The expectations raised by the analysis are shattered by the
self-imposed constraint of only mapping the conjunctures in their
present
Among the many challenges that globalisation has thrown
up is one relating to the very understanding of the process itself. The
early euphoria about a virtual world where distance is dead and all
thinking is global has long faded as we remain rooted in national and
even sub-national concerns like the sharing of Cauvery waters. At the
same time the alternative view that globalisation can, and must, be
stopped has also lost some of its intensity with the anti-globalisation
protests themselves becoming global.
In confronting
this lack of clarity with a mix of theoretical innovation and empirical
evidence from the Indian experience, this collection of essays addresses
an important need even if it does not go far enough in breaking out of
the straitjacket Indian social scientists find us in.
Bhupinder
Brar’s introduction brings out the theoretical challenge quite
succinctly. He outlines the two seemingly opposing extreme views of the
‘hyperglobalists’ and the ‘sceptics’, pointing out their methodological
similarity in trying to reduce globalisation to an abstract model. He
then introduces the term globality, only to find its different meanings
are not without their own difficulties in coming up with definite
answers to the questions of globalisation.
Conjunctures
Brar
tries to get out of these constraints by challenging the need for such
clearly determined answers. Falling back on Althusser’s concept of
overdetermination he prefers to focus on conjunctures that emerge “from a
constellation of complex and indeterminate relationships in which it
was impossible to maintain the dichotomous distinction between ‘the
cause’ and ‘the caused’”.
While this approach helps bring on board the
exceptions thrown up by specific models, it is not without its costs.
“The possibilities of a conjuncture unfold in a largely uncharted
territory so that we cannot infer from its present any definitive
indications of its future … All that we can do by way of meaningful
research is map, to the degree it is possible, the conjuncture
in its present
”. The map that emerges in India is peppered with stories of resistance, relocation, and reinvention.
The
eight other contributions to this book are predominantly empirical
mappings of how globalisation has played itself out in India. The focus
of the articles is quite diverse ranging from Aditya Nigam imagining the
global nation to Pampa Mukherjee’s more specific history of
Uttarakhand’s development dreams; from Janaki Srinivasan’s analysis of
the role of global forums in India’s development debate to Kumool Abbi’s
story of globality and the reinvention of Punjabi cinema.
Each
of the contributions is marked by a consistent degree of detail and
sophistication. Whether it is the making of overseas citizens or the
CPI(M)’s dilemmas with globalisation, the analyses are marked by
insights that demand serious reading.
And yet the
very expectations that are raised by the depth of the analysis are
shattered by the self-imposed constraint of doing no more than mapping
the conjunctures in their present. Even in contributions where important
issues are gone into in considerable detail there is a tendency, more
often than not, to arrive at conclusions that do not appear entirely
worthy of the authors’ insights.
This would be true
even of some of the more insightful pieces in this volume. Building on
Bhupinder Brar’s elucidation in the introduction on how Indians have
faced globality with resistance, relocation and reinvention, Neera
Chandhoke brings the results on an extensive survey to bear on the
relationship between globality, the state and collective imagination.
This takes her through a series of interesting individual insights into,
among other things, the role of the state. But when it comes to
stringing these insights together to point to an alternative analysis
she goes no further than listing three cautions: against
over-generalised abstract notions of the state, against notions of a
‘global community’; and against assigning an exaggerated role to civil
society. Important as these cautions are, we cannot help wishing for at
least some pointers to where the Indian state is headed.
This
excessive caution in the conclusions may be academically safe, but it
also reflects an implicit methodological choice that is not always above
board. It implies that it is preferable not to point to a possible,
even likely, truth rather than take the slightest risk of being
considered wrong by the current members of the academic community. While
this may be an excellent choice for an individual seeking academic
credentials, it can reduce the output of academia as a whole to a set of
statements of little value.
With academics waiting for the perfect
answer and globalisation developing a momentum of its own, the burden of
reacting to this process has fallen on those who cannot afford to wait.
The bureaucrat responding to a global trade crisis or the media
entrusted with reporting it in real time are often forced to do the best
they can. This is often less than a well-researched response to
processes that have a significant impact on diverse parts of the
country.
Facing Globality
appears to treat this reality as an inevitable consequence of academic
rigour. But there are other methods of social analysis, especially those
that focus on processes rather than systems, that would beg to differ.
And the longer Indian social science stays away from that methodological
debate the greater is the danger of its sliding into irrelevance.
