Jogen Mondal of Barisal became the first Law Minister after the independence of Pakistan. He is considered one of the architects of Pakistan. He was a close friend of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But after Jinnah’s death, the power equation changed. He could not be the center of attention under Muslim bureaucratic rule. He fell from the government in a short time. At present very few people know about Yogen Mandal of Barisal. But the story of Pakistan lies in the story of Jogen Mondal. Pakistan was born with the premise that minorities are not safe in India. But gradually Pakistan itself has become a state where minorities are not safe. In other words, Pakistan rejected his birthright. This policy of rejecting and dismissing dissent has been one of the catalysts behind Pakistan’s fragility so far. Of course, this applies not only to Pakistan, but to any country. It is true that power can win, but pluralism is essential for stability. Just conquering like Genghis Khan is not the essence of civilization. Enriching thought through the ability to embrace diversity is the key to building civilization.
In this era of cultural dominance or cultural hegemony, the talk of the plurality of culture is quite rare and incomprehensible. However, Amartya Sen argues for a pluralist definition of identity to provide the necessary moral and legal scope to ensure the coexistence of diversity. Due to the socio-cultural dynamics, diversity is seen in it. There are differences in occupation, economic status, language, religion, caste, nationality, gender, ideology and demographic characteristics. Diversity can exist between people living in a society or within institutions. The first thing to consider is how to contain the existing plurality. Because truth is necessary to desire the greatest good of the greatest number of people, as well as to ensure justice to the least number of neglected people and to protect them from disenfranchisement. Human beings do not lose their human dignity on the basis of gender, religion, caste or nationality. If a state shows its back to a particular class or community, it cannot demand loyalty from that particular class or community. If it demands, then it is no longer a relationship between the modern ruler and the ruled. Primitive era becomes the relationship of slave and sage.
Another important example can be given. Fourteenth-century sociologist and historian Ibn Khaldun is best known for his theory of Asabiyyah. He gave an idea about the policy of war in the preface of his Kitabul Ibar and in the Muqaddimah. Asabiya means tribal ties. Its ties can be through blood or ideals. Ibn Khaldun claimed that the stronger the Asabiya on his side during the war, the more likely he would win. Because when several clans fight as one side through alliances it is easy to create divisions between them. On the contrary, it is not so easy to make a division if it belongs to the same tribe. Ibn Khaldun is still relevant in many ways. But the post-nationalist era also produced contrasting examples of the war policy influenced by Assabiya. That is, when people of multiple ethnic groups and castes form a common ground, the confidence of other ethnic groups in that ground increases. Marginalized people also trust a pluralistic society. This is exactly what happened in India. Apart from the current marginalization policy, India has somehow embraced cultural pluralism for a long time in its history. Home to numerous ethnic groups such as Greeks, Portuguese, Armenians, Afghans, Arabs and Persians. Due to this cultural diversity, the country has been able to maintain stability in the later period. During Bangladesh’s independence struggle, Pakistan was preoccupied with the trend of denial, whereas Bangladesh’s social system craved pluralism.
It is true that the more diverse a society is, the more prosperous it is. But to digest this diversity requires tolerance. Respect for opposing views is needed. But tolerance of diversity is not an airy thing either. There are some obstacles to present such diversity in society and institutions. It can keep him in a corner by overstepping the particular culture. Or when a particular class begins to produce culture to assert power. Power is not just about claiming. Sometimes silence becomes a language of power. The situation of ethnic minorities in recent times may be the best example of this. According to the 2022 census and household census in the country, the population of minority ethnic groups is 16 lakh 50 thousand 159. These 50 ethnic groups have their own cultures, many have their own languages and alphabets, and in some cases religious beliefs and mythology. In that proportion they are not represented in the main stream. Many faiths, such as the Garo Purana and the Sangsarek religion, are dying, and are not discussed in the mainstream. The question of how to protect the cultural environment of minority groups is not irrelevant. Also added is the question of the right to receive non-discriminatory services at all levels of the state. For example, Bengali is not a mother tongue but a second language for a large number of ethnic minorities. As a result, facilities for them are narrowed in the existing education system. What steps can be taken to cut that shrinkage? How much is the environment favorable for them in professional life? The dropout rate in the hills is abnormally higher than in the plains. That is, the environment of the education sector, the quality of education of the teachers there or any part of the education system is not working properly. If the question is not raised or there is silence in some quarters, the pluralist concept of the society suffers the most. No matter how small a section of society, its lack of representation means at the end of the day a denial of its existence.
The biggest criticism behind the pluralist trend comes from ethical considerations. The moral capacity of the society is developed through the common experience and moral practice of the people living in the society. But philosophers since the time of Protagoras have accepted moral relativism. In the 20th century, anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Clifford Giersch validated moral relativism with cultural relativism. Claimed cultural diversity as a basic human right. But cultural diversity has a negative impact on moral development. As there are differences in values among individuals, societies, cultures, customs and institutions, the moral standards will be judged by the one who determines what is good, right and wrong, right and wrong. The moral progress of the society will be hindered. In this way moral relativism creates moral anarchy. Of course, today a bigger obstacle than moral relativism is sensationalism. When a sudden sensation is created in the society about an issue, the sense of moral judgment does not work in people. Patriotism, religion or fashion is used as a shield. Today’s sensation plays a role like opium so that the exploited, oppressed and oppressed people of the society are not discussed in public. In that case, it plays a role in keeping the moral sense of the society and the people living in the society ineffective.
Cultural pluralism is essential for social mobility. A common moral foundation is also essential. In that case, it is important to be able to read morality and cultural diversity side by side. It is important to be clear about the demarcation between the two. That responsibility is definitely on all levels of society.