WTO and globalisation

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995. Two major changes agreed were: (i)  not to impose import duties in excess of certain agreed rates and (ii) not to manufacture a patented item using alternate process. 

• The large-scale imports of goods from China taking place at present is a consequence of  provision (i) of the WTO which we willingly accepted.
• The provision (ii) restricted the growth of our pharmaceutical companies.
• The drugs invented by MNCs were hitherto produced by our pharma companies using alternate processes and making them available at a fraction of the MNC's price and that freedom was lost.
• The major benefit expected from WTO was that our farmers will be able to export their produce to the developed countries and get much higher prices. But the developed countries fudged the rules of the WTO and continued to provide subsidies to their farmers and that deprived our farmers ability to export their goods. 
• Thus the WTO and the globalisation has become largely a losing proposition for us. It has even become a losing proposition for developed countries like USA as well. They find that their jobs are disappearing. 
• The WTO needs to shape up for the US to stay a part of it, said former Trump trade advisor Dan DiMicco. He further said that WTO has enabled China’s bad behavior and allowed the country to manipulate its currency from 1995 to 2015. Nobody has held them accountable.
• President Donald Trump told that the WTO has treated the US “very badly". Trump also said "I hope they change their ways. We’re not planning anything now, but if they don’t treat us properly we will be doing something.” Trump told his advisors, “I don’t know why we’re in it. The WTO is designed by the rest of the world to screw the US"
• India has walked out of the WTO mini-ministerial being held in Geneva in July 2006 to thrash out the thorny agriculture and industrial tariff issues, with the US refusing to agree for wider cuts in farm subsidies. The Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath said: "We came here to negotiate, but there is no space for negotiations. We are on 8 to 9% growth. I've come here looking for a trade deal which helps me to reach 10 to 11%. I have not come here to get a trade deal which makes me go to 4 or 5%." 
• The failure of WTO to move ahead in framing rules for global trade means that globalization is retreating.
• Our Mughal rulers thought that by allowing the British to trade in India will be beneficial for the country. Similarly, we have agreed and signed the WTO treaty because we thought we would get foreign investments and access to foreign markets for our exports.
• The globalisation under the Mughal rulers and the WTO are fundamentally similar. In both the cases, we ceded our sovereign rights willingly in the belief that the benefits will be more than the costs. In the former case the benefits to us were less than the costs and that arose Mahatma Gandhi and we retracted from that globalisation. Very much the same is happening with the WTO today.
• The globalisation succeeds only if it provides more benefits than costs to all the member countries. We can today walk out of the WTO because it is not beneficial to us. People are the ultimate sovereign and no power on earth can take their sovereignty away. The people will rise no matter how strong the forces of globalisation are.
• The challenge is to inform the people of the benefits and costs of globalisation to make an informed choice to withdraw or not. The worry is that our intellectuals will get coopted and misinform the people of the true costs of present globalisation.
• Our government should wake up, walk out of WTO and start supporting domestic businesses instead of running after MNCs.

Read the source article

Copying western models and implementing in India without proper groundwork is futile. The more we stay in WTO and globalisation, the more our poor and peasants would lose and suffer. Since the present WTO model can't be modified so easily due to the influence of vested interests like China, the only option India has is that it should walk out of WTO and work in the direction of mutually beneficial bilateral treaties and self-sufficiency.

RSS, Tricolor flag & Patriotism

• One fact is certain: the organization (RSS), which runs the party (BJP) that runs the regime (Modi led NDA) cannot just appropriate the 'Indian national movement' as its own.
• RSS had refused to participate in the freedom struggle. It has, therefore, no right to claim its glory even though the Congress cannot also monopolize on any 'sole heir status' for various reasons.
• K.B. Hedgewar, who founded the RSS in 1925, did have some initial loose association with the freedom struggle. But from the 1930s, he ensured that his boys in khaki shorts stayed away from this historic movement. He said "Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism." 
• The Hindu Mahasabha's V.D. Savarkar, who is another cherished role model of the current dispensation, had been active long before Hedgewar but he was rather mercurial. He did lead strident anti-British agitations and was jailed, but he also signed multiple clemency petitions to the colonial government, promising total cooperation if he was released. The Congress retaliated in 1934 and banned its members from joining communal organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS and the Muslim League. 
• In any case, during the critical phase of the Quit India movement and other agitations, not only was the RSS missing but we also have British reports of the 'good conduct' and the law-abiding nature of its members, while thousands of women, children and men all over India braved the onslaught of imperial repression.
• Nana Deshmukh in his book, RSS: Victim of Slander (1979): "One might well ask: why did the RSS not take part in the liberation struggle as an organisation? The question arose for the first time when Gandhiji launched his movement in 1929-30. It was decided that the members of the RSS were free to take part in their individual capacity". Fine. But it may be instructive to know which particular RSS member actually took part and what suffering he went through for it. 
• It is only logical that the RSS and its dedicated cadre that run the government should come clear on this phase of history before attempting to snatch credit in this new version of ultra-nationalism.
• On the eve of Independence, when much of the nation was preparing to celebrate freedom, the RSS's mouthpiece, Organiser, declared that the Indian tricolour will "never be respected and owned by the Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country." 
• Second head of the RSS, M.S. Golwalkar lamented that "our leaders have set up a new flag for the country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating... Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds?" 

Gandhi's assassination on January 30, 1948, however, changed the political chessboard of India decisively. The government banned the RSS and the then deputy prime minister, Patel, declared quite unequivocally that though "the RSS was not involved... his assassination was welcomed by those of the RSS and the [Hindu] Mahasabha who were strongly opposed to his way of thinking and to his policy." Golwalkar repeatedly pleaded with Patel, but the leader, whom the current regime seeks to appropriate, remained firm. He lifted the ban on July 11, 1949, only after the RSS pledged to stay away from politics, not be secretive and abjure violence. More important, it had to profess "loyalty to the Constitution of India and the National Flag". After removal of ban, RSS hoisted the flag at their headquarters on 26th January 1950. Sardar Patel died on 15th December that year, and RSS never hoisted the flag in their headquarters after that until 2002.

Deendayal Upadhyaya: Who features in every Modi speech?

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya (1916-68),
RSS Pracharak & Bharatiya Jana Sangh Ex-President

• Until 2014, he was unheard in public life nor found any space in Indian history but yet finds reference in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's every speech. He is Late Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya.
• He qualified the civil services examination, where he got his nickname as Panditji for appearing in the examination hall wearing tradition dhoti-kurta and cap. Deendayal Upadhyay did not join the government service. He rather became, in 1942, a life-time volunteer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which he had joined five years ago.
• He never participated in freedom movement in line with RSS ideology and cooperated with British for its continuation of colonial rule in India.
• In 1951, Syama Prasad Mookerjee founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Deendayal was as appointed as General Secretary of its Uttar Pradesh branch. After Mookerjee's death in 1953, Deendayal Upadhyay was instrumental in shaping the ideology and socio-political principles of the BJS for next 15 years.
• He contested for Lok Sabha from Uttar Pradesh, but failed to attract significant political traction and did not get elected.
• He kept company with Nanaji Deshmukh and Sundar Singh Bhandari, RSS pracharaks who went on to play a critical role in anti-Congress politics in the 1960s and 70s. 
• Deendayal Upadhyay is best remembered for his principle of "integral humanism", which has been defined as "a classless, casteless and conflict-free social order". It talks about the integration of indigenous "Indian culture" with the social, political and economic fabric of the nation. However, his critics point to his lectures saying he was "biased" against Muslims. Some also criticised him for not seeing evil in caste system.
• He died on Feb 11, 1968 at Mughalsarai in UP, while travelling in a train under mysterious circumstances. Balraj Madhok, another of Jan Sangh’s founding members, has said categorically on many occasions that Upadhyaya’s death was a murder, not an accident. The then President Zakir Hussain and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were among the dignitaries who paid tributes to Deendayal Upadhyay. 
• On June 11, 2014, in his maiden speech in the Lok Sabha Modi said “We are people who have grown up with the ideals of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya...who taught us the principle of Antyodaya. This government's priority is the benefit of the most underprivileged, going by the ideals of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Lohia and Gandhi.”
• On Sep 11, 2017, Prime minister Narendra Modi praised his work and honoured his statue along with Swamy Vivekananda but this was criticized by many as Modi was misusing his power to impose the RSS ideology on youths and trying to saffronise young minds.
• Last year, PM Narendra Modi had started the nationwide celebration programme to mark the birth centenary of Deendayal Upadhyay.  A budget of Rs 100 crore was allocated for the functions. Such brazen abuse of the government’s machinery and funds to commemorate the birth of a politician who belonged to the present ruling party is patently unconstitutional. 
• The BJP has called its national executive meet in New Delhi on the centenary birth anniversary of Deendayal Upadhyay in the national capital on Sep 25, 2017. More than 2,200 including chief ministers are expected to attend the executive meet. Tributes will be paid to him while the party members will discuss and devise strategy to counter the negative narrative about GST and demonetisation. Deendayal Upadhyay will be portrayed as the inspiration for economic and pro-poor policies of the Narendra Modi government. But, many still don't know who Deendayal Upadhyay was.
• The BJP is now on a mission to propagate his ideas to counter the challenge from the Congress, which was the most dominant political force.

Deendayal Upadhyay's biographers maintain a studied silence on his role and activities till 1947 and suddenly jump to 1947 to tell us that he was made Sahpracharak of UP in 1947 etc. During the tumultuous period in India's history, between 1942-45, one does not find any self-criticism on his part rather a subtle justification for non-participation in the anti-colonial struggle. Worst is that RSS cooperated with British for continuation of their colonial rule by giving written assurances to British. Modi's RSS career and politics started after the death of Deendayal Upadhyay in 1968. He was neither a disciple nor a follower of Deendayal Upadhyay. What can be seen as common is that their anti-Muslim and Hindutva tendencies which are questionable in secular democracy. Profound humanitarian vision of Gandhi is being replaced with the parochial notions of people like Upadhyaya. The young people who have not read the history of the country are easily persuaded by Modi's rhetoric. The greatest tragedy of India today is the lack of good leader. Consequently we will have Upadhyayas being thrust upon us.

Quit India Movement 1942: Remembering after 75 years.

• The Quit India Movement was launched at the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British Rule of India.
• The Cripps Mission had failed, and on 8 August 1942, Gandhi made a call to Do or Die in his Quit India speech delivered in Bombay.
• The All-India Congress Committee launched a mass protest demanding what Gandhi called "An Orderly British Withdrawal" from India. Even though it was wartime, the British were prepared to act. Almost the entire leadership of the INC was imprisoned without trial within hours of Gandhi's speech. Most spent the rest of the war in prison and out of contact with the masses. 
• The British had the support of the Viceroy's Council (which had a majority of Indians), the Muslim League, the princely states, the Indian Imperial Police, the British Indian Army and the Indian Civil Service. Many Indian businessmen profiting from heavy wartime spending did not support Quit India Movement. Many students paid more attention to Subhas Chandra Bose, who was in exile and supporting the Axis Powers. 
• The only outside support came from the Americans, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressured Prime Minister Winston Churchill to give in to some of the Indian demands. 
• The Quit India campaign was effectively crushed. The British refused to grant immediate independence, saying it could happen only after the war had ended.
• Quit India failed because of heavy-handed suppression, weak co-ordination and the lack of a clear-cut programme of action. However, the British government realized that India was ungovernable in the long run due to the cost of World War II, and the question for postwar became how to exit gracefully and peacefully.
• At the outbreak of war, the Congress Party had passed a resolution during the Wardha meeting of the working-committee in September 1939, conditionally supporting the fight against fascism, but were rebuffed when they asked for independence in return. Gandhi had not supported this initiative, as he could not reconcile an endorsement for war.
• At the height of the Battle of Britain, Gandhi had stated that he did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain.
• Cripps draft declaration of 22 March 1942 included terms like establishment of Dominion, establishment of a Constituent Assembly and right of the Provinces to make separate constitutions to be granted after the cessation of the Second World War. Congress felt this Declaration only offered India a promise to be fulfilled in future. Gandhi remarked "It is a post dated cheque on a crashing bank." There was growing realization of the incapacity of the British to defend India.
• Several political groups active during the Indian Independence Movement were opposed to the Quit India Movement. These included the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Communist Party of India and the princely states.
• The Indian nationalists knew that the United States strongly supported Indian independence. After Churchill threatened to resign if pushed too hard, the U.S. quietly supported him. The American operation annoyed both the British and the Indians.
• In 1942, the RSS, under M.S. Golwalkar refused to join in the Quit India Movement. The Bombay government appreciated the RSS position. RSS, in turn, had assured the British authorities that "it had no intentions of offending against the orders of the Government".
• The British, alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India-Burma border, responded by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members of the Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were imprisoned as well. Later the Congress party was banned. Despite lack of direct leadership, large protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. Not all demonstrations were peaceful, at some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut and transport and communication lines were severed.
• Although the British released Gandhi on account of his health in 1944, Gandhi kept up the resistance, demanding the release of the Congress leadership.
• By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the Congress leadership was still incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League and Congress opponents like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha sought to gain political mileage, criticizing Gandhi and the Congress Party.

RSS under Golwalkar, Communists etc opposed Gandhi's quit India movement and cooperated with British. Modi stating in Lok Sabha that "...everyone had worked for the common goal of Independence" is pale and a blatant lie. Modi & Co have no right to talk about Gandhi & independence movement which RSS etc opposed and cooperated British. The only exception was that RSS founder Hedgewar participated in the Civil Disobedience movement of 1930s in individual capacity without involving RSS fearing it could be construed as being anti-British. Sonia Gandhi stating “...there were people and organisations which had opposed the Quit India movement and had played no role in getting our country freedom” is factually correct and directly refers to RSS, BJP and Communists. Now Modi should have courage to talk to people of India - truth as truth. If not, he should avoid talking truth rather than than talking lies.

India losing its way, 70 years after independence

• In 1960, an American writer predicted that in an unstable India no outsider will be able to say with assurance where political legitimacy resides.
• Three years earlier, C.Rajagopalachari had predicted that “the centrifugal forces will ultimately prevail”, bringing anarchy or fascism. Older generation people, who had survived partition, mournfully surveyed the country’s future, some even hoping the British would come back.
• Even in 1969, India relied on wheat given away by America, and a “guest control order” specified that only 50 people could be invited to parties where food was served. To travel abroad, Indians required the approval of the Reserve Bank.
• India has not reduced poverty levels as dramatically as China. Still 250 million Indians live on less than four dollars a day, but the progress since the British left has been impressive.
• In 1947 life expectancy was 32 years, now it is 68. The per capita income in India was $439. Now it is US $1861, an all time high and was at record low of US$ 304 in 1960.
• In 1947 only 1,500 villages – a mere 0.025% – were electrified; now 97% of 6.41 lakh villages have electricity. After two centuries of British rule, literacy in India was only 12% of the population and now 74% are literate.
• Every change of government since 1947 has been via the ballot box, with the army never involved - something Greece, Spain, Portugal or even France can’t claim..

As its 70th anniversary approaches, India beset with fears? 

• The way, since Narendra Modi’s astonishing election victory in 2014, the country seems to be turning its back on the tolerant, secular society India’s founding fathers wanted. 
• Modi has always ridden two chariots: Modi’s real business of making India prosperous; and his Hindu business of appeasing his fanatical Hindu followers.
• Some people are confident that Modi will change India for the better, and that the Hindu business will amount to nothing.
• Yet Modi has proved a timid reformer, whose tinkering has included an overnight demonetization that led to such chaos that many people died.
• His Hindu followers have been given free rein. This has seen a ban on the slaughter of cows, and a growing intolerance of minorities and their lynching.
• Today in Mumbai, there is now a form of religious apartheid in housing. A Muslim client wanted to buy a flat in a suburb but the broker said “You are a Muslim. This building is not for Muslims. Hindus only.” 
• In some parts of Mumbai, the most vibrant city, have become so segregated that “owners say this building is for vegetarians only, so no Muslim, Christians, Jews, Parsis or even meat-eating Hindus”. Ironically 31% of Indians are vegetarian and 69% are non-vegetarian.
• In Mumbai of the 50's and 60's, all faiths lived side by side. 

Narendra Modi: Is he India's saviour, or sectarian with blood on his hands?