By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
The world is passing through rough times. There is unprecedented uncertainty all around – political crisis, economic woes, social unrest. Solutions for solving these crises cannot be divorced from genuine concerns that led to the crises in the first place. Critical and strategic decisions at the global and regional level to overcome and outsmart the impending crises, has become the order of the day. A group of leaders are involved in tremendous haggling and negotiations to steer the world from the brink of another predicament which may be worse than the one it experienced in 2008. As the Euro political crisis has manifested, economic woes resulting in social unrest and violent conflict leading to social protests around the continent necessarily occur due to bungling politics that is driven by austerity measures and expenditure cuts. What becomes of Greece (and Spain and Portugal etc) is therefore an acid test not just for the Euro dollars but also for global economic recovery in general. Gone are the days when a political/economic crisis in one part of the globe remains isolated to that part. The world today is so much integrated that one (in the Far East) cannot think of when one might get his next job if the markets in Europe or America fail. Decision making is no longer as simple as it used to be.
The repercussions of such decisions are felt by everyone. Ironically millions of lives lie at the mercy of a group of people who make decisions for the world. The very same group is controlled by strings led by powerful corporate world bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank whose interests have always been selfish rather than altruistic. The very same policy has resulted in global instability for decades and our leaders still swear by their dictum. These groups of global messiah are least interested in problems that confront the third world, their decision being confined on how to mitigate the crisis in their own countries. Yet the very same decision may spill over to the other parts of the globe with adverse effects.
Then there are a set of regional players who have come together to protect the interests of the developing world. However, leaders from the developing world have largely failed their own people due to multiplicity of factors. Our own Prime Minister still does not instil confidence in his own government while coalition politics remains a sticking point in any far reaching decisions. Domestic problems such as rising prices, corruption etc has resulted in policy prognosis much to the disenchantment of the corporates. Financial markets here are vulnerable to policy decisions from the west. Needless to say India still does not possess the institutions to withstand pressures that may spill over from overseas. This of course is the flip side of globalization. The question of policy formulation these days is not only focussed on what it means for the country but what it also does for other countries. In such a scenario our leaders have little to choose amidst the abundance of opportunities ( due to global integration)
Internal Indian politics which is diverse and scattered like the country has been responsible for increasing regionalism and particularism leading to a stalemate. The power of the top class, comprising a minuscule number, to control the ‘others’- the marginalized and obscure class whose significance only increases during elections, is deeply embedded though it has no place in democracy. The former through clever manipulation of the election system- so regarded as the most effective symbols for democratic achievement- continue to be beacons of change for the have-nots. This uninterrupted reposing of faith by the marginalized millions upon the few leaders has remained unchallenged. In a globalized world such leaders are caught trying to balance external factors while remaining committed to their own vote banks which oppose any forms of integration.
This is not to say that our leaders have done much better before we launched into globalization. In more than 60 years of democracy there still exist vast swathes of the country where development has not taken place. The north east is one such. Some of our leaders have remained representatives for 20-30 years but their reports cards have nothing to say. Our own state is no exception. Look at the Garo hills! For as long as we can remember it is the fiefdom of the Sangma clan. There is literally nothing happening in this part except for increasing violence and conflicts more so in recent times. On the other hand it has produced more chief ministers than the other districts combined. It is baffling indeed why the situation has not improved at all despite the emergence of charismatic leaders from the district with one in particular all set to become the president of the country if things go his way. If Mr Sangma is to be believed we can all aspire to become the Presidents and prime ministers of the country by counting on our socio-political background (tribal in this case) in the hope that Indian democracy becomes more inclusive. What his decision means for the state (and the country) however is not a forward looking one but a dangerously disturbing backward trend. The tension in such assertions is that Indian democracy has already compromised so much. It is a sad day indeed for our democracy if the highest post of the land is to be perceived as being reserved for a particular sect or interest.
Such calculative leaders are not attuned to global ethos since their interest is only to safeguard their own turf. Should one think locally and act globally or vice versa is a Pandora’s box, either ways. No progress is possible as long as regional variation, sectarian divide and religious affiliations exist. And this is the problem that is prevalent not only at the national level but more worryingly at the local level patronized by our own revered leaders. (The author is a scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University)