A dialogue on unity in diversity

Ratna Raman

THE  ‘university’ and the ‘universe’ do not need to be pluralistic,” my students argued. Otherwise they would not have been prefixed with ‘uni’(meaning one). When ‘uni’ is attached to other words does it not suggest the indivisible nature of the world we live in and describe through words?

“‘Uni’ has a sort of umbrella effect in university and universe,” I pointed out. “It shelters a whole host of disciplines and celebrates diversity. Individuals learn and teach under different specialisations at the university. Yet universally one university can be distinguished from another.”

“Doesn’t ‘union’ mean a coming together of a large number of people into a single unit?” they queried.

“Yes,” I agreed, “but in this instance a large number of individuals or units willingly choose to be part of a group. ‘Unions’ are able to represent the interests of everyone in the group. It also describes two people marrying each other.  On the other hand, the multinational company ‘Unilever’ sells food, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care products, under a single brand.”

When I pointed out that the world we inhabit was becoming increasingly ‘unipolar’, they wanted to know why that was a problem. “This leaves us with no balance of power in the world,” I protested. “Why should we always need to lean towards one superpower?”

“That is essential,” they declared: “We must be united and in agreement with the superpower.”

“What about non-alignment?” I asked. “That is an outdated idea,” they said. “Why?” I countered.

“It was an idea voiced in innocent times; it has lost its relevance now,” they responded. “It doesn’t work because we need to defend ourselves, build a strong side and we cannot buckle down.”

“Isn’t this a very ‘unidimensional’ view of the world?” I asked. “Possibly,”  they admitted, “but it is the only one we have learnt.”

“This is a unilateral point of view,” I demurred, “implying that no other perspective will be allowed.”

“Do you have a better solution?” they queried. “Yes,” I responded, “if ‘uni’ stands for one then it is time for us to explore its holistic meaning through ‘dialogue’ which involves a conversation between two or more persons or groups, enabling an exchange of views.”

“We have ‘uniforms’ for schoolchildren because it encourages homogeneity in disparate contexts and ensures that everyone is treated uniformly. ‘Unisex’ clothing is a great innovation because it emphasises less on gender and more on comfort and convenience.”

However, the idea of ‘uniformity’ (conformity) does not exist either in nature or in life, which reiterate abundant plurality. ‘Uniforms’ and ‘unisex’ clothing are invariably available in multiple sizes and colours. Ideas that foster a ‘unidimensional’ view diminish the variety in our lives. Human preferences therefore must never be mapped as identical. We must not behave like ‘unabombers’ and blow up the world of multiple perspectives. 

‘Unite’ and ‘united’ are verbs with different participles yet they have the same context. People may come together for a common cause. This seldom precludes the forging of other unions.

Each individual participates in a multiplicity of roles in one lifetime. Humans must be allowed to grow in ways unique to them, rather like the mythical unicorn that is rare, elusive and different. The awareness that we inhabit a many-hued, multi-textured universe should lead us towards ‘unity’ and ‘universal’ peace.