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...

min read

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.)

Battered Modi govt faces ultimate alliance test

Abhijit Mulye

Jul 25

4 min read

A CJP supporter celebrates in Nagpur on Saturday. Pic: PTI — **A CJP supporter celebrates in Nagpur on Saturday.** Pic: PTI

Mumbai: For only the second time in its 12-year tenure, the Modi government has been forced to bow down. The dramatic resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is not just a cabinet reshuffle; it marks the climax of a gruelling political standoff that has left the ruling dispensation visibly wounded. What began as a student outcry over exam irregularities morphed into a massive siege, exposing cracks in the government's much-touted armour of invincibility. Now, as the dust settles at Jantar Mantar, the corridors of power in Delhi are whispering about a larger, more existential threat. The true challenge for the BJP no longer lies on the streets, but within the ranks of its own National Democratic Alliance (NDA) partners.

Critics and political analysts are drawing sharp parallels between this student-led movement and the farmers' agitation from a few years ago. There is a strong sentiment within government circles that, much like the Kisan protests, which faced allegations of being fuelled by foreign funding, this current uprising did not stem entirely from a genuine, organic grassroots genesis. Instead, political observers note the presence of organized anarchist elements that quickly capitalised on the national outrage.

This time, these elements appeared far stronger, and in stark contrast, the establishment looked surprisingly weak and reactive. The ultimate giveaway of the movement's broader political ambitions came moments after Pradhan stepped down. Abhijeet Dipke, the face of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), declared from the protest stage that the resignation was merely the "first wicket". This cricket analogy was a thinly veiled political declaration, making it amply clear that the underlying agenda of the protests extends far beyond education reforms, aiming directly at a regime change. Dipke’s words guarantee that the agitation, in some form or another, will continue.

Tactical Victory

To its credit, the government did manage a tactical victory by keeping the protesters' demands strictly focused on Pradhan's resignation. By doing so, they prevented the narrative from entirely engulfing the top leadership. However, the strategic damage to the ruling party has been catastrophic. The Modi administration has spent over a decade cultivating an image of a stubborn, decisive, and unyielding force that does not cave to public pressure. That image has now taken a severe, perhaps irreversible, beating.

During negotiations with activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk, the government had already made it amply clear that it was actively considering Pradhan's exit. Yet, it inexplicably took almost a week to finally pull the plug and end the standoff. This delay highlights the enormity of the internal challenges and a creeping paralysis within the highest echelons of power. The establishment was likely suffering from a deep-seated complacency, overconfidently assuming the agitation would naturally fizzle out. It took more than 20 days of Wangchuk's hunger strike to finally shatter that hubris and force Delhi’s hand.

When juxtaposed with the last four major national agitations—stretching all the way from the Ram Mandir movement to the Anna Hazare anti-corruption crusade—the government's handling of this crisis stands out as an anomaly. The use of police force and state machinery remained remarkably minimal this time around. Despite this restrained approach, the reputational blow the government has suffered appears to be the maximum it has ever faced. A government that prides itself on immense strength is now being perceived as vulnerable.

Political Mileage

In the battle for political mileage, the opposition naturally tried to swoop in. The Congress party and Rahul Gandhi made concerted efforts to hijack the momentum mid-way, attempting to paint the movement in their own political colours. But the youth on the streets fiercely guarded their independence. The ultimate credit for bringing the government to its knees has squarely gone to Dipke. He emerged as the undisputed architect of the victory, leaving the traditional political opposition watching from the sidelines.

Real Quake

But the real political earthquake is yet to be measured. The government's bruised image sets the stage for its toughest political test yet. A weakened BJP center immediately alters the power dynamics within the NDA. The regional satraps and political allies who prop up the Modi government are watching closely. They have witnessed the ruling party blink, and they have seen that the mighty center can be forced into submission.

The immediate future of this administration now hinges completely on how these allies interpret this vulnerability. Will they demand larger portfolios? Will they force policy rollbacks of their own? The script for the next act of this high-stakes political play will not be written by the opposition, nor by the activists on the streets. It will be authored by the NDA allies who sit inside the government. For the Modi administration, the real crisis has only just begun.

Prahlad Joshi appointed as Education Minister

Union Minister Prahlad Joshi has been appointed as Education Minister following Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation from the post on Saturday.

Joshi has been given additional charge of the Education Ministry besides his role as Consumer Affairs Minister.

A Rashtrapati Bhavan communique said the President, as advised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has accepted the resignation of Pradhan with immediate effect.

It said that on the advice of the Prime Minister, the President has directed that Joshi, Cabinet Minister, be assigned the charge of the Ministry of Education, in addition to his own duties.

Earlier in the day, Pradhan resigned from his post following the Cockroach Janta Party-led student protests across the country, demanding his ouster over the NEET paper leak controversy.

Pradhan said it is not a matter of "individual prestige" for him and he is disturbed to see the series of events that have unfolded in the last 10 days.