Najmuddin A Farooqi.
“Unity in diversity” is not merely a slogan, it is a philosophical ideal that resonates across civilizations. If one were to ask people in India or anywhere in the world regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sect, most would readily affirm their belief in this principle. It sounds noble, rational and humane. Yet, when we look at the ground realities, the picture often appears more complex.
We need not travel far to understand this paradox. Within the walls of a single home, siblings born to the same parents often differ sharply in temperament, outlook, preferences, food habits and sometimes even faith. One may be introverted and contemplative; another expressive and assertive. One may hold traditional views; another may embrace modern interpretations. Yet, despite such differences, families frequently live together in harmony for years sometimes for a lifetime bound by affection, shared memories and mutual respect.
On a broader canvas, the same truth unfolds within extended families. Cousins, uncles, aunts and relatives may display wide variations in personality, ideology and lifestyle. Some may be conservative, others progressive; some deeply religious, others more secular. Nevertheless, they remain part of a closely bonded network, tied by kinship and collective identity. Diversity does not dissolve unity; rather, it coexists within it.
This reality reflects a universal truth: no two individuals think, act, or react in exactly the same way. Human beings are shaped by distinct experiences, education, influences and environments. Diversity of thought and interpretation is therefore natural, even inevitable. It is not a flaw in the human condition but an intrinsic feature of it.
Against this backdrop, it is worth reflecting on the often discussed issue of sectarian (maslaki) differences among Muslims in India and elsewhere in the world. Why should such diversity be viewed with particular anxiety or suspicion ? Differences in interpretation, jurisprudence and theological emphasis have existed throughout Islamic history. They emerged from sincere efforts to understand divine guidance in varying social and historical contexts. In principle such differences need not negate unity of faith.
However, a perception has gradually developed both within the Muslim community and among others that sectarian distinctions are a primary source of weakness and backwardness. Moderate and progressive Muslims, in particular, sometimes feel embarrassed or even guilty, believing that internal divisions have hindered collective advancement. They worry that these differences project an image of fragmentation rather than solidarity. On the contrary, such apprehensions are largely illusory and arise more from perception than from reality.
Yet, it is essential to distinguish between diversity and discord. Diversity becomes destructive only when it transforms into hostility, intolerance or mutual exclusion. Otherwise, it can enrich intellectual discourse and broaden perspectives. The presence of multiple schools of thought can encourage debate and scholarship.
The challenge, therefore, is not the existence of differences but the manner in which they are managed. If siblings can differ yet remain united, if extended families can embrace internal variety while preserving bonds, communities too can cultivate a culture where plurality does not threaten cohesion. The essence of unity lies not in uniformity but in shared values compassion, justice, dignity and collective responsibility.
True “unity in diversity” demands maturity. It requires recognizing that disagreement does not equal disloyalty and diversity does not imply division. When communities internalize this understanding, they move beyond embarrassment or blame and instead channel their energies toward education, empowerment and social progress. Perhaps the first and most essential step toward true progress and indeed meaningful reform is the willingness to listen with sincerity and humility. Growth begins when we learn not merely to hear others, but to genuinely understand their perspectives, especially when those perspectives reflect upon our own conduct and character. The ability to accept how others perceive us requires courage, introspection and emotional maturity. Such openness transforms criticism into insight and dialogue into self-realisation. In that spirit, attentive listening becomes more than a social courtesy, it becomes the very manifestation of wisdom in action.
In the end, unity is not the erasure of differences; it is the wisdom and strength to rise above them. Even in the most difficult circumstances, two individuals may continue to live together with civility, mutual respect and outward compassion, despite inner disagreements or unspoken resentments. Such coexistence, though imperfect, still reflects a conscious choice to preserve harmony over hostility.
True unity, however, aspires to something higher not merely the restraint of negative emotions, but their gradual transformation through understanding, patience and sincere dialogue. It is this moral discipline and emotional maturity that elevate coexistence into genuine solidarity.
