1. Purity of Culture
Dr. Md. Afsar Ali
Assistant Prof. A. J. C. Bose College, Kolkata.
Culture is an inclusive term. It encompasses all the actions, deeds, habits, etc. of an individual
from the beginning of his day till bed-time. Hence, ‘purity of culture’ will mean the pure or
unadulterated condition of those actions, deeds, habits, etc. In the name of this ‘purity of culture’ some
‘educated bhodrolok’ (gentlemen) tries to make an impression that culture of the ruling class is only
the pure one and they (the ruling class) have every right to protect this purity of their culture by any
means, even by misusing the power and constitution. One such ‘bhodrolok’ is Mr. Dilip Kumar Kar,
who wrote, “burqa constitutes a security threat”(1) [Ref. The Telegraph, July 21, 2010]. If so, then the
uniform of the Advocates and Judges, Nurses and Nuns’ head-kerchiefs, and the dress of Bishops also
could “constitute security threat”.
(2)
Similarly, the letter of N. K. Das Gupta [Ref. The Telegraph, July 21, 2010] had not written
from a neutral point of view. If “French ban on burqa intends to preserve the purity of the French
culture” and if it is welcome by some people, then every nation should preserve the purity of ‘their’
(ruling class’s) culture by banning “others” (non-ruling class’s) and the same must be gladly accepted
by the advocates of preservation of ‘purity of culture’! The result will be – in all countries except India
and Nepal, no Hindu Priest will be allowed to wear their religious dress, no Hindu temple with its
specific architectural style will be seen throughout the world except in these two countries (As, Mr.
Das Gupta also supported ban on minarets in Switzerland)! In India also ban will have to be imposed
on the dress of Nuns, Bishops, Buddhist Monks, or other faiths’ dresses. Moreover, in India there
should be no Masjid, Church, Synagogue or Guruduwara – all in the name of preserving the ‘purity of
culture’! Then the big question will arise, what is Indian culture? This question arises because
according to the Government of India report there are a total of 2800 castes in India(3). [Ref.: Singh KS
(1993), People of India, Anthropological Survey of India, Govt. of India]. Some other reports says that
there are more than 6000 castes in India(4). [Ref.: Narasimham KV (Kovena) (2006), The Bahujan
Guide, A.P., India]. Each caste is ‘ethnic identity’ having its distinct culture. So, in India there are at
least two thousand eight hundred cultures, albeit as per Government’s acknowledgement. Now the
most important question is – out of these, which one will be considered as the ‘Indian culture’?
Common and logical argument says that each one of these is the culture of Indian people and deserves
1

2. to be called ‘Indian culture’. These bhodrolok’ generally come to the rescue and suggest that every
other culture should (sometimes they say ‘must’) follow or adopt the ‘Mainstream culture’. Again the
question arises, out of these 2800 streams (caste means ‘ethnic identity’ and each ‘ethnic identity’ is a
distinct stream by itself) which one should be taken out as the ‘Main’ one? These gentlemen then
suggest that the ‘national’ one should be treated as the ‘Main’ one and everybody belonging to any
other culture should adopt this ‘National Mainstream’. A new word came ‘national’ or ‘nation’. Let’s
analyse what the word ‘nation’ means. According to the great political thinker J. V. Stalin, “A Nation is
a historically evolved stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language,
territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”(5) [Ref. J. V.
Stalin (1977), Marxism and the National Question, New Book Centre, Cal. 9, p.11. (Reproduced from
his collected works, vol. 2)]. According to this definition, a nation should be formed by a stable
community of people. In India we find that there is continuous conflict, clash, killing between / among
the different communities / ethnic identities or castes. To have a clear picture of this conflict, State
wise list of terrorist/ insurgent/extremist groups is given here :
Sl. No. Name of the State No. of Terrorist/ Insurgent/Extremist Groups
1. Assam 36
2. Jammu & Kashmir 36
3. Manipur 39
4. Meghalaya 4
5. Nagaland 3
6. Punjab 12
7. Tripura 30
8. Mizoram 2
9. Arunachal Pradesh 7
10. Other States 9
TOTAL : 178
2

3. (6)
[Ref.: South Asia Terrorism Portal (2001), ‘India - Terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups’
retrieved on 10th July 2011 at 10:45 pm from
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/terroristoutfits/index.html]. Presently in India nearly 1
lakh people have been killed by only one insurgent group, named Maoists or Naxalites(7).[Ref.:
Rajsekher VT (2011), Dalit Voice, 30, 7, p.20.]. This situation clearly demonstrates that India is not a
stable country. Next analyze, whether the people of India speaks a common language? “More than
1,500 languages and dialects are spoken in India.”(8) [Ref.: Singh T (2011), How many Languages in
India, retrieved on 11th July 2011 at 10:10 am, from
http://www.askfever.com/index.php?question=how-many-languages-in-india-2011&id=369]. So, our
country don’t have a common language of her people. Our economic life also demonstrates great
disparity. According to a report of ‘National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector
(NCEUS)’, in India 77% people are living in extreme poverty; their average per day per head income
is less than Rs.20/-. (9)[Ref.: http://www.reuters.com (2007), retrieved on 14th June, 2011]. On the other
hand, crossing all limits of contradictions, it was found that four out of ten richest persons in the world
are living in India.(10)[Ref.: http://www.financialjesus.com (2008), retrieved on 14th June, 2011].
Hence, India’s economic condition is not uniform or common to all or at least majority of her people.
So far the psychological make-up and culture of Indian people are concerned these are not common at
all. As stated above that there are at least 2800 ethnic identities in India. This means, in India there are
2800 types of people belonging to different culture and psychological make-up, at the least. Therefore,
in the light of the definition of ‘nation’, India does not satisfy any criterion (except her common
territory) to be a ‘nation’. So, it can be concluded beyond doubt that India is not a nation. Dr.
Ambedkar also said that India is not a nation. In reality India is a cluster of thousands of nations
(ethnic identities) conflicting among themselves for their survival.(11) [Ref.: Rajshekar, VT (2007).
Caste a nation within the nation, Books for Change, Bangalore, 2rd Edn.].
As it is proved that India is not a nation, then the term ‘National Mainstream’ does not find the
ground. Then what these ‘educated’ gentlemen want to mean by this term ‘National Mainstream’? Do
they mean the culture of the ruling Brahminist class? It is up to the reader to search the answer.
Whatever these ‘bhodrolok’ say, are but contrary to the basic concept of democracy. Democracy
supports and nurtures the plurality in modern society. Hijab is presently a major issue of discussion
particularly in the West and the most contradicting thing is that it is being targeted in the name of
3

4. ‘democracy’ and also in the name of ‘purity of culture’. In order to go into the root of this topic, one
has to understand the big potential of sex as a product for market. The desire for items of luxury may
be absent in some individuals, but sex, as a basic biological instinct, is a universal human urge and
even the most pious tends to succumb on its appeal. Commercialization of sex therefore, is expected to
generate large dividends, unparalleled in any business. Moreover, this is also an effective tool for
diverting the attention of the masses from the basic human issues, like poverty, illiteracy, etc.; to hide
the inefficiency of governance by the political big players.
The commercialization of sex needs that man and women must get accustomed to revealing their
anatomy in public. This can’t be achieved overnight. The economic giants with the help of politicians
popularized ‘fashion’ under the banner of ‘liberty of women’. Corresponding to the growth of
‘fashion industry’ the size and volume of clothes adored my women got shortened. The first casualty
of the storm of fashion was the ‘Head-kerchief’, which led to the display of a number of attractive
hairstyles. Then the arms and shoulders were bared and the neckline started descending. Skirts began
to shrink to the extent of ‘miniskirts’, which in combination with ‘shorts’ marked its presence in the
market now. Swimming suits were popularized under the attractive slogan – ‘women have the right to
play’. As a result the topless blondes and brunettes can be seen on hundreds of beaches through-out the
world. Nude poses of women started appearing regularly in magazines, newspapers, public hoardings,
cinemas, etc.
In this situation, hijab or purdah creates a big hindrance to the economic and political big players
in achieving their objectives. How a women reluctant even to show her face and hair could be
persuaded to bare her breasts, thighs and buttocks !
It is to be mentioned here that purdah (covering of body) is not a law of Islam only, as is often
believed. Almost in all religions, sects, races and communities, except some tribes, covering of most
part of the body is essential. In case of Islam, the only difference is that the purdah took the form of
burqa. As per our social custom, clothes are presented to someone special as a mark of showing
respect to the person, e.g., in convocation while presenting degrees to the scholars. In other words,
striping never dignifies anybody. But unfortunately, some women have failed to exercise their wisdom
in distinguishing between true freedom that will elevate their social and economic status without
making them the victims of savage exploitation and fake freedom which buried their self-respect.
4

5. In my opinion, the culture of every sections or ethnic identity of the society is pure one and
should definitely be preserved. The ruling class is not only against its preservation but trying their
best to destroy it. So, it is the duty of these castes / sections (non-ruling classes) of the society to
preserve and enrich their culture. And it is only possible through the participatory governance, i.e.,
every castes / sections of the society will have their proportional (as per their population per cent)
representation in the administration and governance. In democracy, opinion of the majority people
forms the government and as the Indian non-ruling section is majority (Muslim=20%, SC=20%,
ST=10%, OBC=35% ; Total = 85%), so, they can easily form their government, once they get united.
This is the only way to protect, preserve and enrich the ‘purity of culture’ of every sections of the
society.
________________
5