On the BRICS Summit and other random thoughts

 

Only one of these 2 headlines is correct. In case there was any confusion, it is the second one. The PM of India got Xi Jinping to India, and then raised to his face, the issue of weaponising rare earth minerals. 

I don't think people have quite understand the magnitude of what happened at the BRICS Summit, so let me lay it out a little bit. 

1. Xi Jinping and Putin are two global leaders who are on the target list of every terror orgn and state led assassination agencies (except, perhaps, N Korea). These leaders do not "tour". Their security is a 24*7*365 race. 

India managed to bring these and other global leaders on a single stage, managed their security, without any incident. If RAW needed a coming of age certificate, this is IT. 

2. These leaders also do not issue statements. They do not share their thoughts. Ever. They are intensely private and very action oriented. 

These leaders came to a central platform and issued a JOINT, consensual statement with India, Iran, and other countries. These countries do not always see eye to eye on the global stage. India did this under clear and present threat of US Sanctions. Getting these leaders to SPEAK, and issue a joint statement, is not something that is easily achieved. 

Putin, as usual, slayed in one sentence - BRICS is 40% of the world's GDP, G7 is 29%. Why do they call themselves "great". 

3. The issue is not the use of the term G7 or % of GDP being the only metric for a country's economy. The issue is - the world has been benefitting purely from spotlight for a long time. When you remove the greasepaint, the substance beneath the paint has to be good. And more people are asking - Is it?

Is as much as the spotlight is on BRICS and who is in the room, it is also, imho, on the people who were NOT in that room. 

Completely off-topic:

As a random person, this week, my thoughts took me to a very different tangent - many great economies have been undone by democracy, but none as much as the UK. Yet, in ancient India, democracy was the norm. The janapadas were the first known political system. As the size and complexity grew, they had to move to monarchies and central control with ONE person. There were checks and balances - the Rajguru whose curse scared even the king, the group of ministers who exuded the same pressure that Gandhi exuded on the British. 

What, then, is the future of democracies like India and the US? These are great countries. And democracy is easily the best political system for the people. So, why do these two not lead to synergy? In Switzerland, by contrast, direct democracy has led to a country that is efficient, well-regulated, and extremely rich. What did Switzerland do so right that the rest of the world can learn from? How can we make democracy relevant, and also powerful?