Transcript of Sitaram Yechury’s Inaugural Speech
At Seminar On Globalisation & Its Impact on Indian Society
SV Kendram, Hyderabad, October 2001
The president of this session, Dr. Radhakrishna Murthy garu, eminent intellectuals, leaders of the democratic and Left movement and my dear friends,
It is a great honour to be asked to inaugurate this seminar. From the list of the contributors and those who are going to participate, I notice some of the best creative minds of Andhra Pradesh, particularly of Hyderabad. I am, therefore, hesitant because I don’t think there is much that I can really add in terms of intellectual caliber to the input that all these contributions would make. But, nevertheless, since I have been asked to inaugurate, I have to fulfill this formality.
This seminar has been titled as “Globalisation and its impact on Indian Society” and I have been asked to give an overview of the developments that are taking place. I will attempt to do that. But, it would not be, I must confess, a very structured lecture. Various aspects of this theme that I would like to touch upon, I am sure in the next two days you will deliberate in greater detail.
To understand the entire canvas of the term Globalisation, I think, at the outset, we must be clear about it’s international dimension, before we talk about its impact in India. Because often there is a misconception that this Globalisation is the result of some sort of a conspiracy by the developed countries. They are coming together to conspire against the rest of the world and what has been put out in the name of Globalisation is nothing else, but a new recipe for the imperialist domination over the world. There is an element of truth in this, but this is not the whole truth. We have to follow, I am afraid, the method of legal proceedings when you say that I shall speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The other two aspects of nothing but the truth and the whole truth also have to be taken into account when we are discussing Globalisation.
Because it’s not only a conspiracy by the imperialist west. This point we must understand in terms of the internal dynamics of capitalism and capitalist development. It was nearly 150 years when Marx, (I am going back to Karl Marx not only because I am a Marxist or I belong to the Communist Party. But I sincerely believe that the most penetrating analysis of capitalism was done by him and in a prophetic manner, he said many things which are very very relevant to today’s conditions. I will come back to some of these aspects later, particularly when we speak of culture and the impact of Globalisation on that.) analysing the development of capitalism, one seminal point that he made was that as capitalism develops, there is a tendency towards centralisation and concentration of capital and over a period of time, you will have fewer and fewer capitalists but larger and larger capitalists. This, I think, in the era of Globalisation has turned out to be absolutely true. Because, what we see developing particularly before this new offensive which we call Globalisation came into being in the world, is a very high degree of concentration of capital in a few hands. The water shed, in that sense, the distinguishing characteristic of this phase of Globalisation is what is now often defined as Globalisation of finance capital. This finance capital which essentially was capital that used to live of and live on the industrial capital has branched of to become a powerful source on it’s own. It’s dimension can be understood, for instance, by the fact that world trade today is some thing to the tune of seven trillion dollars annually. The financial flows in the world today are to the tune of some thing like 400 trillion dollars. That is more than 50 times the actual trade in the world is actually taking place in terms of financial speculation and financial activity. This finance capital that has grown in such a dimension has specific features.
Thanks to the technological advances it is instantly mobile across the globe in it’s search for profits. It can travel across the globe within seconds. So there is no barrier so to speak for the movement of this financial capital and since the barrier for movements don’t exist the immediate demand that follows from this development is that no sovereign nation or a country can impose any barrier on this flow. So the development of this phase of Globalisation, with the expansion and concentration of this international finance capital, makes a corollary demand for maximising it’s profits: There cannot be any conditions, restrictions or barriers for it’s movement across the countries. This is the first characteristic, the demand on sovereign countries to adopt Financial Liberalisation, i.e., do not impose any conditions on the flow of finance capital. This is one part that the developments taking place.
The other part of development that is taking place internationally was the high degree of concentration of industrial capital. All of you are aware about the growth of the multinational corporations and the dominance that they actually have over the world. In fact, some of these corporations have annual sales, which are larger than the GDPs of many countries. American multinational corporations and, in fact, the top 200 companies in the world today are estimated to account for nearly one-third of the world’s income. This concentration of industrial capital also demands that in the search for maximisation of their profits, conditions where there are minimal or no restrictions imposed on the inflow and outflow of this capital into various countries. So therefore, the demand that came in from the internationalisation of finance capital to do away with all restrictions on it’s flow, is buttressed by the demand that comes from the centralisation of industrial capital which also says restrictions should be removed and no country will have the right to impose any conditions on the entry of this industrial capital into those countries in search of maximisation of their profits by exploiting their resources and their cheap labour etc.
Therefore from both ends, from the development of finance capital and the development of industrial capital, there was a tendency in the international development of capitalism to move towards this phase of Globalisation, that we see now. Add to this the similar demands on having no restriction on trade flows and the picture of globalisation is complete.
This is not happening because of the will of somebody but this is happening because internal dynamics of capitalism itself is such that it brings you to this point where the higher degree of concentration capital demands a newer global order. So that the fundamental aspect of capitalism, that of maximisation of profits, continues unhindered. So this independent sort of development of the internal dynamics of capitalism is some thing that should not be ignored because otherwise it appears as though everything is happening on the basis of the will of human beings: so and so is good and so and so is bad. Since we have bad people governing the world today, you have this sort of economic conditions that are developing. That is not the case. Actual concrete developments are taking place. Remember in `Capital', Marx makes a very very pertinent point, saying that profit is the motive force of capitalist development, he 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." So the objective law of capitalist development is pushing the world towards this phase of what we call Globalisation. It is, therefore, the system and not a set of any individuals or countries that are responsible for this development.
The second aspect is the subjective utilisation of these objective conditions by the western countries particularly by the United States of America-led imperialism. With the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the economic counter-veiling power that existed globally collapsed. These former socialist economies were also sucked into the vortex of the global capitalism. Once this happened, the onward march of global capital for maximising it’s profits did not have any sort of an obstacle that it used to face during the four decades after the second world war. In such a situation, you had a vision of a new world order that was articulated by present Bush’s father, i.e., Bush senior, when he was the President of United States of America. This vision envisaged the global domination of the West particularly of imperialism under the leadership of United States of America. It was given a concrete and also a legal shape. The institutions of the IMF, the World Bank, and the later-formed WTO in 1994 -- all became the instruments to put into practice this new world order.
This is the current phase of Globalisation what we are talking about. I have noticed various papers by distinguished participants on various sectional impacts of this Globalisation. I am not going into those details, but what is the main objective of this entire process? The main objective in my opinion is to create conditions where by the rest of the world, that is the developing world, is again brought back into a bondage of economic slavery. Globalisation, as it is currently envisioned by imperialism, is actually a blueprint for the economic recolonisation of the developing world.
Keeping both these objective and subjective aspects in mind, we will have to actually evaluate what is happening at the global level and the impact that is taking place on our country. In the last ten years you find that the lowest one-third of the world's people's average per capita income declined from 3 percent of the top one-third to 1.9 per cent and for the middle one-third, it declined from 12.5 per cent to 11.4 per cent of top one-third. That is the lowest one-third population of the world today gets per capita 1.9 per cent, what the top one-third earns and the middle one-third gets about 11.4 per cent of what the top one-third earns. That is put together 13 per cent goes to two-thirds of the humanity and 87 per cent goes to the top one third and this trend that is widening. The essential point that emerges is the intensification of the exploitation of the people on a global scale. There are more than 100 countries who are actually poorer today than they were 15 years ago. That is, in absolute terms, there is a decline in their incomes correspondingly, in absolute terms, there is increase in profits generated by the global capital from their countries. This process of Globalisation, therefore, represents the classical shift in the balance of forces away from the people towards big capitalists. This is the political impact of this Globalisation: shift in favour of multinational capital and their profits at global level and, in the process, economic exploitation of third world countries or the developing world has been intensified. Therefore, the singular-defining feature of Globalisation at the international scale is the growing of inequalities. The growing of inequalities between countries and the growing of inequalities inside countries between the rich and the poor.
As someone remarked, finance capital is the single player in the world casino. The world is a gambling place and this finance capital is on its speculation march making super profit. So the first direct impact on us are growing pressures to remove all restrictions on inflow and outflow of financial capital.
The second, which is currently being negotiated in the WTO, which is called the multinational agreement on investment MAI, i.e. remove all restrictions on the inflow of industrial capital and remove all restrictions on the repatriations of profits. We, in India, have implemented this to a large extent allowing the free flow of FDI. This Vajpayee government has gone to the extent of opening up every sector. The strangest thing you will find with this government is it has opened up 100 per cent access to FDI in real estate. Even countries, which are advocates of liberalisation, Globalisation etc, have restrictions on foreigners acquiring property.
The third area of globalisation is the removal of all restrictions on foreign trade and provide access of your markets for the products produced by the industrialised world. Bending over backwards to appease US imperialism, this Vajpayee government has already, not only removed quantitative restrictions, but also progressively reduced import duties so that virtually we move towards a zero import duty regime. That is the goods from the advanced countries can come and take over our markets and maximise profits.
As a result, India is moving dangerously towards being enslaved again economically by the industrialised west. You are aware, from the 9th of this month, the WTO meeting is going to take place at Doha. Though we don’t know whether the venue will be Doha or some other place because Americans have decided to land their land troops in Afghanistan yesterday so what happens in that area we don’t know, but in any case it is very clear that Americans don’t want postponement because they see a very opportune moment because of this so called war against terrorism. There will be very few countries that will be able to standup to US pressures.
Let us specifically discuss the impact on India. You have circulated, I notice, Prof. Prabhat Patnaik's paper, which tells us that in ten years of reforms what has happened to Indian economy. Therefore, I do not want to deal with the economy in greater detail. Other aspects of Globalisation and its impact on India, I think, also merit attention. But on the economic front, let us to sum up what has happened as a result of globalisation. If you look at it sector wise or if you look at its macro-picture, one myth that has been exploded is that Globalisation has lead to a higher growth rate in India. The pundits of Globalisation have been saying we have broken out of the so-called Hindu rate of growth. The Hindu rate of growth they define between 2 and 3 percent and they say that Globalisation has given us growth rate of more than 6 percent. Now this point is brought out in Prabhat Patnaik's paper. When you look in to it, in terms of the five year averages, the highest growth was between 1986 and 1990, when you crossed 8 percent and after that in the next 5 year averages you will actually find a decline. That you come down to from 8 to 7 and then to 6 percent by year 2000. We have had an actually declining growth rate during this decade of reforms -- one. Second, in macro terms you see particularly the accentuation of inequalities between the rich and the poor. This has in a glaring manner lead actually to a contraction of the domestic demand. `Rich have become the richer and the poor have become the poorer' is unfortunately regarded a cliché. But as most cliches do it makes sense. In the process of the poor becoming poorer the actual domestic aggregate demand declined. The net result has been the inability of large sections of the people to buy leading to the inability of industry to sell what it has produced resulting in a recession. This, in turn, is resulting in decline in employment. This, in turn, again is strengthening the process of declining domestic demand. This completes the vicious circle of the recession and unemployment. The worst situation currently facing our country. In the first two quarters of this financial year, if you take your core sector, that is basic sectors in the economy; steel, cement, coal etc they have grown by 0.1 percent as compared to 6.3 percent in the corresponding period last year. So if your core sector has declined like this means that your entire industrial sector is in a big crisis. And that is why the captains of industry when the budget was being presented I am sure all of you were seeing on TV Mr. Rahul Bajaj was giving 9.8 points out of 10 points to this budget. I remember, on the Doordarshan, I was called for the last session in the night. The anchor when he called me said “Sitaram it’s been a boring day because there has not been a single person who opposed the budget." Then I said you called me late you know, if you could have called me earlier I could have opposed it earlier. He said Mr. Rahul Bajaj gave 9.8 points out of 10 to this budget so I said I would not give more than 2. I said within 6months you will find this budget instead of reviving or kick-starting the economy will push the economy into greater recession. That has been vindicated.
The classic feature of liberalisation has been the intensification of exploitation, capitalist exploitation of the Indian people where by profits have grown , people’s capacity to spend has decreased, as a result of which, overall economy is in a phase of recession. This is very typical of a liberalised economy, because the objective is not overall economic growth but to maintain and increase the levels of profits of your capitalist class. This impoverishes a large section of the people to the extent that the economic survey of this year has shown as that the employment growth rate of last year has been close to 0 percent. And if you look NSS data, it shows you that during this phase of liberalisation, there is a drastic fall both in rural and urban employment. If you look at the primary sector, that is agriculture, for the first time, you have the growth of foodgrain output, actually falling below the population growth rate and nothing typifies the actual graphic description of this liberalised economy as the mountain of food stocks you have on one hand and the starvation deaths and distress suicides of farmers on the other. This is that glaring inequality that we talk of which is exacerbated after these policies have been brought in. Agriculture in that sense has been going through a very serious crisis, with a third continuos year of either stagnation or decline in it’s growth.
Now, this is typical again of Globalisation. One important feature of liberalisation is the States withdrawal form economic activity in the name of free market -- the philosophy , the ideological tenet of Globalisation. This, in other words, means the State’s capacity to invest in the economy declines leading to a decline in capital formation. Declining domestic capital formation adversely affects the future health of economy. That is actually what is happening. State’s withdrawal has two types of impact. One is that the gross domestic capital formation declines, which impacts on the general economic growth. Secondly state’s withdrawal means whatever little responsibility that the state has towards the people in terms of education, health, in terms of other social obligations, are progressively abandoned by the government. In other words, the people have a double pronged attack on them. Because of decreased economic activity the employment opportunities and their livelihood get adversely affected. Secondly, because of the State's withdrawal from social sector what ever relief they were getting that also gets reduced. The livelihood of the vast masses of the people deteriorates sharply.
Impact of Globalisation in India has also many other dimensions. It has wide ranging impact on everything else connected with our lives. It impacts our entire culture or the entire value system, on the milieu in which we are living. Again I go back to Marx. 150 years ago, he actually said that capitalism not only produces the object for the subject but it also produces subjects for the object. He made a very penetrating statement. In today’s advertising world if you see this what is actually being created. You are creating human beings who are capable of consuming certain products. The emphasis is no longer on creating the products that are required by the human beings rather creating human beings that are required for the products. This is essentially the defining feature of culture under Globalisation. Human beings are reduced to the status of products who will consume the other products that capitalism produces. This entire trend of culture -- consumerism, degeneration etc -- creates it’s own atmosphere which effects every aspect of our life and society.
One immediate impact can be seen in the declining political culture. Globalisation has thrown up in India absolutely newer avenues for corruption, which were unheard of or unconceivable ten years ago. The entire range of corruption that you find in our country today and the political corruption that you find as a consequence -- flood gates have been opened by this process of Globalisation.
Globalisation and liberalisation mean the opening up of areas for kickbacks and commissions to a large extent. In the process, the entire culture of corruption if we may call it, has undergone a `revolutionary' change where you find the ways in which money can be made has not only expanded but it is having a tremendous impact on the political life of this country. This is an important aspect because the causality here is actually genuine democracy and the obvious consequence is the very sharp rise in political opportunism. This sharp rise in political opportunism also is creating a degree of political instability which will seek to move the polity towards authoritarianism. The degeneration of polity seeks to divorce politics from all democratic content and reduce it to sordid bargaining and manouvering. Very often, we see now a days, the corporate world saying separate economics from politics. This is their politics! They are actually saying that reform process should take place independent of what is happening in our political life. They want to separate reforms from politics so that nobody can interfere and the politicians are told that you can confine yourself either to destroying Masjids and building temples or giving reservations! That is your agenda and do not talk of economics. So the attempt to separate economics from politics in other words separate the political life of the country form the actual economic decisions that are being taken, is a very important consequence of the process of Globalisation. How this is impacting on our political life we are able to see in various aspects of the type of governance that we are seeing in the last few years both at the center as well as in your state Andhra Pradesh.
The type and scope of corruption in the Globalisation period is enormously enlarged. This is having a direct impact on the polity: who will form the governments and who will not form the governments. In 1998 when the Vajpayee government fell by one vote, what ever be the other political aspects, the prospect of an alternate government with the support of left was some thing, that the corporate world actively worked to make sure does not happen. Why? Because you had on the agenda the privatisation of insurance sector, you had on the agenda the changes in the patent laws that had to be brought about. Now the moment a government comes with the support of the left then this entire process of economic reforms or liberalisation will not proceed at the same pace that the corporate world wants. There are rumors of large amounts of money that were transferred to make sure that such a possibility does not occur. So, with this Globalisation, liberalisation you have an active involvement of the corporate sector and big money in defining or deciding on what type of government you will have, what sort of parties will come together with whom and there fore the entire process of your political institutions and the political structure of our country itself is being altered significantly. Globalisation is having a serious impact on the content of democracy that we have, spread of democracy that we have.
Let us return to culture at large. Globalisation is accompanied by a need to homogenise the product, even the cultural product. The more homogenous the product, the greater the market it has whether. Where ever you go in the world, you will have the same soaps, same toothpaste, and the same sort of other products that you will find in our country. The homogenisation of the product is the first step in a globalised economy for maximisation of profits by the multinational corporations. Homogenisation of products also has a natural consequence in the homogenisation of culture. Studies have shown that in Sub-Saharan Africa, people may not have anything to eat, they may not know how to read and write but the moment you show them Walt Disney's mickey mouse, they will recognise it. This is homogenisation of a certain thought process and homogenisation of certain symbols. Homogenisation of symbols requires cultural products to be produced on mass scale. One immediate impact is that all the rich variations in the cultural legacies will be eliminated in order to create the homogenised product. This is the essence of culture of globalisation -- homogenisation of cultural products and symbols.
In India, the communal forces and communalism in a way also requires the homogenisation of culture. For them, this is essential to portray that the entire cultural heritage of this country is a monolithic heritage that is derived only from the Hindu religion. The plurality and the diversity and all that variety that we have is actually sought to be erased by giving a communal interpretation of culture. The impact you will find also in education and in the entire area of knowledge. Therefore, to homogenise this culture requires efforts to actually rewrite or redefine our own diverse cultural heritage and put it into one singular monolith. This is the ideological project of the communal forces.
So globalisation's need for homogenisation of cultural products globally dovetails with the communal forces need to homogenise cultural products domestically. Saffronisation of education, rewriting of Indian history, or the symbolism that is constantly being shown or assimilation of non Hindu religions into the Hindu fold, this entire process that is taking place at the ideological subterrian is directed towards this project of creating a homogenised culture which actually suits the agenda of communalism. This is having a very deep impact on India and Indian society. Ramjanma Bhoomi movement that is taking place in UP today or in what happened to the Taj Mahal the other day when the BJP youth went and attacked it. I mean, Taliban attacks the Bamian Buddha's in Afghanistan the BJP attacks the Taj Mahal in Agra. What type of difference do you find between the two? They are two sides of the same coin. Mr. V.P. Singh, the other day, called Bal Thackeray, the Osama bin Laden of India. The culture that is paraded by globalisation actually finds a very strong ally in fundamentalists of all hue's and cries the world over. Incidentally it is an irony of history that today the country that is being bombed, Afghanistan, its people are probably the only people in the world who have not seen the destruction of WTC on the television because the Taliban banned TV some years ago saying it is anti-Islam! So In Afghanistan no body saw the terrorist attacks. The poor Afghan who is being attacked by bombs does not even know what happened.
Globalisation of Indian society, taken on the whole, we see the direct impact that is taking place on the economy which is leading, on one hand, to the ruination of millions of people and, on the other hand, to severely mortgaging our country. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, reviewing the accounts for last year has shown that India, a) is already in a foreign debt trap, b) the outstanding debt and liabilities of government of India today stand at more than 16 lakh crores of rupees and the interest being paid is one and half lakh crore rupees annually. The country is being mortgaged, millions of people being ruined, the economic fundamentals in terms of infrastructure, the countries economic wealth being ruined and the assets and wealth of the people of the country being looted. Public sector is being sold for a song. In other words, bolstering the private capitalist class and their profit making capacities at the expense of the country and the people. This is the impact in the economic sphere.
In the sphere of polity, we have situations where political alignments are decided by which type of economic policies will be pursued. The nature of political culture is defined on the basis of your commitment towards liberalisation and to that extent the fall in political morality also takes place correspondingly with a higher dosage of liberalisation and globalisation that takes place. The latest example of this is the re induction of Mr. George Fernandez into the cabinet. Today no questions are asked, except by people like us who keep on shouting. The government says go to hell. As long as big business and capitalists are supporting this government because of the reforms that are being implemented they do not care too much for people’s opinion. Three more years are there when the elections are due. May be that year, they will consider the views of the people but otherwise satisfying corporate sector and the capitalist world and foreign capital has become the defining yard stick of political culture today.
The third area of this impact we have to take it into account is in the sphere of culture. It is having a very very deep impact in India and is ably aided and assisted by the communal forces in the country. They also seek the same objective of homogenising the cultural product or homogenising the cultural milieu that is there in our country which the communal forces seek to utilise for their agenda. Globalisation uses it for it’s agenda of mass production of cultural products. Together they are wreaking havoc with Indian society. It is a serious danger for India's unity and integrity.
Regarding globalisation, in that sense, there are various other aspects that we can talk about. How it is impacting the State; how it is eroding the national sovereignty of independent countries; whether the `nation-state' itself is a viable concept under globalisation or not. These are issues which you will be discussing in your papers and I have not gone into it. Broadly speaking, these are the three main areas of impact of Globalisation, that I wanted to share with all of you, of course, in the background of the independent process of the dynamics of world capitalist system itself which is being utilised in the present phase by the advanced capitalist countries particularly the U.S.A to strengthen its hegemony over the world and extract the maximum exploitation of the third world countries. I said earlier that what they seek is actually a blueprint for economic recolonisation of the developing world. That is the actual purpose and intent of the present phase of Globalisation.
In this light, our struggles against this will have to be defined. So finally, I would end by talking about how do you struggle against this? One aspect is to resist the governmental policies and oppose this government's succumbing to the interest of foreign capital and to prevent the government from going the whole hog that it wants to go in mortgaging our country and putting the burdens on the people. Yes, we have our traditional forms of struggle and these are growing both internationally and nationally, as you all know.
However, I would like to refer to what many people are saying that in today’s world of modern information technology where you have now, 6.1 billion e-mails being sent every day, your enemy also appears illusionary. It doesn’t appear tangible. I mean how are you going to determine against whom to have a demonstration. At a point of time, a good friend of ours, Mr. George Fernandez, that’s why I said at one point of time he was a good friend and not at the moment. In those days, we used to go for joint conventions. Whenever the organisers used to bring cool drinks, he would always look for thums-up or something domestic, pick it up and show me and say you Marxists will drink Coca-Cola but I will drink only Campa Cola, I am nationalist! Then I used to tell him, you may be drinking Campa Cola, but tell me where is the profit going. Coca-Cola has bought up Campa Cola! You can have your symbol of being nationalistic but basically the profit has gone to the same multinational because he has already bought up the other company.
Many may say now comrades in this present new world how are you going to struggle against the intangible forms. That is wrong. I mean to say that the enemies are very tangible, they are actual class forces that will have to be fought and the class battle will have to be sharpened. That is one aspect. However, as the situation develops, new forms of struggles will also develop. All those of you who are familiar with computer technology and use your e-mails will know a big movement is growing today and has millions of followers world wide called the free software movement -- the Linnux/GNU movement. What is that? It is a revolt taking place at one level. We have to recognise that this is a revolt that is taking place against new manifestation of capitalistic exploitation. This is telling Microsoft that we will not give you super profits for your control of your copy right of the software. We will have our alternative and millions of people are doing this all over the world voluntarily, not really connected with each other through any party or through any mass organisation. But their voluntary response, that is the essence of what Marx said, capitalist exploitation by itself generates the rebellion against exploitation and that is what has to be organised in order to over throw capitalism. But the fact that it is triggering a rebellion is something we will have to understand. What is it the other new area where the struggles are emerging? I am sure many of you are familiar with a book called NOLOGO by a person called Naomi Klien. If you are not, I seriously suggest you procure a copy and read it. Two weeks ago, the London Economist, one of the most respected but right wing journals of the world, had a cover story on this NOLOGO calling it PROLOGO. The book is against corporate brands and the main point it makes is that modern day capitalism is no longer interested in producing products, as I told you earlier. It is interested in familiarising brands like Nike, Coca-Cola etc. Where the product is produced is not important. The product might be produced in Thailand or it may be produced in Malaysia or produced anywhere but it is the brand that is important because it is the brand that sells. As a result, in the advanced countries, millions of people are loosing jobs. She explains the whole situation and then she notes the protests that are emerging in the universities of the west. How are these protests emerging? Suddenly in the night, she says, in Toronto a group of youngsters decided to go and blacken all the logos, all the major advertisements and destroy their Neon signs. Who are these youngsters? Why are they doing this? Behind this is the expression of revolt against capitalist exploitation under new conditions. It is finding newer forms.
People through their own experience will find these newer forms and these newer forms are emerging and it is through this newer forms, I think, the struggle against this entire process of globalisation will strengthen. From Seattle to Genoa, if you see, who are these people; people of the first world. We have not been there. They always invite us saying why don’t you come. We can take even lakhs of people from here but how do you reach these countries with such expensive travel costs! Ticketless travel is not possible on planes! Now they are forcing the G-8 countries to go underground! The next summit of G-7 and G-8 was supposed to be held in Toronto in Canada. They have now decided to hold it at a hill resort where the kings used to meet earlier where nobody can reach. One will have to be dropped by helicopter or something so that people cannot reach there. So the leaders of the capitalistic world if they have to meet, they have to meet in isolation. They cannot meet amongst the people. Such a situation is also coming where this struggle against these policies is on the rise. This is what we will have to note and work out how we in our country, I am sure that you will discuss in next two days, how we will be able to promote these struggles into growing struggles world wide against the process of Globalisation.
These were some of the thoughts which I wanted to share with you and I am sure that in the next two days you will discuss many of these issues in greater depth and come to some conclusions.
With this, I formally inaugurate this seminar.
Thank you for your attention.