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.)

Special Bond With India

Writer: Waleed Hussain
Waleed Hussain
Jul 19
3 min read

The cricketing world mourns the passing of Sir Garfield St Aubrun Sobers, universally known as Sir Gary or Garry Sobers, one of the greatest all-rounders the game has ever seen. Born on July 28, 1936, in Bridgetown, Barbados, Sobers passed away today at the age of 89 (or thereabouts, depending on the exact timing). His death marks the end of an era for cricket, a sport he elevated through unparalleled skill, versatility, and charisma. Sobers was not just a player; he was a genius who could bat with elegance and power, bowl in multiple styles, field brilliantly, and lead with quiet authority.


Sobers made his Test debut for the West Indies at just 17 against England in 1954. Over a 20-year international career spanning 93 Tests, he scored 8,032 runs at a remarkable average of 57.78, including 26 centuries, while claiming 235 wickets at 34.03 and taking 109 catches. In first-class cricket, his numbers were even more staggering: over 28,000 runs and more than 1,000 wickets. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1975 for his services to the game and later named one of Barbados’ National Heroes. Wisden honored him as one of the Cricketers of the Century. Don Bradman himself regarded Sobers as the finest all-round cricketer he had seen.


His Best Performance

Among Sobers’ many legendary feats, one stands tallest: his maiden Test century against Pakistan in Kingston in 1958. At the age of 21, he batted for over ten hours to score an unbeaten 365, breaking Len Hutton’s world record for the highest individual Test score (which stood until Brian Lara’s 375 in 1994). It was the first time a player converted a maiden Test ton into a triple century. In that series, he amassed 824 runs with three hundreds. He followed it up with another dominant tour of India in 1958-59, scoring 557 runs with three more centuries.


Another iconic moment came in 1968 at Swansea, where he became the first batsman in first-class cricket to hit six sixes in a single over off Malcolm Nash. As captain, he led the West Indies to memorable series victories, including against Australia in 1965 and a 2-0 win in India in 1966-67. His 254 for the Rest of the World against Australia in 1971 was hailed by Bradman as one of the greatest innings ever seen in that country. Sobers’ ability to switch seamlessly between left-arm spin, fast-medium, and wrist-spin bowling, while dominating with the bat, made him a “five-in-one” cricketer.


Love Affairs in His Career

Sobers’ personal life, like his cricket, had its share of glamour and headlines. During the 1966-67 tour of India, he was briefly engaged to Bollywood actress Anju Mahendru. The relationship between the dashing West Indian captain and the Indian film star captured public imagination, blending cricket and celluloid romance. Though the engagement did not lead to marriage—reportedly due to family differences—the affair remains a colorful chapter in his life.


In 1969, Sobers married Prudence “Pru” Kirby, an Australian, in a union that produced two sons, Matthew and Daniel, and an adopted daughter, Genevieve. The marriage ended in divorce in 1990, but it granted him dual Barbadian-Australian citizenship. Sobers was known for his zest for life off the field, including a love for golf and occasional high-stakes gambling, reflecting the same bold spirit he showed on the pitch.


Connection to India

Sobers shared a special bond with India and Indian cricket. His stellar 1958-59 tour showcased his mastery on Indian pitches, where he dismantled spinners like Subhash Gupte. He returned as captain in 1966-67, leading West Indies to a 2-0 series victory. Later series in the Caribbean saw competitive battles, including against a young Sunil Gavaskar. Indian fans admired his grace and sportsmanship. Sobers’ romance with Anju Mahendru further endeared him to Indian audiences, creating a cultural bridge. India honored his contributions, and he remained a revered figure in Indian cricket lore.


Sir Gary Sobers transcended statistics. He played with joy and fearlessness, inspiring generations of all-rounders like Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, and Jacques Kallis. His legacy endures in the Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy and countless young cricketers who emulate his versatility. As the world of cricket bids farewell, we celebrate a life lived at the crease with unmatched brilliance. Rest in peace, Sir Gary. Your bat and ball will forever echo in the annals of the sport.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page