Search

The benefits of today's Indo-globalization have bypassed those most in need: the nearly 70% of the workforce that remains in agriculture. Only about 1.3 million of the total workforce have a tangible stake in India's vaunted New Economy. While that globalized sector lifts the aggregate economy toward nearly double digit growth, there will be little of China's labor-intensive industrialization to take up the slack as 70 million Indians enter the workforce over the next five years. This is a country with more indigenous billionaires than any except the US, yet one in three of the 1.1 billion population subsists on less than $1 per day. These are not the wages of substantive democracy, or even sustainable plutocracy. Globalized India will sink or swim by how well it negotiates its coming clash between haves and have-nots. Talk of a “Shining India” almost always omits reference to the rising scourge of Naxalism in the derelict countryside. The rural meltdown has reached such a scale that the usual Naxalite question must be reversed. Instead of asking how the movement became so widespread, we should ponder why it is not wider still. There is no doubt that the Other India will fight back against globalization on these terms. The only question is whether this resistance can be brought into the fold of mainstream Indian politics, thereby producing a uniquely democratic Indo-globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critiques the "Beijing Consensus" that Joshua Ramo proposes as the ideal model for the entire developing world. The political dynamics of Sino-globalization have been given too much of a free ride by neoliberals. For investors with the right guanxi, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been a guarantor of profitability in an almost mercantile sense. The fact that the CCP is also an instrument of monumental oppression is not just incidental to this arrangement. The specifically anti-democratic nature of CCP authority is in fact its strongest recommendation, since this power is on loan to transnational corporations (TNCs) for the right price. Not only has the CCP made the "trains run on time," but, more to the point, it has given the TNCs an inside track. They in turn have become de facto lobbyists for Beijing in Washington. The TNC/CCP symbiosis that defines Sino-globalization has resulted in a worst-of-both amalgam that has taken China from one of the lowest income differentials in the world to one of the highest. The unrest this spawns will eventually erode one of the main sources of China's globalist appeal: its presumed political stability. By then, however, Sino-globalization will have migrated to other cheap labor reservoirs. It is the model itself, rather than the PRC, that poses the greatest threat to liberal democratization in coming decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reflects on the wars to fight terrorism. Importance of securitization for the U.S.; Improbability of Osama bin Laden's terrorists group Al Qaeda network; Highlights of a conference on terrorism in April 2000.

Discusses the significance of U.S. foreign policies to Islam and its followers. Role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in cultivating fundamentalist leaders like terrorist group Taliban; Contribution of the U.S. to Taliban's rise; Number of inhabitants in Kurdish villages who were killed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Examines the influence of culture on postmodernism and postcolonism, while highlighting the interpretation of Denis Ekpo. Factors which influence postcolonism; Impact of anthropology on literary work.

Discusses Mikhail Bakhtin's contributions to cultural studies. Bakhtin's cultural theory; Problems, contradictions and loose ends in Bakhtin's thought; Cultural studies' opposition to effete aestheticism; Need for multilateral theories of culture; Bakhtin's concept of the polyphonic novel.

Focuses on the political limits of glocalization theory. Movement of culture beyond the global/local polarity; Normality of glocalism in cultural studies; Definition of glocalization; Dependency of political fatalism on localist postmodernism.