India has worked to collapse the dichotomy between the national and the international. Its efforts at home to inoculate against Western cultural hegemony have resonated with nations across the world.
Perhaps the greatest legacy of the Western philosophical tradition is the idea of ‘dichotomy’, a legacy which finds its most distilled expression in the teachings of Manicheanism. A major world religion and philosophical force in the first centuries of the Common Era, Manicheanism spoke of a strictly dualistic worldview, with the fundamental struggle between good and evil at the very core of its cosmology. Owing to the proliferation of this strand of thought, at the cost of other Oriental traditions (including the Indic tradition), it has almost become a natural tendency of the human mind across much of the world to think in terms of opposites. That quintessential contrast between good and evil continues to animate some of the deepest narratives undergirding contemporary societies. Subjective vs objective, explicit vs implicit, external vs internal: the human psyche is shaped by these divisions.
This legacy is both a gift and a curse. A proclivity for taxonomy lends itself to structured thought, which can be highly productive. Yet, too often, contradictions coerce our thinking into either side of the divide. Too often, the insidious dichotomy of us vs them—you are either one of us or one of them—transforms the world into a battlefield. The service of the self must now necessarily be at the expense of the other. The world is now conceptualized as a zero-sum game. This is the curse of Manichean duality.
One cogent example of this false dichotomy is the rupture between the national and the international. On the one hand, policies that benefit the nation are seen as inimical to internationalism and are accordingly labelled protectionist, conservative, insular and exclusive. On the other hand, states that contribute to global causes are perceived by their citizens as undermining national interests. In such a divisive milieu, how can collectives serve both the immediate and the beyond?
The most potent antidote to this dilemma is the philosophical tradition of ‘Advaita Vedanta’. The notion of Advaita, literally translating to non-duality and thus representing the very negation of Manicheanism, collapses all dichotomies by emphasising the unity of all that is real. This powerful notion is distilled in the phrase Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (‘the world is one family’), which stands as a testament to the inherent unity of humankind and the planet we call Earth. Through the practice of this principle, in the past decade, India has shown the world that there is no dichotomy or contradiction between nationalism and internationalism.
By adopting Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam as the theme of India’s G20 presidency, the country espoused to the world the deep-seated belief that a nation’s ability to serve the planet and wider humankind is only bolstered when it helps its own citizens first. That within the service of the local lies a solution for the universal. That nationalist policymaking can coexist with and, indeed, complement internationalist thinking. That harmonising the local with the global is an imperative in the twenty-first century world. The regional and the global together comprise the constituency that must be addressed by global governance and its institutions.
In our times, ‘elitist’ cosmopolitanism and ‘parochial’ nationalism are in an ostensibly irreconcilable conflict. By dismissing either of the two as pejoratives or as undesirable, we risk forgetting lessons of history.
In the twentieth century, nationalism and the evocation of national consciousness were crucial to freedom struggles in nations across the world, not least in India. The quest for political self-determination and independence from colonial rule flowed from this ethic. On the other hand, the battle against the depletion of the ozone layer, the creation of global trading arrangements that facilitated the growth of developing economies, the investment into entities such as the Bretton Woods Institutions, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization—these endeavours were undertaken through internationalist thought processes, which in turn were largely motivated by national interests and ambitions. The reality of the past century puts paid to any notion of a confrontation between the two.
For India, this is a moment of deeper reflection. Today, the nation is seventy-six years free and has overthrown the shackles of foreign rule. It may seem that the need for nationalist thinking is past. Think again! Political self-determination and self-rule are but one step in exiting the colonial era. The second and more important step is the creation of an identity, one that is truly independent of the coloniser, determined by the self, consistent and culturally contextual. It requires shedding the identity that has been groomed by the colonial elite and tamed to adhere to the assessments, attitudes and values of the coloniser. In other words, the decolonisation of political geography must be followed by the decolonisation of identity, approach and ethic.
How to decolonise the mind? This question has engaged the brightest minds in the discipline of post-colonialism since the pathbreaking Francophone Afro-Caribbean political philosopher Frantz Fanon observed in 1952 that centuries of colonial subjugation and cultural infantilisation have served to shatter and splinter the self-image of the colonised, leaving them with an inferiority complex correlated to the superiority complex in the coloniser. Putting it succinctly, in 1957, French-Tunisian theorist Albert Memmi theorised that the period of colonisation does not end with the mere cessation of physical subjugation; there is still the need to decolonise the mind. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak takes this argument forward by (re)introducing the vocabulary of the ‘subaltern’ into the discipline. This rich intellectual heritage has been carried on by the likes of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, who argues that the native’s viewing of themselves and their cultures through the coloniser’s prism of prejudice is one of the most dehumanising legacies of the colonial period.
The world has yet to reckon with the challenge and reality of breaking free from the tyranny of colonial thinking. In the case of India, while the political project of self-rule was achieved in 1947, the social project of decolonisation was not. In many ways, the colonial elite was replaced by a native elite—trained, educated, and incubated in the institutions and in the image of the colonisers. And the aspiration of the masses remained one of assimilation to a colonial ideal.
Scrutinising the project of Indian independence reveals yet another reality: the processes of the freedom struggle largely remained an elitist affair, distant from vast sections of society. This continued into post-Independence India, with the majority consigned to the right to vote once every five years, without being allowed the agency to express their disapproval and disagreement at any other point of time.
The past decade has been different. It has been instrumental in allowing India to break out of this past and move on from its colonial hangover. New India’s emergence has been on the back of unprecedented mass participation—loud and argumentative—on the role, identity, spirit and ethic of the larger project of nation-building. Beyond all the cacophony and the noise, what sustains India today is the polyphonic national consensus, which is always dynamic and evolving, contested and debated.
Through all of this, we have finally begun to forge a truly Indian path. As the title of this volume identifies, the past ten years have seen an Indian Renaissance, with the revival of Indian ideas, modes of philosophical thinking and ways of being. Indigenous knowledge and native customs are being brought into the foreground and coupled with modern learning and scientific sensibilities. Indian modernity is being shaped by our heritage. We are inculcating confidence in our culture—our languages, dress and food. We are throwing off the shackles of Western cultural hegemony, to use Gramsci’s turn of phrase. The project of Atmanirbhar Bharat is a plan of economic development; it is also an endeavour to build national self-confidence, both at home and abroad. And regardless, any project that serves one sixth of all humanity is bound to be a global endeavour.
We are asking ourselves basic questions. Why must Indian ideation be limited by an alien grammar? If academic papers can be written in a European language, spoken by a mere handful of people compared to the population of India, why can’t they be written in our native tongues? Why must Indian attire be diminished with the pejorative ‘ethnic’ when its strength in numbers and the period of its use privilege it against Western modes of dress? Why must Indian formal attire, rooted in a storied legacy that is more than 6,000 years old, be seen as inferior to the Western suit, born on a small island off the western coast of Europe less than 400 years ago?
India has worked to collapse the dichotomy between the national and the international. Its efforts at home to inoculate against Western cultural hegemony have resonated with nations across the world. Fortunately, the hegemony achieved and consolidated by a select few is finally loosening its grip. The models—of thought, language, dress, food, even dominant schools of economics and politics—propagated by the hegemon are now being scrutinised.
Because the truth is out: yesterday’s world order lies in ruins. Self-appointed guardians of the international order and established multilateral frameworks are either unequipped to respond or unable to deliver. The multilateral status quo was codified in the post-War twentieth century and last reformed at the height of the Cold War. Originally designed for the narrow goal of maintaining peace, these frameworks are not adequately equipped to deal with the interconnected and octopoid problems of the twenty-first century—an existential climate crisis, disruptive technological innovation, global supply chain vulnerability, a pandemic of polarisation, threats to global health, all in addition to the time-old issue of war and peace.
On top of this, three interconnected trends are visible today. First, it is true that globalisation has benefited many, creating unprecedented wealth and prosperity. Yet, the processes at play have been uneven and patchy. It has served a billion people well, but the other seven still seek its benefits. For the latter, the promise of globalisation has yet to be kept, betraying the Global South’s aspirations of a better, more equitable world. Second, the nations most invested in these global frameworks, the architects of globalisation as we know it, appear to have divested from its perpetuation and upkeep. The fact is that these very nations are today its most egregious violators. And finally, the legitimacy of the institutions governing globalisation lies in tatters. Reform alone will not be enough: what we need is re-formation. Re-formation of management boards to be more inclusive and more dynamic with respect to geographies, demographics and economies. In short, globalisation needs new protagonists and a new script.
Look around. A new world is dawning. The world as we know it is changing, and global leadership is changing in tandem. New actors are stepping into the global arena with new models of leadership. India is finally taking its rightful seat at the table.
India has emerged as the new global voice that internationalism sorely needs, providing a fresh template for what twenty-first century (inter)nationalism should look like. Indian foreign policy has made a conscious effort to collapse the dichotomy. Through its G20 presidency, the country strove to do just this by foregrounding the concerns of the Global South. The inclusion of the African Union—a salve and necessary corrective to the elitist admission of the European Union into the grouping—was a step towards building an inclusive and equitable world order. This Indian conviction is also reflected in the creation of the Voice of Global South Summit, a platform to deliberate on the concerns and priorities of the people left behind by yesterday’s globalisation, exchange ideas and solutions, and foster a sense of purpose in building unity and consensus.
There was no incongruence in hosting the G20 Summit and the Voice of the Global South Summit within a span of weeks, each bringing its own contribution to what the world at large sought. As a matter of fact, there were synergies to this approach. The Voice of the Global South added heft and purpose to the G20, legitimising the demands for sustainable development that was at the heart of India’s G20 presidency. And the democratisation of the entire process, by taking it to the people and making it participatory by design, bridged the gap between global governance and the globally governed. India’s approach to the G20 may be a harbinger of Indian foreign policy in the days ahead.
India is certainly among the leaders ushering in an era of fairer re-globalisation. It is a key international actor that has embraced the idea of bearing responsibility for shaping global governance for the future. The nation is bringing the patience of an ancient civilisation, the aspirations of a young population, and the momentum of 1.6 billion people to a project most vital to humankind in the twenty-first century. This is the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: our paths are collective, and everyone must be brought together on this journey.
In sum, nationalism vs internationalism is a false binary. India is a testament to that truth. Whether as a global first responder, a pharmacy to the world, a fountainhead of talent and innovation, a crucial link in the global supply chain or an exporter of digital public infrastructure, India could only serve the world more fully after making strides at home.
The one cannot exist without the other. The dialectic of the two is singularly responsible for offering a kaleidoscope of perspectives from different corners of the world. It ensures that homogeneity—of path, pathway and approach—never undermines heterogeneity and diversity, the two values that humankind must celebrate above all else.
