An interesting aspect of India’s emergence is that there is a beginning in the recognition of its thought processes in global arenas and discussions. This is starting at a serious level for its position on global issues,but is also there in its domestic stances on development problems.
The flip side is the increasing attention to Indias domestic discussion,discourses and combative and often disruptive public discussions.
It has paid attention to Indias position on global issues after quite some time. The same can be said for example for the New York Times. India is clearly seen as a factor in building up the concept of interdependence in the growth process and growth in major economies mutually reinforcing each other.
This becomes a counterfactual to the position of some influential countries building up contractionist stances. In contrast,the Chinese stance on actually following for a long time highly export expansionary policies of a distorting nature but criticising other countries for setting in motion economic stimuli in face of serious deflation got adverse notice.
The Economist again taking note of the SFI debate within India was in a sense understandable since this has been a British bee in the bonnet since the Gleneagle initiatives of Tony Blair. Again we are happy that a position this paper took was largely endorsed,with an argument for sympathetic consideration of the advantages of SFIs in reaching poor people and a mild endorsement of deft regulation.
It is interesting that on recent stances taken by India British Labour Party associated intellectuals,including NRIs,have been very harshly critical of Indias position at the G8/20 meetings. As ever,the left in the west and liberals in the US are critical of the Indian position ever since it took an anti colonialist stance. I am never surprised when the Brettenwoods reformers use the Indian left to criticise its radical policies.
