1. Case study on India: Governance gap through Globalization, Neo-liberalism and rise of NSMs
One cannot deny the fact that India since its independence from British Empire has been
one of the poorest countries in the world. But after sixty five years as a free country, poverty is
still its major barrier to be considered as a developed country (Berrebi, n.d.).
Overpopulation, lack of social infrastructures, illiteracy, unemployment and tribal
deprivation to public investments are the primary reasons for the large proportion of poverty in
the country. Since India is still strongly inclined in its customs and culture, majority of its
population are composed of tribes and scheduled caste that are greatly dependent on agrarian or
agricultural practices. However, little has been acted by the government upon the lack of
irrigations and agricultural extension services to the rural areas in India. Thus, the neglect of
agricultural assistance to tribal areas has resulted to lower output and has gained much less yield
from agriculture. This sector, rural poor, of the society constitutes the majority proportion of the
poor in the country. On the other hand, there are attempts to alleviate poverty by investing on
irrigation, agriculture and rural development, however, the policy has largely neglect the
deprived tribal regions. As a proof, when India started promoting „rained farming‟ its focus was
still on dry lands where there is no source of water nor agricultural inputs while the water
abundant regions of tribal India remained neglected. Public attention has been largely limited to
curative health care and public distribution on urban selected districts and little has given to cater
to the livelihoods of tribal people. “In the absence of appropriate policy action to support
agriculture development, tribal communities have increasingly been obliged to evolve a lifestyle
of low productivity rained farming followed by distress migration” (Verma, Shilp, 2007).
Occupational mobility has been the last resort of the rural poor and tribesman and in
hopes of experiencing a standard living; they found their selves on the populated urban cities. In
search for that kind of living or even just for survival, they have experienced the opposite. They
live in sub-human areas as well as they have limited access to basic necessities. Majority has
failed to eat at least 2 meals a day. This scenario of struggling to survive entails how urban areas
are seen as a dreamland to many that turns out to be their worst nightmare. This exemplifies rural
migration that in effect creates a large proportion of urban poverty in the country (AZAD India
Foundation, 2010).

2. “The Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2008 shows that improving
agricultural labour productivity could have a profound impact on poverty reduction. For
example, raising the region‟s average agricultural labour productivity to the level seen in
Thailand would take 218 million people – a third of the region‟s poor – out of poverty. India,
China, Bangladesh and Indonesia would gain the most.” (Heyzer, 2008)
Evidently, India has failed to eradicate or even lessen poverty to the minimal level
primarily because it has neglected the citizens who need it most. The country has the best
poverty alleviation program in the world but the government has considered its people as mere
objects of these development projects and citizens ended up being used by the elites for their self
interest. This has resulted to the disarticulation of the primal demands and needs of the people.
For an instance, the regional tribes in water abundant areas that are more willing for the
improvement of the yields of their lands were not given much attention and focus for public
investments. Only if these demands were sufficed that the country will experience the alleviating
status it wanted (Verma, Shilp, 2007). “The county has become less effective in delivering those
functions that were important for its development in the modern era, including redistribution,
structural regulation and the delivery of public services” (Taylor, 2010).
Despite of its internal problems, India is one of the most promising countries in terms of
its competitiveness in global realm. Its economy is one of the fastest growing most especially in
terms of being the major outsource service provider across countries as well to its technological
advancements in software development and telecommunication. However, India cannot claim its
position as developed as long as there is still a great proportion of its population faced in major
social issues. With a population of nearly 1.2 billion, overpopulation is also one of the major
problem the country is facing along with it is the inability of the government to provide social
infrastructures such as roads for better transportation and trade, primary and secondary schools
which lead to increasing illiteracy of its citizen. (Berrebi, n.d.) This can be clearly manifested in
rural regional tribes. Development projects to only selected areas have lead to a greater disparity
between the rural and urban. Even the country has its duality element of being an industrial and
agricultural country (Richardson, 2002); India still being greatly independent into its agrarian
conventional ways cannot neglect its agricultural aspect. Its focus merely on its technological
and industrial aspect, has make India less effective in delivering its function that are requisite to

3. its full development, including the large divide in rural and urban because of stagnation on
conventional ways in rural areas and over advancement in rural areas – creating disparity. As
well as it created a large gap between the poor and the rich. Still the lack of infrastructures most
especially secondary schools in deprived areas has lead to greater illiteracy proportion (Berrebi,
n.d.) It shows that its focus on being globally competitive has resulted to the stagnation in its
agrarian aspect.
India after its independence has experienced a lot of pressure both internally and
externally in order to address the dilemmas left to it as a newly free country. The country started
in a closed economy, an autarky one, without the externalities and outside pressure. Its national
economy has cut its ties with the world economy. Slanted against agriculture and exports, this
resulted to a “command and control economy” where its economy has been stagnant and its
share to the rest of the world has significantly declined. (Nayar, 2006) Being in an unhealthy
state, India has made its act in reconciling itself to the global realm.
India‟s reconciliation to the world has been marked by the globalization in the country. It
opened up its economy to direct investments from the international realm and removing barriers
and obstructions to the entry of multinational and transnational companies in India. Along with it
are major shift from quantitative restrictions to tariffs and import duties which entails major
import liberalisation programs. Thus, globalization with these policy reforms has been identified
to bloom in the year of 1991. The process of globalizing India has generated substantial gains for
the country. “It has a favourable impact on the overall growth of the economy”; from the 8th
position in the 1990s to 4th place in 2001 (Goyal, 2006). However, globalization and neoliberal
policies is a double edged sword in the country. Preponderantly, India has an economy with
agrarian in nature and more than 56% of its population has its livelihood dependent in agriculture
and other associated occupation. Certain development and welfare projects were mandated by
the constitution to improve the lives of these people in the most deprived sections in the country
but its gains are just marginal. As the economic reforms in 1980s, weaker sections became worse
off. With the entry of machineries and more skilled labor force, unskilled and semi-skilled
labourers have become irregular employers and fewer days were given to them. In general,
people of India led to “miserable conditions” most especially to the farmers. Liberalization as
encompassed in globalization resulted to decline in agriculture public investment. From 3.5%

4. food grain production on pre-globalization it went down to 1.7% (post-globalization) primarily
because of the diminution in subsidies of farmers. Along with it, income of a common man did
not increase hence it significantly decrease from 193 points average national income to just 122
points. The turnout resulted quite opposite to the expected globalized India. As a domino effect
to low subsidy to Indian farmers and imposition of low tariffs on imports, it resulted to labor
migration from agriculture to industrial occupation. Primarily, this is also due to tight
competitiveness of markets internationally that domestic farmers cannot withstand to the high
standards of the global realm (Muralidhar, 2011). Faced by economic crisis on the same year,
1991, major shifts were made – into a neoliberal capitalist reform. Balance of payment crisis,
large budget deficit and fiscal overload has pressured to this paradigm shift. (Singh, 2011) The
shift is made possible by IMF‟s granting of „structural adjustment loan to India. However,
attached on it are major economic reforms for the country. Chiefly these reforms has its objective
to gradually eliminate government intervention to the market, as well as to privatize government
owned corporations and to lessen barriers of imports which eventually will enable for free trade
and reduce export subsidies – “ a dramatic departure from the protectionist, socialist nature of the
Indian economy up until then” (Muralidhar, 2011). But on the contrary, agrarian reforms were
not deliberately accepted by all as the agricultural growth has significantly drop from 4.69%
(1991) to 2.06% in 1997.
For an instance, Andhra Pradesh‟s farmers before liberalization had an access to seeds
from government institutions and had its own seeds produced with assured high quality. But with
liberalization, country‟s seed markets were opened to international agricultural enterprises like
Monsanto and Cargill and following IMF‟s preconditions of adopting deregulation terminated
the seed processing in 24 to just 14 units. This has lead to increase seed prices as well as
unregulated market. Anticipating higher yields, the farmers invested much on seeds that are
genetically modified because of its promising gains. Opposite to the expectation it has yield
lower than promised. Production has not been proportion to heavy investment in seeds that has
left the farmers in greater debt. Deregulation and infusing competition through fewer barriers to
entry in seed markets had allowed for less quality and abundant availability of fake seeds that led
to crop failures. In addition of IMF‟s precondition is the devaluation of Rupee – India‟s
currency. It has led to cheaper agricultural products of India to the world therefore making it
look attractive to global market. This has encouraged farmers to grow a mix of traditional crops

5. and cash crops that are export oriented. Thus, it needs more inputs than traditional crops require
like insecticides, fertilizers and water. Policies had lessened subsidies on pesticides therefore
inflation on pesticide and fertilizer prices. Along with it is the increase in electricity tariff which
originally is also subsidized. A need for faster harvest and production has increased cost of
production – needed more water and water pumps therefore higher consumption of electricity.
Opening India‟s market and entirely getting rid of import restrictions has allowed for surplus in
imports which pressured prices of domestic products to lower (even with higher production cost)
(Muralidhar, 2011).
Evidently, globalizing India has made the country a service oriented one and has
neglected its agricultural aspect. Low cost and skilled labourers had made India competitive
worldwide. (Business, Investment, Sourcing and Manufacturing in India, 2012). Indeed, a
service oriented country that gives focus on the outsourcing, software and call centres industry
has helped in the booming of its own economy (EconomyWatch Content, 2010). However,
many believe that process of globalization in India has contributed to the rising disparity between
the poor and the rich– those who only benefits are the skilled and educated citizens
(Globalization and Poverty, 2012).
Widening gap between the poor and rich as just one of the many offshoots of social
changes occurring in India has resulted to the rising movements against LPG (Liberalization,
Privatization and Globalization) in the country. Save the Nation, Build the Nation Campaign
(Desh Bachao, Desh Banao Abhiyan) has been advocated by the National Alliance of People‟s
Movement (Nilsen, 2007). It is one specific manifestation of citizens‟ greater political
participation. The movement‟s campaign aims to fight for the right of the marginalized and
deprived people. It desires for a new set of policies that will promote alternative development
with “equality, justice and sustainability as value goals and suitable technology, democratic
planning and cooperative enterprises as the means” (National Alliance of People's Movements,
2003). NAPM is a continuous battle of the people versus corruption, suppressed rights, caste
system and communalism. It adheres for social equity and secularism. It fights against anti-
people politics and economy wherein citizens‟ needs and demands are not articulated or is
opposed to. The National Alliance of People‟s Movement is composed of two hundred different
kinds of movements in the country. It unifies struggles of different marginalized sections

6. affirming “people‟s right to life and livelihood and primacy to community ownership of natural
resources” (National Alliance of People's Movement [NAPM], 2003).
The campaign “Save the Nation, Build the Nation Campaign” started in Kerala to protest
against the factory of Coca-Cola in the place. This protest symbolizes a struggle against
globalization. The campaign crossed through 19 states and concluded in Ayodhya. Women,
children, farmers and workers in marginalized sectors originally had to defend and support their
lives and livelihood on their own but with the establishment of the movement; it had empowered
the marginalized sectors of the country. It had allowed the masses to challenge the government,
its processes and acts. As they are supported by artists, intellectuals and professionals that are
voluntarily willing to be part of a transformative movement – towards a casteless decentralized
system as well as the use of appropriate technology. The social movement had given power to
the people. Farmers, farm labourers, fisher folks, Dalits (the untouchables) had fought for their
right to land, water, forest and other resources (National Alliance of People's Movement
[NAPM], 2003).
In conclusion, indeed, globalization entwined in it is the neoliberal policies have made
India competitive worldwide. However, being competitive to the rest of the world is not enough
in order to claim that a country is better off than yesterday. The rise of new social movements
(NSMs) had allowed the citizens as part of the civil society to be watchdogs of the activities of
the government. Likewise, all the concerns and demands of the citizens will be heard as well as
they can perform their task of checks and balances. Indeed, India owned one of the world‟s
fastest growing economies nevertheless its progress as country per se cannot be concluded if
internal issues are still the major barrier or hinder in its true development.
Bibliography:
AZAD India Foundation. (2010). Poverty in India. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from AZAD
India Foundation : http://www.azadindia.org/social-issues/poverty-in-india.html

7. Berrebi, D. (n.d.). Tackling poverty in India. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from Poverties.org:
http://www.poverties.org/poverty-in-india.html
Business, Investment, Sourcing and Manufacturing in India. (2012). Retrieved September 25,
2012, from INDIA - BUSINESS GUIDELINES: http://www.business-in-
asia.com/countries/india3.html
EconomyWatch Content. (2010, April 5). India Economic Development. Retrieved September
25, 2012, from Economy watch: follow the money:
http://www.economywatch.com/indianeconomy/india-development.html
Globalization and Poverty. (2012, May 18). Retrieved September 25, 2012, from Business maps
of India: http://business.mapsofindia.com/globalization/poverty.html
Goyal, K. (2006). Impact of Globalization on Developing Countries (with special reference to
India). Retrieved September 23, 2012, from
http://www.eurojournals.com/IRJFE%206%20goyal.pdf
Heyzer, N. (2008, March 28). Addressing the neglect of agriculture in Asia and the Pacific.
Retrieved September 21, 2012, from United Nations ESCAP:
http://www.unescap.org/oes/opeds/2008/Agriculture-in-Asia.html
Muralidhar, B. M. (2011, December). Globalization and Its Impact on Indian Agriculture: A
study of farmer's suicides in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Retrieved September 23, 2012, from
http://pactu.edu.np/downloads/njpg/dec-
2011/2__b_v_muralidhar_d_m_mamatha_g_stanley_jayakumar_roseline_mary__globalization_
and_its_impact_on_indian_agricu.pdf
National Alliance of People's Movement [NAPM]. (2003, March 30). Ayodhya Declaration -
National People's Agenda. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from http://www.napm-
india.org/sites/default/files/Ayodhya_Declaration_FINAL.pdf
National Alliance of People's Movements. (2003, January 25). Desh Bachao Desh Banao
Abhiyan. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from Friends of River Narmada (Save the Nation, Build

8. the Nation Campaign): http://www.narmada.org/nba-press-releases/january-
2003/invitedbdb.html
Nayar, B. R. (2006). India's Globalization: Evaluating the Economic Consequences. Retrieved
September 23, 2012, from
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/3523/PS022.pdf?sequence=1
Nilsen, A. G. (2007, December). On New Social Movements and 'Reinvention of India'.
Retrieved September 26, 2012, from Academia.edu:
http://uib.academia.edu/AlfGunvaldNilsen/Papers/381160/On_New_Social_Movements_and_th
e_Reinvention_of_India
Richardson, P. (2002, June). New Science, Technology and Innovation Developments in India .
Retrieved September 19, 2012, from
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/sstp_strata_workshop_session1_richardson.pdf
Singh, M. S. (2011, August 27). IMPACT OF NEOLIBERALISM ON INDIAN POLITY.
Retrieved September 23, 2012, from SocialSciences.in:
http://www.socialsciences.in/article/impact-neoliberalism-indian-polity
Taylor, G. (2010). Complex Powers: Beyond the Panopticon? In G. Taylor, The New Political
Sociology (p. 47). UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
Verma, Shilp. (2007, May). Rethinking tribal development:Water Management Strategies for
Revitalizing tribal agriculture in Central India . Retrieved September 21, 2012, from Water
Policy Briefing: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/WPB27.pdf