Age of Reason: Imperialism and Vedic Wisdom

First Published as

“Age of Reason: Imperialism and Vedic Wisdom”, 16 Rounds to Samadhi, San Diego, California, 12 December 2012. http://www.16rounds.com/2012/12/age-of-reason/ (defunct)

Saurav Sarmah

There is no age of reason. It is an imperialist construct. The so-called ‘age of reason’ actually is the age of imperialism. Imperialism is a highly discriminatory and exploitative system. It can be distinguished, in the scale of human suffering, from the earlier distorted systems like slave-owning city-states, followed by classical empires (Mediterranean), imperial Confucianism and neo Confucianism (Far East), mysticism-ritualism-casteism (Indian sub-continent), church-feudal diarchy (Medieval Europe), Islamic theocracies and autocracies (Middle East), and many forms of tribalism, animism, and paganism. It is the most in-egalitarian, unjust and illiberal, and also the bloodiest age in human history. The irony is that the unimagined scale of discrimination, exploitation, and suffering has been achieved, not only through coercion, but also blind participation of the victims.

Imperialism was born when mercantile capitalism of the white race, from the 16th to 18th century, armed with scientific inventions, borrowed from the Orient like compass (for navigation or looting), gunpowder (for warfare or killing), printing (for proselytization or religious enslavement), and decimal numbers (for calculating the scale of looting, killing, and enslavement), subjugated the other races, exterminating the red, enslaving the black, impoverishing the brown, and harassing the yellow. The three centuries of banditry enriched the new Occidental elite, the merchants and lawyers.

Technology, organization, and mass hysteria became the weapons of the new elite in the 19th century, as they refined and systematized the methods of exploitation, developing industrial capitalism. Industries were fed by the indigenous white labor and the raw-materials produced in white settlements or non-white colonies. The wealth began to flow from the periphery (colonies) to the core (industrial centers), impoverishing the once developed Oriental and pre-American civilizations. This evident form of barbarism was self-labeled as the only civilization through cultural hegemony.

At the end of the 19th century (Victorian age), the imperialist project encompassed the entire earth. The scale and intensity of exploitation necessitated the emergence of banks, stock markets, and paper currency. Speculation became the most lucrative avenue to amass wealth. Finance capitalism was led by large corporations and international bankers. Industries used assembly lines for mass production and advertisement was used to encourage consumerism. It was a period of great human miseries involving two world wars, the Great Depression, Holocaust, genocides, ethnic and racial riots, xenophobic violence, atomic warfare, famines, et cetera. Communism took advantage of the horrible effects produced by capitalist greed, lust, and competition, promising a utopian dream based on the same principle of materialism. It created further imperialism (Soviet empire), wars, genocides, famines and exploitation.

The devastation of the first half of the 20th century exposed the weaknesses of imperialism. The colonized elite turned against its colonial masters. Third World nationalism adopted the modernization principle, whether in the form of capitalist democracy, socialist authoritarianism, or mixed economic-political system. What followed was a new type of imperialism: indirect, consensual, gradual, subtle, cultural, and spiritual. Capitalism entered the phase of interdependency (among the imperialist powers) and dependency (of the subjugated nations). The imperial powers (the white West) remained the core, the Third World industrial and commercial centers became the semi-periphery and the vast hinterland (where the overwhelming majority of the population, say 90% resided) was the periphery, totally deprived of its self-sufficient, traditional economic, social, and political structures. On the other hand, the communist elite, cut off from the imperialist metropolis, preferred autarky and mutual co-operation, but squeezed to the last drop the sweat and blood of the peasants and unorganized working class to maintain their bureaucratic hegemony and utopian five-year plans. The Cold War created a new military-industrial complex, which led to vertical and horizontal proliferation of lethal weapons, profiting the imperialists and causing numerous wars and genocides in the Third World. Modernization destroyed the cultural fabric of all nations, leading to commoditization of women and destruction of stable families (in the name of feminism), ruination of social harmony, increasing prostitution, drug abuse, intoxication, criminalization and corruption, loss of support for the orphaned, aged and disabled, et cetera. Finally, the ecological balance was irreversibly damaged, the natural resources were depleted, the entire living space was polluted (through fertilizers, pesticides, industrial waste, carbon emissions), and numerous species of flora and fauna were exterminated.

The 1970s was a period of great turmoil due to unsustainability of state-centric neo-imperialism, which lost support even in the imperialist countries where the traditional society was totally uprooted. An age of extremes set in. On the one hand, radical values like teenage sex, abortion rights, homosexuality, nudity, pornography, et cetera, became more acceptable; on the other hand, religious fundamentalism re-emerged to salvage the remaining traces of human civilization. Governments issued currencies, no longer backed by any hard assets, and maintained huge budget deficits simply by printing notes (in developed and emerging economies reliant on crude-oil imports). Individuals, corporations, and nations became so entangled in consumerism that they carried debts to maintain a modern lifestyle. This was an unstable period in history for the masses, with financial crises occurring every few years.

We live in a hierarchical, hegemonic, and neo-imperialist global order. Globalization, privatization, and informatization processes have led to the creation of a new globalist elite, totally separated from its cultural roots. The Western elite are at the top, with control over the information and communication industries, global financial corporations, high-tech production, and popular brands. Among the emerging economies, China is the factory of the world and India the international BPO, while others, like Russia and Saudi Arabia, are suppliers of precious energy resources. Australia is an exporter of agricultural goods. Most countries are subsistence economies, relying on whatever incentives they have for earning a living, like agriculture, animal-rearing, mining, or tourism.

Disparities of culture and affluence are quite strong. A management professional lives an extravagant lifestyle, while a farmer is forced to commit suicide due to perpetual debt. The globalist elite of bankers, industrialists, and media barons are assisted by organic intellectuals and professionals to maintain this repressive system. Meanwhile, the middle class struggles day and night to save some money, so that their children may get modern education to join the organic class. The vast majority lives with almost no opportunity to rise on the economic ladder.

Contemporary Homo sapiens have become dependent on their senses, carried away by consumption, which is far beyond any rational calculation, and is devastating the biosphere and exploiting their fellow species. The system of exploitation has become very sophisticated, with the exploiters always claiming high moral ground. Let us discuss some examples:

1. The elite and their organic servants murder billions of animals everyday for satisfying their palate.

2. They maintain large philanthropic foundations to help the hapless, whose needs are created by them. Without them, the villages would be self-sustaining units and there would be no urban slums and impoverished migrant workers. They have even forced the governments to stop funding schools and hospitals and subsidizing agriculture. As a result, people have become needy and they offer some token gift to earn a name as a philanthropist.

3. The tobacco and alcohol companies package and advertise their products as health hazards, yet sell it to the public for huge profits.

4. People are allured to consume junk like beer, energy drinks, fast food, etc.

5. China maintains a firewall that stops unwanted cyber intrusion into its society, while other governments feign helplessness as children are fed on pornography, violence, and unsocial values.

6. People are victimizing themselves by becoming attached to modern gadgets and edibles that ruin their immune system and make them dependent, when they could easily do without them.

7. Women are enticed to abandon the family and home commitments, so that the elite and the organic class can satisfy their unholy desires. Although promised the moon, many women end up in positions which exploit their sexuality for corporate gains.

Given the plethora of deleterious events in history, as of late and old, which stem from the elitist attitude, we can undoubtedly conclude that a change in paradigm is necessary. Greed and lust, the impetus for wanting to exploit nature and people, cannot engender solace at any level. A more compassionate approach must be taken that accounts for the invaluable intricacies of the world around us, then a genuine ‘age of reason‘ might ensue.

A Report on the Indian Think Tank Delegation to China, December 2015

First Published as

“A Report on the Indian Think Tank Delegation to China, December 2015”, BRICS Institute Online, New Delhi, 11 February 2016.

http://bricsonline.org/index.php/2015-09-04-11-20-43/latest-articles/item/28-a-report-on-the-indian-think-tank-delegation-to-china-december-2015#sthash

Saurav Sarmah

An Indian think tank delegation was invited by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in India and hosted by the China Foreign Affairs University (CFAU) to Beijing and Shanghai from 15 December to 22 December 2015. The delegation consisted of 28 participants from the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), Forum for Strategic Initiatives (FSI) and National Maritime Foundation (NMF), headed by Brigadier Vinod Anand. Interactions were held with various Chinese universities and think tanks – China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), CFAU, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), Tsinghua University, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS) and Fudan University along with meetings with senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), PRC.

The main themes of the discussions were the rise of China in the Asia-Pacific region replacing the United States, its efforts to set up multilateral mechanism of One Belt One Road (OBOR) for development of the region and India’s concerns about the OBOR, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and China’s strategic objectives in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. There were also deliberations on China’s concerns about the strategic partnership of India, Japan and the United States (US) and India’s role in the South China Sea. Besides, a considerable time was spent on finding a common ground on countering Islamic terrorism. The boundary dispute and other contentious issues like Jammu and Kashmir, Tibet and transnational rivers found place only as isolated remarks or queries.

Beijing

The Chinese participants led by Prof Ruan Zongze, Vice-President of CIIS argued strongly that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was an initiative to undermine the emerging economies or the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and so India should shed its hesitation and join the OBOR that would benefit the entire Asia-Pacific region. He believed that it would not serve India’s interests to negotiate a deal with the US within the TPP framework. Instead, the BCIM (Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar) project of the OBOR would be more consistent with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Act East Policy and India’s strategic and economic objectives. The Indian delegation replied that India has multiple concerns about OBOR and unless China clarifies the objectives and the roadmap of OBOR, it will be very difficult to commit to the China-led mechanism. As far as relations with the US are concerned, India pursues an independent foreign policy, not centred on China, just as China has its separate relations with the US. Indeed, India also is not enthused when concepts like G2 are proposed for a US-China dual hegemony. Both sides, however, were positive about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), India, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. RCEP could be a counter-weight to TPP if it gets finalised and approved by all the partners.

In CFAU, our delegation met Prof Qin Yaqin, President of CFAU, after which we had a separate symposium on OBOR, Asian Connectivity and Regional Integration. The Chinese side was led by Prof Wei Ling, Director of Institute for Asian Studies, CFAU. Different aspects of OBOR and other regional mechanisms like RCEP, Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) and South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) were discussed and the need for greater co-operation was asserted by both sides. The Chinese side justified the lack of clarity on OBOR as a policy of ‘crossing the river by groping the stones’, i.e. according to the evolution of regional situation and interests, OBOR would acquire its characteristics. Nevertheless, OBOR is intended to promote connectivity and development of the Western region of China that, unlike the Eastern region with access to open seas and rich neighbours, requires state support for economic development. The Chinese side also argued that there are many non-traditional security challenges like climate change and terrorism requiring co-operation and partnership among all countries in the region. Moreover, there is diffusion of power and interdependence in a globalised world order, rendering the concepts of multipolarity and balance of power redundant. So, the American rebalancing strategy (previously, Pivot to Asia) is impractical, India should shed its scepticism and become a partner in OBOR. When the Indian side raised concerns about common terrorist threat to India and China from Islamic terrorism emanating from Pakistan, the reluctance of China to criticise Pakistan and resolve the boundary dispute with India, the Chinese side held that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism and China cannot jeopardise its ‘all-weather friendship’ for some minor terrorist incidents and advised India to resolve its disputes with Pakistan through dialogue. It also termed the boundary dispute with India as a minor issue hyped by the Indian media. Prof Su Hao (CFAU) was also present in the symposium. He proposed three levels of engagement between China and India – multilateral, triangular and two plus one. The multilateral engagement includes regional organisations such as RCEP, SCO and SAARC. The triangular engagement involves partnership of both China and India with another country. For instance, Japan invests both in China and India and that is a win-win-win situation. China should not perceive Japan-India partnership as a threat; instead compete with Japan for business opportunities in India. The two plus one engagement means that both countries should have joint foreign policies in neighbouring countries like Nepal, Myanmar and Afghanistan, where China and India have common interests, to avoid misunderstanding and unhealthy competition.

In CICIR, we had a symposium with a Chinese delegation led by Dr Wang Shida, the Vice Director of Institute of South Asian, Southeast Asian and Oceanic Studies, CICIR on Political and Security Situations in South Asia and Sino-Indian Relations. Discussions centred around the scope for increasing soft power co-operation through people to people contacts, joint film projects and media coverage of each other. The Chinese side enumerated the main problems as the lack of progress in the resolution of the border dispute, military capacity building in the border areas, India’s conflict with Pakistan, strategic partnership of India, US and Japan and India’s activities in the South China Sea. The Indian side emphasised that as far as India-China relations are concerned, there has been lot of progress in trade, multilateralism and culture, but there is serious mistrust in border dispute, military deployment in the border areas, China-Pakistan relations, especially the CPEC related activities in the disputed territory of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and military and nuclear technology transfer to Pakistan and China’s reluctance to criticise cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. On the South China Sea, the Indian side clarified that 55 per cent of India’s trade passes through the area and hence India has interests in the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. On China’s perception of the constitutional crisis in Nepal, the Chinese side replied that China has three principles – non-interference in the domestic affairs, management of Tibetan political activities and economic support.

Prof Yan Xuetong, the Dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University explained that they have developed a Tsinghua Approach to International Relations (IR), applying ancient Chinese thought, modern IR theory, scientific methodology and the experience of China’s rise. The central puzzle is that although China is deficient in comparison to the US due to democracy deficit, economic imbalance and military weakness, how China has reduced the power gap with the US in the last 10-15 years. To solve the puzzle, the IR scholars at Tsinghua have developed the theory of Moral Realism. Morality means the national political leadership should be responsible, reliable and goal-oriented, learning from the national conditions, not borrowing ideas from the hegemon. In the last 10-15 years, China has had the moral leadership of the Communist Party that has both strength and good ideas, but the US has suffered from inconsistent leadership, with President George W. Bush who was strong, but had bad ideas and President Barack H. Obama who has good ideas, but is weak. That is a contrast from the strong and smart leadership of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Realism means the international power structure determines the status of a nation and conflict among nations and balance of power strategies are the unchangeable realities of international politics. There is no final solution to conflict and power politics, only conflict management to avoid full-scale wars. Thus, co-operation can only be conditional and there can be no compromise on core interests, for instance China would never accept the independence of Taiwan, the US would not allow non-peaceful integration of Taiwan to China and so, the status quo is the only way to avoid war.

Our delegation had representations from realist, liberal and postmodern perspectives. From the realist perspective, the question was whether India had to choose between American hegemony and Sinocentric order in Asia-Pacific and what situation may emerge in the coming decades – strategic balance, i.e. economic interdependence keeps political friction under control; ‘dragon fire’, i.e. the US returns to isolation and China prevails; or fragile China, i.e. China’s economic downturn creates a power vacuum and India emerges as a strategic balancer. The liberal argument was that the global governance institutions have inherent deficiencies and biases originating in the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, where the Anglo-American strategists had entrenched their hegemony. So, the important question is whether alternative institutions developed by the emerging economies, e.g. New Development Bank (NDB) and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) would be more inclusive and equitable or the same power interests would prevail. The postmodern problem was that in the great power politics between China and India, the minority communities residing in the Himalayan Region get marginalised and their language and culture are on the verge of extinction. Therefore, the enquiry was if the Tsinghua Approach had any solution to such problems. Another issue was the possibility of India and China working together to develop civilisational universalism based on the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. The response of Prof Yan was that neither the isolation of the US nor the decline of China was a possibility in the next decade. Hence, there would be bipolarity in the Asia-Pacific. India should in its national interest revive non-alignment and extract maximum benefits from both the US and China. It will not be possible for India to emerge as a separate pole unless it gains a moral leadership that can make it strong and rich, which is impossible as it has a system of government not rooted in Indian conditions. On globalisation, Prof Yan stated that it was a process of the rich, by the rich and for the rich and the poor are incapable of resisting it, so they will remain marginalised and the gap between rich and poor cannot be removed. On the emerging economies, he said that BRICS is an unreal term because Russia and Brazil are shrinking economies, India and South Africa have too many problems and it is not possible for China to revive these economies or solve their problems. He predicted that BRICS will cease to exist by 2023. On the Tsinghua Approach, he explained Moral Realism and then mentioned that every country should develop its local IR theory rooted in its traditions because country suffering from identity crisis can never develop moral leadership. However, it is inefficient for great powers to concentrate on marginal issues, so these issues will always be at the periphery of international politics.

Shanghai

In Shanghai, there were two symposiums – one at SIIS on World Counter-Terrorism Situation and Global Governance with the Chinese team led by Prof Chen Dongxiao, President of SIIS and the other at Fudan University on Asia Pacific Situations and Relations between China, US and India with Prof Shen Dingli, Vice President of the School of International Studies, Fudan University. In SIIS, Prof Zhao Gancheng, Director of the Center of Asia-Pacific Studies spoke on counter-terrorism and stressed the need for India and China to co-operate to tackle both the terrorist infrastructure and ideology. Prof Ye Jiang, Director of the Institute for Global Governance Studies addressed the global governance issues and how India and China could engage at various levels. The Indian side also made presentations, which were followed by questions and answers. In Fudan University, Prof Shen Dingli stressed the necessity of changing the perception of Indians and Chinese towards one another. He admitted that India was a great civilisation with 8000 years of antiquity, a civilisation that has remained in the right side of history and to which China owes a lot of debt. In that spirit of broad-mindedness, he advocated that China should follow the Gujral Doctrine, i.e. China should unilaterally give concessions to India, for instance in the boundary dispute and that would generate tremendous goodwill for China in the hearts of Indians. China should also endorse India’s relations with the US and Japan and use India’s good offices to mend relations with them.

Thus, the visit gave our delegation insights into the diverse foreign policy perspectives in China, helped us establish contacts with important scholars in the foreign policy research community and contribute to the dialogue process between India and China.