Global solidarity against Globalization

There is a visible change in the lifestyle of the city mongers. Every other person in the street has a mobile phone. It is hard to believe a house without a colour television. There is no waiting list for gas connections or telephone installations. Air-fares are getting cheaper day-by-day. One cannot believe that a couple of decades back, one had to wait for more than a year, after making the payment, to acquire a Bajaj Scooter. Isn't it then that privatization, globalization, deregulation and delicensing have made the world a freer place?

The question then asked is, "Has not the arrival of MNCs into the national economy made our lives more comfortable?" This is the perception that an ordinary middle class person carries about the rapid economic changes taking place in the country. The Anti-globalizationists across the world accepted this challenge of projecting the ground reality, to this make-believe world. From the beginning the WSF was on a defensive, to prove to the world of elites that not everything is going right in the market-based reform process.

Is the world really a better world now? Taking the Indian example; if the telephone density or new models of televisions/cars or number of mobile phone users are the criteria, then new India is a developed India. But where the cotton farmers of Andhra commit suicide, where the adivasis of Plachimada, who have been deprived of their land and groundwater, where thousands of children labour into old age; how can any growth rate be positively projected? Clearly there are a set of winners and losers in the market-based growth. Winners attend the World Economic Forum and participate in WTO talks. Winners project a 'shining India' to the world to attract dollars, control the State and the media. World Social Forum is attended by those awakening the conscience of winners to the voice of other fellow being of the world.


WSF is not against Globalization per se, itself being an upshot of the globalization of political and civil society. WSF resists a specific form of economic globalization that serves the interests of a few at the cost of many. It is a forum to take a common platform and deliberate upon a plan of action through networking of ideas and experiences, to take on the forces of globalization with the might of unity and solidarity.

Is WSF a success? Yes, it did serve its purpose as a forum for thousands of people. Workshops, seminars and conferences flocked together many a bird of feather and the participants found they all faced the same problems even though in different parts of the world. Themes ranged from environmental concerns, labour rights, terrorism, discrimination, inequality to rights of migrants and sex workers and trafficking of girl child etc. The workshops saw the confluence of divergent civil society groups. For example, the environmentalists and trade unions came together to form a network against the occupational hazards. There was representation from even the smallest of grass-root organizations. Numerous marches and rallies portraying vividly, various themes forced the mesmerized onlookers to think for a while, on the need to alleviate their problems. There were people from different countries, speaking different languages, in diverse attires. It was the best example of one global community, showing tangible strength for making another world possible!

All the same one should also accept that such a huge and diverse participation at the WSF still failed in projecting itself as a strong opposition to the market fundamentalist forces. A success of movement depends on changes it brings in the mindset of the general public. Despite participation by at least a hundred thousand people, the forum was perceived more as an international mela, exhibition rather than to co-ordinate action against globalization. Here the role of media becomes very important and the media definitely failed the forum by not taking its theme to the people in an appropriate manner. Otherwise the presence of more than hundred thousand people from one hundred and thirty countries is a sufficient reason to be a good show of global solidarity against globalization.

It was a good show alright but just as long as it lasted and in jest. The common man remained unaffected by it even though it projected his / her concerns.