In the series of articles on G-20 under India’s presidency this year, let us talk about
embracing the ‘concept of balance’ in global politics and life. In the last two articles, I
discussed, “Resetting the Global Ethics” and “A Unique Indian Perspective”. Such
conceptualisations purport to contribute to India’s niche in global politics, in political
slogan terms, India becoming a Vishwa Guru. Interestingly, even the President of India
mentioned this in her opening speech to the current session of Parliament.
President Murmu said, “India, which once looked at others for solutions to most its
problems, is today emerging as a provider of solutions for the issues faced by the world”.
The concept of balance is reflected in her reference to our foreign policy, “On the one
hand, we are chairing the SCO this year and on the other, being a member of the Quad, we
are working for peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific”. The principle and
practice of balance embed a spirit of reconciliation and accommodation between opposing
views, forces and interests. They also avoid competition, confrontation and disruption.
Elaborating it, the concept of balance in life is often associated with ancient Greek
philosophy, particularly the idea of ‘the golden mean’ propounded by Aristotle. The
golden mean holds that the virtuous life of an individual or any country lies in finding a
balance between two extremes. For example, the virtue of courage lies between cowardice
and recklessness. Similarly, the concept suggests that a person should strive to find a
balance between various aspects of life, such as work, relationships, health and leisure in
order to lead a fulfilling life. It can be extended from individual to institutions,
communities and countries. In international politics, since a country is the primary agency
for interaction, we will focus here on the balance countries need to have.
The idea of balance is present in other philosophical traditions as well. In Taoism, Tao is
seen as a balance between opposing forces. The Buddhist concept of the ‘middle path’
emphasises avoiding the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. In Hinduism,
balance is embodied in the concept of Dharma, which refers to the duty and purpose of an
individual in the world, and when extended to the state, it is called Rajadharma.
In Christianity, balance is often portrayed as balancing the spiritual and worldly aspects of
life. Christians are encouraged to seek balance between God and the state. This is in
response to the question that arose on the rightness of paying taxes. As recorded in the
Bible, Jesus said, “Give it to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (State) and to God, what
belongs to God”. So, Christians cannot cut off the affairs of the world, but can never
compromise their beliefs and values. Their decisions and loyalties must be influenced by
what furthers the ‘common good’.
Let us now apply the concept to a few systems and strategies across the world: Capitalism
vs socialism; centralisation vs decentralisation; individualism vs collectivism; spiritualism
vs materialism; east vs west; north vs south. The list, though not exhaustive, encompasses
the major systems that compete and conflict.
Capitalism and socialism have their respective strengths and weakness, each one’s strength
ironically perceived as other’s weakness. Capitalism focuses on freedom of enterprise and
creation of wealth through efficiency and profit etc. whereas socialism emphasises
distribution, equality and justice. Both the systems are relevant to specific contexts defined
by cultural, political and economic conditions prevailing in a country. The balance
between the two could be found in regulating the variables like income equality, economic
growth and freedom of individual and free enterprises etc.
Countries have to take the continual calls of balance between the fundamental economic
and political values. India did follow a kind of a balance, a mixed economy model. It was
not successful as it downplayed the critical need of wealth creation, earning the refrain,
‘the Hindu rate of growth’ (not beyond 3 per cent). It seems to be changing now. But the
change and the balance need to be diligently maintained.
Second, the principles of centralisation and decentralisation have played out quite well in
India as against the centralised autocracies in Communist countries including China,
Russia, Vietnam, North Korea and unitary states like Britain and France. India has been a
federal state with five levels of governance – central, state, district, taluk (block)/tehsil and
village. Third, the debates between individualism and collectivism are also a universal
experience. While countries in the West focus on the primacy of an individual and
individual sovereignty, the countries in South inhabiting collectives as social-cultural
communities concern about collective rights and interests.
It is also true that collectivism can lead to intolerance, exclusion and tyranny, undermining
individual freedom of choice and expression. At the same time, individualism can lead to
self-centredness, isolation and lack of solidarity. The balance consists of recognising
collectives comprising autonomous individuals. This can apply to coalitions of countries
with their respective sovereignties.
Fourth, spiritualism and materialism often clash as existential values. Without spiritualism,
individuals and societies can experience psychological and social chaos and disorder and
without adequate material conditions, a descent living becomes difficult. At the same time,
unequal material possessions can lead to a sense of deprivation which leads to social and
political strife. I encountered this dilemma in Belgium while I was researching on India-
European Union trade relations. The western countries long for spiritualism as they have
already achieved a certain degree of materialism, although they are still gripped by
massive consumption.
An Indian contact living in Brussels, who wrote on economic issues, asked me, “what
about the amazing and unique Indian philosophy of renunciation”! I wondered about his
irrational nostalgia as the priority back home was to alleviate poverty by creating and
distributing more and more resources. Likewise, the global south shies away from
engaging in wealth generation falling back heavily on self-reliance and spiritualism.
India too has been caught in self-righteous narcissism. In fact, one India-friendly officer at
the European Union ruefully commenting on Indian trading behaviour, said, “We like
India’s practice of democracy and multiculturalism. But when they come to negotiate a
textile quota, they begin and end their presentation with Gandhism and non-violence etc.”
Hence the balance is critically important.
Fifth, on North and South and likewise East and West, while the South has resources in
terms of people and raw materials, North has capital and technology. Likewise, the East is
rich in traditions and culture as the West is driven by technological efficiency and the
notion of rationality. There needs to be a balance again between the respective interests
and aspirations across the globe.
The life does not consist of either … or. For a decent, peaceful and orderly life, unity of
perspectives and strategies is required. Countries across the globe have to cut out the
binary approach and adopt a balance that reconciles the opposites. India could, around G-
20, debunk the formulation in Rudyard Kipling’s lines, “Oh, East is East and West is
West, and never the twain shall meet”. This balance should be a constant endeavour by
countries for the sake of global stability, peace and prosperity. (INFA)
