Today’s world can be perhaps paradoxically described as an intersection of increasing interconnectedness convoyed by urge for isolationism and expansion in nationalism and revisionism. The conformist unanimity of politically correct institutions and dogmas are under attack both through autocratic fancies and democratic validations. India too is no exception and therefore stands at a path where it world view needs to be defined or redefined. The two speeches by Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar at Geo-Economic Conference of the Pune International Centre on ”Asia and the Emerging International Trading System” and at the 6th India Ideas Conclave yields substantial understandings into the embryonic Indian world view.
Going through the address the following can be summarized as key points in India’s perception about the global directions through history, contemporary and future. In fact, the address at both the events convey impressive clarity on the emergent global economic and governance patterns and likely challenges. The Indian formulation would have to factor in the environment as it exists and not work in normative fashion.
The EAM locates the materialisation of many a new trade enabling and derivative industry from supply chain to banking in the changes brought about by the advent of assorted centres of production rebalancing the patterns of trade and thus also resulting a subsequent development of new epicentres for consumption. Without doubt, there is increasing visibility of those ‘Black Swan’ and ‘Grey Rhino’ phenomenon as the global politico-economic habitat undergoes changes beyond recognition.
To the EAM, a derivative of the same is the increasing manifestation of nationalism in many forms. Many of these manifestations have secured visible democratic validation. Yet contrary to perceptions, each demonstration is unique. It brings to the fore of the trials of accommodating the Chinese state capitalism in the international trade order. Chinese nationalism is a reaction and a demonstration of the urge to play a greater role in the global power order. Similarly, Russia in its pursuit of re-entering the power high table is becoming vociferous in its nationalist manifestations. To the US, nationalism is linked to the challenges of fair market access, changing terms of trade and redefined protectionism. It is often a message against imperial overstretch, globalized economics and liberalised migration. In part, Brexit is more a response to perceived insecurity to increased immigration and succeeding cultural impact. Similar responses to a reduced degree are visible in France, Germany and across Europe. In fact, revisionism in the Gulf and Middle East and West Asia is intertwined with the drivers of identity and faith. Linkages to those glorious days of the past are being used as expression of nationalist aspirations. Civilizational dimensions to nationalism are often a reaction to victimhood and humiliation during imperialism and colonialism.
Yet the responses of the globalists is an endeavour to cluster nationalism into binaries despite visible variances in form of assertion, reaction and expression. To the globalists, it is convenient to cluster them into binaries and thus a handy tool for furthering their agenda of demonization. In fact, it is unapologetic criticism of the global political correctness complex. The EAM locates correctness in the eyes of the beholder. He argues the self-appointed arbiters of political correctness pass judgments and assume superiority over popular will and will of legislatures. Furthermore, he expresses amazement at the audacious claims of impartiality on these self-appointed arbiters of political correctness. To these arbiters and globalist, political correctness is essentially a reiteration and expression of the spread of a degree of Westfulness, globalism, multilateralism and liberalism. Yet in demonising the alternative points of view, their actions convey the opposite. To the EAM, a major current challenge is to have the requisite courage to call them out as they are. In fact his own articulations at multiple fora are a testimony to the same. India to a certain degree is displaying increasing confidence in calling these self-styled arbiters out.
Status quo being challenged across societies. The departures from orthodox consensus is not merely restricted to few geographies but visible from Japan to Brazil to Philippines. Yet, these changes are being ironically opposed by liberals than conservatives. It almost seems they are comfortable in the corridors of existing state of affairs. They are increasingly changes in the state of affairs to deviations form morality. Morality, it is being assumed, is synonymous with non-change. Any departure from the same in the domain of governance structures are being deemed retrograde.
As EAM points out, deglobalization challenges the notions of rules, regimes and mechanisms yet these do not occur in vacuum. Historical evolution and practice of complex web of multilateral institutions and practices regulated several dimensions of human activity. The enforced practices and institutions were anchored in and created through a prism of Western world view. Thus a sort of perpetuated Western dominance was a by-product of the same. The consequences were a stagnancy in the quality of life. To add, this was aggravated by social insecurities, vast income differentials and technological consequences. Therefore, it should not be unusual to observe the Western world view face challenges of relevance and dominance in the new geo political equations
The new environment narrows the economic thinking that converges on the possibility of zero sum game. There is increasing shredding of political neutrality in trade negotiations. As the EAM points out, trade was never politically neutral, it was mere pretense of the same. The current landscape is peeling aside those pretensions. There is increased emphasis on non-trade barriers bringing their own complications. The global financial crisis of 2008 revealed the limits of G7 which over time has morphed into G20. The new trade landscape is increasingly a function of emergent new partnerships, dependence on sourcing and mapping supply chains. Rather than conventional assumptions of trade leading the flag, the obverse propositions seem true in the contemporary world. Industrialisation was an outcome of political choice and strategic calculations of others. The rise of China is a classic illustration of the same and as the EAM states, India is on the cusp of the same. The emergent transnational supply chains are building up the prospects for limited Free Trade Area (FTA) rather than a uniform global trading arrangement. New institutions, rise of different practices and heralding of new mind-sets reflect the new reality. The illustrations for the same range as diverse as the BRICS Bank to International Yoga Day. Further the new political understandings necessitate new negotiations and structures, reduced salience emphasizing on Westlessness.
Indubitably, as the EAM points out, the growing changes necessitate the additional drivers of growth and creating a strong enough pull factor. Moreover, there necessitates a movement towards reconciling divergences of cross country interests. There is increasing possibility of witnessing infrastructure as defining comparative advantage. This obviously calls for an optimum near zero error mix of politics, economics and governance.
India cannot be an exception to the changes affecting the ecosystem. The best exposition of Indian role is captured by EAM’s words in his address at India Foundation Ideas Conference. To state those words “India has to demonstrate an Indian Way, one that delivers at home, embraces the world, contributes its fullest and expresses comfortably what its people really are. That the world has much riding on its success in doing so”
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 