Once the idea of one-culture-one state was abandoned, Nationalism and Pluralism became necessary to consider ways by which different cultures and communities can survive and flourish within a country. Measures for recognizing and protecting the identity of cultural minorities living within their territory were introduced by many democratic societies today.

The Indian constitution includes extensive provisions to protect religious, linguistic, and cultural minorities. Different countries have granted various types of group rights, such as constitutional protection for the languages, cultures, and religions of minority groups and their members. In some cases, identified communities may also have the right to representation as a group in legislative bodies and other state institutions. Such rights may be justified on the grounds that they provide equal treatment and legal protection to members of these groups, as well as protection for the group’s cultural identity.

Different groups must be recognized as members of the national community. This means that national identity must be defined in a way that recognizes the significance and unique contribution of all cultural communities within the state. Although it is hoped that granting groups recognition and protection will satisfy their aspirations, some groups may continue to demand independence. This may appear paradoxical in light of the fact that globalization is spreading throughout the world, but nationalist aspirations continue to motivate many groups and communities.

Types of Social Rights 

• • Constitutional protection for the language, culture and religion, minority groups etc
  • Sometimes identified communities also have the right to representation as a group in legislative bodies and other state institutions
  • Justification of Such Rights: They provide equal treatment and protection of the law for members of these groups, as well as protection for the cultural identity of the group
• Group Identity Recognition: Different groups need recognition as a part of the national community. The importance and unique contribution of all the cultural communities within the state can be recognized by the national identity in an inclusive manner
• Self-Determination and Independent Statehood:
  • Right to national self-determination does not include the right to independent statehood
  • Social Identity Recognition would be impossible and undesirable to grant independent statehood to every group that sees itself as a distinct cultural group, or nation
  • Social Identity Recognition might lead to the formation of a number of states too small to be economically and politically viable, and Social Identity Recognition could multiply the problems of minorities
  • The right has now been reinterpreted as a nationality within a state to mean granting certain democratic rights
  • The claims of identity should not be allowed to lead to divisions and violence
• Multiple identities: In a democracy, the political identity of citizens should encompass the different identities which people may have. If intolerant and homogenizing forms of identity and nationalism are allowed to develop, Multiple identities would be dangerous.

Tagore’s critique of Nationalism

“Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds, and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.”- Rabindranath Tagore. 

He was a vocal opponent of colonial rule and a fervent supporter of India’s right to independence. He believed that the ‘upholding of the dignity of human relationships,’ an idea otherwise held dear in British civilization, had no place in British administration of the colonies. Tagore distinguished between rejecting Western civilization and opposing Western imperialism. While Indians should be rooted in their own culture and heritage, they should also be willing to learn freely and profitably from others.

A recurring theme in his writings is a critique of what he refers to as “patriotism.” He was harshly critical of the narrow forms of nationalism that he saw at work in parts of our independence movement. He was particularly concerned that a rejection of the West in favour of what appeared to be Indian traditions would not only be limiting in and of itself, but could easily lead to hostility toward other foreign influences, such as Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Islam, all of which have been present in our country.

Highlights 

•  He asserted India’s right to independence and was against colonial rule. Furthermore, he made a distinction between opposing and rejecting western civilization
• While Indians should be rooted in their own heritage and culture, they should not resist learning profitably and  freely  from abroad
• He was very critical of the narrow expressions of nationalism which he found at work in parts of our independence movement.

Conclusion

The world we live in is acutely aware of the importance of recognizing identities. Today, there are numerous struggles for the recognition of group identities, many of which employ nationalist language. While we must recognize identity claims, we must also be cautious not to allow identity claims to lead to societal divisions and violence. We must keep in mind that everyone has multiple identities. For example, a person may have identities based on gender, caste, religion, language, or region, and may be proud of all of them.

Individuals may not feel the need to make claims on the state for political recognition and concessions for any one identity, as long as they believe they are free to express the various dimensions of their personality. A citizen’s political identity in a democracy should include all the different identities that people may have. It would be dangerous to allow intolerant and homogenizing forms of identity and nationalism to emerge.