01-19-2004, 06:15 AM
<!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=39443
No to trade, yes to aid
Aid-guzzling NGOs warn us of evils of globalisation
MADHU KISHWAR
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 organised at the capital's Pragati Maidan some years ago by the Swadeshi
Jagran Manch (SJM) - an offshoot of the right wing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh.
This was one of SJM's ways of making a case against integrating India 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 of multinational soft drink giants. The bulk of
stalls at the Mela were a lacklustre display of several loss-making public
sector undertakings which had been coerced into participating and paying
exorbitant fees for putting up their stalls. The only pitiful proof of India's
swadeshi industrial might were pathetic little stalls selling pickles, herbal
shampoos, snacks and spices made by housewives looking for a side income and, 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 the pride of place in the centre
of the big hall. It had displayed the most garish furniture - a cheap imitation
of 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 red and 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 their own politics being altogether dependent on
international aid money. Most of the NGOs who have organised events at the World
Social Forum could as well advertise their NGOs as being ''run with 100 per cent
imported money.''
The AGBs believe that the government should prevent the entry of foreign
capital in India. Here, an ethical issue is involved. If they think bringing in
western money and intellectual know-how is so harmful, they ought to 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 holy but money that comes in as
investment is evil? Is it because a good part of foreign aid money gets routed
through them whereas the money that would enter our country as business
investment would bypass the NGOs altogether, that they prefer foreign aid to
foreign trade? How can we allow our economy to be run by the dictates of those
whose own small organisations are not economically independent, whose livelihood
comes from encashing on India's poverty abroad, peddling the misery of the
Indian people? Any self-respecting Indian would prefer we do business with
foreigners as equal partners than appear before them as grovelling supplicants
as do many of our NGOs.
Those who seriously oppose the inflow of foreign investments in India
ought to set an example by resolving in 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 in India.
If the government were to impose similar restrictions on their receiving
foreign money as they would like to impose on lesser mortals in the industrial
sector and the farm sector, our NGOs would go screaming all over the world that
their democratic rights and civil liberties are being violated. They want a
jet-setting globalised 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 ''tied aid'' has caused a great deal of panic among our
aid-dependent NGOs. Harsh Sethi, an old hand on NGO politics articulated their
concerns in a revealing article entitled ''What Price Hubris'' in The Hindu,
June 20 2003. Sethi admits that ''whatever the humanitarian impulse behind
giving aid, it is difficult 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'' posturing for which
he can barely hide his derision. To quote his own words: ''The present regime
(in India) more than any other rarely misses an opportunity to flaunt its
nationalist credentials. Being classified as an aid-receiving country hardly
adds to pride and self-worth. So now that our forex reserves are comfortable,
why not return loans (even when not due) and discontinue aid arrangements?...
Possibly, we now want to join the club of aid-givers, not takers, which is more
suited to our newly acquired and revised position in global affairs. (Such a)
grandiose announcement... may please our unreconstructed swadeshites; it may
bolster our pride that we are no longer a beggar nation. But, there is little
doubt that it has alienated many of our external 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 as beggars requiring endless doses of
foreign aid rather than aspiring to become active participants in the world
economy. They have no problem in being tied to the apron strings of
international donor agencies, but do not trust Indians to benefit from
partnership in world trade. Their policy of ''No to trade, Yes to aid'' explains
the real worth of their politics.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=39443
No to trade, yes to aid
Aid-guzzling NGOs warn us of evils of globalisation
MADHU KISHWAR
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 organised at the capital's Pragati Maidan some years ago by the Swadeshi
Jagran Manch (SJM) - an offshoot of the right wing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh.
This was one of SJM's ways of making a case against integrating India 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 of multinational soft drink giants. The bulk of
stalls at the Mela were a lacklustre display of several loss-making public
sector undertakings which had been coerced into participating and paying
exorbitant fees for putting up their stalls. The only pitiful proof of India's
swadeshi industrial might were pathetic little stalls selling pickles, herbal
shampoos, snacks and spices made by housewives looking for a side income and, 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 the pride of place in the centre
of the big hall. It had displayed the most garish furniture - a cheap imitation
of 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 red and 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 their own politics being altogether dependent on
international aid money. Most of the NGOs who have organised events at the World
Social Forum could as well advertise their NGOs as being ''run with 100 per cent
imported money.''
The AGBs believe that the government should prevent the entry of foreign
capital in India. Here, an ethical issue is involved. If they think bringing in
western money and intellectual know-how is so harmful, they ought to 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 holy but money that comes in as
investment is evil? Is it because a good part of foreign aid money gets routed
through them whereas the money that would enter our country as business
investment would bypass the NGOs altogether, that they prefer foreign aid to
foreign trade? How can we allow our economy to be run by the dictates of those
whose own small organisations are not economically independent, whose livelihood
comes from encashing on India's poverty abroad, peddling the misery of the
Indian people? Any self-respecting Indian would prefer we do business with
foreigners as equal partners than appear before them as grovelling supplicants
as do many of our NGOs.
Those who seriously oppose the inflow of foreign investments in India
ought to set an example by resolving in 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 in India.
If the government were to impose similar restrictions on their receiving
foreign money as they would like to impose on lesser mortals in the industrial
sector and the farm sector, our NGOs would go screaming all over the world that
their democratic rights and civil liberties are being violated. They want a
jet-setting globalised 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 ''tied aid'' has caused a great deal of panic among our
aid-dependent NGOs. Harsh Sethi, an old hand on NGO politics articulated their
concerns in a revealing article entitled ''What Price Hubris'' in The Hindu,
June 20 2003. Sethi admits that ''whatever the humanitarian impulse behind
giving aid, it is difficult 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'' posturing for which
he can barely hide his derision. To quote his own words: ''The present regime
(in India) more than any other rarely misses an opportunity to flaunt its
nationalist credentials. Being classified as an aid-receiving country hardly
adds to pride and self-worth. So now that our forex reserves are comfortable,
why not return loans (even when not due) and discontinue aid arrangements?...
Possibly, we now want to join the club of aid-givers, not takers, which is more
suited to our newly acquired and revised position in global affairs. (Such a)
grandiose announcement... may please our unreconstructed swadeshites; it may
bolster our pride that we are no longer a beggar nation. But, there is little
doubt that it has alienated many of our external 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 as beggars requiring endless doses of
foreign aid rather than aspiring to become active participants in the world
economy. They have no problem in being tied to the apron strings of
international donor agencies, but do not trust Indians to benefit from
partnership in world trade. Their policy of ''No to trade, Yes to aid'' explains
the real worth of their politics.