 All right, welcome to another episode of China is not our enemy. And I really want to thank Madison. Thank you for co coordinating this campaign so amazingly it's, it's a lot it's multi headed. And I want to also thank our sponsors are. Campaign is about growing a big tent that to end this aggression, it's going to take all of us. And we really appreciate our amazing coalition. And today, some of them are co sponsoring this conversation, the campaign for nuclear disarmament UK. And I want to thank our sponsors and the international peace movements resistance against the August alliance show up America, the people's forum New York City, and no Cold War Britain. I'm super excited to be today with the amazing premiere per cat per kite. Water. I agree. All right, so it wouldn't even move. He's the founding editor of news click India. He's an engineer and a science and free software activists. He's a prolific speaker and writer globally, and was with code pink on our Gaza Freedom March in 2009. He's the author, along with DJ Prashad of and Ron blowout corporate capitalism and the theft of the global commons. Be very welcome and thank you so much for staying up late and joining us from India. Pleasure to be with you. Thank you. Thank you. I want to start with you letting us know what it looks like from India, as us just lost another two wars and now it's aggressing on China. And, you know, the United States citizens know about a little of India they do about China. What it what does this look like from where you sit. I think there is one thing which of course affects directly in this particular case the Indian people that we have been having border tensions with China. It's a long unresolved border issue, stepping back really to colonial times when the borders are not demarcated. And of course that is spilled over, as it happens in various countries into, what shall we say tensions, sometimes flashes into the violence. In 1962 war on the border. So that sort of complicates India's earlier attempts to build what will be called strategic autonomy, by which India did look after its interest independent of joining any block. It was a much longer history to nonline movement anti colonial struggles decolonization of the world, or which non linemen were the part, but he kept out of alignments and built his own new strategic autonomy. Right now, with the border tensions with China, it seems to have gone whole hog with the United States now, and that is cause for concern because that's not an interest, not an interest of the Indian people. You know with the Indian people, the Chinese people. It's a, it's a big. It's, it's hard to say right who are the Indian people who are the Chinese people. But, you know, India's right there in the middle of what, what is said to be the, the century of Asia. Or your, you're just kind of in the center of world politics there's China there's cashmere there's Pakistan and Burma, and you know, and then it's, it's joined this quad. So, where do you see, you know, is is is being part of the quad. Is strategy is a US pressure is where do you see India here. See, the current government that we have the body government is of course has a longer lineage in the sense it comes from the RSS, which wanted the right word shift post independence itself it wanted to be an ally of the western powers against Russia and China, what it called in the song, socialist was its enemy, that's how it saw itself, and of course wanted a Christian Jewish Hindu Alliance against Muslims and Communists. That isn't a very simple or a simplistic political understanding it seemed to have unfortunately 50 60 years down the line, that's trend of thinking still persist. Initially, even when the body government came into power, it tried to have a relationship with the United States and the western powers, but also try to build some relationship with China and Russia, which now in the last two three years seems to have collapsed completely, and it seems to be going much closer to the United States, of course, there is also an internal set of issues which are here, as you know, the Indian government has been, as you said, Kashmir, as well as internal violence against minorities, the kind of politics that we see in politics, that of course, Facebook, very actively helps with which algorithms are otherwise. So all of this is also causing internal problems inside the country, weakening us in some sense, but also that going whole hog with United States, particularly at a time when the US has just lost the Afghanistan war with after 20 years of occupation, getting out of Iraq, and also losing its, shall we say, the larger Eurasian landmarks for itself, you have Western Europe, you have the NATO, and then you have the so called pivot to the Pacific. The Eurasian landmarks is much bigger than the Pacific Ocean, and it's what should be about people, not about oceans. So I think that this is the wrong time, if you wanted to ally with the United States, this perhaps is the wrong century, if not the wrong time. Yes, totally agree. And, and also just the different the people in India. I don't know if, you know, our listeners know that, but in recently two to 400 million people that actions on the same day in India. It's a historic day that few global writers wrote about. And you took on raising up the farmer strike at your coverage got you and a little bit of hot water. Can you talk about that. The government doesn't like critical analysis of what it is doing, or covering movements which are springing up in the country. So both these things are not something the ruling government wants. Most ruling governments do not want criticism of itself, but the way this government has attacked, particularly the digital platforms which have resisted the kind of massaging of the message shall be saying the government has been trying. So that has actually led the government to take various measures. Digital platforms are definitely under attack because they seem to be more recalcitrant, more disobedient of the government than others which have much bigger financial space. So easier to co op. So I think that is a reason why just because also come under various investigations as they're called, but other platforms other journalists have faced charges of solution for doing their everyday task of journalistic work. So I think we are seeing this, but at the moment we still have the courts functioning some protection of the courts and let's hope you know the Indian people will slowly come out in support of the media and the courts will hold the line as as of now, they seem to be at least thinking that free press, free media, journalistic endeavors should not be silent. So let's see where it goes. But yes, struggles on that front too. Well, do you think that that is an influence that comes from this relationship with the US we're very used to not getting our news and journalists being shut down and jailed. But ours is really severe with Julian Assange and Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning and so many who try to get the word out and and and get crushed is do you think that this attack on journalism has anything to do with the relationship with the United States. You know because what you're saying about the landmass and not only that the number of people isn't isn't that something like four billion people or three and a half billion people in that region. To make Asia of course it is very large India and China alone will make it roughly about 2.8 billion or so. So of course, Asia is. In fact, the Eurasia is for fifth of the population of the world. Perhaps, you know, so and it will add Africa which is really shares corridor link to Asia that you really take it to most of the world's population. I wouldn't count Australia as a full-fledged continent that leaves only the Americas out of it. So I think there is this issue of, you know, when you talk about the Eurasia as a landmass Asia, what we are talking about a change of how the world has been looked at for the last say from the 16th 17th century onwards, which saw the rise of maritime empires. Unfortunately, colonial plunder slavery genocide all the things we can think of which today still plague us in different forms, but the power really shifted to maritime colonial powers in the United States, the European powers were really essentially maritime powers. And that is where I think this NATO being not Atlantic Alliance. And now we talk of Indo-Pacific. I think the focus is really force projection using your navy and of course aircraft carriers are really the fortresses on the little islands of the move, so to say. So I think this is the focus of the previous century, the 20th century. I think the 21st century is going to come back for what you were saying also the focus on the people. And therefore we are really looking at Eurasia, you're looking at the Americas as what we should be looking for, looking at Africa, and how do the people in these places, how do we really let those relationships develop and not big power projections and trying to do what is called a rule based order where three G3, G5, G7 countries are going to decide what is called the international rules of the game. And I think that is the significant change we are seeing. Can we have a cooperative order emerge instead of Indo-Pacific and NATO. And I think that is the significance when you talk about what is happening and where is India going. If India thinks with this 1.2 billion people, it's going to go to Indo-Pacific. I think they're making a huge mistake. Wow, well that's so hopeful. Thank you. I love that and you know a lot of the work which is not our enemy is also with the indigenous peoples in the Pacific islands. So I like the idea of having it you know the cooperative coming from the bottom. And you know that just brings me to the, we've spoken about this before but the term that Biden uses the rules based order and you know while breaking the rules all the time, how you know how do we undermine obviously you know like Indo-Pacific which is a recent term you know made by the I think it was the Japanese officials and the Trump administration. How you know how what are other, what are ways like taking on the fact that it's not only not a rules based order but murdering mafia. How you know how can we switch that around in our activism. You know it's an interesting issue that when the United States about talks about a rule based order or the colonial powers with United States talks about a rule based order. They're not talking of the United Nations of the Security Council, which is all even about international law. All these three things are not on the table. So when you talk about an international rule based order. The question is who makes the rules and it's very clear. It's a G7 is the G3 and all of these if you look at it are essentially ex colonial past. Okay, and some of them are of course settler colonial past. So when you talk about for instance a US, UK, Australia coming together. Now, what unites United Kingdom has been power of course still has nuclear weapons and so on, but is really a long past. It's prime. What has it got to do with Southeast Asia. So what is it doing coming into this. So it is to give the fig leaf that there are there is a rule based order and a few countries set the rules, and the so called revisionist powers are the ones who do not accept these rules. So the question that really comes in. What is the meaning of rules when you, as you have stopped about the mafia's well let's put it this way, the United States at seven to 800 basis in the world military basis in the world, only country, which has this number of basis Russia which has one as 10 China has one. Okay, now this is the contrast. When you talk about the South China see the freedom of navigation, you are talking about a corridor which is supposed to be close to the Chinese sequence. We are not able to dominate that, talking about the freedom of navigation, and they're very clear that 2018 I think document strategic document about China says we have a problem, we're not able to dominate the Chinese coastline or the first island chain, we're not outside that we have dominance but not inside that we need that to know those kind of discussions that they're having, which are open. Now, how does it square it in the so called rule based international order and the freedom of navigation, as India discovered to the US Navy also did a freedom of navigation in Indian, what India calls its territorial waters, or it causes, you know, economic zones through which you pass you need to take permission. So all of these actually are interpretations US has over all these issues, which it says it decides international rules is very clear it doesn't say international law by the way, and I think that's an interesting distinction with making it's not talking about international law, but about international rule based order, and I think that distinction is very important. Thank you. Some good terms in there. So, Indian Biden's quad lateral, you know the Quad Alliance with US Japan, Australia and India. You wrote an excellent article on India's role in the Quad and August Alliance. Can you talk about the military components to the Quad Alliance. The alliance was initially a security dialogue, but recently both the United States and India has been talking about that this is not a India, it's not a in the Pacific equivalent of the NATO. We are not a military alliance we are going to do all the soft stuff, economy, vaccines and other stuff, but the military part of it the sort of be walking back from. It's really interesting that once you have the or US Australia being brought into this, and let's leave out the poor United Kingdom which gives them a big leaf to say this three country. It's really inducting Australia as a frontline state in its contention over really Southeast Asia. Now Southeast Asia is one of the most past developing places in the world. They have a cooperative economy they are building with trade, they have trading partnerships with Japan as well as with China, as well as with South Korea. So they see themselves as really the next growth zone in the world, which they seem to be doing as well. So I think inducting Australia in is to counterbalance provide at least a base of operations, if military target is one they have, as you said China being their target. So Australia provides a military staging post near Southeast Asia, and that seems to be Australia's attraction. Why Australia has gone with this is not clear, because Australia's economic interest live with Southeast Asia and East Asia. It's a supplier of raw materials, and it needs industrial goods and obvious, it is compliments the Chinese economy when. So that has been where this has been selling stuff. So it seems that it is willing to pay money to United States to buy nuclear submarines, which it didn't seem to want, because it didn't take the submarines from France earlier it said we want diesel submarines. And that's why the submarines are forced projection why they do they want it for defensive purposes is not clear at all. But they'll get it 20 years later. It seems that they're offering basis in Australia for the United States Navy and Air Force. And the Foreign Policy magazine also said that this is the informal understanding why Australia is willing to pay money to be a frontline state in the battle USS battling is China is not clear to me, and I think it's not clear to most of the Chinese Australian people too. Yes, true and there's an uprising so we hope it succeeds. British colonialism to Cold War Orientalism in the US Nixon proclaimed that India needed a mass famine while Kissinger declared the Indians were bastards. India has been exploited and treated paternalistically by Western powers off and on for centuries. Today, the US sees India as geopolitically useful again as a hedge against China, as a market for US weapons and a market for US goods and outsourcing and for moving factories for US factories from China to India. How do Indian government officials view this current political relationship and dynamic. But, you know, how does, how is India's sovereignty and and agency expressed. Well, the two questions over there. What is of course how does India see United United States, and of course his tensions or confrontation with China, that is one, particularly if it doesn't stretch from border to other issues, as long as it is border. If it goes beyond border issues that of course you have a larger problem. Other is how does United States view India. Now you know there is I think an old saying I don't know who said it. I think it's Kissinger, if I may be mistaken, who said to be a friend of any of the United States is dangerous. The only thing more dangerous than that is becoming a friend of the United States. This is when their allies in Vietnam, South Vietnam had to be dispensed with because they wanted to make peace over there and get out of South Vietnam. And I think the Afghan warlords have also discovered this bitter truth. So the United States has becoming an ally of United States has always been extremely dangerous for that country. If not the warlords or the leaders of those countries. Now if you come to the US issue, you know, it's interesting with the what the time period what you're talking about Nixon Kissinger, that's the 60s the war in the Pakistan war that took place at that point of time. Now if we look at those times, the colonial powers were very unhappy with non alignment countries like India, Indonesia, you had of course the cool against the United States, and a carnage over there which the US really supported instigated whatever you call it. So, all of this was very interesting was you will read the archives today, both the British colonial or post colonial archives at the United States and the same opinion that these countries we're letting them come in we can't stop them, but they really should not do anything except listen to us. In fact, the British archives say the Commonwealth should be led by the senior Commonwealth countries, all of them whites settler colonialism or UK, and the rest of them should really listen to us. So, at that point of time they hated the Nehru government, they hated non alignment, they basically realized it was about decolonization and that was the basic battle going on in the world. Now once we move beyond decolonization, I think even the Excolonial powers have accepted, they cannot get back to colonies. Now the question is, what is the form of extraction that we can do. And you can see from Africa, what is the mode of exploitation they have with countries they still think they can bulldoze team roller. And this is the difference I think they're finding with Asia that Asian countries have by now being able to come together and that's why I was talking about the ASEAN that in spite of the political differences which is significant, they come together Now that is the African Union was doing that and taking Gaddafi out and destroying Libya was the price African Union paid and Gaddafi paid for having brought African Union together. Now you are still seeing those battles being fought. Unfortunately countries like India which paid played an important role in rallying this third world, as we call it the global south for decolonization that this has decided that this lies in completely real politics. That means who do I dicker with purely transactionally and not look at the larger questions. Of course, it has its own problems with the kind of anti minority politics the government is doing. It finds itself very easily in the same boat with the United States with this policy of war global war on terror and at least internationally anti Islamic Islam supporting Islamophobia. So that is also something which is what is bringing the US and some of the settler Colombian states together of basically supporting Uighurs of supposedly while pursuing a completely Islamophobic line. But the only thing that has happened which I think is March of history, that if you look at West Asia look at Central Asia, which are actually the dominant religion here is Islamic Islam, that you can see they are moving towards a greater understanding with each other and trying to work out something independently of global powers, particularly the United States, and the fall of Afghanistan withdrawal of us partially from Iraq and possibly Syria means that those forces are probably likely to work out how to solve our problems ourselves and not look to create powers for playing one off against the other. Now that in Central Asia, this is what Brzezinski was most worried about that fall of the Soviet Union must be accompanied by capturing the central erasure part that is that is where the power lies, which is really Central Asia and Afghanistan that was for Brzezinski always important element. That's why you could remember Brzezinski started the Afghan intervention in 1979, well before any of this happened, and who were his allies in London. So this is the forces, the same Islamist forces which they went to war against in 2001 are the forces that propped up in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and the progressive Afghan government. So you know this is the reality which is changing. And I think government of India, or Biden administration, or of course the Trump administration, he doesn't they're talking about all of them are missing the march of history, the march of history cannot be delayed like this. But yes, there is no guarantee that barbarism cannot try and destroy civilizations, and we have nuclear weapons and we have climate change so we have two threats hanging over us and our civilization. Exactly why we need cooperation instead of aggression and more weapons. That's our campaign. Thank you. But, I mean that was kind of depressing. What, what's the view, like, what do people say in India about this though because in what you just said it's, it's, there can't be a lot of people excited that India is on the side of the US and it's war in China. I mean, is that, how is that talked about. You know, one part of the Indian problem is that we are so big in terms of size, terms of population that we think our problems are the biggest problems in the world. So, unfortunately, we have that problem international issues are seen from a very narrow lens. One of the problems that we have is of course, China, because we had a border one war in 1962. Now we have the border tensions clashes that have taken place recently. We have to really fight or make it out that China is an enemy internally and anybody who says, like you were saying that China is not our enemy of people like us we spent, you know, signing with America against China doesn't make sense. So, you know, you are all pro Chinese, which of course, then immediately puts out out of the discourse. It's interesting while they're doing that, what is the objective reality. India China trade has grown in spite of India's best in, you know, efforts to come closer to United States. The fact is us is essentially the industrializing and it today controls intellectual property. It controls the financial systems of the world. It controls arms production, but beyond the three areas it doesn't produce much. So therefore, our trade in spite of all the campaign against China, which is being, which is there in India, the reality is our trade on both our selling to China and China selling to us is growing. Now that's the objective reality. Will it make India changes politics, will it have an impact internally about politics, we'll have to see. Unfortunately, the arc of history is a good term to use but doesn't work in the short term. The other part of it is that United States. Now, you know, the Indian middle class has a different relationship with the United States than it had originally. There's a lot of so called non resident Indians who are middle class who migrated to the United States have a good life over there, and who have an outsource outsized influence over there. The Indian middle class always had its eye to the West. That is what it looked towards, and weakening as I said of the national national movement heritage, anti colonial heritage. That has also put us at the moment into this quote unquote as I would call naval gazing mode, what is India for you know we knew where we are going. We wanted to be independent country we will develop internally. Now we are being told, you know, technology we can always get from outside, we can always buy things and you know we can get dollars will come in. But are we as a nation, what does it mean for us, is it recolonizing process, we're not clear. So you know the those issues still are very much there. On top of that we have what we call communism which is really sectarian politics, and the word in India is a bad word, unlike a lot of other places when it's talked to the communitarian. So here we've been communism by divisive sectarian politics based on religious identity, that's how the word is used in India. So this attempt to create a majoritarian psyche and disempower the minority. That is unfortunately the trajectory that seems to be taking place in South Asia, and it's being helped by small programs that are conducted in different parts. So the interesting part is unfortunately South Asia. This is something that has been happening for quite some time. So when the United States and the West sheds crocodile tears about the fate of minorities in Afghanistan. They have never shed the, you know, same tears for the minorities in Pakistan, India, or even Bangladesh. It is instrumental when it comes to say Burma, which is extremely easily sacrificed it doesn't they don't have any big states over there. But you don't hear the same thing said about these states when they seem to have much deeper stakes to use it against China or use it against each other. So I think those are the problems we have when we talk about how do the Indians look at all of this. Yes, there is resistance. Yes, there is struggle on these issues, but it is going to be a long hard struggle, because you have to reinvent the Indian nation that came out of our colonial struggle. And we have to reinvent the Indian nation. How do we build a secular strong India, which is doesn't want to look at either itself or the world in divisive terms, but tries to build solidarity with others, as well as with each other. I think that is the biggest challenge we face. And this is a challenge which is, I think a worldwide challenge. Definitely global. But, but hopeful. Thank you for that inspiration. But, I wonder if, just to back up a bit, you talked about, you know, what the US not talking about what happens in India. And if you could take that a little deeper, you know, like the, what, what does the violence in anti Muslim violence look like in India and what, why isn't that raised up. Especially like I know when we were in the US, you know, raising up the concerns about cashmere, what what keeps all that so hidden and quiet what what I'm always curious about that you have any ideas. The, I, I think the part of it is in India at the moment, the budget of majoritarian discourse is strong. So even though news outlets like news click and others talk about this cover news in Kashmir, and it has been doing so for quite some time. And discovered it to say that Kashmir is not normal. But all that is happening in the Kashmir is something that doesn't happen any other part of the country. So this is something if they say, if the government says everything is okay it is not okay. So that is the, you know, that's what we would say. We are not alone, the lots of people who are saying, but what has happened is that this voice is still at the moment defensive in the sense that the combination of government power, combination of money power and money power is because the bourgeoisie is not going to fight for a secular India. It's going to fight for a secular cause, make more money. Okay, so therefore it has a stake in the government. And even if it dislikes what the government is doing, the government can arm twist very easily if for a rich capitalist, you have a lot to lose. So therefore we can see that they are not willing to rock the boat. So they're getting into the major, majoritarian boat, even if they don't like it. I'm not going to go into what is called the election bond scheme by which you can make capital and give money, and even foreign capital can give money legally to Indian political parties. And of course, the ruling party has got 90% of that money. So this are all the strategies which this government has done. So resistance therefore is now relatively distributed in terms of, as I said, smaller media outlets raising their voices movements on the ground under attack in different ways. The majoritarian voice plus the money power plus all the kind of discourse that we divisive discourse being propped up. The question is hatred is something which is easier to round. And, unfortunately, for us, if you are trying to appeal to rational discourse that takes time, because hatred is easier, hopefully doesn't last too long. But as you know, hate hatred is something which hatred and fear are much easier to appeal to and rounds amongst the people, and bringing people together, building a rational discourse takes time. But I also believe that hate is short lasting doesn't last too long. Yes, you can do it for two years, three years, five years, you cannot do it more than that. So I do believe that everywhere in the world, when we still, we are seeing now the rise of hatred, of course, where by social media, Facebook algorithms, we know that, but it's by even that is a matter of time. How long can this hatred, which is being roused in different parts of the world, how long can that sustain itself. And I believe that is the struggle that brings all of us together, whether your battle against coatpinks battle against no war against peace for peace, you know, against war, which has been a long standing battle of coatpinks, our battle of different kinds against social divisions, which of course is there in the United States too. After all, race is very much a part of the social fabric of the United States. I think all of this survival of hate, and survival of hate cannot be long lasting. This is what I think all of us have to believe in. And this is what we have what we have to fight for. So I think the battles everywhere are similar. Oh, for beer. That was beautiful. I mean, yes, yes, yes. And so inspiring as we look out at, you know, so much devastation and hate and the region and things on the edge of the barbarism as you say, so I could listen to you for hours. Thank you so much for being with us and sharing your wisdom and your brilliance. And everyone, you know, you can follow them every day. There's a lot to read and news click it to get smarter about India, as we all should be smarter about the world. Thank you China is not our enemy India is not our enemy. Yes, maybe live in 11 cooperation for the planet and for the future. So thank you for there. Thank you for letting me speak in this vein. Okay. This is a rare opportunity to speak to you. And I hope we can keep this conversation going. Oh that would be awesome. Thank you. Peace and love. Hi everyone. Thank you and stay engaged. And tonight you can join us at 8pm Eastern Standard Time for week seven of coalition peace initiatives webinar. The series is co sponsored on the US and China by China for peace and could pink and many others. Stay engaged and keep getting smarter. Bye. Thank you.