മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം       മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം      മുംബയെ മലയാളി കൂട്ടയ്മയുടെ സാഹിത്യ ചര്‍ച്ചാ വേദി - 1967-ല്‍ സ്ഥാപിതം

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Globalization debate: K. Rajan replies to Dr. M. Pushpangadan

|1 comments
Dr. M Pushpangadan, EIS Tilakan, K. Rajan






ആഗോളഗ്രാമത്തിലെ ബഹുസ്വരതകള്‍- സാഹിത്യവേദി പ്രതിമാസ ചര്‍ച്ച-നവംബര്‍ മാസം (റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട്)


Dear Dr Pushpangadan,

I have recd your various forwards on the subject of Globalization, as a sequel to your article presented in Sahithyavedi.   You have attempted to give a holistic and idealistic view of globalization akin to `vasudhaiva kudumbakam’ , which in fact is a travesty of truth prevailing in the post-globalization era.    We should not forget that even with the lofty percept of vasudhiva kudumbakam, we have been subjecting our own people to prejudice, subjugation and exploitation – percept divorced from practice!   And globalization in its present incarnation (and there no common agreement even on the definition of globalization!), is more identified with the evils listed in your own article.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.   UNDP Report says”  “…globalization, while enhancing the opportunities for some, shrinks them for many others.  Although globalization may seek to promote growth and yield profits, it misses out on the goals of equity, poverty eradication and enhanced human security.”

 Earlier, the UN Millennium Report had observed:   “The greatest challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive for all the (emphasis mine) world’s people, instead of leaving billions of them behind in squalor.  Inclusive globalization must be built on the great enabling force of the market, but market forces alone will not achieve it.  It requires a broader effort to create a shared future based on our common humanity in all its diversity.” (emphasis mine).

Even in a country like India blessed with all natural resources and a big reservoir of skilled labour, we see all the negative consequences.   Many studies have shown that the disadvantaged groups have becomes vulnerable owing to poor government spending/subsidies, only peripheral, unorganized labour at below subsistence level (which I had loosely termed as `under-employment’ in our discussion), and low quality imported goods infiltrating into Indian market due to absence of government control, etc.    The widening gap between the rich and the poor is ever increasing.

As it emerges today and as the antagonist say, by globalization “the ruling elites sought to harness the expansion of the world markets for their own interests”, moving freely across the borders, extracting natural resources and diverse human resources.       

If a true globalization as you envision is to take place, I personally feel and wish that the forces at play behind the economic globalization first work on a humanitarian globalization – make the world war-free and declare disarmament.   The military budgets of the developed nations can build a humanitarian paradise on earth.

With regards,

K Rajan

PS:  Your comments on the medicine prices, decline in the organized labour, etc.  etc.  deserve strong rebuttal.   For want of ready data (I threw away my old records while shifting residence, now I have to re-build), may be some other time.  Authenticity of many statistics trotted out is questionable, as pointed out by an ex-Reserve Bank Governor.  As they say, Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

അശോകന്‍ നാട്ടിക

|0 comments
പ്രിയപ്പെട്ട അക്ഷര സ്‌നേഹികളെ,
മുംബൈ സാഹിത്യവേദിയുടെ പ്രതിമാസ ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ ഡിസംബര്‍ മാസം ആദ്യഞായറാഴ്ച (04-12-2011) മുംബൈയിലെ മുതിര്‍ന്ന കഥാകൃത്ത് ശ്രീ അശോകന്‍ നാട്ടിക സ്വന്തം കഥകള്‍ അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. മാട്ടുംഗ കേരളഭവനത്തില്‍ വച്ച് വൈകീട്ട് 6 മണിക്ക് നടക്കുന്ന പ്രസ്തുത ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ മുംബൈയിലെ എഴുത്തുകാരും സാഹിത്യ പ്രവര്‍ത്തകരും പങ്കെടുക്കുന്നു. ചര്‍ച്ചാപരിപാടിയിലേക്ക് താങ്കളേയും സുഹൃത്തുക്കളേയും ആദരപൂര്‍വ്വം സ്വാഗതം ചെയ്യുന്നു.


സ്ഥലം: മാട്ടുംഗ കേരള സമാജ് ഹാള്‍
തിയതി: ഡിസംബര്‍ 04, 2011. ഞായറാഴ്ച
സമയം: വൈകുന്നേരം കൃത്യം 6 മണി.


സസ്‌നേഹം
ഡോ. വേണുഗോപാല്‍
കണ്‍വീനര്‍, സാഹിത്യവേദി-മുംബൈ


 നോട്ട്: പരിപാടി കൃത്യം 6 മണിക്കുതന്നെ തുടങ്ങുന്നതായിരിക്കും.ബഹുമാന്യ സുഹൃത്തുക്കള്‍ കൃത്യസമയത്തുതന്നെ എത്തിച്ചേരുവാന്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കക.




അശോകന്‍ നാട്ടിക

മൂന്നുപതിറ്റാണ്ടിന്റെ മുംബൈ ജീവിതവും അതിന്റെ അതി തീക്ഷണവുമായ അനുഭവതലവുമാണ് അശോകന്റെ സര്‍ഗ്ഗാത്മകതയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനം. അയത്‌നലളിതമായ ആഖ്യാനമികവിലൂടെ നഗരജീവിതത്തിലെ തീക്ഷ്ണയാഥാര്‍ത്ഥ്യങ്ങളെ അശോകന്‍ തന്റെ ചെറുകഥകളിലൂടെ ആവിഷ്‌ക്കരിക്കുന്നു. നര്‍മ്മം മേമ്പൊടിയാക്കി ജീവിതത്തിന്റെ വിവിധ ഭാവതലങ്ങളെ വരച്ചുവയ്ക്കുന്ന അശോകന്റെ ചെറുകഥകള്‍ പലതും മുംബൈ മലയാളികള്‍ക്കിടയില്‍ സുപരിചിതമാണ്. 'മരണാഘോഷം' എന്ന കഥാസമാഹാരം പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. മുംബൈയിലെ കഥയരങ്ങുകളില്‍ കഥകള്‍ അവതരിപ്പിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് മുംബൈയുടെ സാഹിത്യമണ്ഡലത്തില്‍ സജീവ സാന്നിധ്യമാണ്. ജ്വാല ആവര്‍ഡ് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. മുംബൈയിലെ ചെറുതും വലുതുമായ സാഹിത്യമല്‍സരങ്ങളില്‍ ഒട്ടേറെ സമ്മാനങ്ങള്‍ ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. താമസം ഉല്ലാസ് നഗര്‍. ബോംബെ ഡൈയിംഗില്‍ ജോലി.



അശോകന്‍ നാട്ടികയുടെ വേദിയിലവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്ന കഥകള്‍

1. ക്ലോണിയ>>>


2. യുഗ സംക്രമം>>>

 

Key observations by participants and responses by M. Pushpangadan

|0 comments

Dr. M. Pushpangadan
(This is a detailed response by Dr. M Pushpangadan regarding his article “Malayala kavithayile Mukthiprasthana Swadheenangal: Oru Prathivadam” which is presented on 06-11-2011 on “Sahithyavedi Prathimasa Charcha”)
 
Observation 1:
EIS Thilkan: Culture is always linked to political philosophie

Response
Culture cannot be limited to politics.  One’s eating and dressing habits, living, singing, dancing and spiritual traditions, etc., are all considered as parts of his culture. Culture encompasses a variety of areas philosophic and spiritual outlooks, social and communal behaviour, religion and related customs, language and communication, literary trends and movements, art etc.  While some of these patterns are influenced directly or indirectly by politics, the same cannot be said about all aspects of life.

Culture is defined in various ways, but is mainly seen as the shared patterns of behaviours and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group. All of these are not politically influenced. Culture constitutes the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts. The essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically derived) ideas and their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action. As I mentioned in the Matunga meeting itself, as per Hindu methodology, ‘Mind’ gives rise to ‘thinking’, which produces  ‘word’, which in turn produces ‘action’, which gives rise to ‘behaviour’  which results in ‘culture’.  The drivers for these could be many, including but not limited to political philosophies.

The actual fears are that homogenized, western cultures would dominate and destroy the cultural identities of smaller countries, especially the ones of emerging economies. It is seen more as a cultural imperialism.

But there are arguments opposing the insinuation.  Thinkers like John Tomlinson have argued that globalization has helped preserve many cultural identities.  Due to space constraints, I am not going into these arguments.

Observation 2:
EIS Thilkan
EIS Thilkan: By globalisation, Satchidanandan meant domination by institutions like IMF, UN, GATT etc.

Response
This is certainly not the view of most critics of globalization (Shepard, Hayduk, Arundati Roy etc.). Globalization is seen by them as an all pervasive force destroying languages, environments, economies, cultures, political organizations, smaller systems, traditions and institutions across regions.  The institutions mentioned above are seen as some of the instrumentalities for the spread of globalization.   The left wing critics see these institutions as devices created by US after winning World War II, for exploiting other countries.

Globalization is not limited to just one process or practice.  It includes a range of processes and practices. As per Fisher, “in terms of people’s daily lives, globalization means that the residents of one country are more likely to consume the products of another country; to invest in another country; to earn income from other countries; to talk on the telephone to people in other countries; to visit other countries; to know that they are being affected by economic developments in other countries; and to know about developments in other countries. Globalization is much more than an economic phenomenon. The technological and political changes that drive the process of economic globalization have massive noneconomic consequences.” In the words of Anthony Giddens, a leading sociologist: “Globalisation is political, technological and cultural, as well as economic.”

The theory of exploitation of rest of the world by US corporates using globalization and their resultant domination is a myth.  Data shows that in 1971, 59% of world’s hundred largest manufacturing corporations were in US with 66% top 100 corporations’ sales. In 2010, only 32 of the world’s one hundred largest corporations were in US and they accounted for only 34% of the total top hundred sales.  Similar trend is available for Japanese and European corporates. The so called domination of super institutions like IMF is just an illusory one. It is true that the countries like US and Europe are trying to dominate these institutions by appointing their nominees as chiefs of World Bank and IMF.  However, these have not been effective as could be seen from the actual results above.  Globalisation is just not limited to the few areas where these institutions tread.

Observation 3:
EIS Thilkan: Globalisation started with Bretton Wood conference and not before.

Response
This argument is not shared by most writers / historians. Bretton Wood conference was an attempt to break the trade barriers imposed by countries post World War II, and to create a global financial system.  While there were many aspects to it, its most important five features as captured by Richard Cooper, (five point characterization) were as under:

  1. Great deal of freedom for national economic policy to pursue national economic objectives (employment, price stability, economic growth) to prevent another 1930s depression.
  2. Fixed exchange rates—desirable against the turbulence of the 1930s and the distortionary effects of competitive devaluations.
  3. Convertibility of currencies for trade in goods and services; this was wanted because of dissatisfaction with extensive use of exchange controls and wartime restrictions. Governments would no longer interfere with private sector decisions on the allocation of foreign exchange and so on. (John Lipsky thought that this was the most important achievement of the Bretton Woods system).
  4. Medium-term lending to cover BOP deficits of a temporary nature; the creation of the IMF was at the centre of this particular initiative.
  5. And, if deficits turned out not to be temporary, then countries could alter their exchange rates.

The above mechanisms were primarily meant to address the issue of protectionism while allowing sovereign governments enough leeway to regulate and control their own economies. The emergence of global institutions later on were to create structures that could mediate for regional and trade disputes, help weak economies and create  global standards and processes in corporate governance, regulations etc.  They can be seen as part of enabling mechanisms in the process of international trade but on their own were hardly instrumental in creation of trade imbalances or unemployment. The proof is economic growth of Asian, Latin American and Middle East countries who do not (except China which has a veto power in UN) enjoy any domination in any of these institutions.

Globalization started much earlier. I refer to the book Thilakan himself suggested later on: ‘The Cultures of Globalization’.  Its fist section, “Globalization and Philosophy”, mentions that globalisation had implications from the fifteenth-century onwards.
As per some reports, the Phoenicians (ancient inhabitants of current Lebanon, Israel and Syria) are sometimes considered the founders of globalization, and it is true that they were great traders, and they went to other civilizations to trade for whatever they could and were quite successful in doing so. Others believe that the Chinese with their silk products were indeed the founders of globalization. Then there were the Spanish colonies, the English colonies, and the Dutch Traders, all of which were involved in world trade, setting up outposts and globalizing their civilizations.
Jeffrey Williamson (2002) classifies the period 1820-1914 as the first great globalization era, and the period since World War II as the second.

The rapid increases in global integration in the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century were driven by the outbreak of peace in Europe and the invention of the telegraph, the steamship and the railroad.

Observation 4:
EIS Thilkan: Globalization’s effect on poverty, unemployment.

Response
Poverty reduction can be achieved only by economic growth and the empirical evidence suggests that globally integrated economies record higher economic growth.  The other determinant of relative poverty is that of distribution, which is not linked to globalization.

As per Bourguignon and Morrisson (2002) and World Bank (2003), the global poverty has come down from 54.8% in 1950 to 44% in 1960, to 35.6% in 1970, to 31.5% in 1980 to 29.6% in 1990 to 23.3% in 1999.  It is reportedly declining continuously. The decline of 21.6% in the 1990s compares well with the declines of 19.7% in the 1950s and 19.1% in the 1960s.  Since 60% of the population is in China and India, which were pro globalisation during the 90s, it can hardly be said that globalization increases poverty levels.  We need to also appreciate the fact that half of African countries have recorded negative growth rates during the last 25 years of past century. Globally, the decline in poverty has been fastest where economic growth has been fastest – in developing Asia – and slowest where growth performance has been worst – in Africa.
.
Globalization increases the employment.  Keralites are beneficiaries of this phenomenon and are acutely aware of this. The volume of remittances provides some evidence on labor market integration. Remittances from overseas workers make labour services a major export for many poor countries. The volume of remittances increased from an annual average of $22bn in the 1970s (measured in 1995 dollars) to $81bn in the 1990s, which is more than the annual volume of global aid. (Busch, Kuckulenz and Le Manchec, 2002).

A passage from Rudi Dornbusch (2000) says: “On the verge of world deflation, Japan bankrupt and Europe moving at near-stalling speed only, the emerging markets battered and the US beholding a glorious bubble – how can this mark the end of a great century of prosperity? And yet, this has been the best century ever, never mind the great depression, a momentary setback from communism and socialism, and two great wars. Mankind today is far and further ahead of where it has ever been and there are the seeds of innovation from biology to the Internet for better and richer lives even beyond our wildest dreams. This century, and in particular the last three decades, have witnessed just that as the nation state has been dismantled in favor of a global economy, state enterprise and economic repression give way to free enterprise, and breathtaking innovation and greedy capitalism break down government and corporate bureaucracies. Anyone who says impossible finds himself interrupted by someone who just did it. The process is far from complete; innovation and free enterprise spread the mindset, the success and the acceptance of this model to the horror of status quo politicians and the sheer exuberance of all those who are willing to embrace a can-do attitude. If this century taught anything it is surely this: even daunting setbacks like depression and war are only momentary tragedies – buying opportunities, if you like – in a relentless advance of the standard of living and the scope for enjoying better lives. One of the great economists of this century, Joseph Schumpeter - Austrian finance minister of the 1920s and Harvard professor at the end - wrote of creative destruction as the dramatic mechanism of economic progress. That process is at work.”

Observation 5:
Comments by Fredrick Jameson on Globalisation (Thilakan’s message after meeting)

Response
Jameson is an American literary critic and a Marxist theorist. Jameson says that American Television, American music, food and clothes are seen by many as the very heart of globalization. There is very little evidence of this in countries like India and China.
The American / western hegemony is seen as the major culprit.  The key feature of the world system is that as an economy it displays greater tendency to cohesion and interconnectedness, but as a polity it remains fragmented. It has never been transformed into a universal empire, although it has been united more by economics than by politics. But the political disunity arising as it does in a context of a dynamic and rapidly expanding cosmopolitan system of commerce and finance, has also often been the spur to expansion, as well as resulting in a highly unequal distribution of income and resources. Strong states arose to protect and promote the national advantage of their citizens within the expanding global economy.
This imbalance between the economic and the political in the world system predated industrialisation, but industrialisation intensified it. In the international state-system, nation-states have remained the focus of decision-making and legitimacy; international institutions have been slow to develop and have not kept pace with economic integration. Problems arise because international institutions are needed to create and sustain the conditions for a global economic order. The type of governance that is necessary to sustain national markets is also necessary for global markets. States can enforce rates within the territories they control-the problem is the exchanges, which spill over state frontiers.
A global economy requires the supply of certain functions if it is to function satisfactorily. A global polity would be one means of providing these but it is not the only one. Another alternative is that one of the states in the international state system is so dominant that it exercises hegemony over the other leading states and can either impose or get agreement to a system of international rights and norms. Such a condition of hegemony develops when one state has such economic supremacy that no other state or combination of states is able to challenge it effectively. The main dimensions of economic supremacy lie in production (technological lead), commerce (share of world trade), and finance (international credit and currency). If a state enjoys supremacy in all three areas it possesses the ability to exercise hegemony, and to some extent to assume state functions for the whole of the world system as though it were the central authority.
The other perspective on the understanding of hegemony is associated with Gramsci.  The exercise of power entails the use of both coercion and consent, and the most stable polities are those where consent is prominent. The focus is less on the structural factors, which establish the possibility of hegemony as on the way in which power is accepted as legitimate through ideological and cultural persuasion. The emphasis is on how a particular conception of world order is created and sustained through a myriad of agencies and organisations, and the incorporation of many different interests into an overarching political project. The ideological aspect of hegemony is what is most significant about it.

Observation 6:
K Rajan
K Rajan: From 1991 onwards, Indians have lost jobs due to globalization

Response
This is a contentious issue. I am enclosing herewith a study by Asian Development Bank in 2010 (By Rana Hasan, Priya Ranjan and others, October 2010) which arrives at opposite conclusion. 

There are two factors here.  As a thumb rule, if the economy grows at 7%, it can create a job growth rate of about 2.25 to 2.5%. If the population growth is contained below that, which India is currently able to achieve, the unemployment level gets reduced.  This also assumes that the change in adult population joining the job market is in line with the net addition in population, which may not be always correct.  But the trend would be a useful benchmark on a long term basis.  Thus if Indian economy grows at more than 7% per year, and population growth is under 2%, the fair assumption is that unemployment is declining.  There are caveats like income distribution inequality, concentration of power etc., which distort these assumptions but in a large and diversified economy like ours, and in the absence of reliable data capturing methods, these thumb rules are relatively better tools of measurement.

Observation 7:
K. Rajan: Religion was not a major factor in globalization in the initial stages

Response
As per The Hedgehog Review (Institute for Advanced studies in Culture - Virginia University), “The history of Christianity, of course, can be understood in part as an early effort to create a global network of believers. Its extraordinary growth and influence as a world religion was a result of a link between its own global ambitions and the expansion of various political and economic regimes. It succeeded as a globalizing force long before there was a phenomenon called globalization.  Elements of this historical pattern can be found in Buddhism, Islam, and other faiths as well.”

Observation 8:
K. Rajan: Drug prices have gone up due to globalization.

Response
These cannot be attributed to globalization.  In any country or location, the traders or producers would tend to charge the maximum for their products. Profit maximization is the ultimate aim and objective of all traders and this trend can be controlled only by appropriate levels of healthy competition, effective regulation and its honest implementation.  Here the governments and regulatory agencies have a big role to play.  The high telephone charges earlier were a result of poor competition.  High cost products can also be made affordable by subsidization. For example, certain products like life saving drugs have to be controlled or subsidized by governments. This is applicable to non globalised, domestic products like fertilizers, cooking gas, power etc.

Observation 9:
K. Rajan: Even without globalization, progress would have happened.

Response
Theoretically yes.  But reinventing them would have taken centuries and would have wasted human and natural resources. Think of the progress made in medicine, space technology, carbon dating, DNA and chemical analysis, computers etc. Should we reinvent all these?

The whole emphasis of my paper was to suggest that the intellectual and creative efforts of one individual anywhere in the world, irrespective of his citizenship or political ideology, should ultimately benefit all the people in the globe (ideally all the living creatures in the world). That is what we mean by global citizen as envisaged in Hindu way of life. Rajan’s point goes against the principle.

The same goes with other aspects of life.  The historical knowledge base consisting of political philosophies, spiritual writings of various religions, philosophic and literary creations, scientific and social research findings related to various fields, all should belong to and be shared by all for the common good.   There are issues here in terms of ownership, patents and commercialization.  But these are more matters of negotiation.  The solution certainly does not lie in reinventing all these knowledge in each geographic pocket and making them isolated islands of knowledge with Chinese walls in between. 

Like the running theme in my article, here again we will find many arguments for and against.  This is the way life is.  The different colours and sounds of life are what make it very interesting and challenging.



(M. Pushpangadan)
Dated 27th November 2011

Followers