Quo vadis swadeshi amidst unjust globalization?

Quo vadis swadeshi amidst unjust globalization?
Globalization is under attack from International Labour Organisation (ILO). In a Report of the World Commission under the aegis of ILO, the devastating effects on the poor people in many societies are highlighted.

This should provide a cue to Swadeshi Jagaran enthusiasts. I have not so far seen any documentation on the effects of globalization on swadeshi imperative which I assume is premised on the cultural traditions and social cohesion evolved over millennia. In the Indian context, the family and the extended family of the caste are extraordinarily sound institutional frameworks for creating wealth and achieving abhyudayam (one of the two tenets of dharma; the other is nihs’reyas, personal realization of union of aatman with the paramaatman).

A Hindu, sanatana dharma view of social structure and development initiatives has not yet been fully articulated. I am making this plea for Swadeshi Jagaran enthusiasts to realize such an articulation.

I have indicated some initiatives which can be special purpose vehicles in this regard: National Water Grid Authority, Marine Economic Zones, Indian Ocean Community, banning foreign fund flows based on artificial financial instruments and institution of fiscal incentives to promote family cohesion and family values.

Let the chintan begin.

Namaskaram. Kalyanaraman

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/wcsdg/docs/report.pdf Download full report
Abstract
The Report of the World Commission is a positive but critical message for changing the current path of globalization. It says that the potentials of globalization, in terms of growing connectivity and productive capacity, are immense. However, current systems of governance of globalization at national and international levels have not realized such potentials for most of the world's people-and in many instances have made matters worse. "Seen through the eyes of the vast majority of men and women around the world, globalization has not met their simple aspiration for decent jobs, livelihoods and a better future for their children". In 2003, official figures for global unemployment reached a record high of over 185 million people. Unofficial figures would be much higher, especially if one includes the underemployed and the working poor.
These trends, the Report argues, are largely the result of deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy which are both "ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable." It warns that we have reached a crisis stage in the legitimacy of our political institutions, whether national or international. There is an urgent need to rethink current institutions of global economic governance, whose rules and policies it says are largely shaped by powerful countries and powerful players. The unfairness of key rules of trade and finance reflect a serious "democratic deficit" at the heart of the system. The failure of policies, it argues, is due to the fact that market-opening measures and financial and economic considerations have consistently predominated over social ones, including measures compatible with the prerogatives of international human rights law and the principles of international solidarity.
The vision put forward by the Commission is to bring into being a system of global governance that is genuinely supportive of and conducive to national development strategies ("there can be no successful globalization without a successful localization"), where powerful actors are held accountable, and where efforts to achieve coherence between economic and social objectives would place the needs and aspirations of ordinary people at the centre of rules and policies
http://www.ilo.org/fairglobalization/report/lang--en/index.htm

Globalisation not benefitted masses: SC judge
Hyderabad, Mar 22: Globalisaton had not benefitted a majority of the people both in the developed and developing countries, Supreme Court Judge Justice B Sudershan Reddy said here today.
He said globalisation might have helped some countries to increase Gross Domestic Product(GDP), but it had not helped most of the people even in these countries.

Globalisation might only be creating rich countries with poor people, as even in most of the developed countries, the rich were getting richer, while the poor were often not even holding their own, he noted, while inaugurating the state-level conference of the Akhila Bharatiya Adhivaka Parishad(ABAP) here.

Referring to the report of the World Commission on the social dimensions of globalisation by International Labour Organisation(ILO), which surveyed 73 countries, he said, it found that 59 per cent of the world's population was living in countries with growing inequality and only five per cent with declining inequality.

The revolution in global communications had heightened awareness of these disparities, he pointed out, asserting that ''these global imbalances are morally unacceptable and politically unsustainable''.

The rules of the game governing globalisation was unfair and specifically designed to benefit advanced industrialised countries and in fact, some recent changes were grossly unfair that they had made some of the poorest countries actually worse off, he observed.

Stating that globalisation advanced material values over other value, such as concern for environment or for life itself, he said the way globalisation had been managed, had taken away much of the developing countries sovereignty, add their ability to make decisions themselves in key areas that affected their citizen's well being and undermining democracy.

While advocates of globalisation had claimed that every one would benefit economically, there was plenty of evidence from both developing and developed countries that there were many losers in both, he noted, adding that globalisation should not mean Americanisation of either economic policy or culture, but often it did and that had caused resentment.

In the era of pervasive change, lawyers had the role of articulation, of the need to evaluate the proposals for change and the incidence of change against the constitutional principle of justice -- social, economic and political-- for all.

In a Constitutional democracy it was in courts that the actual impact of social choices were examined at the individual level, he pointed out adding that whether the legal fraternity brought efforts, both intellectual modesty and intellectual integrity or not would crucially determine whether change - social, economic and political, would be for all or only for the few.
--- UNI

http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=38476