Source: Capital News    Published: 2023-12-13

On October 18, at a thematic forum for think tank exchanges held as part of the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, Sudheendra Kulkarni, the founder of India’s Forum for a New South Asia, said he was very confident that India would definitely join the “Belt and Road” initiative one day.

There are two reasons, On the one hand, for India, if its western and eastern regions do not cooperate with China and other neighboring countries, it is impossible to really successful development. On the other hand, the population of the South Asian region totals 1.8 billion, which is a lot less without India’s cooperation.

How do Indian politicians, businessmen and academics view the Belt and Road Initiative? In the current geopolitical context, is it possible for India to put aside some of the disagreements with China and participate in the “Belt and Road” under acceptable circumstances? How will India “make its move” in the future, whether to join a more economically powerful East, or a more politically powerful West?

In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian and executive director of Tricontinental Institute for Social Research shared his views on the Belt and Road Initiative, China-India relations and other issues with us.

A Decade of Ambition: The Youthful Vigor of the BRI

Capital News: What is your impression of the 'Belt and Road Initiative'?

Vijay Prashad: The Belt and Road Initiative is now 10 years old. It’s very young and in its prime. One shouldn’t have too overrated assessment of something that’s only 10 years old, given that recorded human civilization is thousands of years old.

Nonetheless, it represents an exciting development in the human history. Why is that? Firstly, it’s important to put it in the context of the global events since the 1940s, when many colonized countries achieved their independence from colonial rulers. After that, the former colonial powers implemented a development agenda from the top down, primarily centered around borrowing money from the West. This was aimed at enhancing the capacity of formerly colonized nations to export raw materials.

Certainly, there was some degree of industrialization and significant infrastructure development. However, this was largely geared towards either facilitating the export of raw materials or producing finished goods for Western markets. For a considerable period, despite persistent calls from Third World countries for an alternative development agenda — including the 1974 New International Economic Order resolution at the UN General Assembly — a genuine alternative failed to materialize.

The financial crisis in the West in 2007 and 2008 served as a wake-up call. The Chinese government, having amassed substantial surpluses and finding itself somewhat constrained in producing goods solely for Western markets, made the strategic shift towards the Third World through the Belt and Road Initiative. For the first time in decades, the Belt and Road Initiative has offered an alternative to the Bretton Woods System funding, which was largely again for export of other raw materials or goods. But now, we witness investments in infrastructure and industrialization. It remains to be seen how this will unfold in practice. Once again, we are dealing with a very young yet promising project.

Capital News: Over the past two years, the U.S. and the EU have put forth initiatives like the 'Build Back Better World,' 'Global Gateway,' and 'Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership.' This year, India also joined the U.S.-proposed IMEC, which seems to be in competition with China's BRI. When we search for keywords, it seems like the Indian media is really into this initiative, as it's getting a lot of coverage. From what you know, how is IMEC progressing at the moment? Does India place significant importance on this infrastructure plan?

Vijay Prashad: Look, there are lots of immensely important and large countries in the Global South, in the Third World, such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and others. These are very important economies, each with their own set of national interests. This means they must develop their own infrastructure plans. Take Indonesia, for example. They need to consider what will benefit the Indonesian people, especially given the prolonged period of neoliberalism since the late 1970s.

Still just like yesterday, many governments were not genuinely prioritizing their national interests or the well-being of their citizens. Instead, they were focused on pleasing capital markets and ensuring positive ratings from agencies. However, we're beginning to witness a shift. Governments are now starting to ask, 'What truly serves our national interest?' For those leaning towards socialism, it's about considering what's in the best interest of the people. This represents a new development.

India is an interesting case study. India has been in a transition period, shifting from a position of considerable subordination to the United States and the West on various issues since at least 1991, to gradually articulating its own interests. There's no need to be bashful about it. India and China have a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s, culminating in a war in 1962. So, there is a tension between India and China that is unresolved. This is the context for what I’m going to say.

First and foremost, it’s incorrect to assume that the West is fully equipped to economically or commercially compete with China. The level of investment that Western governments, and even Western corporations, can mobilize is nowhere near what the Chinese government and other governments are willing to commit. That has something to do with the attitude within Western countries where the rich are not willing to invest in their countries. It's symptomatic of a particularly cutthroat form of capitalist enterprise, where the wealthy opt to stash their money in tax havens. In fact, a staggering thirty-eight trillion dollars of Western capitalist funds lie dormant in tax havens, evading taxation and, consequently, remaining unavailable for investment. Therefore, the initial point to acknowledge is that, at present, the West simply cannot compete with countries like China, or even Middle Eastern nations boasting substantial sovereign wealth funds.

So, there’s some of these initiatives like IMEC and so on, but they’re not really serious. Because they don’t have the volume of capital that’s available from China's People's Bank or the sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf, and even those in countries like Norway. These latter entities wield vastly larger pools of capital, making a monumental difference.

Secondly, as far as IMEC is concerned specifically, let’s be a little clear here. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are pivotal players in IMEC, and they hold significant sway in the world of crude production. They are also deeply integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative. In Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the comprehensive plan led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Chinese investment plays a crucial role. Therefore, IMEC doesn’t serve as a substitute for the BRI or Chinese investment; it appears to be a parallel development.

In fact, when I looked at the IMEC map, I noticed that two of the ports listed are only partially funded by the BRI. So, in essence, it’s not really a substitute. I think the notion of competition was a loose concept propagated in the media. In my view, it's more akin to a parallel progression.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with parallel developments. In fact, we should welcome them. More investment in infrastructure and industrialization is needed. Consider this: if the BRI acts as a catalyst, spurring nations to invest more in greener infrastructure and industrialization, it’s a positive outcome. The key takeaway here is that the BRI could be the driving force behind building factories and preventing your people to stay idle. To be candid, I don't see it as a competition. In my opinion, no one truly possesses the capacity to compete on that scale.

Now, if there are parallel developments, they should be welcomed. We shouldn't approach this with a Cold War mentality, even if that’s the way in which the United States is talking about it. In Asia, we should view these advancements as positive steps. Our primary focus should remain on our ultimate goal: eradicating hunger, illiteracy, and similar challenges. Our aim is not to have the most impressive infrastructure project; our aim is to eliminate the indignity of human suffering.

Capital News: How is the Indian political, business, and academic community currently viewing the 'Belt and Road' initiative?

Vijay Prashad: This dynamic between India and China is interesting, marked by various unfortunate and often exacerbated tensions. It seems as though someone is constantly adding fuel to the fire, intensifying the longstanding tension between these two nations.

This tension between India and China is rather blinding. It is preventing clear thinking, all tensions of this kind of very unfortunate, robbing us of the rational assessments that we should ideally be making. For instance, what role does the Belt and Road Initiative play in Myanmar? Is it genuinely benefiting the people there? Likewise, consider Sri Lanka and its economic struggles. Sri Lanka has gone through a lot of economic problems. Is this because of BRI, is it because of the Port of Hambantota? Not at all. A rational analysis shows that the economic woes stem from Sri Lankan elites relying on advice from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, frankly, has often been ill-advised. Asian countries, including China, India, and Indonesia, haven’t forced the International Monetary Fund to give better guidance. This pattern continues, and countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan suffer as a result.

I just want to be completely frank with you. This rise of tension between India and China don't facilitate constructive academic discourse; they actually skew it. People become hesitant to confront the facts, and instead, they lean towards uncomfortable propaganda. That's not what we need. We must build theories based on facts. One of the crucial lessons I've learned from Chinese Marxism is the idea of crossing the river by feeling the stones. You’ve got to feel the stones and don’t try to jump across the river. If you’re not thinking rationally, you don’t know the difference between the stone and water. Without rational thinking, that distinction becomes unclear.

Regrettably, in fact, across Asia, there is a dearth of serious academic exploration into the alternatives presented not just by the Belt and Road Initiative, but also by other valuable Asian development projects. Collaborations between India and Southeast Asian countries, for instance, deserve thorough study. Are they genuinely beneficial? Is it a true win-win scenario, as the Chinese say, a win-win? Or is it a win-lose? We can only discern this if we are not blinded by the current political fervor. I’m very much looking forward to a day when India and China can go down their border dispute, and establish a relationship grounded in rational, scientific principles, free from the constraints of worn-out and uncomfortable ideologies.

The Awakening of India's Middle Class

Capital News: Even though India hasn't joined the Belt and Road, is there any progress in cooperation with China in other areas? Have India and China found opportunities for collaboration in bilateral ventures or other regional initiatives?

Vijay Prashad: Yes, first and foremost, it’s important to point out that India and China are significant members of the BRICS project. Initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the alliance has now expanded to include six more countries, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran. India holds a pivotal role within BRICS. India was the host of the G20 meeting in New Delhi, during which India emphasized the focus on development without delving into political matters like Ukraine. There's ample room for India and China to engage in discussions and foster collaboration. In fact, at the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg, where the alliance was expanded, China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Modi spoke and said, listen, let’s get our people to start discussing the border issues again, because really deep, robust, proper collaboration is hampered by the lack of movement on the border issue.

It's worth remembering that just a decade ago, Russia and China grappled with a longstanding border dispute dating back to the 1950s. This dispute also led to armed conflict due to compelling political and economic interests. Russia’s President Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping resolved to address the issue, recognizing the need for a timely resolution. They can’t allow it to sit for another 78 years. It’s ridiculous. Small disputes are here and there, which can be fixed. Similarly, in the case of India and China, disputes like Aksai Chinn are not insurmountable. They do not necessitate ongoing armed conflicts. Instead, a rational approach can lead to a mutually beneficial solution. They can sit down and say, what’s the best solution before us? Because there’s too much to be gained. The leadership in both countries demonstrated their motivation to transcend these disputes and collaborate during their dialogue in Johannesburg.

Now, let's consider the potential of this collaboration. It extends to high-tech sectors, but not enough, there's room for expansion. For instance, India could greatly benefit from access to China's cutting-edge technologies, especially in areas like railways. For poor country, rail is the main way of both moving people and goods. Given India's reliance on rail transport for both passengers and goods, a technological upgrade is essential. Indian rail has not been properly upgraded, even though India is trying to develop high-speed rail. India doesn’t have the extraordinary technology that China possesses. In this realm, no country has the technology China has right now, China stands unrivaled globally, with France being a notable exception in high-speed rail systems. The synergy between India and China could yield incredible results.

China, in turn, stands to gain substantially. India boasts complementary strengths, particularly in internet technology and software engineering. The collaboration potential between these two major countries, representing nearly half the world's population, is immense. As the global center of gravity shifts towards Asia, this partnership could further amplify Asia's influence. However, ongoing disputes serve as a roadblock, hindering the realization of Asia's true potential.

Capital News: Just as you said, as both India and China are members of G20 and BRICS group, how do you see the roles that these two countries play in BRICS cooperation? What impact does this cooperation have on the global economy and the governance system?

Vijay Prashad: This shift in India's stance is noteworthy. Until about a decade ago, India largely adhered to Western perspectives, particularly on political and economic matters. The country was a strong advocate for various forms of economic liberalization.

Similarly, China favored liberalization, albeit with careful capital controls in place to shield its financial markets from global speculative pressures. India too has protective measures, maintaining limits on full capital convertibility.

Until about 10 years ago, India was pretty much a champion of Neo-liberalism and globalization. However, there has been a notable shift in recent years. And it’s important. This transformation is being propelled by a new perspective within the Indian middle class, who have come to realize that India's close ties with the West haven't yielded substantial benefits. The West lacks the inclination and resources to make the investments needed for India's growth. So that change of mood is quite significant. And This shift in sentiment carries significant weight and resonates in institutions like the BRICS and the G20.

For not a long period, only around 5 or 6 years, the BRICS group was largely dormant. This dormancy is reflected in the limited progress of the New Development Bank, often referred to as the BRICS bank. Now Dilma Rousseff serves as the President of New Development Bank (NDB) based in Shanghai. For a considerable period, progress at NDB, such as the contingency reserve arrangement—an alternative to the International Monetary Fund—had stalled, almost lying dormant. Many pivotal BRICS institutions had faced setbacks, as countries like India and Brazil, under unfavorable circumstances, had largely distanced themselves from these initiatives.

The G20 had gradually morphed into a platform where the G7 wielded substantial influence over the remaining 13 nations, resembling more of a 'G7 plus' rather than a truly representative G20. However, a turning point came at the G20 meeting in Indonesia, and it's crucial to note that this year's G20 was hosted in India. For the next four years, the G20 will convene in BRICS countries, spanning from Brazil to South Africa—Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa. This extended presence in the Global South provides these nations with significant agenda-setting potential, and their priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the Western agenda.

There is a discernible shift underway. I don’t want to exaggerate this point. We must acknowledge and document this change. Both in the G20 and within the BRICS group, there's a renewed sense of vigor. The expansion of BRICS to include 11 members, bringing in countries like Ethiopia—a key country for the China-Africa initiative—and potentially Argentina, who knows what will happen in that election, but is nonetheless the second largest economy in South America after Brazil, is noteworthy. These are large economies and politically significant countries, even if they aren't originally part of the BRICS initiative. This prompts us to question: What does this transformation signify? It stems from a fresh perspective emanating from Delhi, Beijing, Pretoria, and Brazil. We must be careful in comprehending the shifts, understanding how these dynamics unfold.

Again, as you can see, I don’t like to exaggerate things. Progress is best achieved by cautiously navigating through challenges, much like feeling the stones as you cross a river. You have to go slowly, to move methodically and deliberately, rather than jumping over and proclaiming a significant change, especially when it comes to the new developments within BRICS. You can’t think as if you’re an advertising executive, you can’t just put billboards and slogans and neon lights and get excited. Instead, maintaining sober and analytical approach, scrutinizing the facts as they emerge, is of utmost importance.

Capital News: Do you think, given the current geopolitical scenario, there's a chance India might put aside its differences with China in diplomatic relations and participate in the 'Belt and Road' on terms it finds acceptable, without compromising its sovereignty?

Vijay Prashad: It’s a challenging situation, there’s a lot of work to be done both in India and China. This is not just in India, but both countries. I've written articles for Guangzhou media, and sometimes my friends read the comments, complaining that I make sense 'for an Indian' or 'this Indian blah, blah, blah.' There is a sense of distance in both countries. In China, India is seen as a faraway place, and the same goes for India regarding China. For god’s sake, it's worth noting that we actually share borders, which is precisely why there's a dispute. Additionally, we have Nepal situated in between, working diligently to bring India and China closer. The tensions between India and China have a direct impact on Nepal, Bhutan, and several other countries in the region. It impacts a lot of countries that’s sitting in between. It's imperative for both nations to not only establish political proximity, but also engage in cultural dialogues.

That’s important. And I think the meeting between China’s President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Modi was significant. They emphasized the need for a political conversation about maps, borders, and geography. However, cultural exchanges are equally vital. It’s striking to me when I travel in China, how little people in China know about India. Similarly, in India, when you travel in India, you will find that people are often uninformed about China. In both India and China, people tend to be more familiar with Europe and the United States than with each other. This is a regrettable consequence of colonial history, where there is limited awareness that just beyond the Himalayas lies a rich tapestry of civilizations. India itself is not a monolithic entity. It comprises hundreds of languages, with twenty-seven or twenty-eight recognized as official, alongside two main national languages, each with its own wealth of cultures, traditions, and history.

China, too, possesses a wealth of history, encompassing not only ancient times but also the revolutionary era. For instance, details about the Long March to Yunnan or the Jiangxi Soviet are often inaccessible to people in India due to cultural barriers. Overcoming this cultural divide is crucial. I contend that it's not solely about political leaders understanding the practical benefits of sharing complementarity, which is economically advantageous for both nations. There's a deep-seated cultural need that must be addressed. People won't truly welcome each other until there are cultural exchanges, more travel from China to India and vice versa.

When members of the Indian middle class visit China and experience the high-speed train from Shanghai to Beijing, they are invariably amazed. It's not just about the trains; it's also about the exchange between people. People need to get to know one another. I firmly believe that diplomacy extends beyond politics; it's about understanding each other. When a Chinese diplomat meets me, I recognize that they approach interactions from a different perspective. While I may speak candidly, others may exercise caution, seeking to build trust through understanding. This cultural bridge must be constructed gradually, much like feeling the stones while crossing a river. Some of these stones are in our politics, while others are cultural. You can’t jump over the river.

Therefore, I'm hesitant to make claims like 'in six months, we can resolve the border dispute and everything will be fine.' We may indeed reach some form of understanding or memorandum of understanding regarding the border dispute, hopefully within three, six, or twelve months. I can't say for certain if diplomats are currently engaged in discussions behind closed doors, but I sincerely hope that's the case.

While such progress is welcome, it's not the end-all-be-all. India boasts extraordinary people. Where do they go for holidays? Often, the Indian middle class aspires to visit Europe or Thailand, but they may not immediately consider a trip to China. Similarly, it would be intriguing to examine the numbers of tourists from China visiting India and vice versa. I suspect the figures may not be very high, though I can't say for certain.

Capital News: China's development path is a topic of global discussion today. Many countries appreciate China's development approach, while some portray it as a so-called "expansionist nation." How do you perceive China's role? What is your perspective on China's image and influence in Asia and globally?

Vijay Prashad: One thing I can say for sure is that in terms of global communication, and media influence, the West continues to hold a dominant position. Nobody really is able to contest. CNN, for instance, can effectively challenge the New York Times. Their capacity to drive an agenda is remarkable, partly due to their control over satellites and the internet. A significant portion of the web is essentially owned by Western entities. Language plays a role as well. Even when Western media produces content in languages like French, it quickly finds its way into English. On the Chinese side, we often refer to the 'Great Wall of Mandarin.' China has indeed made strides by developing its own social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat.

This disparity extends not only to official media outlets, which boast large viewerships, but also to the narrative itself. CNN's viewership far surpasses that of international channels like CGTN or RT. The West has been remarkably successful in constructing hardware and networks to dominate the communication landscape. An interesting fact is that Elon Musk, through his company, personally owns more satellites than the entire government of China. This raises pertinent questions that deserve examination.

Moreover, the issue of culture and building one's own networks is crucial. For example, a statement by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken or Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen regarding Chinese expansion in Africa, even using inappropriate terms like 'colonialism,' can resonate not just in Western media but also in African outlets. This highlights the magnitude of Western influence over global communication.

One aspect that warrants serious consideration in understanding global affairs is this communication shortfall. It's intriguing to observe instances where Western media companies, faced with situations like the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, struggle to maintain a narrative favoring one side. Recently, Queen Rania of Jordan spoke with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, unequivocally stating that the situation amounts to apartheid and criticizing Israel's barbaric actions. The Israeli government should not be defended on this. Even CNN had to air this perspective, given her position as the Queen of Jordan. It illustrates that sometimes, the narrative becomes too challenging to control.

On the other hand, that’s the reason why countries like China, Indonesia and India, whatever tries to build their own communications networks. Granted, there are internal challenges. I understand that. When private Chinese businesses invest in regions like Africa, misinformation sometimes prevails. Terms like 'private investment,' 'parastatal investment,' or even 'government investment' can be misleading. There are various players involved, including provincial investments. An isolated incident, like a poorly managed ceramics factory, can unjustly taint the perception of all Chinese investments. It’s very unfair. The way things are portrayed that has to do with this grip over communications. Addressing this narrative gap is crucial. We don't currently have a truly democratic global communication system. Whether it can be easily rectified remains uncertain.

During my visit to some media Beijing, enormous building is huge, with thousands of people working there, I was struck by the sheer scale of the operation. However, it’s not a question of numbers of people working there, how many satellites you have? it's about the story being told. What is the story that you're telling? Is it unbelievable story?

For years, there were claims circulating about the Chinese-built port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, being a 'debt trap.' However, US-based academics published an article in the Atlantic Magazine after conducting a careful examination of the situation. They reviewed all the evidence and concluded that it wasn't a case of debt trap diplomacy. The Chinese had advised the Sri Lankan government to take the money in two installments: first, to build part of the port and generate a profit from it, then use those earnings to fund the remainder.

Unfortunately, at that time, the Sri Lankan government insisted on taking the entire sum at once, which led to complications. This incident was not an example of Chinese debt trap diplomacy, but rather a result of poor judgment on the part of the Sri Lankan government.

I remember another story from Bloomberg that claimed Chinese loans to build airports in Delhi and Uganda were causing financial difficulties for the respective governments. Bloomberg suggested that China might seize Uganda's only international airport. I took it upon myself to contact the Ugandan government and speak to people in Uganda. In my subsequent piece, I clarified that this narrative was not accurate. According to the Ugandan government, they hadn't scrutinized the contract closely enough. Furthermore, there was no intention on China's part to take over the airport. Instead, it was an unfavorable deal that Uganda had entered into. The question arose: why did they agree to such terms? No one had coerced them. As they explained, they hadn't paid sufficient attention to the specifics of the loan, which stipulated repayment in China rather than Uganda. They could have insisted on an arrangement more favorable to their own country. The responsibility for this lapse lay with Uganda, not China. Despite this, Bloomberg's story had already spread widely, perpetuating the misconception that China was seizing the airport.

This lack of a democratic communication system in the world makes it challenging for countries like China, and it's not an issue exclusive to China alone. Any country attempting to pursue a different path faces similar obstacles. This hinders their ability to present their initiatives accurately, as the Western narrative often prevails due to its dominant position in global communication. The West can shape narratives to suit their agenda, as seen in instances like the so-called “China taking away an airport ” and “debt trap diplomacy” in Sri Lanka and so on. While there may be elements of truth in these stories, such as the bad deal in Uganda, they are often blown out of proportion.

Even on the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, I have yet to come across a balanced reflection in Western press. Both the BBC and other outlets failed to provide an objective assessment of the initiative. Crucial questions remain unanswered: What exactly is the Belt and Road Initiative? How much money is involved? Is it benefiting countries in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan? Has it made a positive impact on these struggling nations?

Moreover, what impact could the Belt and Road Initiative have on Afghanistan? Could it potentially influence the Taliban's policies if infrastructure like a train link were established? A nuanced evaluation of the Belt and Road Initiative is essential. Every human-made agenda has its flaws, but a balanced, rational assessment is imperative. Exaggerating issues or misrepresenting them only serves to hinder productive dialogue.

At present, we do not have an effective global communications order in place. The current news landscape often falls short, lacking the necessary depth and intelligence. Those who dominate the airwaves are more inclined to incite emotions rather than educate. Communication should be about enlightenment. It doesn't have to be dull, but it should serve as a platform for learning, discussion, and the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, that's often not the case.

Global Rebalancing Hinges on the Progress of China and India

Capital News: In the world of East and West, India has always been hesitant to take sides. Is it because India doesn't want to be a pawn, even if it means being the decisive one, but rather desires to be the player?

Vijay Prashad: That’s an interesting question. It’s actually difficult to answer, primarily due to the diverse political orientations India has witnessed over the last 30 to 40 years. Before the current government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which is positioned on the right end of the political spectrum, India had a center-left government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for over 8 years. This naturally gave rise to a different governmental ethos. During Manmohan Singh's tenure, he played a pivotal role in India's engagement with the BRICS process and demonstrated a keen interest in establishing an alternative financial framework.

Manmohan Singh's involvement in these initiatives can be traced back to his time as the Secretary of the South Commission, based in Geneva, Switzerland, under the leadership of figures like Julius Nyerere. Together, they authored a significant report contemplating how the Global South could navigate beyond the setbacks of the development agenda. During this period, India was actually quite indeed in the creation of the BRICS and so on.

Simultaneously, India maintained strategic ties with the United States. However, Dr. Manmohan Singh also initiated dialogues with the Chinese government, fostering connections with Gulf nations, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others. This underscores that India wasn't detached from the broader Asian narrative. When Narendra Modi assumed office in 2014, there was initially a noticeable detachment from the BRICS agenda and related initiatives.

Recent events, particularly the conflict in Ukraine, have accelerated shifts in Indian diplomacy. When the conflict in Ukraine arose, the United States pressed countries like India to support their stance on Ukraine, back NATO, and provide arms to Ukraine. India found itself in a quandary, asserting its longstanding relationship with Russia and resisting external directives. You can’t tell us what to do. India's Foreign Minister, Jaishankar, was pretty straightforward about this. Thus, the Ukraine crisis catalyzed changes in Indian foreign policy, prompting closer ties with Asian nations. This period has witnessed an interesting phase of readjustment.

To answer your question, it's imperative to consider historical developments. Moreover, the future remains uncertain. With Western countries beginning to withdraw, the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election could be pivotal. What if Trump returns to power? What if Ron DeSantis wins the election? A shift to the right in the U.S. could lead to a partial withdrawal. Europe, anyway, is in deep crisis over the war in Ukraine, NATO countries are in deep crisis. This provides an opportunity for India. Will India open up a new dialogue with other Global South countries? Will India take initiative in order to create a new linkage with countries in Latin America? We don’t know. We have to see what I think I’m looking forward to.

Allow me to reiterate, the progress of global rebalancing hinges on India and China finding common ground and overcoming longstanding issues. Since the dialogue between Zhou Enlai and Nehru in the 1950s, the nature of the India-China relationship has been a critical question. Back then, the slogan in India was “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” — Indians and Chinese are brothers. This sentiment held in the 1950s. Even if we can return to a semblance of that sentiment, it would be a significant step. It's about opening doors. But I really want to emphasize, especially for our friends in China, that until India and China settle these issues, we won't transition into the new era. We'll remain in this interim period between a Western-dominated world order and the potential emergence of a new era centered around Asia. To realize a future where Asia is the center of gravity of the world, we must first resolve these disputes between India and China.

Capital News: We’ve noticed that in the recent G20 summit, India ultimately stood with the BRICS nations against the G7. Looking ahead, how will 'Player India' make its move? Will it join a more economically powerful East, or a politically dominant West?

Vijay Prashad: I think the question itself is quite interesting, because I think it appears that the West's political dominance may not be long-lasting. In fact, I believe that this shift has already occurred. When it comes to the egregious Israeli bombardment of the Palestinians, the west is not able to get countries, even Gulf Arab countries to agree with the western position. While figures like Giorgia Meloni and Joe Biden may align themselves with Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, it's unlikely that we'll witness African leaders echoing this stance. The west has lost its political tempo in the global south, and that's simply the current reality. So, India doesn't find itself compelled to make a binary choice. Instead, it should chart its own course.

Right now, I’m afraid to say there’s a little bit of confusion. The current Indian government appears somewhat unsure about the new opportunities unfolding in the world. It's holding on to a pro-US disposition, despite asserting that it won't take directives from anyone.

And in many ways, this Indian government is pretty happy when Washington tells it what to do. This reliance on external guidance needs to be broken. India shouldn't be taking orders from the United States, shouldn't be taking orders from Japan, shouldn't be taking orders from China, it should be taking its cues from its own people. That’s the point of having a modern society. China doesn’t pick up the phone and ask other country what should I do? China’s government looks to the Chinese people to discern their wants and needs. China has to be driven by the Chinese people, not some outside power.

The Indian government, to some extent, still seems to defer to the West to determine what's deemed appropriate. Sometimes in public, they say we are not with you, but largely this government doesn’t have the courage to hang the foreigner and look out of the window, to see what your people need. There's a reluctance to wholeheartedly prioritize the aspirations of their own populace. It's abundantly clear that a country as vast as India—with a population now surpassing China's—must grapple with the issue of poverty. The solution to this challenge isn't going to be handed down from Washington, D.C. Frankly, the United States itself is witnessing a rise in poverty rates, not a decrease. This is a point that I believe warrants careful consideration.