India and resistance to globalisation

India has a long history of global connections, not all of them good. Under colonial rule, India exported raw materials like cotton and bought finished goods like cloth from Britain, an exchange that made Britain rich and India poor.

So after independence, India chose protectionism: it shielded its industries from foreign competition and built them up at home, with the state in charge. This brought some self-reliance, but also slow growth, and spending on health, housing and primary education was neglected.

In 1991, a financial crisis (India almost ran out of foreign currency) forced a change. India began economic reforms: it opened up to foreign trade and foreign investment and reduced state controls. Its economy has grown much faster since.

Resistance to globalisation comes from both political sides:

• Left-wing critics say it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and weakens the state's ability to protect the poor.
• Right-wing critics worry about the state losing power and about the loss of traditional culture and values.

Many of these movements are not against globalisation as an idea. They oppose a particular programme of it: one that, they say, serves big companies over people.

Worldwide, protests broke out at the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. The World Social Forum brings together critics of neoliberal globalisation; its first meeting was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2001 (and one was held in Mumbai in 2004).

In India, resistance has come from left parties, the Indian Social Forum, trade unions of industrial workers, and farmers. People opposed foreign companies taking patents on plants like neem, which Indians had used for centuries. The political right objected on cultural grounds, for example to foreign TV channels and to Valentine's Day.

The real test of globalisation is whether its benefits are shared widely.