Multiculturalism – Good, bad or ugly?

Is multiculturalism indeed a good thing for society? Or is it just a romantic idea of people from different races and religious backgrounds living together harmoniously? A definition I picked from Wiki says "Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place". And the definition of a specific place could extend from a small body like a club or school to an entire state or nation. 

On the face of it, it does seem like a great concept, but does it really work? And do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? This is an issue that we Indians are only too familiar with - the country is so huge and the cultures, languages, religions and even the skin colors so different. One of the first things we learn about India is the 'Unity in diversity' that we have. But is there really any unity? The North Indians and the South Indians do not get along, Hindus and Muslims butcher each other, Hindus look down upon lower caste Hindus, Indians from North-east will forever remain children of Mao.. The list just goes on. And this in a country that has had this mix from time immemorial, millennia of living together has still not rooted out some of the inherent problems of a multi-cultural society. Post independence India was divided into different states on a linguistic basis. And it does seem like a fair division because people speaking a common language are also culturally more similar. India as a country has probably never promoted MC as such (what with so many other problems to deal with) but as with most other countries in the world, people migrated to places with better prospects setting up their shop in a different culture. And as the influx increased, the problems slowly started showing up. The recent attacks of the MNS in Mumbai and that of the Kannada Rakshana Vedike activists in Bangalore have shown some of the problems of a MC society. 

I remember discussing this very same issue with my cousin who thought that there is no credence to the call 'Bangalore for Kannadigas' or the 'Mumbai for Maharashtrians'. His thoughts were similar to those of the media which was crying hoarse that the cities were the great cities that they were not just because of the locals but also because of the migrant population who built the city. Media produced statistics of the number of non-local industrialists who helped build the cities and so on. Whilst the contribution of the non-locals is undisputable, the problems of a MC society are also not to be ignored. A MC society can only work when all people in it respect and imbibe the local culture – which means the language, the traditions, the beliefs, the idiosyncrasies and every small aspect of the culture. For without being one with the local culture and by continuing to be a cultural outsider, there will never be a melting pot of cultures but rather a salad bowl of it. As activists have pointed out, in spite of living in a place for decades together the migrant populace cannot utter a single word in the local language. This is not a problem indigenous to Indian society; it is a problem the world over and something that deeply does affect the local populace. A shocking survey in Britain revealed that a lot of the migrant populace could not speak a word of the local language even after living there for 20 long years. Yet this is also a point strongly mooted by the educated Indians who disagree that not speaking the local language is not a problem because it does not affect anybody and that life goes on as usual. But can MC survive when the local culture is ignored while a newer, stronger culture spreads its wings with utter disregard for the resident one? 

When immigration started in late 19^th and early 20^th centuries it was based on a need for workforce, be it UK or the US. It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with trying to build a multi-cultural society and it definitely was not a desirable thing then. What gradually happened, and mind you it took many many years, is that the next generation of the migrant population was one with the local culture and then is when a peaceful, multi-cultural society was born. What started out as a necessity in the yesteryears and culminated in a multi-cultural hotchpotch is not an indicator that an ethnic mix is a necessity. The racist attacks against Indians and Pakis in Britain or the secondary citizen status to the Chinese in US were signs of trouble in adjusting to a different culture. And the same issues are cropping up even now with the newer set of migrants. The middle-eastern migrants have set-up ghettos in every city, just like the china-towns of a bygone era. The Eastern Europeans are widely unpopular for stealing jobs. Though statistics have shown that job market is not affected due to migrants, the fact remains that the general public will never be any the wiser or anymore richer due to the influx and there will always be the tensions with every first generation of migrants. 

What got me thinking on this issue is an election broadcast here in London. With the general elections just round the corner, every party gets some screen time to talk about their policies and the issues they would tackle. Immigration is a fiercely debated issue here and the major parties Labour, Tories and the Lib-Dems dare not take a strong stand on this and talk about the problems it has created. British National Party (BNP) on the other hand was extremely vocal about the issue of immigration and the ills of it were the single most important point for the BNP. The video shows how immigrants have settled in and with utter disregard to the local culture have created ghettos which resemble a middle-eastern country, the job opportunities lost for the country men due to immigration and the special policies served in a platter by the government to appease the immigrants. What stood out in the broadcast was the mention of term 'political correctness'. BNP argued that most major parties were trying to be politically correct in allowing immigration, just because the neighboring country was allowing it. And when I think about it, I wonder if it is indeed not just political correctness? Is there really a shortage of workforce which forces the governments to encourage migration? It certainly does not seem so considering the new policies carved out for eastern-Europeans, majority of who are unskilled laborers. 

What I sincerely believe is that migration is good and ought to be encouraged if it is a necessity, but tying to build a multi-cultural society because it sounds good or for the sake of political correctness is not the way to go about and sounds a little like building Angelina Jolie's 'Rainbow family'. 

"It's been sometime since I started this article and a new government has been formed here in UK. The activist BNP has not secured a single vote, probably an indicator that the majority of the populace is unfazed by the migrant in-flux. This is overall a positive, healthy sign that outsiders are generally respected and welcome. But contrary to what the polls indicate, the sourness and unrest is still visible around. A friend of mine was recently on the receiving end of a speech by a shopkeeper which veered towards racist comments. I and my friend were subject to racist actions where a couple of guys in cycles came towards us on an empty street and made threatening gestures (like they would beat us up). Am I reading too much between the lines when in fact it was just a harmless prank? I don't know, but I was and am still a little shaken up and try to avoid empty streets."