Power has always changed its form, but rarely its underlying character. From Kings who controlled territories to industrialists who controlled resources, influence has followed those who could command capital, institutions and production. Yet history repeatedly shows that no empire remains absolute. The more interesting question, therefore, is not who controls the world, but what those who acquire power choose to build with it.
It is widely said, much like a legend in modern history, that the Rockefeller Empire was probably the one power behind major geopolitical changes of that era, including the end of British Colonialism. The question is, did John D Rockefeller begin it with the exact intention of growing it so big, and, as it is widely said, to control the world? JDR probably started his journey with the primary ambition to be rich, and later found his way to climb the ladder up. This is probably similar with every business empire that had influence over one or more governments.
The urge to control the world often does not accomplish, because the world doesn’t work that way. These urges are rather childish, and fade when met with reality. Of course, those already in the race may want to replace each other, but each of them has a fair share of their own influence. Powers like Rockefeller are always subject to circumstances they evolve from, and are usually hidden when they actually hold the cards. Even then, absolute power is a myth. Challenges are universal and decline is destined.
The critics of Ambani-Adani in India often forget that the reality of the world is heavily commerce and business driven after the Industrial Revolution. Ambani-Adani, a term for Indian business tycoons that hold a fair share of influence over India’s resources, politics and Center-State governments, is basically a firewall against someone else trying to enter and steal our resources. Is that a justification of encroaching over resources by these business tycoons? Absolutely not. But would you rather be controlled by someone who’s sitting in westerland, having no regards for your well-being but only the wealth to be generated from you, or someone who generated wealth while generating employment and strengthening the economy? Idealism, specifically the likes of Communist, do not at all work in real life. There’s a saying in Marathi – बाप दाखव नाहीतर श्राद्ध घाल – meaning you either show that you have a father or mourn that you don’t. You can’t claim what you can’t own. The tycoons born and brought up in India, paying taxes and employment in India and contributing towards economic development are rather the means by which we keep the next East India Company away from colonising us. I’m not presuming innocence or good faith of Indian tycoons, and that’s why I also support a system that has enough guts to hunt down the biggest player when he’s harming the economy. India is partially enough, needs to develop and is developing in that direction.
A historical assessment of such parallels is the way Kings behaved. Occupying territories, invading, indulging in wars etc. The centralisation of resources allowed them to be the absolute power before the 17th century. The era of science, technology and industry shaped the course of history in such a way that today’s power dynamics are not about who wins the elections, it’s about who decides. Changing this will probably require another century or two.
The philosophies of Hinduism are pragmatic towards the King. The Vedanta core is so potent that Chanakya Niti is just a fragment. Whoever decides in India should have this ideological jist that he’s there to serve. He’ll be replaced. The position will never be occupied by someone eternally. Choose your Dharma, which is a sacred duty, and take the baton forward. Rashtrakutas, when they dethroned Chalukyas, did not stop the culture of developing monuments, but they rather built the Kailasa Temple of Ellora and outshined every other ruler. When the Rashtrakutas were defeated by Cholas, the Cholan architecture, navy and literature shined across the Bay of Bengal and throughout South India. Indian tycoons should think of creating something that lasts.
Perhaps the true measure of an empire is not the extent to which it can control others, but what remains after its power inevitably passes. Rockefeller, Kings, industrialists and modern tycoons are all temporary custodians of extraordinary influence. The baton moves forward; the circumstances change; the names disappear. What lasts is what they leave behind.
0 Comments