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.)

From Frontier to Gateway

Writer: Archita Gaur
Archita Gaur
Jul 26
4 min read

Northeast India’s geography and proximity to ASEAN could make it the missing link in India’s bid to become a global manufacturing alternative to China

 The global search for more resilient supply chains has placed India at the centre of the China+1 strategy, with multinational companies increasingly looking to diversify manufacturing and sourcing beyond China. Yet, one crucial dimension of this strategy remains overlooked: India’s Northeast. Although much is made of western ports, industrial corridors and metropolitan manufacturing centres when India’s economic rise is discussed, the potential for the country’s eastern frontier to reshape its geoeconomic future is underestimated.


ASEAN is among India’s largest trading partners, with bilateral trade exceeding USD 120 billion in recent years. Situated at the intersection of South and Southeast Asia, the Northeast is central to India’s Act East Policy and its engagement with ASEAN. But connectivity projects will not open that up on their own. The challenge lies in turning this strategic frontier into an economic gateway for trade and regional value chains. As global supply chains are being redesigned and economic geography assumes renewed strategic importance, the success of India’s Act East Policy may depend less on diplomacy abroad and more on economic reforms at home.


New Geoeconomics

Increasing geopolitical tensions, the disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, and growing concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities have led nations and corporations to reconsider their reliance on concentrated production networks. The result has been the emergence of strategies such as China+1, “friend-shoring” and supply chain diversification, all of which seek to reconcile economic efficiency with strategic resilience.


For India, this transformation presents a rare strategic opportunity. Government initiatives such as the PLI scheme, logistics investments and new trade agreements aim to position India as a credible manufacturing partner. However, the success of these efforts depends on more than industrial policy alone. As global value chains become increasingly regionalized, geography and connectivity have re-emerged as decisive determinants of economic competitiveness.


This changing geoeconomic reality demands a review of India’s own strategic geography. Although the focus has largely been on the western part of the country where ports and industrial corridors stretch, India’s eastern frontier presents an equally compelling opportunity. Lying at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, the Northeastern region has the potential to emerge as a key nodal point connecting India’s manufacturing aspirations with the burgeoning markets of ASEAN.


The Northeast shares over 98 percent of its borders with neighbouring countries, while remaining connected to the rest of India through the narrow Siliguri Corridor. Few regions in India possess such a unique location, yet few have remained as economically underutilised.


Economic Gateway

For most of its postcolonial history, India’s Northeast has primarily been seen through the lens of national security. This security-first perspective has overshadowed the region’s economic potential. Linked to the Indian mainland by the narrow Siliguri Corridor and sharing international borders with Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar and Nepal, the area has long been seen as a vulnerable frontier requiring strict strategic vigilance. As a result, discussions over the Northeast have largely centred on border security and insurgency.


However, the evolving geoeconomic environment calls for a more fundamental shift in this perspective. Rather than viewing the Northeast merely as a buffer at the periphery of India, it should be viewed as a gateway to Southeast Asia. The region’s proximity to ASEAN markets offers India a natural strategic advantage in advancing its Act East Policy while boosting regional trade and pushing for supply chain integration.


Connectivity projects like the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project, and improved multimodal connectivity via Bangladesh are not merely infrastructure projects; they represent the foundations of a broader geoeconomic strategy. Together, these initiatives can integrate the Northeast into regional production networks and help the region emerge as a logistics and manufacturing hub by reducing logistics costs, opening up new markets, and making cross-border movement of goods easier.


Yet, geography alone does not create economic opportunities. The strategic location of the Northeast, therefore, can generate sustained economic gains only if connectivity is accompanied by efficient border management, trade facilitation, industrial investment and enhanced institutional coordination. Putting it differently, roads may link countries, but only markets, industries, and policies can produce lasting economic integration.


India has already laid down much of the physical infrastructure required to connect Northeast India with Southeast Asia. The challenge is to make these corridors evolve into thriving economic ecosystems rather than remain isolated infrastructure projects. That requires complementing connectivity with trade facilitation, integrated logistics parks, efficient customs procedures and industrial clusters that can take part in regional value chains.


Bangladesh, in particular, will play a pivotal role. Better access to ports such as Chattogram and Mongla, enhanced inland waterway connectivity, and deeper cooperation within the BBIN framework would go a long way towards reducing logistics costs and improving market access for businesses in the Northeast. At the same time, the strengthening of border haats, promotion of private investment, and establishment of export-oriented industries aligned with the region’s comparative advantage, from agro-processing and bamboo products to handicrafts, and light manufacturing, can generate sustainable economic opportunities. Bangladesh is perhaps India’s most important partner in unlocking the Northeast’s economic potential.


Ultimately, the success of India’s Act East Policy will not be measured solely by how many connectivity projects are executed or how many diplomatic engagements are undertaken. It will be judged by whether the Northeast can develop as a vibrant economic bridge between India and Southeast Asia. For years, India has viewed the Northeast as the edge of the country. In the coming decades, India’s success may well depend on recognising the Northeast as India’s gateway to Asia.


(The writer is an economics postgraduate from Jawaharlal Nehru University with research interests in economic policy, trade and global governance. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page