Freedom of Religion Undermined by Sectarian Politics in India

Ram Puniyani | 19 Mar 2026

• 
  

The USICRF report terms RSS as responsible for the worsening inter-community scenario and intimidation of religious minorities.

File Photo

As India embraced the path of secularism and democracy with Independence, there were still some forces which were opposed to these values and harped on India being a nation for Hindus only. This organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, as it has completed 100 years of its existence, through its dogged work in spreading its narrative, has reached the peak during the past few decades.

The RSS’s ideology of ‘hate minorities’ has consistently demonised Muslims right from the beginning and Christians from the past few decades. The result has been that ‘freedom of religion’ has gone into a free fall and atrocities on religious minorities have gone up exponentially.

This phenomenon of hate has been going through the roof from the past decade or so as the Hindu Nationalist government is in power and mischief-mongers now know that they can get away without any punishment, rather their acts of violence will be duly rewarded by the government.

With this the propaganda against religious minorities and vast network of hate spreaders has become the ‘social common sense’, and very difficult to combat. Consequently, we have seen a continuous rise of the marginalisation of the religious minorities. This is accompanied by the decline in the global indices of India, pertaining to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, hunger index and most other assessments related to India’s social and political freedom.

This gets reflected aptly in many of the reports related to lives of Indian minorities not done by Indian but also of global agencies. One such agency is USCIRF, an independent, bipartisan federal body established under the ‘International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 ‘to monitor global conditions of religious freedom or belief, review violations, and provide policy recommendations to the U.S. President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

The USCIRF releases its reports every year reflecting on the minorities of various countries. In the past seven odd years, it has been labelling India as a ‘country of particular concern’. Its report this year is very disturbing as it has called India not only the country of “particular concern” but has also asked for a ban on RSS and its affiliated organisations.  

The report says that RSS as the body being responsible for the worsening intercommunity scenario and the intimidation of religious minorities. As per the report, “The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh should face targeted sanctions for its responsibility for and tolerance of violations of religious freedom in India. This US panel has made recommendations to the Donald Trump administration. The sanctions could include freezing the organisation’s assets and barring entry to the US.”

In the India-specific report, it points out that RSS is the parent organisation of the ruling BJP, under whose rule. “… the commission had noted that the “interconnected relationship between the RSS and BJP allows for the creation and enforcement of several discriminatory pieces of legislati4on, including citizenship, anti-conversion and cow slaughter laws”.

The spokesman of India’s External Affairs Ministry has rejected the report as biased. The main Opposition party, the Indian national Congress, in a tweet has stated that "The US Should impose a ban on RSS. This recommendation was made to the Donald Trump administration by the USCIRF, an official US government body. The USCIRF has warned that the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) poses a threat to people's religious freedom. Its recommendations are clear, Ban the RSS immediately. Seize its assets. Prohibit entry into the US for RSS members.”  

The US-based organisation, ‘Hindus for Human Rights’ has been opposing the politics of RSS combine in a serious way. They agree with the Commission's recommendations. The report underlines most of the policies of BJP which has tormented the Indian minorities.

We know here the violence against these sections of society is becoming more widespread. Though the ghastly violence of the type of Gujarat violence in 2002 is not there, we observe that it is occurring on regular manner in a lynching or other acts of violence here and there. The attacks on prayer meetings take place on a regular basis.

What happened on the occasion of Christmas 2025 by Bajrang Dal activists was a new low in the violence. It also mentions the move of Central government in disenfranchising the Muslims through NRC-CAA. It reported the abandoning of over 50 Rohingyas of which around 14 were Christians; in the high seas. The dastardly imprisonment of Umar Khalid and Sharjil Imam, who are in the prison for over five years, without any trial reflects the status of the justice delivery system. The cow vigilantes, ‘love jihad’ and ‘jihad’ of various types remains its core method of targeting the Muslim minorities.

The Freedom of Religion Acts are basically to prevent conversions by those who wish to convert and are prevalent in nearly 11 states, and now Maharashtra is the new one to join this list. While conversion to Islam and Christianity is a pretext to beat up some, there is an open call for conversion to Hinduism by a phenomenon called ‘Ghar Wapasi’. This is a clever move to impose Hinduism on those who belong to other religions.

The USCIRF is calling for the need for such a strong move now. The first person to realise and ban this organisation was India’s first Home Minister and Deputy prime Minister Sardar Patel himself. A communique of the Ministry of Home Affairs stated, ‘The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.”

The RSS was banned yet again in 1975 during Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi and then in 1992 after demolition of the Babri Mosque by the ‘kar seva’ called by BJP. Today, its activities of spreading hate are qualitatively and quantitatively at much worse level.

While within the country, most people feel the pinch of the atmosphere where democratic norms are being stifled, the USCIRF has put the hammer on the head of the nail to underline the impact of this organisation calling for Hindu Rashtra. It has already spread its wings in many a country with innumerable organisations affiliated/associated with it.

Now the ball is in the US President’s court. But, of course, he has his own weird ways of working.

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Hinduism Is Fascism

 

Destruction Vs Protection: The Politics of Letting People Die

Akshay Anand | 25 Mar 2026

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Today, the State leaves bridges unattended, but maintains its bulldozers perfectly, its fire trucks don’t reach on time, but homes are demolished in a jiffy.

Image Courtesy: Twitter

Last week, Delhi witnessed two fatal incidents. In Gurmandi, a bridge collapsed. In Palam, a fire trapped a family in their home. The former claimed one life- at least officially, while the latter claimed nine, all from same family. Both were preventable.

The Gurmandi bridge was known to be unsafe for over a year. The rational response was to dismantle it and construct a new one. Instead, the authorities simply barricaded one side but left enough space for people to slip through. The bridge cut a 2km detour so locals, including children, continued to use it.

In Palam, the fire brigade wasn’t equipped with a safety net, and the hydraulic ladder was neither deployed in time nor tall enough to reach the blazing third floor, where the family waited to be saved.

These two incidents, despite being different in nature of causes, have one thing in common-- at the moment of crisis, when people needed to be rescued, the State failed. More important, these are not anomalies, but latest entries in the log of preventable deaths in India due to the State’s failure—be it caused by contaminated water, air pollution, pothole accidents, manual scavenging, sewer & septic tanks, bridge & building collapses, hospital fires, stampedes, etc.,. The pattern doesn’t change. Only the location and number of casualties do.

That the State fails is obvious. But failure is quite a simple word, as it suggests a lapse that can be corrected. What happened in Gurmandi and Palam was predictable outcomes of a system designed to prioritise something other than protection of life. The State which leaves the bridge unattended maintains its bulldozers perfectly. The State whose fire truck doesn’t deploy ladders on time, demolishes homes on schedule. The machinery of destruction is always in order, while that of protection is always broken. This is no coincidence. It’s designed to function exactly as it does.

The Betrayal of Social Contract

The relationship between the State and its citizens is often described as a social contract. Individuals consent to surrender certain freedom for their guaranteed protection. The State sets rules, maintains order and ensures safety. If it fails to uphold its end, people have the right to come out of this arrangement.

However, in the modern political system, this contract has become a trap since there is no way a person can ‘choose’ not to be part of the State when it fails. There is no exit option. The State has ensured that being a citizen is the only way an individual has a chance to survive. An individual cannot imagine her existence outside its machinery. In India, the contract is not an imaginary one. It is coded in Article 21 of Constitution, which mandates “Protection of life”, which is, one could argue, consistently being violated by state itself.

 

Procedural State

The gap between the constitutional ‘Right to Life’ and lived reality of being ‘Left to Die’ is not accidental. It is rooted in the structure of the Indian State, which was, similar to other post-colonial States, not born from revolution. It was simply inherited from the British colonial administration that designed it for two major purposes -- extraction of resources and control over population. Our bureaucracy was built to collect revenue, maintain colonial order and suppress dissent. It wasn’t designed to serve people, ensure their welfare and protect them.

This institutional design shapes how the system functions in practice. Scholars define India as a ‘Procedural State’. The job of the bureaucracy is to process files, not save lives. It prioritises following procedures over achieving outcomes. This results in a reactive nature of functioning rather than a proactive one.

The bridge collapsed because of this procedural logic-- it was reported damaged and the correct procedure was followed: restrict access but not enough to disrupt movement so that people don’t demand a new bridge. The State diffuses responsibility across departments so that when a bridge falls, accountability cannot be traced. The officers are not paid to fix problems but to simply follow all the processes.

This can be understood through the ‘principal-agent problem’: the agent – the bureaucracy acts on behalf of the principal -- the citizen, but pursues its own self-interest. The authorities knew the bridge was weak and fire equipment was faulty but reporting these problems would reflect poorly on their performance and require them to work extra. So, they did nothing.

 

Political Visibility

We encounter a puzzle here. Isn’t it glorious for the State to prevent and save lives? It would certainly be electorally rewarding, wouldn’t it? Then why doesn’t the State do more of it? The explanation lies in ‘Political Visibility’. A prevented disaster is invisible. It makes no headlines. A government may gain more votes by inaugurating a new bridge -- which is photogenic, and is etched in public memory through mass media-- than by ordering its maintenance.

There’s a high chance that relief packages handed out during floods generate more traction than handing out budget for flood control measures. The State is rewarded more for recovering than for preventing. It allocates resources where political return is the highest. The fire department arriving with a malfunctioning machine wasn’t some mechanical failure. It was a policy choice. The budget for maintenance was likely diverted and its inspections were likely forged since maintenance is politically invisible. This way, crores of money are saved by government and redirected to fuel populist initiatives such as ‘MLA on Wheels’.

 

Display of Power & Necropolitics

This brings us to another puzzle. Why does the machine that destroys always works while the machine that saves always break? The answer can be traced to the concept of sovereignty. The State’s machinery of destruction is its display of sovereignty. Its display of power. The bulldozer works because the State needs it to work. It caters to their jingoist vote bank -- the performance of being in control, of being able to act. The State maintains its capability of violence while neglecting its capacity to help.

Political theorist Achille Mbembe describes this as Necropolitics: political power operating through deciding who lives and who dies. The State expresses its power not by making people live but through letting them die. Necropolitics isn’t about direct killing. It’s about the capacity of the State to create conditions where certain populations are pushed to death routinely. The bridge that was left to fall and the fire truck that couldn’t reach to third floor were necropolitical events. No one actively killed these people but the State created circumstances where death was inevitable.  
 

Who Does the State Let die?

This raises an uncomfortable question. If the State operates through letting people die, then which people does it let die? Political scientist Partha Chatterjee offers an answer. He distinguishes ‘civil society’ from ‘political society’. Civil society consists of citizens with rights, legal standings and ability to make demands. These are people who matter. Political society, on the other hand, consists of populations that are merely governed, managed, always bargained with and ignored.

 

In India, civil society is the domain of the elite, while political society is the domain of the rest. The victims in Gurmandi belonged to the political society. They were not citizens with effective rights. Their safety was a favour on them, not their right. This is not stated in any government manual. It is embedded in the functioning of the State.

 

Consider the Gurmandi bridge itself. It connected Gurmandi to Roop Nagar. Roop Nagar is affluent. Gurmandi is not. There were concerns among residents of Roop Nagar that the bridge made theft easier. But a complete closure would have disrupted the flow of domestic workers who traveled from Gurmandi to Roop Nagar every day. So, the State arrived at a compromise. The bridge was barricaded, but space was left for pedestrians to slip through. Enough space to cross on foot but not on vehicle. Workers were given space enough to reach work and return home, but not enough to be protected, since they’re part of political society.

 

There lies a paradox here. Roop Nagar residents view Gurmandi with suspicion but they depend on their services. The bridge was necessary not for mobility but for labour supply from Gurmandi to Roop Nagar. The barricading that allowed pedestrian and not vehicle shows us that the presence of people of Gurmandi were tolerated as labour force and not as right-bearing citizens. The children now need to walk 4km extra daily and in the longer run, it would determine who would get education and who would not.

 

Inquiry Commission as Shock Absorber

The State has also engineered a significant mechanism in the form of an Inquiry Commission to ensure the pattern continues without backlash. It absorbs outrage without requiring action. It has become a substitute for accountability. The State justifies that they need inquiry to find out who’s guilty, and since inquiry takes time, they appeal public to have patience.

 

Political scientist Murray Edelman wrote about ‘Symbolic uses of Politics’. He argued that much of what the State does is symbolic, designed to manage public perception rather than solve problems. The inquiry commission is a perfect example. It appears as action but functions as delay.

 

Why does it work? Why do we accept it?

Part of the answer to this lies in the structure of media. Among many things for which the State doesn’t need to worry about, the media’s 24hr news cycle -- now even shorter with social media -- remains at top. It ensures no tragedy occupies our attention for long. Over time, this produces the ‘Routinisation of Tragedy’. The unacceptable tragic deaths are normalised, the backlash is temporary and that’s why the State doesn’t fear it.

Population have become masses and death of people is counted as numbers. The State doesn’t care because it doesn’t have to. The victims belong to political society. An inquiry commission will be announced. Compensation will be provided. The machinery will move on. And most of us will feel gratitude: I am glad it was not me. This gratitude is State’s greatest ally. It turns potential outrage into silence. It seals the fate of those who will die in next tragedy.

The writer is a student at Dept of Political Science, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Marxists.orgwww.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/murder.htm

Murder of the Dead by Amadeo Bordiga 1951

Murder of the Dead. First Published: Battaglia Comunista No. 24 1951; Source ... death, as in Diodorus Siculus. The appetite for surplus labour (Capital ...

 

Imperialism, Oil Prices, World Economy & Nuke Threat

Prabhat Patnaik | 21 Mar 2026

• 
  

For the Global South, such as India, to remain quiet and not protest against US-Israeli aggression will prove utterly suicidal.

Representational Image. Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

World oil prices have finally crossed $100 per barrel this week-end and have even touched $110. Considering the fact that they were around $69 per barrel before the beginning of imperialist aggression against Iran, this represents a very steep climb in just the course of a week. It has been caused less by any actual shortage arising from Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz than by the anticipation of such a shortage arising. This rise is not just different from the steep escalation of oil prices in 1973: it was then caused not by any shortage but by OPEC’s (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) jacking up the price several-fold; it is also different from the sharp oil price rises that occurred in 2008 and 2022.

Both these latter two episodes of price increases were, by their very nature, short-lived: the 2008 rise was caused by excess demand arising from contingent factors, such as the rise in China’s demand and the disruption of supplies from Nigeria and West Asia, neither of which could last long.

The 2022 rise likewise was because of Western sanctions against Russia following the Ukraine war, and it had to come down both because Russia managed to maintain much of its supplies despite the sanctions and also because US energy flowed in to replace that from Russia within the European market, though at a higher price.

The present rise, however, caused by Iran’s response to US-Israeli aggression against it, is likely to last the entire duration of the current war, of which there is no end in sight. This is because several countries’ oil supplies, not just Iran’s, pass through this Strait, their total amount being almost double the entire output of Russia. And far from seeking to douse speculation, US President Donald Trump has downplayed the price rise itself, calling it a “small price to pay” for pursuing the objectives of the war.

If the rise in oil prices is going to last for quite some time, then its impact on the world economy will be quite profound. It will, of course, accentuate inflation not just through its direct impact on consumers via the energy products they buy, but even more importantly through a whole range of goods and services into whose production oil enters as an input, and other goods and services into whose production these goods and services in turn enter as inputs.

Thus, a rise in fertiliser prices because of the oil price rise will raise the cost of production of foodgrains, and hence foodgrain prices (if the profit-margin of foodgrain producers is not to shrink). And all this is quite apart from the rise in transport costs of all commodities which will give a comprehensive additional push to inflation.

Since the beneficiaries of the oil price rise will be immediately holding their windfall profits quite substantially as bank deposits that create no direct demand for goods and services, while the losers from inflation will have to curtail their total demand for goods and services in real terms, such an inflation will have a depressing effect on the level of world aggregate demand, and hence will cause a recession in the world economy. Here we come once again to the specific nature of the current oil price rise.

In a situation where the oil price rise is because of a concerted action by producers but not because of any supply shortfall, governments of the affected countries can pursue expansionary fiscal and monetary policies to keep up aggregate demand and counter the recessionary threat (though this is not what governments actually did in the early 1970s). But if the price rise is because of a supply shortfall, then such countering is not possible. In fact, recession in such cases becomes not only inevitable but actually a means of overcoming the supply shortfall. Hence, an inflationary recession in the world economy will necessarily follow a persistent oil price rise.

This would be true for all countries (including even the oil producing countries themselves if they do not take any counter-measures which they easily can). For countries of the Global South, however, things would be even worse for an additional reason, which is the following:

All oil importing countries will witness a worsening of their current account deficit on the balance of payments because of the rise in oil price, and this is a factor we have not taken into account in the above discussion. We have assumed, in other words, that there will be no problems in financing this increased deficit. For instance, the increased bank deposits of the oil exporting countries would be used by these banks for giving loans to the oil importing countries to cover their deficits.

Read Also: Imperialism’s Attack on Third World Sovereignty

But countries of the Global South, unlike those in the Global North, are not sufficiently creditworthy in the eyes of such banks or of other international creditors, in which case they would find it difficult to finance their increased current deficits. Their currencies then would start depreciating and they would have to incur external debt on far more onerous terms, by agreeing to exceedingly stringent “austerity” measures, or by pledging their mineral resources to foreign creditors, and such like. In their case then inflation will be even more acute, not just because of the oil price rise and its fallout, but additionally because of the exchange rate depreciation which will raise all import prices.

Likewise, in their case, the recession will be even more acute, not just because of the reduced demand for goods and services by their domestic populations owing to the inflation, but additionally because of the “austerity” measures imposed by foreign creditors.

It follows, therefore, that the hardships of their populations will be even greater. It is particularly urgent for them, therefore, to put pressure on the US to end this utterly immoral and illegal war.

India will be extremely hard hit by a persistent rise in world oil prices. Around 84% of the crude flowing through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asian countries like China, India, Japan and South Korea, so that the closure of the Strait, quite apart from its impact on world oil prices and exchange rates, will have a direct impact even on the timely availability of physical oil supplies in these countries, of which India is a prominent constituent.

Of course, Trump has “allowed” India to import Russian crude for a while to avoid the effect of higher oil prices. (It is an insult to our anti-colonial struggle that we have to be “allowed” like a colony, almost eight decades of our independence, to import crude from a country of our choice; and it is a disgrace that we have a government today that meekly accepts such “permission” by Trump instead of showing him the door). But this “permission” too is only for a brief period of one month, after which the scenario sketched above will come to pass. For India to remain quiet and not protest against US-Israeli aggression is, therefore, utterly suicidal.

In fact, Iran’s act of closing the Strait of Hormuz and thereby causing an upsurge in world oil prices, is meant precisely to arouse opposition to the war among the countries of the Global South, to persuade these countries that the war against Iran is also a war against them and will bring them great hardships as well, that they cannot just remain indifferent to it.

Iran’s military commanders even visualise a rise in global oil prices to as much as $200 per barrel, which would be back-breaking for the world’s people, especially the people of the Third World, unless they intervene immediately to roll back the imperialist offensive.

Their silence now may prove expensive in another, even more sinister, sense. When Trump faces popular anger within the US because of the inflationary recession arising as a consequence of the war unleashed by him, which in any case is already unpopular within his own country, he may try to curtail the length of the war by resorting to the drastic step of using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.

The US is the only country in the world that has ever deployed nuclear weapons on another country, and James Galbraith, the well-known US economist, mentions at least three occasions when it was dissuaded by internal advice from repeating that catastrophe (The Delphi Initiative, March 9). Unless the world firmly stands up to the US government and expresses its unequivocal opposition to the war it started, and opposition to the US’s cynical contempt for international law, a repetition of that drastic step may emerge as a real possibility.                                         

Prabhat Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views are personal.

 

Free Trade to Strategic Trade: The New World Order

Anusreeta Dutta | 26 Mar 2026

• 
  


• 
  

With rising tensions and politicisation of trade, much of future world trade depends on whether the Global South will work for a genuinely freer system.

Representational use only.Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

The idea that the world economy used to work under a "free trade" system is, at best, only partially true. It was said that the system was neutral and based on rules, but it was really based on differences in power.

In advanced capitalist economies, trade was mostly free, protected by institutions, and good for everyone. But for a lot of the developing world, it was often coercive, with conditions, unequal bargaining power, and institutional restrictions that made it hard for countries to make their own policies.

The World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank all said that liberalisation was the best way for everyone to grow. However, data from the past 30 years shows that global trade grew a lot, but profits were not evenly distributed. Advanced economies became even more powerful in high-value areas, such as technology, finance, and intellectual property. At the same time, many developing countries stayed stuck in low-value parts of global supply chains.

Trade was never just about efficiency or comparative advantage in this way. It was always about power.

Myth: A Time of Stable Free Trade

People often call the late 1900s and early 2000s the "golden age" of globalisation. Most economies had higher trade-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratios, longer global supply chains, and more factories moving to Asia. People often point to China's rise as proof that integration is good.

But this story hides two important truths. First, liberalisation was not fair. While rich countries pushed and encouraged developing countries to open their markets, they kept important sectors safe through subsidies, non-tariff barriers, and control of global financial networks. For example, agricultural subsidies in the US and the European Union make global markets less efficient and limit production in the Global South.

Second, the idea that economic interdependence would make global relations less political, was wrong. Strategic concerns were never lost; these were built into the system. Geopolitical power stayed centralised because of control over energy routes, technology standards, financial networks, and currency systems.

What is Different? Not Logic, But Visibility

People often say that the current trend toward "strategic trade" is a break from a system that was once neutral. In reality, it shows processes that have always been there in a clearer way.

The trade war between the US and China did not add geopolitics to trade; it made it public. Tariffs, export controls, and limits on technology were all part of a bigger fight for economic and technological dominance. Sanctions regimes, especially those against Russia and Iran, show how economic tools have been used in the past to force others to do things.

The COVID-19 pandemic, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and instability in key areas like West Asia have all shown how fragile global supply chains are. More importantly, they've shown how interdependence can be used as a weapon. What we're seeing isn't a change from "free" trade to "strategic" trade; it's a change from hidden to open power dynamics in the world economy.

China's Rise and Reconfiguration of Power

China's rise has significantly impacted the structure of global trade. Unlike many developing countries, China used globalisation strategically, combining State-led industrial strategy, regulated market access, and integration into global supply chains to progress up the value chain.

Its emergence has upended the previous equilibrium in which advanced capitalist economies controlled high-value production. As a result, the US and its allies have embraced more protectionist and interventionist policies, ranging from chip export limits to industrial subsidies under laws, such as the CHIPS and Science Act.

This is not a retreat from globalisation, but rather a reshaping of it—in which competition among major powers impacts trade flows, investment patterns, and technical ecosystems.

Global South in a Broken System: Passing the Burden

The effects on poor countries are huge. In several developed economies, the current time of strategic trade is happening at the same time as economic slowdowns, high levels of debt, and tight budgets. As these countries work to stabilise their own systems, they are more likely to push economic costs outside their borders through stricter banking rules, trade policies that make it harder to do business, and selective decoupling.

This puts the Global South in a bad place. Countries may not have easy access to markets and technology, and they may feel pressure to join competing geopolitical groups. Friend-shoring, or breaking up trade into "trusted" networks, could kill off economies that don't fit well into these alignments.

There are also possibilities at the same time. Countries, such as  India, Vietnam, and Indonesia have been able to get investments because of the diversification of the supply chain. However, getting these prospects to work for you requires the government to be involved in things like industrial strategy, building infrastructure, and teaching people new skills. It's not enough to just passively integrate into global markets anymore.

Who is resilient?

A big topic of conversation these days is the change from efficiency to resilience. Governments are putting a lot of effort into making sure that the supply chain is safe, that goods are made in the country, and that there are enough strategic reserves. But this brings up an important question: who is resilient?

For advanced economies, being resilient often means relying less on foreign actors while still keeping control of important sectors. For countries that aren't very developed, though, the same change can mean fewer chances to export and a greater risk of being hurt by outside events.

Also, the costs of restructuring global supply chains, such as higher manufacturing costs, inflationary pressures, and shifts in investment, are likely to be spread out unevenly. Historically, these changes had a bigger effect on the Global South than on other parts of the world.

The Illusion of a New Order

The phrase "new global order" means that things will be different from how they used to be. But if you look more closely, you can see that things are still the same.

Power, coercion, and geopolitical calculations have always had an effect on trade. The system's transparency has changed, not its character. Advanced capitalist economies are increasingly employing economic statecraft strategies in response to internal economic pressures and external competition.

In this situation, developing countries need to not only get used to a system that is changing, but they also need to understand how it works. This means going beyond simple stories of free trade versus strategic trade and looking at the political and economic reasons for globalisation.

Trade is Determined by Power, Not Markets

The global trading system is not changing from neutral to politicised; it is showing its basic logic. Markets have never worked without power. Institutions have never been fully impartial. And trade has never been "free" in the strictest sense.

As geopolitical tensions rise and economic uncertainty deepens, the main question is no longer whether strategic commerce will shape the future; it already does. The main question is whether developing countries can work out a deal with this system that gives them more freedom, or will they keep working within systems that keep inequality going. The answer will have an impact on trade in the future and on the world order as a whole.

The writer is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political analysis, ESG research, and energy policy. The views are personal.