why Unity in Diversity a myth in india?explain.
u can take help from google
Answers
Answer:Prior to the advent of the Britishers, the idea of India as a nation found utterance occasionally under the reign of powerful polities like the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Mughal Empire and, to a certain extent, the Maratha Confederacy. Unlike China, multiple kingdoms existing simultaneously has been the norm in India. Due to this, during the Indian National Movement, the nationalists would often refer to India as a nation-in-the-making. And regardless of whatever people may say, a major obstacle in developing this nation was diversity.
There are two ways of addressing this issue of diversity: forcibly remove it, or promote acceptance of it. India chose the latter route, while two other countries in our neighbourhood chose the former with drastic consequences.
The Sinhalese majority in Sri Lanka tried to undermine the culture of the Tamils, and ended up fighting a quarter-century long civil war because of it. In Pakistan, the West Pakistani leadership tried to undermine the culture of the East Pakistanis, and that resulted in the secession of East Pakistan to form the country of Bangladesh after the Liberation War of 1971.
Both these examples from South Asia itself clearly show that forcibly removing diversity is going to backfire spectacularly. In that case, acceptance of diversity is the only rational path—which has been followed in India (more or less).
Following Independence, the Indian leadership decided to follow the path of tolerance, despite the recent horrors of the Partition. However, in order to promote acceptance of the principle, notions like “unity in diversity” were propagated to stitch together countless cultures into a country. The alternative would have been dozens of countries with different cultures warring amongst each other—all of whom would have become easy targets for foreign agents (it is only when India has been divided did invaders succeed in conquering huge chunks of it).
It is true that in the history of India, frictions between different cultures was limited and certainly manageable. The differences became stark mainly due to the British policy of divide et impera (divide and rule). Thus, if enough people accepted the concept of unity in diversity, it would lead to an idea turning into an inter-subjective reality. In other words, as long as Indians believed in it, the idea would exist. And, all things considered, the idea of unity in diversity is still alive.
The most important reason why it is still alive, is the Indian democracy. And that is because as long as the people think they can find justice in the system itself, they would not wage war against it. It is true that justice by the system has sometimes been denied, and sometimes people have resorted to violence without fully utilizing the legal path. But democracy has been largely successful in navigating the differences among people—we might not love our neighbours, but at least we don’t hate them (too much).
Critics might point to the intermittent rebellions (as well as the riots) the Indian Republic has faced, and try to claim that unity in diversity is just a myth. Apart from secession, the Indian Republic has been remarkably tolerant of the cacophony of demands arising from different people due to its democracy.
And even in the case of secessionist movements, acceptance of differences has been more successful than use of force to promote unity. The Khalistani insurgency was perhaps the worst India ever faced. Use of force (like Operation Blue Star) only ended up strengthening the insurgency. It was only after the Punjab Accord of 1985 the demand for Khalistan started losing popularity. The leader of the Akali Dal, the man who signed the Accord, was assassinated by the extremists, which further decreased their popularity in Punjab. By mid 1990s, the insurgency fizzled out.
Similarly, the Mizo insurgency was also put down by acceptance of differences. The organization which lead the insurgency, the Mizo National Front (MNF), became a political party after the Mizo Accord (1986) and ended up forming the government in the new state of Mizroram twice. Laldenga, the man who founded the MNF, ended up becoming the Chief Minister!
Despite these victories of unity in diversity, there have been snags as well. The Partition has already been mentioned, not to mention the extant insurgencies in Kashmir and the Northeast. However, in a country the size of India, the sheer amount of diversity is going to result in frictions, especially in the periphery of the country. The Republic has weathered far worse in the past, and it has survived. Democracy has succeeded in including the aspirations of its citizens, and it will continue to do so.
So, no, unity in diversity is not a myth. It is a inter-subjective reality dependent on the faith of Indians for its perpetuation. And despite the claims to the contrary, it is still alive and kicking, and it will remain that way as long as democracy lives.
Explanation: here it is
Explanation:
Exactly In India we can see the unity in diversity .
Its a huge myth for other countries. Particularly in India we have so many religions, different tradition's and culture . Approximately 1.30cr people are leading their lives in India. But we can't has any kind of discriminative feeling, doing domination etc . We only have the respect on each and every religion and on their tradition and culture ....So that"s way India is called as a country of Unity in diversity ...