P A G E
Friday, October 2, 1998
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, October 2, 1998 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Well
done, Mr Clinton! India’s
car wars
Once
upon the
Globalisation
and Westernisation |
 |
Public meeting at Calcutta |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
Well done, Mr Clinton! The US President, Mr Bill Clinton, has graciously postponed his visit to India. We can say so in respect of South Asia as a whole. US Ambassador to Bangladesh John C.Holzman has quoted Mr Clinton to say, "the postponement has been decided upon because of lack of progress on crucial disarmament and nuclear proliferation issues". Mr Clinton has recognised that there has been some progress in the course of the recent dialogue between officials of India and Pakistan. The topics discussed have included Jammu and Kashmir and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) . But this progress "is not enough to warrant a presidential trip". According to Mr Clinton, enough has not been done to rein in "the nuclear arms race after the spring tests". There is indifferent, bad and good news in Mr Clinton's wise decision. The indifferent news is that the President of the USA will sit at home and deal with the personal and political problems in which he is rather unwholesomely embroiled. The bad news is that some pseudo-intellectuals, particularly in our country, will be disappointed by not having a darshan of Mr Clinton who symbolises much, including super-powerfulness, theatricality, media patronage, physical charm, rhetorical skill and shades of a life made attractive by nonchalance and amoral liberty. The good news, however, is that India will not have to roll a red carpet for a President who represents a chronic anti-India stance. Visitors are always welcome on our soil. But those who demand an undeserved price for their appearance here are not necessarily to be made guests of honour. Mr Clinton began with demanding a price at the very initiation of the idea of his visit. The US Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs, Mr Karl Inderfurth , said in a testimony before the Sub-committee on Near East and South Asia of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee some time ago: The USA demands that India should take the following steps: sign and ratify the CTBT without delay or conditions; halt production of fissile material and participate constructively in FMCT negotiations; accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear facilities; agree not to deploy or test missile systems; maintain the existing restraints against sharing nuclear and missile technology or equipment with others; and agree upon a framework to reduce bilateral tensions, including on Kashmir. India, as Prime Minister
Atal Behari Vajpayee, has remarked on his return from his
UN visit, has been rather surprised by the US reluctance
to accept it as a responsible member of the international
community. We do not have to genuflect before any
power—great, super or supra-temperamental. Our
sovereignty is absolute. We demand a fair nuclear regime
for the world. Kashmir is an indivisible part of India.
And we know how to defend our Independence with human and
material resources. The following remark by an American
official is outrageous: "This is not punishment.
This is postponement because of lack of progress. We have
to have more time to lower tension significantly. We just
do not have that between now and November." Such a
November need not come with a dictatorial guest. As a
well-known defence and economic affairs analyst has
remarked, India, despite its demographic burden, is the
fifth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing
power parity. Despite the presence of millions of poor
people in the country, according to an estimate, it has
as many millionaires as Australia has people. India's per
capita GNP has registered a growth rate of 2.7 per cent
despite the population rising at over 2 per cent per
annum. In politics, it has proved to be a vibrant
democracy. In terms of national security, it has not
faced a warlike situation in the past 24 years or so. It
has refused to be a part of any Cold War-based regional
military alliance and it has resolutely followed a
nonaligned strategy in its foreign and national security
policies. Our problems of growth are daunting and
challenging. We wish Mr Clinton peace amidst the agony he
is suffering. We wish his foreign policy planners an
intriguingly interesting time as per their tradition. We,
however, wish the American people prosperity and a clean
administration unaffected by scandals and scams. |
India’s car wars I T is the hope for an
exciting future that sustains the interest of world class
car manufacturers in India. Otherwise the picture of the
automobile market has ceased to be rosy, as it appeared a
few years ago with the adoption of the economic policy of
globalisation. It is recession time for the car giants.
In the April-July period this year the overall sales
shrank by 50 per cent. The hardest hit is the medium-size
segment, which has been coping with a negative growth for
the past 18 months. Honda of Japan, which arrived in
India in collaboration with Siel Cars, never expected it
to happen so soon and to be so depressing. A sluggish
demand coupled by a stiff competition has forced it to
scale down 1998-99 target of its City models — an
otherwise much-publicised addition — from
20,000-25,000 to 12,000-13,000 units. But none of the
automobile players is thinking of a quite retreat, so
much faith they have in the capacity of the Indian
market. They expect the gloomy atmosphere to give way to
a promising climate by the end of the year. In the
meantime they are reaping a good crop of their investment
from the luxury car segment. The demand growth in this
area is on expected lines. This is proved by the
experience of Mahindra Ford. Its market share shot up by
6.9 per cent in the April-August period of the current
year.It seems the car manufacturers are working on one
common strategy: those who survive the bad times will
have all the good times. Hence the car war getting
fiercer. Alarm bells are ringing near the Maruti Udyog
plants in Gurgaon, but it is unperturbed. Despite serious
threats, specially from the Korean giants — Daewoo
and Hyundai — and Mahindra Ford India, MUL has
refused to go by the new trend in the market. It
continues to be the leader with an 80 per cent plus
market share and that may be one reason why it still
depends on its old strategy — technology upgradation
with widespread customer-friendly after-sales service. Of
course, it plans to push up its production considerably
by pumping in an additional Rs 2,200 crore in its
manufacturing unit, perhaps to make the Marutis available
on demand. But it says “no” to the idea of
reducing the prices, as has been announced by some of its
competitors. Mahindra Ford India and Honda Siel Cars
India particularly have come out with a “limited
edition” idea as part of their “special value
package programme” to keep the customer interest
intact as also to push up their sales. Mahindra Ford is
more aggressive as its “limited editions” have
a reduced price tag. Even without a price reduction, the
new marketing concept is quite attractive as there is an
element of exclusivity in it. For those Indians who have
succeeded in acquiring the Ford Escort Freedom model
brought out on the occasion of the golden jubilee
celebrations of Independence, it will be difficult to
part with their most prized possession at any stage in
their life. How far will MUL continue to resist the
tempting idea? Market surveys indicate that it will be a
totally different car scenario in the coming few years.
Today most Indians buy second-hand four-wheelers. They
are tomorrow’s customers for new vehicles. That may
be the major factor behind the undiminished interest of
the car giants in this country. If market pundits are to
be believed, there will be at least a 50 per cent rise in
the demand by 2007. Let us hope the pundits prove right. |
SYMBOL OF GOOD & WISE “BAPU” to his countrymen, Mahatma Gandhi was the “half-naked seditious fakir” to the British. Yet he was a legend in his life-time. He was “a respected symbol of the good and wise in humanity”. Because of him, our yesterdays were good. Has he really become irrelevant today? The later half of the 19th century was particularly propitious for India. It appears that we were under a very auspicious planetary configuration. Even though “Mother India” was afflicted by the virus of foreign rule, yet, men like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Netaji, Patel, Azad and Lala Lajpat Rai were born during that time. They were patriotic. They were principled. They could sacrifice without hesitation. They could lead by personal example. They could fight for freedom. They could live and die for this nation. Today, after 50 years of Independence, this nation of more than 950 million people faces a crisis of character and a devaluation of values. As we approach the end of the 20th century, we are showing signs of a national decay. We are one of the 10 most corrupt nations in the world. The people, who had once given the Vedas and the Upnishads to the world, are themselves caught in a stormy sea. The land of the Bhagwad-Gita is under a dark cloud. Should we not, in this hour of need, look for light from Mahatma Gandhi who was undoubtedly the “foremost amongst the illustrious sons” of this country? First, a word about the man himself. He was a friend to truth. He was faithful in action. He broke no promise. He served no private end. He sought no title. He was not animated by greed or selfishness. He was not a slave to any policy or party. His life was a lesson in self-sacrifice. He was a character from the Bible. He was “the most civilised, God-like man to walk this planet” in flesh and blood. As a coachman follows the horses, he had taken a firm hand on the reins and guided this nation. He had worked to change India from what it was to what it ought to be, from a slave country to a free and proud nation. Can such a man be irrelevant in the present-day India? Is he not the need of the hour? Should we not emulate him? Now, a word about the technique that Gandhi innovated to fight against the foreign rulers. It appears that his experience in South Africa had taught him a lesson. He had learnt that freedom could not be attained by “doing violence”, but by setting ourselves “right and by becoming and remaining truly Indian”. Every Indian should resist “evil and fight injustice. But his weapon shall be ‘satyagraha’ — an ‘agraha’ — a kind of a moral force to hold on to truth.” It was Gandhiji’s conviction that man should resolve problems by “love, voluntary suffering and self-purification, by an appeal to the divine spark in the opponent’s soul.” Satyagraha, the purest form of non-violence, was the method which would elevate man from the “physical to the spiritual plane.” He said, “A Satyagrahi never injures his opponent and always appeals either to his reason by gentle argument or to his heart by the sacrifice of self. Satyagraha is twice blessed; it blesses him who practises it, and him against whom it is practised.” He believed that by this process, the “British rulers will be servants and not masters. They will be trustees and not tyrants”. Convinced about the efficacy of the technique, he had also developed a new and novel weapon for political action — a programme of “non-violent non-cooperation.” It had proved effective. The results speak. Not only the technique, but even the execution was different in every way. Gandhi did not merely give sermons. He religiously practised what he preached. He lived by what he laid down for others to follow. Inside the frail frame there was a strong spirit with a pure and humane heart. He was a man with a conscience. He gave the world more than what he got. More than any other individual. Throughout his life, he stood by truth. He practised nothing but non-violence. He feared nothing but the sin. He faced atrocities fearlessly. He went to prison several times. By the method of self-sacrifice, his sincere devotion to the cause, he was able to electrify the entire nation, to break the spell of fear of foreign rule and make Satyagraha a mass movement. By his moral stand, he was able to produce an emotional upheaval through the length and breadth of the entire country. He was successful in infusing a spirit of solidarity among the people. It had shown results. Soon after the war, India had attained independence and become a free nation. And that too without violence. By remaining peaceful despite provocation. Today, we have agitations by all sections of society. We have violence in every nook and corner of the country. Even those who cannot raise anything, sometimes try to erase whatever exists. The nation faces a dilemma. On the one hand, every prayer that an Indian raises ends with an invocation to peace. On the other, the majority of us indulge in violence and disturb the peace. Do we not need to remind ourselves of the lesson of non-violence given to us by Gandhi? Can we be ever oblivious of the man who was an apostle of peace? Gandhi’s task had not ended with our attaining Independence. He had his own vision of a free India. “Pooran Swaraj” — “Complete Self-Rule” — was the goal. He had visualised his own method to achieve that objective. First of all, he had advocated austerity. He had declared that “man should rest content with what are his real needs and become self-sufficient”. He would have never allowed any Indian to go abroad to seek aid. This is as it ought to be. We should have some self-respect. We must stop going around with a begging bowl. We have experienced an ever-increasing cost of governance. We have seen a rise in consumerism. We have seen the results. We have deficit budgets. We have corruption. We are in debt. We are in danger. Still, we are looking for the fastest cars. To run away from our homes? The “modern materialistic craze” has only led us “downhill”. We know and realise that the economy is itself a source of revenue. Still we continue to “groan under the heel of the monster-god of materialism”. Should we not listen to Bapu and reduce our needs? Should we not adopt austerity as a national policy? Secondly, Gandhi believed that the fruit of freedom must be shared by all. Progress must begin at the grassroots level. Everyone must work. Gandhi once pointed out that India has “seven hundred fifty thousand villages scattered over a vast area. The people are rooted to the soil. The vast majority are living a hand-to-mouth life.” He maintained that agriculture did not need “revolutionary changes”. The Indian peasant only required “a supplementary industry..... the spinning wheel. Not the handloom”. It was his dream that an ideal village ought to have “intelligent human beings” who “will not live in dirt and darkness as animals”. They “will be free and able. There will be neither plague, nor cholera, nor small-pox. Everyone will have to contribute his quota of manual labour.” Was this not a subtle attempt to introduce a sense of responsibility and the need for work culture among the people who are idle for about four months in a year? Do we not need to do so even today? Still more, Gandhi was conscious of the use of technology for human progress. He was not “opposed to the movement of manufacturing machines in the country.” In fact, he admired “modern science”. However, he believed that it should be “reclothed and refashioned” to meet the native needs. He did not want the machines that would “blow off a million men in a minute”. But he would have been very happy with machines that would “turn waste lands into arable and fertile” fields. Furthermore, aware of the size of the population, he was against machines that would, on the puerile pretext of saving labour, render people jobless. He was far-sighted. Once he reminded us that this land was “the abode of Gods”. It is not possible, he added, that “Gods inhabit a land which is made hideous by the smoke and din of mill chimneys and factories”. A country that “has rapidly advanced in riches has gone down in morality”. He wanted “the concentration of wealth not in the hands of a few but in the hands of all”. He wanted that “scientific discoveries should cease to be mere instruments of greed”. We must realise the truth of what was said many years back. To some amongst us it appears that “Nehruvian socialism kept us desperately poor”. They believe that “Gandhian economics” can only ensure a “subsistence economy”. They tell us: “Beware the swadeshi brigade’s economic fossils.” No! We did not implement the “Nehruvian socialism” honestly. We do not understand the Gandhian economics correctly. Gandhian economics only implies—reduce your needs. Live within your means. Share what you have. Work hard. Produce more. Move from starvation to subsistence. From subsistence to surplus. The alternative that we are following is—work hardly. Beg and borrow. Live well even if you are under debt. Face threats of silly sanctions. Be slaves to all those who can lend. The choice is obvious. I would vote for “Gandhian economics”. Economic disparity between nations produces alienation. Between man and man, it leads to brutality. Gandhi realised this. He was a practical economist, a pragmatic scientist, a true moralist, a selfless, sensitive, sincere social activist and a pious soul. He could feel the pulse of the nation. He knew what his countrymen needed. He had the foresight to say it at the right time. He was God’s jewel. He “coined love into a conduct”. His life was virtuous. It had a serene and silent beauty. It spoke even when his tongue was silent. It is still speaking. Loud and clear. We can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to Gandhiji only at our own peril. Gandhi is very relevant
today. In fact, more than ever before. We must turn to
him. With deference. |
Truth was his religion “I want you to be superstitious enough to believe with me that the earthquake is a divine chastisement for the great sin we have committed against those whom we describe as Harijans,” proclaimed Mahatma Gandhi in the wake of the calamitous earthquake which rocked Bihar in 1934. Such rabidly “radical” outbursts could not but go unchallenged. Rabindranath Tagore was double quick to chasten the Mahatma for irrationally associating ethical principles with the cosmic phenomena for the physical catastrophes had their inevitable and exclusive origin in a certain combination of physical facts. Gurudev asserted that human inequities and exploitation might crack the moral foundations of a society, but laws of nature were something apart. A man of strong convictions, Gandhi reaffirmed his faith (or superstition!) in the physical phenomena producing results, both physical and spiritual, and held the converse to be equally true. Sticking to his guns, moral, of course, he wrote. “To me the earthquake was no caprice of God nor a result of a meeting of mere blind forces. We do not know all the laws of God nor their working. Knowledge of the tallest scientist or the greatest spiritualist is like a particle of dust. If God is not a personal being for me like my earthly father, he is infinitely more. He rules me in the tiniest detail of my life. “He and his law are one. The law is God. Anything attributed to him is not a mere attribute. He is the Attribute. He is Truth, Love, Law and a million things that human ingenuity can name....” “Visitations like droughts, floods, earthquakes and the like, though they seem to have only physical origins, are, for me, somehow connected with man’s morals. Therefore, I instinctively felt that the earthquake was a visitation for the sin of untouchability. My belief is a call to repentance and self-purification. I admit my utter ignorance of the working of the laws of nature. But even as I cannot help believing in God though I am unable to prove his existence to the sceptics, in like manner, I cannot prove the connection of the sin of untouchability with the Bihar visitation even though the connection is instinctively felt by me. If my belief turns out ill-founded, it will still have done good to me and those who believe with me. For we shall have been spurred to more vigorous efforts towards self-purification, assuming, of course, that untouchability is a deadly sin. I know fully well the danger of such speculation. But I would be untruthful and cowardly if, for fear of ridicule, when those that are nearest and dearest to me are suffering, I do not proclaim my belief from the house-top. The physical effect of the earthquake will be soon forgotten and even partially repaired. But it would be terrible, if it is an expression of the divine wrath for the sin of untouchability and we do not learn the moral lesson from the event and repent for that sin. There is an indissoluble marriage between matter and spirit.... “With me the connection between cosmic phenomena and human behaviour is a living faith that draws me nearer to my God, humbles me and makes me readier for facing him. Such a belief would be a degrading superstition, if out of the depth of my ignorance I used it for castigating my opponents”. Without being judgemental, one can aver that Gandhi’s religion transcended Hinduism, Islam or Christianity. The physical and the metaphysical benignly blended in his erudite expositions. The Gita, according to him, ordained that a Brahmin and a Harijan should be treated as equals. Religion was nothing if not self-realisation for him. Truth was his religion and ahimsa the only way of its realisation, he declared. Isn’t it a paradox of our times that the supply of a commodity as scarce as truth always outstrips its demand. He was a practical idealist who deftly demonstrated that the practice of goodness could deliver the goods. He frankly admitted that there could be limitations to the development of mind but none to that of heart. The liberation of so many
countries from colonial rule, in the wake of India’s
independence in 1947, vindicated Gandhi, the great
humanist, although posthumously. |
Once upon the Ramlila stage AS it is now, so was it in my home-town then — about 60 years ago. For two weeks or so before Dasehra, everybody talked of Ramlila. At two or three places, for at least 10 days, scenes from the life of Rama were staged in a big way. Both old and young went there and returned home after midnight. Some of the lanes had smaller Ramlilas. They were arranged and managed by boys. Here and there bigger boys, with earlier experience, guided them. After school the boys got together and discussed things. Of actors there was no dearth. Almost every boy thought that he could play any role. The real problem was money. The boys needed money for the sets, costumes and make-up material. A few kind souls promised to buy them this or that. For the rest the boys pooled their pocket money. As even this was not enough, they launched a collection drive in the lanes and bazars. The costumes for the kings and princes were naturally the best. They were of silk and bright cotton fabrics, trimmed with tinsel and sequins. For the queens and princesses saris were borrowed from some women. Also shining were the crowns. Though made of cardboard, they were covered with golden paper and glass beads. The ministers and other courtiers decorated their turbans with crests. The holy men wore long, gray beards, with ochre or orange dhotis. Others wore everyday shirts, dyed red and green and black. Black was the demons’ colour. For the warriors there were swords, spears, maces, battle-axes and bows and arrows. They were made of tin and wood. Paint and bright paper gave them a look at once fine and fierce. We spoke a dialect of Punjabi. But the stage language was a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. For humour an occasional English word was used or a local joke slipped in. Sometimes there was unintended laughter. Once, in his excitement, an angry actor lisped his words. At another time a warrior spoke so loudly that his moustache came unstuck. Almost every scene had a song. In fact, the songs were part of the dialogue. Before he banished Rama, Dasharatha voiced his grief in song. Rama sang of the rigours of forest life when he told Sita not to go into exile with him. And when Ravana threatened to kill Sita, the captive singingly said: Death holds no fear
for me, Some of the songs were old, some others new and based on the hit film tunes. No music was played, except a harmonium in some lanes. The boys did their best to make it an impressive show. The king’s durbar was set with chairs and screens. Fruit, flowers and leaves were hung around to make it look like a garden or grove. But it was essentially a simple show. And in simplicity lay much of its beauty. One of the most effective scenes was that in which Dasharatha goes a hunting. The king hears a gurgling sound. He thinks that some animal has come to the river to drink. And he shoots an arrow, only to find that he has hit a youth. Yet the scene was so simple. A long piece of cloth was held across the stage to suggest the river. The gurgling was done by dipping a small jug in a bucket of water placed behind the cloth. As the king shot the arrow, a cracker was burst for dramatic effect. The next moment came the groans of the youth and his painful song: O cruel man, for what
fault |
Globalisation and Westernisation REMEMBER, Gandhiji had many friends in the West? And he had a high regard for Christianity? But he rejected the western civilisation. It inspired, he said, the spirit of conquest and plunder, and, therefore, could not be a model for India. What has happened? We seem to be eager to embrace it today. Was Gandhiji wrong? Warnings by even eminent western men have fallen on deaf ears. Noam Chomsky said recently: “The great task of subjugation and conquest has changed little over the years.” And Galbraith had warned us against copying the western economic model. There had been no debate in this country on globalisation — on how it affects our culture and civilisation, not to speak of our economy. The BJP, the party with the most concern for India’s culture and civilisation, is silent on these issues. We are thus blissfully unaware of the implications of globalisation. And yet it should be clear to us: it means end to our sovereignty, it means end to our democracy. Decisions will now be made elsewhere by the most powerful corporations and countries. In his book “The Clash of Civilisations”, Samuel Huntington says: “The West, in effect, is using international institutions, military power, and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain western predominance, protect western political and economic values.” Do we listen? It seems to me that the advocates of globalisation, though few, have mesmerised the people, and have control over the media. It was the claim of the globalisers that globalisation would boost global trade, accelerate competition, bring down prices, raise quality of products, etc. As things have turned out, these were bogus claims. The exact opposite has happened. Again, the litany goes: foreign direct investment (FDI) will bring superior technology, better managerial and organisational practices and greater access to international markets. These are yet to be proved. In fact, India’s exports have fallen sharply. In the meantime, the MNCs are creating a new world economy that bypasses established political arrangements and conventions. National governments are losing control over their space. About 200 TNCs and 100 global banks are spearheading this process. As economic integration takes place, a process of political and social integration is also under way. Everywhere, the nation states are facing a crisis of identity. Trading blocs have become more relevant to people than nation states. A process of globalisation is no doubt inevitable. But not one which is imposed on us. India is unlikely to absorb the values of Western globalisation. Just as westernisation affected only a small segment of the India polity, globalisation has been welcomed only by a segment of business and industry and the middle classes. Even the Japanese, who are ardent supporters of free enterprise, are not sure about the prospect of globalisation. Globalisation is based on the belief that the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union was a triumph of western ideology and its values. Such an inference is hardly tenable. The debacle of the Soviet Union was brought about by human failure. Yet it was proclaimed as the end of history. Francis Fukuyama expected no further challenge to the West. But his hopes were dashed in just two years or so, when Samuel Huntington came out with his theory of the “clash of civilisations” in the 21st century. He saw the world of the 21st century driven not by globalisation, i.e. economics and trade, but by religion, i.e. by civilisation. He saw these civilisational blocs evolving into political and trade blocs. He asked the West not to confront these civilisations but to come to terms with them. Many others saw the end of capitalism through a process of decay. In any case, what is the experience of globalisation in the last few years? The Mexican crisis was the first symptom of the new disease that globalisation had brought about. This was followed by the South East Asian crisis and then by the East Asian crisis. In all these, it was the free flow of money which was at the root of the crisis. They were not the classic cases of boom and bust — that is of over-production and slump. Keynes had said: “Money is essentially a destabiliser and has to be reined in for economic stability. “But who is to do this? There is none. IMF was created to deal with balance of payment problems. But it is today more concerned with other things. What is one to make of the fact that only 10 per cent of the money flow is used for trade in goods and services, i.e. about $ 4.5 trillion in a year? The rest goes into speculative trade in derivatives which exceed $ 1.2 trillion daily! So speculation has emerged as the main arbiter of global trade. It had to be accommodated in the global scheme of things. In short, more profits are made from speculation in derivatives. The City Bank of America was reported to be making a profit of $ 150 million per day in 1992. Akio Morita, a doyen of Japanese business, asked the G-7 a pointed question: if Japan improved its production by cost-cutting and other measures by 12 per cent, but simultaneously lost its currency value by 10 per cent, will it have gained by 10 per cent or fallen by 2 per cent? Globalisers would say: Japan has fallen by 2 per cent: It is money which dominates the global economy. It was argued that if globalisation has the objective of creating a common world trade regime, it must have a common currency, and it must not be under the control of monopolies or a powerful country. But the dollar, which is the common currency, is first of all controlled by a few banks and then by the US government. Thus the effort of the European Union to create a new currency “Euro” is welcome. But it cannot improve matters. What the world needs is a new currency for trading and investment. The final question is: should the restructuring of the global economy be handled by the rich nations? Can the weaker nations have no say in the matter? Are we, weaker nations, to keep on adjusting to the changes in the global economy? The answer is an emphatic no. But we are too weak to resist the rich nations. And there is no will to do so either. That is why there is need to think over these matters in a profound way. If globalisation has found advocates in India it is because westernisation has already paved the way for it. They go together. The foundations of India’s freedom struggle were swadeshi and nationalism. Swadeshi was a distinct contribution of Gandhiji and nationalism of the reformers. It was expected that independent India would go back to the values of our civilisation. But it was the British tradition that won the day. India opted for the values of the western civilisation as also for its structures. Nehru was largely responsible for this. Globalisation is thus recolonisation, but with a different name. Dr V. Kurien says that through centuries of subjection, Indians have developed an inferiority complex. We trust foreign experts, not our own. In essence, therefore, he says, swadeshi means to him “an abiding pride in our own capabilities.” (Swadeshi means different things to different people.) Prime Minister Vajpayee
seems to confirm what Dr Kurien says, for he (Vajpayee)
admitted recently: “We lack experience and often
ideas on what to do.” A very unexpected confession
from a politician. But then he is an honest man. But it
also explains why anything western finds ready supporters
in this country. |
IN connection with the Turkish Peace Celebration in Calcutta, a public meeting was held this afternoon, when Mr C.R. Das, presiding, took the message of the Turkish War in its open light.According to him, Turkey had attained independence but not freedom. Turkey belonged both to Asia and Europe, and an independent Turkey meant not only the federation of Asiatic nations but a federation of Asiatic and European nations. He was not afraid of the Pan-Islamic movement, because it was a genuine religious movement dedicated to the service of humanity.He rejoiced in the victory of Turkish arms, because it symbolised an Asiatic federation, because it included in it Africa and Europe, because it promised ultimate unity of all races of the world and augured the establishment of true nationalism.According to him, no nation could be free unless all nations of the world were freed. The so-called feud between nationalism and universalism was untrue. There was
no truth in nationalism unless there was unity of all
nations which led to the best interest of nationalism.
The great message which Turkey was destined to give to
the world was not only a federation of different nations
of Asia but that of all nations of the world and he asked
Indians to so work, think and dream as to make it
possible to deliver this message to the world.Babu
Shamsunder Chakravarti said that while leaders in India
were at their wit’s end to find means for the
solution of Hindu-Mohammedan differences, the news of
Turkish peace came as a great relief. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Stocks | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
