From Atlantic Charter to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Session 6 at VK 4.0 Explores a Post-Colonial Global Order

At a moment when the international order is increasingly defined by conflict, coercion and asymmetries of power, Session 6 of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Ki Oar 4.0 turned the spotlight on a fundamental question: whether the architecture of global governance itself requires decolonisation.

Framed as a dialogue on “Decolonizing Global Governance,” the session brought together strategic thinkers, policymakers, diplomats, scholars and spiritual voices to interrogate the origins, legitimacy and future of global governance mechanisms that today claim authority beyond borders.

Opening the session, His Holiness Yugbhushan Suriji Maharaj set the tone by questioning the very premise of global governance. He observed that governance beyond national boundaries becomes relevant only when challenges transcend borders, citing terrorism, environmental crises and global data flows as contemporary examples.

However, he cautioned that the present model of global governance is shaped less by collective welfare and more by power politics, pointing to the dominance exercised by powerful nations, particularly the United States, in determining global political outcomes.

Drawing from ancient Indian traditions, he referred to the concept of “Mandal Rajya,” a form of inter-state consultation that existed in earlier times, while underlining that the crucial distinction lay in the process, one rooted in consensus and moral duty rather than coercion.

The discussion moved to the meaning and necessity of global governance in the modern era.

R. Balasubramanian, Member, Human Resources, Capacity Building Commission, highlighted how global governance today is no longer an abstract idea but one that directly affects everyday life, especially in the digital age. He stressed the urgent need for global norms to protect data, noting that while India has enacted its own data protection law, national legislation alone is insufficient in an interconnected world.

At the same time, he questioned whether existing global institutions genuinely serve collective interests or merely reinforce the priorities of a few dominant actors.

Several speakers critically examined the historical foundations of global governance, particularly the 1941 Atlantic Charter. Rajiv Kumar, Former VC NITI Aayog, argued that the Charter, often presented as the moral bedrock of the post-war international order, has lost its relevance in today’s multipolar world. He noted that Asia now accounts for nearly 50-60 per cent of the global population, yet global governance frameworks continue to reflect Western priorities.

Referring to the spread of Indian civilisational influence across Southeast Asia, from temples in Indonesia to cultural imprints in Vietnam and Cambodia, he suggested that the world must acknowledge non-Western traditions of governance and ethics. He proposed that the time may have come to consider an “Asian Charter” that reflects contemporary realities rather than clinging to mid-20th century arrangements.

This critique was reinforced by Balasubramanian, who observed that the very forces responsible for creating the Atlantic Charter appear today to be undermining its foundational principles.

His Holiness Yugbhushan Suriji Maharaj went further, characterising the Second World War not as a truly global conflict but as a war among European powers that was subsequently universalised to justify new forms of global control.

The contrast between competing visions of world order formed a central theme of the session.

While the idea of a one-world government often rests on centralised authority and uniformity, speakers repeatedly returned to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam as an alternative civilisational principle.

Kumar described Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam as a uniquely Indian contribution that views the world as one family, rooted in mutual respect rather than domination.

Capt. Alok Bansal elaborated on this distinction by emphasising the difference between equality and equitability, arguing that true justice lies not in treating everyone the same, but in recognising contextual differences, an idea central to the Bharatiya worldview.

Dr. Niranjan Hiranandani, MD and co-founder Hiranandani Group, offered a contemporary critique of power-centric global governance, recalling instances where leaders of powerful nations have unilaterally dictated terms to others under the guise of global good. He lamented the erosion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in modern international institutions, which he said are increasingly driven by power rather than collective progress. Referring to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he noted that despite repeated assurances by global powers, the situation on the ground has scarcely changed. In contrast, he cited India’s approach to global responsibility during the COVID-19 pandemic, when vaccines were developed and shared with weaker nations, as well as India’s handling of regional security concerns, as examples of values-driven engagement rather than coercive governance.

From a diplomatic perspective, Khathutshelo Emmanuel Thagwana, First Secretary (Political), Department of International Relations & Cooperation, Republic of South Africa, underscored that global governance should not be treated as an aloof or elite subject, since its consequences are felt in the daily lives of ordinary people across the world. His intervention highlighted the Global South’s long-standing concerns about exclusion and marginalisation within international decision-making structures.

As the session progressed, a broad consensus emerged that decolonising global governance requires more than institutional reform; it demands a rethinking of foundational principles.

Speakers questioned whether current frameworks, including the expansive jurisdiction claimed by the United Nations under its Charter, genuinely derive legitimacy from universal consent or merely from historical power arrangements.

The potential role of emerging initiatives such as China’s Global Governance Initiative was discussed cautiously, with participants emphasising that any alternative must avoid replicating the same hierarchies it seeks to dismantle.

The growing influence of artificial intelligence was also flagged as a domain requiring urgent global norms rooted in ethics rather than dominance.

Taken together, Session 6 reflected a deeper unease with inherited global structures and a renewed call to draw from civilisational wisdom in shaping the future. In a world described repeatedly as being in a Sankraman Kaal; a time of transition, the deliberations suggested that decolonising global governance may begin not with replacing one power centre with another, but with reimagining governance itself through principles of equity, moral responsibility and shared humanity.