Auguring Disruptive World Order
The sudden statements by powerful persons always generate public debates. Mr. Sam Pitroda’s statement that China is to be understood rather than to be feared, had been regarded by and large an anti-nation attitude. We all know that it is all about optics and popular politics. The statements may have genuine context, but our times are hybrid times that look history in different pieces. The text without proper context generates immediate relativism, which naïve public visualize in the process of othering. It suits power politics.
The Forbes has announced the ranking of first ten powerful countries of the world. America, China and Russia are in the first three ranking, while tenth is Israel and Saudi Arabia is ahead of it, ninth in the list. India does not figure in the first ten nation-states. Hardly anybody speaks about it. It might not be a genuine ranking, but it has acceptance and tacit significance; at least more than the political gimmicks run on electronic media to generate seductive politics. This is immediate relativism that neighbours are to be feared and not to be accepted as friends.
The fact is that for arriving on the top, the country needs a peaceful neighborhood. What is wrong, if populism is used for civil politics? China’s phenomenal growth rate could not have been possible without having its borders peaceful over many decades. Its moment of arrival came with the collapse of the Cold war between U.S and Soviet Union. America since early 1970s backed China in many ways. It became easy and liberal with China on visa issue; it transferred its high technology to China and allowed nonresident Chinese to send dollars for the developmental agenda, so that it overtakes Russia.
American policy makers were bearing in mind the trap in this newfound benevolence towards China. First to wreck Russia in its expansionist undertakings and second to create heterogeneous social formations in China with easy money, cheap technologies and consumerism; bringing it to open liberal capitalism from Soviet Union mode of communism. It had set up missionaries to spread faith in China, presuming that China would have social and class openings to generate internal conflicts, while taking off from communist mode of primordial development.
It did not happen, as presumed by President Nixon and his able advisor Kissinger. China used this moment of friendship - ‘Button Diplomacy of early 1970s’ - to its hilt in developing innovative indigenous technologies for the cheap consumer goods, and by creating infrastructure, hospitals and network of roads for the civil purposes. China built dams, upgraded its military machineries from warfare to cybernetics, from hard power to smart soft power. It transferred huge populations within and changed the internal social geography to make it controllable.
China used its civilization thrust to bring common cohesiveness from top to bottom with historical memory of its glorified past. The top only dictated its discipline and professionalism. China’s rise was phenomenal with each passing year since eventful years of 1970s. Surprising, all powerful calculations of developmental theories failed. Its vision to control the world without occupying the lands and without any noise of resistance is now materializing. OROB is its long drawn project linking Asia, Africa and Europe under its hegemonic umbrella. America perceives it as civilization rise, a threat to its own glory.
My friend, Professor Kamal Sheel, expert on China, cleared my conundrum about the notion of immediate relativism with regard to China. According to him ‘China sees itself beyond this limit. With peace at its borders, it has dream of civilizational rise of its settled historical memory’. In his conversation with colleagues in the Chinese universities, they wonder why Indians are noisy, self defeating, when India has huge repertoire of civilizational strength and epistemological power. India has been therefore colonized in the past. Whosoever moved in, has found it easy to rule the country. The Chinese intelligentsia in closed doors feels more proximity with Indian civilization than any other civilizations of the world.
The power of civilizational strength, instead of generating positive vibes has opened up vulnerability debates for popular consumption. Whatever the popular discourse for public consumption, it seems our competent qualified foreign office is working on that strength of historical memory towards peace with China. That is something to feel good about it. China’s non interference policy towards other countries has made it known to its friends. Although it is clear in its non interfering policies, it plays its games silently to maneuver its interests.
During India- Pakistan war of 1965, General Ayub along with his foreign minister Mr. Bhutto made a secret visit to Beijing to desire China engages India on its border, so that Pakistan could annex Kashmir. China refused to do so. Instead, Zhou Enlai’s gave advice to visiting leadership to engage India in Kashmir, for long asymmetrical war with Kashmiri participation, otherwise Pakistan would lose Lahore. Pakistan in subsequent years has been following that at its own peril.
What is brewing from these observations is that President Trump’s triumphalism is not what meets the optics, the immediate revealing. It is a deep sighted vision for civilizational revival, rather than American resurgence. Russia falls in that line. Business deals have political ambitions. President trump is not abandoning Europe, but he is engaging countries in Asia, so that it does not remain peaceful; also it has some irks for China. Trump undermines the capacity of nation-states and sees civilization emergence by modeling nation-states in a fresh map formation. In this way, he saves Europe from its decadence. He visualizes the civilizational roles for Saudi Arab, Israel, while clubbing Russia and valuing India. About China, he is apprehensive and Turkey he perceives not so redoubtable.
India-Pakistan animosity suits both China and America. Pakistan no longer can hold that leadership claim, which it had visualized for itself in the previous century. It is encouraging Pan Turkish influence, which is being articulated by President Erdogan with other Muslim countries supporting the idea of civilizational revival. Turkey’s plans to link the “Zangezur Corridor” to the “Middle Corridor” has political significance in historical memory, further undermining Armenia to ease trade between Turkey and Azerbaijan. His recent visit to Pakistan is a step towards that formation. However, it cannot go beyond a point because of Pakistan; its fundamental formation is not civilization based. India on the other hand can find its articulation if our leadership recognizes it’ identified traditions of evolving organic plurality. India has triumphed after its social and spiritual decadence, many times in history.
Whether it was Bhakti Movement of 14th century or Reform Movements of 19th century; like that the recent social upsurge has come from the political challenges of the closing decades of the previous century. It has to be understood in real perspective. Divisive polemics has its limit in a plural society. India cannot afford obligatory cohesiveness. It needs wisdom that can have trustful ownership of plurality. Unlike China, ours is representative democracy. The people live in their lived religion of mutual dependency in free expression of liberalism. While the leadership of majority needs language of politics refined and endearing, the social and political elites of the minorities have to own this country, without mincing its duties and obligations.
(I appreciate the significant inputs given by Professor Kamal Sheel)
Prof Ashok Kaul, retired Professor of Sociology, Banaras Hindu University
