Policies that insist the public culture be restricted to a common national pattern while all non-national culture are to be relegated to the private sphere.
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → Integrationist
Option (1) Non-assimilationist — Incorrect. This is only a negation of ‘assimilationist’ and names no policy. The two state policies towards community identities are the assimilationist and the integrationist.
Option (2) Integrationist — Correct. Integrationist policies insist that the public culture be restricted to a common national pattern, while all ‘non-national’ cultures are to be relegated to the private sphere. A community may keep its own language or customs at home, but public life follows one national pattern. Here too the dominant group’s culture may come to be treated as the ‘national’ culture.
Option (3) Assimilationist — Incorrect. Assimilationist policies persuade, encourage or force all citizens to adopt a uniform set of cultural values and norms, usually those of the dominant group; other groups are expected to give up their own culture altogether. They do not leave non-national cultures a private sphere, which is the point of the question.
Option (4) Disintegrationist — Incorrect. A disintegrationist approach would break a country apart. A policy that holds public culture to a common national pattern aims at the opposite, national unity.
NCERT (2025-26): “…Policies that promote assimilation are aimed at persuading, encouraging or forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform set of cultural values and norms. These values and norms are usually entirely or largely those of the dominant social group. Other, non-dominant or subordinated groups in society are expected or required to give up their own cultural values and adopt the prescribed ones. Policies promoting integration are different in style but not in overall objective: they insist that the public culture be restricted to a common national pattern, while all ‘non-national’ cultures are to be relegated to the private sphere. In this case too, there is the danger of the dominant group’s culture being treated as ‘national’ culture.…” |