Embracing Diversity and Unity Beyond Language and Culture

Questioner: Good evening, sir. So, actually my question is not so much a philosophical question, but it's more based on the present circumstances and realities, especially migrants. I, myself, am a migrant, I can say so, I study in Gujarat right now. But this is not only for us from the Northeast, this also occurs when people, say, from the North of India, from the South of India, when they also migrate to the Northeast, they also face a similar situation of racism and regionalism.

So, sir my question to you is, there's a certain policy that certain governments have tried to impose of a uniform identity for the nation and for its citizens. So, would this be counterproductive, or would this be productive in eliminating this racism and regionalism?

Acharya Prashant: What kind of common identity are you talking of?

Questioner: For example, some aspects of identity are languages, so maybe people from the Southern part of our country would not be so comfortable with this language imposition, which they may face. Up till now, no government has imposed so much stipulations regarding culture as such, but there are certain worries that people face, even aspects of their culture like what we can eat and what we cannot eat., certain things are like that also.

Acharya Prashant: Rubin, as long as you will want to standardize or enforce something that varies from man to man, you will only create division, violence, and you will breed discontentment, resistance, and suffering ultimately, right?

No, language is not something very, very fundamental to human existence. Please understand what I'm trying to say, otherwise it's very easy to counter it by saying,”But all humans speak, so language is fundamental." I'm talking of a specific language. All humans do speak, but they do not speak the same language.

Same thing applies to color, or physical features, obviously sex, economic condition, food habits, all these things, they vary from man to man, and place to place, and time to time. Now, when you want to normalize these things, standardize these things by venerating (4.26) them, idolizing them, raising them to the level of an ideal, not only is it impractical, it is actually first of all, quite childish.

You have to emphasize on that which we all have in common. You cannot emphasize on that which is bound to be diverse between man and man. Even in one single household, please tell me, are food habits the same? Are choices the same? Sometimes, the brother has one particular accent, and the sister has another one, it happens, depends on their schooling, their education, and their taste.

The husband wants to dress one way, the wife might have totally different tastes. She says, “I want to dress in a very indigenous way or a very Western way.” Then how can you have a national policy or state policy, that is based on such flimsy things as language, or attire, or whatever?

When the Brits had that, we fought them tooth and nail, didn't we? They simply had something about skin color, and that was so unacceptable to us. Correct? They said, “their color is superior.” whatever their color was and ours is not, and we said, “no, no, this won't do. You cannot say one color is better than the other. Colors are colors.” And that’s something that applies to so many other things in life. Does it not?

You are Rubin, I am Prashant. How can one type of name be superior to another type of name? You are wearing specs, I am not. My hairstyle, I can see, is different. All these are differences that lend a certain color, taste, flavor to life. Who wants to have a very uniform kind of life? Won’t that be very bland and boring? Rather, not just distasteful, but disgusting. If all people look the same, eat the same, wear the same.

Look at nature; there are all kinds of trees and no tree is superior to the other. Forget about trees. There is the tree and there’s the humble grass. Who is one to claim that the tree is superior to the glass? And if grass vanishes, can the tree survive? Even if the little bacteria on the roots vanish, will the tree survive? We know of their role in nitrogen fixation. We know of how not just the bees, but even the mosquitoes are important, when it comes to maintaining ecology. How is one thing superior to the other?

Having said that, now we come to the other aspect, having said that, there must be an underlying, unifying principle. Otherwise, all we have is just countless differences. There must be something that unifies us so strongly that the differences, even if countless, start appearing worthless.

Now, what is it that is really common between man and man, irrespective of where I am coming from, where you are coming from? I am a Russian; you are an African. I am a man; you are a woman. I am old; you are young. I’m rich; you are poor. I am well-read; you are not. I’m fat; you are fit. All those differences are always there, right?

Irrespective of those differences, what is it that unifies us? How do you know that this fellow in front of me is fit to be called a human being? Taking a narrow perspective at this moment, what is it that distinguishes a human being from, let’s say, an animal?

When we talk of something that unifies man and man, which is all human beings, we have to look at what is it that distinguishes a human being from an animal. What is it?

Questioner: In my opinion, maybe it’s the ability to make choices.

Acharya Prashant: But even the animal makes choices, does it not?

You keep the grass and stone in front of a buffalo, and the buffalo will know what to chew. So, how is a human being distinct from an animal?

Questioner: Sir, maybe animals’ choices are driven by its animal instincts and not higher values.

Acharya Prashant: Lovel, lovely. And where do our higher values come from?

Questioner: I think they’ve been passed on and been refined from different generation to generation.

Acharya Prashant: But then that will only lead to differences and discord because my ancestors are not the same as yours, so then my values will never conquer, never agree with yours, and then we’ll fight.

Questioner: I think that is the case that occurs with us also. Whoever dominates the other is able to pass on their values.

Acharya Prashant: No, but then we are not talking of one stream of human beings versus another stream of human beings. We are talking of what unites human beings as a whole against, let’s say, an animal.

Okay, a buffalo comes and the buffalo looks at the two of us, and if the buffalo were wise; we are appending the whole thing now, the buffalo is wise and human beings are not, were the buffalo wise, what would the buffalo find in common between the two of us?

Questioner: We are both bipedal.

Acharya Prashant: (smiles) Leave the physicality aside.

Questioner: I’m not really sure, sir.

Acharya Prashant: So, there’s the instinct to know. Buffaloes, since millions of years of their existence, have never wanted to really understand what is it to be a buffalo, what the grass is like, where does the thunderstorm come from, why is the grass green at all. Buffaloes don’t reflect or meditate. Buffaloes are never keen to reflect, realize, understand. No buffalo ever asked herself the question, “who am I?”

Now, this one comes with a disclaimer. I’m not a buffalo, so I can’t be entirely sure, but just looking at buffalo’s from where I do, I do not think that they are introspecting or meditating. They continue in the way they are, right? You are born a buffalo, you live as a buffalo, you die as a buffalo. There is no urge to rise, to know and to be liberated from inner ignorance.

So, that’s what unites me and you, right? And then that alone has to be the basis of our community, our society. All our rules, laws, policies, conventions, customs, have to be founded on the underlying unity. The unifying principle is Liberation. Liberation beyond Liberty. Liberty is good, but Liberty is a small thing. Liberation is beyond Liberty. Liberation, understanding, realization.

So, if as the head of the government, I have to impose a policy, the policy will say, “In this area, you cannot remain uneducated, because being a human being, obviously you have to know. You want to know. You must know. So, kindly have the basic education. If you have arrived here uneducated, we will ensure, we will subsidize, and we’ll have you educated.” And that’s what is common between all the people, the residents, the citizens here. We all are educated.

Now, that’s the foundation of our unity — Our education. You are educated, so am I, so the two of us have something in common. You have an urge to understand, so have I. And that’s what we have in common.

So, what does that mean? That means systems will be transparent because I want to know, and the system doesn’t want to reveal. Now, there is a conflict. So, systems have to be transparent. Professors in the universities have to be accessible. Examinations have to be continuous, and practical, and grounded in reality.

Are you getting it?

Questioner: Yes sir.

Acharya Prashant: And that’s when we can say, “Yes, we belong to this place, and this is what we have in common.” Instead, if you say, “We belong to this place, and what we have in common is the language,” then that’s not a very sustainable basis of unity because that’s an exclusive basis, it excludes, right?

It says, “someone speaking some other language comes here and we will treat him as an alien. Someone comes here whose facial features are different and will call them by some name, some not so pleasing name.” Right?

Now, the buffalo does better than us when it comes to these things. There is very little evidence of color-based discrimination in the buffalo universe, or in the cow, or goat, or camel universe. We have not seen that. We have rabbits and just one among them is brown, and we are not seeing the white ones really discriminate against him.

So, first of all, he is in a minority of one. And secondly, his color is supposedly an inferior one, right? A very Indian color, brown. But the white European rabbits are not seen to discriminate.

Only human beings have that kind of ignorance and nonsense. If somebody is a minority, they pulverize him. And when you are in a minority, they form groups, and race slogans, and complain, and play the victim. How would that work? All that is just so juvenile.

(A question is saying something) Please repeat that.

Questioner: At the risk of reductionism, will it be somewhat fair to say that according to you, maybe the just basis for a shared identity would be laws and the Constitution on the basis of what shared living like rules for the society.

Acharya Prashant: Yes, obviously. You see, if you look at the Preamble, the values that you find there are quite sublime. You investigate them closely and you will say, “these are fairly Universal values, they are not discriminatory in nature.

Obviously, you can always make things better, and you can always refine a word, fine tune it, come up with an even higher something. That’s all right, but if you look at liberty, equality, fraternity, if you look at even the stuff that came to the Preamble in the 70s, socialist, secular, these are not really things that can divide.

So, the Indian Constitution is a fairly respectable one in that regard, and in fact, even globally countries look up to the Indian Constitution. It’s quite a detailed one. It’s difficult to find stuff there that is partisan. It’s difficult to find seeds of oppression or narrowness, anything there. So, if polity is being conducted, honestly according to the Constitution, I think that would take care of a lot of problems.

See obviously, the Constitution does not address the inner life of the human being. For example, the Constitution would talk of, let’s say, Liberty, but it does not talk of individual emancipation. It does not talk of inner Liberation from the bondages of ignorance, like physical identification.

People are so identified with their body, and the Constitution is silent in that regard, but then is also not the function of the Constitution. That is to be taken care of by other agencies operating at the social level.

So, all in all, I think if we can just live up to what the Constitution says, that itself would be a fairly stable situation, and more can be done. Obviously, there are vistas beyond that, but that is not to say that the Constitution lacks in something.

Questioner: Thank you so much sir for all the answers. Thank you so much.

show_less