Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT

Title of the topic:

Globalization and its impact on Politics

in India
Name : Sneha Bhadauria

Roll No. 04

B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Semester – III

Submitted to:

Faculty of Political Science

August, 2019
 Contents

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Political Nature of Globalization
4. Impact on Indian Politics

2
 Introduction

Politics is a universal and dynamic activity. From the scope point of view, political
activity can be divided into National Politics and International Politics (IP). There are so
many patterns of interactions between National Politics of states and International
Relations (IR). In the present globalized world, it is not possible to study the national
politics of any state in isolation. In one way or other, every political system has been
influenced by the international environment. Theory development in IR is a dynamic
process. Due to this methodological or theoretical shift in IR, we can see the emergence
of various new global issues in world politics. 'From the historical and theoretical point of
view, there has been a methodological and practical shift from IP and IR towards WP and
ultimately Global Politics.

There are drastic changes in the issues of WP, especially in the globalized post-cold war
era that transformed WP into GP of twenty first century. 'Global Politics concerns the
relations between different actors in the world, the nature of these relations or interactions
and their consequences'. The state-centric architecture of the Cold War system that had
perpetuated the hegemony of discourses of national security and occluded the influence
of non-state actors (NSA) upon global politics was supposedly replaced by a supra-
territorial, transnational networked global order. Ultimately, it was argued that the post
Cold War era represented the culmination of the liberal economic regime of the free trade
(and its corollary of liberal democracy) in an end of history in which the state system end
its divisions were replaced by supra-territorial governance (may be global governance)
and transnational networking.

This is the perfect time to study GP because it concerns widely with the interactions
among various non-state actors and their interactions and impacts upon political systems
(politics) of states. Obviously, the Indian political system or Indian politics is not an
exception. Ultimately, the process of globalization plays a pivotal role in these

3
transformations. So it is necessary to understand the concept as well as process of
globalization.

Globalization, as a concept, is both highly fashionable and highly contested. Over the
past decade, a huge academic literature has developed on the subject. To provide an
exhaustive account of this vast and ever-expanding literature is clearly an impossible
task. Globalization, in a literal sense, is international integration. It denotes global
interdependence and mounted slogans like 'Death of Distance' and 'End of Geography'.
Narrowly, 'the term 'globalization' is used to refer to economic globalization, that is
integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign
direct investment (FDI), MNC's, capital flows, migration and spread of technology'.
Broadly, globalization can be described as a process by which the people of the world are
unified into a single society and functioning together. This process is a combination of
economic, technological, socio-cultural and political forces. Globalization is evident in
the growing extensity, intensity, velocity, and deepening impact of worldwide inter-
connectedness. In simple words, it is the process in which a common consciousness of
human society is possible on a global scale. Ultimately, globalization is the spread and
intensification of economic, social, political and cultural relations across national borders.

Political Nature of Globalization

International institutions such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF are contributing
another form of globalization: political globalization - the stretching of political relations
across space and time; the extension of political power and political activity across the
boundaries of the modern nation-states. 'It is characterized by the rise in number and
significance of international and regional organizations and non-state transnational
actors'. The transnational networks of international organizations like UNO, regional
organizations like EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, AU etc. and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) like global human rights NGOs (Amnesty International etc.) that play pivotal
roles, arguably compose a new system of global governance. 'Global governance is the
evolving system of formal and informal political coordination - across multiple levels

4
from the local to the global - amongst public authorities (States and IGOs) and private
agencies (NGOs and corporate actors) seeking to realize common purposes or resolve
collective problems through the making and implementing of global or transnational
norms, rules, programmes and policies.

Externally, the state is buffeted by globalization, growing integration of the world in

terms of politics, economics, communications, and culture, a process that increasingly
undermines traditional state sovereignty. One of the products of globalization and now
political forces that in their own right challenge the state is transnational movements -
religious, ideological and ethno-national. The best examples are: the threat posed by the
international terrorism of globalized age like event of 9/1 1 and US War on terrorism.

Contemporary globalization (globalism/ pro-globalization) has had some important

positive impacts with respect to communications, decentralization of power, economic
efficiency and the range of available products. Globalization advocates, such as
libertarians and other proponents of Laissez-faire capitalism, see globalization as the
beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. Famous pro-globalist, Jeffrey Sachs said, 'One
of the ironies of the recent success of globalization in India and China is the feat that...
success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are
fundamentally wrong, even dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-
sum struggle... but rather is a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies
and skills can raise living standards around the world'.

Neo-liberal policies towards globalization have had many negative consequences in

regard to increased ecological degradation, persistent global poverty, worst working
conditions, cultural violence, widened arbitrary and economic inequalities between elites
and peoples below poverty line (BPL), widened gap between North (developed) and
South (developing - third world) blocks of states, international terrorism (especially post
9/1 1 events and US War on Terror) and deepened democratic deficits. These claims can
be covered under the title of "Anti-globalization" (Mundialism): a term used to describe
the political stance of people and groups who oppose neo-liberal policies of unfettered
globalization. Moreover 'Naomi Klein, a radical Canadian journalist argues, in her book
'No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No jobs' that anti-globalism can denote either a single

5
social movement or an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social
movements'. World renowned radical scholar, 'Noam Chomski explores, "In the technical
sense, 'globalization' defined by the powerful, they are described as 'anti-globalization',
which means that they favour globalization directed to the needs and concerns of people,
not investors, financial institutions and other sectors of power, with the interests of
people incidental. That's 'globalization' in the technical doctrinal sense, not in the literal
sense because like most terms of public discourse, it has two meanings”. Anti-
globalization is seen as a critical response to the development of neo-liberalism. Most
anti-globalization advocates strongly adding that neo-liberal policies of western capitalist
bloc (USA, UK, G-8 & allies; WTO, IMF, World Bank policies) may bring a loss of
sovereignty to democratic institutions.

Overall, it can be said that globalization has prompted important changes to certain
attributes of capital, the state, the nation and modern rationality. Globalization has
encouraged the growth of additional loci of governance besides the state, the spread of
additional forms of community besides the nation, and the development of additional
types of knowledge besides modern rationality. So, globalization is not inherently good
or bad; its outcomes are largely the result of human decisions that can be debated and
changed.

Globalization and Indian Politics

The impact of globalization is also not uniform across countries and across different
sections within a country. 'Globalization is an uneven process, with unequal distribution
of benefits and losses, both across the countries and within a country across different
sections'. Globalization has come to rule the roost, though with many attending
challenges. However, immediate application of this process is not conducive to the
developing countries because the politico economic and socio-economic climate is ill-
prepared to absorb the fall-out of transformation that takes place in those developing
societies. Governance also seems to face varied forms of challenges in accordance with
the norms besetting the pieces of globalization. Globalization of governance (good
governance) or governance of globalization is a complex system of the world economy.
Thus, adoption of globalization by the developing countries like India should be carried

6
out gradually, first in selected areas and then to be made applicable in other areas in order
to reap fall advantages of globalization and good governance.

The wind of globalization, liberalization and privatization (LPG) blowing all over the
world was natural to have its effect over India. 'Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime
Minister vigorously launched the programme of liberalization in economic field in the
decade of eighties and thereafter, other liberal states follow it’. The Sovereign
Democratic Republic of India occupies a small proportion of India's long history - the
half century since 1950. Within this short time span however, its economic regime has
experienced two radical transformations. First, with the establishment of the Planning
Commission in 1950, India launched upon a unique experiment in state-led 'growth with
social justice' within the constitutional framework of parliamentary democracy. However,
'this policy matrix came under significant pressure in the 1980s, culminating in the
unprecedented balance of payments crisis in 1990-91. The Indian government, under the
guidance of erstwhile Prime Minister, P.V. Narsimha Rao and especially under the
erstwhile Finance Minister as well as chief architect and mastermind, Dr. Manmohan
Singh, responded to this crisis with an equally forthright policy regime grounded in a
reform trinity popularly referred to as LPG policies. These three economic concepts have
necessitated a series of (ongoing) policy reforms by the Union and State Governments'
[Kishore: 2002: www.rba.gov.au]. This was implemented by Dr. Manmohan Singh, a
prominent economist and former opponent of liberalisation.4 He is a source of official
exposition of the progress of the liberalization reforms as well as its major popular
exposition and defender. Among the large number of eminent economists, Montek S.
Ahluwalia, Jagdish Bhagwati and T.N. Srinivasan5 have been prominent and forceful in
their defence of the liberalising reforms.

In India, the seeds of globalization were sown in the early 1980s, but the real thrust was
provided by the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1991. Under this policy, it was expected
that globalization would promote foreign investment, enable use of the advanced
countries' technology, help in increasing exports, faster diffusion of knowledge and
reduce costs of transport and communication [Jain and Gupta: 2008: 15]. In simple terms,
globalization means integration of an economy with the world economy. However in

7
India, it has implied: opening up of the economy for foreign investment - both direct
investment and portfolio investment; removing obstacles to the entry of MNCs in India;
allowing Indian companies to enter into foreign collaborations; carrying out the import
liberalization programme; and permitting free flow of capital, technology, as also goods
and services.

The India experience with globalization and liberalization, although durable and not
reversible, has been, during the last decade of reform, somewhat different than most of
the other G-20 members. Since June 1991, India has been a member of a small club of 24
'globalizers'. In this context, international institutions like WTO, IMF and World Bank
played a pivotal (may be critical) role. The WTO has emerged as the most significant
multilateral institution regulating international trade. Some scholars (like Agarwal: 2006)
denotes WTO as a regime in IR. The WTO will not become a vehicle of unfitted
globalization if the new culturalist identitarian political movements (CIPMs) prevail. The
CIPMs have become an important player in Third World countries and especially in India
where they oppose the full removal of market imperfections and avouch a critical stance
on statism. The Indian position with respect to the WTO, IMF or World Bank in
particular and the globalization process in general, can be described in terms of the
internal constrains, the intellectual conclusions drawn from there internal constraints, and
the interests resulting from the political basis acquired by the political parties and
pressure groups'.

As India has steered its economic policies towards increased participation in the global
economy, a range of political, ideological and economic parameters have been modified,
while others are likely to be more drastically revised in the future. However, because
India's basic commitment to its constitution remains paramount, globalization will
continue to be subject to the democratic process. While making an evaluation of the
Indian experience with globalization so far, it can be observed that 'we have the best of
times; we have the worst of times. There is sparkling prosperity, there is stinking poverty.
We have everything by globalization, we have nothing by globalization’. Now one
question arises, whether globalization a boon or hazard to Indian state in general and

8
Indian politics, in particular? In this context, we have to study analytically the positive as
well as negative impacts or perspectives of globalization on Indian political system.

The adoption of LPG policies has transformed the Indian economy. This transformation
has improved India's image worldwide from a country of snake charmers to that of an
emerging superpower with talented peoples in all walks of life. The Indian economy is, at
present, one of the fastest growing economies - second only to China'. The basic reason
for this transformation is that due to NEP-1991, Indian economy managed to get linked
with world economy and it becomes competitive due to full and proper use of resources
as well as due to increase in GDP, and growth rate in the starting decade of twenty-first
century. Globalization provides some golden opportunities or exposure for our economy,
The gains from globalization can be analysed in the context of the three types of
economic channels: trade in goods and services, movement of capital, and financial
flows’. In the context of the 'tyranny of the missing alternative', globalization seems to be
an inevitable reality. Kaushik Basu echoed a similar view when he observed that,
'Globalization will bring with it many ills.... But on balance, it will open up more
windows of opportunity for India than close'.

Impacts on Indian Politics

Indian politics has been severely affected by these global transformations of post-cold
war era. We have to study the ill effects of globalization on Indian society, culture, polity
and even economy because all these are the integral parts of Indian political system as
such. India is a nation in which economic and social inequalities are prevalent and the
process of globalization and liberalization will surely increase it. Globalization may have
an adverse effect on social and political goals rather than economic goals. According to
P. Bardhan, "all round the world today many advocates of social justice are in some state
of despair. Some of them fear that social justice is a lost cause in a global economy". The
Indian experience with globalization is mired in controversy. One may have no problem

9
with globalization per se but it is to be extremely worried about "one way globalization"
or "globalizing to somebody else's design" where all influences are coming from
outside."

In third world countries the utmost fear is that globalization, through its multilateral
institutions like WTO, World Bank amd IMF etc., leads to loss of national sovereignty
and inculcates restraints in the way of independent domestic or foreign policies. As a
matter of proof, 'due to the size of the top forty MNCs having GDPs bigger than a
country like Turkey, for example, this creates an impression that governments have
surrendered their power to capitalism' [The Economist: 2001]. This sort of argument is
very common in India to date and has been used to attract a lot of support from
nationalist parties (Swadeshi philosophy), communist parties and trade unions specially
because they associate the presence of MNC with neo-colonialism. 'Under WTO, World
Bank and IMF rules and regulations, the state (may be India or any state from South bloc)
will have to give away some of its sovereignty on economic matters and international
trade* [World Bank Report: 2000]. These issues have to be addressed both theoretically
and empirically.

India, along with other third world countries, is the prime target of WTO, World Bank
and IMF politics. Indian market can be analysed as the consumer-oriented. The role of
MNCs and FDI in Indian economy has been greatly increased. All the liberal and neo-
liberal economic developments posed a serious challenge to the functioning of various
political organs or institutions in particular and to Indian sovereignty in general. Both,
global media and corporate sector play their roles respectively in this process because the
rise of media (may be called as hyper-active media) and corporate politics (politics of big
business groups in India like FICCI) posed a serious threat to the popular sovereignty or
people's politics. From the third world perspective, globalization, along with its neo-
colonial instruments or products such as MNCs, FDI and with discriminatory provisions
of WTO, World Bank and IMF, posed a serious threat to our political system in general
and to its various socio-economic and political components in particular. To large extent,
it turns inconsistent with the bask constitutional ideology (42nd Amendment and
prospects of socialist state) of our state because the sphere and scope of public sector has

10
been decreasing day by day. If we watch carefully the discriminatory clauses of WTO
and IMF, one can easily access that it will limit our economic as well as political
sovereignty. As a result, economic and social inequalities will be increased due to the
spread of economic imperialism or neo-colonialism.

One of the most notable objection is that due to global interaction of Indian economy,
there are drastic impacts on the institutional set up of Indian state i.e. the organs and
structures (institutions) of Indian democracy (like Parliament, Supreme Court,
Bureaucracy, Political Parties, NGOs, Pressure Groups, Social Movements) fight with
each other because they have strained or fragile relations with each other. Under the
impact of LPG policies since NEP-1991 , 'the decline of public institutions in terms of
their delivery to the poor and the disillusionment of the poor with the public institutions
have provided an opportunity to the left wing scholars to raise their voice high on
deregulation, reducing public expenditure, reduction of social services and privatization
(corporate sector) rather than on people's participation in governance’. In this context, the
new dispensations, namely, the negative or blackmailing role of corporate section in
politics vis-à-vis the need of empowerment of people's politics (participatory democracy)
have come to occupy the centre stage in the discourse on governance.

The constitution of India and Jawahar Lai Nehru - Indira Gandhi Model of Development
dictates that the intra-related and inter-connected institutional arrangements for
governance are democratic participation, decentralization of powers on the basis of
federalism, state-led multiple programmes for economic regeneration (public sector) and
a political regime which does not show any preferences for various sections of Indian
society [Bhambhri: 1997: 238]. But since 1991, India has launched a new model of
development, a powerful critique of Nehru-Indira model. In this phase, deregulation and
globalization is the new policy framework for governance. 'Hence many of the old
institutions for governance have outlived their utility and new institutions have to be
created to release the impulses of economic growth from the shackles of earlier
governmentalisation of the whole society' to the corporate society which is the backbone
of neo liberalism. 'Contrary to the viewpoint of Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate and one
of the greatest economists and free market proponents of the 20th century, who favours

11
the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)', we can counter with the negative
matrix of MNCs (economic benefits) and adulterated capitalism in which there should be
no prospect for CSR.

A fundamental contradiction has emerged at the close of the twentieth century that the
state systems have ceased to be real decision-makers on crucial economic issues, and the
real power of decisions has shifted to the most powerful transnational corporations
(MNCs). In this on-going process of the restructuring of global power relations, the
Indian institutions for governance will have to develop new and powerful capabilities to
negotiate and bargain with the real centres of world power. The real challenge to our
governing institutions is two-fold. First, the Government of India will have to put its
house into order to define its relative autonomy and sovereignty from global institutions
like WTO, World Bank and IMF as well as from MNCs. The distinction between politics
and economics was never valid, but in the new globalized system of production, such a
distinction has creased to exists. In the governance of India, political and social pressures
will be exercised by the capital investing countries for getting purely economic
concessions. Second, the Government of India will always remain 'Big' and crucial for
the citizens in the regime of globalization for responding to the crucial demands of more
than 30% deprived peoples (BPL) of deprived and oppressed social classes. The
differential attitude of the social segments of society towards the government is in spite
of the fact that poor are always betrayed and the elite always benefit from liberalized
policies of our government. 'Further, the slogans of de-bureaucratization and
decentralization are phoney as per the World Bank report, in which one question arises,
how is that serving or retired bureaucrats are immediately taken over by the Indian and
foreign companies?' [World Bank Report: 1995]. In reality, the market-led economy and
governance in India is anti-democracy.

In the present globalized age, international terrorism is benefited by the technological

advances like cyber terrorism. Although in the past, terrorism posed a serious threat to
our security but the present nexus of Indian terrorist groups (esp. in J&K) with global
terrorist groups (such as Al Qaeda) may be very harmful to our human security and state
sovereignty. Some critics of globalization considers international terrorism along with

12
MNCs as instruments of neo-colonialism for third world countries. 'With neo-liberalism
establishing itself as a hegemonic ideology it could undercut the absolute sovereignty and
autonomy of nation state like India in determining strategies of auto centric development.
As a result, we are witnessing dislocation and weakening of state-institutions of Indian
democracy'. As Karl Marx pointed out that the modern states were created to suit the
need of capital to accumulate. As the needs of the capital changed, the imperialist forces
created the colonial system of nation-states. The operations of MNCs have recreated the
old colonial hierarchy of spaces in new forms with the formal imperialist countries
(Western liberal democracies) on the top and the neo-colonies (most third world countries
like India) at the bottom. That is why, in the present scenario, it can be said that Indian
sovereignty is at bay, to some extent, under the impacts of globalization and its associates
and international politics.

Indian federalism (centre-state relations) has been also affected by the process of
globalization and its discontents. In the post-liberalisation phase, most state governments
have been active in promoting domestic and foreign private investment (FDI) in their
territories. In this context, a new trend, in the form of rise of civil society organizations in
states (provinces) emerged in Indian federalism. There civil society associations have
gained tremendously by the digital revolution in mobilizing and educating their
constituents. It is not clear yet to draw some interpretations for Indian federalism but it is
certain that the federal structure will have to respond to these parallel and horizontal
structures of governance i.e. civil society organizations or NGOs. Globalization creates a
legitimacy vacuum for national politics vis-à-vis state (domestic) politics. In order to
enhance domestic (internal) sovereignty, our central government was compelled to create
local democratic structure. It is believed that Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), through
73rd Constitutional Amendment, is a reflection in this concern. In this way, globalization
helps to enhance the decentralization of Indian federalism.

Normally, due to impacts of globalization, on Indian federalism, there are stress and
strains in centre-state relations. Presently, in most states, MNCs have directly invested
the foreign capital (FDI). This creates conflict among various states as well as among
centre and states. For example, 'when in 1999, Bill Clinton, erstwhile President of USA,

13
made a visit to Andhra Pradesh, on the behalf of the invitation by Chanda Babu Naidu,
central NDA government registered some strong objections' [The Hindu: 2005].
Recently, in West Bengal, the Nandigram issue poses one of the most vulnerable
experiment with forcible land-acquisition schemes for rapid industrialisation - a stigma of
LPG policies. It creates tensions between UPA Government and state left government.
Although, the left government in West Bengal always opposed the western model of
liberalization and privatisation, but presently the same government under the leadership
of Buddadeb Bhattacharya wants to acquire the agricultural land for MNCs like Salem
group of Indonesia in Nandigram as well as for Ratan Tata in Singhur. Even, 'Jyoti Basu,
one of the most hard-liners communists, said that socialism is not possible in the present
context of liberalization and capitalism' [The Hindu: 2007]. All these events of
conflictual or agitational politics presents the vulnerable impacts of globalization and
liberalization on Indian federalism.

The process of globalization has been gradually adapting by Indian political parties. In
the present coalition politics era (since 1996), regional political parties play a pivotal role
in national politics. They have shaken the monopoly of national parties in national
politics. The process of globalization gives a serious impetus to regionalism in general
and to regional political parties in particular. The main factors behind these developments
are like ethnic problems, separatist movements and regionalist tendencies. Regional
parties (like TDP, NC, SAD, DMK, AIADMK, Shiv Sena), in the present coalition era,
have highlighted these issues, related with globalization. Although, ethnic as well as
separatist movements were also present in national politics before 1991 but globalization,
along with its discontents and global technology networks, have highlighted these social
and political issues. For example, recently in Maharashtra, the violent attacks on North-
Indian peoples by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (Raj Thackrey) and Shiv Sena (Bal
Thackrey) activists explores a burning issue which is directly related to global (regional)
migration crisis. Apart from separatist movements, globalization and its discontents
provide a sound supporting environment for the creation of new states under the Indian
union that is called the politics of new states which has strongly affected the national
politics.

14
In the coalition politics, globalization and its products also provide the element of
instability in national politics. For example, due to the controversial Indo-US nuclear
deal; there is a great political divide between present UPA government and its chief
partners, the left parties. The central government see deal as a boon for our energy needs
but left parties denotes the deal as a western hazard to our sovereignty and independent
foreign policy. Both parties, Congress as well as CPM, play the card of nuclear deal for
political or electoral objectives. So, the interaction of state politics and national politics
with the rapid global transformations, have a strong impact on our national politics.

Recent Indian experience with globalization and liberalization denotes the vulnerable
phase of radical politics because, 'globalization has profound impacts on Indian masses -
especially the peasants, workers and indigenous people'. If globalization is seen as the
acceleration of the general logic of capital accumulation and the development paradigm
that goes with it, then it can be argued that 'social movements (like Narmada Bachao
Andolan - NBA, Azadi Bachao Andolen, Bachpan Bacaho Andolan) really address two
sides of the same process of disempowerment and dispossession of large sectors of
population'. The Narmada movement (NBA) explores the matrix: development versus
human rights, social justice and sustainable development. Under the leadership of Medha
Patekar and Arundhti Roy, they argued that rehabilitation measures are incomplete as
well as inadequate. 'Famous scholar, Ramaswamy Iyer warned the government that they
should not add to submergence and displacement before clearing the backlog fully'. This
Narmada movement also highlight the fragile relations among various structures or
institutions of Indian democracy. As state governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Rajasthan, on the support of centre, often violate the rulings of Supreme Court concerns
with the height of the Sardar Sarvoar Dam or with the relief and rehabilitation measures.

Another notable impact of globalization on Indian politics is that there is radical decline
in the people's politics due to the increasing influence of corporate sector politics. It leads
to common people's alienation from our political system. As famous political thinker,
Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince' (1513) denotes, 'The reformer has enemies in all those
who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit
by the new'. The capitalist state of India, like its counterparts, is strongly to extend its

15
areas of acceptability and legitimacy. As Antonio Gramsci said, "Apart from modern
state activities, in reality, a multitude of other so-called private initiatives and activities
which form the apparatus of the political, cultural and ideological hegemony of the ruling
elite classes".

The constitution of India established a welfare state and a very detailed agenda for
promotion of social sector, public sector and human capital was mentioned. But
globalization along with liberalization process poses a serious threat to welfare aspect of
Indian state. As Bhiku Parekh, a eminent political philosopher, urges, "our vision must
have a moral core, and should embody the principles of individual liberty, social justice,
equal opportunity and a sense of community that are articulated in our constitution. Our
economic development should realise and be judged and guided by these goals. This calls
for a social democratic, not a neo-liberal state that we are bent on becoming, carefully
monitored global integration, and close attention to the quality of life available to all
citizens, especially the poor. The state must guarantee basic welfare and education to all
its citizens as of right, develop their capacities to take part in country's politics and
economics".

The process of globalization also highlights the regional imbalances, both in terms of
economic development as well as political maturity, but it is necessary to be kept in mind
that regional imbalances were also existed before the NEP-1991. In short, 'the southern
states have been enjoying more autonomy in terms of governance rather than the northern
states due to their political backwardness and rhetoric slogan 'of secularism'. These
transformation shows 'North South Divide' in India'. For example, the political leaders of
northern states, like UP, still talk of the rhetoric secularism like Mandir-Masjid issue.
Contrary to this trend, the politicians of southern states - Andhra Pradesh (Chandra Babu
Naidu) and Karnataka in particular talk of converting their states into another Singapore
or Hong Kong. All these transformations are the epitomes of LPG policies. There are so
many evidences that, in India, inter-regional inequality appears to have widened during
the globalization era.

Finally, the consequences of globalization and the associated processes of economic

liberalization on India's independent foreign policy and the impacts of these processes on

16
India's economy and especially on Indian politics in various dimensions is drastic. The
Indian experience with globalization, especially its impacts on our political set up or
national politics is mired in controversy. Globalization has so many deleterious
consequences on Indian politics. Globalization, along with liberalization and
privatisation, is like factionalized Allauddin Lamp and the Indian elite (presently under
the leadership of Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, Finance Minister, P.
Chidambarm and Vice-Chairman of Planning Commission, Dr. Montek Singh
Ahluwalia) is pushing the agenda of the developed countries on India without realising
the inadequacy of the western invented policies. A meaningful welfare and
developmental state cannot dichotomize "productive and social sector" and the NEP does
not have any rich philosophy about Indian society as given to us by the makers of the
Indian constitution. Globalization has changed and continues to change, the nature of
Indian politics. The character of these changes needs to be much debated. In the end, it
can be said that, in the present post-cold war era, globalization continues to be as an
inevitable process. That is why, globalization needs to be nurtured to make it a positive
force for our economic development as well as for our political setup (national politics).
We should not forget that globalization is a part of the development strategy and never a
substitute for it.

17