Solving India's Diversity Dilemma: Culture, Constitution, & Nehru
By George C. Thomas
Democracy and multi-ethnic societies do not enjoy a simple
relationship. Democracy has the ability to empower minorities
and promote equality, but it can just as easily exacerbate divisions.
When voting tends to take place along ethnic lines,
majority rule can result in the subjugation of the minority
voice. Not only does this foster an unequal society, it also has
the potential to destabilize the entire state. The cohesion of an
ethnic majority may cause other ethnic groups to forge a
union-an act of temporary convenience that rarely lasts. In
another unfavorable outcome, the losing ethnic group might
refuse to accept the entire democratic process, throwing out the
baby with the bath-water. These potential "democratic" outcomes
would only intensify inter-ethnic conflicts and provoke
minority demands for self-determination and territorial secession.
History has shown that this initial path often ends with the
collapse of the state.
That democracy works in India is, therefore, somewhat of an
enigma. Political cleavages crosscut by language, religion, and
caste make India a highly complex and multi-ethnic society.
India is a state divided by eighteen official languages, some 180
minor languages, virtually all the major religions of the world,
five castes, over 3,000 sub-castes, and several tribal populations.
1 Nevertheless, democracy and diversity continue to coexist in India despite the odds. As a testament
to its resilience, India's democracy
has survived even though countries with
far fewer ethnic divisions have had far
more checkered histories.
India owes its democratic government
to the principles of acceptance espoused
by its political forefathers and embodied
in the Indian constitution. This spirit of
tolerance has endured in Indian politics
and given rise to societal checks and balances
and democratic institutions beyond
elections. India provides an example of
the power of democratic norms and the
resilience of the democratic process.
The fate of Pakistan illustrates the perils
of multi-ethnic democracy that India
has successfully avoided. Following the
partition of British India in 1947,
Pakistan emerged as two non-contiguous
Muslim majority regions: East Pakistan
and West Pakistan. Under this configuration,
the population of East Pakistan consisted
of Bengalis, and they outnumbered
the population of West Pakistan at that
time, which was comprised of Punjabis,
Sindhis, Balochis, Pashtuns, and
Mohajirs (Muslim immigrants from
India). Such a division made a democratic
constitution difficult to devise.2
Unwilling to cede power to the more
populous East, Pakistani military dictators
ruled the state from the West. When
democratic elections took place in
Pakistan in 1971 after more than a decade
of West Pakistani military dictatorships,
the voting occurred exclusively along linguistic
and geographical lines; the West
voted for West Pakistani candidates and
the East for Eastern candidates. In the
end, Bengali East Pakistan outvoted predominantly
Punjabi West Pakistan and
obtained the majority of seats in parliament.
The West Pakistani military dictatorship
was supposed to give way to the "democratic" East Pakistani rule over the
entire state. When West Pakistan rejected
the result, however, East Pakistan declared
independence. A civil war ensued and the
result was the disintegration of the state.
Today, East Pakistan is now the independent
state of Bangladesh, and democracy
has continued to evade both Pakistan and
Bangladesh to differing degrees.