“How does a multicultural society accommodate diversities of all kinds — ethnic, linguistic and religious? Discuss its major challenges.” (2024)
J. S. Furnivall (Colonial Policy and Practice, 1948) described colonial Burma and Java as plural societies: peoples who “mix but do not combine”, meeting only in the marketplace. A multicultural society differs by design: it seeks to give ethnic, linguistic and religious groups public recognition and fair terms of coexistence, not mere cohabitation.
Models of accommodation
- Assimilation (“melting pot”): minorities merge into a dominant culture. This was the older American ideal and is France’s civic model today.
- Cultural pluralism (“salad bowl”): Horace Kallen (“Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot”, 1915) argued that groups keep their heritage within one shared civic frame.
- Liberal multiculturalism: Will Kymlicka (Multicultural Citizenship, 1995) proposed group-differentiated rights: self-government for national minorities, polyethnic rights for immigrant groups and special representation for disadvantaged groups.
- Recognition and dialogue: Charles Taylor (“The Politics of Recognition”, 1992) held that misrecognition harms identity. Bhikhu Parekh (Rethinking Multiculturalism, 2000) called for intercultural dialogue within shared public values.
How India accommodates
| Diversity | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Ethnic/tribal | Fifth and Sixth Schedules; ten Autonomous District Councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram; Article 371 special provisions |
| Linguistic | States Reorganisation Act, 1956; 22 scheduled languages (Census 2011: 96.71% have one as mother tongue); three-language formula; Article 350A (mother-tongue instruction) |
| Religious | Articles 25–28 (freedom of conscience); Articles 29–30 (minority cultural and educational rights); personal laws; Rajeev Bhargava’s “principled distance” |
This is Kymlicka’s logic in Indian form. Territorial autonomy absorbs ethnic and linguistic claims, while community rights protect religious minorities.
Major challenges
- Diversity without interaction: the Pew Research Center’s 2021 survey of 29,999 Indians found that 84% say respecting all religions is central to being “truly Indian”. Yet 86% of Hindus said their close friends are mainly from their own religion. Coexistence can harden into Furnivall-style segregation.
- Majoritarian pressure and minority insecurity: 64% of Hindus in the same survey tied national belonging to being Hindu. Minorities, in turn, fear that disputes over personal law, conversion and waqf property threaten their autonomy.
- Rights of individuals within groups: Susan Moller Okin (“Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”, 1999) warned that group rights can entrench patriarchy. The Shah Bano case (1985) showed the dilemma in India.
- Sons-of-the-soil conflict: Myron Weiner (Sons of the Soil, 1978) traced nativist hostility to migrant competition. Since May 2023 the Meitei–Kuki conflict in Manipur has killed at least 306 people and displaced about 60,000 (state government, September 2026).
- Language and federal friction: Tamil Nadu has resisted the three-language formula under the National Education Policy 2020, and about ₹2,152 crore of Samagra Shiksha funds were withheld in the dispute.
- Global backlash: Chancellor Angela Merkel (2010) and Prime Minister David Cameron (2011) declared multiculturalism a failure, blaming it for “parallel lives”. Their critics replied that exclusion, not recognition, produced separation.
Conclusion
Multiculturalism works best as “unity in diversity” backed by shared citizenship: rights for groups, freedom for individuals within them, and everyday spaces where communities actually meet. India’s constitutional design is robust, but segregation, majoritarian anxiety and local conflicts show that recognition must be matched by interaction and equal citizenship.