Disorder In World Order: How Power, Principles, And Alliances Are Fracturing
The world as we, the Baby Boomers or Generation X, all born prior to 1964 saw, was a wonderful place with clearly defined lines between good and evil countries and people. It was contingent upon which side of the border one was born on, and there was no choice. In the first half of the 20th century, there were the good guys, the Allies, because they won eventually and wrote the books and global orders after the First and Second World Wars, and then there were the evil forces, the Axis, who lost and therefore had to suffer the humiliation in the history books and thereafter had to heed and follow the Allies for the balance of the 20th century.
In the second half of the 20th century, times began to improve, with both winners and losers licking their wounds. Yet, a need was felt for enemies and evils. Thus, the Cold War had to be manufactured. Nonetheless, the world was simple to understand, maintaining a balance between good and bad, as the Gods – be they Abrahamic, the crores of Indians' deities, or 'NO God" for non-believers – had always desired. There is no order without balance. Eventually, in the last few decades, the Soviets decided to implode, leaving no major evil to fight. There was only one gun-wielding superpower on Earth, left standing to police and dominate the world. The world was unipolar, and everyone was cheering.
The 21st century is turning out to be a challenge to understand, as difficult as it is for Generation Z and later millennials. It is becoming disorderly, with the Chinese staking claim, new power centres, small but aligned and partnered, emerging, and the role of non-state actors becoming preeminent. By non-state actors, one doesn't imply the bad terrorist ones, but the worst kinds: the corporates and military-industrial complexes who desire only order through controlled disorder by them.
The world is difficult to comprehend even for the best geopolitical armchair academics. The common citizens of the world have already given up as they find the orders written by the so-called good guys, world police, and preachers of good behaviour – the Western and First World – not only because of the power they wield but also because they are all white, the colour of good, being turned on its head. The leader of the most powerful country backslaps, shakes hands, and embraces a US/world-designated terrorist with $10 million on his head in the White House, the romanticised residence of the world. Then, he takes the level one notch up by having lunch at his residence with a proxy military dictator who appointed himself as a Field Marshal, bypassing all civilian leadership and letting down the entire population of Pakistan that elected a government, however flawed the election may have been. It became clear that the more terror one controls, the world would seek the company. It is like in India, where politicians used to have musclemen a few decades back, but now the order has been established that the muscleman has taken over the reins as it is much easier to avoid sharing power.
The international organisations have fallen into disarray. They were, in any case, established by the 'First World" after the Second World War to continue colonisation of the rest of the world in a much more refined and gentlemanly manner, extracting resources and forcing markets. Those countries who didn't fall in line were declared non-democratic, and then the controls were re-established through the most brutal dictator or feudal available locally, directly or through proxy democratic governments. The most telling expose has been the United Nations.
The display of the naked truth of the façade of world order and decency came about in the recent vote on condemning the Taliban for the repression it is conducting in Afghanistan. They were the bedfellows of the Americans and the NATO countries in the first venture of the 'First World" in the last quarter of the 20th century, defeating the Soviets and, in the process, sowing seeds for the worst kind of religious terrorism in the region. The spark has only touched these countries as the worst is yet to come in Europe and the US. Not having learnt the lessons of the British losing each and every foray in Afghanistan in the first half of the 20th century, and the Soviets losing their only major confrontation ever to the Taliban, the 'First World" tried to tame their earlier bride through proxies and physical presence in the 21st century. They were surprised and shocked to be unable to tame the uneducated, disparate, and divided tribals with no big guns, gunships, missiles, aircraft, and aircraft carriers. The world's biggest powers, with more than 75 percent of the world GDP, powerful militaries, excluding China that was not a party to the misadventure, failed to tame the big turbaned, dishevelled, and only equipped with Russian-origin Kalashnikovs and steely resolve. The Taliban owned the world in the United Nations.
In the United Nations General Assembly Vote on condemning repression by the Taliban, the shocker was that the US and Israel voted against it. The US had recently been booted out unceremoniously, leaving billions of dollars' worth of military equipment and pride behind after 20 years. And Israel, on the wrong end of Islamic terror, had also followed suit. India had to abstain, as your enemy's enemy is your friend, to deny the strategic depth so sought after by Pakistan and keep the channels for trade towards the CAR. Clearly, Afghanistan is not so distant for India. Iran chose to abstain for its own compulsions. They share a tenuous border with Afghanistan. China has significant resource interests in Afghanistan, and Russia wanted some credibility through a possible future partner. Only 116, out of the entire 193, fully cognizant of Taliban repression against non-Muslims and women, voted for the motion. They are yet to learn the game of trade and terror.
The world has become a strange place where morality, freedom of choice and voice, and democracy are unfamiliar terms with trade and terror, state-sanctioned or non-state-driven, having taken primacy. The rise of China and its abrasive conduct, the realisation of the third world emerging to the reality that they also matter, and the diminishing power, military, and economic, of the most powerful countries and their alliances having overplayed their hands for too long, has made the world uncertain and disorderly. The economic crises brought about by the greed of the big corporates and the climate impact caused by huge consumerism by a few at the expense of the rest are impacting those who were always exploited. Having migrated in search of jobs or been invited to do the low-end work in the host country, these migrants, legal or illegal, now rise to claim the space given voluntarily but without a thought to the long-term consequences.
Technology is the third T, forming a triad with trade and terror, causing disruptions never witnessed before. The securing of rare earth materials, besides the niche research and development that drive the engines of rapid technological evolution, has become a moot point of conversation or threats in a recent trade war on tariffs that has now emerged due to another T, Trump, driving the agenda.
The countries of the world are fractured, internally and externally. The old-time established norms of loyalties, alliances, and friendships between nations and even individuals, however powerful they may be, are shattered, driving the disorder. The affection between the two powerful entities on either side of the Atlantic, the US and NATO, is now under stress due to commitment about funds. Money can make any marriage go bad. The same was witnessed in the last few months of May to July 2025, forcing the unwilling partners of NATO in Europe to commit 5 percent of the GDP in defence. Similar stress can be seen in other alliances, due to the waning and waxing of power of different lead countries. SAARC never took off, SCO is under stress, ASEAN is operating under fear of China, BRICS remains a tiger on paper, and the state is similar in formal and informal alliances, associations, and partnerships. Even the non-state partnerships of terror organisations and corporates are under stress and duress due to different reasons. The only committed partnership remains that of the corporates in the uncertain and volatile world of disorder.
India needs to survive this uncertain and disorderly world through careful manoeuvring in trade, controlling terror, internal and external, and managing Trump, until he survives avoiding impeachment, and investing in technology. The only close and tough challenge will come from China, under internal distress and external overstretch, and yet powerful enough. A deft economic and political management of China with a powerful military is imperative. If the Chanakyan philosophies are followed in letter and spirit, and the culture of National Interests imbibed from the world's most powerful, the leadership of the country can stay the course of achieving the mission of Sashakt Bharat @2047 that is both Viksit and Surakshit. Chaos and disorder are the environments where Bharat lives daily and thrives in the long term through innovation and survivalist instincts.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
About the Author
Lt Gen DP Pandey
LT Gen DP Pandey is Former GOC 15 Corps
tags :
Afghanistan donald trump Geopolitics Narendra Modi terrorism
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 11, 2025, 13:09 IST
News opinion Opinion | Disorder In World Order: How Power, Principles, And Alliances Are Fracturing
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
a day ago
- India.com
This Muslim nation imposes Taliban dress code; women banned from wearing shorts, leggings, sleeveless shirts in..., and then...
Representational Image In yet another attempt at Taliban-esque moral policing by the Muhammad Yunus-led interim regime in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Bank issued a diktat barring female employees from donning 'provocative' western outfits like short dresses, sleeveless shirts and leggings in the office. What did the order say? According to reports, the Bangladesh Bank, the country's central bank, had issued an order, directing women employees to wear 'decent and professional' clothing in the office, warning that the non-compliance with the office dress code would result in disciplinary action. 'Officials and employees at all levels should dress decently and professionally in accordance with the country's social norms,' the order read. The now rescinded order asked male workers to wear long or half-sleeved formal shirts, formal pants and shoes, while jeans and fancy pyjamas were not allowed. Similarly, it directed women employees to sarees, salwar-kameez, or any other 'simple, decent, professional attire' like a headscarf or hijab, but allowed formal sandals and shoes. The order also directed all departments to appoint an officer to monitor compliance with the dress code guidelines. However, the bank's Talibani diktat sparked a social media storm, forcing the institution to withdraw the directive after just three days. How Bangladeshi netizens responded? Taking to social media, netizens pointed out the hypocrisy reeking from bank's order, with one X user noting how daughter of the bank's governor could wear anything she wishes while employees were being forced to dress 'professionally' under the clandestine Islamic agenda which is being promoted in the country. Several users compared the directive to those imposed by the Afghan Taliban regime. 'Rule of a vigilant dictator in the new Taliban era,' one user tweeted. Why Bangladesh Bank withdrew the order? Following the backlash, Bangladesh Bank withdrew the order on Thursday. 'The circular is purely an advisory. No compulsion has been imposed regarding wearing hijab or burqa,' the bank's spokesperson Arif Hussain Khan, said in a statement. Earlier, while speaking to the media, Fauzia Muslim, president of the Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, termed the move as 'unprecedented', alleging that 'a certain cultural environment is being shaped, and this directive reflects that effort.' Meanwhile, the Muhammad Yunus regime passed another controversial ordinance on late Wednesday which proposes action against employees protesting against the government.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Blitzkrieg to Hiroshima: How the Second World War reshaped the global order
In a historic move, the UK and Germany signed their first bilateral treaty since the Second World War, pledging 'mutual assistance' in case of attack. This development warrants a look back at the Second World War, in which the UK was a major Allied power while Germany was an Axis. The first thing that strikes one about the Second World War is the small time gap that divides it from the First World War, a mere 21 years. The First World War ended on November 11, 1918, and the Second World War began on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. The First World War was concluded with a very flawed peace agreement in the form of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was the failures of this peace agreement and the resentment felt by Germany at the unjust conditions imposed upon it that gave rise to the Second World War. The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945 and caused a staggering loss of between 40 to 50 million lives. The path to the Second World War was a steady, two-decade-long buildup. A combination of political and economic factors came together to pave the way for the rise of a politician like Adolf Hitler in Germany. After the First World War, the liberal Weimar Republic replaced the Wilhelmine monarchy in Germany. Throughout the 1920s, it was shaped by leaders like Gustav Stresemann, who adapted to the new realities of the Weimar Republic after the fall of the monarchy. Stresemann briefly served as Chancellor in 1923 and then as Foreign Minister until his death in 1929. He was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, whose terms he found difficult to implement. Among the provisions of the treaty were the payment of war reparations to the victorious Allies and the demilitarisation of the Rhineland that lay on Germany's Western border with France. In 1923, Germany experienced hyper-inflation as it struggled to pay the war reparations that were imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Rifts appeared between Britain and France in terms of how to impose the measures of the treaty. At the same time, the famed and lofty idealism of the US President Woodrow Wilson came into play through his famous fourteen points. The last point created the League of Nations, which was to serve as the predecessor of the United Nations that was set up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War in October 1945. However, other aspects of Wilson's lofty idealism such as the right to national self-determination were to come crashing down on the harsh realities of European politics in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. Eventually, even the US Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles. There are perhaps three elements that define the build-up to the Second World War. The first was the unstable nature of the Weimar Republic, whose economic difficulties were exploited by a rising politician like Adolf Hitler. The Weimar Republic came to an end in 1933 when the Nazi party secured dominance in the German parliament, the Reichstag, and Hitler was appointed as Chancellor. The second factor was the harsh economic realities of the 1920s and 1930s. The Great Wall Street Crash of October 1929 was one of the world's first truly economic crises, whose adverse effects and reverberations were felt all around the world, and especially in Europe. The Wall Street crash ushered in a decade (the 1930s) seen in terms of economic depression and unemployment. In response to this crisis, British economist John Maynard Keynes produced his seminal work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. His ideas would later play a significant role in shaping the post-Second World War international economic order, particularly through the setting up of the Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The third major factor leading to the Second World War was the policy of appeasement adopted by Great Britain towards the escalating demands of Germany. This policy is associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, especially as it played out at the Munich conference of 1938. Chamberlain believed that the policy of appeasement was the best way to avoid war and to buy time for Britain to prepare militarily. Signs of impending war became obvious as early as 1936, when Hitler decided to remilitarise the Rhineland in violation of one of the key provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. That same year in July, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy came together and backed General Francisco Franco's fascist assault against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In 1938, Hitler signed the Anschluss or pact with Austria that resulted in the merger of Austria with Germany, which further consolidated his position. That same year, Hitler kept making the case for the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, using their minority status to persuade France and Britain that the Sudetenland must be ceded to Germany. This was followed the next year in 1939 by Germany's invasion and occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Second World War was very different from the First World War as far as the greater use of air power was concerned. The German air force or the Luftwaffe, conducted devastating air raids on London and other major British cities in the early stages of the war. The Battle of Britain, which took place between July and October 1940, saw the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the German Luftwaffe engage in intense aerial combat. The Allied powers – Great Britain, France, the US, and the Soviet Union – were pitted against the Axis powers – Germany, Italy and Japan. The early stages of the war saw German advances through overwhelming aerial strikes that were then rapidly followed by military and tank maneuvers on the ground. These tactics, known as the blitzkrieg ('lightning war'), allowed the Germans to overrun Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece in the short span between September 1939 and April 1941. The American entry into the war, following the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, significantly turned the tide in favour of the Allied powers as the US was able to deploy massive amounts of military resources. The American entry into the war was preceded by the lend-lease agreement that allowed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to transfer large amounts of war material, supplies and munitions to the Allies. A decisive turning point came when the German offensive against Soviet Russia on the Eastern Front was thwarted at the famous Battle of Stalingrad that took place between August 23, 1942 and February 2, 1943. The Germans suffered other major reversals in the battlefields in Northern Africa, most famously the Second Battle of El-Alamein between October 23 and November 11, 1942, when the famous German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was defeated. As a result, Italian and German advances in North Africa, especially around the strategically significant Suez Canal, were checked. The Axis powers seemed to be doing better in East Asia. In February 1942, British-controlled Singapore fell to the Japanese Red Army, which continued its advance by taking over the Andaman Islands in March 1942. One of the most frequently talked about military turning points of the Second World War happened on June 6, 1944, with Operation Overlord that saw the landing of 1,56,000 men on the beaches of Normandy in northern France. This military operation was under the overall command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would go on to serve as US President in the next decade. As 1944 drew to a close and 1945 began, the war's trajectory was marked by advances of Allied powers, the US and British, from the West and the Soviet forces from the East as they closed in on Berlin, with the final fall happening in May 1945. Hitler himself committed suicide along with his mistress Eva Braun on April 30, 1945, when Soviet forces were on the verge of reaching Berlin. A few months later, the Second World War came to a conclusive end, with the dropping of atomic bombs by the US over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945. The defeat of the Axis powers created a new world order that was defined by the hegemony of the US. In terms of the lineaments of the new world order, it gave rise to an international rules-based system. Landmark proceedings such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set important legal precedents by introducing concepts like war crimes and crimes against humanity. The horrors of the Holocaust and the concentration camps run by the Nazis gave rise to the Genocide Convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which emphasized the idea that such unspeakable crimes must 'never again' happen. In what ways did the Second World War differ from the First World War in terms of strategy, technology, and scale? To what extent was the German strategy of blitzkrieg responsible for early Axis victories? How did the entry of the US in WWII transform the balance of power? How did the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shape the post-war geopolitical landscape? In what ways did the Holocaust influence the formation of post-war human rights conventions and norms? Evaluate how the experiences of the Second World War shaped the creation of post-war multilateral institutions, such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. (Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hans India
a day ago
- Hans India
Trump Urges US Tech Firms to Stop Hiring Indians and Focus on American Jobs
Former US President Donald Trump spoke at an AI Summit in Washington, urging US tech companies to stop hiring Indians and instead create jobs in America. He said many firms hire tech workers from India and invest overseas despite high profits made in the US. Trump tied this message to his 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) mission, calling for American-first policies in hiring, production, and AI development. 'We want you to put America first,' he said. At the Summit, Trump signed three executive orders to boost AI in the US: Create a national strategy to support AI development. Promote neutral AI models developed with federal funds. Offer aid and incentives for fully American-made AI tools. He also warned that his administration would not back 'woke' AI models. Trump encouraged tech firms to build local AI data centers, making it easier to expand AI infrastructure within the country. He emphasized that winning the AI race requires a new kind of national loyalty and patriotism, especially in Silicon Valley and beyond.
