Ethics of disagreement

Post cold war era has opened the possibility of making disagreement work for the good of society rather than against it. This is so even when there are acute divisions and some fierce conflict raging in various parts of the world and even within an otherwise apparently cohesive society.

In the last century struggle for rights of individual against state led to adoption of the Human Rights Charter, 1948 which includes dignity of man (and woman), some vital freedoms, concept of equality and due process of law. Human Rights became idioms of later half of the last century. States after states adopted some of these rights and enshrined them in their constitution as fundamental rights. However, implementation of human rights globally and within a state is far from being satisfactory.

Nations have faltered when their national interest demanded otherwise, and within state it suffered under autocratic rulers or due to economic and social disparity. Yet, the march to a better future where human rights may one day be respected is going on with many unfortunate disappointments along the way.

There is yet another notable and far reaching change of last century, namely that of the ascension of democracy over other forms of government which has led scholars like Francis Fukuma to announce the end of history, and yet another politician to proclaim a New World Order. The last century which saw two world wars (1914 and 1939); revolutions (1917 and 1949); collapse of USSR and the end of cold war has bequeathed us an unfinished political agenda of how to organise the contemporary world so as to avoid the mistakes of the past and to ensure progress of humanity as a whole.

All this and more has generated an optimism which is referred to by some writers as millennium optimism. However, in the wake of this optimism two divergent theories - one of globalisation and the other clash of civilisation - have emerged.

Globalisation is conventionally projected as producing uniformity, leading to political liberation, market economy and advancement of science particularly in the fields of life sciences and information technology. Globalisation thus indicates that the world in which we live today is and would be a highly interdependent world.

On the other hand, clash of civilisation is premised on the belief that nation states would no longer be key units in shaping the future world which is going to be influenced by diverse civilisations and the fault line existing between them can lead to clashes. This theory indicates that even though the world is interdependent yet it may remain deeply divided.

Both these assumptions contain a part of truth because we do see the emergence of a global village on the one side and yet there is a rush to find out and adhere to some distinct identity.

We all are familiar with the phrases like "uniformity in diversity" and "of letting hundred flowers blossom" but now is the time to provide institutional back up to ensure that multi-culturalism and pluralism survive in a world which is moving inexorably towards globalisation and uniformity.