While the post-independence integration of diverse landscapes and terrains have allowed the possibility of identifying a bounded ‘nation-state’ called ‘India’, and the cultural assimilation and acculturation have given rise to an imagined ‘national’ consciousness that is able to distinguish itself from the other [nations], the affirmation of cultural and ethnic diversities and cultivation of their agency that characterize the postcolonial rationality has led in turn to the continued deconstruction of all meta-narratives and universalizing perspectives, including the image of a homogenized union such as India. Even after seventy-six years of its independence from British rule, and with the guidance of the longest constitution ever written, the world’s largest democracy has been unable to demonstrate what a substantive embodiment of its ‘unity in diversity’ philosophy practically looks like. The various attempts to implement the constitutional goal of affirming differences and preserving particularities has generally seen the eventual imposition of a homogenizing [majoritarian] perspective which has not only widened the gap between the particular and the national, but also served to prolong the culture of ‘durable disorder’ across the country, and especially in the northeast regions of India. The challenge of pluralism today, which this paper discusses as the responsibility of developing a harmonious balance between recognizing and preserving differences on the one hand, and cultivating a national ethos that promotes the common good on the other hand, is a pervasive concern that continues to rupture India’s posturing of itself as a democratic nation. This paper looks at the Indic traditionary practice of samvada and the dialogic rationality that it embodies as a corrective to these challenges. It argues that the Indic practice of critical dialogue between incommensurable traditions can offer insights that enables us to move from ‘countering’ to ‘understanding’ differences and engender collective flourishing.
