Globalisation, a race to the bottom or climb to the top?

Dr Abid Hussain

The topic for debate is whether globalisation is a race to the bottom or a climb to the top. I am one of those who believe it is a climb to the top. Not that I am blind to the difficulties involved in globalization. I am convinced that historical forces are going to move it in a direction that will ultimately be good for the largest number of people. I know there are two classes of people who look at globalisation from two different perspectives.

There are a class of people who believe that globalisation is the process that is going to open up the world to greater prosperity and greater and larger happiness for the largest number of people. It is breaking up of these barriers that has kept people separate in the name of nationality, in the name of culture and other things. It makes them get closer to achieve many things. If you look at the process of globalisation which is dynamic and moving ahead you will find that such and such countries which opened up to the idea of globalisation have done well. Even in our country with reform that we brought in the economic area, in the polity and others it is definitely benefited us.

Some of us who have been in the industry, business, agriculture and so on would agree with me that the pace of development in India has become faster when we opened up ourselves to other countries. Earlier we believed that by keeping ourselves to ourselves we stopped this country being exploited of its people and natural resource by outsiders. We thought we would be able to compete with the rest of the world by keeping ourselves to ourselves within the country whether it is science whether it is technology relating to industry and others we wanted to do all by ourselves, which was not a bad idea at all. But if you carry the concept further and longer you find it become retroactive and it creates problems for you and others. Whether it is China, tigers of South East Asia or Eastern Europe outside the ambit of USSR they have been progressing in a direction in which the best of the economies were trying but with an inward looking economy and inward looking thinking. So I personally believe that there is enough evidence to prove there is more exchange of ideas, finances and technology since the process of globalisation started moving fast.

There is another category of people, good thinking, economists, educated people who feel globalisation is nothing but the return of the Empire. It the coming back of colonialism. It is a part of the new colonialism. It is the exploitation of developing countries by developed countries. They hold the view that the integration of the developing countries with the developed countries will lead to the disintegration of the national economy. They sincerely believe that the number of poor people in under developed countries will increase not decrease. They believe that the divide between haves and have-nots will increase. By and large trickle down theory will not work as it has not worked in the past and they will be in a bad shape. Thus there are two schools of thought presenting their evidences and we have to examine what is good for us.

First of all I hold the view that globalisation is very much a part of the very dynamics of the nature of the human being. The human being is continously in the quest of reaching further occupying new and newer territories then ever before. The life on earth begins with a particular urge. It is that urge that is helping people move ahead. From the Stone Age we have come up to this particular atomic age. In that particular endeavor to conquer space and time people who believe that knowledge can be condensed and locked inside a room do not understand the way and nature of science and technology. S&T is not like a gold which is there in the gold mine, S&T is not like the diamonds which are in the diamond mine or it is not like oil which is confined to certain oil wells. The dynamics of knowledge is that nobody can hold it on its own, it moves on. United States may think they have the knowledge of computer and nobody will be able to master it. But knowledge gives them a slip and all of a sudden you find it in India. When you look at this particular era of knowledge, you will find the real power will shift in favor of those who have got knowledge and those who have knowledge today cannot think that it will be confined to their country alone. So when we open up and allow the winds of knowledge to flow into your country we are accepting a particular challenge.

The important thing today is new actors have come into the picture, it is not the State alone that decides matters. It cannot stop and prevent others coming in or stop and prevent people from their country to go out or abroad. Multinationals and scientists are so free of the hold of the State that they cannot be stopped.

Americans might like their money to go only in a particular area. American government might like their corporates to do business with only a particular country but they cannot be confined. Before the Treasury decides something, the money of the country is gone, before the White House decides where to invest, all the money is gone. This particular class of entrepreneurship that rises above state control is another major thing that is happening and is determining the pace of globalisation. With the end of the cold war it is not just the end of the bipolar world but the coming of the multipolar, pluralistic world into existence. Thus some people say it is a unipolar world that has come and the hegemony of one country which is going to determine things, but you can see it is not so. Who denies that America is a major country as far as military power is concerned? Who denies that America is the treasure hunt of technology, who denies that America is the financial center of the world. But inspite of all that particular power for days together they had to find out who would all would ally with them to invade Iraq. Even when they formed allies they found it difficult to move. They asked India to send troops and several others. You may have the power to destroy a country but not the power to conquer and rule. The end of bi-polarity has not led to uni-polarity but it has shown the weaknesses of uni-polarity and it is demanding that more countries have to join together to move ahead. When we combine all these aspects we are in an environment where we are the inheritors of this nature of going forward and achieving.

I do not deny that there will not be tendencies of acquisition, tendencies to conquer and master. But these particular forces of human urge are much weaker than the combined forces that unite and move forward which are accentuated by technology. It is not the power of technology and and not the power of empire building which is the supreme guiding force in the world today. The progress of technology is mind boggling and amazing. It cannot be contained in a particular place. Gone are the days when it required Queen Elizabeth seven months to know that Columbus had discovered a Continent. Gone are the days when it required seven weeks to know in London and Paris that Lincoln was assassinated. But in our time we have seen any step right or wrong taken in any country, any assasination or death we can see it sitting in our houses. This sort of a communication was not available earlier. We thought of the moon as a distant place for angels and fairies but in our own lifetime we have seen Niel Armstrong walking on the surface of the moon. We have built pillars and towers in outer space. The abode of gods, angels and fairies was found to be empty.

How dreams are converted to some reality. It was said at some point time that when human body dies everything dies with it, in our lifetime we have again seen that a failing heart has been revived, a failing kidney has been replaced by another. We have given life to these organs by planting and replanting them which was never known before. We have even produced the child itself, not only in a test tube but also in a wider form. We have been able to grow food in plenty. We have been able to make lifeless miserable for our workers. Who thought a great musician who plays in Rashtrapati Bhavan or New York would also be available for the common man. Such pleasures are also now available to the common man. Cricket match or a tennis match that is happening anywhere which gives a thrill to the human mind is now available instantly. We have been able to take the picture of our earth from 30,000 ft above sea level and we have seen how our earth looks like a beautiful blue marble hanging against a dark blanket of the night and is sparkling with splendor.

This particular force of technology is unstoppable and that is the driving force behind globalisation, it cannot be easily stopped. The other side of science and technology is that if it is not used ethically, morally and properly it could ruin us. There is no automaticity in the process which Science and Technology has brought. However mighty be the Himalayas it cannot prevent the ideas coming from North. However, deep and dark the oceans may be it cannot stop the ships sailing in to the Port. However, dark and wide the desert may be it cannot prevent outsiders from coming in. You have to prepare for globalisation, there is no automaticity in its process. Those who are not prepared for that challenge has withered away. Burma, Tibet are all examples of countries not prepared for this and crushing the aspirations of the people so it is extremely necessary that those of us who believe in globalisation be prepared ourselves. For this you need a certain mindset.

We have brilliant minds, it is not the mind that is bad but the mindset. It is the mindset that is making us feel little less confident of your self which is making you feel you will not withstand competition, which is making you feel you are inferior to others and superiors will dominate. It is giving you a feeling that you cannot take advantage of the opportunities before you and competition is going to become much more deadly than before. The industrialists will feel it, the labor will feel it, technocrats will feel it, everybody will feel it.

Does India have to fear competition? Certainly not- evidences are that whereever we have gone and competed with the best of the brains and best of the people anywhere in the world we have succeeded. If thousands of engineers, doctors and businessmen have gone to USA and succeeded it is not because you got charity from them, it was not because they were giving us a piece of the business cake. We could occupy a place there because of our minds, capabilities and capacities. Go to any university in America and you will find a professor there who is an Indian. Go to any hospital you will find an Indian.

Go through the list of Nobel prize winners of any country and behind them you will find a group of Indians working. Even in India we have produced world class industrialists who have created a revolution which were never possible once or never dreamt off. The example of Amul Dairy-we are now the greatest producers of milk in the world. The green revolutions ushered in by Dr M.S. Swaminathan that a country that could not produce 50 tonnes of wheat now produces 300 mn tonnes of wheat now. We can meet our needs and give it to others. Look at our record in medicine and others. Amartya Sen, Jagdish Bhagavati who have been moving ahead. Show me another country where you have people like Dr Raj or a person like Dr Thapa.

Look at the transformation that is taking place in the rural areas which I observed during a national tour. The rural children all want to learn English now and all of them are wanting education. The daughter of my maid servant does not want to be a maid servant, my driver's son does not want to be a driver, my bearer's child does not want to be a bearer. They all want to go forward through education. Look at the urge that come into the eyes of the common man. It has all happened because of the communication revolution. When I see this awakening or a collective endeavor to go forward I feel pity for the academicians and economists who talk of the Empire returning back.
If you meet Late Lord Clive and request him to come back to India he would say no saying it is ungovernable. Any sector you will find we are moving forward and ahead. If the whole of India wants to move forward, not just intellectuals and the rich, we can. Indira Gandhi used to complain of the brain drain. I said brain drain is any day better than brain in the drain.
If you cannot provide clean drains, if you cannot provide useful laboratories and other facilities how can your people improve. Your doctors and engineers wanting to return want to have facilities that they were used to while working abroad. Why is it that we roar like lions abroad and behave like kittens here. It is because the system is not responding. If poverty is still continuing it is not because of post-globalisation. The policies were wrong and that is being corrected. How can a country that is not spending 2.5 percent of its GDP for education say it is preparing for globalisation.

A country that has capacity to produce nuclear bombs do not have money to get the best staff in schools. A country that spends huge money on security but cannot take care of this young children in the villages and towns, how do you progress? How do you blame globalisation for all the ills. It is extremely necessary that we must spend more on education . We must give more power to our laboratories. They will do wonders. What one man Mashelkar did to CSIR not that he got everything he wanted. But India got many international patents after he came and even when we were fighting against patents. I do not mean to say that developed countries will not try to take advantage of our poverty, our backwardness, illiteracy and others. They will do it. The human mind has an urge towards globalisation. The only way out is to give the citizens education, capabilities and capacities to move forward.

Even Muslim women in purdahs are coming out, they have to be given proper education. Women's education should be given paramount importance. I am not advocating that all those countries who advocate globalisation are adhering to its rules. Even those countries who were crying against protectionism have become more protectionist. It is they who create problems by continuing with subsidies. If they who are saying the capital and jobs are moving away from developed to developing countries. They are saying trading with poorer countries will invite poverty back home. If you look at the way they lost jobs, it is because they did not keep pace with the technological changes and business processes.

When I was in America and when Japanese goods boom was taking place there was a slogan raised -be American, buy American. This was music to my ears because India also said this earlier. Be an Indian and buy any product only if it is Indian, let it be of any quality. In America, they said don't buy Japanese cars, golf balls or TVs. In less then seven days, the consumers of America rejected that slogan. They said they work hard day and night why should they pay to General Motors which is not able to produce a proper motor car. Why should I pay GE if they can't produce better TVs? When the consumers were open to the best of things from outside they became conscious and aware of the weaknesses of their own companies. With in a year and a half GM came back, within a year and a half GE came back. They understood that it is not protectionism that will save them but competition and creation of capabilities and capacities.

An example from India-- if you had come a year and half back to Karol Bagh in Delhi, you could have found that it was flooded with Chinese materials. Our small-scale industrialists started beating their chests and complained to the Ministry to stop all Chinese imports. I was on a committee on small-scale industry and I told the Government that Chinese goods should not be stopped. If the Chinese can sell their goods in India, Indians can do it better. Now if you go to Karol Bagh you won't find the Chinese goods there. Indians have come back with quality. So when industrialists of the Bombay Club say save us from outsiders, I don't agree.

In America there is a popular movement against outsourcing. But outsourcing has happened because they became complacent and sticked to their old technologies and business practices.
We have to fight the protectionist policies of the developed countries. Take the issue of environment. The goods of developing countries are not good because of the heinous environment in which it is produced. Most of the environment that is polluted is because of the energy used in the developed countries. Is it not a fact that some of the industries they planted in the country created pollution. I don't have to remind of the Bhopal Gas tragedy to prove the point.
Look at the way people are responding to the challenge of globalisation. In Italy people are saying do not do as Romans do in Italy but as they do in America. My opening up of doors and windows does not mean I will crush myself and take whatever spread by outsiders as gospel. .

There are some people who say globalisation means annihilation of the State power. State will not be in the market to influence policies. What globalisation has been demanding is that it must change its intervention qualitatively. It should provide an environment to enable our industrialists to become world class. India is a big market inspite of the poverty we have got. In India we have a class of consumers who are more than the population of Germany, France and Italy put together. Why should that market be fed on less than quality goods, why should goods be manufactured inefficiently. I say the state must intervene and provide some public goods which market economy cannot provide. But wherever private initiative comes in, it should be allowed to happen.

Education should be made possible to be taken up by industrialists but what I suggest is not that State should not do anything about it. Private investment in education should not be in lieu of the state. The state should decide on the areas it should invest. If a private institution is making money and providing good education we should allow it to happen. Bit if he is trying to be exploitative, if those in the merit are being excluded the state must intervene. So the State has a role to play and is not withering away.

It is not the concept of State withering away that is connected with the idea of globalisation,but the emergence of a different form of State. The Indian State should take up the issue of patents and agriculture reforms with which we have a battle between developed and developing countries.

Today thanks to communication and information technology we have the people's power that is moving ahead. We used to talk about the people power. It used to get ideologically mixed up that we used to oppose each other. We are now in a position where thousands and millions of people can stand up and say thus far and no further. Never before have meetings of IMF, WTO and World Bank been stopped and prevented from going the wrong way, again because of people's power. Now the state should be able to help NGOs, civil society to move forward. In Iraq, America found out that despite all their might France, England, Germany, Italy and India were not prepared to toe their line. Not that some sections of Indians might have approved American invasion -it is part of democracy to differ in opinion. By and large we need a state that will work in co-operation with the market, we need a state that does not believe in protectionism, a state that believes in educating its women and young men. India is going to be the country spearheading the technology of the future.

Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi used to exhort us to open our doors and windows for wind to flow from all directions but not to be swept away by these winds. In China, an emperor said that if you keep the windows insects may come along with wind. In that case you should not shut the window but put a wire mesh so that only the wind passes through. As Gandhiji said, Lead Kindly light...