A discussion of Distinguished Professor Manoranjan Mohanty, Council of Social Development, India with Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
– No matter what happens, no matter what is imposed on the Palestinians, Palestine will remain alive! The future of Palestine is the future of humanity
– The meeting of the three (China, Russia, India) was very important, the efforts of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are also very important . However, the absence of a strong condemnation of Israel and the genocide of the Palestinians is disappointing
– I am not optimistic about what will happen in the near future in the Middle East and Ukraine, nor about our relations with Pakistan
– Turkey remains an authoritarian country, committed to the West despite its criticism of Israel and its opening to Russia
– The secrets and traps of China’s successes
“The future of Palestine is the future of humanity,” we are told by one of India’s leading intellectuals and the “dean” of its Sinologists, Distinguished Professor at the Council for Social Development in India, former Professor of Political Science at the University of Delhi, founding member and honorary head of the Institute of Chinese Studies in New Delhi and the Institute for Development Studies in Bhubaneswar, Manoranjan Mohanty.
This phrase by Professor Mohanty about Palestine reflects the importance and the profound global impact of the two-year Palestinian uprising and the genocide with which the Zionist regime responded, an uprising and a genocide which, regardless of its immediate fate and what will follow, constitutes the ultimate “test of dignity” for all of us, but it has also deeply shaken the very foundations of the conscience of all humanity https://www.defenddemocracy.
“The future of Palestine is the future of humanity,” we are told by one of India’s leading intellectuals and the “dean” of its Sinologists, Distinguished Professor at the Council for Social Development in India, former Professor of Political Science at the University of Delhi, founding member and honorary head of the Institute of Chinese Studies in New Delhi and the Institute for Development Studies in Bhubaneswar, Manoranjan Mohanty.
This phrase by Professor Mohanty about Palestine reflects the importance and the profound global impact of the two-year Palestinian uprising and the genocide with which the Zionist regime responded, an uprising and a genocide which, regardless of its immediate fate and what will follow, constitutes the ultimate “test of dignity” for all of us, but also deeply shakes the very foundations of the conscience of all humanity, from Italy https://www.defenddemocracy.
By discussing with Professor Mohanty, we wanted to get the Indian perspective, that is, the perspective of the world’s most populous country, a nuclear power with very rapid economic growth, although it has not solved the major social problems and poverty it faces, on major international issues, developments in the Middle East, Europe and China. Because our inertia makes us still view the world through the distorting lenses of a past where the West dominated the entire world, a past that has definitively passed.
Professor Mohanty remains rather pessimistic concerning what will happen immediately in the Middle East and Ukraine, and also the future of his country’s relations with Pakistan. He speaks to us at length about his favorite topic and the subject of many of his books, China, referring to the “secrets” and “traps” of its successes. He places particular emphasis on the huge, as he characterizes it, but overlooked role of the small “collective”, “self-managed” enterprises of the “Middle Kingdom” in its economic success. We ask him to what extent the Chinese “nomenklatura” could follow the example of the Soviet one and overthrow the regime becoming a capitalist class, we talk about the internal situation in China and discuss with him the character of the Chinese regime (capitalist, “state capitalist”, bureaucratic or socialist) and whether one can imagine the evolution of this great “country-superpower” towards some form of socialism.
Mohanty was one of the protagonists of the “decolonization” of Indian scientists, that is, the struggle to rid their work of the “Western colonial gaze,” but also the “heart,” the core of the unofficial China Study Group founded in 1969, which included in its ranks a number of important Indian personalities. One thing goes hand in hand with the other, because only by questioning, both theoretically and practically, the logic of “Divide and Rule” can one challenge Western colonial and post-colonial domination.
“American” was what the Neoconservatives wanted the 21st century to be, “Jewish” was what some other friends of ours wanted The Jewish Century, New Edition
“Asian” is what Asians want it to be, “Chinese” is what others fear it will be. “Asia is becoming one,” argues Japanese scholar Tanaka Akihiko and, ten years ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reformulated the idea of the 17th-century Indian Emperor Dara Shikoh (son of the emperor who built the Taj Mahal) speaking of the inevitable convergence of the Two Seas, Indian and Pacific, as “twins of prosperity.”
There is no doubt that Asia, broadly speaking and excluding the “broader Middle East,” which the criminal, imperialist leaderships of Israel, the US and NATO have turned into a “shooting range,” has been experiencing in recent decades an unprecedented period of great optimism, collective Asian solidarity and Renaissance, with China, India, Japan and (partly Asian) Russia as protagonists. An Asian Renaissance which, however, has not eliminated the major problems and differences that divide the states of Asia, having led them to major wars amongst themselves in the past. A prime example is the turbulent relations between India and China, which even led to war between the two powers.
Perceiving in depth the dynamics and importance of the phenomenon of Asian rise, renaissance and collectivity, Chinese President Xi has made, for a decade now, the improvement of relations with all countries neighboring China, a central axis and top priority goal of Beijing’s foreign policy, limiting, even if only a little, the intense and narrow nationalist perspective that sometimes has characterized the Chinese approach.
To the question of whether we should fear a Chinese global empire, Professor Mohanty answers to us with a categorical ‘No’. “The time of empires has passed forever. I’m not the one saying this, history is,” he tells us, declaring himself at the same time as a “historical optimist,” a choice that somehow reflects the environment of the Asian rise in which he lives, in contrast to our western decline, but mainly reflects a moral choice, that is, his love and faith in Man.
D.K.
—
Interview Transcript
K.: Dimitri Konstantakopoulos
M.: Dr. Manoranjan Mohanty
K.: So, good morning, dear professor. Thank you very much for being with us. It is a pleasure and an honor.
I belong to those, so to say, Western observers. Although I am Greek and Greek and Western, they are not always the same. Anyway, who were looking to the behavior of our elites, of our political leaders, with quite an astonishment…
We see a lot of irrationalism in their behavior and we are very anxious of the situation, especially as it is now developing in Ukraine and in the Middle East.
Also on other problems which maybe are not so acute, but still they are very important, like the ecological questions we are facing. Now, I had the idea that maybe given the situation in the West, it would be wise to appeal to Eastern wisdom. And you are one of the most prominent intellectuals of India.
At the same time, you have spent all your life studying the questions of China. Therefore, my first question is somehow how the East, and I mean especially India and China, look to those crises in Europe and in the Middle East now.
M.: I think firstly, thank you very much. I am just one observer from India and studying China, India, developing countries and global situation.
Now your question is very important. We have a crisis in the world, both in terms of wars, as well as climate change, hunger, food, nutrition, those things.
I am only partly encouraged by the policies that governments of India and China are taking and I will explain that. I am encouraged by the fact that both as members of BRICS and members of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) have taken some important majors, their party to some important resolutions to reform the global order. In addition, they have challenged the US-led and EU-led economic and security system. However, I am only partly satisfied because, for example, I was hoping that the SCO in its last meeting would take a stronger position on Palestine against Israel. Undoubtedly, they condemned Israel operations going on in Gaza. However, they did not talk about genocide. They did not take any concrete measure let us say, to send a peace delegation to Israel and give a timeline for ceasefire, withdrawals and stoppage of illegal settlements. I can go on. In other words, I am not happy even SCO not being able to take a strong stand.
K.: How do you explain this, professor, what is the reason they are so timid regarding Israel’s policies.
M.: I think there are two reasons. One is all of these countries, China, India, as well as Russia, even to some extent, Brazil, they have increasing trade relations and military supplies from Israel. For example, India is Israel’s largest weapons fire, intelligence, weapon, and other technology. Israel is a big market for some of the specialized Chinese goods, Russia-Israel trade has been increasing as well.
Brazil also is increasing its trade relations, so one is trade, but the other is they don’t want too much upsetting the United States, and here, India is still, you know, right now India is a target of US tariffs, very badly affected.
Even then, India has been trying to adjust, to compromise. India is a part of the Quad and the Quad meetings, you know, the foreign ministers of the Quad countries, they are in touch with one another, but the Quad summit is to take place in India this time. The exact date has not been confirmed yet. In other words, India is very friendly to Russia, America is particularly upset with Indian oil purchases from Russia, and India says that it has to carry on that for its national interest and global market reasons.
Now, therefore, there are two reasons. There, these countries’ economic relations are increasing from Israel, and second, the American pressure, but in the same time, I was very disappointed that they did not take a stronger stand; SCO did not take a stronger stand on Palestine.
K.: But it seems that the Netanyahu project is much larger. Essentially, it is the Neocon project of the 90s in a new form, because he is not limited to Palestine. He has already destroyed the Assad regime in Syria. He threatens already Hezbollah and Iran. If he goes on like that, Israel and the United States will control the whole of the Middle East.
And if this will happen, and if those Neocons are in power in Israel and the United States, which is the case, then I think they could put much more of a threat to Russia, to China, to India. I am wondering why their leaders do not understand this, or they seem not to.
M.: You are right. I think the, you know, the Netanyahu project and now supplemented and strengthened by Trump project. I think Netanyahu is particular; right now, he is in Washington DC.
K.: By the way, what is the temperature now in your place?
M.: Temperature is quite bad. We are still in a summer even though autumn has come in. 37 high and 26 low. So it is very uncomfortable and a lot of sultry weather.
So Netanyahu project now strengthened by Trump, indeed is focused on Middle East using that to contain China as well as from there to contain US and expand the American-Israeli joint control not only in the Middle East but make that as a global empire. That is their project.
M.: I just want to underline that India has two very significant levels of interest. One is that there are many Indian workers, both technical and semi-scale workers. The Indian population is very large in Middle East, in the Gulf particularly, but right through Middle East.
There are workers now, Israel has recruited from India and this has been increasing, number one. The Indian workers population in all the other countries are also very large. The second is the oil supply, which is extremely important, the Chinese initiative to bring Iran…
M.: UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia together. I think that has scared the US, Israel, and they have, you know, become very aggressive to fight them.
K.: Still, you know something, all the reasons you tell me as motivations for the BRICS not to take severe action against Israel and in the United States, which is practically supporting 100 percent Israel, are of a tactical nature. However, the project of their opponents is a strategic one. It is a project of global domination. I am wondering if this is not a disadvantage.
It is like Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi are hoping that somehow they can stay calm, have some economic, especially China, some economic successes. And that then somehow things will arrange themselves. But the other side seems, because they know also this, they know the economic rise of China, to tend more and more to use weapons and war as a method of domination.
M.: You are right. In fact, it is a globalist project. That is a strategic plan of US, Israel and I presented some evidence of the operation of that strategy, and how Israel, backed by US, is trying to operate that strategy through both technology as well as well as trade and military measures.
You are right. You know, for the last 25 years, in fact, 25 years ago, we had the first RIC forum, Russia, India, China forum, when, if you remember, Russian Prime Minister Primakov,
K.: Yes, a triangle between the three powers.
M.: Yeah. At the same time, the other forum, the IBSA forum, India, Brazil, South Africa, that had come up. And so when the world started talking about rising economies up to the, you know, Goldman Sachs projection and so on, therefore, BRICS, first BRIC and then BRICS came up. Now, BRICS has threatened, or BRICS has been seen as a future threat to American global domination.
That is why Trump, for example, said, if any country talks about replacing US dollar, a BRICS currency or some alternative currency, then he will take such strong tariff measures and other measures that they will regret. You know, he is so reactive, so strongly reactive to, you know, the BRICS phenomenon.
Indeed, BRICS is a big challenge to this global project, no doubt about it. But what sometimes disappoints me is, and this I must say, is that BRICS, in order to take a realistic measure, sometimes formally fails to come out with a very clear and strong agenda of, you know, global restructuring. In fact, they should say that, look; dollar domination has to be replaced by a more acceptable financial system, monetary system. That is why, remember, about 50 years ago, we got the SDR, special drawing rights, and then slowly other things have come up.
So Trump, Netanyahu, and there are some in Europe who are very much part of that, some opinions and some parties who are very much part of this phenomenon. They have their lackeys also in many countries; I am afraid, in including in some Asian and African countries and Latin America.
K.: Once I was discussing with Sergei Glazyev, you know, the architect of the Eurasian Union, and I think he has a position now in the BRICS structure, an official position, or in the CIS, I’m not certain, and he was telling me that all the Central Banks, except the Chinese Central Bank, were putting obstacles to the creation of an alternative to the dollar. Furtermore, I understand that the central banks of all the countries, of most countries, including the BRICS countries, are more or less controlled by the big Western financial capital.
Somehow, it is as if you are trying to organize the resistance, but inside your own camp, you have the enemy, so it is a little bit difficult to do it.
M.: True, but that’s because let’s accept the reality that during the last 25 years, Chinese investment of surplus in American treasury was one of its stabilizing forces, it not only contributed to the dollars’ stabilization and supremacy, but also to the Chinese Yuan’s, manageable capacities.
In addition, the Indian federal system is highly sensitive to federal banking system, is highly sensitive to the American federal banking system.
Moreover, this is true of the world, you know, banking networks, that is one. Secondly, also during the last 20-30 years, the financial management systems have been so much integrated that the World Bank, the American federal and by the way central banks of major countries, they have a very well-integrated, mutually enforcing, mutually influencing network. Therefore, the world, political economy has so many westernized elements that it would take a long time.
K.: It seems that even this is a kind of, so to say, of much bigger integration of different ruling bourgeoisies in different countries, and this maybe is also an explanation why European states are following a policy which is clearly against their own national interests. They seem to follow the interests of this superstructure and not of their own nation states.
M.: You are quite right and therefore you know the alternative systems have to be built through people’s movements in specific arenas in all the countries, because you have very correctly identified the elites.
However, there are two cracks. There are two cracks developing among the elites. I think they both have to be noticed.
One is that, and this is seen in India, in the US. Well, we do not know whether it is also operating in China in the same way. Certainly, in Europe, one track is the protectionist trend, which is supported by a section of the bourgeoisie.
And in the antipode the non-protectionist trend, the open trend, because, you know, in all our countries, we have a global bourgeoisie. And they do not want to take advantage of these protections and so that is one crack developing in some countries but when the GNPs are down they all of course unite but the other crack is that as far as welfare spending is concerned there is a very clear debate some support the welfare trend because in India I can see that, in Europe I can see that, in America I can see that.
Some support it because then they will use this period of managing tensions through welfare measures, lot of you know subsidies and those things. They consider it as a temporary arrangement in order to make more capital accumulation.
Then there is another opinion within the monopoly capital who think that look you do not have to give these welfare measures you know we can just create jobs, you know the neoclassical economics, the facade economics and so on. Do not give these welfare supports. Now these are serious debates because they create instabilities, they affect elections; therefore, I think we will see.
K.: They can manoeuver, they can abolish elections or at least generalize fraud in elections. We have seen the example of Moldova, where people have voted one way but the result was announced in an opposite way, saying that Russia is interfering while Western Europe is interfering in Moldova’s affair.
We are living in an Orwellian inversion of reality.
M.: Yes. That is true. However, when the election results are affected, for example, it was this wave of white supremacy, and a particular kind of capitalist mobilization, which brought Trump to power. I mean, the reaction to it is also quite serious, all the way in the US system.
Similarly, here in India, we have this combination of the, you know, the religious right and a major section of Indian capital. Also we have, the other forces, the opposition forces, who have their support base among capital, as well as, you know, among masses. So this kind of confrontation you can see in most of the countries. So there is some reality in this conflict also.
K.: So, what is your prediction, what will go on, what will happen regarding Ukraine and Iran and Palestine, what is your opinion, what are you waiting to see?
M.: You know, my assessment is that right now the global balance of forces have gone right and we are going to have very negative consequences both in Palestine and in Ukraine. The ceasefire, the so-called peace plans, you know, they are big compromises on both.
I mean NATO is getting concessions from Russia and so the Ukraine, I mean if there is a ceasefire and some kind of a peace arrangement, it will be a compromise, which is neither restraining NATO nor upholding the old, I mean upholding the whole principle of sovereignty or anything like that.
Particularly restraining NATO. I do not think Trump is going to achieve, going to have a ceasefire, which is his peace plan in Ukraine, which is unlikely in the immediate future, it will take still some time. Therefore, we are going to see negative results there also.
NATO will not be restrained. They will have some, I mean, new concessions from Russia.
K.: You know, there is a risk of going nuclear, after all. If this situation is going much longer, something can happen. Up to now, it has not happened…
M.: It is very much there, but it will remain as a danger because right now, Trump is working on three fronts, pressure on India and China, on the oil thing, then pressure on Europe, also on gas, but most importantly to concede part of Ukraine to Russia, and then have a security guarantee in the name of security guarantee for Ukraine, have a NATO presence in, if not directly, indirectly in Ukraine.
All these are signs of NATO threat remaining there and Russia’s nuclear capacity will remain a threat to the West, but it will remain like that.
Therefore, I am going to see a very disappointing compromise in Ukraine and the same with Palestine.
Palestine, it much worse. I think the illegal settlements are continuing to expand in West Bank and now, Netanyahu’s plan is to completely occupy Gaza and have a puppet regime there and they will call it, I mean, in name, some kind of an autonomous thing, but in effect, it will be a part of the Israeli military control network, control space and I think Mahmoud Abbas, in his video speech to the UN, should not have promised that there shall be no presence of Hamas in Gaza.
I mean, he could have remained silent at least on that but he said that Hamas would not be part of any administration in Gaza.
K.: Abbas belongs to the leaders who are making more and more concessions believing that they can make a compromise and the only result is they are asking more concessions from them.
M.: I know that, but this is a time when, even he was called upon, to play a role, which would have been to put more pressure on Trump and Netanyahu. Therefore, we are in for a much longer struggle in the future.
K.: You know, if your prediction regarding Palestine comes true, there would be an enormous moral and a psychological result of such a defeat of Palestinians. I mean, even in Europe, authoritarian regimes will profit from that.
In the Middle East, I think the next chapter will be a war of Israel against Hezbollah and Iran. Moreover, I am wondering, in that case, whether Russia, China, will let Israel destroy Iran, or they will intervene in some way.
M.: I am afraid. I am afraid that danger is not ruled out. I am very upset in general that Russia and China are not using their capacity to influence the process sufficiently. I was so happy when China hosted immediately after the October 7 developments, after the Israeli operation started and began to acquire the genocidal dimensions and become a genocidal. China hosted a meeting of the Palestinian groups. Do you remember that?
K.: I remember, yes.
M.: And I was so encouraged that could be the kind of initiative Russia and China can take. Now, for example, Russia and China could have ensured a stronger intervention. They do not have to send the army or anything, but there are other ways to intervene. The intervention for humanitarian aid, all kinds of pressure on Israel could have been exerted, but unfortunately, they did not.
K.: During the Russian war with Iran, there were some rumors here and there and declarations in the fringes of official talk about Pakistan sending, giving nuclear missiles to Iran, India answering to that by giving nuclear missiles to Israel or using its nuclear missiles against Pakistan. Even the Russian ex-president Medvedev has said that there is a chance; there is a possibility that Russia gives nuclear arms to Iran and Pakistan also. Then Trump said this is very unpleasant, those declarations. Therefore, we have seen something happening behind the scenes, not officially, but actually some kind of threats emanating from all sides.
M.: Absolutely. I mean, the most disappointing situation was when Trump claimed that Israel was about to destroy the Iranian leadership and he prevailed upon Israel not to do that. I mean, we are now depending on the safety of elected institutionalized leaders on the whims of Netanyahu and Trump. Just imagine.
And rather than, for example, China and Russia should have made an open statement that any attempt by Israel or US to destroy elected institutionalized leaders shall lead to very serious consequences, implying that they would intervene or the world will come together to prevent that. Because otherwise no country will have any safety for their own chosen systems. I mean that all of them have violated the UN Charter. Nevertheless still sovereignty has to be respected and leaderships have to be saved. People’s leadership have to be saved. That is not being done. Therefore, they are encouraging civil wars, overthrowing regimes. Therefore, I mean, we were hoping that, you know, BRICS would now come up with some principles, mainly to defend the UN Charter principles, you see.
The UN also had this resolution on Palestine mobilize public opinion and defend a full statehood.
Therefore, I think we have, I mean, my request to the democratic friends all over the world is to mobilize public opinion and pressurize at least the rising countries to help protect whatever is left and remind that such things cannot be not be done.
I mean, you cannot just because you have power, you will bombard and destroy leadership in other countries.
K.: Netanyahu is not destroying only the Palestinians, he is destroying the world order which have arisen after the Second World War, international law, if not all the achievements after Renaissance. Anyway, let us hope that leaders and public opinion will understand it timely, because if you are late to understand what is going on, you will pay much more costs to redress the situation, and it will be much more dangerous.
Because they are educated also, the problem is that Western leaders are educated in a way that they can do whatever they want, and this is quite dangerous, because at some point, they can overestimate their capacities, and then we can approach the question of nuclear annihilation. I hope not, but I cannot be certain, and the danger is enormous. Tell me something. What about the relations with Pakistan now? Are they somewhat normalized between India and Pakistan?
M.: They are very abnormal. You know, my own position here is very clear. We must have dialogue and go to the original problems, which create alienation, and therefore people respond to arms and terrorist violence. We are not discussing that.
There is no dialogue between India and Pakistan. I am a part of the Pakistan-India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy and we have been taking this line for years. You know, the first BJP government (Bharatiya Janata Party) listened to us in 2000. Even after the 2001, you know, the 9/11 situation there, and, you know, there was a group of terrorists attacking our Indian parliament. After that, we said, look, you cannot blame the whole people or a country when one terrorist group takes some actions. You have to have dialogue, isolate those people, because they are also victims. They are also facing opposition in their own countries and refrain from talking. Therefore, and because of this, you know, it is affecting India-China relations. It is affecting India-Russia relations also. Now, Pakistan, Russia and Pakistan relations are developing very fast. Pakistan is also mobilizing Trump to support Pakistan in so many respects.
K.: Do Americans support Pakistan?
M.: Yes, because, you know, now the Trump strategy is that they should win away. They cannot win away Pakistan from China, but at least they can have a presence again.
In addition, in Pakistan, as in India, the pro-American opinion, you know, the elite and the middle class is so integrated with American educational system, you know.
K.: Also in Pakistan, there was a strong leader, Khan who wanted to be more independent I think some years ago…
M.: Yes years ago but right now, because of these heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, within Pakistan, that is a very fierce debate about various policies.
Therefore, the American government is taking advantage of that.
They also have a very substantial support in the Pakistan Army, American support in Pakistan Army. Therefore, and I think we must proceed through dialogue, and by reviving SAARC, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.
India has boycotted SAARC because after one of the major terrorist incidents. Terrorist incidents must be condemned. But how do you deal with that? You have to jointly work with various groups through dialogue. One is the terrorists and the other is their supporters. I mean, they have financiers and organizers. However, we have to find why some people get alienated and they get people’s support to do terrorist acts. Therefore, we have to address these things.
K.: There is this plan of the Indian corridor, which is competitive to the Chinese road and belt. Are there any chances that this is constructed and this is not creating problems with China?
M.: India has boycotted the Belt and Road Initiative of China because it is going through that part of Jammu and Kashmir, which is currently occupied by Pakistan, and India claims that to be part of its sovereign jurisdiction and therefore, it has boycotted it. However, in other parts of the world it is part of so many projects along with China.
Therefore, that is another story. To counter BRI in this region particularly going to West Asia and to Europe West Asia, yeah, to Europe during the G20 meeting in New Delhi India announced the India Middle East Europe Corridor and it has excited many forces in India as well as in some of these countries who want to take advantage of this because of the American support to it and some European countries.
K.: The American and Israeli lobby is also active in Greece in order to stop the so-called Chinese project and bring the India corridor into place.
M.: So it is the India-Middle East-Europe corridor. It has not made much headway yet and it depends on how the Middle East situation develops. Because right now, it is such a turbulent situation.
It involves two rival projects of China and India.
China has helped Pakistan to develop the Gwadar port project. Therefore, Western China can have access through the roads rebuilt under the BRI program, through ascending and so on, to reach the ocean and through the Gwadar port, which is in Pakistan, in Balochistan, which is also a turbulent region of Pakistan, technically.
India has been promoting Chabahar port in Iran. It is a major project of India and Iran and that goes through, I mean, the access to that will have to be through Afghanistan and Iran.
Therefore, these two ports, in my view, both the ports should be developed as a part of the, and I am an advocate of India-China-Pakistan trilateral cooperation.
There should be trilateral discussions. In addition, they should be supported by all the other countries. Because Pakistan is very crucial, in my opinion, to any infrastructure development, corridor development, whether it is BRI or IMSE, you know the India-Europe corridor. Therefore, and that will be the answer to terrorism. Because India, China, Pakistan, all three have been targets of terrorist groups of various kinds, you see. Only when they talk together, they can commonly, they can address the common problems, you see.
K.: Professor, why we had, who you believe has orchestrated this recent military conflict between India and Pakistan? Is there any external force, which wants the entire Indian subcontinent to be? Because we do not have only India and Pakistan. We had some years ago Sri Lanka, we have Nepal, we have Bangladesh, we have Myanmar.
What is going on? Are those physical phenomena or somebody is somehow fueling those events?
M.: I think the India-Pakistan has to be, particularly this latest episode, does not belong to that category of general and endless protests or the change in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. In all those three situations, there are two kinds of theory.
One is the US dimension, in which China was too popular, becoming too popular in those countries, therefore the US wanted to contain it, and those regimes, which were pro-China, have to be overthrown. I am afraid the new regimes are equally friendly to China also. Therefore, if it is the America…
K.: But Chine is offering at least productive investments. Americans are offering tariffs. It is normal that Chinese become popular.
M.: in those countries needed some investment to welcome those investments and they’re part of their economic development process and irrespective of which comes to power in Bangladesh, I mean in India our press talks about Indian party in Bangladesh, anti-Indian party in Bangladesh. I think that is very unfair.
They all want also friendly relations with India because of the very clear economic geographic reasons but they also want friendly relations with China. China has the money. This is why you know the policy makers who have very shortsighted intervention policies have to rethink about their strategies. I mean the democratization is very important in Nepal, indeed, there was corruption, and all that but it has to be done through processes. I mean I am a supporter of people’s movements but the people’s movements also need to have their politics right. See it is very important. They should not allow big foreign powers to whether it is U.S. or China or India big foreign powers to reduce the autonomy of those countries.
M.: The incident, which triggered the latest round of the terrorism of India-Pakistan relations, that was a very pathetic, most condemnable incident that a group of terrorists asked for religions, chose the Hindu male to kill them, shoot them down. Now, there are three theories and I do not buy any of them.
One is that the Indian government itself, or some part of the regime, engineered it.
I do not think that is correct because if one part were doing it, there would have been other parts who would have prevented it, because there are layers and layers of things.
Another is that the Americans wanted to destabilize this region and have their presence in this region more effectively. Again, I think the way Trump is cultivating Modi and the Hindu forces in India, he would not have this knowing that there will be a backlash, you see.
Then, Pakistan regime. Pakistan regime is not one. The army, the different political parties, the former ruling party is now in prison, its leader, Imran Khan is in prison.
Then there are two other parties, who are in coalition, and then the army has many factions, but the dominant army has its own clique.
Therefore, one of the crystallized connections in Pakistan is more likely to have said yes, or it is one of the many.
There are dozens of terrorist groups, which are trying to take revenge on this or that issue, concerning this sort of Kashmir.
However, the incident was most condemnable, it will backfire to whoever perpetrated it, and it has backfired.
Now, India reacted and destroyed some, it says, some terrorist bases. Those are not the only terrorist bases. New terrorist bases will come up unless you go to the roots of the problem, unless the government of India, the government of Pakistan, irrespective of parties, have to come together to discuss and go to the roots of these problems.
We had examples during our, another BJP government in the, you know, 2000 to 2004. We have seen channels of talks; our prime minister took a bus trip to Lahore and so on. Yeah, so I think right now this violence spree is going to continue because of the obstinance for their own political reasons of the two regimes in India and Pakistan.
K.: How do you see the role of Turkey in West Asia?
M.: Yeah. You know, some of Turkey’s positions are good. For example, I think on Palestine, at least in formal terms, they made some statements, which were a little more direct and straightforward, condemning
K.: But they cooperate with Israel in the same time.
M.: Also, they cooperate at the same time. Then, they become a place where peace talks on Ukraine could take place, they played some role, but the present regime is not allowing basic democratic rights, not allowing opposition to have its politics. I think that has to be criticized and therefore, I have mixed views on Turkey.
I was hoping that Turkey will play that role in democratization, but I am afraid sometimes it is more Western power, you know, than an independent power
K.: It seems that they are finally engaged with the West, but they are selling also to the East kind of supposed independence, but quite successfully, by the way, up to now.
Professor, you have spent much of your life studying China and working actively for the improvement of Russian-Indian ties.
Do you think this recent rapprochement between India and China will last? Or it is just an opportunistic move?
M.: In fact, neither, I frame it differently. I think both India and China have to regard each other as self-confident equal partners and, unfortunately, they are not behaving as self-confident equal partners.
Because military and economic disparity in the modern world should not make you less self-confident and more dependent on this force, that force, this development, that development, and these are, I mean, India and its elite are becoming stronger day by day. Its economy is growing even though poverty and inequality remain in a big way.
However economic and military power is growing, no doubt about it and China knows it and India knows that China is the second largest economy of the world; in technology it is number one in so many spheres, in military it can, you know, I mean, it is not as powerful as US but still quite powerful to challenge many forces.
In other words, they have to recognize each other’s potential and reality also, and their big civilizations, long-standing civilizations and their middle classes are big. The global middle and their upper middle class is global middle class just like the European middle class, you know, in terms of skill, values, and even income, the high Indian middle class is a global middle class now.
Both countries have to realize that they have a history of independence, struggle, and revolution till today and they have a duty to the whole world as developing countries and former colonies, they have a duty to the whole world to restructure this world but they are playing power politics as allies and combination partners, combination members and therefore you will have occasional rapprochement, occasional conflict as a pattern but the objective process of both being important powers and they have to remain in communication and discussion all the time. That is my approach.
This has to be the thing. Five years ago when the decline, the tensions began to increase after the global clashes, you see, I said, look, they must immediately meet to discuss, not say that, you know, until we normalize the border we cannot have relations on other fronts. I said, this formulation is wrong. Discussion on all issues at all times. That has to be the framework in modern diplomacy and modern international politics and so no conditional, you know, talks only after this is done we will discuss whether it is Pakistan, China, or any other country.
Moreover, Indian and Chinese businessmen, they are very keen to do business in both countries, you know.
K.: You are speaking somehow of the potential role of those two very big countries, essentially two continents, to shape a new and better world order. However, at the same time, we do not see much of a new project.
For instance, one century ago, in the 20th century, with the Russian Revolution, and then with the Chinese Revolution we saw Russia and China became part of an alternative proposal. Of course, one can argue if it was good, if it was bad, I do not speak about that now, but this has happened and this has transformed in many ways the world. Now we see the economic rise of China, the economic and demographic rise of India, all that we all look to it, but we do not see any projects for the global community.
M.: I put it differently. The project is with people’s movements all over the world, criticizing two models. This became very pronounced after COVID and now, you know, Trump is forcing all of us to articulate it more clearly.
Therefore, the project is that the neoliberal project, which is one of the high points of capitalism for the last 200 years, colonial period and the period after colonial formal colonial ending in the post-colonial period, let us say.
The neoliberal project became ‘The Project’ and that has been exposed because it is creating so many problems, much violence, much alienation, much climate change and destruction of the nature. Therefore, the critique of that political economic model of capitalism, colonialism, capitalism and neoliberalism is very clear and alternatives are growing in people’s movements.
Many Southern forums all over the world, and in my view, South exists even in the North, in the people’s movements of the North, in the alternative thought groups in the North. That is one. Which had been built on the aftermath of the Second World War through the United Nations and with the UN system at the center. Then first, it was overwhelmed by alliance systems, then by unilateral system of the US, and now with many, many people call it multipolarity emerging. I call it collapse any kind of polarity. I think all polarities, I mean, now, whether it is G7, the existing G7, or a new G10, or whatever, that will not work.
The new security and peace has to be worked out through many structures, economic, political, security, cultural, communication, cyber, AI structures. So the new peace and security system has to replace the post-Second World War, 20th century system of, you know, the military base, the hard power, even South- power, technologically developed hard power, in the killing capacity, in the old sense of the term, of the various powers.
Therefore, both economic model of capitalism and the security model of Western-dominated UN and alliance system, UN at one time and alliance system later, have collapsed.
The world is now, you know, transitioning to a new phase of history where, you know, and I am glad, at least in statements, BRICS, SCO, take notice of some of these, you see, in statements, not in practice.
K.: I see. I also believe that if you do not have popular movements entering in the game, there can be no match only from the initiative of states. It can be important in some ways, but it has to be complimented with the initiative of the peoples.
By the way, as you are a student of China, what is the secret of China’s success in your opinion?
M.: You know my book is called: “China’s transformation, the success story and the success trap”.
So first about the success story, the secret of China’s success is the leadership, and its party state leadership guiding capitalism at three levels, global level, national level and local level.
Local meaning both regional as well as sub-regional level and it is capitalism, market economy with actual capitalists and even state enterprises were made to play the logic and operative rules of capitalism, profit and loss and accumulation. Therefore, I do not call it state capitalism, but it is close to state capitalism, that it is.
K.: You know that there are many debates about the character of the Chinese regime. However, one essential feature of capitalism is that after all, the capitalist class makes the main decision-making in capitalist countries.
The main tools are the tools of the so-called free economy. In the case of China, you have a communist party, which is deciding, and it is using an economy planned via market methods.
Therefore, I do not know if we can call it a capitalist country.
M.: From Jiang Zemin onwards the capitalists found more safer haven for their ways of operating the economy in the Chinese state and communist party very clearly and Xi Jinping tried to moderate it and control it to some extent but did not reverse the trend.
There is some tension between the Xi Jinping leadership and some of the capitalists but those tensions are very minor you see. Therefore capitalism, you know the market socialism with Chinese characteristics, market economy with Chinese characteristics was excellent as an effective market economy because of that reason number one I’ll just complete there are two other factors of success they took full advantage of global market, particularly the western technology capital and market, they took full advantage and Western powers also took full advantage of Chinese development so you see they’ve made a lot of profit America and Canada, Europe; Western Europe made a profit out of the Chinese state.
K.: Enterprises you mean.
M.: Exactly, enterprises. Number one, number two, but number three, and this I am afraid the world is not talking anymore about the local industries, which were collective. The collective enterprises at the level, you know, at the county and its district and the lower levels. They were so successful, they generated so much surplus and then for a time they were the mainstay of the Chinese economy and for early exports of the cheap Chinese goods, they were responsible. You see, their contribution to Chinese success story is was enormous.
The local economic contribution through collective enterprises. Therefore, you have state-led capitalism.
K.: When you say collective enterprises, they are the ownership of the workers there, they are the ownership of the state, and who rules them?
M.: Members although all the whole village members all the families and all workers there they would get their wages which also increased manifold.
K.: That means a system somehow reminding us of the Yugoslav self-management or not.
M.: Partly that, but self-management in Yugoslavia was applied also to big enterprises. These were village-level enterprises.
K.: Do they exist still?
M.: No. You see, after 1990, after 2000, particularly, sorry, not 1990, after 1995, slowly, but 2000, very massively, they were considered as polluting industries, low scale economies, low technology economies.
They were privatized and merged with, many of them were abolished and they were merged with modern, large, privately owned industries.
Therefore, the collective enterprises, which contributed enormously for 20 years, were disbanded, more or less disbanded. Most of them but there are some still.
In my view, that was a method of socioeconomic, political, self-development, that socialism really succeeded in China. However, just to become a high rising economy, to have high growth, high economic growth, they were disbanded. During the, you know, Jang Zemin decided this, but during Hu Jintao period, they were eliminated. Hu Jintao made a lot of good things, but one of the bad things was to completely eliminate the township and village industries. Anyway.
K.: And the traps to which you are referring, what are the traps in China?
M.: The trap is that they cannot afford to give up this model because of their two ambitions to compete with America in economy, technology and military. Therefore, they remain to become powerful.
Second to keep the Chinese sense of patriotism, nationalism, pride as a big power alive as big economy.
So becoming a big economy is a part of the Chinese nationalism project.
See, when they became the second most important power, I mean, Puccintao 2010, Puccintao was so eloquent about this.
Now, in my view, growth should not be, I think reasonable growth is important for nationalism and socialism, but growth per se is a capitalist goal. Okay. That is a whole different, that is why they cannot reduce the rate of growth.
Therefore, they have to allow some environmental compromises. I mean, they have taken many excellent environmental measures, but still, coal is very important as one of their sources.
Second, they have to tolerate a lot of inequalities and regional disparities in order that, you know, rate of growth has to be maintained.
Third, you know, gender disparity has become a low priority in China, even though they talk about it formally, and, there is a women’s movement.
There are some Chinese feminists, but I am afraid on the gender index, you have technically more work participation, more women in Chinese parliament, I mean, national people’s congress and so on, but it is still as patriarchal as India.
In fact, in India, the women’s movement is highly vibrant. It can bring our Indian government to knees sometimes. Indian women’s movement is highly vibrant, very powerful. I think, ethnic politics has been moderated and autonomy has not been granted. They can easily afford to give lots of autonomy as Hu Jintao tried to give, but on this, Xi Jinping has been very ruthless, on both Xinjiang and Tibet.
He did not have to. I mean, he could be ruthless towards the separatists and the armed separatists, but he could still decentralize political power, give more political freedom and so many such things.
K.: It seems there are some social movements in China, much more than there were in the Soviet Union under communism.
M.: Oh yes, quite true. I think the Chinese civil society is very active.
K.: Even the workers movement I am reading.
M.: No, I am afraid the workers movement has to be understood in perspective. Independent trade unions are banned legally and politically.
Workers movements have been removed. However, some of their petitions are very, very good. When you go and see workers’ demonstrations, in some places demonstrations are allowed. Peaceful demonstrations are allowed.
K.: In the Soviet Union, we have seen during some decades, of course, that the governing nomenclature has finally transformed itself into a possessing class and has destroyed the system. Can such a scenario happen at some point in China also? Or it is excluded?
M.: Fortunately, Deng Xiaoping learned two lessons from the Soviet collapse. One is, A., you have to have a controlled authoritarian system, yes, but B., you have to allow a lot of room by different organizations and so that their views, their consultation capacities are there.
So in China, just the process of consultation is dispersed you know, party, state, communist youth league, women’s federations, also the workers federation unit you know, they’re just their formal and routine activities, keep the consultation process very active. Sometimes they were more active during the Hu Jintao period. Now Xi Jinping has control because he made party and state less differentiated.
Very clearly, it is now the big party directly intervening, but directly managing and administering state, society, economy and the army.
But what is that party? The Party takes characteristics of the state organization, military organization, NGO organization sometimes and so on. Therefore, the governance category, governance criteria of party has been expanded and very strictly enforced during Xi Jinping.
You have an authoritarian state, but a highly consultative process.
Therefore, you do not have the Chinese bureaucracy as one, you know, like the Soviet bureaucracy, which was really a rent-shaking, self-perpetuating class, the new bureaucratic capitalist class, not in China.
Though there is another problem in China, you know, the kinship and the clientelism system in China is very old, traditional and still works, you know, who comes from where, who is who, how is he related and organizational solidarity and ‘special favors’ and things like that. They work in such a way that networks and factionalisms, they operate and Xi Jinping has come out very harshly against some of them and they become corrupt, nepotism, so the anti-corruption campaign to some extent has worked.
K.: They are executing some hundreds of people every month if I understand well
M.: Yes, that is also true. It has been used to remove opponents.
Yes. So the trap is that you have to live with inequality, environmental compromise and cultural and day-to-day compromises, you know, and this and because they want to become a big power. I mean, you have a Times Square in Beijing, a ginger in Shanghai.
K.: Can you imagine a way for such a regime to transit towards some kind of socialism?
M.: Yes, and here I am a minority of one in many situations.
K.: Ideas have been at some point minorities of one.
K.: But of course, not all minorities of one were right.
M.: Of course, you are not right all the time. You know, I have a few friends in China, Marxist friends, who are still hopeful. That is why, and I have so many, I mean, I have such trust and affection and respect for some of them that I treat them as correct.
Because there are debates within the party, there are groups allowed in different ways in China.
Some of Xi Jinping’s early measures and even continuing measures are meant to revive the emphasis on Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong thought, and now of course Xi Jinping’s thought on building socialism in the new era with Chinese characteristics.
However, there are two obstacles. One is, America is trying to dismantle, I mean, to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party through peaceful means and all kinds of things. Also by other means…
The other is that the ethnic movements are quite strong. Moreover, if they relax their control system and allow the democratic groups to become more powerful, the chaos may be taken advantage of by the capitalist forces within China and outside. In addition, clearly there is a capitalist class, which has grown in China, which is global because they have investments. The BRI is as much a Chinese state agency as a Chinese capitalist.
K.: And they do not want of course China to be active on the Palestinian question.
M.: Exactly.
K.: By the way, excuse me Professor; is there an Israeli lobby in China, like in practically all the main countries of the world?
M.: There are lobbies. They are silent. Many of them are in jail. Many of them are underground. They are silent, but there are lobbies. I can give you instances. I think around, I cannot remember the exact year just now, some seven, eight years ago, 100 Marxist intellectuals wrote a letter to Xi Jinping. It is called: “the letter of 100”, you can check it.
For example, Mao Zedong pictures, Mao Zedong and Marxist study circles, they have come back in China right now, thanks to Xi Jinping.
The Xi Jinping cult, as well as some of his westernized discourse, for example his five volumes are called governance of China. You know, whereas Mao Zedong, where selected works, thanks to Xi Jinping’s fundamental problems of socialism in China, fundamental problems in contemporary China, you know, those things. In addition, governance, how to govern, governance is a neoliberal concept, replacing politics.
K.: And…
M.: I mean it is widely in Chinese governance that is how to govern it by controlling and putting it on the track and so on. However, some of his ideological statements are very powerful.
K.: Somewhere I read that one of his beloved books was Chernychevsky book “What to do”, which was also one of the books, which inspired Lenin.
M.: Yes, actually, you get some such news from China, but objective reading of the situation in China shows me that Xi Jinping also has failed to take China out of the success trap even though he continues and increases the success story on the global capitalist terms. It is a success story.
There will be more such success. China will be number one. It will beat America in many other respects, both in military and economy.
K.: Is there any chance, as some people are afraid, that we will see a Chinese empire dominating the world?
M.: That is one trend but the world and the coming phase of global history will not allow even China just as it has refused to allow America to succeed. It did not allow Germany, Italy, Japan, England, and before that Prussia or Ottoman Empire to succeed.
It will not allow any big power to build an empire hereafter. They may try; they may claim that they are not applying hegemonism. Their model may have its attraction etc.
However, the era of empires is over! I am not saying this just as an optimist and a democratic or a revolutionary intellectual. I am saying it as a student of history and contemporary history, you see, Palestine in fact, in my view the future of Palestine is the future of the world if what has happened in Gaza and even if a compromise to the large dissatisfaction of Palestinians is forced upon them, Palestine will remain alive.
You see, and global tensions will continue and fragmentation of all groups, all alliance systems will be accentuated.
Therefore, it will become even more difficult even though there may be wars, there may be even some nuclear threats or even explosions.
I cannot even rule out that but not for building empires. It will be accentuating the process of global democratization.
K.: You remain a strong optimist, historical optimist in an environment of unprecedented risks.
M.: I remain, yes.
K.: Thank you very much professor. It was a very great pleasure and a great honor to speak with you.
Of course, we can prolong our discussion for days and weeks, but okay I hope we will have this opportunity shortly another time to discuss with you about the so interesting questions that are also your interest.
M.: Thank you very much Dimitris, I really enjoyed our discussion.
