ah, ah ah, welcome to the park, the east west power struggle accentuated by the war in your brain and the rising tensions over taiwan has temporarily leaves. and now the axis of swelling is balances and potential trouble. the time between the global north and the global south, given how dearly developing countries have been paying for the decisions made in the sub will develop world, isn't the time, right, to break exploitative arrangement. well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by us and jaya barrow. distinguish tallow at the united service institution of india. mr. baron, great pleasure,

great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure to be on the show. now. thank you. i once heard from a prominent european politician that it doesn't matter whether elephant fighting or making law the grass underneath them yet trembled. and if we extend that metaphor to the geopolitical situation into, well today, not just the grass that underneath them to the fact that it's valleys into villages, a part of miles away. gene, russia, a fully aware of the, of the kind of damage, data, confrontation is visiting up upon 3rd party. well, i'm pretty sure they understand the question is what they're doing about. the fact is that the don't looking one has been dealing with a very difficult to global environment for a long time. i would say for 300 years,

i think we have been a colony of the british for a long time. and then we had a little system dominated by the rest after the 2nd world war is traditionally dominated also by the rest. but even in multi lateral organisation, so dominated by major us. so what is now called a global salt, which is essentially a don't a big countries are used to be called card world and voted if you're going to them, but has not been in a good solution for a long time. and it's only in the last couple of decades with globalization and new opportunities for growth that, you know, countries like china and india, many other countries in latin america and africa experienced. i think the current crisis in domestic crisis, both the water ukraine, but more importantly, all the policy kind of decisions taken as a consequence of the war on hunting us. india hasn't very interesting sense here

because both the east and the west, both russia and the united states. i trying to port it to that side, but it does. this is it's out as a leader for having the leader of the global south. one gas mean for india is foreign policy stands in practical terms, was possible in practical terms in doing all this had an independence on. but see, i've been trying to time to get my republic in mind to talk to someone, a different names used to call it non alignment. then we talk about strategic autonomy, but essentially, look auto indian policy towards the rest of the work is to have an independent or policy decisions based on, on interest and, and understanding that we are the foolish nation. that india, like china, like russia, like a europe of mainland europe,

and many other students are still introducing latin america of the population. we had a civilizational entity and we have seen ourselves as a country that has a message based on the long history. awesome position. $5000.00, you know, history of us and the for somebody deeply for an identity that we have to have an independent voice. and whether it was in the past or be able to watch by on to the, to my well, everyone has had an independent wasn't international affairs. well, but i think there is definitely a independence in the rhetoric of many engine leaders. but you, by the way, yourself wrote that despite all washington's efforts to have in your daily conscripted to the so called the rules based democratic order, it has a vital interest in upholding a different set of rules. those that would support broader economic development

and prosperity. but how ground is in these multi lateral view. i mean, how free it is from the can taishan all fine, you know, getting some credentials of a democratic state from washington. you mentioned the very long history of your civilization. but when i watch indian media, i also see that it's very important for many people to sort of deal themselves to be in the good graces of the west, because supposedly the west issues, those, you know, good democracy certificates. well, i don't think we're well known about certificates. i don't think that's a political issue. you're talking about indian media. indian media is very diverse issue for us as long as being the fact that because of our colonial history and english is the most important language in this country. so kind of integrating

language because in the, as a country off a summer languages and english remains are linked to the word. so there isn't much greater influence of the english speaking word on the maybe think what we read, etc. plus the people to people contact. i mean, if you look at the numbers of indians living around the world, most of them are on the speaker united states, united a central. and so they're all in the media. you will see that by us. but i think we must distinguish between the rhetoric of the media and will be in the media and the use of the gun. but i think government and india successively including the present have taken an independent position. we have tried to, i've issues with this with russia on, with china, on united states or indeed with other countries like japan, germany, france on the basis on national. and it's not as if you're not going to pressure from time to time, come under pressure. and i can talk about innovative incentives that come under

pressure one each time you come under pressure. i think it is a good fortune that you have how the national leadership does a centered its independence. when you have just seen recently on the water in the un security council, in the us taking a real fix on it does not bandwagons with anybody else. now, like you mentioned a moment ago, and you wrote about that before that both the humanitarian consequences of russia's military operation in ukraine and western economic sanctions that were intended to punish russia without hurting the global community. at 2 a 6 substantial expend. do they do that? though in equal measure, do you think they could be compared in terms of that impact? well, i would have some difficult question. i'm not looking to receive my job, but the fact is that the inflation global inflation triggered by the rising price

goodbye, that i was in full price. and then the, the, the disconnect in the financial system of the various we cannot make sanctions imposed by united states and the nature of ours. all of them together are certainly back to us. and we are, we in india read that no looking would have been of the receiving end of the combined effect of all of and you know, you can get into a blend game who's to blame with us 1st let's just to man. but i think the fact is that given the history of this conflict, i would argue both sides and believing in gleaming is irrelevant, and geo politics because they kind of do anything with that. but the reason why, why i'm asking this question is because i think we will like nobody would think twice before condemning when we all understand that this is the worst possible outcome. the question is whether there was any alternative to that. but i think

there is a perception in the international community that sanctions are somehow and more moral and more ecological means of doing politics. even though if you look at the number of people who are affected by the decisions, i think they're much larger than the number of people contacted by the direct conflict. so i think it's, it's also very important point to sort of look at the motivations contain to war for, for the concrete interest, various versus essentially a how the culture style action that affects everybody and very, very little consideration for, you know, 3rd parties will have nothing to do with struggle with, you know, you're right and that's what i was doing. some of my columns was your publisher to go back to march april this year, beginning of the facilities that sanctions supposed to wall out of blood instrument . they do not distinguish the targets, you'll see the impact of what example us sanctions on iran and how you know,

everybody has been impacted by that really india and the receiving end office transactions for a long time. so sanctions auto blunt instrument and i think it is to say that a conflict between 2 countries could have been contained within those 2 countries. which has happened in many other cases. but the minute ground global sanctions. and that to sanctions huge in from each thing to national system. i mean, you take, for example, the sanctioning of the russian center back. i was reading somewhere that, you know, right to the 2nd world war, the bank of international studies runs in switzerland. never sanction dice grant the german central bank for a close company. the german banks will not sanction. so you know, better than discrimination. and i think traction in central bank certainly is something which has hundreds. and most importantly, you know,

the pressure on market to try and just on them saved on by russian on my list. and i sent all of this her don't look in countries and you know, many of us in india i've been right now most of our, this is a fascinating question for me. how that was applies. it's pressure because of the one hand, it has many indirect ways of sabotaging its own direct commitments. but on the other hand, if we look at the news about old pack making, a decision to lower is oil production despite very heavy and very african american low being. it's clear that americans scope of influence, even with its own allies, is somewhat limited. how do you assess western capacity of getting out what washington once at this point of time, do you think the masses of pressure have changed in any way?

well, 1st of all, that stuff changed in the sense that there's much greater willingness. now to use the financial sector as an instrument, i've been asked to kind of do it and i'm with the economics. you see that the instrument on sanctions? i wonder what time as i said in the past, the central banks will never sanction. but now that is happening, so the financial sector that's coming to the no spotlight that's part of sanctioned . but more importantly, i think the change that has happened in the last year, compared to before that particularly for, for india is the global regional body. and in some ways, you see that even with china and dependents of chinese companies on the market, for example, the dependence of our company. so we changed in the global system. economics is government trading. that was, it has the full change, the way in which sanctions are being used to kind of sanction techniques of being

device. but i want to still make a distinction between the destination of the states of government. i mean, we talked about an organization of government so and when it comes to doug with you stand by national interest. when it comes to private companies, you know, a corporate boards, a understandable to some extent mr. barton, we have to take a very short break. right. now, but it will be back in just a few moments stating a thought for the new business a bit. you know, as soon as i know it comes with when you got to release the sanction of the

ceiling for when you are such circle in with the difference until the chance you get thrown with them, the probably need to live with you. i wish to hear that i think you have history as you brought in that the study skills on the place political in general enough to put it which and it was just not posted just a moment because i knew you don't know which you know for the don't know is actually just giving you these just opinion is come on me

a welcome back to the course with sunshine borrowed the fellow at the united service institution of india. mr. bart, before the break, we're talking about this somewhat divergent national governments may have on politics and doing business internationally and private companies. and yet, at the same time, i think, perhaps you would agree with me that the, the globalization, as we knew it's only, you know, 5 or even timing years ago. it's not there anymore. and the united states a while trying to punish some of the enemies is undermining these various systems. so let's say at a high rise in the 5 or 10 years going forward. which policy is state oriented policies or state oriented intention or private oriented intention of regional prevail? well, i think suddenly, you know, looking at

a 5 year term or something in india i'm see in what state. we already have seen a shift in the last 5 years. we government and then the government has non what is called a beyond which is self reliant, india which is essentially lent to reduce our dependence, particularly for critical technology. the difference that's not something you know . and i think we should have done that and to reduce our dependence on other countries and to become much more so i, i joke with my friends in the ruling party which is about to give them the money is now like, got a lot of this on the policy matter in the 50s, of building a sensor and i didn't know based on the list, you can give them. and now once again,

we have the next phase where because of the challenge of globalization because of the global jake slowing down because w t o 2 training system is no longer looking because of tax on sanctions. i think for all these reasons and also from an indian one to do the plug pressure from china on us, we are trying to reduce our dependence, extend them dependence, and become more. and i think that's going next week and now you speak about reliance, bigger involvement of state and the economy as synonymous things, things that are related to each other. and i think there's a very strong narrative in the was that whenever a space role, especially in bigger countries, that can challenge the united states whenever i say for all is increased. and that's, that's a way to to talk chrissy or to tell him parent is, but i think we are coming to this very interesting point in history where self

proficiency or warranty i'll be coming in the means of achieving democracy. am i wrong here? because if it sounds like a parent dog, if more countries are pursuing that own self interest in the democratic system, internationally seems to be improving well doable democracy. i don't know when you said there was one second. the doing is to been to focus back to solvent. i think what you saw during the globalization was the reduced emphasis on something and idea. that's the one to slap, thomas friedman on the book on the on equal trading on equal and terms are better than long digits and therefore nations audits and that's fine. i don't know what kind of systems weren't always in different directions. and

i don't think, you know, the united states are, you're going to decide what is the democracy in what is not what isn't, isn't that well, i mean, i understand what democracy working on a domestic level essentially mean that every member of the society or every group has a certain input, it's treated fairly in proportion to its size within the society that everybody's interests are accounted for. and when we translate that to the international system, it seems to be working. it would be working in the same profession. so countries big and small, it doesn't mean that they have the same amount of influence, but it's leaves our interests would be taking into account and the global processes could be structures in a way not to penalize or ostracize one or the other. in this answer,

do you think global democracy as a way of taking into account very of interest and trying to integrate them into the decision making? isn't it possible? and we already and moving toward in the direction. i don't want your system is about system. we talk about, you know, you want to give states the united nations is constructed on that principle of equality. but even in constructively admissions, we need to un security council on which we have seen other members. and they were the more powerful and the less and even within the next organizations, like the july bank, the big economies are bigger lights. so in the international system, we have never be any factors. demarcus is cloud based system and will always have that. so i don't think that is going to change much. in fact, if anything, what we are now see is

a real rather than social democratic way of dealing with issues. now, one of the most interesting discussions in post i circled today is about neo colonial is indeed an effort to reassert your power as a way of preserving your some would say unfair privileges. i think the russians are really trying to frame that struggle with the west and those tribes. they presented as both the own quiet for political and economic sovereignty, but also as an effort to create a more fairly and more air and international system. what do you think about that? do you think weston had him on commissions? a colonial and they're very core. well, it's not just the less i said when i sit in india and look at a china seeking to be an

issue. and that is why i said that, you know, we're in the one, let our is the currency. and we're in this on the word now look in countries and she's a global solve our speaking space for them. so i think that is the way i would look at, i'm the one today, then the rest has always been dominant for the last 200 years. but other countries have this all of major on the soviet union, which is no longer there. but russia, in its own area, in china, initial seems to be a dominant some accuse of being a dominant, a big brother to our smaller neighbors. it's in the nature of international emissions that the currency is all, and therefore the, the, the weak should all this fight against the strong. and when you look at the systems which i've been doing, i'm doing some denial of market access in terms of when i looked at one of these in

terms of that section of intellectual property, right? which main thing. so there's, you know, global inequality. that is what the don't looking one was fighting against when we talked about a new address. you can only go to the eighty's and ninety's and, and many of us in the big 112, changes in the global system. we wanted of much want to quit to one system, but you know, the struggle continues. but if you look at the level of this down, is that it's pretty clear that they are hurting the powerful change constant more even than smaller countries. because the united states is no longer capable of maintaining its alliances. and, you know, investing in them to be, it's an extent that it used to do that before. i wonder if a more fair distribution is that not only is that of an ideological or moral, but the necessity of what in time. because, you know,

having your neighbor or your who even, and me guess something that it's once ultimately serves you as well because it creates a more predictable situation. don't you think that the time itself is calling for a more and more fair distribution of both resources and our well, i think that is why many of us are to study. i believe that the global system is evolving towards what we call a my diplomat system. i think, you know, be a saw unit on what you saw my form on what the direction in which we're moving and that is sent to you on the didn't go to the leadership and i believe was probably the real to do that. you're moving in that direction on multiple of the world in which a large number of countries play a bigger. i mean, it may not be a democracy. you know, a smaller country, let's say like more abuse. and that it can see that on the same wise as india,

i because it's contribution to the global common good is smaller, i mean, the power is proportional to what you bring to the table. yeah. so the direction in which you're moving in my judgement is a multiple us distance and the current crisis mentally x. since we're in that process. and i think the, the west, particularly united states, i think europe has come to terms with what example in the french have talked about the multiple of system. if you see the speech of french a long day that they then they don't follow through on that on that talk. no, it's good to begin with the talk a talk about being a monday. so i can found, we are going to come to a started to go home in issue see frontier with the whole we are moving towards the most people in our system. know whether

we foster slow depends on the rent or like what we're seeing right now. right? now let me ask you one last question and this is something that political analysts are rarely asked. what i think is absolutely essential to understanding the design, the spirit of the times. i think both russia and the west until logically, are born. and most basic worldview where there's only one, you know, god, anyone dental, which i think gives them give that rivalry such and intensity, and such a high school for demonizing, why each other? india, on the other hand, is this the culture which i assume comes with a different understanding of diversity. the, the sort of the structure of diversity, the practical value of diversity, as well as the practical value of power distribution. because within your pantheon of god, you know they're stronger, god, they're, you know, less powerful goes,

but they're all important than they all make the big county on. i wonder if these polytheistic ontology could be more conductive to the multiple one that we've been talking about, especially in the u. that is said to assume the leadership, the presidency of both the 20 and the some high corporation organization this year . a very fascinating question. i think it's also very important question because that was the me in the me look at us since in the last 75 years that we have been at the public that we are multicultural motor and just multilingual. in many ways, anybody a mission. and therefore we bring plurality blog, not just about ourselves. well, unfortunately in india, we now have a very dense debate between this pluralist tradition and a growing assertion or not majority it is. and i think that some domestic politics,

that is what was happening in the country when all of us will be in the list that you know, the, the slogan used to be unity in diversity. none of the foundation of india and the diversity, but construct our unity based on our diversity. i think that's the message of the indian republican. i hope that that knowledge of india as a nation remain so that the rest of the world, we have a message. i mean, i used to be just a newer prime minister and you repeatedly make this part that india plural mission is a mission of diversity and therefore brings to the world and you, well looking at things and that is our son. and i hope we preserve that character on mission that's only your strength, but i think that's something that the world is very desperately needing right now. mr. baron, been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for your time. thank you. thank you for having me and thank you for watching you hope to hear again well,

the part a a ah, ah .

a town in russia, belgrade region pools and civilian infrastructure to catch by and knocking out a power in the area a against the current go. let's store in prices i'm calls the international seems to be deployed to the country a sometimes one do use our individual kind is as guinea pigs for experimenting.