“The purpose of those who argue for cultural diversity is to impose ideological uniformity.”

Kunnumpuram, K. (2009) Towards the Fullness of Life: Reflections on the Daily Living of the Faith. Mumbai: St Pauls
On the Church

Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud
Context: Caste is real. The working class is real. Being a Naga is real. But ‘India is just a geographical expression!’ Similarly, being a Muslim of course is real – Islam must be seen and talked of as one block of granite –... But Hinduism? Why, there is no such thing: it is just an aggregation, a pile of assorted beliefs and practices –... And anyone who maintains anything to the contrary is a fascist out to insinuate a unity, indeed to impose a uniformity, where there has been none. That is what our progressive ideologues declaim, as we have seen. In a word, the parts alone are real. The whole is just a construct. India has never been one, these ideologues insist – disparate peoples and regions were knocked together by the Aryans, by the Mughals, by the British for purposes of empire. Anyone who wants to use that construct – India – as the benchmark for determining the sort of structure under which we should live has a secret agenda – of enforcing Hindu hegemony.
This is the continuance of, in a sense the culmination of, the Macaulay-Missionary technique. The British calculated that to subjugate India and hold it, they must undermine the essence of the people: this was Hinduism, and everything which flowed from it. Hence the doggedness with which they set about to undermine the faith and regard of the people for five entities: the gods and goddesses the Hindus revered; the temples and idols in which they were enshrined; the texts they held sacred; the language in which those texts and everything sacred in that tradition was enshrined and which was even in mid-nineteenth-century the lingua franca – that is, Sanskrit; and the group whose special duty it had been over aeons to preserve that way of life – the Brahmins. The other component of the same exercise was to prop up the parts – the non-Hindus, the regional languages, the castes and groups which they calculated would be the most accessible to the missionaries and the empire – the innocent tribals, the untouchables.

Source: The End of Utopia (1999), pp. 47-48

The Guardian &#x27;I don&#x27;t hate Muslims. I hate Islam&#x27; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam (17 February 2008) <br class="br">2000s

Sécher: déi, déi empfänken an also doheem sinn, an déi, déi sech wëllen integréieren, musse gewëllt sinn, openeen zouzegouen. Dobäi muss all Säit d’Basisregelen vun eiser Gesellschaft, eis demokratesch Idealer, eis Liewensaart an eise kulturelle Pluralismus bereet sinn ze respektéieren. Ouni dat geet et net. <br class="br">Speech on National Day, http://www.monarchie.lu/fr/actualites/discours/2014/06/23062014-fetnat/index.html (23 June 2014) <br class="br">Luxembourg, Immigration

Certes, c'est un subject merveilleusement vain, divers, et ondoyant, que l'homme. Il est malaisé d'y fonder jugement constant et uniforme.
Book I, Ch. 1
Essais (1595), Book I

After the Revolution? (1970; 1990), Ch. 3 : Democracy and Markets