East is West The decline of the West and rise of the East is a pyrrhic victory for us because we are trapped in the same economic model that has been so roundly discredited in recent times, argues Pankaj Mishra, author of From The Ruins Of Empire, in an interview

East is West

The decline of the West and rise of the East is a pyrrhic victory for us because we are trapped in the same economic model that has been so roundly discredited in recent times, argues Pankaj Mishra, author of From The Ruins Of Empire, in an interview

You talk of an intellectual decolonisation preceding the actual decolonisation after World War II. But isn’t it thanks to recent globalization that we’re seeing a shift in the world order? It is very easy to posit the rise of Asia against a West in relative decline, with its economic model no longer having its earlier persuasiveness because of the crises they have suffered. But in my book, the people I am talking about were looking at this from a different perspective. As in someone like Tagore pointing out that Japan, which was the first to match the West, was doing it in deeply destructive ways; turning Japan itself into a parody of an imperial power, and making many Asians victims of this new Japanese imperialism. Did people like Tagore present alternative models that could have led to our economic resurgence or was it mere criticism of the West? It had to begin in a diagnosis of what was the nature of Western power. You had to begin with a criticism of how unsuited is this economic growth premised upon invasion. Then of course the generation that came afterwards decided they had to adopt the secrets of Western power themselves and that’s what they did to become competitive with the West, at least in the economic arena. The question people like Tagore were posing is at what cost. You describe the rise of the East as a pyrrhic victory. Isn’t that better than living in a unipolar world dominated by America and its allies? The problem arises when you start to develop your socio-economic or political model in a context where the scope for independent action is so limited. Countries like China never really had the opportunity to develop alternative ways of being. They were still thinking in terms of industrialisation. That’s what Mao Zedong did. But China seems to be now following a path where the state is playing a role that is different from the Western experience... China has developed a model of state capitalism which is substantively different from currently existing models in the West today. But America at one point had something resembling what China has now. The power of American corporations was backed by the state. China has done that now. And China’s growth basically involves doing what Europe did in the 19th century, which is to get a large majority living in rural areas into the cities, to get them working in new professions opened up by industrialisation. Do you discount the fact that millions have been lifted out of poverty by this? No I don’t, but even among those who have been lifted out of poverty statistically, when you look at what that higher income in an urban environment can bring you, does that improve the quality of your life as a migrant? And yet we are today moving towards a multipolar world thanks to the very same economic forces you are criticising... I don’t agree with that entirely. India already had a strong voice on the international arena soon after independence. It had a moral prestige. Was that of any consequence without economic power? I think it had a lot of resonance. People listened to India. Who listens to India today? Name me one country that looks up to India now. The fact is that the second half of the 20th century was dominated by America. What difference did India’s moral prestige make? Nehru was saying that we do not accept this American order, and that to me is more important than agreeing to be part of that order. I don’t see why I should approve of a multipolar world in which a country like India thinks its interests are best served by standing with the United States, against China or Pakistan. I would much rather respect the independent-mindedness we used to have. You have dwelt on Liang Qichao’s rejection of Western materialism, and yet what followed in China was the tyranny of Mao’s rule, poverty and famine. It wasn’t till Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms that China took off and challenged the West... I disagree with the assumption behind that, because I think China cannot really challenge the power of the West. Maybe economically it can compete, but as long as you are following the same consumerist model of capitalism, I don’t think it is challenging the United States. If China’s decision-making process is constrained by the fact that it is America’s biggest creditor and both countries are locked into an interdependent relationship, what scope for manoeuvre does China really have? What makes you think an alternative model can work in a competitive global environment? I share your pessimism about that. The only thing we can do is to try and manage the likely chaos and violence unleashed by the dysfunction of the current model — the fact that extreme inequality is on the rise, that frustration is now spilling over into social unrest. I still think some form of reflection is important, which involves looking at history and these figures in my book who have something of relevance to tell us about our present situation. But in terms of practical policy-making, I agree we have very few options at this point of time. From The Ruins Of Empire: The Revolt Against The West And The Remaking Of Asia by Pankaj Mishra is published by Penguin