now the axis of swelling is balances and potential travels this 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 this exploitative arrangement. well, to discuss it and now joined by some giant narrow, distinguished tele, the united service institution of india. mr. baron, great, pleasant, great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure to lend it to be on the show. now thank you one heard from a prominent european politician that it doesn't matter whether elephants are fighting or making law the grass underneath them. yes, chuckled. and if we extend that metaphor to the geopolitical situation in the world today, not just the grass that underneath them, that gets affected. it's the valley and did villages was acquired miles away. g,

russia, a fully aware of the, of the kind of damage dad, dad 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 they don't have one that 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 be a little system dominated by the rest of the 2nd world. war is traditionally dominated by the rest. but even in multi lateral organizations, i've been dominated by major us. so what is now called the global? so it's essentially a donor big countries. used to be card card world and all of this you're going to have not been a good solution for

a long time. and it's only in the last couple of decades with globalization and new opportunities for growth. there are countries like china and india, many other countries in latin america and africa experienced. i think the current crisis is less crisis, both the water ukraine, but more importantly, all the policy kind of decisions taken as a consequence of the war on hunting us. it hasn't very interesting sense here because both the east and the west, both russia and the united states. i trying to of course it to their sides, but it positions itself as a leader and perhaps the leader of the global south. one gas mean for india is foreign policy stands in practical terms. well, 1st of all, in practical terms, in doing all this had an independence on, but see, i've been trying to time it became a republican one to talk to someone. it does have 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 of 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 others who knew they're still introduced and left the box risha. we had a civilizational entity and we have seen our films as a country that has a message based on the long history of us are position 5000. you know, history of us in the 1st of a deeply for a identity that we have to have an independent voice and whether it was never in the past or 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 rules based democratic order, it has a lot of 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. i'm, 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 feel themselves to

be in the good graces of the west, because supposedly the west issues, those, you know, democracy is certificates. well, i don't think we're ever bothered about certificates. i don't think that's a political issue. you're talking about the indian media indian 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 of 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 out of the speaker, united states, united kingdom, a center. 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 will be in the media and the use

of the gum. i think government and india successively including the present have taken an independent position. we have tried to little issues with this with russia on 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 on, the fisher, and i can talk about innovative incentives that come on the official one each time you come under pressure. i think it is a good fortune that we have how the national leadership does incentive its independence. when we have just seen recently on the water in the un security council, india has taken a view off on. it does not bandwagons with anybody else. now, like you mentioned a moment ago, and he 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. and i think is excess dental x down. do they do that though in equal measure? do you think they could be compared in terms of that impact? well, i mean to some difficult question, i'm not looking to measure, but the fact is that the inflation global inflation triggered by the rising prices are good by that i was employed price. and then we did the the disconnect in the financial system of the radius. we can all make sanctions imposed by united states and the nature of ours. all of them together are certainly back to us when we are, we and you read that know, looking would have been of the receiving end of the combined effect of all of and you know, you can get into a blame game who's to blame with the rest is 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 than geopolitics 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's a perception in the international community that sanctions 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 a, it's also very important point to sort of look at the motivations a contained 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 which republish to 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 back of what example us sanctions on the on and how everybody has been impacted by that really i've been receiving an office on sanctions for a long time. so sanctions are blunt instrument and i think it is to say that a conflict between 2 countries scriven can bend 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 natural 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 one was the bank of international studies runs in switzerland. never sanction b dice fan. the german central bank for the it in the german banks were not sanction. so you know, better than discrimination. and i think fracturing central bank certainly is, is something which has hundreds and most importantly, you know, the pressure on the market to try and fist on them saved on by russian, on my list. and i sent all of these her don't come to so many of us in india. i've been right now. and this is a fascinating question for me. how that was applies it's pressure because on 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 pat, making a decision to how do you assess western capacity of getting out what washington

wants 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 a financial sector as an instrument official. i've been asked to do it and i'm with nomics. you see that the instrumental sanctions? i wonder what time, as i said in the past, central banks you have never sent, but now that is happening. so the financial sector that's coming to the spotlight as part of stamps. but more importantly, i think the change that has happened in the last 20 years compared to before that. but typically to put on india is the global average. nobody. and in some ways, you see that in the china and dependence of chinese companies on the market for example,

depends on the company. so the change in the global system economics is government trading that has the full change again with sanctions, are being used to kind of sanction techniques of being device. but i would still make a distinction between the destination of the states of gum. i mean, you talk about opec, opec is an organization of government. so, and when it comes to you stand by national interest, when it comes to private companies, you know, then we got better boards and understandable to some extent mr. bar, we have to take a very short break right now, but it will be back in just a few moments station, a

a ah 3 with sensitive water is thrown in the old hon and the snow falls about scheduling. this comes with the last dance. have to deal with idealists, we sprung from drawings from them to do it. in bt dufrane, you get kicked away in the poly teachers, kills on the edge. that on the brown asia goal was to live and i'm done with this in a little bolcom in the crucial chest middle school was leading us with the loan is not that of good few, tedious to a lot of what you could eat with the leukemia. well, they knew they were with us,

she is, we can you video pics that will be able to let you go with this? when you go see, show, he missed his piece. they need to the middle, set them up and you can give us his name. but did he duties of both of miss dempsy this material, but the stone tossed up even in the so you need to locate those slide l b. you still located? it doesn't help at all with them. yeah. be it than me. she, those patrons of country. ah, yes, please. and you'll dr. newman square yet. so to handle most of his emotional specially to renew the lease is up to engine. you took a little of doing piecemeal. mm ah

welcome back to wowza parts with sunshine barrels distinguished fellow at the united service institution of india, mr. barrow before the break we're, we're talking about there are some what a divergence dad, national governments may on politics and doing business internationally and private companies. and yet, at the same time, i think perhaps you would agree with the, the globalization as we knew, it's only, you know, 5 or even 20 years ago. it's not there anymore. and the united states a while trying to punish some of us and it is undermining these various systems. so let's say i think are rising, the 5 or 10 years going forward. which policy is state oriented policies or state oriented intention or private oriented intention of regional them would prevail?

well, i think suddenly, you know, looking at a 5 year term on 10 year period. so in the state, we already have seen a shift in the last 5 years, a month and then the government has lost what is called a self reliant india, which is essentially a lend to reduce our dependence, particularly poker. you're going to do something from the chips, you know, food and other artificial, you don't know that you, that much to reduce our dependence on other countries and become much more so, you know, i joke with my friends and we got a ruling party which is a party that movie is now like, got a lot of this was the policy of metal in the fifty's of building a sensor. and i do based on the list of capacity and get it. and now once again,

we have next phase where because of the challenge of globalization, because of the global trade slowing down. because w 2 months that trading system is no longer working because of tax on sanctions. i think for all these reasons and also from an indian point of view because of the pressure from china's we're trying to reduce our dependence, extend them dependence, and become more so. and i think that's the next next weekend. now you speak about self reliance, our bigger involvement of state and the economy, anonymous, things, things that are related to each other. and i think there is a very strong narrative in the way that whenever i states role, especially in bigger countries, that can challenge the united states whenever safe role is increased. and that's, that's a way to i talk christy or to tell in parent isn't, but i think we are coming to the very interesting point in history of our self

sufficiency or someone t i becoming a means of achieving democracy. am i wrong here? is it because it sounds like a paradox, but if more countries are pursuing their own self interest, the democratic system internationally seems to be improving well over the walker. see, i don't know, understand why because no one is studying the doing is to bring the focus back to solve it. i think what you saw doing the at all globalization reduced emphasis on sunday. and the idea that you know, the one to slap as in thomas friedman, book on the, on the quote, trading on equal terms along with the kids and therefore missions auto center. yes . on that is the last part of the don't democrat systems like of the world with different types of homes that you come to. so i don't think, you know,

the united states are going to decide what is a democracy in one month. but it isn't that i understand what it did. democracy, working on a domestic level, essentially means that every member of the society or every group has a certain input. and it's treated fairly in proportion to his size within the society that everybody's interests are accounted for. when we translate that to the international system, it has to be working. it could be working in the same fashion. so countries big and small, it doesn't mean that they have the same amount of influence, but it's leave their interest would be taking into account 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? i'm already, i'm moving toward in that direction. i don't want no doable system is a system we talk about, you know, you want to just state the united nations was constructed on the principle of equality. but even in constructing united nations, we need to the un security council of which you have to remember and the more powerful and the less. and even within the next organizations, now you can always shoot like july or my bank. the big economies are big lights. so in the international system, we have never be any factors, dom office, law 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 question rather than in the social office,

no democratic way of dealing with issues. now, one of the most interesting discussion, the post i circles today is about neo colonial is indeed an effort to reassert your power as a way of preserving your someone 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 western had you want to commissions a colonial and they're very core? well, so just the last i said when i sit in india and look at a neighbor of china seeking to be an issue. and that is why i said that, you know,

we are in the one where our is the currency and in this on equal was now looking 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 world today that the, the west has always been dominant for the last 200 years. but other countries have made this all of major on the soviet union, which is no longer there. but russia, in its own area, is a dominant china initial seems to be a dominant some a q laws of being a dominant voters. i'll be sure that we are like, big brother to our smaller neighbors. it's in the nature of the international emissions that the currency is all, and therefore the, the, the weak show on this fight against the strong. and when you look at the systems which continue, i'm done so benign market back says in terms of the quantities,

in terms of intellectual property, right, which you maintain service, you know, global inequality. that is one of the big one was fighting against when we talked about a new international economic already, the eighty's and ninety's. and many of us in the big one wondered, changes in the global system. we wanted of much want to put one system. but in order to that struggle continues, but if you look at the global does balance is that it's pretty clear that they are hurting, be powerful, changed, and more even than smaller countries. because the united states is no longer capable of maintaining its alliances. and, you know, investing in them to 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 get something that it's once ultimately serves you as well because it creates a more predictable expectation. don't you think that the time itself is calling for more and more fair distribution of both resources and power? well, i think that is why many of us, if you simply, i do believe that the global system is evolving towards what we call a my diplomatic system. i think, you know, the saw unit on what you saw, my point 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 version to that you're moving in that direction. more money to follow, one to reach a larger number of countries play a bigger. i mean, it may not be well for democracy. you know, a small country, let's say like more of these and see may not have the same wise as india.

i because it's contribution to the global common good is smaller, i mean are, is proportionate to what you bring to the table. yeah. so the, the direction in which you're moving in my judgement, these are multiple us and the current crisis will accentuate that process. and i think the, the west a has come to what example in the french and talk about the multiple of system. if you see the speech, us all french a long day that they then they don't follow through on that on that song with is good to begin with the books a talk about reading on monday. so i just found the are going to come to a started you initially see come to the center or what's on the home. we are moving towards the most people in our system and whether the

foster slow depends on the rent or like what we're seeing right now. let me ask you one last question and this is something that political analyst i rarely ask, that i think is absolutely essential. to understanding the design, the spirit of the times. i think both russia and the west. until logically, i'm born and most basic worldview where there's only one, you know, gone, and one devil, which i think gives them give that rivalry such an 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 less powerful gods,

but they are all important than they all make the big pantheon. i wonder if these pulling the stick ontology could be more conductive to the multiple one that we've been talking about, especially in the view that is said to assume the leadership, the presidency of both d 20 and the some high corporation organization is here. a very fascinating question. i think it's also very important question because that was the me, me look at our sense in the last 75 years that we have been at the public that we are multicultural, motivated just multilingual. in many ways, many of the mission and therefore we bring plurality block thinking, not just about ourselves, what i want to work. unfortunately in india we now have a very dense debate between this pluralist tradition and a growing assertion or not majority in it. and i think that some domestic on that is what was happening within the country. well,

all of us will be in the started the list that you know, because the slogan has to be unity in diversity. none of the foundation of a city, but construct our unity based on our diversity. i think that's the message of the public, and i hope that it's not india as a nation remain. so that the rest of the world, we have a message. i mean, i used to be just for dr. munoz prime minister and he repeatedly make this part that india plural nation is a nation of diversity and therefore brings to the world and you were looking at things. and that is our son, and i hope we preserve that character. our 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're planning to get. thank you for watching hope to 3 again. well,

the part a a ah ah, ah, ah ah,

ah, your, your, your, your ah ah, center water you thrown in september 2022 and their good dogs, the ukrainian military shells, the city ceaselessly targeting the zappa erosion, nuclear power plant, residential buildings.