“All the others whether majority or minority who cannot compete and win, they create silly causes such as Regionalism, Religionalism and casteism.”
– Charles Darwin (The theory of evolution).
Globalism is out, regionalism is in, despite a bad rap from some pragmatists who say it could lead to a world of hostile trade blocs. On the other hand, it might just be a needed source of dynamism that can further economic integration. Like "globalization" in the 1980s, "regionalism" has become the buzzword of the 1990s. But regionalism is a term that is overused and widely misunderstood.
Almost anyone who writes or talks about business today has something to say about how we are lurching, drifting, or dashing toward regionalism. Globalization, although no one could define it, was generally regarded as positive. But views on regionalism are much more divided. Some say regionalism results in the fragmentation of markets and countries, that it arises from resurgent tribalism and leads to a world of hostile trade blocs. Others, however, argue that regional trading arrangements, such as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement, are a desperately needed source of dynamism in today's global economy, and that inhibitions to further economic integration can best be overcome at regional levels.
As Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking-Glass," "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." The answer depends on what we mean by regionalism. Regionalism if is healthy then it could start a competition that would fuel development. But the underline is that competition needs to be healthy. E.g. If New Delhi can switch to clean fuel and control pollution then the question arises, 'Why not my city?'. If worked systematically more cities can be cleaner. Regionalism doesn’t mean only to divide the states and cities into boundaries of common interests and personal means.
If we talk of our own nation , the formation of states along linguistic and ethnic lines has occurred in India in numerous instances since independence in 1947. There have been demands, however, to form units within states based not only along linguistic, ethnic, and religious lines but also, in some cases, on a feeling of the distinctness of a geographical region and its culture and economic interests. The most volatile movements are those ongoing in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab). How the central government responds to these demands will be an area of scrutiny through the late 1990s and beyond. It is believed by some officials that conceding regional autonomy is less arduous and takes less time and fewer resources than does meeting agitation, violence, and demands for concessions.. For all this we must have strong and sensible center government.
Quoting from a recent news article in Times - “Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray's recent outburst against Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan's loyalty towards his native place (Uttar Pradesh) has raised several eyebrows. While it drew strong retaliation by Jaya Bachchan and Amar Singh, many objected to Thackeray's opposition to the celebration of Uttar Bharatiya Diwas and Chhath Puja in Maharashtra. Barely a day after clashes between supporters of Raj Thackeray and Samajwadi Party workers in Mumbai, two unidentified youths threw bottles at Bachchans’ residence in Mumbai.”
No comments:
Post a Comment