Swadesh, not swadeshi

THE MACMILLAN World English Dictionary, Encarta, defines Swadeshi as ``one that is used in India to describe goods produced within the country of India.'' The definition continues with a mention of the Swadeshi movement, that evolved at the time of the freedom struggle, as the boycott of foreign goods. The boycott best symbolised by the huge bonfires of foreign-made mill cloth.

It is necessary to compare the Swadeshi movements then and now. The Swadeshi movement then was a reaction to the colonial rule that came to an end in 1947, a time when there were only 76 independent countries. There are now 193 countries with almost none that can be called as being ruled by a colonial power and with only a very few coming under the category of those that are being governed by overt fascist rule. This distinct difference of the general form of world governance between the two time periods has to be recognised and appreciated before any further discussion can take place on the Swadeshi movements then and now.

If the first Swadeshi movement was a reaction to the British colonial rule, the present movement is a generalised reaction to the firming up of the WTO rule. However, there is a difference. The earlier rule was forced; the present rule has been voluntarily accepted by our country. It must not be forgotten that India was one of the only 23 nations, 12 developed and 11 developing, that signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) on October 30, 1947, barely a couple of months after Independence.

India not only became a founding member of GATT, but also of the other two institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) - that came into existence around the same time. Taking a broad view, the IMF is identified with a global monetary policy, the World Bank with developmental policies being implemented in the developing and least developed countries, and the WTO with the freeing of global trade from rigid country-specific and non- productive controls.

Exit policy

However, if the Swadeshi proponents of the day want the country to be out of such organisations, an exit policy that can easily be implemented exists at least as far as WTO is concerned. Any country wishing to leave the WTO can put in an application expressing such a desire before the organisation's Director General, a request that the official is bound to facilitate within six months of the submission of the withdrawal application. Despite the criticism from many quarters, what is it that prevents countries particularly those with one-man rule or guided democracies withdrawing from the multilateral organisation? A similar question can also be raised in the case of criticism against the United Nations.

China is a classic example of a country that was a founding member of GATT 1947 but later took a decision during the heyday of communist rule not to participate in any international trade arrangement. However, China is at present making concerted efforts to enter the WTO, a membership that will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Even as China is waiting in the wings, the membership of WTO has risen to 140 at the last count with almost all the remaining countries ranging from Andorra to Vanuatu (called Observer Governments) expressing their intention to join the Geneva-based organisation whose members together now account for more than 90 per cent of global trade.

As far as boycott of foreign goods is concerned, what products do the protagonists of the Swadeshi movement wish to make a bonfire of? Petroleum and oil products on whose imports the country is heavily dependent or the high technology products that are needed to improve infrastructure areas such as the telecommunication sector or the military hardware that is essential to safeguard the country's borders or the medical expertise that has been honed in foreign lands?

Counter-reaction

In an interconnected world, boycotts can trigger counter-reaction from other countries. If foreign governments and peoples make attempts to boycott Indian products in their countries, then the ambitious figures of $ 50 billion textile exports (old economy) or exports of a similar level in the software sector (new economy) targeted to be reached by 2010 can only remain an unachievable goal. Can these figures be reached by exports to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other `friendly' SAARC countries?

If not Swadeshi, why not Swadesh? The Encarta goes on to define Swadesh as `my country.' What can be the spirit of this term in India, which despite all the modern trappings still remains a country with a feudal mindset? The adage Yatha Raja Thatha Praja (like ruler, like people) still holds in our country.

What can the rulers of the day - the ministers and the bureaucrats - do to send a strong message to the people that they stand for our country? They can, for instance, ask their sons and daughters who are residing in foreign countries to come back to India; they can ask their kith and kin who are working in foreign multinational companies to resign and join Indian owned companies which will be enriched by their expertise and experience; they can avoid mass junkets to reduce frivolous government expenditure, and so on. In general, they can live a life of striking simplicity.

What can the people's response be? For the present, one response will suffice: payment of more taxes. It is a national shame that only around two per cent of the population pays taxes, even though the current taxation levels are comparable with international rates. Non-payment of taxes, both direct and indirect and the leakages in the departments concerned are major factors contributing to the slow economic growth. The increase in tax collections will be a more readily recognisable number than the other intangible indicators such as reduction in corruption levels in society or a better work ethic in government departments.

Role of NRIs

The role of Non-Resident Indians (NRI) is also very important in bringing into the country the precious dollars required to meet our several obligations. The people from Kerala who are now working in West Asia contributed more than one-third of the $ 5 billions collected through the recent Millennium Bond issue. Would these homeward looking hard working people put in so much if the West Asian countries have a system like the American Green Card, which almost ensures permanent residency?

The quantum of money coming from Indians settled in the developed countries in the West is only a small fraction of the realisable potential. On the contrary, recent reports suggest that even the small amount of the NRI money coming into the country through the FDI route largely remains untraceable. There are also fears that a substantial portion of these incoming monies is nothing but what had been leaked out of our country through illegal means in the past. Would a mood of Swadesh change the investment pattern?

When China is an oft repeated example for the many competitive ills our industries face, it should also be remembered that initially it was the funds of the Non-Resident Chinese that propelled the communist economy towards a critical mass in the globalisation experiment.

Thus, the concept of Swadesh should not be confined to the country's borders but be extended beyond. If the consensus is for the country to stand alone, then let India stand alone but within the walls of the multilateral organisations. Nothing and nobody can prevent a country of a billion people fighting battles for their own benefit; on the contrary the stand, even if perceived to be rigid, will be respected. This is the general approach of the Chinese who know how to leverage the strength of a large market to their country's benefit. Is it the fault of the WTO that our country perhaps acquiesced to the lifting of the quantitative restrictions (QR) earlier than required or is levying lower import duties than the higher WTO-compatible rates allowed on agricultural and plantation products? The obstacles to India's growth are within. Swadeshi attempts to fight the real or imagined destructive forces coming from outside the borders, the spirit of Swadesh fights debilitating forces within the country.

Let us have Swadesh - My Country - as not merely a slogan but as a battle cry for the New Year and the years to come. Swadesh, which is a positive and constructive policy for the present time, should be pursued rather than Swadeshi that was a positive and constructive policy of its time several decades ago when our country and the world as we know it today was in its infancy.

However, ideologies cannot be static. Thoughts have to be refined, and policies of the past have to be analysed and suitably changed for further betterment of society. Let it be Swadesh, and not Swadeshi.

P. KRISHNA RAO

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Towards a new philosophy
Next     : India's free riding political class