The end of history ???

“The end of history” thundered the American intellectual Francis Fukuyama after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent end of the cold war. What Fukuyama concluded was that the evolutionary process of mankind governing itself had reached its conclusion with the advent of liberal democracy and history will stop its ever continuous process of evolving henceforth.

Fukuyama and many of his intellectual counterparts had the benefit of watching the “victory” of the West and its model of liberal, capitalist democracy in the background and then declaring the eventual superiority of that system of governance as the final phase of human evolution but what they did not consider was the glorious uncertainty of History.

But History can sometimes be much stranger than fiction and certainly stranger than many western intellectual thinkers could have considered. Indeed many of his considerations were derived out of the absolute superiority of Western countries both economically and politically. The fact that the United States maintained an absolute supremacy in terms of military power in the world obviously helped the United States to get others to listen to its version of the story and ignore the rest. This was the background which helped Fukuyama to come up and declare his idea of “end of history” and many serious intellectuals and thinkers believed in his epoch-shattering ideas.

Now two decades hence the World looks a lot different that Fukuyama had probably thought about. Indeed the Western countries still dominate the global scenario as in the 1990-s but their overwhelming supremacy has been somewhat halted by the emergence of rival powers and rival ideas.

The western model of liberal democracy faces some considerable challenges in the coming decades. One of them is in terms economic growth. The west has long dominated the World in terms of economic growth and prosperity but in the last decade of 20-th century and in the present 21-st century we have seen the meteoric rise of potential rivals like China in particular. The Chinese successes in terms of commercial and economic growth put cold waters on the Western claim of overwhelming superiority in the world of businesses and commerce. As China has continued to grow strongly some of the established major Western economies like Spain, Ireland, France, UK and even the USA has not been able to match their pre-1980 growth rates let aside double-digit economic growth rates of China. Indeed all these major Western economies have slowed down considerably over the last decade or so and they have not shown any clear signs of gearing up in the new millennium to match that of the Chinese. The success of the Chinese have come largely without that nation bringing in all the democratic and pollitical reforms as prescribed by the Western pundits and specialists and the success of the Chinese economic model contradicts the Fukuyama line of thinking that western - model of liberal , democratic model is the only model able to bring in economic prosperity.

The second significant challenge that the Western democracies increasingly face is the challenge regarding economic inequality in their own societies. One of the major positive aspects of the Western system has been its ability to provide a considerable amount of income to its unemployed and matured age populations. Indeed this has been one quality of the Western model which has been loudly praised by all the major intellectuals (of both western and non-western backgrounds). But as economic growth has stagnated in the Western societies so has been the prospect of governments doling out large sums of money to their underprivileged and unemployed populations. Indeed after the last recession in 2008 many of the countries in Europe have been considering cutting down benefits to their unemployed and underprivileged in a considerable way. Large popular demonstrations have been observed in countries such as Greece and Portugal against any possible efforts by their governments to cut down social benefits. Protests can also be seen in the US against plans by individual states like Wisconsin and Michigan against proposed cuts to these benefits for the underprivileged and unemployed. The wedge between the governing establishments and their people is getting bigger as time slowly passes by. Indeed the very stability of the Western societies could be a major issue in the coming decades as the gap in wealth between the “have”-s and the “have-not”-s continue to grow in the Western societies. There is a perceivable sense among the population as well as the general intelligentsia in the Western world that their elected representatives do not keep in mind the interests of those who elected them in the first place. The protests and demonstrations are only the signals of the same attitude.

Another major challenge the West will continue to face will be the future of the western concept of the nation state. The Western model of democratic governance was based upon the foundation of single language-speaking homogeneous nation-states. Thanks to the global outreach of the Western multinational corporations many people from the non-Western speaking countries had the opportunity to go to the Western countries, work in those affluent places and then report back home about the success the Western societies were enjoying. This particular method brought both the Western and the non-Western worlds together and allowed both to enrich each other. But the post-2008 recession West has struggled to get rid of its national prejudices and biases. In an increasingly globally connected world where the national boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant each day; we can observe the existing national prejudices also becoming more widespread in the West. The recent backlash against Chinese and Indian Workers in the US, the banning of head scarves in France, the derogatory comments on Muslims by the German ministers, the popularity of extreme-nationalists in many parts of continental Europe, the discriminatory bills passed by the parliament of Israel or for that matter the incidents of beatings of Indian students in Australia all point to the same direction. The Western world is not comfortable about the rise of the “Eastern” powers like China and India and in this environment the “alien” in the society i.e. those who are not from the Western-ethnicity gets to be blamed by the majority of the Western societies for their miseries. The more the Westerners demand assimilation of their non-Western minorities to the western mainstream; the less will be the popularity of the Western ideas among the non-Westerner populations.

The West needs to reconcile itself with the current world scenario where it needs to take into consideration the views of others like China. Without reconciling to that as well as not finding constructive answers to the challenges I have mentioned, will not help the West to adopt itself to the new realities of the 21-st century World.

What do they know about cricket, those who only cricket know

“Team aissi hi nehin jitti hain , jitana parta hain” this is a very well-known and oft-repeated slogan currently being used for marketing and promotional ways during the current world cup cricket. One thing that struck my mind after watching to this particular slogan is what can we do to make sure that our glorious nation of more than 1 billion wins? And for that matter why do we need to do anything in this regard apart from watching (and cheering loudly as well as jeering the opposition) our boys play? After all when we won the world cup in 1983 did the Kapil’s devils needed our help in such a way like in one of our very famous television ad-s couple of very famous Bollywood actors saying that they will not eat anything during the matches ? I do not think so.

Now let us think from another perspective. Why do most of us the middle-class Indians need to cheer madly for our cricket team? After all most of our celebrated cricketers will probably end up being crorepatis even they do not do anything in the competition thanks to a recent phenomenon called the “Indian Premier League”. And if they really play well and go on to win the cup they will probably end up being khaarabpatis anyways. So what is in it for us middle class Indians? Mr. Indian cricket fan if you argue that we should watch the game for only the love of game , I will counter you by saying that very few of our die-hard cricket fans watch the games for the love of the game ; they simply want their “Team India” to win. And why do we otherwise irrelevant people should care about these would-be “crorepatis/ khaarabpatis” (depending upon their performance of losing/winning the world cup)? My own understanding is that the present life of an average middle-class Indian is pretty dull and doubly boring. We face a lot of challenges throughout each day of our life for example the skyrocketing of daily food prices, the ratio of income taxes, the attitudes of traffic polices on the road, the rage of our angry and ever demanding managers at work, the fury and attitudes of our girlfriends and wives at home/outside, the constant concern of our parents and relatives. Among all these we just want our “Team India” to win not because we realize how great a batsman “Sachin Pazi” is but for our own selves. If Sachin Pazi scores a century or if Bhajji gets a hat-trick or if Mahi wins the cup then at least for some very few moments we can forget who we in reality are i.e. a completely irrelevant class of people in the nation and we for that very moment feel that it is such irrelevant people like us who are at the top of the world, not those famed cricketers.

On a different note, I for one will not be too disappointed if our team loses say in the quarter finals. After all in my view (and probably some of my readers will agree) that this current team of ours is not a complete all-round team but a team which is dependent upon certain great individuals starting from Sachin and Viru pazi. I for one will be happy if a team say as the proteas go on to win the cup after all they are a preity all-round and formidable side which includes probably the best first bowler going around. And of all they are the team who deserves the helping hands of lady luck most since they are the one to have been at the receiving end of the story for so long. Anyone remember 1992 and 1999 world cup semi finals? The next team I have my favorite list is …. Woops do not shout at me o glorious Indian cricket fan … Pakistan. After all in the last decade that country has seen all sorts of problems and ironically everything started to going badly for that country from their lose in the 1999 cup final. What could be better for the people of that grieving and beleaguered country than an India-Pakistan clash at the quarter finals in say Bangalore and those hated Pakistanis defeating us in the last over with that hated and reviled Rawalpindi express uprooting the middle stump of Sachin Pazi? Now I know of my readers will be nodding their heads in anger and disbelief. I know it will be a great anti-climax (and tragic also since probably some innocent boys and girls would probably end up hanging themselves from their ceiling fans after the match) but then sometimes one also needs anti-climaxes in our lives. That is why a very famous cricket writer from West Indies wrote “What do they know about cricket, those who only cricket know”

What is so big deal about right to Veto in UN

In recent times the primary obsession for any high rank shenanigan in Indian foreign policy establishment is thus: India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security council. To the foreign policy establishment of India, a country which had hardly played any prominent role in International affairs since the heydays of our first prime minister, the promise given by Mr. Obama during his last visit to India of helping and mentoring India to become a permanent member of Security Council was just like Manna from Heaven.
Now let us analyze what it means to become a permanent member of the Security Council and decide ourselves whether it is worth a goal as such.
The major reasons that the Indian establishment offers to its citizens for their obsession with the permanent membership of the Security Council are the following:
1. United Nations Security council body is the most important body in terms of international politics in modern world.
2. Security Council membership is prestigious that it offers great power and influence in the world of International affairs.
3. Being a permanent member of the Security Council is a recognization of India’s achievements as a nation.
To counter these arguments let me state these counter arguments.

1. United nations Security Council is not the most important policy making body in the world. It was created by the winners in the Second World War to ensure the post-world war II era world in a way which helps those powers achieve their geo-political interests. The UN Security Council never played its rightful role in ending the major conflicts of the 20-th century like the Korean war, the Vietnam war (both wars there involving first France and then the United States) , the conflicts at Congo , the Bangladesh war , the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , the Israeli invasion of Lebanon etc. These conflicts started because one or more permanent members of the security council wanted them for their own geo-political interest and those conflicts were ended only when those interests were either fulfilled or the costs involved in running those conflicts were just too large for the permanent member of the security council.(like the soviet war in Afghanistan or the French colonial wars in Indo-China).
2. Security Council membership is very prestigious but that does not mean it will give India the amount of leverage and influence in geo-politics that we believe in. To have influence in International affairs you need to have that amount of clout where others come to you for help and advice. To help underscore the point let us look at the example of Turkey. Turkey used to have very little friends in the West Asian or North African region. It had historically hostile relationships with Greece, Armenia, Syria, Iran etc. It almost went to war with Syria during the early 1990-s. There was a proverb in Turkey in those days saying that “A Turk has only one friend and he is another Turk” But from 2002- onwards Turkey embarked upon a policy called “zero problems with neighbors” and gradually it has started to bear its fruits. Turkey now enjoys very cordial business and political relations with Syria and Iran. Turkish companies dominate in the reconstruction efforts in post-war Iraq. Turkey is building a visa free regime with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Talks are on to bring in Iran and Russia also in the same zone. Turkish relations with Armenia and Greece also have improved quite a lot compared to the past. Even during the current political upheaval and revolutionary movements in West Asia and North Africa, influential leaders of the revolution like the leader of ennahda movement in Tunisia Racchid Ghanoucchi or the famous Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan highlights Turkey as the model to follow. The example of Turkey emphasizes the point that one need to build up bridges of cooperation so that your neighbors are comfortable that your interests do not hurt theirs and they are eager to collaborate.
3. The permanent members of the Security Council do not derive their legitimacies from their veto power. Whatever legitimacy they have is because of their political, economic, cultural or military achievements either in the past or in the present. United States derives her recognition from the fact that she is the overwhelming superior nation in terms of military and strategic perspectives. China derives its legitimacy from its recent unprecedented economic growth. United Kingdom and France derives their legitimacies from their colonial and cultural legacies. The Russian federation derives her legitimacy from her vast reserves of natural resources and from her huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The overall picture is all the permanent members of the United Nations security council are recognized as powerful because of their past and present achievements in different fields but not because their permanent membership in the United Nations security council.

In the end , one has to mention that real influence in World Affairs does not come from your permanent membership at some elite club but it comes when other nations come to you believing that you have capabilities to help them solve their problems or we reach out to the world to engage it with our own initiatives. If we look at the past efforts of Indian foreign policy establishment in this regard , a lot remains to be expected on that front. Without this our hopes of gaining real influence in World Affairs will remain as it has been since the death of our first prime minister i.e. a pipedream.