Mike Ghouse, President of the Foundation for Pluralism -- who I have known from the South Asian Journalist Association for several years has kindly given me the opportunity to share a few thoughts on issues of pluralism, minority identity, and belonging. I am not a citizen of the US nor a resident in official terms, but I have lived in the US for several years. I cannot vote but I pay taxes and consider the US home; India, the country of my birth, being my other home. As a graduate student and teacher in the US, I have had a particular and undoubtedly privileged 'minority' experience. But I have also shared experiences— from concerns about health insurance coverage to immigrant procedures— with other inhabitants, minorities or otherwise, citizens and non-citizens alike, which perhaps grants my reflections some broader relevance.

In the years that I have spent here, one of the things I have appreciated most about the US is its legal as well as social commitment to pluralism to all within its borders, expressed in the commitment to constitutionalism, secularism, rule of law, and rights. That commitment is secured by both the state and a dynamic civil society, often in tension with each other but, even so, functioning to ensure that the foundations of a secular liberal democracy stay strong and viable. No society is perfect, and the US can be critiqued strongly on various grounds with regard to domestic and international policy, for instance, the violation of international law and the disastrous invasion of Iraq. It is also patently problematic and biased to suggest—as ultra-conservative ideologues would have it-- that some peoples and societies are intrinsically more enlightened and some inherently more regressive than others. But without getting into a fruitless score-keeping comparison about societies, civilizations, peoples, or cultures, I would assert that the US, viewed on its own terms, fares very well in terms of its commitment to the principle of pluralism, as members of South Asian minorities would surely testify.

In American society, the principle of pluralism is manifest in a variety of forms: from measures against discrimination when renting an apartment to legal mechanisms to redress prejudice, from policies aimed at fostering diversity in educational institutions to initiatives to address historical injustices, from an unstinting affirmation of freedom of belief and expression to a generally deeply rooted sense of civil rights among the citizens of the US. These ideas do not just exist on paper; they are living forces in social life. And, indeed, South Asians in the US have benefited tremendously from these very values.

As an Indian citizen, I often note with sadness that for all the magnificent achievements of India in sixty years of independence, our state and society still have a ways to go in some of these respects. A member of one Indian religious or ethnic group is unlikely to find housing in an area or building peopled by members of another group, even in the Indian cities famed for their cosmopolitan ethos. North Indians and south Indians would rather not live in proximity to one another, vegetarians and non- vegetarians would rather not live with each other, and Hindus and Muslims do not want each other in their housing societies. The gap between the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the living reality for vulnerable, weak, and disenfranchised social groups in India often seems insurmountable, from the stories that appear in the press every day.

As South Asians living in the US, what might we do to make the value of pluralism ours? In briefly reflecting on this issue, I will draw on some ideas of my teacher, Professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, who has extensively engaged with and addressed these questions in his work. First, pluralism is already ours in multiple senses: we practice it by virtue of living in a multicultural society and accept it as a principle of society and state.

We also bring our own legacies of pluralism, from religious, intellectual, and cultural traditions, into conversation with other American traditions. Even when these dialogues are not explicit, the engagement is, in fact, constant. The challenge is to take this rich multifaceted pluralism and to deeply embed it as a visibly living principle of community life, such that every member of the community and the wider society can benefit from it.

That goal can be met by affirming an unconditional commitment to pluralism. By definition, pluralism must be unconditional to be genuine, within, of course, the boundaries of consistency with human rights principles. Unconditional pluralism, so defined, means accepting others in their otherness, accepting them according to the terms by which they define themselves and not force-fitting them into one's own framework. It means accepting a Hindu as a Hindu, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Jew as a Jew, an atheist as an atheist, an unbeliever as an unbeliever and it means respecting that choice. Indian Muslims and Sikhs are not Hindus as Hindu nationalist doctrine will have it. They are Muslims and Sikhs and should be recognized and respected as such. Hindus are not people of the book. All Hindus are not monotheists. Hindus should be recognized and respected as they define themselves. Atheists and agnostics are not inferior to believers and should be recognized and respected as such.


Equally importantly, pluralism also means accepting difference and diversity within communities, for there are oppressive majorities within minorities too. There are, similarly, minorities with majorities, even if they are not marked or conspicuous. As Prof. An-Na'im argues, one's own freedom to be, to believe, and to define oneself as a member of a community is fundamentally linked to the right and freedom of others to do exactly the same. One cannot, by definition, impose one's definition of freedom on another person or group: such an action only serves the cause of of unfreedom and undermines freedom . Finally, the commitment to pluralism must be an ongoing quest: it is not a project to be finished or a measurable one-time goal, but an activity to be practiced in every possible setting, on every possible occasion.

In accordance with this paradigm, instead of labeling difference by the terms seen in the worst forms of identitarian politics—for example, idolaters, invaders, infidels, fanatics, the uncivilized, heathens, pagans, zealots crusaders, etc. — our discussion of otherness would move to a different kind of discourse. Our celebration of difference and sameness would also be a celebration of the sameness and difference of others. Pluralism so practiced will empower minorities to move from the status of marked demographic segments to proactive stakeholders in upholding and entrenching the values of universalism, difference, and diversity.