Globalization-it's a term used to actually allude to the integration of national economies into global ones through various agents like FDI,FII,capital flows, spread of technology and knowhow, or even migration. But, isn't it better to confine globalization within the realms of economic integration alone? However, on the contrary, things have turned out to be different, for, it has also started transforming individual cultures and has begun to dash out hopes of sustaining a regional identity. As the West has been the most proactive in spreading the fangs of globalization, Westernization has begun to knock on the doors of various nations which otherwise had individual national identities of their own. Citing an example, today, Indian youths are for no apparent reason attracted towards MacDonalds,KFCs or CCDs even though Indian restaurant menus could have more delicious dishes. That's just due to the lure of clinging on to something Western. Isn't this a real threat to the sustenance of nationalism of developing nations like India? Is this justified?

Nationalism is not about being over - protective towards your culture and not welcoming any change or new traits to it. Sure, you got to be proud of your heritage, because that happens to be Your identity no matter where you go in the world, but that doesn't disallow you to borrow western concepts. You see, being "westernized" doesn't mean that u r lacking in "Indianness" in any way. In fact, if you go way back in history, you'd see that the cultures belonging to the various great civilizations were "morphed", in the sense that there was nothing uniquely singular in them. The characterizations of the different civilizations were "built up" over time, through the influx and exchange of ideas from many different cultures.

It appears that hobnobbing with Western enterprises has become a favorite pastime for Indians, not because Western goods are really superb in quality but because simply, they are western. Same goes for Western music or western food habits. Is anything typically Indian left in Indian society now? It doesn't actually appear that Indian society is absorbing a hybrid culture as you opine. Rather, absolute westernization has become typically synonymous with Indian standards of living. That has at least really insulted if not threatened our national identity as a whole. The barring of free foreign trade and investments prior to Narasimha Rao depicted an orthodox India but this present situation depicts a brazen India not conscious of its losing identity.

I would say that "the flow of capital, the influx of the latest technology and knowhow, and even migration" are more significant than, say, a teenager sporting spikes and Levis Jeans! Besides, speaking practically, it isn’t feasible to "filter" globalization as such. Globalization is the right way forward, and it shouldn't raise unnecessary fears about any individual rationalistic culture being hijacked. If our heritage is rich enough, as I'm sure it is, it should and would hold it's own amidst any foreign trend that might be the "in-thing" of the day. Which is why, specifically, you still see gorgeous sarees amongst a plethora of tops-and-jeans, and which is why Irish-mach is still a mouthwatering delicacy amongst all Bengalis, no matter how many Pizza huts and Mc Donald spring up.

There are lots of ways to filter globalization. One major way, as already stated, is to limit it to economic confines alone. I mean, people should understand that it's there in the first place to upgrade developing nations but not to alter their lifestyles and cultures. Secondly, foreign organizations should always try to cater to the local market tastes to as much extent as possible while setting up their business activities in developing nations. This will not only expand their customer base but would also lead to a direct splurge in global economic activities. So, the KFCs,Wal-Marts or Carrefour would have to rethink their marketing strategies in countries like India to expand their popularity. Indirectly, this would also prevent globalization from plundering individual cultures and national identities. Even the weakest heritage shouldn't be hijacked of its attributes, for it's after all an identity.

There are those negative outcomes of globalization too which can't be just ignored, for, globalization is not a temporary local phenomenon but a permanent transformation taking place across the globe. It appears that individual identity as well as freedom have nowadays been put on the backburner as more priority is being paid to getting nations more globalized. Then, also, more attention is being paid to the metrics like GDP as promulgated by the World Bank and not upon measures like Global Happiness Index. In a fierce bid to outnumber GDP growths, many countries have indeed sacrificed their individual all-round human developments and even civil liberties, typical example of which is China. Just witness the drama of hosting the Olympics 2008 in China, for which the Chinese government has resorted to throttling citizens' individual freedoms of speech and expressions and even the right to hold individual properties and lands. It has even blocked free Internet access and the media. China's FDI has touched nearly $150 billions and is to outnumber Germany by world economic globalization standards. But would this sort of a nation be truly reflecting the spirit of a developed nation, where human rights issues have for long been sacrificed? The country is earning huge forex reserves, per capita incomes of people have risen tenfold, but people aren't earning the fruits of the globalization there,rather,they are being muzzled and strangulated.

The issue of human rights, which you brought to light, surely doesn't lie within the expanse of globalization! Even the developed European and American states have numerous Asian products, ranging from food, entertainment, etc prevailing in their markets (which can, again, be attributed to globalization). But there, you don't see this massive "shift" of cultural trends, nor any monopoly by some particular brand. This proves that globalization, viewed in the right perspective, certainly doesn’t play any role in "hijacking" regionalist entities. The fact that a certain portion of the Indian masses tend to go overboard with western ideas and products, made available to them due to increasing globalization, indicates various flaws in the way we "percept" all things foreign. In a bid to "rectify" this, the answer lies not in banning or discouraging the use of western concepts or to stem the rate of globalization, instead efforts must be made from within to uphold our own culture and heritage to make us value and cherish them, and not undermine them when tantalized by the sights, sounds, tastes and feel of foreign made products.

That very massive shift in cultural trends isn't appreciable in developed nations because there, people know that they are born in a superior nation state. The particular trend of marauding of individual cultures is prominent in developing nations and that's mostly because these nations are getting subservient to the globalization ideals. People here tend to be more culturally insecure as they are obfuscated about the presence of economic prosperity on one hand and presence of an individual identity on the other. The education system in our country has been designed to make people grill themselves up and imbibe academic or professional skills to circumvent others but no attention is paid to educate young vulnerable minds about nationalistic ideals. This major flaw has brought about the bitter outcome.

Also, globalization has dissolved an individual nation's decision making prowess for its own upgradation in international arena, for, it has become synonymous with Americanization. India had to forgo the Iraq pipeline in order to embrace the US nuclear deal. A better eventuality would have been if India could embrace both the deals of its own accord, but current circumstances in the lexicon of globalization don't warrant this. Somehow, the "superpower" concept appears to be still prevalent due to which nationalism is under further threat. This needs to be changed as well. Americanization is a fact of modern day scenario and you got to live with it, globalization, or not. Every culture is wholesome in it and vastly vary. Therefore the thought that the culture prevalent in a developed nation is "superior" to that in a developing nation is wrong. Hence the question of "insecurity" and the consequent marauding of cultures, as you stated, doesn’t arise.

I aver that globalization's all-round merits are not being realized today due to the presence of these barricades like Americanization. The failure of the WTO talks recently further elaborates the aspect of how the Western World dominance prevailing today has degraded the actual globalization scenario all have been dreaming of, wherein nationalism as well as free trade could have coexisted simultaneously. That's not the fault of this golden keyword, but, rather the established system that has come to be associated with it. But, in fear of economic boycott or being segregated from the globalization chain, the developing nations don't possess the grit to challenge this system either. As for instance, India is unable to challenge China's claim over its lands in fear of hurting its trade with this communist regime.

The real problem lies not in "globalization" itself, but rather in the faulty way people percept it, courtesy the Americanization induced inferiority complex. To rectify this, efforts could be made to education people on their nationalistic ideals so that they are well equipped to deal with issues when confronted with a plethora of globalization - impregnated ideals. At least, this should be the right approach in India's bid to maintain it's regionalist individuality. Instead, you claim that the "golden keyword" itself needs to be distorted and curbed. Besides, from a practical point of view, if measures are taken to bar, or even reduce the infiltration of foreign goods, it would likewise result in a similar backlash in foreign countries which would hit India's economy in the foreign sector pretty bad. That is not to mention the end of numerous livelihoods of people who are employed in India by various multinational firms.

But, like I said, "preserving national identity" by banning foreign goods and brands is not the right way forward, as that would amount to "curbing" globalization, besides igniting a similar backlash in foreign countries regarding Indian goods, thus affecting a major chunk of our economy in the foreign sector. Also, as I mentioned, it would cost lakhs of jobs of people working with these foreign brands in India, which would be disastrous. All these would affect the annual GDPs and the Happiness Index, of which you lay so much stress. So definitely, instead of tinkering with the norms and limitations of globalization, the government should deal with this gradual loss of national identity through internal measures, from a grassroots level.

We don’t have to invoke any type of 'conspiracy theory' in order to attack 'globalization.It can be and has been confronted with much more sophisticated and informed debates that recognizes the huge asymmetry in bargaining powers between players today, taking part in globalization. The west maintaining its competitiveness in agriculture via huge subsidies and on the other hand arm-twisting developing countries to do the contrary is just an example in this regard and this asymmetry is what that has to be addressed. But given the global order at present it is easier said 'needs reform ' than done!

The "REFORMS" in globalization

We are always blaming others for our own debacle, but who’s fault is it that even after almost 60 years of independence, we are still not standing on our own feet, whereas other countries - both giants like CHINA or minnows like SINGAPORE have left us long back in the race. there is no denying the materialistic inclinations and entrepreneurship of Indians, but somewhere down the line - all of that gets fizzled down, simply due to the fact that the government is not supportive. Look at Europe, how can any sane person admit that it is only arm twisting policies that has kept them ahead of us, have u gone and seen what goes on there? Ok nowadays even they are facing problems, but look at their infrastructure - let's say INLAND SHIPPING. The whole of Europe is connected via canals, and it straightaway reduces the costs at least two folds! such is the power of shipping, but we - on the other hand, being a "COUNTRY OF RIVERS" still don’t have even a namesake system like that and it's their fault that they are ahead of us!?! Mr. Charles Darwin once had propagated the theory of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST"- I guess in this modern world of ours, no other theory holds good in so many facets of our lives. You go global or don't go - if you r fit, you will survive, and continue to multiply, otherwise, perish like the great old civilizations. Now it's up to us, which choice do we make. Nobody’s perfect, and it's against the nature to be so. But every developed country has got its own peculiar strong point, based on which they have progressed. Why can't we learn from those lessons, and try to assimilate the same practices into our society? Globalization would be fun then.

 Globalization is a good step in making developing countries just like our country to developed country. Its good 4 economic condition of our country. So i think it’s a great step that makes our country to stand with a good position in all over the world.Globalization today is inevitable. the world has become a global village which necessitates cultural, social and economic connectivity between different parts of the world. All the countries in the world are inter dependant. Without establishing connectivity with other countries; India will be deprived of the mutual benefits which they get.

Globalization has really helped us get the name n fame our country needed. The talent here is now going in every part of the world. It is even creating more and more jobs for Indians in every field. But on other side it has changed the way of thinking of our people to an extent. It is totally on our mentality what we want to accept and what not After all its us who control our mind. And being so we can judge what’s better for us.Main disadvantage that i see in globalization is that the cultures are lost. The nations with more economic power are powerful than other countries. Because these countries produce things that can affect the cultures of other countries. Best Example:India.In India because of globalization slowly our culture is transforming into lavish western culture.

Impact of Globalization on Indian Industry

Globalization though not a 'recent' phenomenon, it has been a source of engaging dialogue , discussions ,debates and what not. As a result there has been a tendency to masquerade it in different ways, which includes conspiracy theories as well.

"we are connected whether one likes it or not"

Today, we can communicate, we can discuss, we can share, we can spread knowledge only because of that great 'technology revolution. Had there been no interface among nations, this 'techno-rev' could well have been the 'privilege of the few' who for the first time came out with path breaking discoveries in this regard. A rational mind can sense the disadvantage that could have been caused to nations devoid of such discoveries, had it been the case. Talmud once said-"Who is a wise man? He who learns of all men." Today, the best phrase can be-Which is a wise Nation? Which gathers from, all other nations their discoveries, advancements, innovations, to its advantage. And certainly its happening. Nations are interacting, they are gathering and using other nations' development tactics to their advantage, and if this phenomenon is called globalization then be it!!

 The social angle of Globalization

Globalization today has been like never before. It brings countries together, and has the power to give each individual a whole lot of opportunities which he or she didn't have before. But as of now, not everyone is able to gain access to this set of new opportunities. This is exactly where the government needs to step in. The market can only do so much.The rest has to be done by the government. Inclusive growth for one. Globalization has distanced people as much as it has brought people together. It has led to greater inequality (both economically and socially). Globalization cannot bridge this gap. No, we don't have much of a choice in globalization of the world, but we do have the choice to ensure that everyone benefits out of it and not just the privileged few.

Benefits of Globalization reaching poor

Once  P.Chidambaram was talking about inclusive growth and globalization. He was saying that the benefits of globalization will take time to reach the people who stay in the bottom of the triangle and UPA government was working on making such growth resulted because of globalization inclusive to reach the benefits of growth to the poor and marginalized sections of our people.At that time I had this doubt, how long will it take to reach the poor? Will our bureaucrats and politicians and profit obsessed industrialists let that happen? Will Indian economy sustain its growth until then?So where are we? Have the benefits actually reached the poor already? If yes, to what extent? And can we say that without globalization, would we have acheived the same result?If no, what to do?

 First, we must understand what constitutes "benefits" of globalization. And then, the answer to the question, "does it help the poor?" logically follows.

1) Globalization helps Indian companies get better access to outside markets thereby increasing their throughput, which indirectly requires more people to be recruited.
2) Globalization helps MNCs to start investing in India, thereby creating new jobs, which the poor can choose to join (Case in point: I was poor as a kid and got a job in an MNC fresh out of college. This wouldn't have been possible if that MNC didn't setup a shop in India. The MNC wouldn't have come to India if India didn't open up).
3) Globalization helps increase consumption putting more money in the circulation and more taxes for the government. The government can use that for its welfare schemes.

But, all these would be of no use if people don't come forward to access the new avenues of opportunity and if the government doesn't promote education and create awareness of the opportunities.

we can now successfully conclude this by unanimously opining that globalization with nationalism is better than simply either globalization or nationalism. Orthodoxy with respect to either side can jumble things up and can in no way lead to a universal development of this globe, the real “development" of culture as well as economy we are concerned about.