top of page

By:

Prasad Dixit

11 October 2024 at 6:39:23 am

The ‘Exclusionary Vision’ Dilemma for Sovereign Countries

Sovereign nations protect their distinct cultural foundations while still upholding an inclusive vision of governance. The same principle should apply to India. The ‘Universal Oneness Celebration’ event that was recently held in New York City attracted criticism that was only to be expected from certain obvious quarters who chastised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for having an allegedly ‘exclusionary vision’. In a free society, one can always express a personal opinion on the...

The ‘Exclusionary Vision’ Dilemma for Sovereign Countries

Sovereign nations protect their distinct cultural foundations while still upholding an inclusive vision of governance. The same principle should apply to India. The ‘Universal Oneness Celebration’ event that was recently held in New York City attracted criticism that was only to be expected from certain obvious quarters who chastised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for having an allegedly ‘exclusionary vision’. In a free society, one can always express a personal opinion on the effectiveness with which the stated ideology or philosophy of any organisation is being implemented on the ground. However, labelling an organisation that considers ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ as its core belief as having an ‘exclusionary vision’ is curious, to say the least. We are living in a world of different sovereign countries, each with its own history, cultural identity that acts as a foundation for nation-building and, of course, its own international borders and immigration policies. It is interesting to see how different countries look at the cultural identity and ethos that shape them, and how they protect the foundation on which they stand while still championing their own ‘inclusive vision’. Illusion of Contradiction Take France as an example. The principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were born out of the French Revolution. They serve as the guiding star for France. Many other countries in the world have also adopted these principles and drawn inspiration from them. Such noble principles, however, are never sufficient to define the foundation of a sovereign country that differentiates it from others. While Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are held in high regard in France, the French language is the foundation on which France stands as a sovereign country. As it is often said, language carries with it not merely its grammar and vocabulary, but a whole culture of its own. Approximately 13 percent of the population in France has a mother tongue different from French. It is noteworthy how France looks at its cultural foundation — the French language — vis-à-vis the spirit behind the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity enshrined in its Constitution. Article 2 of the same French Constitution explicitly states that France has only one official language — French. From time to time, there are demands to grant official status to other minority languages, but they face tremendous political and legal resistance and are shot down. Other languages are denied even ‘co-official’ status because this is perceived as a direct threat to the deeply rooted ideology of the centralised linguistic unity of France. It goes a step further. There is a concerted, systematic effort to preserve the ‘purity’ of the French language and fight the ‘invasion of English’, called Franglais. It is mandatory under the law, including the Toubon Law, to use the French language in government publications and workplaces, and to include a French translation if any English slogan is used even in a commercial advertisement. Similarly, although Italy recognises a few ‘minority languages’, its official national language is only one — Italian. The approach taken by Germany or Japan is broadly the same. One cannot but wonder whether the same critics of the RSS would call an approach taken by France ‘exclusionary’. The fact is that every sovereign country has its own cultural foundation, which is the cause of its very existence. Countries go out of their way to ‘exclusively’ protect and preserve that cultural foundation. That does not mean, however, that France exclusively belongs only to the majority population whose mother tongue is the same as the national language. Nor does it mean that the State will treat its citizens differently based on their mother tongue, or give preferential treatment to the majority community over linguistic minorities. It is in this perspective that one needs to look at the civilisational ethos dating back thousands of years that forms the foundation of the Indian subcontinent, and the historical context of events that led to India being born as a present-day sovereign country in 1947. How India should treat its cultural foundation is no different from how France, Italy, Germany or Japan should do it. Needless to say, neither India nor any of these other countries discriminate against certain citizens when it comes to governance and the rule of law. There is no contradiction or ‘exclusionary vision’ whatsoever in the approach taken by France, and the same should hold true for India as well. Contextual Similarity As far as the United States of America is concerned, neither any particular language, nor any religion, nor any ethnic origin independently defines the cultural foundation of that country. And yet, there is certainly an ‘American culture’ that defines the country and acts as its foundation. People from all over the world, with very different backgrounds, have migrated to that land and ‘American culture’ has assimilated them. Although it may be difficult to define it very clearly, there is certainly ‘Unity in Diversity’ in American culture. The country calls itself ‘a melting pot’. It goes out of its way to protect this attribute through uniform civil laws that apply to all citizens regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Not everything was just and fair in American history. However, American culture and its democratic ethos not only allow open discussion and debate on what was wrong, but also encourage action on the ground to correct historical wrongs. Former President Bill Clinton summarised it well in one of the presidential debates when he said: “There is nothing wrong in America that cannot be corrected by what is right in America.” When it comes to immigration, whether for tourism or work, the US perhaps has been the most open country for several decades. Its policy towards even illegal immigration has been very soft. It has realised, however, that all this is being taken for granted by many countries and even deliberately misused. Any legitimate attempt, in the larger interest of the country, to change and tighten that policy and stop illegal immigration and settlement invites severe criticism. With that criticism, ironically, an otherwise very open and welcoming country gets painted as being very rigid and intolerant. This specific aspect of American culture, and the criticism it faces, has a clear parallel with the civilisational ethos that forms the foundation of India. Indian culture has also assimilated people from many parts of the world for centuries. It too has its own ‘Unity in Diversity’ that is not very easy for many to define and appreciate. It also welcomes open discussion about historical wrongs and makes a sincere attempt to correct them. The accommodating and welcoming nature — the ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ psyche — implicit in Indian culture has also been deliberately and rampantly misused. Any attempt to enforce the law of the land invites the same criticism that the US faces. Needless to say, India, like the US or any other country, would and should go out of its way to protect its cultural foundation. Doing so can be termed an ‘exclusionary vision’ only as part of a motivated agenda, if not an absolute unwillingness or inability to grasp and respect the cultural foundations of different countries. There is a need to refine and temper the definition of the so-called ‘exclusionary vision’ for it to make sense in a world of sovereign nations that want to legitimately protect their individual identities in different ways. In other words, the very definition of ‘exclusionary vision’ itself needs to be more ‘inclusive’ in more ways than one. Given its history, the US perhaps is the best country to appreciate what it means to espouse ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ as an inclusive ideology. It is also the best country to appreciate the fact that attempts to prevent the deliberate misuse of an inclusive ideology cannot be termed an ‘exclusionary vision’. (The writer has worked in the Information Technology sector. Views personal.)

A Scientist Who Built a Future

Writer: Suhas B Naik-Satam
Suhas B Naik-Satam
Aug 12
3 min read

PM Bhargava's greatest strength was his ability to combine scientific excellence with institutional vision.

The history of modern Indian science is often narrated through institutions, discoveries, and national programmes. Yet, behind these achievements are individuals whose vision and determination transformed the country's scientific landscape. Pushpa Mitra Bhargava was one such individual—a pioneering molecular biologist, institution-builder, and public intellectual whose influence extended far beyond the laboratory. In PM Bhargava: The Making of Modern Biology in India, Chandana Chakrabarti offers an illuminating account of a scientist who shaped a discipline and helped define the character and aspirations of post-Independence Indian science.


This is much more than the biography of an accomplished scientist. It is also the story of the emergence of modern biology in India. Through Bhargava's life and work, Chakrabarti traces the country's transition from traditional, descriptive biology to the frontiers of molecular science, while placing that transformation within the aspirations of a young nation determined to achieve scientific self-reliance.


Bhargava's greatest strength was his ability to combine scientific excellence with institutional vision. At a time when molecular biology was still an emerging field, he recognised its transformative potential and understood that India needed institutions capable of matching the world's best laboratories. His crowning achievement—the establishment of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad—was not merely an administrative accomplishment; it was the realisation of an ambitious scientific vision. Chakrabarti presents the creation of CCMB as an act of intellectual imagination: an attempt to create an environment in which curiosity, originality, and rigorous scientific inquiry could flourish.


One of the book's notable strengths is its ability to place Bhargava's career within the evolving history of Indian science. The decades following independence were marked by optimism and nation-building but also by limited resources, bureaucratic constraints, and competing developmental priorities. Chakrabarti captures these complexities with balance, showing how Bhargava consistently resisted compromising on scientific excellence. He believed Indian scientists deserved world-class research environments and devoted much of his career to turning that conviction into reality.


Equally compelling is the portrait of Bhargava as a public intellectual. He viewed science not as an isolated academic pursuit but as an essential component of an enlightened and democratic society. His strong advocacy of scientific temper, opposition to superstition and pseudoscience, and insistence that public policy should be guided by evidence reflected a deeper commitment to reason as a civic value. Chakrabarti demonstrates that, for Bhargava, science carried ethical and social responsibilities alongside its intellectual ones.


The biography is also effective because it avoids uncritical admiration. Bhargava emerges not simply as a celebrated scientist but as an independent and often uncompromising thinker whose determination occasionally brought him into conflict with institutional authorities and prevailing orthodoxies. These episodes add authenticity to the narrative and reveal the tensions and challenges that accompany the creation of enduring scientific institutions.


Perhaps the book's greatest achievement is its portrayal of Bhargava as a deeply human figure. Behind the celebrated scientist was a man driven by intellectual curiosity, moral conviction, and a strong commitment to public service. His passion for biology was inseparable from his concern for education, scientific literacy, and the social responsibilities of science. In Chakrabarti's telling, the laboratory and society remain closely connected; scientific knowledge acquires its fullest meaning when it contributes to the larger well-being and intellectual progress of society.


The book therefore succeeds on two levels: as a biography of an extraordinary scientist and as a history of an important phase in Indian science. It reminds readers that building scientific capacity is not simply a matter of establishing laboratories or acquiring sophisticated equipment. It requires vision, institutional courage, intellectual freedom, and people willing to challenge established ways of thinking.


‘PM Bhargava: The Making of Modern Biology’ in India is consequently a valuable contribution to the literature on Indian science and its pioneers. Chandana Chakrabarti brings together the personal, scientific, institutional, and public dimensions of Bhargava's life to create a portrait that is both engaging and significant. The book is particularly relevant at a time when questions about scientific temper, evidence-based policy, research excellence, and the role of science in society remain important.


(The writer is the Chief Executive of The National Centre for Science Communicators, Mumbai. Views personal).

Comments

bottom of page