Synopsis of My Research Work on Strategic Dimensions of Sino-US Relations on South Asian Securiy in the Post cold war Period

SYNOPSIS

Strategic Dimensions of Sino-US Relations on South Asian Security
in the Post Cold war Period

ANIL KUMAR. P.

Introduction

Both the United States and China are going to walk a tight rope, balancing each other's interests and priorities. China is a growing world economic power with its threefold theory and market socialism and its conflicting and strategic relationship with US constitute a new era in international politics in the post cold war phase. In the absence of a core conflict in international system, regional security dynamics have assumed greater importance. In the post cold war period while some regions have undergone peaceful change, others have experienced unprecedented conflict. Since 1990, South Asia has been in the news for a number of reasons. Since 1990, South Asia has been in the news for a number of reasons. Security concerns, problems of economic reforms, political instability, democratization, ethnic conflicts regional conflict and co-operation, the nuclear tests of May 1998 and the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in the summer of 1999, all these have made the region a turbulent zone over the past decade. The US and China are two major powers having considerable influence over the region. Their divergent interests in the area have very much significance regarding the security of South Asia. Terrorism, nuclearisation and the South Asian powers engagement with it provided a realm of strategic relationship and the security concerns of South Asia connected with it assumes a special significance.

Statement of the Problem

In this era of globalization, inevitably Washington and Beijing are moving towards strategic competition and great power rivalry. In this context there exists a question that whether this power rivalry and conflicts can be peacefully managed or not. As economy and military strength are the two major factors behind the power consolidation Sino-US Relations are analysed on the basis of this. It is necessary to find out problems and prospects related to it. China is considered by US as a competitor and a potential regional rival at the same time it is a trading partner willing to co-operate with the US in certain areas including containment of terrorism. Taiwan issue, US surveillance activities in the South China Sea, issues related to Human Rights etc constitute problems in Sino-US relations. The impact of Sino-US relations and its implications up on the security of South Asia is a significant factor in the context that the strategic allies of both these powers in South Asia going to face a dilemma in their attitude towards these nations. India's growing relations with United States and China's strong and continuing relationship with Pakistan create a new phase regarding South Asian Security. Nuclear explosions, arms race and conflicts between India and Pakistan and both United States and China's attitude towards it constitute an important factor. Obviously the balance of South Asian security is mainly depended up on these nations.
Will the US avoid the error of abandoning Afghanistan after its goal of ridding the region of AlQueda is met? Will it remain engaged sufficiently with Pakistan to help restructure that country's domestic institutions and its external priorities? These are important questions in this specific context of study. India's co-operation with United States in National Missile Defence and China's nexus with Pakistan also creates a problematique area in South Asian security. To what extent economic relations between US and China and both them have with South Asia can provide an adequate basis for not only reducing tensions but also promoting increased co-operation is also a matter of doubt. It may be noted that during 1956-1973 China's ties with India were at the lowest ebb. Nearly 20% of China's total world aid was targeted to the other South Asian countries with Pakistan receiving 13.1%, Sri Lanka 3.5%, and Nepal 2.9%. On the basis of this historical fact the present situation wanted a thorough and deep study regarding Sino-US relations and South Asian Security.

Significance of the Study

China's experiment with "Market Socialism" provide a strong economic base to China and now it is growing as a world power. It is viewed by the scholars as a great threat to Untied States and its hegemony. Because in South East Asia and South Asia they have divergent and conflicting interests and both these nations are in different position regarding certain international issues. United States arms sales to Taiwan, their surveillance activities in South China Sea and different issues regarding human rights etc constitute problems between China and United States. As having a powerful influence over South Asia by both these nations, the relationship between both creates some security issues. Any problem in bilateral relationship of both these nations and its impact up on South Asia which was an important component of the world, boasting as it does a vast land area of five million square km and 1-3 billion diligent and talented people will endanger the whole security of the world. The future of South Asian security and both these nations ties with the region will depend largely on the continued diplomatic skills and policy orientations that actors exhibit in the months and years ahead. In this context the study about strategic-economic dimensions of Sino-US relations and its impact up on the security of South Asia is a contemporary one and having so much significance in the era of globalization.

Objectives of the Study

1. To analyse the military dimensions of Sino-US relations and its problems and prospects in the post cold war era.
2. To find out the divergent interests of US and China in South Asia and to analyse how it will affect the region, especially in the context of the nuclear experiments of India and Pakistan.
3. To understand the attitude and perception of political forces in India and Pakistan towards the impact on the Sino-US relations and its impact on South Asia.
4. To trace the future prospects in bilateral relations and the future of South Asian Security

Hypothesis

On the basis of the above-mentioned objectives following hypothesis can be formulated.
1. Divergent strategic competition and power rivalry between US and China can redefine the security concerns in South Asia.
2. The attitude and perception of political forces in India and Pakistan towards the impact on US-China relations and its impact on South Asia is an important factor in shaping the future Sino-US relations.
3. Diverging interests of US and China in India and Pakistan may compelled them to the redefinition of their security concerns in South Asia.
4. The strategic allies of both US and China in South Asia are now in a dilemma in their attitude towards these super powers because of the mutual suspect, historical estrangements and conflicting interests. Their ties with these powers and vice-versa will depend on largely on the continued diplomatic skills and policy orientations that actors exhibit in the era of globalization.

Methodology

Methodology adopted for the will be a combination of historical, analytical and empirical. The data will be drawn from primary and secondary sources. Primary data are collected from the publications of MEA, speeches and policy statements of the leaders of the different nations and interview with diplomats, leaders, scholars, journalists etc. Books, Journals, Periodicals, News papers etc will be used as secondary source. Internet sources will also be consulted.

Plan of Work

1) Theoretical framework
2) Sino-US Relations and south Asian Security: A Historical background
3) Strategic and military dimensions of Sino-US relation in the post cold war era
4) Sino-US Relations and South Asian Security: Perspectives of India and Pakistan
5) Sino-US Relations and South Asian Security in the Changing Context
6) Major Findings and Conclusion

INDIA AND US: FROM ESTRANGEMENT TO ENGAGEMENT

INDIA AND US: FROM ESTRANGEMENT TO ENGAGEMENT

(Anil Kumar P*)

The end of the cold war freed India-US relations from the constraints of global bipolarity, but interactions continued for a decade to be affected by the burden of history, most notably the longstanding India- Pakistan rivalry and nuclear weapons proliferation in the region. Recent years, however have witnessed a sea change in bilateral relations, with more positive interactions becoming the norm. India’s swift offer of full support for US led counter terrorism operations after September11, 2001 was widely viewed as a reflective of such change. The recent agreement titled New Frame work for the US-India Defense Relationship signed by our Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee on June 28, 2005 and the joint statement issued by the two countries during the time of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to US tell us the fact that India-US relations are ‘transforming and forging a strategic partnership’

A number of independent developments carrying together have created the climate for the transformation of our ties. To begin with, the end of cold war and the consequent rearrangement of interstate ties allowed both India and the US to revisit their relationship and redefine it to address contemporary opportunities and challenges.

Second, this exercise in reassessment would not have had the same value and results if India had remained economically stagnant. Instead, fifteen years of reform and a growing integration with global process has made India a dynamic force with still greater potential for the future. United States looks at enormous economic profits. India has a population of more than 1 billion, which means a big market. India has already become the third largest economy in Asia after Japan and China. It is believed that cooperation with India in the economic field is of vital importance for the United States to maintain it’s superpower status(Zhang Lijun 2005: p-12)

Third, the “China factor” is a strong boost to US- India relations. A US think-tank Carnege Endowment for International Peace , recently issued a report on the US agenda with regard to the rising power of India namely India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States. This report pointed out that considering India will possess a potential developing ability in the next 20 to 25 years, the Bush administration should help the country become an Asian super power that could counterbalance China[1].

The more pressing issues also contributed to clearer understanding of our shared interests. Global threats today emanate from nation states bent on aggrandisement and more from trans-national non-state actors. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction(WMD) proliferation, pandemics, natural disaster and illegal narcotics are some examples of problems that can only be addressed through greater global cooperation. No single state, however strong, can bear global burden alone. Naturally in forging new partnerships, countries that share common values and now perceive common interests as well would come together. Finally the image of India in the United States has undergone a radical change, associated as it is with a successful and professionally prominent Indian community. Similarly, the opening of the Indian economy also encouraged India’s civil society to expand its interactions with the United States.

India and US Since 1982:From Estranged to Engaged Democracies

It is worth noting that the ‘transformation’ in India- US relations emerged from a fairly long process. The origin can be traced clearly back to Indira Gandhi’s interest in a more constructive and flexible relationship with Washington as early as 1982. She had an eye to India’s economic development and its access to sorely needed technology to modernize Indian production(Kanti Bajpai 2005:p.3577). After her death, Rajiv Gandhi took the process forward. His state visit to the US in 1985 resulted in a greater defense cooperation between the two and in particular the sale of defense equipments(Kanti Bajpai 2005:p3577).With the end of cold war, it was Nara Simha Rao who took the next major steps towards a close relationship with the US. His concerns were primarily economic in the wake of India’s financial crisis of 1990-‘91. Fall of Soviet Union also accelerated the process. But the links were broken at the time when India conducted its nuclear tests in 1998. The next milestone in India-US relationship was the Jaswant Singh Strobe Talbot talks that were held from 1999-2001.

When George W Bush came to power in January 2001, among the strategic statements he made was that he sought a much closer relationship with India. He extolled India’s democracy and publicly declared his administrations interest in cultivating India. It was no secret that he and his security advisers regarded China as a possible counterweight. The NDA government responded with enthusiasm. Perhaps the clearest expression of the Indian governments interest in a new relationship was its support to the Bush administrations controversial decision to build missile defense and its hope that India would be partner in missile defense initiative. India’s turn towards Washington increased dramatically after the events of September 11, 2001. the NDA government immediately offered the US virtually any military help it might require in responding to the attacks on the American mainland.

This brief survey of India-US relations reveals the following things.

· First, as noted earlier, India and US have been engaged in a fitful but rather steady rapprochement for over two decades interrupted only briefly by the nuclear tests of 1998.
· Second, on both the Indian and US side. In India, each of the three major formations- the Congress, the BJP and the Third Front have been involved in deepening the engagement.
· Third, every Indian government has tried to work with the US on nuclear matters.
· Fourth, stronger military-to-military links has been pursued by every Indian government since Narasimha Rao. After september11, 2001 these links have included regular intelligence sharing, particularly in respect of terrorism

Next Step in Strategic Partnership (NSSP)

George W. Bush resolved, prior to assuming his office in January 2001 that his administration would alter the character of this important bilateral relationship in order to permanently entrench the large, vibrant and successful democracy that is India in the ranks of US friends and allies. In Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India’s Prime Minister at that time, Bush found a perfect partner- statesman, who equally weary of a history of US-Indian antagonism and strongly inclined to regard the United States and India as “natural allies”[2]. From 2001-2003, the courtship between the United States and India grew in ardor and expectations. Thanks to a series of breakthroughs in bilateral, diplomatic collaborations. This paved the way for Bush administration’s major first- term diplomatic achievement- Next Step in Strategic Partnership(NSSP). This agreement, which was announced in January 2004, drew its inspiration from the Bush –Vajpayee joint statement of November 2001[3]. NSSP was heralded as a breakthrough in US -Indian strategic collaboration. Since 2001, the Indian government has pressed the United States to ease restrictions on the export to India of dual-use-high technology goods, as well as to increase in civilian nuclear and space cooperation. These three key issues came to be known as the trinity and top Indian officials stated that progress in these areas was necessary to provide tangible evidences of a changed US- India relationship(K Alan Kranstadt 2005:p14.). There were later reference to a “quartet” when the issue of missile defense was included. In late 2003, Secretary of State Powell asserted that progress was being made on the “glide path” towards agreement on the “trinity” issues. NSSP declared in January 2004, indicating that the US-India “Strategic Partnership” includes expanding cooperation in these areas as well as expanding dialogue on Missile Defense. But some nongovernmental US experts believe that although India is not regarded as a proliferators of sensitive technologies, US obligations under existing law may limit significantly the scope of NSSP engagement. (K Alan Kranstadt 2005:p14.).

The New Frame Work

In June, 2005 US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and visiting Indian Defense Minister Pranab Muakherjee singed a ten year India-US military cooperation agreement namely New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship. The new frame work defines some key political principles agreed on by both sides, a set of common interest , a plan of action, and an institutional frame work to advance those interests. In the service of these interests, the two countries pledge to implement 13 measures, these measures are rendered in a long list in the agreement, but they can be arrange in four areas of what we could called capacity building.

Cognitive capacity building
· Conduct exchanges on defense strategy and defense transformation
· Increase in flow of intelligence information
· Deepen security discussion between the two sides

Hardware capacity building
· Expand defense trade between India and the US
· Increase opportunities for technology transfer, collaboration, cooperation and research and development.
· Expand missile defense collaboration

Capacity building in bilateral security.
· Joint and combined exercise and exchanges
· Strengthen their military capabilities in respect of security and terrorism.
· Improve capacities to deal with proliferation
· Improve the responses of their militaries to disaster situations.

Capacity building for multilateral security.
· Cooperate in multi national operations
· Interact with third countries to ensure regional and global peace.
· Help to build peace keeping capacities world wide.

Finally the document outlines the institutional architecture within which they will cooperate more intensively. This includes the continuation of the Defense Policy Group(DPG) and the establishment of a Defense Procurement and Production Group and a Defense Joint Working Group. The DPG is the “primary mechanism to guide the US-India strategic defense relationship”. The Procurement and Production group will “oversee defense trade, as well as prospects for co production and technology collaboration”. The Joint Working Group will serve as a review committee which will measure progress in the various groups and subgroups twice a year.

The Nuclear Deal.

The recent Indo-US nuclear deal is a remarkable progress in India-US relationship. As part of the nuclear deal with the US, India has agreed to identify and separate all civilian and military nuclear facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguard regime[4]. The successful implementation of the deal would depend on how the US view India’s plan for separation of facilities as well as its commitment to compliance with an additional protocol. Recently, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made the reassuring statement that work on separating India’s civilian military nuclear facilities was at a fairly advanced stage(Ashwin Kumar2005:p-5530).Since 1978, US law requires that US nuclear exports to states that were not NPT recognised nuclear weapon states could not be authorised unless they have full scope of safeguards on all peaceful nuclear activities(Ashwin Kumar 2005:p-5530). India is a non Nuclear Weapon State under the NPT and also according to US law, and therefore this condition applies to it. To accomplish the goals mentioned in the deal, India needs to place all its nuclear facilities not directly associated with nuclear weapons production or deployment under safeguards. India has many civil nuclear facilities in this category (David Albright and Susan Basu 2005:p-1). What ever the nature of safeguard agreements implemented between India and the IAEA, they would not be full scope since India would continue to refrain unsafe guarded military facilities. Therefore, Nuclear cooperation on a continued basis would require changes to US laws (Ashwin Kumar 2005:p-5530). Critics argued that in order to realise the deal between India and US, a long way to go ahead.

Energy Security

The countries existing annual – crude oil production is peaked at about 32 million tonnes as against the current peak demand of about 110 million tonne. With inadequate crude production, the country is heavily dependent on imports. In the current scenario, India’s oil consumption by end of 2007 is expected to reach 136 million tonne (MT), of which domestic production will be only around 34 MT. India will have to pay an oil bill roughly 50 billion, assuming a weighted average price of $50 per barrel of crude. In 2003-’04 against total expert of $64 billion, oil imports accounted for $21 billion. If net invisible receipts are also included, then against a total receipt of around $90 billion, India paid out 23.33 percent of the receipts for import of petroleum crude and products. This is a crucial situation. Thanks to the present nuclear agreement between India TVS has a larger energy rationale, that should not be overlooked. Our foreign secretary stated that, “you must bear in mind that India and US are engaging not just on one element of the energy mix, we are exploring on clean coal technologies, on exploitation of coal-bed methane and gas hydrates, as carbon sequestration and on the hydrogen economy. To believe that civil nuclear energy is unimportant because it constitutes only 3% of India’s current energy production betrays a lack of understanding of our energy requirements and their emission implications. Civil nuclear energy currently limited precisely because of technology denial. If freed from current restrictions, there is little doubt that it will rapidly move into percentage of double digits. India is today partnering the US almost every international initiative on various aspects of energy. The US is contributing to our economic growth and we too are bringing our technology skills to the table. Our collaboration can help ease the growing pressures on the global energy market, where oil consumption has gone up four-fold over the last century. In most areas, market forces are driving transactions, but regulatory restrictions are blocking normal commerce in civil nuclear energy and must be addressed if India is to be a long-term partner. Ironically, continued technology denial targets the very reform-minded and forward thinking constituency in India that is in forefront of advocating a closer Indo-US partnership.

Conclusion

The texture and content of the present Indo-US exchanges are indicative of a constructive and robust bilateral engagement, potentially directed towards partnership-building based on “increasingly overlapping national interests”. The priority shift from non-proliferation to trade and commerce, terrorism, energy, security, regional security and stability and producting democracy, has helped to bridge the gap between the world’s largest and oldest democracies.

The equation between key officials in the present UPA government audits counterparts in the Bush Administration will be crucial in maintaining the direction momentum of India-US ties and forging ahead with a more robust relationship. Although the replacement of Colin Powell by Cardoleeza Rice as the US Secretary of State indicates the possibility of better bilateral ties given her stance on India.[5] In areas like Trade & Commerce, Counter-terrorism, energy, security, information technology etc. the interests of US and India is converging. India’s growth in the economic field and “China Cord” of US is boosting India-US relationship in an unconventional manner.

Considering the new stakes involved in the recently transformed relations and the prevailing atmosphere of prudence, neither country would be willing to jeopardize their new-found relationship. However, commitment and sensitivity towards each other’s national security interests will go a long way in concretizing and giving a definitive shape to this relationship.


* Anil Kumar P is a Research Scholar in the Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram. anil.sopanam@yahoo.com , anilanchal@gmail.com

Notes
[1] “ India As a New Global Powere: An Action Agenda for the United States” was a report published by Carnage Endowment for International Peace-a think tank in Washington DC. Author of the report is Ashley J Tellis and published in March 2005.
[2] “India, USA and the World”, Remarks by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the Asia Society, New York, September 28, 1998, available at www.asiasociety.org/speches/vajpayee.html.
[3] “ Joint Statement between the United States of America and the Republic of India”, November 9,2001, available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011109-10.html
[4] Joint Statement between President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, office of the President, see the whitehouse, July18, 2005
[5] As the main foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush Jr. in the 2000 Presidential Campaign, Condoleezza Rice argued in an article published in Foreign Affairs that the “US should pay closer attention to India’s role in the regional balance. There is a strong tendency conceptually in the US to connect India with Pakistan and to think only to Kashmir or the nuclear competition between the two states. But India is an element in China’s calculation, and it should be in America’s too. India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one.” Quoted in C. Raja Mohan, “For New Delhi, It is as Good as it Gets: Rice as Secy of State”, The Indian Express, November 17, 2004; Chidananda Rajghatta, “Rice Good on India’s Plate”, The Times of India, November 16, 2004.


References
§ Michael Mastandune. September 2005. “US Foreign Policy and Pragmatic Use of International Institutions”. Asian Journal of International Affairs: 59(3).
§ Zhang Lijun. 2005. “Are the US and India Partners Again”. Beijing Review. 48 (31).
§ Sidharth Varada Rajan. 2005. “US Non-Proliferation group ups the ante with draft separation Plan, The Hindu, Dec. 21.
§ Kanti Bajpai. 2005. “Where are India and the US Heading”. Economic and Political Weekly. XL (32).
§ Achin Vanaik. 2005. “Significance of Framework Agreement on Defence”. Economic and Political Weekly. XL (32).
§ Varghese Koithara. 2005. India-US Defense Co-operation, Expectations and Prospects”.
§ Sukumar Muralidharan 2005. “Partnership and its Discontents”. Economic and Political Weekly. XL (32).
§ Ashwin Kumar. 2005. “Indo-US Nuclear Deal”. Economic and Political Weekly. XL (53).
§ Douglas Jehl. 2005. “Bush had Saudi, Pak in evil lisk: Book”. The New Indian Express. TVM. October 14.
§ Venu Rajamany. 2002. India-China-US Triangle: A Soft Balance of Power System in the Making. CSIS available in www.csis.org/saprog/venu.pdf.
§ Babini Mishra. 2005. “India-US Relations”: A Paradigm Shift”, Strategic Analysis, 29(1) IDSA. New Delhi.
§ David Albrigh and Susan Basu. 2005. Separating Indian Military and Civilian Nuclear Facilities” – a report published by Institute of Science and International Security, Washington DC.
§ Ashey J. Tellis. 2005. “India as a New Global Power” a report published by Carnege Endowment for International Peace. Washington DC. available from http://www.carnegeendourment.org/file/Telli-India.globalpowerfinal.pdf.
§ Shyam Shran. 2005. “Transforming India-US Relations: Building a Strategic Partnership” A talk in carnage endowment for international peace available from www.carnegeendowment.org.
§ G. Balachandran. 2005. “Indo-US Relation A Paradigm Shift”. Strategic Analysis. 29(2). IDSA. New Delhi.
§ Shelley Vishwajeet. 2005. “Oil Slick”, The New Indian Express, January 31.
§ K. Alan Kronstadt. 2005. India-US Relations. CRS Issue Brief for Congress – Congressional Research Service. No.IB93097 available from the website of Congressional Research Service.

State,Development and Marginalised Sections

STATE, DEVELOPMENT AND MARGINALISED SECTIONS:
Changing Paradigm of State Intervention.

Anil Kumar. P*

(Paper presented at the UGC Sponsored Seminar on Environment, Growth and Human Development in Kerala: Consensus and Contention organised by Department of Political Science, S.N. College, Alapuzha on 27-28 February 2006.)

Globalisation is seen as a process of integration of markets, nation – states, and technological progress. But it is also seen as a deliberate project of economic liberalisation that subjugates states and individuals to more intense market forces. Now globalisation become a major force in controlling not only the economic spheres, but also the political, social and cultural spheres (Thorat and Macwan 2005:253). Globalisation entails two main changes one it involves liberalisation of international trade, allowing relatively free flow of goods and services, capital, information and technology between the countries, second, it also involves a change in the economic structures of individual countries based on private economy with more reliance on markets. The second feature necessarily involves the withdrawal of the state or minimum role of the state in economic and social governance of the economy. So privatisation of economy, channelising the economic activities through private markets, with minimum role of the state, and relatively free international trade are the key features of the new economic order. So the attempt at universalising western ‘development’ experience through IMF – World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) stimulates serious concerns from the vantage point of the role of the state, development and marginalised sections.
Development Debate and Role of the State
The very concept of development appears in close connection with the emergence of capitalism and critique of feudal society (Larrain 1989:2). During the age of competitive capitalism (1700-1860), it began to expand all over the world. It was Adam Smith who developed the ideas that are today understood to be the rudiments of capitalism. In his book The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith advocated the principle of laissez-faire, which demanded that the government should pursue no economic policy (Baradat 1997:86). Thus capitalism manifested the liberal notions and envisaged maximum freedom to individual and minimum control of the state.
During the 20th century wars, revolutions, depressions and strengthening of freedom movements in third world countries etc. altered the previous notion of development existed in classical and neo-classical age. The response to this crisis came in the form of the ‘Keynesian Revolution’ in the economic theory. Keynesianism reformed Adam Smith’s ideas and put forwarded redistributive taxation. In his historic essay The end of Laissez-Faire, Keyne’s argues in favour of giving the state more positive role in managing economy (Arblaster 1984:86).
By 1966 a new phase sets which is characterised by slowing down of economic growth and falling rate of profit in industrial nations. In fact the crisis of 1970s provided the context for the emergence of several political and ideological trends which competed each other in challenging and breaking up the consensus on welfare and the concept of development, characterising the growing public expenditure as the root cause of the fiscal crises. In short, the reaction against Keynesianism included shift towards monetarism, which prompted privatisation, shrinkage and closure of public sectors. Economists like Hayek and Milton Friedman propose to abolish controls and protectionist tariffs, cut down public expenditure and keep a tight monetary grip. Hayek, is probably the single most influential individual economist or political philosopher to shape what is now understood as neo-liberalism. He argued that the market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved.[1]
It was during the decade of 1980s that Hayek’s political and economic philosophy was used by the west to legitimate the neo-liberal attack on bureaucratic welfare state. Finally it resulted in the commercialisation and promote the concept of individual responsibilisation. In this political context the concept of decentralisation was vitiated by the advocates of neo-liberalism. Since no one can oppose the concept of decentralisation, the international financial institutions propagated it and imposed up on third world countries as loan conditionality from the IMF and World Bank and other similar institutions (K.G. Kumar 2004:16).
‘Growth’ or ‘Development’
Discussions on development mainly centre round economic growth and the extent of state intervention in economic activities. According to the classical economic tradition, development means economic growth with autonomous spaces for private initiative in production and exchange of commodities and with market as the ultimate arbiter of economic destiny (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Competition, pelf and profit became the propelling forces of all economic activities here. Consequently development gets commoditised and becomes a statistical category to be measured in terms of Gross National Product (GNP) and the like. On the other hand, various streams of the interventionist school, with differential emphasis on details, try to construct paradigms of development at the core of which is an absorbing concern for the distribution of social surplus generated by growth under the aegis of an interventionist state (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Percolating through these two broad theoretical spectrums is therefore the dichotomy as to whether development is a matter of goods or of people. Any genuine development approach has to grapple with this basic issue before carving out its forms and contours.
No doubt, developments becomes real only when it is fashioned around people, commodity fetishism and undue obsession with market make it distorted and myopic. So all important insights are missed if we continue to think of it mainly in quantitative terms and in those vast abstractions—like GNP, investment, savings, etc—which have their usefulness in the study of developed countries but have virtually no relevance to development problems as such (Schumacher 1993: 125). Contrawise development means : fulfilling the basic needs of the people, equipping them mentally and physically to meet life’s challenges successfully and blunting and beating into shape exploitative fringes of the society (J. Prabhash 1999: 237). This perspective raises certain ineluctable issues which ought to figure prominently in any serious discussion on development. Of these special mention should be made of the place of social justice in development, need for people’s participation in it, relationship between development and sustainable growth and the role of the state in the overall process of development.
Retreat of the State
By the 1980s neo-liberalism both as a political philosophy and policy mix has taken deep root. During that decade many governments around the world supported the modernising reforms—thrust of neo-liberalism, particularly the exposure of the state sector of completion and the opportunity to pay off large and accumulating national debts. By contract, many developing countries had structural adjustment policies imposed upon them as loans conditions from IMF and World Bank. A significant feature of this strategy as manifested through SAP has been the ‘roll back’ of the state from development and welfare measures. The entire state apparatus has been internally restricted through process of marketisation, privatisation and deregulation. At the same time, the military security, policing and prison arms of the state have been systematically bolstered as part of generalized militarization and civil protest. Thus, ‘strong’ state is an integral to the ‘free market’ of neo-liberalism (James 2003:101).
The emergence of participatory development as a key component in development strategy is directly related to this declining legitimacy of the state under neo-liberalism. The need to down size public sector and encourage private capital initiatives prompted donor agencies to call state led, planned and centralised model is a barrier to both ‘democracy’ and ‘development’. Attempts have also been made to redefine development as a participatory/ people centered process linking, into the cultural imperatives of the society. Here civil society has emerged as an autonomous expression capable of carrying out a whole set of development and welfare functions. Civil society activism and building up individual capabilities have been projected as essential aspects of developing an alternative to planned economic system (James 2003:101).
All these factors reveal that decentralisation is one of the main tools for establishing and redefining the role of the state, in the context of globalisation. The neo-liberal state of course is the replica bank of the laissez faire state. By replacing the state with Non Governmental Organisation (NGOs) and other non-state actors, the neo-liberals can use the decentralisation as an ideological tool for reconstructing politically vigilant society to a politically neutral. Thus decentralisation is a political weapon for ‘de-politicisation’ and an ideological means for ‘Cultural transformation’, conducive to flourishing of non-literal polices. In short the state and development is concerned a serious shift is occurred that is from state oriented development to an NGO/non-state actors oriented development.
Impact on Marginalised Sections
Under the regimes of state minimalism and market maximalism, the state has been rolling back from and curtailing social spending in precisely those fields impacting directly the living conditions of the poor and vulnerable (Kunhaman M. 2002:25). Higher education is perhaps the most illustrative example of this. Now higher education is reckoned s a non-merit (private) good, deserving no subsidy. Also it may be mentioned that there have been tectonic shifts of focus from humanities and social sciences to professional and technical courses, from processing to product and from knowledge to skill. The full-cost realisation involved necessarily limits higher education to those who can afford to pay. Naturally, marginalised sections such as women, dalits and adivasis are the worst affected. It may be noted, incidentally, that the increasing digital divides will create two types of people—one with unlimited opportunities for the rich and the upwardly mobile and another of the large majority of the poor and marginalised. The market led SAP has been displacing many process such as down-sizing, outsourcing, contract labour system, etc. Here again the marginalised sections are marginalised.
De reservation process has already started with the globalisation process as the result of privatisation. In order to overcome this defect strict regulations on market by the state is needed.
Multinational Corporations and Transnational Corporations can regulate the market than that of the state. The declining sovereignty of the state and it’s change from ‘social justice’ logo of development to ‘profit motive development’ again worsening the situation of the marginalised sections.
The globalisation and liberalisation process destroyed the traditional sectors were the marginalised sections were employed. 65% of Dalits in India were employed in the agriculture and allied sectors in 1991, where as the corresponding state average was only 48%. The vast majority is still tapped in low income manual labour activities. This reveals the weak economic basis on which their social welfare gains have been made.[2]
Increasing unemployment and failure of the state to provide minimum living conditions to the poor resulted in poverty deaths and suicides. Dalit and Adivasi movements in India and also in Kerala were occurred not because of their increasing consciousness of the contemporary social reality. More than that, it is because of the direct attack on their land, property and resources by the globalist market forces.
“New Social movements” were not adequate to resist the globalist forces and in protecting the interest of the marginalised sections. It is totally depoliticised in nature and these movements doesn’t have a view of ‘whole’, instead it looks on the ‘part’.
Due to the result of the changing State, the ‘development’ agenda is not formulated by the state. It is by the TNCs and MNCs. Their priorities are not the development of the marginalised sections, but to squeeze maximum profit from all the resources. Here the state has the role of a ‘facilitator’. So ‘growth with justice’ concept is eroded from the development dictionary of the state.
All the above analysis proved the fact that the role of the state is changed and it is retreating from all welfare activities. De reservation process through the globalisation, resource exploitation and mobilisation by TNCs and MNCs lead the marginalised sections to poverty, suicide etc. Affirmative action by the state have only enveloping presence. Increasing unemployment, destruction of the traditional and agricultural sectors again worsened their situation. Wrong priority determination and undemocratic non-state actors role in development process, and depoliticisation shattered the strength of mass movements. A conscious state effort is needed to solve the basic problem. What is needed is, as Jayant Kumar Chakravarty, Assamese short story write stated, “perhaps to see something, one needs, not eyes, but heart.”

Notes
* Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram. anil.sopanam@gmail.com
[1] But today Hayek argued that the “market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved. They were not the product of intelligent design; such social institutions, like their counterparts in physical world have evolved as spontaneously ordered institutions. The market, then, while the result of human actions over many generations, were not the result of human design.” See Michael Peters, “Neoliberalism”, http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPEDIA/neoliberalism.htm accessed on 30.07.2004
[2] See Approach Paper No. 2, International Congress on Kerala Studies organized by AKG Centre for Research and Kerala Studies, Thiruvananthapuram on December 9-11, 2005.

References
· Amin, Samir. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Arblaster, Antony. 1984. The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism. Oxford: Black well publishers.
· Harris, John. 2001. Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Delhi: Left Word.
· James, P.J. 2003. Political Economy of Participatory Development (Unpublished PhD. Thesis). School of International Relations. MG University, Kottayam.
· K.G. Kumar, Abhilsh. 2004. Neoliberalism, Decentralised Planning and Role of the State. A study of People’s Plan Campaign in Kerala (Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation), Thiruvananthapuram, University of Kerala.
· Kunhaman, M. 2002. Globalisation: A Subaltern Perspective. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Subaltern Studies.
· Larrain, Jorge 1989. Theories of Development, Cambridge: Polity Press.
· Narain Roy, Ash. 1999. The Third World in the Age of Globalisation. New York: Zed Books.
· Petras, James and Henry Veltmayer. 2001. Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Prabhash, J. 1999. “Development, Human Rights and the New ‘Liberal’ Agenda: A Third World Perspective” in B. Mohanan and P. Sukumaran Nair (eds). Quest for a Just World Order. Thiruvananthapuram: IDSA.
· Schumacher, E.F. 1993. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Vintage.
· Thorat, Sukhadeo and Martin Macwan. 2005. “Liberalisation and Dalits” in Bukhadeo Thorat, Aryama and Prashant Negi (eds.) Reservation and Private Sector: Quest for Equal opportunity and Growth, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
· Vivekanandan B. and Nimmi Kurian. 2005. Welfare States and the Future. New York: Palgrave.