10/4/2016

Globalisation&Indiantradition

Globalisation&Indiantradition
ByGailOmvedt
THE ``CHALLENGE of globalisation'' is a frequentlyheard theme in India today.
Ironically,thechallengedoesnotnowseemtobecomingfromtheU.S.orother
imperialist countries rather it is now ``Chinese aggression'', meaning consumer
products invading markets, rather than soldiers invading borders. Ironically also,
whereasintheearly1990sthefearwasofIndianmanufacturinglosingout,nowit
isagriculture,theleastglobalisedsectorinthelastdecade,thatisthoughttobe
in danger. It might also be added that China, which is now thought to be the
greatest part of the challenge, achieved its greatest progress in agricultural
productivities, in the development of smallscale village industries, and in the
reductionofpovertyintheseveneightyearsafter1978,wheneconomicreforms
centeredonagriculture.
Thereareobviouslymanyissuestoconsider.However,indoingsoitshouldhelp
to remember that ``globalisation'' is part of Indian tradition. Two thousand and
more years ago, India was linked to both Rome and China by trade, and
consideredalandofwealthandfineproducts.Buddhismspreadasamissionary
religion, to central Asia, South East Asia and China. Tamils sallied forth to bring
Saivism and Vaishnavism as well to South East Asia. Trade goods went along
with these. Culturally, the tendency to characterise all foreigners and foreign
products as ``mleccha'' was countered from the very beginning by the trend of
offeringthebestofIndiancultureandproductstotheworld.Evenaslateasthe
17thcentury,itwasBritishmanufacturerswhowereafraidofandopposedtofree
trade because of the competition from fine Indian cotton cloth, while merchants
supportedit.
Colonial rule was a turning point for two reasons. One is that the colonial power
didnotsomuchforcefreetradeastakeovertheregulationofIndiantradeforthe
service of British manufacturers, grabbing a market for free entry while levying
excise duties on products manufactured in India. But along with this was the
technological threat, the great productivity and growing sophistication of
consumer goods made possible by the industrial revolution. These together
devastatedmanyofIndia'sweavingcommunities,whileBritishtaxesdevastated
thepeasantry.
Thisledtothefirst``modern''debateonglobalisationinthe1880s.Hereagaintwo
trends emerged. The nationalist elite formulated at that time the ideology of
swadeshi ban foreign goods from India's markets, buy and use Indianmade
products only, and build a national solidarity on this basis. The ``economic
nationalism'' of the elite had its beginnings at this time, and swadeshi was its
theme.
This was not, however, unopposed. Generally speaking, the non Brahman and
Dalit movements were suspicious of swadeshi from the beginning. Writing in
``Shetkaryaca Asud'' in 1882, Jotirao Phule saw the proclamation of nationalism
as only a cover for maintaining the social and religious superiority of the upper
castes. He argued that the masses should not fall prey to ``those stalwarts of
purity(who)havebeenhidingtheirswordofreligionundertheguiseofbeinggreat
lovers of swadeshi, and telling the Shudras, Parsis and Muslims through their
books, newspapers, Sabhas and similar methods that they should put aside all
grumbling about the hierarchies and distinctions among those in the country and
become united and without becoming one, this unfortunate country will never
makeprogress''.Phulealsobelievedthatfromthetimeofwhathebelievedtobe
the Aryan conquest, closing off the country and preventing exchange with
``outsiders''wasonemethodofmaintainingelitecontrol.
His was, however, not a simple conspiracy theory. He was quite aware of the
danger posed by a flood of foreign products. But he offered a different solution.
This broadly had two thrusts first, mass education to create a mass of people
capable of dealing on their own with ideas and products worldwide. Thus, he
criticised the British for not spending the ``local funds'' they collected on setting
upschoolsthroughoutthevillages,andhimselfbecameoneoftheearlyfounders
of schools for both girls and untouchable boys. He also, as early as the 1970s,
urged compulsory, universal primary education a promise still not fulfilled in
India.
http://www.ambedkar.org/News/Globalisation.htm

1/2

10/4/2016

Globalisation&Indiantradition

Second,Phulewantedaccesstouptodatetechnologies.Thephilosophicalbasis
of this was his view of humanity what differentiated people from animals, he
believed, was intelligence, innovativeness, creativity, which made it possible for
themtochange(theword``progress''wasnotusedinPhule'stime,buthewould
not have despised it!). Due to their ability to harness invention and innovation to
production, America and Europe had progressed to make this possible in India
education, but especially technological education which made accessible new
innovations,shouldbeprovided.Thusthechildrenofartisans,hethought,should
alsohavespecialschooling,designedtounitetheirtraditionaltechniqueswiththe
latestinnovations,alongwithprovidingbasicskillsinliteracy.
Thesethemesremained.LaterDalitleaderssuchasIyotheeThassinTamilNadu
and the Namashudras in Bengal opposed the swadeshi campaigns of the early
20thcenturyonmuchthesamegroundsasPhuledidtheyalsoputtheirhopesin
mass education. Non Brahman leaders in Tamil Nadu questioned the orientation
of education in India to professional and literary skills, noting that in Japan, in
contrast, there was a much higher proportion of technical schools. NonBrahman
movementsgenerallyincludeduniversalprimaryeducationasamajordemand.
In many ways, all of these themes appear remarkably ``modern''. Phule's
orientation is like that of Amartya Sen: globalisation holds its dangers, but will
have positive benefits for an educated and healthy population whose capacities
are developed. Up to now, the productivities of sectors such as agriculture in
India have been among the lowest in the world, castebased ``indigenous
knowledge''hasbyandlargeremainedunlinkedwithinnovationsandevenover50
yearsafterIndependence,Indiahasstillnotachieveduniversalprimaryeducation
andremainsfarbehindothercountriesinAsiaespeciallyasregardswomen.
Today, the challenges of globalisation cannot be met by further protectionism or
othermeansofclosingoffthecountrytheold``Nehrumodel''ofdevelopmenthas
resulted in backwardness and its continuation today would only prolong
backwardness. India has already shown what its educated, informationsavy
skilledworkforcecandoinsuchareasascomputertechnologythesameskillful
use of markets and people has to be extended to the areas such as agriculture
andsimpleconsumergoodswhichstillemploythelargestnumbersofpeople.
Education and modern technologies including the controversial areas of
biotechnology and irrigation have to be truly universalised. The future is not
dark, but it is time to stop romanticising the backward aspects of the past, and
learnfromtheequallyIndiantraditionofusingglobalisation.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/stories/05062523.htm
Referredby:Dr.K.P.Singh
Publishedon:February31,2001
Sendemailtodalits@ambedkar.orgwithquestionsorcommentsaboutthiswebsite.
NoCopyright:daliteforum

http://www.ambedkar.org/News/Globalisation.htm

2/2