The standoff between India and Pakistan on Kashmir has come to a head in the wake of the US-led „war against terrorism“. Mutual allegations of atrocities abound and are making headlines in national and international newspapers. The terroist attacks on the Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir on 1st October and the Indian Parliament on 13th December 2001 have further compounded the situation. Adm. Dennis Blair, Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, has expressed his concern stating „From what I hear from the Indians, if there is another incident like the attack on their Parliament, they will have to take action.“ Incursions from the Pakistani side with massacre of Indian civilians and military personnel have continued ever since, as has India’s adamant refusal to negotiate the Kashmir issue, further upping the ante. And to top it all, Munir Akram, Pakistan’s ambassador to the UNO, has threatened India with a nuclear first-strike, should it invade Pakistan even with conventional weapons.

Both governments look unwilling to honestly and squarely address the problems because they need to satisfy their various factions to stay in power. Thus, the BJP-government is hard put to ignore the battle-cry of the World Hindu Council, nor can General Musharraf afford the luxury of not being soft on Muslim Fundamentalists in Pakistan and Kashmir. It is unlikely that the successors of the current governments will come up with a permanent solution to these problems. To avoid any further escalation, the military build-up must be called off and negotiation without preconditions started immediately. But what next?

There are three options to the Kashmir issue. One, Kashmir secedes to become a sovereign country. Two, it merges with Pakistan or with India. Thirdly, Kashmir is split between the two nations. No matter which option serves as basis for negotiation, with or without a plebiscite in Kashmir, will that end the animosity between India and Pakistan? Probably not.

Like countless others, I am alarmed to perceive these dangers. Can we avert them? In what follows, I shall float a proposal for a permanent solution to the problem, albeit a tough one. Moreover, I’ll ask a number of critical questions to be considered by all seeking peaceful developments in South Asia in the era of corporate globalisation. My perceptions are likely to be conditioned by my life abroad. But precisely that may be an advantage for pondering such contentious issues. If you don’t agree, please bear with me for awhile.

I shall have three topics on my agenda: Peace, Social and Economic Development, and Globalisation. And I’ll address them in that order. Future developments will require radical reforms both within the region and in the manner how the South Asians interact with others, especially with the western countries. To focus on the latter, we need to take a look at South Asia against the backdrop of the ongoing effort by U.S.and its rich partners, the EU, Canada and Japan (USARP), to ram through their goals: corporate globalisation and world hegemony.

Toward a Lasting Peace

South Asia must have a peaceful future, if it is to have a future at all. However, lasting peace will not come unless India and Pakistan reunify to launch a secular, democratic country. Only that will end the decades-old animosity between them and their urge to settle scores. I am not about to claim that reunification is going to be an easy or quick job. I do wish though that this avenue be seriously explored. If successful, it will end the standoff because Kashmir will become a province of the reunited country. If successful, Bangladesh might also opt to merge, reversing the 1947 partition of British India. Before that, Indians of all ethnicities and creeds had to coexist and cooperate; they might start doing that once more. That will enable them to better fend for themselves in a globalised world. My proposal might sound too preposterous to entertain. Yes, reunification is a tall order and no invitation to free lunch. If it does come, it will have a huge price tag attached to it. The price tag is that Pakistan, an avowed Muslim state, will have to embrace secularism. India, though a secular state by constitution, must practice secularism; the slogans of the Hindu World Council must be put to rest once and for all. India must finally start to integrate the Muslims rather than marginalise them. Arundhati Roy aptly said, „India must understand that, ..., in our heart and our souls the Muslims are part of us and must be loved“.

As a prelude to reunification, rapprochement talks must begin soon. This ought to be preceded by confidence-building measures and total military abstinence. If the politicians lack the will to deliver, the existing network of Pakistanis and Indians could be used to pressure them, the folks on both sides of the divide remaining committed to non-violence. As Johan Galtung writes: „Numerous people can work for peace if they stop believing that only the diplomats and statesmen possess the wisdom and the monopoly to do so“.

As a side effect of reunification, the huge resources that are squandered now for military build-up will become available for education and health care of the poor. The UNDP estimates that 5% of the world’s military budget -- US$ 40 bn per year – can provide clean water and sanitation, health- and maternity-care, basic food supply and education to the children of the poor throughout the world. A part of the military budget of India and Pakistan – US$ 19.2 bn in 2000 -- must suffice to bring those boons to their deprived citizens. The synergy generated by the joint army will make good for this, all the more so, if the reunified country gives up the self-defeating and indefensible nuclear weapons programme. Basic health care and education will lead to social upliftment of the poor women and that, in turn, will reduce their fertility rate, a problem not solved so far.

The remainder of the article will apply whether or not reunification is achieved. It deals with development and globalisation in South Asia, emphasizing the role of India. South Asia will be the collective term for India and Pakistan.

Social and Economic Development

Countless reforms, both within the society and without, must be put in place such that South Asia can catch up with the developed world in terms of human and economic developments. Human development requires a sweeping remedy to all prevailing injustice within the society. Economic development presupposes equal status in dealing with international organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB). To achieve this, India must work in concert with all whose rights are also being compromised to advance the savage brand of market economy. Numerous reforms belonging to both categories come to mind; I’ll address a few.

Reforms Within the Country

The Fundamental Rights of the citizens proclaimed in the Indian Constitution are yet to be put in place. Take the Right to Equality. The Article 15 prohibits „discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth“. In practice, the religious minorities, Muslims in particular, bear the brunt of zealotry of the Hindu Fundamentalists. True, the latter are not about to take over Indian politics. Nonetheless, the Indians must keep a tight rein on them. The Dalits continue to be discriminated although untouchability has been abolished by the Article 17 of the Constitution. The Adivasis are yet to find their place in the society. Forty millions of them have been displaced to flood the reservoirs of various dams without any effort to resettle them. Equally shameful: women are torched due to disputes over dowry. The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 hasn’t had teeth to bite. All these violate the Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What can the Indian society do to wipe out violence toward the women and the downtrodden? They are equally entitled to a life in dignity, aren’t they?

To redeem for this injustice, I propose that a Social Uplift Fund (SUF) be instituted for poor women. I also suggest that the upper echelon of the income tax payers, with annual incomes above Rs 150,000, contribute 1% of their tax-deducted incomes to the SUF. The job of collecting this sur-tax can rest with the Government Tax Collectors. If India goes along with that, I -- no longer an Indian citizen -- shall also pledge 1% of my annual net income for that fund. If asked to do so, more Indian expatriates might elect to join forces. The SUF should be exclusively used to launch „Microcredit Banks“ to be run by Women’s NGO. They will grant credits to poor women to enable them to start businesses for their livelihood, thereby ensuring basic education for their children. Run well, such Banks can become self-sustaining within five years. They must be started in the provinces with the poorest population, covering the country gradually as funds accumulate. The SUF could be dismantled when it is no longer necessary.

There is a welcome side effect to this programme. Social uplift and greater literacy among women decrease infant mortality and fertility rate. Kerala is an example, with a fertility rate of 1.8, not yet achieved in China despite compulsive birth control policy. Rural West Bengal has picked up in terms of literacy and gender equity due to the devolution of power to the Panchayats, who disseminate the culture of empathy for the deprived. The Census of India 2001 shows that West Bengal’s literacy rate is higher than the national average, Kolkata being an exception with a low literacy rate among women, possibly due to lack of solidarity with women in the city administration. The culture of empathy is a natural trait of women, whence my suggestion that the Social Uplift Programme be run by them. These changes will not come unless people demand them. To emphasize this, Amartya Sen says „If we want to get more social development (basic education, health care), more gender equity, a less stratified society, and a less expensive military, it is for us to agitate for these things“. It is about time the Indians start agitating, isn’t it?

Social uplift of the poor requires better scope for education, health care and gender equity. Economic progress, however, presupposes a larger scope for competition and incentive. The general policy adopted by South Asia needs to strike a balance between the two. It is now obvious that the brand of globalisation propagated by USARP prevents the poor from getting their fair share of the bounties of the earth. To face USARP, the South Asians must cooperate with others.

Reforms in External Policy

Right to an adequate supply of food and water is basic to sustaining life. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations underscores this point. Nonetheless, food and water remain a luxury for millions. Some are dying of starvation while 60 million tons of grain is rotting in the storage facilities of the Indian government. It is reminiscent of the 1943 Bengal famine, when 3.5 millions starved to death, -- not due to the lack of food -- but because the food supply was being appropriated for the British Army. This time on, the perpetrator is the Indian government, eager to instil structural adjustment, a WB and IMF conditionality. This requires that India cut food subsidies. No wonder, the food prices are ratcheting up beyond the reach of the poor. The structural adjustment is robbing farmers -- 75% of the Indian population -- of their livelihood, some are committing suicide. And all this to make inroads for the subsidised produce of the western farmers, who make 2% of their population. In a report to CNN, Mark Tully said „So global free trade could well lead to more suicides among Indian farmers without helping those Indians who are below the bread-line.“ Must Human Rights take a back seat to get corporate globalisation on board? Could the government at least subsidise food for the poor and slap a high tariff on western produce to save its own farmers? Also damaging is the WTO-propagated Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Western firms like Calgene and Monsanto claimed IPR on mustard and soybean and got the patents. A patent on „Neem“ (Azarichta Indica), awarded to U.S.D.A and W.R.Grace, has been revoked after India challenged it. The patent on Basmati Rice, claimed by RiceTec, has also been revoked, thanks to agitations by Vandana Shiva and her colleagues.

The story is no different with water. Again, there is a clash of culture. Water is, and ought to remain, a resource freely accessible to all. By privatizing its distribution, some transnational corporations (TNC) are establishing a monopoly with the active support of the WB, WTO, and IMF, while the people are suffering from water crises. Resources like water, land, air, and biodiversity are natural rights of the people. They can not be revoked by the State in favour of the WTO or TNCs. The Living Democracy Movement, initiated by Vandana Shiva and others, is about reclaiming natural rights by the people. It must be up and running, soon. Can more Indians help make it a success?

Drive for alleviation of poverty must be high on Indian agenda. There is a consensus among rich Indians that eradication of poverty can be achieved only within the framework of a neo-liberal globalised economy. Thus, they are supporting the general thrust of the WB, IMF and WTO. The flip side of neo-liberalism is widening gulf between rich and poor, of which India is a cruel example. Oxfam indicates that 330 million Indians live below the poverty line while its middle class is larger than the U.S. population. To top it all, a few Indians are even making it into the Forbes list of world’s billionaires. This is not to say that the „rich“ Westerners, who preach neo-liberal market economy, are going unscathed. Noam Chomsky observes that the incomes of about 70% of the U.S. citizens stagnated or declined during the Clintonian „fairy-tale economy“ of the 1990s despite increased working hours. Nor are the Europeans better off. Poverty, wiped out in many European countries by 1970, has returned with vengeance. Forgotten is the culture of empathy and solidarity, the hallmark of post-WWII Europe. This should be a wake-up call for the Indians. Neo-liberalism brings fabulous wealth to a few at the expense of the masses. The Indians should recall how forced liberalism, imposed by the British Raj, led to de-industrialisation of India. Then, the resulting profits went to a few rich British citizens and their Indian counterparts. That drama, recounted by Jawaharlal Nehru in „Glimpses of World History“, is playing again within India. The rich Indians supporting neo-liberalism are winning, their poor countrymen are losing out. In Dimbleby Lecture 2001, Bill Clinton, whose government had aggressively pursued corporate globalisation, has now urged the rich to be wary of this scourge. Can rich Indians ignore that? Sharing with the poor whatever wealth there is must do for now. On the long haul, the Indians must seek fair terms of trade with the WTO, while shaping up to be competitive in the global market. The WTO is just a forum for negotiating international trade agreements and enforcing them, it is not about corporate highjacking of the global trade. What can India do to help level the playing field and demand democratisation of the WTO?

Taming Corporate Globalisation

The term globalisation relates to international integration of economic activities. Cooperation between nations following the „Bretton Woods Agreements“ led to Europe’s post-WWII rise. It wiped out poverty and created the welfare states for which Europe had been the envy of the world. No more. Since the mid-`70s, Bretton Woods is being dismantled to advance corporate globalisation. Poverty, covert or overt, is rising, the welfare states are history.

Two organisations, established at the Bretton Woods Conference, were the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now WB, and the IMF. The former helped finance the reconstruction of war-torn Europe. IMF’s mandate was to regulate an international monetary system based on convertible currencies to facilitate trade, leaving sovereign governments in charge of their monetary and fiscal policies. An International Trade Organization (ITO) couldn’t be created at that time, leaving the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as its remnant. In 1995, the „Uruguay Round“ of GATT ultimately established the WTO. The Bretton Woods prescription for trade, documented on 22nd July 1944 in the „Summary of Agreements“, required the members to play by the rules agreed upon by all. It states:„When they do not agree, and when ... small groups of nations attempt ... to gain trade advantages, the result is instability ... and damage to national economies.“ There is the rub. If the nations did stick to the rules, peace and prosperity throughout the world would have been ours today, and no sane person would have opposed globalisation. Violating the rules USARP has gained trade advantage, created neo-liberalism and is funneling the lion’s share of wealth to the rich. Walden Bello argues how the WB and IMF have degenerated to tools pushing corporate globalisation and inequity. The WTO is aggravating that. The GATT had limited power but it allowed the developing countries special status; that was instrumental in the rise of the „Asian Tigers“. With WTO firmly moored now, for USARP it is time for TNC-driven globalisation.

Uneven playing field is at the core of neo-liberalism, the poor losing out against the rich. The „third world“ countries have been hit hardest for two reasons. First, the terms of trade favour the rich. While the poor are forced to „open up“ their markets, the rich continue to practice protectionism. Oxfam, in a News Release of 11th April 2002, accuses the rich of rigging the rules of trade, which cost the poor US$ 100 bn per year. To cite only two examples of protectionism from Oxfam’s list: (i) the tax levied on the imports from poor countries are four times that from the rich ones; (ii) the farmers in the rich countries are subsidised US$ 1 bn per day (!) to dump their produce in the poor countries, destroying their local markets and robbing the poor their „best escape route from poverty.“ Secondly, the wealth generated by trade goes to the rich segment of the population, little treacles down to the bottom. The Bush government and its allies are instrumental in ramming through these rules. Consequently, the gap between „haves“ and „have-nots“ is on the rise. To counter the rage of the deprived and to defend their own hegemony, the Bush government is ready to cross the nuclear threshold.

How can we come to terms with neo-liberalism? India has known TNC culture way before opening up to corporate globalisation. Consider the Bhopal disaster caused by the Union Carbide pesticide plant, arguably the world’s worst industrial disaster. Anne Karpf reports in „The Guardian“ that 14,824 Indians died and several hundred thousand were left disabled and diseased. Union Carbide got away paying US$ 1,300 in compensation for each dead, average payout for the disabled being US$ 580. Paul Watson, also writing for „The Guardian“, observes that the Indian government is being accused of corruption for closing the books on Bhopal prematurely to show foreign investors that in India labour comes with a bonus: low liability for industrial accidents. This is adding insult to injury. The Indian government must stop foot dragging and assist the victims; the U.S. Court of Appeals has opened up ways to do so. If there is any doubt in this example, there are others which reveal how lack of accountability and callousness of the Indian bureaucracy have failed the people. One glaring example is the ongoing project of building thousands of dams. Arundhati Roy argues why the dams take water, land and irrigation away from the poor, why they are „India’s greatest planned environmental disaster“. The „first world“ has decommissioned dams long ago. Yet, they are exporting dam-building expertise gift-wrapped as Development Aid to the „third world“. The Morse Commision, asked by the WB in 1991 to give an independent review of the Sardar Sarovar Dams, concluded that the project is „flawed“ and that „the WB shares responsibility with the borrower for the situation that has developed“. It is „a damning indictment of the relationship between the Indian State and the WB“, writes Arundhati Roy. Not to be undone, India presses on with its pet project. To finance them, India paid the WB US$ 1.475 bn more than it borrowed between 1993-1998. The Indian Administration should ultimately realise that many „Development Aids“ are euphemisms for racket. Abstaining from them helps avoid debt traps. Says Oxfam: „For every dollar of aid to the poor two dollars are swindled out through unfair trade.“ The Indian dams are good examples of such trade. My last example is the Enron power plant deal, also recounted compellingly by Arundhati Roy. To sweeten the deal, Enron „paid out millions of dollars to educate the politicians and bureaucrats involved in the deal.“ Simultaneously, the US-government under Bill Clinton pressured the Maharastra government to accept it. Now, the electricity produced by this power plant turns out to be twice as expensive as the nearest competitor and seven (!) times as costly as the cheapest electricity available in Maharastra. Bottom line? Besides being corrupt, many Indian politicians are implicated to be susceptible to bribery.

To tame corporate globalisation and to serve their people, the Indian government must root out corruption and reinstil accountability in both national and state administrations. If the politicians fail to do so, they will need „help“ from the people. Recent state and municipal elections, in which the BJP was trounced for supporting Hindutwa, are indicative of a healthy democracy. Only if corruption plummets, can India -- who scores 2.7, its major trade partners 6-8 on a 1-10 scale of „world-wide corruption index“ -- can expect to hammer out fair deals with the rich. Until then, the Living Democracy Movement must try to absorb the violences of the corporate juggernauts. So much for changes within India.

The corporate globalisation is bringing in its wake misery also to the western countries. The voices of dissidence heard there testify to this. Administrations in some of these countries are growing uneasy. The U.S. power base is blacklisting whoever speaks out; it is trying to mute dissidence in the U.S. universities (www.goacta.org/reports/defciv.pdf ). This opens a window of opportunity for the poor across the globe. To grab it, they must network with their western counterparts and encourage them to elect politicians given to empathy for their own people and those elsewhere. The foremost platform for such grassroots activities is the World Social Forum, Porto Allegre, Brazil. It is trying to achieve a broad coalition of organisations working for human rights, sustainable development, education and environmental protection.

Let me end echoing Vandana Shiva: „We will not live by rules that are robbing millions of their lives and medicines, their seeds, plants and knowledge, their sustenance and dignity and their food. We will not allow greed and violence to be treated as the only values to shape our cultures and our lives. We will take back our lives, as we took back the right. We know that violence begets violence, fear begets fear, peace begets peace and love begets love.“

However remote our chances are at first sight, I am convinced that peaceful agitation will get us there. For, succeed we must, if justice and peace are to prevail down the road.