India's role in a geopolitics versus geoeconomic divide

Pravin Sawhney expounded on India's sleazy and messy entanglement in a world divided by geopolitical interests and geoeconomic interests where India wants to be a key player in both but confronting a reality that would not allow India to do so. Above is a 20 minute clip exploring India's have the cake and eat it policy, of being in BRICS and also in QUAD, in being friends of the US and undermining the very objectives of BRICS and thinking this is a special privilege position India can hold, and both the Americans and BRICS countries would have to accept it.

Pravin Sawhney explained that being in the QUAD, India is acting like a vassal state of the Americans, a position contrary to its ambition as an independent superpower. On the other hand, being a founding member of BRICS, India is an equal partner and serves its aspiration to be the leader of the Global South. The two opposing memberships put India in a dicey position and compromise India's goal to be an independent pillar in global politics.

The American's position is centred on geopolitical interests, a zero sum game of winners and losers, with the Americans wanting to rule the world and continue to be the dominant world hegemon. BRICS' premises are based on geoeconomics, a win win formula for all countries, in trade and economic development, a multi polar world and the development of an alternative trade and financial system alongside the American SWIFT and dollar systems.

India is now caught in between and its positions in both organisations make it looks like a trouble maker, a mischievous party that would harm the interests of the respective organisations. India is no longer trusted by both organisations and both are suspicious of the roles of India. This is untenable. BRICS cannot move forward with India as the stumbling block. The Americans only see India as a poodle to do its bidding and its nasty and destructive agenda in undermining BRICS.

India would have to choose and there is not much time. Both sides cannot tolerate an unreliable partner in their organisation, a member they cannot trust and cannot discuss openly in India's presence. Either India be asked to go or the organisations exist in paralysis. This would be an utter waste of time and effort of the leaders and countries to stay in the organisations. It would be sad that an international organisation allows itself to be crippled by just a rogue member, in India and has to become defunked.