Opinion - News Analysis

Amartya Sen on identity and violence: a comment

Ramaswamy R. Iyer

The distinction between conservatism and modernity cannot be simplistically identified with that between authoritarianism and free choice.

THE MAIN thesis of Amartya Sen's book Identity and Violence, Allen Lane/Penguin, 2006, is that sectarian violence arises from the reduction of the multiple identities of people to a single identity, namely the religious one. With great respect to the distinguished author, may I raise some questions about that thesis?

First, the fact that all of us have multiple identities is a fairly familiar and well-recognised point that did not call for such elaborate and repetitive statement as we find in the book. Secondly, the religious identity may be merely one out of many identities to the non-religious or the weakly religious, but in the case of the deeply religious religion is not just an `identity' like any other: it governs the whole of life in all its aspects. Thirdly, to say that hatred and violence result from the reduction of multiple identities to a single identity merely pushes the question one stage further: why do we put people in a box called `Hindu' or `Muslim'? Doubtless this facilitates hatred and anger, but why do some Hindus hate Muslims and vice versa? The explanation lies in the human tendency to be hostile to `The Other', a tendency that readily rises to the surface in certain contexts, particularly the religious. The connection between religious belief and intolerance is not a necessary one, but, alas, it exists and is often encountered.

There are two ways out of this danger. One is to say that religion promotes violence and that the abandonment of religion, i.e., secularism in the original (not Indian) sense, is the answer. Some do say this. The other is to recognise that religious belief or a sense of the transcendental is an essential human trait or need; that secularism can never satisfy that need; and that we must make strenuous efforts to persuade people that prejudice and hostility against `The Other' is not a necessary part of religious faith, but is, in fact, contrary to the teachings of most religions. Such an effort is likely to be more effective if we can cite to the members of each community passages from their own sacred texts that enjoin tolerance, love, harmony, and acceptance of multiple ways to God. For this purpose, it makes sense to enlist the cooperation of respected and wise religious leaders in each community, as they are likely to be listened to, and may be able to counter the voices of anger and hatred.

However, Professor Sen is against this. His argument is as follows: the extremists, in preaching hate and violence, appeal to a single identity (say, Hindu or Muslim); if, for countering this, we turn to `moderate' religious leaders of each community, we are similarly treating the group concerned as `Hindu' or `Muslim', i.e., we are falling into the trap of accepting the assertion of a single identity. That argument is not as strong as Sen seems to think. The reduction of multiple identities to a single one is not a necessary part of the proposition, which is merely that the influence of the intolerant and inflammatory rhetoric of the extremists on the members of a community should be countered by appeals for reason, sanity, and harmony; and that the efforts of the government, the intelligentsia, and the media in this regard should be reinforced by pleas by the religious leaders of the community.

On multiculturalism

Proceeding further, Professor Sen is worried about the changing nature of multiculturalism in Britain. Inter-community strains tend to result in the Government treating each religious or ethnic community as a separate group whose identity, culture, and traditions should be protected and preserved. Such cultural protectionism or conservationism, which superficially might seem to be commendable, tends in Professor Sen's view to isolate each community into a separate sub-nationality, so that the country as a whole becomes a loose federation of cultures (`plural monoculturalisms') instead of a truly multicultural society; and, within each community, to place a premium on conservatism, increasing the authority of parents, religious leaders, and the community as a collective, and reducing the liberty and power of free choice of individual members, particularly the young. There is certainly a serious problem here, and the point has a relevance in the Indian context as well.

However, it seems to me that any multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic or multi-religious society is bound to be partly a `true' multi-cultural society in Professor Sen's sense, and partly a federation of diverse communities. There is danger in pushing it too far in the direction of either looseness or tightness. Excessive concern for what binds them into a unity leads to talk of `integration': this has begun to happen in Britain. In India, `integration' of a kind is what the proponents of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism are asking for. I am sure that this is not what Professor Sen wants. On the other hand, fears of a loss of identity may push Muslims or other `minority' groups into overstressing their separateness, and loosening and perhaps fracturing the social and political cohesion, repeating what happened in 1947. We have to avoid both dangers and find a balance — not once for all, but repeatedly and continuously.

Professor Sen's observations about the dichotomies of conservationism versus change or conservatism versus free choice or the old versus the young are thought-provoking. However, may I say — I am sure Professor Sen will agree with this — that the distinction between conservatism and modernity cannot be simplistically identified with that between authoritarianism and free choice? A concern for tradition can co-exist with respect for difference and acceptance of change, and the pressure for modernity can be fierce and amount to a denial of choice.

There are at present two opposing trends: one is towards homogenisation across the world, in food, clothes, music, dance, and sexual mores; and the other is towards stressing differences, looking for roots, protecting or re-discovering old traditions and practices, and so on. Each has its dangers. We shall have to wait and see what kind of a world emerges out of these transitional tensions over a period of time.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu