Anthropological Hypothesis

There are mainly three views regarding why inequality exists in the world. One is the climate hypothesis of French Philospher, Montesueiu who argued people of tropical areas are lazy and therefore, they are less innovative and productive whereas people of other areas are hardworking and therefore innovative and productive. That is why UK and USA are rich while Sub-Saharan Africa is poor. Second one is the Cultural Hypothesis of German Sociologist, Marx Weber who argued it is culture in the form of the protestant ethics that made UK rich. Third one is the ignorance hypothesis formulated along the line of the definition of the economics by Lionel Robinson and according to this economies often face market failure and rich countries are rich as they are able to formulate better policies to tack the menace of market failure as a they are knowledgeable compared to poor countries who cannot formulate better policies to deal with market failure and therefore they are poor.

 In my view none of these views are satisfactory to explain the phenomenon of world inequality as demonstrated by Acemoglu and Robinson (2013) in Why Nations Fails…….and a satisfactory explanation to the world inequality lies in the anthropological attributes of human being as explained below.

Ignorance hypothesis says that rich countries have eliminated the problem of market failure with better policies. If so what enabled them to make better polices? Or why poor countries are unable to make better policies? To answer this we have to resort to their culture. Rich people are rich because of their rich culture, not in the sense defined by the Marx Weber along the line of religion; instead it is to be defined in the line of the anthropology. To go further in the sense that to know how Anthropology rendered world unequal, we have to unearth the mystery behind the human evolution. I do not believe that people of the world as whole are evolved from the same origin and in the same environment. It is this difference in the origin and environment that caused difference in the culture, appearance, norms, skills, talents, aptitude etc which made someone better and other worse. There can be a temptation to explain this link between Anthropology and Inequality with Montesquieu’s Climate Hypothesis citing the example that people of Tropical area like Africa are black whereas people of arctic areas like Canada are white. But, I think it is not appealing because if so, how the people of tropical areas like Middle East and Australia happened to be white?

Also, there is a problem with the perspective we look at the development today. We look at the development through the prism of the principles dictated by industrial revolution which as per this Anthropological Hypothesis could be the outcome of the natural instincts and aptitudes that the British people inherited from their ancestors and thereby they were naturally tuned to develop means and ways to make industrial revolution successful. How can we say that people of another region, say India, would be comfortable with such means and ways that found fascination with British? Not one thing here that in the ancestral tradition of the Indian society, “sanyasm” (sainthood) is an important stage of their life in which they renounce all their material endowments and move to jungles or Himalayan mount ranges to meditate. A the same time, in a society like British, what we have seen is just contrary to this with a penchant to make more endowments throughout life. Please do not try to interpret this with the Max Webers’ cultural hypothesis as culture is the outcome rather than villain.

Therefore, in my view, to find a sensible explanation to the world inequality, we have to recognize the anthropological diversity of human being which forged their varying capabilities and cultures. However, in the modern era, only the capabilities and culture of the British inherited from their ancestors got patronage though industrial revolution and therefore, modern developmental discourse got biased in favor of a particular group and capabilities to the complete decimation of the capabilities and talents that people of other regions had inherited from their ancestors. That is why world is unequal.

It is in this context, a truly democratic globalization assumes significance recognizing the diversity of the human aptitudes and capabilities paving way to comparative advantages across the world. Thus, if we capitalize this diversity thorough international trade in a truly democratic manner giving due consideration to all, we can eliminate the world inequality. 

The Economic Implications of the Purported New Political Dawn in India

As India has had been on the election trail in the recent past, what we are repeatedly told is that Indian politics is at the door steps of a new dawn. We are told that a new savior is on the way to change the face of Indian democracy substituting the said to be failed existing model with another model said to be successful somewhere else. We have also heard so much about the pros and corns of this transformation in the offing. But here the issue is not whether someone is fit enough for bringing about such a change or not or whether a particular model is successful or not, rather the issue is what are the potential economic implications of this new political dawn in Indian democracy? First, it means that we have wasted our past sixty years after independence as we failed to develop a political consensus regarding our development strategies. In that sense, this new dawn is akin to scratching our head with burning stick. For, the political exercises like election and selection of executive are means which should not confused with ends- people’s wellbeing. We undertake this sort of exercises not simply for the sake of these exercises or for the sake of the personal glorification of those who are clinging to such political exercises for decades. Instead, we, the people of India, take part in such democratic exercises spending huge amount of resources with the ultimate aim of building a prosperous and powerful India in all respects. For achieving that ultimate goal democracy has to play a pivotal role.

 Second, the new dawn implies beginning of a new policy regime of all sorts especially economic policies implying political and economic discontinuity instead of political and economic continuity and thereby stability. How India’s democracy can afford to cry out for a new political beginning of this kind disregarding the virtues of the past?  Can we expect to build a prosperous India in a discontinuous India? Never! Because, prosperity is a dynamic process which requires not discreet or static policy regimes but continuous and uninterrupted policy regimes. How can we achieve something dynamic  in a static environment? Let us not forget the historical reality that it was continuity along with stability that made countries like United States one of the richest countries of the world. Acemoglu and Robinson (2013) in their book  Why Nations Fail has pointed out this referring to the forces behind US development as a rich country that political institutions ensured stability and continuity. For one thing, they made sure that there was no risk of a dictator taking power and changing the rules of the game ………… How can we induce private investment in a country characterized by the discontinuous political and economic regimes even after sixty years of its independence? Shouldn’t we feel ashamed over the fact that we miserably failed even to develop a consensus regarding our development strategies even after sixty years of democratic experience? Hence, a pinch of caution would be desirable to be applied to those arguments that all out transformation of the system that we have now is in the best interest of the country.    

Win-Win Politics of Secularism and Communalism in India

The professional politics in India today can be  characterized by a win-win politics carved out in the name of secularism and communalsim for the convenience of our professional politicians  as it presents a win -win situation for both secularists and communalists because in a democracy like ours, the best and easiest way to make political capital is to cause polarization in the society in the name of  either caste, or religion or region etc. as relatively poor people in all sense can be easily carried away with such tactics where as it is very sweating to capture the imagination of the people in the name of progress especially in a challenging social economic setting that exists in India. That is why our professional politics has somehow managed to divide the society into tow by way of defining politics in terms of communalism and secularism. If so, then the rule of the game is simple: suppose election is on the way, then you just manage something like Muzaffar Nagar episode, polarize the society on the one hand and at the same time, consolidate your vote bank through the same polarization, on the other hand. Thus, this process of consolidation on the both sides presents a win-win situation to both the champions of secularism and communalism. What is interesting is the fact that immediately after independence certain section has realized that they can make inroads to politics of power in India only through the exercise of polarization and thereby, they themselves has implicitly agreed to act as the forces of polarization which was wholeheartedly accepted the so called forces of secularism as it is beneficial for them. Thus, to a large extent Indian democracy today is essentially driven by this kind of implicit win-win strategy pursued by our profession politicians.   

Does Kerala’s Social Development deter its Economic Development?

The state of Kerala in Indian union occupies a distinguished position among its counter parts in the country in terms of development in social sector as well as in its tertiary sector. This phenomenon is widely known as ‘Kerala Model of Development’ in the literature. If we observe the Kerala economy and its society we can amply deduce an important element inherent to this lopsided system of development which is fundamentally feeding the same vicious circle of development. In other words, the Kerala economy with a social sector which is said to be highly developed resting on weak economic fundamentals itself is responsible for the continuation of this often unpleasant development trajectory over the years. Thus, in my view, the fact that social development in Kerala preceded the economic development of the state appears to be a curse in itself so far as the overall development of the state is concerned. For, a socially developed society, whether it be economically developed or not, will be highly conscious and sensitive to all sorts of other developments in that society. Let me note here one thing that the term ‘social development’ I have used here is in relative sense to other states rather than in absolute sense

However, given this socio-economic background of Kerala, when the state attempts to develop its economic fundamentals, say infrastructure development like widening of National Highway or building new airport, will  met with stiff opposition from the people. At the same time, in those states like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra etc with relatively better economic fundamentals on the one hand and poor social sector on the other hand, would not have to face such opposition from the people in the context of building up the economy. What lies at the root of this kind of behavior on the part of the people? How do we economically justify this character? The underlying factor behind this sort of a behaviors on the part of Kerala society can be traced back to the very origin of the discipline of Economics- the trade off involved in the utilization of available scarce economic resources like land, water etc. Economics exists not only because resources are limited but also the limited resources have alternative uses which is known as trade off which implies that resources used for a particular purpose will not available for another purpose and hence a rationale economic agent like people must evaluate the cost and benefit of using a particular resource and the resources will only efficiently and optimally used when the net outcome (difference between cost and benefit) is positive or beneficial among alternative uses. That is why malayalees object to the all most all economically significant progarmmes and policies brought about not only by government but by private sector also. For, if you want to develop the economic base of Kerala, the people of the Kerala should be willing to make sacrifices on many fronts because of its geo-demographic peculiarities. For instance, Kerala is having high density of population compared to other states as the total geographical area of Kerala is narrow. Therefore, in the backdrop of given social, geographical, demographic and even anthropological peculiarities of the state of Kerala, when it implicitly indulge in the process of the assessment of pros and corns or the costs and benefits of a change as part of the process of strengthening its economy will turn out be negative implying the net-outcome will be against the very change proposed by the external forces like government. Thus, in my view, the envious social development that Kerala has achieved over the years remains to be a stumbling block in its own economic development. In other words, the social development of Kerala has empowered its citizens in all respects especially politically to with stand the forces of change which is against their interest, at least in the short run. Whereas as far other states whose economic development has preceded their social development are concerned, their citizens are neither in a position to make an informed evaluations of the resulting  cost and benefit of the changes suggested by external forces nor empowered to withstand such forces of change and therefore, the changes are often imposed rather than espoused. Thus, in that sense, social darkness that exists in such states is a benign rather than malign as far as the economic prosperity of such states are concerned in the long run. That is, the current generation bears the brunt of the changes brought about for the development of the society which will be helpful for the overall- social and economic- development of the future generations of such states. As far as the Kerala is concerned, since its current generation is no longer ready to absorb the sacrifices involved in the changes, its future generation will have to bear its brunt.  Thus social sector development of the malayalees on the one hand and the lopsided economic development pattern on the other hand is inextricably interlinked wherein the former keep on feeding the latter.

The economic reasoning I have drawn on here to comment on the Kerala’s economic and social experiences has got its resonance even abroad. Two things are worth mentioning here. First, according to American Intellectual, Seymour Martin Lipset, economic development via the mediating effect of social development in the form of increased education, social equality and changes in the class structure, will lead to the increased democratization of the society. Prof. Jagatish Bhagwati, in his book In Defense of Globalisation has interpreted this view of Lipset as that economic prosperity produces a middle class and this emerging middle class creates an effective demand for democratization of politics. From both these views it can be figured out that social development should be preceded by the economic development so that a pressure-group like middle class in terms of the economic endowment emerges to rectify the aberrations of the democracy from its true path. If so, why not interpret this otherwise that if economic development precedes that social development, then a mediocre social group in terms of the social endowment (instead of a middle class in terms of economic endowment as in the case of former) will be created and such a group will be working as resistant group to the forces of economic development. I think this could be what actually happened in the context of Kerala economy. The pattern of social and economic development experienced by Kerala was akin to what I have just described and therefore, Kerala society has seen a phenomenal growth of such a mediocre group in term of their social consciousness not compared to other states (as I noted in the outset) but compared to societies of advanced countries and it is essentially this mediocrity of the Kerala society which is responsible for the intolerance of malayalees to cope with the real costs associated with the new changes either in the form of policy or programmes to support its weak economy.  The current state of the affair in the higher education of the state also corroborates this perspective. Despite widely acclaimed achievements at the level of basic education compared to other states in India, Kerala’s higher education scenario is in pathetic condition today. Universities and other higher learning centers are being reduced to simply factories of degrees and certificates wherein a post-graduate who got educated throughout his/her career in English language find it impossible to write a single sentence in the same language without error.  In my view, this kind of pathetic situation in the higher education in the state which is said to be highly socially aware and alert, in a sense presents a paradox. And this paradox may be untangled through the above reasoning. That is, our mediocre nature in terms of our social awareness limits us to be concerned adequately and effectively about the quality deterioration of our higher education and therefore, it is left to the mercy of the destiny.

Second, Jagdish Bhagwati also explains in his book the contrast between the development experience of Russia and China by way of linking their experience with the thesis of Lipset. According to Bhagwati, Russia under Gorbachev opted for political freedom before economic restructuring including an end to autarky whereas China opted for economic change before undertaking democratization. Thus, Bhagwati observed that China’s enormous success and Russia’s astonishing failure have lead to many think both that democratization should follow, not precede, economic reforms and the prosperity and the middle classes that follow the success of economic reforms will indeed lead to democratization down the road. Thus, it is clear that the so called highly celebrated Kerala model of development is not something  alien as far as the global development experience is concerned and therefore, there is little to celebrate or fanfare on such a model as we have seen throughout last many decades. It remained to be an alien and something be clamored only for those who always look at the economics through the prism of statistics and percentages rather than entertaining the reality that economics cannot sensibly exist in isolation from politics, culture, sociology including anthropology. Therefore, I would like to conclude with the loose observation based on the above analysis that Kerala still continues to be an economically fragile and weak state with a developed social sector because of the inherent fallacy of the composition of the same development structure.

We Are All Literally Cheering Spectators!

What is so special if we are all spectators? Generally all those who are watching a game, say foot ball, will be taking side with either a particular team or with certain players. This is the result of a particular human nature to make their participation, at least as a spectator in this case, in this event as enjoyable as possible with cheering or shouting. It is so naïve to believe that there would be at least one spectator with a yearning that let all the players or both teams play the game in a manner so that ultimately the very game itself will benefit in whatever respect. Instead, all are divided and thereby fundamentally appealing to the zeal of his/her selfishness by way of identifying some favorites.  Thus, if we are looking at the game through this kind of individualistic perspective, the game would appear to be lively and enjoyable. But, in this process, an important element of the game is getting trampled upon: the very spirit or the health of the game as such. What I mean is that in this kind of a setting even improper means on the part of your favorite to emerge victorious would be knowingly or unknowingly justified. This kind of a tendency on the part of the spectators, as result of being carried away by their zeal of selfishness, will ultimately degenerate the very institution of the game. But, for sure, the spectators cannot compromise on their favoritism because part of the performance of their favorites rely on the degree or display of their favoritism despite being the fact that these favorites are charging hefty remuneration for their sweating whereas this staunch spectator will be gifted with a -throat in the end. Ideally one who are really serious about the very institution of the sports must watch the game without taking side so that pros and corns of the game can be addressed in the required manner and thereby the very esteem of the game can be preserved. I am afraid that I would remiss if I did not mention the role of commentators here. As long as there are plenty of words in their lexicon and saliva in their throat, they can keep on appeasing those who have charged them with what they have to do.

I would like to draw an analogy between such a game and the current system of politics, religion etc. We are all literally spectators in front of the game played by the champions of such social institutions. We take sides either in favor of a party or a group or an individual simply to find amusement in the game being played by such favorites in front of us. We clamor for them or cheer them so that their vein will be animated with spirit and hence they will play much more vigorously so that we can improve the degree of our amusement. Thus, this kind of setting in our society makes way for a situation in which the so called players become infallible. But sadly, what miss in this entire process is the very esteem of the institution, be it politics or religion etc and the very purpose for which they ought to exist get subdued. Essentially, we all are ought to be serious spectators who can evaluate the pros and corns of the system so that we can take an informed decision in the end. In a system in which people are effectively informed and thereby not susceptible to being carried away simply by factors like favoritism will take the society into its logical conclusion. Of course, here also I don’t want to remiss our societal commentators like advisors or think-tanks or intellectuals who are doing what they should be doing in the current system.

Reality Wrapped up in the Obscurity

Nowadays especially during the election campaign our politicians who are mostly our past rulers often excuses themselves for their inability or insensitivity for containing sky-rocketing prices of essential commodities as well as for plummeting the prices of our farm produces as an international or global phenomenon in which the government of the day has nothing to do with. It shows how despicable and misconstrued is the concept of democratic accountability in our practicing democracy. Remember, at least, one thing that we are all living in a world which is getting more and more globalised and thereby integrated to each other. In other words, a country like India, by and large, is today a major part of a single entity called global economy rather than like a closed economy of the last century. It implies that the day to day business of any economy has a direct bearing on the rest of the economies of the globe. Thus, today our political leaders can no longer hide themselves under the excuse that the development in the domestic economy is the effect of the developments outside. Instead, our rulers must build adequate security measures to protect the domestic economy through a mutually acceptable framework to all stake holders at the global level. For instance, if the prices of the farm produces in the domestic market are at low level because of the unfettered import from rest of the world, our political leaders cannot afford to remain idle simply attributing this to global factors. Instead, our rulers must engage with the leaders of other countries through multilateral institutions like WTO and arrive at such decisions which will ensure that domestic farmers are protected from the vagaries of the market. This calls for courage and commitment to the people who have elected these leaders. Thus, in this highly globalised world, any attempt on the part of our politicians as  extensively observed  to pass the buck to international context smacks of complete ignorance of the on-going geo political dynamics of the contemporary world  which in no way can be tolerated from our potential rulers. In other words, the rulers of each country in a globalised world must not only have a country–specific perspective but an international or global perspective also. Then only the challenges brought about by globalization can be effectively addressed and opportunities presented by globalization can be tapped. We, the people of the each and every country especially people of poor and developing countries, must realize this fact in the backdrop of their important democratic exercises like general election to elect their government. 

Globalisation: Opportunities go Invisible under the Shadow of Challenges

Globalisation, as a phenomenon encompassing almost all walks of the life today, presents not only challenges, but immense opportunities also. Globalisation can be effectively tamed for the betterment of the society provided that we have people’s democracy characterised by bottom-top form of control with people’s participation in the decision making instead of the on-going market democracy characterised by top-down form of control wherein as a result of corporate control over decision making people are just spectators of the decision making. The past historical evidences amply make it clear that no specific form of economic organisation like capitalism or socialism is complete with respect to the efficient and equitable distribution of the resources among the people. We have seen evidences of countries like Soviet Union disintegrating and Wall Street, the epicenter of modern capitalism, begging for state financial bailout. Therefore, it is quite sensible and sustainable, to adopt an approach of mixture by blending better characteristics of available economic systems such as capitalism and socialism so that the inherent potential of such systems can be effectively utilized for the welfare of the people in general and of the marginalized section in particular and thereby the detrimental effects can be minimised. The adoption of the concept of the ‘mixed economy’ by the founding leaders of independent India has to be seen as a realisation of this fact almost over a half a century before. Thus, soon after the independence, the planners of Indian economy designed such an economic system in which both public and private players were encouraged with varying degree of the involvement which was definitely a reflection of the then existed political and economic philosophy that available ideologies must be used for the benevolence of the people as a whole.

Weather be it in the past or present or future, the ultimate goal of guaranteeing a decent living to the all citizens of a country especially to those in the lower strata of the society can only be achieved through a ubiquitous people’s state both as a regulator (socialism) as well as a facilitator (capitalism) according to the warranty of the situation. It is an absurdity not only historically but rationally also to believe that a vast and complex system like modern human civilisation involving various aspects like culture, sociology, economics, politics etc will move to its logical conclusion either by way of freeing the system (market economy) or by way of restraining the freedom (command economy). Globalisation as a reality must be looked at through the prism of such a view of point. In other words, our policy makers must contemplate whether this phenomenon has any inherent potential (of course) to be tapped for the welfare of the people and if so, how it must be tapped as our founding leaders of independent India did by making use of the economic and political philosophy then existed. The same set of norms adopted half a century before need not be relevant as such today as economic and political philosophy has undergone drastic changes in the form of globalisation, liberalisation etc. It is in that context the will of the state put to the test or it is in that context the picture becomes clear in terms of whether we have a ‘people’s democracy’ or ‘market democracy’. At this point, I think it is in order to comment on the role of the academia as the learned group in the society as they often occupy important positions in the form of policy advisors to the policy makers. It is often noted that the so called learned people is also carried away by the fantasies of ideology they believe in turning a blind eye to the naked realities. Therefore, I sincerely believe that academia and policy advisers has to play a key role in capitalising the opportunities of globalisation for which they must bury their differences of opinion over ideologies in the best interest of the public.

Now let us go back to the initial comment with which I have started this discussion that globalisation presents not only challenges but opportunities also. It is not required to reflect on the challenges of globalisation as plethora of articulations and evidences on it are available. Therefore, I would like to present a brief description with two distinct cases - macroeconomic and regional- on the potential opportunities brought about by globalisation in the following sections.

Macroeconomic Case

To put across my argument that the macroeconomic opportunities presented by globalisation are grossly ignored, I would like to draw the attention to the facts published by planning commission recently. According to data published by planning commission, while the tax revenue since 1990 as a percentage of India’s GDP remains almost stagnant, the non-tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has drastically declined implying that the tax buoyancy in Indian economy is literally zero. On the other hand, the expenditure especially the planned expenditure which determines the course of long term economic growth of the economy is also found to be declining since 1990. It is worth noting here that all these shrinking on the public finance of the country takes place over a period of time when the national income measured by, say GDP, has increased manifold since 1990.  Given such a background, one can raise a naïve question as to why this happens. It is here we have to examine what sort of democracy we are live in? As I pointed out at the outset, whether it is a people’s democracy or a corporate democracy? The governments run by any party are under tremendous internal and external pressure to reduce the fiscal deficit which is shown to be the panacea for all problems of the economy. Given such tremendous pressure, the governments of the day who are bound to be loyal to their financiers like corporates are left with only one option: cut the expenditure often capital expenditure as cut in the revenue expenditure like denying the salary of government officials will invite the wrath of highly politicised trade unions. Also, this process of government’s withdrawal from developmental activities especially in the areas like basic infrastructure guarantees a lucrative business space for private capitalists.

At the same time, if we look at this scenario through the eyes of common man at large, we can see the opportunities presented by globalisation and liberalisation. No one can contest the view that the phenomena of globalisation and liberalisation have played a key role in catapulting Indian economy to a higher growth trajectory manifested in the form of manifold increase in the national income of the country. But, instead of an increase in the income of the government in proportion to the increase in the national income, what we have seen is the just contrary. That is, the state has missed or ignored an opportunity to mobilise resources to the public exchequer and use so mobilised resources for the betterment of the society as a whole. For this, instead of a corporate sponsored government which will be concerned only about the growing expenditure side of the budget  , people must choose their own democracy  which will concentrate not only on expenditure side of the budget, but on revenue side of the budget also through the strict and  effective  enforcement of tax rules.

Let me consider the case of the private investment in education to illustrate the same point that globalisation and liberalisation presents not only challenges but opportunities also. All of us are aware of the controversies associated with the issue of encouraging private investment in providing socio-economic services all over the world often, as I mentioned, being carried away by the nicety of the ideology one believe in disregarding the substance of the matter. Of course, the question of whether the private investment or foreign investment should be allowed in all sectors of an economy alike like education, retail etc cannot and should not elicit a unique answer as the socio economic impact of the same policy will be different. Hence, in my view, we have to have a differentiated treatment of the issue of private or foreign investment in provisioning economic and social services. Acknowledging this fact, I am of the view that government must encourage private investment in the education both by domestic and foreign players. Because, it is a reality that there is an affluent section of the society who can afford as well as willing to avail services provided by such private players. Given that, one can ask why should the society obstruct them from enjoying such privileges. In my view, I do not find any justification from restricting the affluent section from enjoying such privileges in a modern welfare society. We should not penalise the rich for having born rich. Obviously, critics may brandish the sword of equality here. Of course, we must strive as much as possible to ensure that who cannot afford to avail such expensive education is guaranteed with quality education. How? To answer this question, again I would like to invoke the concept of people’s democracy. It is a reality today in our country that the wards of extremely rich are educated at the centers of excellence like Indian Institute of Management (IIMs) and Indian Institute of Technology (IITs) with substantial amount of subsidised educational expenditure whereas the centers of misery infested with the wards of less privileged people are starving for resources. All of us aware of the many instances reported in the past in which the educational institutions especially schools where often students from less privileged families study running short of all sort of resources. Why should the government bear the cost of the education of the rich at a time they are ready to subscribe it at their own cost? How can the government afford to waste scarce resources by channelising it to rich when crores of people are badly in need of it? After all, most of the graduates from these institutes of excellence leave for developed nations like USA in search of better life and eventually settles down there proving that the resources spent by the home country go waste.  It is in this context, the relevance of private investment in the education sector arises. Let the government facilitate investment by the private players, both national and international, in education sector and at the same time, government act as watch dog ensuring that such private players are operating in the best interest of the nation. Therefore, the resources unnecessarily wasted by subsidising the education of the affluent can be channelised to the deprived sections so that their educational aspirations will not get dampened simply because of the shortage of resources. Thus, globalisation presents not only challenges in the form of ensuring that private players provides quality education, but opportunities also in the form of the necessary resources  for providing quality education to the larger less privileged sections of the society.

Regional Case

To convey my argument under this title, I would like to consider Kerala as a case in order. There is unanimity that globalisation is, in a sense, expansion of market from economic perspective. In other words, market is at the centre of the globalised world. Given that, the potential of a vast market has to be tapped if we really want to exploit the potential of globalisation. For this, the state or country must design a holistic course of action or plans as to how to effectively utilize the potential of market for the overall welfare of the society for which the inherent indigenous potentials of the country have to be made use of. In the traditional economic jargon, let us say that the comparative advantage of the country or the region has to be effectively utilized. For instance, why should Kerala not explore the export potential of its own pride- Coconut? Let us not ignore the immense export potential of the coconut, for instance, as source of income and employment for the state. Let us not ignore one reality that during 1990s Vietnam made successful business by exporting catfish to United States. Thus, a variety of value-added products like sugar (which is extolled to be healthier than its substitute available), soft drinks from tender coconut, neera, (sweet healthy drink collected from the tender bunch of coconut), products like coir, floor mat, timber etc can be produced with the help of modern technology. It is worth drawing attention to the very recent statement of a state minister that if Kerala utilises 10 % of its available coconut trees for neera production, it can earn an annual income of Rs 54,000 crore and he also pointed out that Kerala can generate one lakh job opportunities if Kerala make use of just 1 % of the available coconut trees for the same purpose. If available technologies are not adequate to deal with the situation, new technologies should be imported or developed here through the scientific innovation for which government must encourage R&D by setting up new scientific research centers and also encourage such research initiatives in the existing universities. Thus this kind of holistic approach involving protection of environment through the expansion of the greenery, generation of employment opportunities, enhancement of employability and skills of the people through the restructuring of education etc must be designed by the government for the people. Joseph  Stiglitz, winner of Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001, observed that “education needs to be compatible with the work that people will do once they leave school” (Stiglitz 2007: pp50). With the advent of such schemes issues like unemployment especially educated underemployment can be effectively addressed in a state like Kerala known for the menace of the educated underemployment.  As I mentioned earlier, this kind of a comprehensive and pragmatic approach cannot be expected to delegate by government to systems like market or individuals as it is highly complex and monumental. It is, therefore, only a proper government with strong mandate to address the burning issues of the people as well vast resources in its command can deal with this sort of gigantic issues. Thus, the point I am making here through the case of coconut as an illustrative example is that country or states must deliberate over the their strengths through their governments or executives in the context of globalisation and thereby adapt the system, at least economic philosophy, in such a way that the inherent potential of globalisation is made use of for the material well-being of the society.

One addendum is in order here. Now here the so called fiscal conservative may challenge this kind of holistic plan citing pressure on fiscal situation of the government. As adage goes, where there is a will there is a way. If there is political will for our rulers, finance for this kind of project can easily be found out. For instance, Kerala’s talented human resource is heavily dependent on the foreign countries for its livelihood. According to latest report, about 25 lakhs malayalees are working aboard especially in the Middle East. Why the government cannot form a co-operative of such expatriates, something like the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC),  so that they can contribute a sizeable amount so as to form a corpus fund to which government should guarantee them either a fair financial return or employment opportunities generated as a part of this project either to them so that they can come back and live with their families or to their relatives which is of paramount importance from the social life of the Keralites is concerned. Thus, government can mobilise resources and thereby can act as a facilitator. As Stiglitz pointed out, the ‘community’ is one of the important pillars of the development strategy and this kind of a policy initiative in Kerala can be utilised to ensure that the collective role of the community is channelised for the development of the state of Kerala. If the government can either borrow or buy the service of cine actors to propagate the social significance of purchasing a ‘Karunya Lottery Ticket’ through visual and print media, why not dare to form a cooperative society of expatriates to mobilise fund for introducing a mega project to provide quality education, health service, employment opportunities etc to the people of the state and thereby making Kerala, really, a God’s own country.

To conclude I am pretty sure that the above description may evoke some feeling that these are all utopian and thereby impossible. Of course no one can blame if somebody feels so because we are somehow made or accustomed to believe that ‘possible-is-impossible’ because we are too helpless and hapless. However, I firmly believe that this iceberg of impossible will be melted in front of the will of the determination; commitment, patriotism and above all humanness of the one whom we elect to serve us not rule us. Once again, to quote Joseph Stiglitz, “a change in mindset will be essential if we are to change the way globalization is managed” (Stiglitz 2007: pp22). All that I advocate is that globalisation brings about enormous economic opportunities to the world which can only be effectively utilised under the leadership of an efficient, far-sighted, people’s government having a global development perspective rather than old narrow regional or national perspectives. The current international economic order presents a challenge to the leaders of the poor as well as developing countries as the current global economic order is designed to serve the interests of the developed industrial nations. It is here the relevance of a strong and courageous leadership from the developing countries arises so that they can act as a trend setter in the matters of international economic and political affairs in favour of poor and developing countries. Therefore, no country including India can ill-afford to miss this historic opportunity to change the standard of living of millions of millions living below poverty simply because of our parochial and chauvinistic politics.  Thus, globalisation in no way admits the argument in favor of withdrawal of government and leaving the destiny of the country to be determined by the vagaries of the market. Instead, globalisation cries out for a strong and effective government to make use of potential of globalisation for the benefit of the people.