PB Mehta writes: Ukraine invasion has revealed a new world disorder

PB Mehta writes: Ukraine invasion has revealed a new world disorder Dear reader, There has been intense diplomatic activity in the subcontinent in the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida was in Delhi last weekend while Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks with Foreign Minister S Jaishankar on Friday. The visit marked 70 years of India-Japan relations, which had received a fillip in 2006 with the two countries forming a "strategic and global partnership". It was announced during Kishida's visit that Japan will invest 3.5 trillion Japanese Yen (JPY) — the target of 3.5 trillion JPY set under the 2004 Investment Partnership has already been met. More investment and cooperation has been promised in a host of areas, including digital security and green technologies. However, the big takeaway is on the strategic front. Despite the differences in their respective approaches to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Delhi and Tokyo "presented a united front vis-a-vis China" ('Friends with benefits', March 21). Delhi refused to join Tokyo in condemning the Russian invasion, but reiterated its commitment to "the rules-based order". Clearly, the Quad is holding together despite India refusing to toe the line followed by the other members on Russia. Wang's visit, seen by many experts as a reconciliatory overture by Beijing, is significant in this context. However, can India continue its tactical stance on Russia if President Putin refuses to end the war? What are the implications of such a stance, explained in terms of self-interest? Pratap Bhanu Mehta ('The new world disorder', March 23) says "India and China's equivocation on Ukraine is appalling". Mehta writes that making a case against "Western hypocrisy" and for national self-interest are "worthy causes'', but point out that these do not address a core point: What kind of world order do they (India and China) want to build, which also serves their self-interest? He pretends a bleak scenario for the world after the war. "The self-serving stance of all the great powers make it more likely that the world will be marked by more miscalculations, conflict and hubris, rather than a dampening of conflict and more cooperation," he writes. Meanwhile, representatives of the Bucharest Nine nations (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic) in India, in an article published exclusively in this newspaper, write that the membership of their countries in NATO does not pose a threat to Russia. The statement counters the claim that Putin was justified in ordering the invasion of Ukraine since NATO expansion in the East threatened Russia's security. "It (NATO) is a defensive alliance, one that seeks no territory," the article states. The Bucharest Nine nations, according to the article, were forced to stay in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War - "Our countries have been for decades either forcefully occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union (for example, the Baltic States), subdued by it against their will and invaded (Hungary in 1956, former Czechoslovakia in 1968). The tragic events of the Second World War and its aftermath placed us against the will of our people on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain and deprived us of the self-determination promised in the United Nations Charter." The article draws parallels between the advent of electoral democracy in Bucharest Nine nations following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, and "the waves of decolonisation that brought justice and dignity to other countries around the world". Sanjib Baruah ('Not the world's war', March 26) flags a race dimension in international relations in the context of the war in Ukraine. He draws attention to the large number of abstentions in the UN General Assembly vote that deplored the Russian invasion. The abstentions are significant for two reasons: One, countries that abstained in the UN vote constitute the majority of the world's population and two, they come from all regions except Europe and North America and include major non-Western democracies. This suggests that America's framing of the war in terms of democracy versus autocracy is flawed. Baruah writes that concepts such as "Europe' and "West" are "haunted by the memories of colonialism and racial segregation", which influences choices in both Asia and Africa. "One can't expect the struggle for recognition as privileged 'Europeans' to inspire warm sentiments of solidarity in non-Europe," Baruah writes. The past week saw the swearing in of new governments in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. The Express editorial ('The Second Term', March 26) outlined the challenges for Yogi Adityanath, who embarked on a second term as chief minister. Harish Damodaran ('A five-year plan for Punjab', March 26), outlines a roadmap for the Bhagwant Mann government to rescue the state from the agrarian crisis that has beset the state for some years now. His prescription for Punjab is to reduce its paddy and wheat growing areas, which is currently 85 per cent of the gross cropped area in the state, and instead, promote cultivation of cotton, maize, arhat, soyabean, pulses, oilseeds and mustard. This shift, he argues, is possible if the government undertakes procurement at the declared MSP (minimum support price). Meanwhile, free speech took a knock or two in Kerala. The Congress asked its leaders and legislators not to attend seminars organised by the CPM during its party conference scheduled in April. The Express editorial ('Ill-tempered party', March 22) called out the Congress's decision, which punctured its claim to be a party that stood for free speech. Later in the week, Filippo Osella, professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies in the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, was deported from India on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram airport. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), which comes under the Union home ministry, said the renowned scholar, who has been working on Kerala for nearly three decades and had arrived with a valid visa on the invitation of three public universities/institutions to present his research at a seminar, was deported on orders from higher officials. Till today, the Centre has not given the reasons for Osella's deportation. The Express editorial ('Spell it out', March 26) said "the incident is embarrassing for a country that claims to protect free speech". Thank you, Amrith Lal Amrith is part of the Opinion Desk