Saturday, January 27, 2007
One-way multiculturalism
I read this term a couple of days back in the newspaper and it forcefully conveyed in 2 words my views about 'immigrants' in general and NRI (non resident Indians) in particular.
The article talked about the muslim population in Europe and about their assimilation. The point-of-view postulated, rightly in my view, that the immigrants should start sharing some of the fundamental beliefs of the host nation. For example on issues like the equality of women, respect of basic individual freedom. It is incumbent upon the immigrant to adhere to the basic, most fundamental values of the host nation.
It is not enough that the immigrant does not break the laws of the host country but also in some ways start to understand, appreciate and accept the core values of the host country. This is not a 'sacrifice' required of him but is important for harmonious co-existence.
A liberal world view will assert that insistence in such matters is tantamount to impinging on the religious freedom of the immigrants and those who believe otherwise are bigots. We should respect the way of life of the immigrants albeit it is very different from us. And not impose the world view on the immigrant. So long as they do not break the law.
Let me however take an extreme view and say that the "way of life" in the immigrant's country is such that is allows polygamy. It is fully legal and socially encouraged. Does it then mean that the immigrant is free to take that value system and practice the same in the host country...Maybe because of social presssures, there are no formal complaints lodged by the wives but am not sure this is a sustainable situation. Social tensions will persist and the immigrant will continue to stick out like a sore thumb...It will lead to more of "Us" VERSUS "Them". There is a thin line diffrentiating which practices of immigrants are just an expression of their religio-culture diversity and which practices are at a fundamental disconnect with the host country's values.
One-way multiculturalism means that the host nation's population is expected to remain tolerant and welcoming of different cultures, with the immigrants remaining unassimilated. Multiculturism is a two-way street and expecting immigrants to sublimate some of their legacy is perfectly fair in a new country.
Linked to this is my view of NRI indians who insist on retaining their full religious-cultural identity in any country. While that is acceptable, they should open their minds and allow themselves to see the world around them. And not insist on that arranged marriage of their son/daughter in India, start eating the cuisine of the host country and not keep on cheering for India when they hanker for the passport of the new country. A new passport will demand reciprocal patriotism towards the new country. (The same patriotism that is expected from 'Indian Muslims' who supposedly cheer for Pakistan during a Indo-Pak cricket match.)
The article talked about the muslim population in Europe and about their assimilation. The point-of-view postulated, rightly in my view, that the immigrants should start sharing some of the fundamental beliefs of the host nation. For example on issues like the equality of women, respect of basic individual freedom. It is incumbent upon the immigrant to adhere to the basic, most fundamental values of the host nation.
It is not enough that the immigrant does not break the laws of the host country but also in some ways start to understand, appreciate and accept the core values of the host country. This is not a 'sacrifice' required of him but is important for harmonious co-existence.
A liberal world view will assert that insistence in such matters is tantamount to impinging on the religious freedom of the immigrants and those who believe otherwise are bigots. We should respect the way of life of the immigrants albeit it is very different from us. And not impose the world view on the immigrant. So long as they do not break the law.
Let me however take an extreme view and say that the "way of life" in the immigrant's country is such that is allows polygamy. It is fully legal and socially encouraged. Does it then mean that the immigrant is free to take that value system and practice the same in the host country...Maybe because of social presssures, there are no formal complaints lodged by the wives but am not sure this is a sustainable situation. Social tensions will persist and the immigrant will continue to stick out like a sore thumb...It will lead to more of "Us" VERSUS "Them". There is a thin line diffrentiating which practices of immigrants are just an expression of their religio-culture diversity and which practices are at a fundamental disconnect with the host country's values.
One-way multiculturalism means that the host nation's population is expected to remain tolerant and welcoming of different cultures, with the immigrants remaining unassimilated. Multiculturism is a two-way street and expecting immigrants to sublimate some of their legacy is perfectly fair in a new country.
Linked to this is my view of NRI indians who insist on retaining their full religious-cultural identity in any country. While that is acceptable, they should open their minds and allow themselves to see the world around them. And not insist on that arranged marriage of their son/daughter in India, start eating the cuisine of the host country and not keep on cheering for India when they hanker for the passport of the new country. A new passport will demand reciprocal patriotism towards the new country. (The same patriotism that is expected from 'Indian Muslims' who supposedly cheer for Pakistan during a Indo-Pak cricket match.)
