To replace composite culture with monoculture would be regressive regimentation: Ansari

Former vice president Hamid Ansari said today that to deny the existing reality of cultural diversity and the resultant composite culture, and to replace it with any form of "monoculture" in the name of a new nationalism, is to conduct a form of "regressive regimentation".
Delivering a lecture at the India International Centre here, he also said there was a need to assess the impact of "studied subduing" or erasing of diversity in school curricula, text books on history and culture, and funding patterns of cultural institutions and academies.
"There is a difference between promotion of diversity, and its recognition. Diversity in our land are a ground reality, are reflective of our society's historical experience, and are traced in all periods. The exist at the core as also on the periphery and have their own unique characteristics and cannot be homogenised," Ansari said.

The former vice-president was addressing a gathering at the third annual lecture of the city-based think-tank, Centre For Policy Research.
"So, to deny the existing reality of cultural diversity and the resultant composite culture, and to replace it with any form of monoculture in the name of a new, strident, illiberal, nationalism, is to conduct a form of regressive regimentation," he said.
Ansari, who held office from 2007-2017 , in his nearly 25-minute speech, also made a reference to the philosophy of a nation espoused by RSS ideologue M S Golwalkar.

"It is argued that beneath the diversity is a unity, and this unity emanates from a single mainstream premised on a conflation of land, religion, and culture, and that deviations form it must be subsumed in a hegemonic wave demanding national unity.

"This was most author authoritatively articulated by Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, whose political and religious philosophy was centred on the concept of India as a Hindu Rashtra, founded on the principle of 'one nation' (Hindu), one culture (Sanskrit) and one religion (Hinduism). This necessarily implies a negation of cultural and religious pluralism," he said.
Ansari, who has previously served as the vice-chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), also emphasised that the distinction between "Indic and non-Indic matters" in academic and popular writings should be contested, since it is not sustainable scientifically and its principal purpose in societal matters is to "deny and denigrate".

"Some in today's audience may know of a grouping like the Indic Collective Trust and another promoting Indic scripts. Both ostensibly could be innocuous but both are devoted to pursuits that are focused on furtherance of loaded agenda that are easily discernible," he said in his speech.
Ansari also said, "We need to assess the impact of studied subduing or erasing of diversity in school curricula, text books on history and culture, funding patterns of cultural institutions and academies, projection of soft power abroad through government and cultural agencies."
Later, he fielded some questions from the audience on a range of topical issues, connected with the theme of his lecture "Our Culture: Composite and Unique" but offered subtle answers, without naming any entity.

Ansari, while answering one of the questions, said, "Cultural heritage and political agenda should be kept separate.