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.)

Collaborate with religious leaders, teachers, and community groups to enhance public safety

Correspondent
Nov 16, 2024
3 min read

Updated: Nov 18, 2024

Praveen Dixit

In an interview, Praveen Dixit, IPS, Special Rapporteur NHRC for Maharashtra & Goa, and Director General of Police (Retired) Maharashtra, talks about the challenges before the police force and the solutions. Excerpts…


Q: Convicted gangsters like Lawrence Bishnoi and his rivals are increasing their activities, and the situation seems similar to the Bombay of the 90s. What are your thoughts on this emerging situation?

A: The situation in Mumbai today is starkly different from the 1990s. Back then, Dawood Ibrahim and his rivals hired convicted sharpshooters. Now, gangs recruit unemployed youth under 17 with no criminal record. Crime has become borderless, involving recruits from remote areas across the States and beyond.


Key figures like Amol Bishnoi, brother of Lawrence Bishnoi, are operating from abroad, with associates in Canada and other countries. Suspected state-backed operatives from China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka may also be involved.


Three international factors complicate India’s security: ultra-leftist groups, Muslim fundamentalist sympathisers, like ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates, and anarchist-backed organisations like those supported by George Soros. Rising trends in drugs, weapon smuggling, cybercrime, and cryptocurrency converge to exploit religious, regional, and social divides, fuelling organised crime’s rapid growth.


Q: What are the challenges before our law-enforcing agencies?

A: Crimes like youth radicalisation, jihadi recruitment, smuggling, cybercrimes, and cryptocurrency often have external links, with some countries sponsoring terrorism and fake currency.


Q: Gangsters in jails have access to mobile phones and other contraband and continue to commit crimes like murder, extortion, and smuggling. How can this be stopped?

A: Indian jails suffer from outdated infrastructure and British-era laws, with repeated calls from the Supreme Court for updates. Overcrowding in metropolitan jails contrasts with underused district jails, while trial delays worsen jail populations. Under the Bhartia Nagarik Suraksha Sanvita (BNSS), video conferencing has enabled remote bail hearings and healthcare access for over 11,000 prisoners since 2017. Most jails need modernisation within 5-7 years, with issues like mobile misuse and unauthorised media access on the rise.


Q: What is your take on Baba Siddiqui's matter?

A: More than 20 accused have been arrested from across the country. As per the investigating officer, jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi’s brother Anmol, believed to be living in Canada, was allegedly behind the murder, but the motive was not clear. The accused were provided weapons, cartridges, SIM cards, and mobile phones. It appears neither Baba Siddique nor his son had disclosed these threats. Celebrities receiving threats must inform the police immediately and avoid any routine that makes it easy for them to be identified and assaulted. This may be a business rivalry, not a political assassination. The investigation will determine the motive.

Q: Is Mumbai returning to an earlier period of the 90s when celebrities were receiving threats from underworld gangs?

A: Today, with legislation such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) as modified in 2012, and the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, the police are in a much stronger position to ensure stern action against criminals on record. These preventive measures would ensure the situation of the nineties would not relapse. Those receiving threats should avoid paying extortionists. People should have faith in the competency of the police and help the police to nab these criminals. At the same time, people should also take maximum precautions as suggested by police on their websites about their safety.

Q: What other steps are needed to improve the situation?

A: Cybercriminals use fake threats like digital arrests and social media scams to defraud crores daily. They launder money through 'mule' accounts, 4.5 lakh of which were frozen last year, often using stolen KYC documents. Police are investigating the bank officials involved.


To protect yourself, avoid unverified calls, suspicious apps, and unsolicited email links. Confirm recipients before transferring funds. Report scams to cybercrime.gov.in or dial 1930/14407.


Preventing youth drug abuse is also vital. Rehabilitation centres are available, and the 1056 DISHA helpline offers support. Reintegrating juveniles through skill training can deter crime.


Police should collaborate with religious leaders, teachers, and community groups to enhance public safety.

Comments

bottom of page