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.)

From Crisis to Take-Off: 35 Years of Economic Reform

Amey Chitale

Aug 19

5 min read

Part one of our two-part series examines how the 1991 crisis unravelled the License Raj, unleashed private enterprise and globalisation, and set India on course to be a global economic power.

Earlier this week, India celebrated its 80th Independence Day with a renewed commitment to realizing the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047. A few weeks earlier, the nation had also marked 35 years of economic liberalization, a transformative journey that has fundamentally reshaped India's economic landscape. Over the past three and a half decades, India has not only strengthened its economic foundations but has kickstarted its journey to achieve the status of a global economic powerhouse.

In July 1991, India stood on the brink of a severe economic crisis. Foreign exchange reserves had diminished to precarious levels, inflation was surging, industrial growth remained stifled under the License Raj, and the fiscal deficit had climbed to nearly 8 percent of GDP. The crisis, aggravated by the oil shock triggered by the Gulf War, exposed deep structural weaknesses in the economy. It was at this critical juncture that Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh initiated bold reforms that altered the course of India’s future. That idea was economic liberalization. Thirty-five years later, India has grown from a roughly $300 billion economy to a $4 trillion economic giant and the world’s fifth-largest economy. From being vulnerable to external shocks during the first Gulf War, India today displays far greater resilience amid global uncertainties.

Socialist Model

For the first four decades after Independence, India followed a state-led economic model rooted in socialist principles. Policymakers emphasized self-reliance, import substitution, and public sector dominance while maintaining strict controls over private enterprise and foreign investment. This led to the emergence of the ‘License-Quota-Permit Raj’ under which businesses needed multiple approvals to establish, expand, or diversify operations. A dense regulatory framework restricted competition, discouraged investment, and constrained private capital. Entrepreneurs often spent more effort complying with bureaucratic requirements than improving innovation and productivity. Extensive state control over production, investment, and pricing limited consumer choice and weakened market dynamism.

The result was an economy characterized by scarcity, inefficiency, and slow growth. Economist Raj Krishna famously termed this period the ‘Hindu rate of growth,’ with GDP expanding by only about 3.5 percent annually. Although state-led investments created important industrial and educational foundations, excessive regulation and limited competition prevented India from fully unlocking its entrepreneurial potential, slowing economic progress and leaving millions in poverty.

The roots of India's 1991 economic crisis lay in the 1980s, when limited reforms under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi boosted industrial growth but relied heavily on fiscal deficits and rising domestic and external borrowing rather than deep structural change. These vulnerabilities were exposed by external shocks, particularly the 1990 Gulf War, which sharply increased oil prices, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a major trading partner, which weakened exports and foreign exchange earnings.

By 1990-91, the fiscal deficit had climbed to nearly 8 percent of GDP, while foreign exchange reserves had fallen to levels sufficient for barely three weeks of imports. Facing a severe balance-of-payments crisis and the threat of sovereign default, India pledged gold reserves to secure emergency funding. The crisis paved the way for the landmark Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG) reforms. The government devalued the rupee, secured emergency funding from IMF and World Bank, abolished industrial licensing across most sectors and encouraged foreign investment. These measures stabilized the economy and marked India's integration into the global economy.

Political support for the reforms, initially fragile and opposed by entrenched socialist interests, was strengthened by backing from opposition leaders, particularly Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

This bipartisan support ensured that the LPG reforms outlived the immediate crisis and became the foundation of India’s economic policy framework. The impact was swift and significant. Foreign exchange reserves, which had fallen to about $1 billion and barely covered two weeks of imports in 1991, rose to $6.7 billion within a short period. Real GDP growth recovered to above 4 percent, the fiscal deficit declined to around 5-6 percent of GDP, and inflation, which had surged to nearly 17 percent, returned to single-digit levels, restoring macroeconomic stability and investor confidence.

Easing Constraints

As a next phase of reforms, the bureaucratic constraints on industry and finance were progressively eased. SEBI was strengthened as the statutory regulator of capital markets, helping improve corporate governance standards and attract significant foreign institutional investment. P. Chidambaram’s 1997 Budget, widely celebrated as the ‘Dream Budget,’ introduced important tax rationalization measures that simplified the tax structure and improved investor confidence. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme also provided an opportunity to bring undisclosed income into the formal economy.

While traditional manufacturing sectors gradually adapted to increased competition, the information technology industry emerged as the biggest beneficiary of liberalization. Free from many of the land and labour constraints faced by heavy industry, the sector leveraged India’s vast pool of English-speaking and technically skilled professionals. Supported by telecom liberalization and easier access to advanced technology, firms such as Infosys, Wipro, and Satyam built a global presence and became symbols of middle-class aspiration. Their success demonstrated that Indian companies could achieve world-class scale and governance, transforming India into a global IT services hub.

India’s economic momentum briefly slowed after the Pokhran-II nuclear tests of 1998 triggered international sanctions and external pressures. However, a more resilient and self-confident India, strengthened by the post-1991 reforms, was better equipped to withstand these challenges.

Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the NDA government adopted a twin strategy of economic strengthening and active diplomacy. Jaswant Singh’s engagement with the United States helped ease tensions and laid the foundation for a new era of Indo-US cooperation. At home, the government pushed forward what are often described as the second-generation reforms, including infrastructure development, telecom liberalization, fiscal consolidation, and disinvestment. These measures deepened the reform process, improved competitiveness, and created the conditions for the sustained high-growth phase that India experienced in the following decade.

Recognizing that inadequate connectivity was a major barrier to economic growth, the Vajpayee government launched the Golden Quadrilateral in 1999, a 5,846-km highway network linking Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. The project significantly reduced logistics costs, stimulated demand for cement and steel, integrated rural regions with major markets and ports, and improved agricultural productivity by enabling faster movement of goods. It was complemented by the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), which expanded all-weather road connectivity to rural areas.

The New Telecom Policy of 1999 opened the sector to greater private participation, accelerating the mobile and telecommunications revolution. Simultaneously, the disinvestment programme reduced the state’s role in commercial enterprises through strategic sales of companies such as VSNL, BALCO, and Hindustan Zinc. Social development also received attention through initiatives promoting universal elementary education. The subsequent UPA government’s successful conclusion of the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement further enhanced India's global integration. Together, these reforms supported a prolonged period of strong economic growth averaging 7-9 percent annually, while maintaining relatively moderate inflation of around 4-5 percent.

Global Challenges

The strong growth momentum of the early 2000s was severely challenged by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which triggered a collapse in global demand and widespread liquidity shortages. The Government responded with fiscal stimulus, tax cuts, and accommodative monetary policies to sustain domestic consumption and shield the economy from the worst effects of the downturn. While these measures helped support short-term growth, they also masked emerging structural weaknesses and the diminishing impact of the first-generation reforms introduced in 1991.

By 2012-13, these vulnerabilities had become increasingly evident. Rising subsidy burdens widened the fiscal deficit, inflation returned to double-digit levels, and the current account deficit reached worrying proportions. The 2013 ‘taper tantrum’ further exposed India’s economic fragility as capital outflows accelerated and the rupee came under severe pressure. The episode highlighted the limitations of a predominantly service-led growth model and underscored the need for a globally competitive manufacturing sector capable of generating large-scale employment and sustaining long-term economic growth.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant with a leading Mumbai-based company. Views personal.)

The ‘Exclusionary Vision’ Dilemma for Sovereign Countries

From Crisis to Take-Off: 35 Years of Economic Reform

Recent Posts

Comments