G20: The world, at sixes and sevens

The theme chosen by host country India for the G20 summit this year appeared noble, solemn and even pious: 'one family, one earth, one future.' It has resonated with people across countries through ages while philosophers have envisioned it becoming a reality in their life time. But reality as lived by people during most of the recorded history has been harsh, making a mockery of the pious wish embedded in the slogan. Even while the words calling for unity glared from the walls beneath the name of the G20 Summit, the logo of lotus emblazoned below the number zero spoke of divisiveness and animosity, it being the symbol of India's ruling party, BJP, bent on establishing Hinduttava in multi-faith India.
Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi, of course, is not the only one deserving opprobrium for sowing the seeds of discord either within a particular country or across the world on narrow sectarian or ideological grounds. There are other leaders who, by words or deeds, are undermining unity among their people or in the broader community of mankind while paying lip service to peace and brotherhood. This is not a new development as it has been going on for a long time, for ages, as long as one can remember. Utterances made by leaders and policies pursued by their parties and governments make it apparent that when in power they forget or ignore that their mandate is not to promote the interests of a group or a constituency of particular interests, but those of the whole nation and where relevant, of the global community at large. In many countries of the world, leaders after leaders have come to power who have failed to realise that they owe an obligation to the population as a whole and that for those of them who are global leaders this goes beyond their own people, encompassing others.
The dismal state of disunity among people of a country and across the world promoted by deeds and words of leaders can be seen by what the heads of state or/and governments attending the G20 summit did and said and also by what was not said. Rishi Sunak, the first Asian to become the prime minister of a powerful country like Great Britain, failed as a world statesman when he publicly said on arrival in India, 'I am proud to be an Indian Hindu'. Publicly he can always acknowledge his Indian descent but to glorify effusively the religion he belongs to is going beyond the pale. One's religion is a private matter and this being universally accepted, to become effervescent publicly about one's faith is not less serious than the Biblical seven deadly sins. Rishi Sunak, by making that public statement, appeared more as an Indian Hindu than as a secular British political leader, at least in public. This will not make him popular in the country that has given the opportunity to serve his multi-racial people as a whole. When worst possible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion in the past and are being repeated even now, the public display of religious zeal by a political figure holding the office of prime minister does not augur well for unity and peace among people. The same goes for his host in Delhi.
In the meeting of the G20 summit, the Indian Prime minister sat behind a name plate spelling his country as 'Bharat'. As officially his country is still known as India, he cannot, all on a sudden, use a different name in a formal meeting of countries. This is against international protocol. As the Secretary General of UN tersely said, the subject of change in the name will be decided after going through the formal procedure. If India wants and no one opposes, the change will become automatic. So what was the hurry for which the name plate had to show the hitherto unused name 'Bharat?' Nitasha Kaul, Director of Centre for Study of Democracy, London may be right when she wrote recently: The proposed change of name from India to Bharat is not an anti-colonial move. Rather it is the creation of a binary designation whereby those who continue to espouse an 'Indian' identity will, over time, become politically labelled as an 'other' to the true and authentic 'Bharatyia' ( resident of India) who is the ideal Hindu or Hiduised citizen'. So, while India has the right to change its name, the intention behind this should be seen as not to link up with past history, but more importantly to create a division among its people, designating minority groups as being outsiders i.e. not indigenous Bharatyias. Prime minister Modi, therefore, is not being honest while upholding the slogan of 'one family, one world, one future', in the G20 Summit as he pursues a policy at home of dividing the nation along communal lines, sometimes with bloody consequences.
But the criticism over the slogan used in the Summit is not with reference to what lies in the mind of the Indian Prime minister involving his domestic politics of communalism, nor about the implications for secularism in the UK in the light of Rishi Sunak's public outpouring regarding his own religion. The disappointment is much broader in scope, going beyond individual countries. Taking the global view, the crisis that poses an existential threat to the whole of mankind is the risk of the raging war in Ukraine spiralling out of control and ending up in the Armageddon of a nuclear war. On this life and death issue all that America and its allies were interested in was a forthright condemnation of Russia for invading Ukraine. This issue found countries in Asia and Africa divided in all the summits and meetings that have been held under different aegis since the war broke out in February, 2022. In the last G20 Summit held in Indonesia, America and its allies succeeded in getting Russia named as a party in the war, though not being condemned outright as desired by them. In the Summit in Delhi even this satisfaction was denied as Russia was not named at all, only an innocent statement about no country should invade another country being the consensus view. But the issue is not about whether America and its allies could align other countries behind them in attacking Russia as an aggressor or not. The more urgent and critical issue is about stopping the war without further delay and bloodshed. But so far no initiative has been taken in this regard from the side of any multilateral organisation or platforms, including G20. In fact, any possible initiative has been thwarted by the divisive tactics of both the Ameican and Russian blocs that has resulted in placing countries in to pro-Russia, anti-Russia and in neutral positions. On the most critical challenge facing humanity after the second world war, lack of unity among countries to broker a peace settlement has become glaring. This instance alone shows the pathetic state of stasis among countries in the world in sharp focus.
Then, there are other pressing problems, like climate change, on which agreement in principle has been reached in umpteenth number of meetings but little action has been taken so far on the ground because of conflict of interests. In the G20 Summit in Delhi, took place on September 9-10 this year, the familiar polemics over 'phase out' and 'phase down' were repeated, ultimately settling for the toothless resolution of 'phase down of coal in line with national circumstances'. Perhaps to save embarrassment, a new fangled idea (actually a shop soiled one) on Bio-Fuel Alliance was adopted in response to carbon emission by fossil fuels. But the scope of generating energy from natural and human wastes is so minuscule that it will hardly scratch the surface of the problem. Prime minister Modi's lofty aim of 'supporting the world to enable energy transition in tune with the benefits of a circular economy' is destined to find its place in wastepaper basket as has been the case with so many pipe dreams.
The only resolution coming out of the Summit that sounds relevant and practicable is the G-20 Action Plan on Accelerating Progress on the SDGs that is expected to spearhead the future direction of the G-20 towards implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Much, however, depends on follow up, particularly on the funds to be made available for implementation. The world has seen enough of highfalutin resolutions disappearing into thin air to be elated with this one.
America and India are euphoric about the resolution on the development of connectivity from India to Europe through road and sea transports going through the Middle-East (ME). It requires no research and investigation to find out that this has been floated to counter China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with the same destination. In fact, the Chinese BRI has already made some headway involving countries in Asia and the ME with a few European countries eager to join. As such, the new fangled project will result in further sharpening the divide between pro-Chinese and anti-Chinese camps. If followed through, this resolution of the G-20 will result in further deterioration of the polarised International relations. The absence of President Xi Jin Ping of China in the Summit portends that future.
Among issues that are in slow burn for a long time the conflict in Palestine taking a heavy toll of Palestinian lives every now and then and the famine in Yemen caused by civil war did not find any mention in the deliberation of the Summit. Nor did the issue of millions made poor by the Covid pandemic merit any response. As regards the high inflationary situation causing cost of living crisis in many countries across continents, no policy of co-ordination was discussed. With the divide between rich and poor widening across the globe, Indian PM Modi's rhetoric of 'one family' appeared like a castle in the air. Even the news of the devastating earthquake in Morocco, causing widespread death and destruction, failed to make a stir in the Summit, eliciting condolences.
An attempt has been made in the G20 Summit in Delhi to broaden its ambit by making African Union a member of the group. Being an ineffectual platform, because of geopolitical rivalry among the major countries, it makes little difference whether the membership of G20 is enlarged or not. As long as the bones of contentions between and among countries are allowed to simmer, no summit declaration and resolution will bear any fruit.
In fact, the proliferation of forums or platforms will only further fragment the presently divided world community. Instead of dispersing the decision making centres like G-7, G-20, G-70 and others that have sprouted so far under various acronyms, the goal should be to strengthen the UN, the only world body where every country, big and small, are members. Through reforms, its decision making should be made more representative. Above all, to implement its mandate of maintaining peace it should be given more teeth so that it can ensure peace before shooting war starts. It is only by strengthening the UN and making its role more relevant in daily life of people that countries in the world can be inspired to feel that they belong to one family, one world and share the same future.

[email protected]