By

Kamaya Jayatissa

“I believe in the essential unity of all people and for that matter of all lives.”

– Mohandas K. Gandhi

The need for an inclusive solidarity between all Sri Lankans is now urgent. This includes solidarity between members of all communities, as well as members of the Diaspora(s). Such social solidarity, which transcends ethnic and religious barriers, can only be generated by meaningful interaction between people (as individual persons) and between peoples. This means building a cohesive society, one in which diversity is mutually appreciated and valued. It may not be a permanent solution for the current clash of identities but it is part of the solution as it can also be developed as an effective approach to economic and social issues.

In the face of globalization and socio-cultural standardization, peopledo tend to seek refuge in their respective identities defined by religion, ethnicity or even tribe. The issue is to strike the right balance between all these identities while simultaneously developing and preserving a broader sense of belonging. Hence, in this post-war climate, both cohesion and solidarity must be considered as important elements of public policy and can only be achieved if not seen in isolation or forced upon reluctant communities. This means not appealing to people depending on their ethno-religious attachment but rather, nurturing their wider, broader sense of truly national belonging.

However, one can wonder how compatible social solidarity and cultural diversity can be, especially in the case of a multi-ethnic society such as Sri Lanka. Indeed, how can a shared sense of identity and solidarity be maintained in the context of ethnic diversity?

In many countries, diversity has often been seen as the cause for further conflict rather than a factor for social cohesion and stability. Some even fear that increasing interactions and network building between communities may contribute to generating a loss of customs, languages, beliefs and identities; a loss of organic homogeneity or a perceived ‘purity.’ In the end, it all depends on the way we wish to perceive diversity, both as individuals and as a group. Mostly, it depends on the way we use the notion of ‘cultural diversity’ by either turning it into a social tool for further inter-communal solidarity or by using it to enhance the pre-existing societal fractures.

Far from being an obstacle to unity, harmony and respect, diversity is inherent in every society. It must therefore be seen as a source of mutual enrichment that fosters understanding and reconciliation through both inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. The key lies therefore with the capacity of individuals to constructively use the potentials arising from multi-culturalism and ultimately pluralism.

An example of such a multi-dimensional conception of solidarity is the European Union which identifies a link between its heritage and its solidarity:

“Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity (…)” (Preamble, Charter Fundamental Rights of the Union, Draft Constitution of the European Union, 18 July 2003).

In order to be as broad as possible, developing such solidarity also means going literally beyond borders by including members of the Diaspora(s) who are currently either perceived as a threat or who sometimes arouse resentment.

Whether we like it or not, the Diaspora projects the image of the country to the outside world. As a result, their role in promoting cultural solidarity among Sri Lankans will impact – either positively or negatively – on the island. Putting them aside only helps in creating an additional marginalized minority, feeding thus further frustration and hostility on the international stage by basically turning our own people against one another and ultimately against us.

Forging and maintaining such inter-communal solidarity becomes a common and moral responsibility to act, an imperative and commitment towards one another. Failure to undertake it entails moral consequences that sometimes may lead to frictions as can be seen with the recent events in the island.

Inspired by the spirit of solidarity, UNESCO’s Preamble itself is based upon the principle, or duty, of solidarity. It appeals to all human beings in assuming an ethical commitment of solidarity through the promotion of ‘intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind:’

“(…) A peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and … the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”

This notion of solidarity involves interpersonal obligation and concern for the more vulnerable ones. Moreover, it is seen as a necessary tool to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and to consolidate a culture of peace. Diversity becomes then a constitutive element of solidarity among communities.

Consequently, as a cognitive attitude, solidarity involves the intention of changing a situation for the better through cooperation and reciprocal understanding. But solidarity does not only mean solidarity between marginalized groups. It cannot be unilateral either. On the contrary, the key to achieve social inclusion remains in building a reciprocal solidarity between both the majority and the minorities. This means inter-dependence between communities and most importantly, an acceptance of differences through compassion.