, a British colony since 1763, which was given autonomy in 1931 (p. 6). Multitudes of immigrants representing variegated cultures had joined in. The realization had dawned that the sole civilized option is liberalism-inspired multiculturalism to promote integration and unity in the long run, especially in complex societies characterized by a high degree of diversity. Multiculturalism ensured basic equality, checked discrimination in a democracy-based human rights-respecting Canada. The long-term aim of integration and unity could well be achieved, hopefully, in three generations, through keeping separatism in check by proposing that in a conflict situation, democratic rights prevailed over ethnic rights. On 8 October 1971, Premier Trudeau announced the multicultural policy in the House of Commons—henceforth, Canada was to have two official languages but no official culture (pp. 9–11). The ideas of ‘melting pot’, assimilation or anglo-conformity were not the desirable goals. The Constitution Act of 1982 and the Multiculturalism Act of 1988 accorded constitutional status to multiculturalism—an idea not even 30-year old then. Canada became, as Denise Helly points out, the first country in the Western world to constitutionally adopt the idea (p. 32). Helly also dwells on the eight basic ideas of multiculturalism (pp. 35–36) that were supposed to win the day. They include the ideas of modernity, secularism, education and enlightenment, increased prosperity, experience and socialization. The author quotes Bhikhu Parekh, Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka, Joseph H. Carens, John Rawls, etc., while tracing the history of the idea (pp. 12–13).
In his informative introduction, Raj very pertinently argues that industrialization, globalization, poverty and inequalities have given a fillip to migration, both internal and external (p. ix). He goes on to narrate the background, ideas and varieties of responses by various leading thinkers on multiculturalism. His introductory piece is well researched and illuminating Canada is a complex society. It has thirty-five million Canadians who inhabit in ten provinces and three territories comprising 600 recognized First Nations and speak two official (English and French) and many unofficial languages. It also accommodates over a hundred emigrant ethnic communities. In addition, since 2007, the French-speaking Quebec (voting more than once on the question of secession) remains a nation within a united Canada. India with 1.3 billion people is no less complex with 28 states, seven Union territories, twenty-two official and hundreds of unofficial languages, 533 recognized scheduled castes, numerous ‘jatis’ and tribes and five major religious minorities, if Hinduism is taken as a monolithic religion. These two plural and diverse societies, while sharing many similarities, abound in divergences. While Canada is primarily immigration-based, India is an older version of Canada or the United States, where diverse peoples from all over Asia chose to make their homeland long ago. Over 30 years of multiculturalism in Canada and over 60 years of pluralism in India proffer valuable insights in social engineering. It is not a question of proclaiming the death of multiculturalism, as David Cameron does, but looking for ways to make it work since the alternatives to multiculturalism all end in social chauvinism, imperialism and, worse still, in repressive cruel assimilation of social identities, resistance to which can only result in bloody civil wars, cycles of violence, disruption, break-up and fragmentation.
Denise Helly’s critique and the articles by Augie Fleras and Saumyajit Ray cover various dimensions of the concept. Ray makes many controversial statements about India, including questioning the idea of multiculturalism in the country (pp. 68–69). Paramjit Judge’s chapter on social inclusion of Indian immigrants in Canada provides useful information to suggest the concept of equality by recognizing differences (p. 114). The Canadian experience is highlighted by Daiva Stasiulis and the experience of ‘Mixed-Race’ women is covered by Minelle Mahtani, who notes the persistence of racism amidst mixed race social situation, racialization of poverty and class status (pp. 144–45). Harihar Bhattacharyya underlines the secessionist challenges faced by nation-states from below (subalterns, sub-nations/ethno-nationals) and above (that is outside) due to globalization, immigration, poverty, inequalities and an ever-growing identity consciousness. Nation splitting could spell the demise of the nation state (pp. 173–74). The Indian scholars joined the debate on multiculturalism only in the late 1990s (p. 179). While India is officially not a multicultural state, its constitution is a multicultural document (pp. 178–79). S.J. George examines the separatist tendencies in the North-eastern states of India. Two other articles have analyzed the case of Quebec, comparing it with Nagaland in India. Four articles in Section IV relate to India–Canada comparative studies on the themes of education, schooling and the role of the media and minorities.
Besides being an insightful book with a focus on public policy and problem areas, it constitutes a valuable contribution to an area of great and growing importance. No state or politician can afford to adopt an ostrich-like approach to the problem areas identified in the book. The volume is useful for students of Canadian and Indian studies.