Xi Jinping may like to believe that modern China is the centre of global power structure. But Covid-19 has poured cold water over all its military and economic calculations.
The issue of inequality has assumed the blazing limelight at a time when inequality in India is said to be higher than it was in the British Raj. It's a ripe situation for half-truths and incendiary statements.
Speaking at launch of economist Surjit Bhalla’s book, S Jaishankar also highlights Gen Z’s engagement with ‘reel culture’, which has 'promoted awareness, created interest in many subjects'.
Germany’s erstwhile Christian Democratic Union govt, led by Angela Merkel, prevented sale of small arms to police forces in states they perceived had ‘bad human rights record’.
A theme has not yet emerged for BJP & people see lack of a contest, which makes it unexciting. For all these reasons, 2024 is turning out to be an unexpectedly theme-less election.
“Soaring rhetoric on big themes could not hide the deeply contested territoriality of the two nations across the Himalayas that continues to derail efforts to build a sustainable relationship,” …policy that has been followed “more in breach than in its observance”.
The article is just a trigger for my thoughts. Not the absolute. The idea of sovereignty in the twenty first century is the same it was in the eighth century or prior, so to speak. Expansionism was always about money, wealth and bounty. Only occasionally was there a battle between just for prestige and territory. Even so they were subsumed by the aim of wealth and power to achieve wealth.
I can hear someone whispering “Hitler”. To them, I say, when a Nation is to be rallied for something big, the deliverables has to be now and here. The obvious may not always be the final aim.
So it is, even now. Aggressions and expansionism is for power and wealth. In this context we may ask the question whether China’s territorial aggression is just a smoke screen for economic expansion.
Tail piece: Most times, what we see is not what it is. Whatever it is, a mighty military is imperative to be a strong Nation, else Nations will be forced to suck up to some other Nation who has a mighty military).
There is no need of another hard lesson to Peking; They have learnt a hard one at LAC aim last 10 months. They are very mindful of lessons they get. Their prestige is at stake. You professional writers should learn that.
“Soaring rhetoric on big themes could not hide the deeply contested territoriality of the two nations across the Himalayas that continues to derail efforts to build a sustainable relationship,” …policy that has been followed “more in breach than in its observance”.
The article is just a trigger for my thoughts. Not the absolute. The idea of sovereignty in the twenty first century is the same it was in the eighth century or prior, so to speak. Expansionism was always about money, wealth and bounty. Only occasionally was there a battle between just for prestige and territory. Even so they were subsumed by the aim of wealth and power to achieve wealth.
I can hear someone whispering “Hitler”. To them, I say, when a Nation is to be rallied for something big, the deliverables has to be now and here. The obvious may not always be the final aim.
So it is, even now. Aggressions and expansionism is for power and wealth. In this context we may ask the question whether China’s territorial aggression is just a smoke screen for economic expansion.
Tail piece: Most times, what we see is not what it is. Whatever it is, a mighty military is imperative to be a strong Nation, else Nations will be forced to suck up to some other Nation who has a mighty military).
There is no need of another hard lesson to Peking; They have learnt a hard one at LAC aim last 10 months. They are very mindful of lessons they get. Their prestige is at stake. You professional writers should learn that.