Those who wanted to build the nation on religious lines could never come to the forefront of the National Movement because they did not want to fight the British. Why is it then, that today a brand of nationalism is again gaining ground that is based on the exclusionary nationalism of Savarkar and Jinnah?
To look for an answer to this we need to understand the deep influence of what we loosely term as ‘Globalisation’ on economic and political process in almost every part of the globe. Let us first try to understand what we mean by Globalisation here. A few hundred years ago, Western capitalist countries began their plunder and conquest of the rest of the world — Asia, Africa and the Americas. The British, for example, colonised India 250 years ago. The motivation of the western countries was greed. The capitalist “free market economy” has only one goal—profit. This colonial loot was helped by the Industrial Revolution (with its development of machinebased production), which began in Britain about 250 years ago. The new factories produced steamships and guns, which made imperialist conquest unequal, easy and bloody.
Today we hear the term ‘globalisation’ used to describe the expansion of the global capitalist economy. In India, Pepsi, CocaCola, Western TV shows and movies, and foreign clothes like Nike have become common. India is opening up even further to the global market economy. But the history of the last 300 years shows us that globalisation is just another word for the continuation of capitalist and imperialist exploitation. It is a word that has been deliberately coined to raise false hopes among the poor of the world: that the current processes in the global economy will allow them to approach the standards enjoyed by the rich in North America, Europe and Japan. While selling this false dream, these countries have mounted a fresh offensive on the resources of poor countries.
The globalisation that we are talking about does not mean that national boundaries have receded in the world. Globalisation means a special integration of markets, where the entire world is one market that is available for exploitation, in which capital (money) and commodities (goods) and services can move freely. National boundaries stay. But they stay to see that people don’t travel. You would be asked whether you are a citizen or not but money, goods and services would face no such questions. The integration of the global market has significantly reduced the ability of nations to take sovereign decisions about their own economies. Money flows in and out based on where it is most profitable to invest, meaning where it is possible to exploit labour in the most extreme form. Trade rules are set in international forums like the WTO, where the rich imperialist countries dominate. Global institutions, again dominated by the imperialist countries of North America and Europe, such as the World Bank and the IMF, police the globe’s economic architecture. They deny individual nations the sovereign right to regulate and protect their own economies, and thus the livelihoods of their citizens.
What we are witnessing is the return of almost colonial forms. Under British colonialism, there were restrictions on Indians travelling to England, but British capital could flow in and out of India quite freely. When England sold any of its goods in India it paid no or minimal duty. Foreign capital was entitled to loans, but Indian capital was not. So it could capture the Indian market completely. All these things are recurring in India today. Under financial liberalisation, trade liberalisation, the way barriers are being taken down, what we are really seeing is the re-creation of what happened under British colonialism minus the white man being physically present with an imperial army.
What is the effect of loss of control over our economy under globalisation? Nationalism in India, as we see earlier, was built on the idea of economic sovereignty -- the endeavour to control and prevent exploitation of our labour, our markets and our capital by foreign countries and foreign companies. In the current ear of globalization the nation has to be redefined minus the economic space, that is minus sovereign control over economic activities that take place within the boundaries of India. The way we had conceived the nation on an economic basis, protecting it from foreign control – if that is taken away then how do we define the nation? Further In this game, we see the increasing collaboration of ruling elites, even in developing countries such as India. These ruling elites, are the only real gainers from imperialist globalization, and are content to hand over control over national economies to foreign corporations, foreign banks, and global agencies controlled by imperialist countries. Who are the real anti-nationals in an India, where the ruling elites are every day, every hour, collaborating with foreign capital to sell our national assets?
Now, the problem that arises is, if we have defined the nation in terms of economic space and if we let that go, then how do we define the Indian nation? What we are seeing today is a redefinition of nationalism because successive governments have given up on economic sovereignty. Nationalism is being projected not as an expression of our endeavour to protect our economic space and thereby as a way to protect the livelihoods of our people. The current definitions of national and anti-national seek to reverse the consensus of the national movement. It seeks to resurrect the concept of nation proposed by Golwalkar and Savarkar. ‘Cultural nationalism’ is now being primed to replace the idea of economic nationalism that emerged from the national movement. When you talk of cultural nationalism you have to define culture. And when you define culture you will have to leave out certain groups. Therefore, the cultural nationalism being currently promoted defines the nation as a Hindu nation.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें