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 Waste to Wealth

Writer: Archita Gaur
Archita Gaur
Aug 16
4 min read

GOBARdhan could turn organic waste into energy, fertiliser and livelihoods, but scaling the model will require more than building CBG plants.

The GOBARdhan (Galvanizing Organic Bio-Agro Resources Dhan) Scheme was launched in 2018 under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen) to convert cattle dung and other organic waste into useful resources. It promotes the production of biogas, Compressed Biogas (CBG) and organic manure, linking waste management with renewable energy and rural development. The scheme has gradually evolved into a broader framework for developing India’s CBG ecosystem.


GOBARdhan is significant given India’s large quantities of underutilised biomass, poor organic waste management and continued dependence on imported fossil fuels. CBG can provide a domestic renewable alternative to natural gas while creating economic value from agricultural and livestock waste. 


Government measures such as CBG blending targets and long-term pricing and offtake mechanisms can also improve investment certainty. Further, bio-slurry generated through biogas production can be converted into organic fertiliser, creating potential benefits for soil health and additional income opportunities for farmers.

 

Economic Potential

India has large quantities of cattle dung, crop residue and other organic waste that remain underutilised. GOBARdhan converts this waste into CBG, biogas and organic fertilisers, creating economic value from previously underused resources. 


This establishes a circular model in which agricultural waste becomes an input for energy production, while the resulting bio-slurry can be returned to agriculture.


India’s dependence on imported fossil fuels leaves the economy exposed to international price fluctuations and geopolitical disruptions. CBG provides a domestic renewable alternative to natural gas. Expanding domestic CBG production can diversify India’s energy mix, strengthen energy security and potentially reduce dependence on imported gas.

 

However, uncertainty over demand and long-term revenues has been a challenge for CBG producers. Government measures such as mandatory CBG blending targets and pricing and offtake mechanisms can create greater market certainty. Such measures can improve investor confidence and encourage private investment in CBG infrastructure.


GOBARdhan can also create new markets for cattle dung and agricultural residues. Farmers can potentially earn additional income by supplying biomass to nearby plants, while activities such as collection, aggregation, transportation and processing can generate rural employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.


The production of bio-slurry provides an additional agricultural benefit. It can be processed into organic fertiliser, creating another potential revenue stream while returning nutrients to agricultural land. Greater use of organic fertilisers can complement efforts to improve soil health and reduce, to some extent, dependence on chemical fertilisers.

 

Implementation Challenges

Despite its potential, the scalability of GOBARdhan depends on overcoming several implementation challenges. CBG plants require a steady and reliable supply of organic waste. Agricultural residue is dispersed across farms and is often available only during particular seasons. Collecting, storing and transporting bulky biomass can therefore increase production costs. Cattle dung is similarly dispersed across rural households and already has alternative uses. Ensuring a reliable feedstock supply is consequently essential for maintaining plant operations and financial viability.


CBG projects also involve substantial upfront investment in processing technology, storage, transportation and other infrastructure. Smaller producers and rural enterprises may face difficulties in accessing affordable finance. While government support can reduce initial investment barriers, long-term viability ultimately requires plants to generate sufficient revenues. Uncertainty surrounding feedstock costs, CBG prices and future demand may continue to discourage private investment.


Farmer participation presents another challenge. Farmers need adequate and reliable incentives to supply cattle dung and agricultural residues. Low procurement prices or delayed payments could reduce participation and weaken biomass supply chains. There is also a risk that the economic gains from the CBG value chain remain concentrated among plant operators and larger firms. FPOs, cooperatives and local enterprises can help aggregate biomass and enable greater participation by farmers.


Finally, infrastructure and market connectivity remain important constraints. Biomass resources are concentrated largely in rural areas, while major CBG markets may be geographically distant. Limited pipeline connectivity and transportation infrastructure can increase the cost of supplying CBG to consumers. Developing localised supply chains and improving connectivity between CBG plants and gas distribution networks will therefore be crucial for achieving commercial scale.


The implementation of GOBARdhan can be made more robust by establishing district-level systems for biomass mapping and collection to ensure a reliable supply of feedstock. FPOs, cooperatives and local entrepreneurs could be supported to aggregate agricultural residues and cattle dung. Along with this, transparent procurement mechanisms and timely payments should be ensured so that farmers have predictable incentives to supply biomass. In particular, the government should expand access to affordable credit and to targeted financial support (especially to MSMEs and small rural enterprises) to mitigate the burden of high upfront costs. 


Investment in better pipeline connectivity and storage and transport infrastructure may also enable market expansion and reduce logistical costs. Lastly, the scheme should assess outcomes beyond the establishment of plants including CBG production, biomass use, farmer incomes, employment generation and environmental outcomes.


GOBARdhan is a significant opportunity to convert India’s organic waste problem into an instrument of energy security, rural livelihoods and sustainable agriculture. Its success, however, rests on the establishment of dependable biomass supply chains, commercially viable CBG projects and meaningful participation from farmers and rural enterprises. It would be a mistake to judge GOBARdhan’s success solely on the number of CBG plants established. Its success should instead be judged by its capacity to generate a sustainable and inclusive circular economy for India's organic resources.


(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