Progressive integration, so understood, is not assimilation into a "melting pot" that requires the loss of all plural identities, not least because such demands can themselves form barriers to integration and offend against liberal ideas of autonomy.
Though Bøhn does accept that thesis (Bøhn 2013), he argues that this Trinity theory relies only on our having "a primitive notion of plural identity" (371), that is, a concept we understand without reference to any concept from mereological (parts and wholes) theory.
Writing at a time when that plural identity is under attack from the Hindu right, who sometimes appear to want to turn India into a Hindu version of Pakistan, Khilnani does not pull his punches and marshals the lessons of history to make an important political point about India's infinite variety, and its "capacity to change itself, and to challenge its own dogmas".
What does it say about a nation's capacity to sustain its plural identity when its liberal voices accept – even welcome – the entrenchment of a dictum which, ignoring every principle of natural justice, punishes the injured minority to placate the majority?
Plural identity statements such as "the hunters are identical with the gatherers" are understood to mean that for all x, x is one of the hunters iff x is one of the gatherers.
As we converse further, T2R assumes a pseudo-plural identity, which they denote as a "royal we": "Here are T2R, we like to keep things ambiguous.
Moreover, the standard way of giving the truth-conditions for plural identity statements (mentioned above) does not work for hybrid identity statements either.
And therefore the argument successfully proves that all phenomena are empty of any intrinsic reality, since they all lack any singular or plural identity.
In his speech on May 6, he called on Europe's "capacity to integrate" them, thanks to its ever-evolving and plural identity.
