A new world order.
The post cold war era, was believed to usher in an era of a more holistic progress for mankind. A new world order was on the cards. Globalisation and vanquishing geographic, linguistic, cultural borders were imminent. Capitalism, communism, socialism were no longer political ideologies that cleaved nations. Right,Left no longer were considered political narratives, but rather appeared to be well on their way to become mere directions in a Biocentric universe. A more contemporary 'humanism' swept across like a pandemic. This humanism defied caste creed ,race and had the potential to galvanise mankind. These times also unleashed a dreaded faceless enemy -terrorism. A cancer with metastases that mushroomed with a vengeance. The whole world rallied together to battle this scourge. Tolerance, compassion, and empathy became the new Mantra to foster a unified front.
Unfortunately, this new world order made the affluent western world increasingly insecure. Immigrants became a force to reckon with and rapidly ascended the staircase of prosperity. There were albeit instances of fiscal incongruence amidst these attempts to forge unions. Economic considerations, rising fascism, served as a hindrance to this process of homogenisation. A national referendum in the United Kingdom reflected this growing resentment to immigration and mergers and asserted an increasing territorial approach that attempted to marginalise the apparently parasitic elements . The stage was set for ushering in a rigid impervious regime that believed in resurrecting economic, racial and ideological fences. The recently concluded elections in the oldest democracy on the planet only serves to underline this very sentiment. Threat perception of the native population was hyped to hysterical proportions and became the mainstay of the campaign. Can this politics of isolation and segregation stand the test of time? Will this divisive rhetoric be merely part of election innuendo ? Or could it paradoxically serve as a glue to integrate the diversity that's been the hallmark and pride of this young nation? Has this truly been a concensus or a compromise? Does it indicate the advent of a polarised world with a growing intolerance? Is it the victory of socio-politico-cultural bigotry ? Does it suggest a volte face by the very nation which trampled on tradition to elect a historically unprecedented candidate just 8 years ago?
The winds of change keep flowing and not only carry with them the fragrance of the past but also serve to infuse the saturated and stifled atmosphere with a freshness that's so vital. There may be a bit of indignation with the unexpected and yet it can't deny the glimmer of hope that change inevitably gets along. A new world order that is more assertive than inclusive, more audacious than diplomatic and more vocal than implied might just be what the doctor ordered for a world that's more confused and disillusioned than ever. Perhaps to confront might just be the best answer to all who affront. Time will bear testimony to whether this indeed was the Trump card dealt by the hand of destiny.
Dr. Deepak Ranade
The post cold war era, was believed to usher in an era of a more holistic progress for mankind. A new world order was on the cards. Globalisation and vanquishing geographic, linguistic, cultural borders were imminent. Capitalism, communism, socialism were no longer political ideologies that cleaved nations. Right,Left no longer were considered political narratives, but rather appeared to be well on their way to become mere directions in a Biocentric universe. A more contemporary 'humanism' swept across like a pandemic. This humanism defied caste creed ,race and had the potential to galvanise mankind. These times also unleashed a dreaded faceless enemy -terrorism. A cancer with metastases that mushroomed with a vengeance. The whole world rallied together to battle this scourge. Tolerance, compassion, and empathy became the new Mantra to foster a unified front.
Unfortunately, this new world order made the affluent western world increasingly insecure. Immigrants became a force to reckon with and rapidly ascended the staircase of prosperity. There were albeit instances of fiscal incongruence amidst these attempts to forge unions. Economic considerations, rising fascism, served as a hindrance to this process of homogenisation. A national referendum in the United Kingdom reflected this growing resentment to immigration and mergers and asserted an increasing territorial approach that attempted to marginalise the apparently parasitic elements . The stage was set for ushering in a rigid impervious regime that believed in resurrecting economic, racial and ideological fences. The recently concluded elections in the oldest democracy on the planet only serves to underline this very sentiment. Threat perception of the native population was hyped to hysterical proportions and became the mainstay of the campaign. Can this politics of isolation and segregation stand the test of time? Will this divisive rhetoric be merely part of election innuendo ? Or could it paradoxically serve as a glue to integrate the diversity that's been the hallmark and pride of this young nation? Has this truly been a concensus or a compromise? Does it indicate the advent of a polarised world with a growing intolerance? Is it the victory of socio-politico-cultural bigotry ? Does it suggest a volte face by the very nation which trampled on tradition to elect a historically unprecedented candidate just 8 years ago?
The winds of change keep flowing and not only carry with them the fragrance of the past but also serve to infuse the saturated and stifled atmosphere with a freshness that's so vital. There may be a bit of indignation with the unexpected and yet it can't deny the glimmer of hope that change inevitably gets along. A new world order that is more assertive than inclusive, more audacious than diplomatic and more vocal than implied might just be what the doctor ordered for a world that's more confused and disillusioned than ever. Perhaps to confront might just be the best answer to all who affront. Time will bear testimony to whether this indeed was the Trump card dealt by the hand of destiny.
Dr. Deepak Ranade
No comments:
Post a Comment