For
Desh
Bhagat
Yadgar
Committee
Seminar
Globalisation: Impact on Indian Economy
Sitaram
Yechury
Globalisation
has
today
become
the
buzzword.
It
offers
respectability
to
a
nakedly
aggressive
design
of
imperialism
which
seeks
to
economically
recolonise
the
developing
third
world.
Its
admitted
objective
is
to
restructure
the
economies
of
the
third
world
countries
in
such
a
manner
that
they
dovetail
to
imperialists'
interests
of
garnering
super
profits.
In
other
words,
the
economies
of
these
countries
are
to
be
so
restructured
that
they,
without
any
restrictions,
make
themselves
available
for
imperialism's
plunder
and
loot.
This
predatory
character
of
imperialism,
in
the
current
phase,
has
become
more
aggressive,
particularly
since
the
dismantling
of
socialism
in
the
former
USSR
and
Eastern
Europe.
With
no
countervailing
force
now
present,
at
the
global
scale,
imperialism
is
seeking
to
impose
its
hegemony
through
such
economic
enslavement
of
the
world.
Any
attempt
at
a
scientific
inquiry
of
why
such
an
offensive
was
mounted
by
imperialism
in
the
last
two
decades
of
the
20th
century
and
intensified
today
must
consider
both
the
objective
conditions
and
developments
resulting
from
development
of
world
capitalism
and
the
subjective
desire
of
imperialism
to
strengthen
its
hegemony
and
exploitation
in
search
of
super
profits.
One
of
the
features
of
capitalist
development
is
that
while
it
grows,
there
is
a
tendency
towards
centralisation
and
concentration
of
capital.
This
is
an
inherent
law
of
capitalist
production
and
development.
Over
a
period
of
time,
there
would
be
fewer
and
fewer
capitalists
but
larger
and
larger
ones.
During
the
course
of
the
second
half
of
the
20th
century,
after
the
Second
World
War,
aided
by
tremendous
advances
in
science
and
technology,
capitalism
developed
enormously.
This
was
based
on
intensifying
the
exploitation
both
within
the
capitalist
countries
and
of
the
third
world
countries.
During
the
course
of
this
half
century,
tremendous
concentration
of
capital
took
place.
It
is
this
concentration
of
capital,
both
of
financial
and
industrial
capital,
that
today
is
seeking
to
reorder
the
world
and
redefine
international
legality
in
order
to
pursue
its
super
profits
without
any
obstacle
or
hindrance.
The
internationalisation
of
finance
capital
seeks
to
impose
what
is
know
as
financial
liberalisation,
ie,
creating
circumstances
for
finance
capital
to
have
unhindered
access
to
third
world
countries
in
order
to
make
speculative
profits.
It
is
this
centralisation
of
industrial
capital
that
is
seeking
unrestricted
access
to
the
economic
resources
and
the
markets
of
the
third
world
countries
to
reap
super
profits.
At
another
level,
imperialism
today
seeks
to
legally
deprive
third
world
countries
of
their
right
to
restrict
the
inflow
of
imports
and
regulate
trade
flows.
In
other
words,
independent
third
world
countries
are
being
forced
to
surrender
their
economic
sovereignty
in
the
interests
of
this
international
capital.
Imperialism
seeks
to
achieve
this
objective
through
its
trimurti
–
IMF,
World
Bank
and
WTO.
Internationalisation
of
Finance
Capital
A
new
feature
of
the
present
stage
of
the
world
capitalist
development
is
the
internationalisation
of
finance
capital.
Over
$1.5
trillion
($1.5
lakh
crores)
today
moves
in
and
out
of
the
world
financial
markets
every
day.
The
global
stock
of
principal
derivatives
(options,
futures
and
swaps
involving
interest
rates
and
currencies)
was
$6.9
trillion
($6.9
lakh
crores)
in
1991.
It
was
estimated
roughly
to
be
over
$20
trillion
(20
lakh
crores)
in
1993.
The
global
communication
revolution
since
has
led
to
a
greater
speed
of
this
growth
in
terms
of
volume,
turnover
and
spread
of
financial
transactions.
This
enormous
amount
of
capital
creates
no
value
and
adds
nothing,
directly,
to
the
wealth
of
nations.
But
it
has
the
potential
to
wreak
havoc
on
the
economies,
particularly
in
the
third
world.
It
is
this
internationalisation
of
finance
capital
that
is
today
assaulting
the
sovereignty
of
independent
nations,
seeking
free
and
uninhibited
access
to
their
economies
in
pursuit
of
super
profits
that
massive
transnational
banks
and
financial
corporations
seek
to
derive.
It
is,
however,
important
to
note
that
the
present
day
finance
capital
is
highly
globally
mobile
sucking
in
finance
capital
from
individual
countries
dominated
by
finance
capital
originating
from
the
advanced
countries.
Further,
this
finance
capital
is
more
pre-occupied
in
its
search
for
quick
speculative
gains
rather
than
its
amalgamation
with
industrial
capital
leading
to
economic
development.
It,
therefore,
truly
represents
the
parasite
that
thrives
at
the
expense
of
real
economic
growth.
In
pursuit
of
quick
and
super
profits,
this
finance
capital
moves
in
and
out
of
countries
at
amazing
speed.
When
it
moves
out
of
a
country
(like
in
Mexico
in
1994
and
now
in
South
East
Asia
in
1997-98)
it
bursts
the
bubble
plunging
the
entire
economy
into
a
crisis.
Earlier
in
1994,
the
IMF's
General
Assembly
meeting
at
Madrid
had
proudly
portrayed
Mexico
as
a
model
for
the
third
world.
A
few
weeks
later,
with
the
sudden
withdrawal
of
speculative
capital,
Mexico
declared
that
it
could
not
pay
its
debt
commitments,
its
currency
was
devalued
by
more
than
60
per
cent
and
the
country
had
to
submit
itself
to
strict
and
humiliating
conditions
and
pay
the
debtors
by
selling
its
oil
fields
at
cheap
prices.
This
warning
was
not
taken
seriously,
on
the
contrary,
imperialism
deliberately
went
about
forcing
the
third
world
countries
to
open
their
capital
markets
as
the
only
solution
against
such
crisis
like
Mexico.
The
mechanics
of
the
internationalisation
of
finance
capital
operate
in
such
a
manner
that
the
third
world
countries
having
been
inflicted
by
a
severe
currency
crisis
and
consequent
declining
export
earnings
are
forced
to
service
international
capital
by
liquidating
their
productive
economic
assets.
Even
the
World
Bank
Chief
Economist
Joseph
Stiglitz,
declared
in
Manila
in
1998
that,
"The
crisis
would
not
have
taken
place
if
there
had
not
been
a
liberalisation
of
capital
operations
in
their
economies."
In
three
years,
from
1990-93,
Foreign
Direct
Investment
(FDI)
increased
from
$26.3
billion
(2630
crores)
to
$67
billion
(6700
crores).
In
contrast,
Foreign
Portfolio
Investment
(FPI)
increased
from
$9.3
billion
(930
crores)
to
$93
billion
(9300
crores)!
The
speed
of
its
rise
continued
in
subsequent
years.
The
Malaysian
premier
has,
as
a
result,
banned
any
currency
trading
(prohibiting
free
conversion
of
the
local
currency
Ringgit
into
dollars
and
other
hard
currencies)
to
prevent
further
damage.
He
has
also
introduced
many
measures
making
it
difficult
for
foreign
investors
to
speculate.
All
these
amount
to
virtual
rolling
back
of
the
IMF
prescription
of
liberalisation
of
capital
markets.
Concentration
of
Simultaneously,
we
find
massive
concentration
and
centralisation
of
industrial
capital
as
well.
A
survey
conducted
by
The
Economist
in
1993
estimated
that
the
total
worldwide
assets
of
multinational
corporations
amounted
to
roughly
$
20
trillion.
This
has
subsequently
grown
phenomenon.
Similar
is
the
situation
as
far
as
world
trade
grows.
The
bulk
of
international
trade
is
conducted
by
the
multinational
corporations
who,
with
their
monopoly
power,
are
able
to
manipulate
international
prices
creating
havoc
by
the
dumping
commodities
in
the
third
world.
This
leads
to
the
deindustrialisation
in
the
third
world
leading
to
consequent
growth
of
unemployment,
inequality
and
misery.
Thus,
we
find
that
the
objective
laws
of
development
of
capitalism
brought
the
world
to
a
situation
where
there
has
been
a
tremendous
growth
of
concentration
and
centralisation
of
capital.
This,
in
turn,
is
seeking
to
undermine
the
economic
sovereignty
of
independent
countries
and
intensifying
exploitation.
The
emergence
of
this
international
finance
capital
is
an
important
factor
that
explains
the
relatively
low
growth
rates
accompanied
by
high
unemployment
rates
in
the
advanced
countries.
This
happens
because
in
order
to
appease
international
speculators,
there
is
a
competitive
reduction
in
tax
rates
and
restrictions
on
the
size
of
the
fiscal
deficit.
In
other
words,
governments
are
forced
to
cut
back
expenditures
and
thereby
deflate
both
employment
and
domestic
demand
leading
to
lower
rates
of
growth.
This,
in
turn,
leads
to
a
situation
where
the
advanced
countries
turn
to
the
third
world
economies
and
intensify
exploitation.
The
imposition
of
neo-liberal
policies
serves
this
purpose
of
removing
obstacles
to
the
free
operation
of
internationally
mobile
finance
and
industrial
capital.
In
addition,
it
seeks
to
impose
a
new
form
of
international
division
of
labour,
this
time
not
through
direct
colonial
occupation
but
through
coercing
third
world
economies
to
dove
tail
to
imperialist
interests.
Thus
we
find,
true
to
Marx's
analysis
of
capitalism,
the
rapid
centralisation
of
capital
at
a
global
scale
is
nakedly
revealing
its
predatory
and
capricious
nature.
Marx
in
Capital
(Vol.1)
says,
"With
adequate
profit,
capital
is
very
bold.
A
certain
10
per
cent
will
ensure
its
employment
anywhere;
20
per
cent
certain
will
produce
eagerness;
50
per
cent
positive
audacity;
100
per
cent
will
make
it
ready
to
trample
on
all
human
laws;
and
300
per
cent
and
there
is
not
a
crime
at
which
it
will
scruple,
nor
a
risk
it
will
not
run,
even
to
the
chance
of
its
owner
being
hanged."
Disasterous Consequences
The
effect
of
this
on
the
world
is
all
too
evident
for
us
to
see
today.
The
intensification
of
exploitation
is
widening
inequalities
in
a
sharp
manner.
This
is
starkly
illustrated
by
the
fact
that
the
combined
assets
of
the
358
billionaires
in
the
world
is
greater
than
the
combined
annual
income
of
countries
constituting
45
per
cent
of
the
world's
population
of
2.3
billion
(230
crore)
people.
Further,
the
net
wealth
of
10
richest
billionaires
is
one
and
a
half
times
more
than
the
national
income
of
all
the
least
developed
countries
put
together.
The
share
of
the
poorest
20
per
cent
of
the
world's
population
now
stands
at
a
miserable
1.1
per
cent
down
from
1.4
per
cent
in
1991
and
2.3
per
cent
in
1960.
The
1998
Human
Development
Report
shows
that
the
ratio
of
overall
consumption
of
goods
and
services
between
the
richest
20%
and
poorest
20%
of
the
world's
population
is
16:1!
Parallelly,
the
capitalist
development
taking
place
in
the
advanced
countries
itself
is
based
mainly
on
advances
in
science
and
technology
which
permit
the
constrained
replacement
of
human
beings
by
machines.
The
net
result
is
while
moderate
growth
is
achieved,
it
is
done
without
generating
employment
and,
in
effect,
reducing
its
future
potential.
This
can
be
judged
by
the
following.
On
an
average,
in
all
the
developing
countries,
the
unemployment
level
has
reached
figures
higher
than
8
per
cent
of
the
labour
force.
There
are
120
million
(12
crore)
people
officially
registered
as
unemployed
and
over
700
million
(70
crore)
are
under
employed.
In
addition,
1.3
billion
(130
crore)
people
live
in
absolute
poverty
on
less
than
$1
a
day
while
3
billion
(300
crore)
people
live
on
less
than
$2
a
day.
The
worst
affected
is
the
youth.
In
the
OECD
(28
developed
countries),
youth
unemployment
grew
from
11.6
per
cent
in
1990
on
the
average
to
13.4
per
cent
in
1997.
In
some
countries
like
Spain,
youth
unemployment
is
a
staggering
39
per
cent
while
in
France
it
is
28.1
per
cent.
In
countries
like
France,
Germany,
Italy,
the
overall
unemployment
percentage
is
in
double
digits.
Succumbing
to
This
being
the
nature
and
character
of
the
current
phase
of
globalisation
and
liberalisation,
why
is
it
that
the
Indian
ruling
classes,
instead
of
defending
our
economic
sovereignty
and
the
interests
of
the
country,
are
succumbing
to
such
imperialist
pressures?
The
answer
to
this
question
lies
in
understanding
the
specific
nature
of
capitalist
development
undertaken
by
the
Indian
capitalist
class
after
independence.
Due
to
specific
circumstances
of
seeking
to
prevent
the
popular
people's
struggle
for
independence
from
assuming
a
revolutionary
character,
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
sought
an
alliance
with
landlordism.
The
massive
struggles
of
the
peasantry
–
Tebhaga
in
Bengal,
Surma
Valley
in
Assam,
Worli
in
Maharashtra,
Anti-Betterment
Levy
in
Punjab
etc,
crowned
by
the
glorious
Telangana
armed
struggle
–
sent
warning
signals
to
the
bourgeoisie.
In
order
to
retain
and
consolidate
their
status
as
the
ruling
classes,
they
needed
an
alliance
with
the
landlords.
At
the
same
time,
the
Indian
bourgeoisie,
seeking
to
develop
capitalism
in
India
as
a
part
of
the
world
capitalist
system,
needed
to
collaborate
with
foreign
finance
capital.
Thus,
the
trajectory
of
capitalist
development
chosen
by
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
was
one
which
collaborated
with
imperialism
on
the
one
hand,
and
allied
with
semi-feudal
landlordism,
on
the
other.
This
had
serious
implications
for
the
nature
of
economic
development
in
the
country.
Collaboration
with
landlordism
meant
keeping
the
vast
mass
of
Indian
people
subject
to
feudal
and
semi-feudal
exploitation.
This,
in
turn,
meant
that
more
than
70
per
cent
of
the
population
did
not
constitute
a
market
that
is
required
for
capitalist
development
since
they
did
not
have
the
purchasing
power
to
buy
the
commodities
produced
by
the
capitalist
system.
The
domestic
market,
hence,
remain
restricted
imposing
severe
constraints
on
capitalist
development.
The
bourgeoisie
initially
sought
to
overcome
this
bottleneck
by
using
the
State
power
at
its
command
to
mobilise
resources
from
the
people
and
establish
the
public
sector
to
create
the
necessary
infrastructure
for
capitalist
development.
By
using
the
State
to
protect
itself
from
foreign
capital
in
the
initial
stage
and
by
intensifying
the
exploitation
of
the
people,
the
bourgeoisie
benefitted
immensely.
The
assets
of
the
top
22
monopoly
houses
shot
up
from
Rs.
312.
63
crores
in
1957
to
Rs.
1,58,004.72
crores
in
1997
–
an
increase
by
500
times!
Today,
the
same
bourgeoisie
is
seeking
privatisation
of
the
public
sector
because
it
has
amassed
this
much
capital.
It
is
seeking
to
appropriate
people's
assets
for
its
private
profit.
Since
it
cannot
explain
such
banditry
publicly,
it
takes
recourse
to
a
mal
propaganda
of
denigrating
the
public
sector.
The
public
sector
was
established
for
the
bourgeoisie's
benefit
in
the
initial
phase
and
the
cries
for
its
privatisation
are
again
being
made
for
the
benefit
of
the
bourgeoisie.
However,
to
sustain
a
rapid
pace
of
capitalist
development
was
not
possible
unless
the
domestic
market
expanded
rapidly.
This
required
that
land
reforms
be
implemented
in
right
earnest
and
purchasing
power
be
given
as
a
result
to
the
vast
mass
of
Indian
people.
But
implementation
of
land
reforms
would
go
against
the
interests
of
the
bourgeois
ruling
class
partner
–
the
landlords.
The
bourgeoisie
cannot
afford
this
as
this
would
upset
its
ruling
class
coalition.
Hence,
it
had
to
seek
other
alternatives.
There
are
two
alternative
courses
available
to
the
bourgeoisie.
One
is
to
sell
its
products
in
the
export
markets.
The
other
is
to
produce
those
type
of
commodities
that
the
rich
in
India
could
consume,
ie,
luxury
consumption
goods.
In
the
export
market,
India
would
have
to
compete
with
the
technologically
advanced
countries
like
Japan,
South
Korea
etc.
In
order
to
produce
luxury
consumption
goods
such
as
modern
electronic
gadgets
etc,
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
requires
technology
far
advanced
than
what
it
possessed.
Therefore,
in
order
to
make
use
of
the
alternative
courses,
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
and
its
leader
the
big
bourgeoisie
required
to
acquire
modern
technology.
Such
technology
was
available
but
at
a
price.
And,
this
had
to
be
paid
for
in
foreign
exchange.
India's
exports
were
never
higher
than
its
imports.
Meaning
that
foreign
exchange
to
buy
this
modern
technology
was
just
not
there.
This,
therefore,
had
to
be
borrowed.
Thus,
the
Indian
big
bourgeoisie
goes
to
the
IMF
to
borrow
foreign
exchange
through
which
it
seeks
to
acquire
modern
technology
and
produce
such
commodities
from
which
it
can
enhance
its
profit
through
the
export
market
and
by
catering
to
the
luxury
consumption
of
the
rich
in
the
country.
The
Indian
bourgeoisie,
therefore,
goes
in
for
the
IMF
loans
by
mortgaging
the
country.
The
IMF,
like
in
smart
moneylender,
looks
not
at
the
capacity
of
the
borrower
to
return
the
principal
amount
but
looks
at
the
capacity
of
the
borrower
to
pay
the
interest
on
this
loan.
If
the
borrower
does
not
have
the
capacity,
the
IMF
imposes
conditions
to
make
the
borrower
acquire
the
capacity
to
pay
the
interest
and
the
principal.
Thus,
the
first
conditionality
of
the
IMF
is
the
reduction
of
the
fiscal
deficit.
The
fiscal
deficit
is
the
difference
between
the
government's
overall
expenditure
and
its
revenue.
Reducing
fiscal
deficit
means
reducing
government
expenditure.
Thereby
giving
the
government
the
capacity
to
pay
the
interest.
Thus,
the
constant
concern
of
the
Indian
government
to
reduce
fiscal
deficit
is
because
of
such
an
IMF
conditionality.
A
reduction
in
government
expenditure
means
a
reduction
of
subsidies
and
whatever
little
that
the
government
is
spending
for
the
welfare
of
the
people.
Such
reduction,
therefore,
means
directly
a
reduction
in
government's
spending
in
areas
such
as
food
security,
health,
education
etc.
This
directly
affects
adversely
the
lives
of
millions
of
our
people.
Thus,
what
we
see
is
a
situation
when
the
Indian
ruling
classes
in
pursuit
of
greater
profits
are
mortgaging
the
country
on
the
one
hand,
and
imposing
the
burdens
of
taking
loans
on
the
common
people.
If
this
needs
any
proof,
consider
the
following.
In
the
latest
budget
presented
to
the
Parliament,
the
country
was
informed
that
this
year,
we
have
to
pay
interest
charges
of
more
than
Rs.
1
lakh
crores.
According
to
the
report
of
the
Comptroller
and
Auditor
General
of
India
for
the
year
ending
March
1999,
the
total
liability
of
the
Central
government
increased
by
61
per
cent
during
the
last
five
years.
It
stands
today
at
Rs.
10,12,486
crores.
This
is
57.44
per
cent
of
the
GDP
"The
pressure
of
repayment
of
the
principal
and
payment
of
interest
on
the
external
debt
has
already
turned
the
net
inflow
negative
since
1994-95".
Thus,
today,
India
is
returning
more
resources
abroad
than
what
we
are
borrowing.
Parallel
with
this,
the
conditions
of
the
people
have
vastly
deteriorated.
Notwithstanding
the
disputes
on
the
veracity
of
statistics,
there
is
no
doubt,
from
all
statistical
sources,
that
the
number
of
people
below
the
poverty
line
has
increased
in
absolute
numbers.
The
freeze
on
the
recruitment,
the
privatisation
of
the
public
sector,
the
closure
of
nearly
four
lakh
factories
in
the
private
sector
have
all
contributed
to
swelling
the
ranks
of
the
unemployed.
Starvation
deaths
and
suicides
by
farmers
are
becoming
a
regular
feature.
Adverse
Impact
on
our
Economy
As
a
result
of
this,
we
find
that
the
Indian
ruling
classes
led
by
the
big
bourgeoisie
are
embracing
the
policies
of
liberalisation
and
opening
up
our
country
to
the
predatory
loot
of
foreign
capital.
Foreign
capital
has
been
given
unhindered
access
to
virtually
every
sphere
of
our
economy.
There
are
no
restrictions,
including
the
one
that
prevailed
in
the
country
for
long
time
that
a
part
of
profits
earned
by
foreign
capital
must
be
reinvested
in
the
country.
Foreign
capital
can
now
take
over
domestic
Indian
industries,
loot
India's
rich
economic
resources
and
exploit
India's
cheap
labour.
The
super
profits
that
it
makes,
it
can
safely
take
back
to
its
own
country.
On
the
other
hand,
this
Vajpayee
government,
while
accelerating
the
pace
of
facilitating
the
loot
of
India,
has
succumbed
to
US
pressures
and
lifted
quantitative
restrictions
three
years
in
advance
of
our
commitment
to
the
WTO.
Quantitative
restrictions
are
restrictions
imposed
by
a
country
on
the
import
of
certain
commodities.
In
India,
there
was
a
prohibition
to
import
many
agricultural
commodities
since
this
would
adversely
affect
the
lives
of
millions
of
people
involved
in
the
domestic
production
of
these
commodities.
In
April
this
year,
the
Vajpayee
government
clandestinely
agreed
with
the
US
to
lift
such
restrictions.
As
a
result,
many
items
have
already
begun
to
enter
India
creating
devastating
effects
for
our
farmers.
As
a
result
of
such
agricultural
imports,
the
price
of
green
tea
has
crashed
from
Rs.
18to
Rs.
3,
of
rubber
from
Rs.
70
to
Rs.
28,
of
coffee
from
Rs.
72
to
Rs.
32,
of
coconut
from
Rs.
7
to
Rs.
3
etc.
Millions
of
farmers
involved
in
the
production
of
such
commodities
today
face
starvation.
In
North
India,
sugarcane
is
being
burnt
in
the
fields
and
sugar
mills
are
closed
because
imported
sugar
is
coming
at
a
cheaper
price.
The
suicides
of
farmers
in
many
parts
of
the
country
reflects
the
gravity
of
the
situation.
This,
however,
does
not
mean
that
the
people
are
benefitting
from
such
a
crash
in
prices.
It
is
the
trader
who
is
benefitting
and
the
Vajpayee
government
has
now
permitted
foreign
companies
to
engage
in
our
domestic
trade!
Grim
Future
Putting
all
these
together,
we
find
a
grim
future
for
India.
The
IMF
conditionalities
and
the
borrowings
has
resulted
in
a
situation
where
the
country
has
to
borrow
to
pay
the
interests
on
the
earlier
borrowing.
The
country
is
not
only
mortgaged
but
we
are
today
truly
in
a
debt
trap.
The
access
given
to
foreign
capital
is
undermining
the
economic
sovereignty
and
permitting
unbridled
loot
of
Indian
resources.
The
privatisation
drive
is
handing
over
people's
assets
to
foreign
and
domestic
private
capital
while
at
the
same
time
throwing
millions
of
workers
out
of
job.
Unemployment
is,
thus,
galloping.
The
conditions
of
the
people
are
worsening
as
noted
above.
This
is
the
disastrous
impact
that
these
policies
are
having
on
our
economy
and
the
people.
But
then
a
legitimate
question
arises
–
why
is
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
permitting
foreign
capital
to
loot
India
and
thereby
deprive
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
itself
of
its
assets
and
profits?
As
noted
above,
the
Indian
bourgeoisie,
faced
with
a
crisis
of
its
own
making
because
of
its
alliance
with
landlordism,
had
no
option
but
to
adopt
such
a
course.
It
does
so
at
the
expense
of
the
country
and
the
people.
While
the
takeover
of
Indian
capital
by
foreign
capital
will
effect
many
non
big
capitalists,
the
leader
of
the
ruling
class
alliance
–
the
big
bourgeoisie
–
seeks
to
emerge
as
a
junior
partner
of
imperialism
in
this
drive
for
globalisation.
For
this,
the
big
bourgeoisie
is
prepared
to
mortgage
the
country
and
heaping
inhuman
miseries
on
the
people.
Is
there
an
alternative?
Of
course,
there
is.
A
people's
alternative.
As
we
have
noted
earlier,
the
genesis
of
the
crisis
which
led
the
big
bourgeoisie
to
adopt
this
course
of
liberalisation
lies
in
the
narrow
and
restricted
domestic
market.
If
the
domestic
market
can
be
expanded
by
land
reforms,
then
this
in
itself
will
create
sufficient
demand
for
industrialisation
without
taking
recourse
to
foreign
capital.
To
understand
this,
consider
the
following.
Some
economists
estimated
some
years
ago
that
if
enough
money
is
given
to
people
below
the
poverty
line
to
buy
one
saree
or
a
dhoti,
then
to
meet
the
consignment
demand
for
cotton
textiles,
India
would
require
three
times
the
number
of
textile
mills
than
what
we
have
now!
On
the
contrary,
more
than
four-fifths
of
the
textile
mills
are
closed
today.
They
are
closed
today
not
because
people
do
not
need
the
cloth
that
they
produce.
They
are
closed
because
people
who
need
the
cloth
do
not
have
purchasing
power.
The
present
ruling
classes,
however,
cannot
adopt
such
a
course
since,
as
noted,
they
cannot
go
against
the
landlords
and
implement
land
reforms.
It
is
only
the
people's
struggles,
the
unity
of
all
patriotic
Indians
in
defence
of
our
economic
sovereignty
that
must
oust
the
present
ruling
classes
to
protect
India
and
its
people.