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.)

Why Was World Indigenous Peoples' Day Created?

Writer: Sharad Chavan
Sharad Chavan
Aug 5
3 min read

Part 1: To understand the debate surrounding World Indigenous Peoples' Day, it is essential to first understand why it was created.

The tradition of celebrating festivals in India is deeply rooted in its ancient history. In independent India, festivals, anniversaries, commemorative days, and historic milestones have been categorised as religious or social, with some officially designated for observance. Over time, some of these occasions have been celebrated with excessive zeal, often fuelled by misconceptions and collective enthusiasm.


From an entrepreneurial perspective, a number of special days—such as Rose Day, Friendship Day, Valentine’s Day, and Father-Mother's Day—were introduced with a global outlook, particularly to appeal to college students and the youth. Initially, these days were celebrated with creativity and genuine enthusiasm, turning ordinary moments into expressions of love and friendship. Over time, they descended into exaggerated, sometimes absurd displays, losing their original charm.


Whether one supports or opposes the commercialisation of such days—religious, social, or economic—is ultimately a matter of perspective. They have become part of the modern tapestry of human expression, woven with both genuine sentiment and commercial interests.


What is the true significance of this day? Is there any connection between India and World Tribals Day? Who initiated it, when, why, and for what purpose? To answer these questions, its origins and history must first be understood.


The World Human Rights Commission became active in 1990 to raise awareness of the living conditions, rights, and freedoms of people worldwide. Building on these concerns, the United Nations (UNO) initiated surveys and seminars. During the UNESCO meeting in Geneva in 1992, a significant resolution was passed in response to the plight of indigenous and tribal communities worldwide, highlighting the need to address their struggles and preserve their cultural identities.


The 45-point resolution was divided into eight sections. While drafting it, the issues under consideration had no relation to India. At the time of signing, the Indian government's delegation explicitly clarified:


"We are signing this in the interest of the world, but we want to make it clear that all the indigenous peoples living in India (excluding groups such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Parsis, and other religious followers) are native."


The resolution primarily addressed countries where European invaders displaced and enslaved indigenous populations, branded them uncivilised and savage, and claimed ownership of their ancestral lands. In many regions, however, indigenous communities resisted fiercely and eventually regained their independence.


During the colonial era, European powers used various methods of domination, creating ideological narratives that continue to influence historical interpretations. The British made extensive efforts to falsely portray India by promoting the theory that Aryans came from outside India, invaded the non-Aryans, and destroyed their culture, religion, and land.


India nevertheless opposed the resolution in its existing form, arguing that it addressed countries where European powers—particularly Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain—had colonised indigenous populations, deprived them of independence and fundamental rights, and subjected them to centuries of oppression.


Although European invaders conquered many countries within a relatively short period, India resisted British rule throughout its 150 years of colonisation.


Alongside European armies, missionaries spread across the world, a phenomenon that continues today. Many indigenous peoples were killed or converted to Christianity. In India too, efforts were made to promote religious conversion, while those who refused continued to preserve their traditional beliefs despite growing Western influence.


After 1947, India and many other former British colonies gained independence, shattering Britain's long-held dream of global dominance. Britain feared that a united India would emerge as a major world power and therefore employed various strategies to divide the country, including the use of indigenous and tribal identities for political purposes.


Different indigenous communities around the world have interpreted these historical developments in different ways. Indigenous peoples such as Native Americans, Indigenous Australians, Papuans, Maori, and communities in Africa and Latin America occupied their lands long before European colonisation. Civilisations such as the Maya and the Inca were destroyed through conquest. India does not fall within this historical framework.


By the end of the 21st century, indigenous issues gained increasing global attention through the United Nations. The year 1993 was observed as the International Year of Indigenous Peoples, followed by the Decade of Indigenous Peoples (1994–2004) to support their development and promote awareness of their culture and way of life.


The initiative recognised the right of indigenous peoples to preserve their unique way of life, protect their cultural, spiritual, and linguistic heritage, safeguard their identity, and live free from genocide and violence. It also affirmed their rights to self-identification, education, traditional knowledge, ancestral lands, information, and the preservation of their history, language, traditions, and community identity.


(The writer is a social worker engaged in tribal welfare. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page