NATIVE CULTURES ARE UNDER THREAT

Mukesh Devrari 

William Westerman Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York claimed in his paper titled ‘Disruptions to Culture: The Refugee Experience, Cultural Sustainability and Finding Accord with Indigenous Folks’ that native and migrant populations could live peacefully side by side by respecting each other in five different areas of human activity. He gave a simple theory in his paper presented in a seminar organized by Centre for Tribal Folklore, Language and Literature of Central University of Jharkhand on 12 Jan. 2014. 

Westerman lists five arenas, where he claims that a varied set of people should treat each other respectfully. He increases the dictionary of ‘being respectful’ for his theory.  Here respectfully means acting without any coercion, force and exploitation. Here is a remedy given by him.  

First is land, the only finite supply of land is available on earth and on every nation also and native inhabitants believe that migrants occupy the land to their disadvantage. It must not happen. If it is true, then it must be considered in hard economic times like this it matters a lot. It matter means ownership of land. For example, people from Bangladesh migrated to India because the land was available in plenty before, which is not available at least now. It was one of the reasons for large-scale migration, apart from the civil unrest and stark poverty. At least it is partially true.

Second is resources, mining and extraction of ores and minerals if done with local involvement, then it becomes easy. If alien corporate houses come for it, then native retaliates sometimes violently. A perfect example is central India. Maoist insurgency is a result of blind acceptance of neoliberal practices and thought by the power elite in India.  

The third is other living beings, migrants must not indulge in ravaging nature like deforestation, hunting, overfishing etc. In India, if migrants start eating cows, which is huge of lumping protein for them and goddess for natives, then it may lead to unrest. Then there is also claim that overexploitation of living leading to environmental failures like climate change.

Fourth is the labour resources, obviously, here migrants remain at the receiving end most of the times. It is well observed that in cities and far corners of India migrants labourers are treated badly. Nepali labourers are highly underpaid and exploited in India, but it has also been seen that migrant communities sometimes overpower natives and occupies all their resources. Perhaps what white man did with native Indians in the United States?

Last and the most important one is culture. It is very tricky and problematic and perhaps a most important factor. This author believes that all four other factors may become irrelevant with efforts of civil society groups and a little nudge from the authorities, but culture is a real problem. India Hindu asylum seekers are welcome and Muslims migrants from Bangladesh are considered a threat to the peace, security and culture of indigenous people of Assam and India in general in the public sphere. Nepali was perhaps kicked out of Bhutan because they were the practitioner of an alien culture, but their entry in India never became an issue of concern in the popular debates in the public sphere.     

This expanded notion of respectability can come in other areas, but in the cultural arena, it becomes difficult. Just imagine that natives and migrants belong to two different cultures. Both of them believe that in the name of culture other group is following and propagating inhuman practices. Then clash is inevitable. It means a clash of civilizations.   

Here is an example. Once a colleague of this author met him at a dinner table and asked him ‘Are you are drinking milk? The author replied ‘yes’ and added ‘it tastes nice.’ It was an obvious expression. Then his colleague retorted back that is why everybody hates you around the world, you are cruel. This milk is for cow’s calf not for you. You people torture cows. It is horrible. He created noise as if he is about to vomit. He was a little inebriated. To him, it was unthinkable how anyone can drink milk. He belongs to the North Eastern State of Nagaland.  

The author was surprised, killing and eating is not at all horrible for people in Nagaland, but using milk for consumption is horrible. Is not it strange? Here this conversation means practices of both of us are horrible to each other. Perhaps an outsider who drinks milk and eats cow, both the author and his friend are strange people.   

Westerman is committed to believers in the theory of imperialism. He believes it exists and it is good for nothing. It is not in the interest of diversity in human society in the long term. He also claims that evidence also suggests that cultural imperialism is not an exotic conspiracy theory, as many would like to believe. It is a stark reality.

At the end of the discussion in an informal discussion author with Westerman author claimed, “In social science, evidence can be produced to claim just the opposite. Results in social sciences are not as objective as might be in chemical sciences. Each perspective had few arguments and theories in its support.”

(Article is fully based on memory.)

end.