The Mirage of 'Unity In Diversity'

Demand for diversity has become an obscenely moral-ist stance of our times. There's a pursuit for it, especially by a certain woke creed, as if it's some sort of an automatic panacea. 

Unity In Diversity is an idealistic goal. 

Morality has no workability, if forced down in the form of policy. Morals are not to be told; they need to be drawn from what works or dosen't work. 

And so, morality can never be achieved by force-fitting a theoretical ideal into practice, without first investigating what can make it work.  

The essence of workability is in establishing a natural interdependence amongst different communities and notwithstanding the differences, commonality of basic values & vision at the intersection of diversity need to be ascertained first. The bonding forces need to be strong enough to nullify the opposing ones that tear apart the integrity of any entity. 

So, ideas of the diverse groups can vary, but not the purpose. The varied ideas on the buffet can be evaluated with a view to enrich that purpose, whatever it be; the best ones allowed to be picked voluntarily. 

It also means, one group's belief of what a fruitful future is, cannot be at the expense of the other. If there are any differences, the least-common denominator method would apply in the process of attainment of the 'future common good.'

The ideas that are commonly held stay, the rest must be willingly sacrificed. 

As an example, a rich person and a poor person cannot go for a meal together, as their choice of restaurants would differ. But, if they are friends, then as buddies wanting to enhance friendship & so still wanting to dine together, both must make adjustments.

The affordability of the not-so-rich guy is intuitively established by the richer friend, afterwhich he could suggest a restaurant, that only the poor person can afford & not what he desires. The rich fellow will sacrifice and adjust to the poor. The poor guy may do his part by, say, selecting a restaurant that's conveniently located for his wealthier friend. 

That was about affordability & location but it could be whatever - tolerance of spice, time available for dinning, etc. Doing that, the friendship remains intact, else it breaks. 

Now let's get to larger issues of life, where society must operate effectively. Here too, if we summon our common sense vested in authenticity and not some fantasy soaked in morality; for a peaceful society, one needs to understand the following:

1) That faith is a fact beyond the realm of proof or reasoning, and every stakeholder of the nation must accept & respect the same. 

2) That the real security of any minority is not found in the law, but goodwill of the majority. 

3) That the civility of the majority is in its ability to accommodate any minority.

4) That freedom of speech is the media's right, but its duty to sustain national integrity is paramount. Therefore, for the larger good of the society, it must self-license itself a responsibility to maintain strategic silence at times. 

The order is important to establish & sustain an empowering national culture. 

One community just cannot be cannibalizing the other or claim to have exclusivity to enter the gates of heaven, and begin imposing it upon others. 

Consider this, we already have issues with some within our own community, and so, homogeneity, is hardly a solution. 

I personally doubt if my own clone would mirror my ideas, just because it shares my DNA. 

What we actually need is a culture that offers equal opportunities for members to express themselves. 

Based on what folks express, a solution could emerge by the process of natural selection - individuals with values that enable or serve the integrity of the society, could coalesce to become a well knit group. 

The values would manifest themselves out in speech and action. 

People, while differing on issues, would not reject the whole. 

If that's not possible, it is better that those who reject the whole, simply because a part didn't match, seperate and go their respective ways. This is precisely what happened during the partition. 

Bharat never was and should never be, a nation of just binaries. This culture is about pluralism. 

Based on issues, sections of society can agree to disagree without becoming completely disagreeable. 

They can still bring themselves up to work & support in other areas where there's an agreement. And most definitely, they would respect each other's legacy, traditions & even honoring each others ancestors based on the outcomes they produced. 

That's realism. 

Similarly, they would demonstrate compatibility & cooperation to create a yet to be born future. 

It means they would have an unambiguous understanding of who they are, where they belong & how their common future will be far better working together than as individual identity centric groups. 

All along the journey, the integrity would remain intact only if there's an agreement on what the non-negotiables are, especially with regards to - what is a virtue or a vice, who are considered as friends or foes, and who is viewed as a hero or a villain. 

Finally, to realize the common vision for the future, what are the members willing to contribute, volunteer & sacrifice. 

That done and taught to the gen-next by elders through example, the identity centric communities will also begin to become conscious that their cooperative nature and assimilation will enhance their brand as a natural outcome. They will then integrate better with the society, cementing its integrity in return. This is exactly the reason why non resident Indians are so successful in America, and have become model migrants in that country. 

Without establishing the above, over time, it would only lead to Adversity in Diversity.