Nay Trade, Aye Aid?

The mammoth gathering of the Anti-Globalisation Brigade(AGBs) in Mumbai reminds me of a similar spectacle of self-deception in the form of a Swadeshi Mela organisedat the capital’s Pragati Maidan some years ago by the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) — an offshoot of theright wing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. This was one of SJM’s ways of making a case against integratingIndia into the world economy by showcasing the supposed superiority of India’s indigenous industrial sector.

As one entered the exhibition venue, one was greeted with Bisleri and Pepsi kiosks — both products ofmultinational soft drink giants. The bulk of stalls at the mela were a lacklustre display of severalloss-making public sector undertakings which had been coerced into participating and paying exorbitant feesfor putting up their stalls. The only pitiful proof of India’s swadeshi industrial might were patheticlittle stalls selling pickles, herbal shampoos, snacks and spices made by housewives looking for a side incomeand, of course, handmade textiles and other crafts made by our impoverished artisans. One was left wondering:is this all the weaponry we have to take on the might of the industrial West? 

A furniture company took thepride of place in the centre of the big hall. It had displayed the most garish furniture — a cheap imitationof western sofas and dining tables of the kind you would see on the film set of a D-grade Bollywood film,depicting the lifestyles of underworld dons. The furniture company had a prominent board in the midst of redand purple velveted sofas which proudly proclaimed: ‘‘Made with 100 per cent Imported Materials!’’

There is something similarly comic about the AGBs warning us about the evils of globalisation despite theirown politics being altogether dependent on international aid money. Most of the NGOs who have organised eventsat the World Social Forum could as well advertise their NGOs as being ‘‘run with 100 per cent importedmoney.’’

The AGBs believe that the government should prevent the entry of foreign capital in India. Here, an ethicalissue is involved. If they think bringing in western money and intellectual know-how is so harmful, they oughtto start their campaign by refusing to accept grants for their political work from donor agencies of various‘‘imperialist’’ countries. Or do they believe that the foreign donations that come to them are holybut money that comes in as investment is evil? 

Is it because a good part of foreign aid money gets routedthrough them whereas the money that would enter our country as business investment would bypass the NGOsaltogether, that they prefer foreign aid to foreign trade? How can we allow our economy to be run by thedictates of those whose own small organisations are not economically independent, whose livelihood comes fromencashing on India’s poverty abroad, peddling the misery of the Indian people? Any self-respecting Indianwould prefer we do business with foreigners as equal partners than appear before them as grovellingsupplicants as do many of our NGOs.

Those who seriously oppose the inflow of foreign investments in India ought to set an example by resolvingin Mumbai that:

a) They will not take consultancies with foreign aid organisations;

b) They will not write books for foreign publishers;

c) They will write textbooks only for Indian readers and publish only with desi publishers rather than for‘‘imperialist’’ West’s intellectual markets.

d) They will run their NGOs only with local resources;

e) They will not take teaching or research assignments in foreign universities;

f) They will not participate in global networks financed by international donor agencies of‘‘imperialist’’ countries to fight local causes;

g) They will not issue press releases to international news channels about local issues and struggles inIndia.

If the government were to impose similar restrictions on their receiving foreign money as they would liketo impose on lesser mortals in the industrial sector and the farm sector, our NGOs would go screaming all overthe world that their democratic rights and civil liberties are being violated. They want a jet-settingglobalised politics for themselves but a closed-door economy for Indian farmers and industry.

Last year’s announcement by the finance minister that the government will no longer accept any "tiedaid" has caused a great deal of panic among our aid-dependent NGOs. Harsh Sethi, an old hand on NGOpolitics articulated their concerns in a revealing article entitled ‘‘What Price Hubris’’ in TheHindu, June 20 2003. Sethi admits that "whatever the humanitarian impulse behind giving aid, it isdifficult to deny that it comes at a price, tied in myriad ways to the interests of the donor country."And yet for him the ambition to make India move out of aid dependence is mere "grandiose" posturingfor which he can barely hide his derision. To quote his own words: 

"The present regime (in India) morethan any other rarely misses an opportunity to flaunt its nationalist credentials. Being classified as anaid-receiving country hardly adds to pride and self-worth. So now that our forex reserves are comfortable, whynot return loans (even when not due) and discontinue aid arrangements?... Possibly, we now want to join theclub of aid-givers, not takers, which is more suited to our newly acquired and revised position in globalaffairs. (Such a) grandiose announcement... may please our unreconstructed swadeshites; it may bolster ourpride that we are no longer a beggar nation. But, there is little doubt that it has alienated many of ourexternal well-wishers and may land us with consequences that our political masters may not have thought of.Alternatively, is it possible that they just don’t care. After all, what price for pride?"

Clearly, there are many in the NGO sector who want us to continue presenting ourselves before the world asbeggars requiring endless doses of foreign aid rather than aspiring to become active participants in the worldeconomy. They have no problem in being tied to the apron strings of international donor agencies, but do nottrust Indians to benefit from partnership in world trade. Their policy of ‘‘No to trade, Yes to aid’’explains the real worth of their politics.

Madhu Kishwar is senior fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. She is also founding editor, Manushi