The Hindu | By William Cortezia and Ajay Panicker | February 10, 2004
IN THESE times of globalisation, independent bilateral initiatives between nations are bound to be viewed with suspicion by the international community - especially so, if the two nations involved are big enough to be pivotal states. No wonder, then, that a report on the visit of the Brazilian President, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, was headlined "Lula seeks partnership to take on the West." However, the recent history of Brazil, Lula's accomplishments in his first year in office and a close reading of his statements during the India visit leave enough room for us to believe that he is attempting a constructive and positive, alternative enterprise and not an essentially oppositional one. In short, Lula was not seeking to take on the West; instead, he was attempting to focus on those aspects that the present model of globalisation does not address in India and Brazil. The theoretical underpinnings of the above-mentioned report come from an understanding of international politics as a zero sum game. This perspective, in turn, is informed by a certain dualistic notion or an "either/or" logic: if two countries come together, it has to be against a third country or formation. Lula's message, however, is quite the contrary: globalisation can be viewed in a more inclusive fashion. Countries can have policies made, not just in self-interest, but in mutual interest. And as Lula mentioned to Brazilian journalists in Rashtrapati Bhavan immediately after his arrival in New Delhi: "Emerging nations cannot sit and wait for beneficial concessions from the richer nations. Accords such as these should not substitute international relations with developed countries, but complement them."
Indeed, the success at Cancun set off high-voltage behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity between Brazil and India. Cancun was immediately followed by the India visit of the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorin, in October last year and another is planned in March this year. The eleventh United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is scheduled to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, later this year and it may see a return visit from the Indian Prime Minister. Lula has already mentioned that India and Brazil should take the lead in launching a general system of negotiations that will create the first step for an area of true free trade between its member-nations and other countries in development during the Sao Paulo conference. However, Lula's promise is not just economic - it is social and political as well.
Consider this: Brazil has a per capita income higher than India's, but India is projected to become the fourth largest economy by 2025 while Brazil, the eighth by then. However, the two countries share similar problems too: currently less than a quarter of the GDP in the two countries contribute to the sustainability of growth. Both suffer from high rates of poverty (70 million people in India and 50 million in Brazil). Both countries have hugely underdeveloped regions: the northern states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh in the case of India and the nine northeastern States of Brazil. Regardless, the truly shining aspect of both Brazil and India is that we have a massive young and emerging population between the age of 15 and 25. Needless to say, the future of the two countries lies in these 54 per cent youngsters (between 15 and 25) in India and 47 per cent Brazilians, who are of the same age. This is what Lula referred to as the changing commercial geography of the world.
Within this context, it is important to understand the lessons the two countries have for each other. Having survived a transition from military dictatorship to democracy in the late 1980s, Brazil got its first democratically elected president in 1990. A declared neo-liberal, the then President, Fernando Collor de Mello's initial days saw Brazil opening its doors to the developed world. The starry-eyed Mr. Collor de Mello put hope in Brazilians with the slogan, "Where does Brazil want to be: The last of the first (world) or the first of the last (third world)?" However, he could not survive on slogans for long. Unable to bear the weight of a sagging economy, he resigned midway through his presidency in 1992. The subsequent administrations (Itamar Franco for two years, followed by Fernando Henrique Cardoso till 2002) saw Brazil lumber along in fits and starts.
The certain positive outcome of all these was that Brazilian democracy finally managed to fight off military ambitions. However, in order to set its house in order, Brazil had to move away from the great promises of Collor and reposition its political priorities. Brazil got its man in Lula who assumed the Presidency on January 1, 2003.
Earlier, Lula pitched his campaign around eradication of hunger. No wonder, then, that Lula, while addressing the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in New Delhi, remarked: "The moment is not to simply sign bilateral agreements. The time is for social and political inclusion, because that is why we were elected by the people and that is why we won the elections."
In power, Lula reinforced the already existing family grants programme, bolsa familia (assistance package), as a means of increasing participation in citizenship and development, particularly in health care and education. To many Indians who already know of Indira Gandhi's garibi hatao (remove poverty) campaign, all these may be passe.
In the current discourse of Shining India, any mention of welfare stands discredited. However, it will be a folly to forget that it is fifty years of investment in education and health that has produced the trained and able manpower that India showcases all over the world. It is important to understand that the 54 per cent Indians aged between 15 and 25 are important for India to continue to shine. The 47 per cent Brazilians aged in the same bracket do find a scheme in Lula's vision for Brazil. This, indeed, is Lula's message for India.
Conversely, Lula has undoubtedly taken with him to Brazil lessons about the accomplishments of India, all of 56 years of independent existence. First of all, the visit has reinforced in Lula the importance of efficient democracy and trained manpower resources. Secondly, many in Latin America tend to look at the Brazilian population of 180 million and call it elephant-sized. Lula must have certainly been a reassured man, on his way back from this country of one billion people. It is perhaps the understanding that the disadvantage' of a billion can be turned around into a certain advantage that led Lula to say, "True growth has to be socially inclusive, not one which leaves millions of people out."
This leads us to the question: really how different are we from one another? Indeed a lot, particularly, culturally and historically. However, despite the differences, similarities stand out: the historical similarities we both have for the fight for democracy, the socio-political stratification that we have within our nations, the geopolitical stature we share as pivotal states, and above all the fact that about 50 per cent of our populations are in the process of emerging.
So, it is in the fitness of things, and in the vision of the Indian and Brazilian rulers, that we look forward to what Lula calls Outra Globalizacao (alternative globalisation) - a globalisation that is not oppositional, but constructive, not exclusive, but inclusive. And, more importantly, creative and emergent. It is this realisation that led Lula to remark to his Indian colleagues,' "It is necessary for us to be more creative and more daring and to set between us the goal to make things happen."
(The writers are Doctoral Researchers in the Department of Sociology, University of Miami, Florida, U.S.)The Hindu:
