I Am OK, You Are Not OK

I must warn my readers that my intellectual capabilities are not what they used to be. While thingsused to come to me in a flash in my younger days, I had to spend some time thinking of a title for thisarticle--'The East India CompanyXP',  Speak Global, Act Local, and 'How to make fools (ofpeople) and still influence them' seemed like natural choices--but then, I said, what the heck, a roseby any other name would be as beautiful, and therefore, logically enough, a bad article by any other titlewould be as unreadable. So, there.

The matters at hand are the new principles of doing business in a privatised and globalised economy.Please note that these principles are applicable only for the developing and the under-developed countries;the developed ones have already perfected privatisation of public policy into a fine art. The uninitiated maykindly look up the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, insights Guaranteed.

Some readers may want to question my competence to write on such matters. If they look at the issue ina bookish manner, yes, I am not an Expert. On the other hand (Thank God for other hands!), if they were tocheck up the Constitution, they would find that all of us enjoy the right to freedom of speech. Speech not asthe technical and legal jargon beyond the understanding of millions of ordinary citizens of this country, butspeech defined as a form of communication that ordinary people can understand and identify with. Speech theway it was meant to be.

The 'Idea of Globalisation' has always fascinated me, right from my last years at IITD when pinkpapers had just caught on the fancy of an entire young generation. Some of my batchmates--those of us who werestupid enough to stay back--and most of my juniors used to gather religiously at the Common Room, and wouldspend hours trying to make sense of stock markets and options and convertibility (strictly of the non-religious variety). 

The whole thing was innocent, and fun. But as some years passed by, somehow the innocencekept getting lost. As one later found out, the Idea of Globalisation is not about some oh-so-cutephilosophy of equal or fair treatment, instead, the whole show is really about who negotiates better,regardless of the means employed. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that while everyone was talkingabout removing restrictions on movement of capital and goods, about allowing the prices of certain factors ofproduction to be determined by global supply and demand positions; I found absolutely no debate onglobalisation of labour markets--on the freedom of movement of people across countries. This freedom ofmovement cannot remain a non-business issue, labour is a factor of production as important as the restof them; and therefore, restrictions on labour movements have implications no less critical than restrictionson capital movements or movements of finished products.

I remember raising this matter at a dinner hosted by Ruchir in a basement hotel in NOIDA. He was holidaying inIndia after commissioning a software project abroad, Manoj was busy setting up a Data Entry Firm, Bunny wasback after completing his MBA from Melbourne University, Shailesh was with IBM in Delhi, and I had just quitIIMA to compete for the Civil Services. As we discussed hostel days and Ayn Rand and Babudom and girlfriends,I remember asking their views on this matter that had been troubling me, namely the place for globalisation oflabour markets in the rhetoric that was going on. I don't think we arrived at a satisfactory answer then, andas I found after having talked to them while writing this article, we still don't have one.

Meanwhile, not allowing the spirit to be crushed, I kept on diarising my views on Globalisation as it shouldbe, and Globalisation as it is turning out to be. Privatisation as it should be, and Privatisation as is nowbeing witnessed. Finally, I narrowed down to four basic principles, which contrary to the Bodhisattvakind of truths I was expecting them to be, turned out to be fairly crude.

The first principle I shall call, Definition-Changing. The concept is about turning things on their heads- what Nazis did so well, only that they got caught. TheBrave New World is one where if you don't cave in to the illegal demands of big firang industry(incidentally located in ridiculously small islands), you are not creating the 'Right Investment Climate'.Where examining MOUs heavily biased towards private companies and suggesting pro- public interestmodifications is termed as 'Red-Tapism'. Where bailing out badly managed major industrial corporationsusing techno-legal jargon and unscrupulous means is called 'Debt-Restructuring'. And where sale of publicequity in profitable enterprises to dress up lossy budget proposals is termed as 'Privatisation'.

The second principle that propels this fools' paradise is Outright Hypocrisy. It is closely related to, but not the same as Definition-Changing. There is nothing complicated about theconcept, even a ten- year old child can point this out to the exclusion of editors of pink newspapers.Hypocrisy is basically saying I am OK, You are not OK, when frankly, both of us are doing the same things. 

It's OK for Me to cut oil production and raise prices all over the world, but it's not OK for You to subsidisethe same artificially inflated oil prices to ease the burden on a vastly poor and helpless and unassumingpopulation. It's OK for Me to grant patents on basmati rice and most other stuff I had nothing to do with inthe first place, but It's not OK for You to demand waiving of similarly assured royalty payments on vitallife-saving drugs. It's OK for Me to enforce environmental safety norms for my auto industry to make sureyours can't get in, but (and mind you, people tell me our own local Ba Ba Black Will said so) It's not OK ifYou enforce minimum standards for batteries. And like I said earlier, It's OK for Me to ask for free movementof land and capital but It's not OK for You to even consider similar treatment for labour. 

The story getsrepeated in the political sphere, the connoisseurs would have noticed that the people who now drop inuninvited to 'assist' in sorting out our border problems are the same ones who once proudly displayedsigns saying 'Indians and Dogs are not allowed'; the people who now repeatedly dump advice on Human Rightsare the same who meticulously wiped out an entire race of proud Indians; the people who now preach restraintare the ones whose economies depend on defense production and logically and practically enough, on wars. I canbomb anyone I like, the rest of the world must discuss matters over a cuppa tea.

The third principle is called Stealth-Bombing. These Stealth-Pilots have to be real experts, preferably of the Cable-Guy variety. Business begins withoffering channels for free, and once the target audience gets hooked, by milking them dry by raising prices atleast four times in two years. You don't have to be a media hotshot for doing this, the 'best' softwarecompanies in the world have been doing this for years, International Funding Agencies do this regularly vialow-interest 'developmental' loans, and the biggest GM seed companies are beginning to do that now. Theyget in uninvited, unnoticed, and before you can say Mummy!, your indigenous varieties have been wiped outforever. Big Daddy can now get in and begin dictating prices. Research costs money, and researchers also do,but Hey! I've got deep pockets and a shallow conscience and the combination is deadly.

The last tactic, if everything else fails, is Downright Terrorism. Keep a gun on a Nation's dreams, offer roses to its neighbours, and the job is done. Sometimes you don'teven have to offer roses to anyone, just the threat of economic sanctions and investment blackouts can forcethe execution of heavily loaded PPAs. To hell with World Trade Bodies and Trade Dispute Resolution Mechanisms,James Bond has the License to Kill, and He shall.

The principles are thus simple enough. We needn't be surprised with them, our own History has beenreplete with the use of Saam, Daam, Dand and Bhed; they are all that are beingused now, only the language is more technical, the print is finer, and the objectives more sinister. Thepotion for success is also simple enough; those who negotiate better are the ones who will win the economicwars. 

It's sickening to hear people say: Globalisation is better in the long run, only that people have toface hardships in the short run; Short Runs are all we've got, and all that we are concerned with, sincein the Long Run, everyone's dead. Not really though, our future generations will survive, but only if we standup today and understand the games that are being played with our lives and the lives of our grandchildren. 

Letus then not be apologetic with the structure of our economic systems; what has worked in the West will notsucceed in a land of millions of impoverished rural people. The solutions will be different for us, and thesolutions will have to begin with standing up to those who are only speaking Global.

Sandeep Verma is from the 1993 batch of the IAS. The views expressed here are entirely hisown. A shorter version of this article appeared in the print magazine.