Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Cognitive dissonance- 4

Continuing from last week

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

My takeaway from Putin’s interview

Recently, an interview (watch here or read here) with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trending in the media worldwide. In this two-hour seventeen minute long interview, President Putin touched upon many important issues concerning global economics and geopolitics. Experts from the world over are analyzing the interview from multiple angles, e.g., strategic, political, geopolitics, economics, etc. Most analysis I have come across is deeply biased. The starting point of most comments is the trustworthiness of President Putin. Most Western analysts seem to be rejecting Putin’s assertions as mere propaganda; while the analysts from Eastern and Southern analysts are using the contents of the interview to justify their opinions about the US agencies (deep state) and NATO.

Thursday, November 30, 2023

Conquering the guilt and normalizing

 Last year, the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated while he was addressing a public meeting. This is perhaps the first of its kind of act of violence since assassination of Inejirō Asanuma, the then Chairman of the Japan Socialist Party, in 1960. The visuals of Abe’s assassination may have shattered the image of Japan, most people would be carrying in their mind, viz., the image of most courteous people showing remarkable patience and calmness in their public behavior.

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Winds of change

In the past 6 years, several significant events have occurred that would shape the new global order in the next decade or two. I would particularly like to mention the following ten events that in my view could potentially prove to be transformative for the global order:

1.    Incorporation of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. (2017)

2.    Abolition of time limits, allowing Xi Jinping to remain General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and chairman of the Central Military Commission for life. (2018) (After winning an overwhelming majority in the 2020 elections, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also eligible to stay in office until 2036.)

3.    The Exit of the UK from the common European market (the EU) (2017-2020); and the elevation of the first non-white person (Rishi Sunak) to the office of Prime Minister of the UK in 2022.

4.    The beginning of the latest round of trade war between the US and China. (2018)

5.    The tariff war between the EU and US. (2018)

6.    The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, allegedly from a laboratory in Wuhan province of China, and consequent breakdown of global supply chains. (2020)

7.    Exit of the US forces from Afghanistan, handing over the regime to the Taliban (2021)

8.    Invasion of Ukraine by Russia and subsequent economic sanctions on Russia. (2022)

9.    Signing of a strategic partnership agreement between China and Saudi Arabia (2022)

10. Massive attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas and subsequent retaliation by Israeli defense forces killing thousands in Palestinian territory in the Gaza Strip. The attack divided the world with Western allies extending support to Israel and Russia, China, and Arab League nations uniting in support of Palestine. (2023)

I feel that each of the above-stated events, along with many other events occurring simultaneously, has added to the momentum of change in the global order that had been in existence since the early 1970s.

It may still be early days to project how the new world order would look like. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the global economy may get a significant impetus from the rebalancing. The realignment of trade balances; localization of manufacturing; redistribution of population; and renewed focus on finding/developing new materials, technologies, and methods to promote sustainability may usher in a new industrial revolution.

Notwithstanding the labor pain that the transition would inevitably entail, the new world order would be much better, as has always been the case.

I think young investors need to evaluate the recent events and their likely impact on their investment strategies. I would be happy to share my thoughts on these events in the coming weeks.

Wednesday, November 16, 2022

Politico-economic ideologies slithering in obscurity

 In my view, we have entered a phase in world history where the politico-economic ideologies, e.g., free market, socialism, communism etc., have lost their theoretical context. In a significantly large number of countries the ruling parties and their leaders are not particular about adhering to their core ideologies. The voter base of the parties also appears to be divided on the basis of current issues rather than the core ideologies.

The sharp rise in socio-economic inequalities across the ‘democratic world’ has made the bulging bottom of the socio-economic pyramid even more attractive from ‘popular vote’ perspectives; and the thinnest ever top of the pyramid the most attractive from election funding and corruption purposes.

We are, therefore, witnessing (i) a larger role of governments in the economies; (ii) deeper influence of large corporates in the matters of economics and geopolitics; and (iii) preference for stronger (egotist; fascist; ultranationalist; hardliner whatever you prefer to call them) leaders who could be hailed as superhero – taxing the rich (mostly middle classes) and providing for the poor. It would be interesting to see what shape this opportunist politico-economic ideology finally acquires to become a legitimate widely acceptable political practice.

The Wikipedia page describing “Political Parties in the United States”, incidentally provides a good historical context to the latest transition in the global politico-economic order. It, inter alia, reads as follows:

“The first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address. The Founders “did not believe in parties as such, scorned those that they were conscious of as historical models, had a keen terror of party spirit and its evil consequences," but Richard Hofstadter wrote, "almost as soon as their national government was in operation, found it necessary to establish parties.”

In the past 150+ years the two dominant parties have changed their ideologies and base of support considerably but kept their names. The Democratic party, that in the aftermath of the Civil War was an agrarian pro-states-rights, anti-civil rights, pro-easy money, anti-tariff, anti-bank, coalition of Jim Crow "Solid South", Western small farmers, along with budding labor unions and Catholic immigrants; has evolved into what is as of 2020, a strongly pro-civil rights party, disproportionately composed of women, LGBT, union members, and urban, educated, younger, non-white voters. Over the same period the Republican Party has gone from being the dominant American "Grand Old Party" of business large and small, skilled craftsmen, clerks, professionals and freed African Americans, based especially in the industrial northeast; to a right-wing/conservative party loyal to Donald Trump, disproportionately composed of family businesses, less educated, older, rural, southern, religious, and white working class voters. Along with this realignment, political and ideological polarization has increased, norms have deteriorated, leading to greater tension and "deadlock" in attempts to pass ideologically controversial bills. (emphasis supplied)”

In the context of Indian politics, we see that all socialist parties have become feudal; BJP that started as a party of middle class upper caste businessmen and Hindu nationalists is winning elections on “social welfare program” agenda; the left of center Congress is striving hard to establish its Hindu credentials and Hardline Hindu Shiv Sena is preaching secularism.

The Indian National Congress which started with the Leninist concept of planned economy driven mainly through public sector; inserted the word “socialist” in the preamble of the Constitution of India”; curtailed free speech by imposing national emergency ended up as a strong votary of disinvestment of public sector; right to information; free trade and larger role for private sector.

BJP gained power on the promise of “less government” and is affording more power to the government; stifling transparency and free speech; has not pursued privatization in the past 8yrs of rule. ``Free ration”, “cheap (free) medicine” and cash subsidies have been its primary campaign slogans in most of the recent elections. The party with difference is now happy to be led by a strong leader who has vowed to destroy all its opponents.

Socialist parties like BSP, SP, RJD, LJP, TMC etc. have mostly become fiefdoms of leading families and appear more feudal in their conduct than anybody else.

The middle class people raised their voice against the rampant corruption of the Congress led UPA government leading to a nationwide movement that resulted in the birth of Aam Aadmi Party. The same party is now seen as a party of the poor financed by corrupt businessmen. Some of its leaders are facing allegations of serious corruption and communal rioting. Most professionals who enthusiastically joined the party have deserted it alleging lack of internal democracy and autocratic ways of the top leadership.

The traditional ideologies like free market, socialism, communism etc. have absolutely no role to play in the Indian politico-economic paradigm. The global transition might also have some reverberation in India also. However, insofar as the latest round of elections is concerned the results would hardly change anything in the broader context. Congress has nothing to lose in these elections; though stakes are high for both AAP and BJP. There could be some setbacks for both.

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Look for a Hitler near you

In the past two years, the quintessential argumentative Indian in me, like most of my fellow countrymen, has assumed “expert” status in many diverse fields such as Virology, Epidemiology, Medicine, Macroeconomics, Geopolitics, Defense strategy, nuclear weaponry, History etc. This is besides the Politics, Spirituality, Religion, Astrology and Memelogy (the art and science of making jokes for every important and serious issue) which have been the domains of our expertise for a long time.

Recently, we have been discussing (or trying to direct, if you will) the geopolitical and war strategies of Europe. The government of India may have chosen to stay neutral in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine; but the people have taken sides. More than the countries, we are taking sides of the leaders - The Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Supporters of Putin are mostly playing the “old friendship” card. They are vehemently arguing that Russia is our old and tested friend, while Ukraine has always opposed us at UN and other international fora. It is therefore appropriate for Indians to support the Russians in this war. In their argument, they are happy to omit the issues of human rights; wide scale destruction of civil infrastructure; plight of foreigners caught in the crossfire; and the suffering of the poor in Eastern Europe and Africa who were already suffering from the effects of the pandemic and are now facing food shortages and prohibitive inflation. They are also missing the point that in their support for Russia, they are also (even if unwittingly) supporting a war that has the potential to become a much wider conflict involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. These people are also not recognizing the very close Ukrainian connection of at least three of the USSR premiers (Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev) who had taken our side at the time of Goa liberation and Bangladesh independence.

The supporters of Zelenskyy are mostly concerned with the hardships that the common Ukrainians are facing in this war of the unequal. They feel that the acts committed by Russia are a violation of human rights and international laws. By extending their moral support to Ukraine, these people are in fact glamourizing war. They are happy to share pictures of the Ukrainian women in uniform carrying guns and Zelenskyy sharing meals with soldiers. Many of these supporters are just cheering for an underdog, as if it were a game of soccer between the top-ranked Brazil and the bottom-ranked Samoa. These cheerleaders are conveniently ignoring the blatant foreign policy mistakes of Ukraine in the past three decades which may have pushed this beautiful and prosperous country into a perennial conflict, just like Afghanistan and Palestine.

I am against any kind of war that is fought merely to plunder territory, wealth, and/or power. Sometimes wars do become essential to establish the rule of Dharma (righteousness). For instance, the War of Mahabharata, in which neutrality was not an option, everyone must choose a side.

Speaking of Mahabharata, I feel that there is a need to examine whether ‘Hitler’ is a common noun, or a proper noun. Or is it just a title given to an overzealous or despot administrator/governor, who does not mind using inhumane methods to enforce his ideology and practices? I am sure most of us have used this title for a strict teacher, hostel warden, parent, or boss!

Even after 77 years of his death, people all over the world are enthralled to see ‘Hitler’ getting defeated again and again; just like we like burning of the effigy of Ravana every year. Hundreds of successful movies have been made on WWII, reminding us of the consequences of war and the fallacies of the methods and principles of bigotry and fascism. Even young children are fascinated to see Thanos, a super villain comic character having a twisted moral compass and his actions to eliminate a large part of humanity, getting defeated in his misdemeanors over and over again. Many Zelenskyy supporters are even commonly using this title for the Russian president. While we all like seeing ‘Hitler’ defeated and destroyed in fiction, we hardly make an effort to acknowledge the Hitlerian tendencies in the people around us.

A social media survey conducted by me yesterday indicated that a majority of people concur with the thought that ‘Hitler’ is a common noun, representing a person who sincerely believes that they are empowered and authorized to use force to make people believe in their ideas on the ideal socio-political and/or religious order.

Prior to the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s attempt to establish the racial superiority of his people, many Greek, Roman, Turkish, British, French, Mongol, Japanese and other rulers had used the methods of genocide and enslavement to establish the superiority of their clan, race and/or ideologies.

The British enslaved half the world – destroying ancient cultures and plundering wealth. Mongols, Hun, Greeks also invaded the Indian subcontinent, destroyed places of worship, raped and kidnapped women, and killed millions of natives.

I certainly do not intend to hurt anyone’s feelings and apologize beforehand if it happens so. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would nonetheless like to examine the following with an open mind:

Whether the killing of all the Kshtriyas 21 times by Parashuram, because he believed that Kshtriyas had begun to abuse their power, take what belonged to others by force and tyrannize people, tantamount to a Dharma Yudh or genocide?

How was the Kalinga War, in which the mighty army of Mauryan King Ashoka killed 2,50,000 Kalinga soldiers and citizens, different from the present Russian-Ukraine conflict? Did Ashoka the Great also have Hitlerian traits before turning to Buddhism for penance?

Rodion Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1866), also had the belief that he was entitled to kill people – a Hitlerian trait. But later he learned like Ashoka that salvation is possible through atonement.

History is replete with instances of people with Hitlerian traits. The point, therefore, is that ‘Hitler’ is not a proper, but a common noun.

Society shall do much better if we could incorporate methods and practices in our education system that would guide children to become better human beings by curbing their Hitlerian tendencies and develop compassion, empathy, tolerance and acceptance.