The human race has only one culture. I am not prepared to accept that there are numerous cultures. But then, this much can be said: the dances, songs, pronunciations and festive celebrations of various groups of the human race have their local peculiarities. These local peculiarities, or differences in manners and customs, cannot be considered separate cultures.
Such differences in the local manners and customs of human beings cannot be removed by the force of law or by dictatorial rule. If attempts are made to destroy local manners and customs, languages, and other social conventions in the name of national unity, human unity, or national sentiment, in all likelihood that will result in the escalation of mutual distrust and violence, which will lead collective life down the path of destruction.
I am in favour of social synthesis. In my opinion, the more intimately people associate with one another and the more closely one corner of the earth comes to another corner, the more local specialties in customs and manners will create newer forms as a result of frequent intermixing. The flowers of different gardens will be gathered together and transformed into a bouquet. The beauty of the bouquet will be no less than the beauty of the individual flowers, rather it will be more beautiful. The melody of Dhrupada will be transformed into Kheyal, while classical music will be changed into kiirtana, ba'ul, bha't'iya'lii, ja'rii, darbeshi,*** etc.
If different countries or if people of so-called different communities show enthusiasm for increasing social interaction and matrimonial relations, within a very short time social synthesis can be achieved. To some extent we notice the positive effects of such synthesis in cosmopolitan cities. [PROBLEMS OF THE DAY - 23]
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |