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.)

Imran Khan’s Fall from Grace

Writer: Kaswar Klasra
Kaswar Klasra
Aug 27, 2024
4 min read

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Imran Khan’s Fall from Grace

Imran Khan, once hailed as Pakistan’s most charismatic and resilient leader now finds himself in a position unprecedented for a man of his stature.

The former Prime Minister of Pakistan, once known for his unyielding spirit and fierce determination, now shows signs of strain. Imprisoned and facing numerous charges, Khan appears to be a shadow of the leader who once inspired millions.

Khan’s recent meeting with journalists revealed a man who is a shell of his former self. Once confident and commanding, his body now shows a sense of unease and agitation. Those who met him describe a waning spirit, a stark change for a leader once known for his steadfastness in adversity.

The journalists described Khan as a man who is aware that his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), is losing its once-iron grip on the nation’s imagination―a realisation that visibly shook him.

The PTI, once a magnet for massive crowds and inspired loyalty among its supporters, is now struggling. The much-hyped rally scheduled for August 22 in Islamabad, was embarrassingly cancelled due to a lack of public interest. Khan, in a bid to save face, claimed that the rally was called off to avoid potential violence. In a sign of growing desperation, Khan rescheduled the rally for September 8 and directed his party leaders to overcome any obstacles. This defiant stance is typical of Khan’s confrontational style, and his public directives highlight his insecurity about his party’s ability to mobilise support.

While Khan outwardly appears calm and composed, the multiple cases against him and his time in jail have left him isolated and struggling with loneliness. Even in this difficult situation, he remains in the headlines, thanks to his uncanny ability to stay in the public’s eye. Khan recently made headlines by applying for the University of Oxford Chancellorship, a move initially dismissed as a rumor but confirmed by his spokesman, Sayed Zulfikar Bukhari. As an Oxford alumnus, Khan would be the first Asian to take the role. Many see this bid as a strategic play to leverage his international profile against Pakistan’s establishment, a move that has kept him prominently in the media spotlight.

The political landscape in Pakistan is deeply divided. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, in his second term, has failed to address critical issues including unemployment, soaring inflation, and deteriorating law and order. His administration’s inability to deliver on its promises has only deepened the public’s disillusionment, leading to growing nostalgia for Khan’s past leadership.

Shahbaz Sharif’s government is a source of frustration for the Pakistani people and a cause for concern for the country’s military. Historically, the military has shaped Pakistan’s political trajectory, stepping in when civilian governments falter. The military reportedly is growing uneasy about the government’s performance especially Sharif’s inability to stabilize the country and mend relationships with key neighbors, particularly India. Additionally, its deteriorating ties with Afghanistan and Iran have left Pakistan increasingly isolated. Even China, Pakistan’s longstanding ally, has expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s policies, a worrying sign given the importance of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to the country’s economic future.

It is within this context of political turmoil and international isolation that Imran Khan remains a potent force. Despite his legal troubles and the challenges facing his party, Khan’s popularity endures. For millions of Pakistanis, his tenure as Prime Minister is seen as a time of relative stability and hope, a stark contrast to the current administration’s ineptitude. This perception has kept Khan’s political base intact, even as his party faces an uphill battle in the coming months.

However, Khan’s ability to navigate the current political landscape is far from guaranteed. The PTI’s diminishing support, coupled with the increasing pressure from the establishment, raises questions about Khan’s long-term strategy. His recent moves, including the application for the Oxford Chancellorship, suggest a leader willing to explore unconventional avenues to maintain his relevance. But whether these tactics will translate into a successful political comeback remains to be seen.

Pakistan’s political future is more uncertain than ever. Imran Khan’s journey from cricketing legend to political maverick has been extraordinary. Still, as he faces the toughest challenge of his career, the question remains: Can he once again defy the odds and reclaim his place at the helm of Pakistani politics, or is this the beginning of the end for a once unstoppable leader?

Khan’s story is a testament to the complexities of power and the unpredictable nature of political life in Pakistan. His rise, driven by charisma, populism, and a genuine desire for change, now faces the realities of personal and political challenges, raising the possibility that his time may be running out.

Imran Khan is a beacon of hope for his supporters, and a polarizing figure for detractors, whose ambitions have often clouded his judgment. As the nation watches, the world is left to wonder: What will Imran Khan’s next move be? And more importantly, what does it mean for the future of Pakistan? The coming months will be critical not only for Imran Khan but for Pakistan as a whole. The decisions made during this period will shape the country’s trajectory for years. Whether Khan emerges victorious or is consigned to the annals of history as a fallen leader, one thing is certain: The story of Imran Khan is far from over.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Islamabad. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page