Hey, everyone. Welcome to the show. Glad to be
here. So think the way the world works now. You
know, countries interacting, trade, international
rules is purely a Western invention. Hmm. Yeah,
that's a common thought. Well, prepare to have
that picture flipped on its head. Today, we're
digging into Amitav Acharya's The Once and Future
World Order. It's a really interesting book.
Nonfiction sort of history meets political science.
Exactly. And it basically argues that the global
system we have isn't just from Europe and North
America. Far from it, actually. Yeah. The core
idea is that. loads of different civilizations
chipped in over time, it suggests that maybe
this long period of Western dominance is shifting.
And, well, we need to understand that shift.
Right. It's like the book is tackling this kind
of historical amnesia about all the non -Western
contributions. Precisely. He sees the international
order less as a Western blueprint and more like
a mosaic, different pieces from different places
and times. I love that aspect. The way it uncovered
non -Western roots for things I always thought
were, you know, Western diplomacy, trade ideas.
Oh, absolutely. That was a big one for me, too.
The sheer historical sweep, going through so
many different cultures and seeing their contributions
laid out. Yeah, that historical detail was amazing,
though I'll admit sometimes it felt like, wow,
this is a lot of information. I get that. It
can be dense. You definitely need to pay attention
because some arguments are quite complex, quite
nuanced. True. And because it covers so much
ground. Some parts maybe feel a bit less explored
than others, but that's probably unavoidable
with such a big scope. Fair point. But back to
the core, this idea that concepts like diplomacy
or trade principles didn't just spring up in
Enlightenment Europe. Exactly. Acharya takes
us way back into Mesopotamia, Egypt, then Persia,
India, China. the Islamic world, even Africa
and pre -Columbian America. Showing how all these
societies had their own ways of thinking about
order, peace, interacting with neighbors. It
really challenges that whole Western exceptionalism
idea, doesn't it? The notion that the West somehow
uniquely invented the rules for international
relations. Totally. The book digs into how different
cultures faced similar problems, organizing politically,
managing relations between groups, setting up
rules of behavior. What really jumped out at
me early on, was how he finds non -Western origins
for stuff we link to the West, like early Mesopotamia
and Egypt. Right, the emergence of something
that looks a lot like independent states. Yeah,
and divine rulers, even early cooperation between
big powers. It makes you rethink where the basic
building blocks actually come from. So what specifically
stood out from those early examples? Well, those
Amarna letters. The messages between rulers in
the ancient Near East, they show a surprisingly
sophisticated diplomatic setup. Expectations
of give and take, mutual respect. Right. Like
that king of Babylon complaining to the pharaoh
about a cheap gift. It sounds so human. So much
like today's diplomacy just thousands of years
earlier. And importantly, between non -Western
powers. Exactly. It suggests these fundamental
challenges of how states get along, the need
for rules. It's not unique to one culture or
time. And Acharya stresses that these developments
aren't isolated. There's always borrowing, adapting
across cultures. Like Akkadian becoming the diplomatic
language back then. That's a great example of
that exchange. Precisely. But it wasn't all cooperation,
obviously. The book talks about empires rising
like Sargon of Akkad. The empire concept, a recurring
theme. Yeah. And the justification was often
about bringing order to chaos. We see that story
again and again, right? That chaos versus order
narrative is key. It often legitimized rulers,
framing them as needed, even divinely chosen
to impose order. And well, to expand their power.
It shows how ideas about legitimacy and power
were linked way back then across different cultures.
Definitely. Another thing I found really interesting
was the discussion on divine monarchy. Oh, yeah.
Acharya argues it's been like the most common
and lasting political system ever popping up
everywhere. Pharaohs, Indian god kings, European
divine right. Exactly. This idea of rule being
backed by a higher power just kept going. What
does that tell us? Well, it does make you wonder
about how societies historically sought authority
and stability. Maybe a deep need to look beyond
just human power for legitimacy. Hmm. Interesting
point. Now, shifting slightly ancient Greece,
the book makes you rethink that, too. How so?
We usually see it as the birthplace of democracy
and Western thought. Right. But Acharya argues
we often overplay Greece's uniqueness and downplay
its links to older civilizations like Egypt and
Mesopotamia. So the idea is that Western thought
has more diverse non -Western roots than we usually
admit. Pretty much. He emphasizes Greece as a
Mediterranean civilization with lots of interaction
with Africa and Asia, not just some isolated
European ancestor. That selective view does tend
to ignore those connections. And it wasn't just
ideas. He points out Greek colonization was often
different from, say, Persian or Indian influence
spreading. Different how? Greek colonization
often seemed more focused on keeping a distinct
Greek identity, less on cultural mixing. Ah,
interesting. Compared to, say, Indian culture
spreading in Southeast Asia, which often blended
with local traditions. Exactly. It highlights
different approaches empires took to expansion
and dealing with other peoples. That comparison
is quite revealing. And Persia, the book really
flips the script on the usual Persia versus democratic
Greece narrative. Yeah, often painted as the
total opposite. But Asharia highlights their
indirect rule. letting cultures keep customs,
even supporting Greek thinkers in Anatolia. He
quotes Plato praising Persian freedom of speech
under Cyrus. Wow, that's definitely not the standard
picture. Makes you wonder how much perspective
shapes history, doesn't it? It certainly challenges
inherited narratives and their potential biases.
Persia shows there were different ways to run
an empire, maybe more focused on accommodation
sometimes. Then there's Ancient India. The book
covers Republican traditions, the Ganasangas
with assemblies, voting. And Ashoka's ethical
rule based on Buddhist ideas. Right. Ashoka turning
to nonviolence after that brutal war. It's such
a different leadership model. It shows these
ideas about republics and ethical governance
weren't just Western. They have roots elsewhere,
too. Ashoka's focus on ethics and people's welfare
laid out in his edicts is a powerful early example.
of morality and governance stands out against
the usual focus on conquest it really does and
indian philosophy like the samkhya school suggesting
natural explanations for the universe not divine
ones that was another eye -opener seeing that
kind of rational secular thinking emerging outside
the west so early on it suggests that trying
to understand the world through reason is well
a global thing with diverse origins not just
a greek thing that led to western science Fascinating
to see those parallel tracks of inquiry across
civilizations. It just underlines that curiosity
isn't confined to one tradition. Okay, then China.
A long, complex history of world order concepts
there. The mandate of heaven, Tianxia. Yeah,
the mandate of heaven legitimizing rule based
on governing justly, caring for the people. And
Tianxia thinking the whole world is the unit
aiming for harmony. Very different from the Westphalian
state system. How would you say the key difference
plays out? Well, the Chinese concept seemed to
lean towards a hierarchical order, but one that's
potentially morally accountable. Westphalia is
more about equal, sovereign states not interfering
with each other. And the mandate of heaven allowed
for rebellion against bad rulers, right? Which
is different from the more absolute divine right
of kings in Europe. Good point. And Tianxia,
focusing on harmony, is just a different vibe
than the Western focus on state competition.
It's interesting, too, how some of those Chinese
ideas influenced Enlightenment thinkers in Europe,
like Voltaire, seeing China as a model of rational
rule. It really highlights the connections, doesn't
it? How non -Western ideas shaped Western thought,
even if it's not always acknowledged. Definitely
underscores that point. Moving to the Islamic
world. The book details its huge expansion and
becoming this major learning hub when Europe
was in its so -called dark ages. The translation
work, preserving Greek, Persian, Indian texts,
crucial. Absolutely. And the contributions of
Islamic scholars, plus concepts like Etihad,
that independent reasoning and law showing intellectual
energy. And places like Cordoba with the Convivencia.
Yeah, that peaceful coexistence between religions.
A powerful contrast to religious conflicts in
Europe then. What's the lasting impact? Well,
that knowledge transfer was vital for the European
Renaissance. Fundamental, really. The preservation,
advancement, and transmission of knowledge to
Europe set the stage for so much later development.
The book also looks at the Indian Ocean trade
network, thriving for centuries without one dominant
power controlling it. That idea of the sea as
a shared space. So different from the European
approach, which often became about dominance
and control, that quote from the Sultan of Goa,
God made the sea common, sums it up perfectly.
It suggests stable, prosperous global systems
can exist without one big boss, one hegemon.
Yeah, the system relied more on shared institutions,
mutual interests. Yeah. But then the Europeans
arrived. Seeking monopolies, using force, fundamentally
changing that more open system. Which brings
us to colonialism, a huge theme. Acharya details
how exploiting the Americas, especially with
the slave trade, fueled Europe's rise. The sheer
amount of resources, silver especially, pouring
into Europe. It reshaped economies. But, as the
book stresses, at a horrific cost to indigenous
peoples in the Americas. The Aztec example, their
sophistication surprising Cortes, really highlights
the tragedy. So the takeaway about the West's
rise. It was deeply tied to exploiting and subjugating
other parts of the world. Inextricably linked.
That wealth transfer was a critical foundation
for Europe's later dominance. And Africa's contributions
often ignored in Western histories. But Acharya
points to empires like Ghana and Mali. Complex
political and cultural systems. Right. And principles
of justice in some African traditions, too. It
shows the history of governance is much richer
than a purely Western view suggests. It really
challenges that idea of Africa being somehow
less developed before Europeans showed up. But
the slave trade and then the scramble for Africa
were catastrophic. Disrupting societies, economies.
Those arbitrary borders drawn in Berlin still
cause problems today. That colonial period cast
a very long shadow, lasting instability, economic
challenges. A profound and enduring legacy. The
book highlights a crucial double standard with
the Peace of West Dalia. How so? Well, it set
up this anti -hegemonic order in Europe based
on sovereign states. While at the same time,
European powers ramped up colonization outside
Europe. Peace at home, subjugation abroad. That's
a critical tension, isn't it? A fundamental contradiction
in how the modern system developed. And the standard
of civilization concept justified this inequality,
dividing the world into civilized and not based
on racist criteria. Japan's attempt to join the
club by westernizing is a fascinating, if complicated,
example of navigating that. Yeah, it shows the
pressure on non -Western nations to conform just
to get recognition. Underscores the power dynamics
and the costs involved. Racism is another key
thread, obviously tied to colonialism and slavery.
Acharya shows how European thinkers even justified
slavery, how racial hierarchies got baked into
Western structures, like in the U .S. Even with
its ideals, the U .S. had its own civilizing
mission against nations. of Americans and the
Monroe Doctrine asserting dominance. It mirrors
European spheres of influence and the shadow
of that racism. It still shapes global inequalities
today. A long and damaging legacy. Absolutely.
The book also questions if the post -WWII American
liberal order was ever truly universal or equally
good for everyone. More like a club good for
certain nations. Exactly. And now the rise of
powers like China and India is challenging that
order, pushing towards a more multipolar world.
The Bandim conference back in 55 was a key moment
there. Right. Newly independent nations speaking
up, linking colonialism, human rights, racism,
a real assertion of non -Western agency. A turning
point, pushing back against Western dominance,
setting a different agenda. So ultimately, Acharya
argues the current world order isn't just Western.
It's shared with input from many places. The
shift away from Western dominance might not be
bad, could lead to something more inclusive.
He talks about a multiplex world, multiple power
centers, different nations leading on different
issues. Yeah. And he seems skeptical that China,
for instance, could or would recreate a purely
Sinocentric system. The world's just too diverse
now. The likely future seems more complex, more
multipolar than the last few centuries, a more
diffused power structure. So after digging into
all this history, my final take on the once and
future world order, I find it incredibly insightful.
Really challenged my assumptions. It does make
you think differently. The sheer amount of history
was impressive. Like I said, maybe a bit dense
sometimes. Needed focus. Understandable. But
the way it presented this nuanced view on Western
dominance, its rise, its potential shift. really
thought -provoking. So for that eye -opening
journey, I'm giving it a solid 4 .5 out of 5
stars. It definitely encourages a more critical,
more inclusive look at global history and where
we might be heading. Okay, so what's the big
takeaway here? It's that the way the world works
comes from contributions all over, not just one
corner. A truly global story. That's all the
time we have for today's Deep Dive. If this discussion
got you interested and you want to check out
Amita Vicharya's The Once and Future World Order
yourself, there's an Amazon link down in the
description. And please do like and subscribe
to the show for more discussions like this. We
hope this gave you maybe a new angle on global
history and what's happening now. Thanks for
joining us. Yeah, thanks for tuning in. We'd
love to know what struck you the most. Was there
a favorite moment or something that really surprised
you from this whole discussion about world order
history? let us know in the comments please do
share your thoughts below and yeah like and share
this deep dive so we can keep the conversation
going definitely and maybe just think about this
how might understanding all these diverse historical
contributions change how we look at global challenges
today and the world order yet to come a good
thought to end on until our next deep dive