I have been reading Amartya Sen's book, Identity and violence, which seems to be a rebuttal of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. While I have not finished reading the book from the front to the back( I am somewhere in the middle) ,I know the thesis pretty well. He has focused numerous pages refuting Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. I haven't read Clash of Civilizations, but according to Amartya Sen, Samuel Huntington has basically separated civlizations by block--for example, you have Islamic civilization, then you have Hindu civilization with India at the center, then you have Western civilization, and so on and so forth. So his view is that in the future, violence will erupt primarily due to cultural differences, and not due to economic or tribal reasons. In other words these various civilizations are not compatible with each other. Furthermore, ideas like democracy, liberty, freedom of religion, etc are all Western creations and may not be compatible with other cultures. I would wager that Huntington was against the Iraq war from the get-go because he probably saw what Bush was doing in Iraq as the imposition of "democracy" on Iraqis, who happen to be Muslims. Their culture makes it impossible for them to accept democracy in his view. To refute this view, Sen argues that dividing the world by culture alone, which is just one aspect of a person's identiy, is a form of reductionism. The world is not homogeneous as Sameul Huntington seems to assert it is. In other words, individuals cannot be classified into monolithic groups based on culture alone. For example, there is a difference between, say, a Turkish Muslim and a Saudi Muslim. Turkish Muslims are more liberal than their Saudi counterparts. Sen's view is that a person is shaped not by just one factor, but by various factors. An individual can be not just a Hindu, but also a liberal, a non-vegetarian, a non-brahmin, non-religious etc. Its these factors that shape a human being, and not just culture alone. So people can choose what they want to support and what they don't. People can make decisions. Another point Sen raises is that democracy is not just a Western concept. He gives example of a place in Bactria that was a democracy, and it had no influence of Greek culture. Secondly about freedom of Religion, he talks about Asoka and Akbar, both of whom were secularists and let people choose their religion, as opposed to someone like Constantine. Let me all give you my own view. Huntington's view and Sen's view are at two different extremes. While Huntington focuses on a group of individuals, Sen focuses on individuals themselves and how they are shaped. So to me, it seems like they are focusing on two different aspects. Also, it seems to me that these factors that influence a person's identity has different weights. For example, it is obvious to me that culture carries more weight, then say, a person's eating habits(vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism). One thing Sen seems to have completely forgotten is that not all countries grant you these choices. Many countries are not democratic. For example, in Saudi Arabia, one cannot choose whether you want to support abortion or not. Saudi Arabia's citizens are all Muslims(they don't have even one Saudi who happens to be a Christian or a Jew). So I do think that there will be a clash of civilizations, but this clash will only be Islam vs other religions (that is Muslims vs. Christians, Muslims vs. Jews, and so on). Now Huntington's view is that various cultures will inevitably clash. I do not agree with that completely( it will be Muslims vs others) because Buddhists, for example, are not particularly religious. Japanese for example celebrate Christmas. Educated Hindus are not very religious as well. What I am saying is that civilizations will not clash as Huntington is suggesting on a block vs block basis. However, I am not saying that cultures will not collide; they in fact will. Cultures will collide, but it will be within a region itself. Also, I don't think it's just cultural collision; it is going to be a tribal collision as well, which Huntington seems to deny. For example, the Muslim riot in France is just one example of collision of culture. I also think that a system(like that in America) needs to be in place if we want to make sure that there will be no cultural collision. However, even with an almost infallible system in place like that in America, things might not be all that dandy. If America absorbs a lot more Hispanics, for example, there may be a cultural clash. It just depends on how well the immigrants assimilate. France doesn't have a good system in place because the Muslim groups haven't assimilated that well. In America, even if Blacks have not assimiliated, at least the government tries to give them incentives to do something about them. Not so in France. However, given that France is a developed nation, it can definitely resolve the problem, since it is a developed nation after all. So what am I getting at? It is this: cultural/tribal/religious clashes will be confined within a region itself, and this region will be small( India is big, and while it is underdeveloped, it has resources to deal with conflicts) and underdeveloped with no real system in place to resolve conflicts. Now let's take Nepal as an example. Nepal has various ethnic groups with various cultures--for example, bahuns and chettris are Hindus, while Sherpas are Buddhists. Traditionally speaking, Magars have had a shamanistic sort of religion. Nepal's indigenous groups like Magars, Rais, Gurungs, etc have historically been against the mainstream culture, which we can say is bahun/chettri culture. One can say that the Maoist problem is to a degree a form of ethnic warfare, given that most of the "foot soldiers" are magars. In the future, there *will* definitely be cultural/tribal wars in Nepal. It is an inevitability, because ethnic tension has been boiling for ages now. My own view is that homogeneity is a necessity( after much thought) for a SMALL COUNTRY if this country wants to develop, unless it already has a system in place to deal with such issues(eg America, which is an immigrant nation anyway, and India as well, it seems). A developed country can easily tweak its system to resolve this problem(e.g. France). But Nepal has no system in place. So this is what needs to happen: The predominantly Hindu groups in Nepal will form one block and may have to separate. This may entail splitting up the country, or it may just mean mass migration to India, which is obviously very compatible with Nepal's Hindus. The buddhist groups will form another block. They may have to join China or just carve out a new country. People somewhere in the middle will be the biggest problem in this splitting up process. Of course, the smaller communities won't be a problem because they can assimilate very easily. Either that, or I see two other choices: 1. Complete assimilation. This is unrealistic and will not happen at all. 2. Ethnic Cleansing(god forbid), with one group clearly coming out on top. What whacko would want this? Now that 1 is unrealistic and 2 should and must never happen, what are the choices we have to resolve the problem peacefully? Split the country up and form new countries, maybe. Our neighbors have a much better system in place, and this may be another good road to take. If one group refuses to divide the land, it may just mean mass migration. I just don't see how Nepal will develop unless it splits up by culture/tribe and joins up with the bigger country(India or China). After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that homogeneity is only necessary for a small country. Bigger countries can deal with it. Smaller countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or Nepal can't. Choice: split by groups.