Not global enough

The word globalisation itself suggests a process engulfing all nations and peoples. But, unfortunately, the gains of globalisation, at least in the short-term, has been rather limited, both at home and abroad. This has been acknowledged worldwide, not merely by irate protestors from Seattle to Prague, but by important heads of state. Even the US President Bill Clinton, for many the fountainhead of all globalisation, recently questioned the negative impact of the global process on environmental sustainability and the labour market in the developed world. Fearing large-scale Americanisation under the guise of globalisation, the French President Jacques Chirac raised similar doubts over the positive fallout of globalisation on national culture. The latest to question the claims of globalisation as a panacea for all evils is Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Facing mounting pressures from swadeshites within his own ruling coalition against an aggressive economic reform agenda, and reluctant Cabinet colleaguesresistant to structural change, he recently raised doubts over whether globalisation is being perceived to be elite-driven8217;.

If the utterances at the inaugural session of the India Economic Summit organised by the World Economic Forum WEF and the Confederation of Indian Industry currently under way in New Delhi, are any indication, both the government and corporate houses seem busy competing amongst themselves to project their social conscience. In fact, the prime minister while addressing leading foreign and Indian industrialists, at the inaugural session set the social agenda of the summit when he dwelt rather emphatically on the need to ensure that the fruits of globalisation must percolate to the grassroots. He admitted that quot;globalisation affords unbounded opportunities, these go hand in hand with obligationsquot;. Next, in no uncertain terms, he spelt out the social obligations of industry: the need to bring the gains of growth to change people8217;s lives in a qualitative sense. Moreover, the nine-point charter for corporates which envisage free and fair competition, good corporate governance, protection of small investors, goeson to include involvement in education and health care. The captains of industry responded with a similar empowerment message: each of the 4,000 Indian companies and 300 foreign ones promised to take charge of one primary school and healthcare centre each.

In fact, the competition to own the social agenda between the government and industrialists went to such an extent that it was left to the WEF managing director Claude Smajda to remind the audience that India8217;s record in terms of globalisation, even going by its limited definition, is not all that wonderful. While criticising this country8217;s rather pathetic record of economic reforms, Smajda argued that India must stop comparing itself with itself. It was pointed out that its East Asian competitors are growing at such a tremendous rate that India should no longer have the luxury of basking in its rate of progress. For instance, India was 28 years behind Thailand. To conclude, while the attempt to radically alter the prevailing elitist8217; image of globalisation is commendable, what is equally important is to ensure that the reform process itself is not stalled. Otherwise the effects of globalisation, instead of trickling down, will simply pass us by.