The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM) is taken as the main protagonist of Swadeshi and has therefore become the main target of attack by the opposing group which includes the liberalisers and the governing sections of government. The SJM partly has itself to blame. It has given the impression that it is opposed to all forms of foreign investment in India. To a close observer it would seem that the SJM wants the process of reform to be redirected so as to better serve national interests and is not seeking a halt to the whole process.

One of the main areas of concern for the SJM is the unrestricted imports with lowered duties and their impact on small scale industries and employment. If it possible to protect our interests by a suitable interpretation of the various agreements we should seriously address the issue. Mr S. Gurumurthy of the SJM has made an impressive case for quantitative restrictions on imports that affect the small sector. His argument in brief is that national treatment to foreign investment and imports should mean the same treatment that is given to large scale industries in India. If these industries are not allowed to make certain products as part of government policy, then foreign large industries should have the same restrictions in making or importing the same products into India.

This would comply with the requirement of national treatment. The ministry of commerce should examine this issue and come out with its own interpretation. Lack of communication and transparency in government is perhaps one of the reasons for some senior leaders of the BJP also questioning the direction and pace of reform and agreeing with the SJM on some of the issue raised by it.

On the other hand the fall back position of the SJM that we should ask for a revision of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements shows a lack of what it takes to amend these agreements. Barring a few that require the support of all the members, most of the agreements require a two-thirds majority for amendment. This is well nigh impossible for India to bring about.

Several countries are stretching their interpretation of the agreements to their legal limits, and beyond, to serve their national interests. It would be worth noting that in the US the Uruguay Round Implementation Act (Section 102(a)) provides that US law will prevail over the provisions of the WTO agreements. In fact all countries take care of their interests, although not in the manner of the US, on the ground of national interest, injury to domestic industry, etc.

In Japan foreign investment in NTT was restricted to 26 per cent. In many South East Asian countries the limit for investment in telecom companies varies between 26 and 49 per cent. The CII brought out a paper in 1998 on the restrictive trade practices in the developed countries. The 35th report of the Rajya Sabha standing committee for the ministry of commerce of December 1998 made several suggestions as to how government should organise itself to deal with these WTO agreements. The public does not yet know the government's reactions.

The question then is whether the government is really acting because of the provisions of the WTO agreements or going beyond them because it believes that it is desirable to do so in the national interest, or is it because of the influence of liberalising forces within and outside the country.

Swadeshi is not a mere debating matter. There are those who put the Swadeshi concept in an extreme manner and say it is against all liberalisation. This is the old debating trick of creating a straw man in the opposition and to knock it down. There are people who say that liberalisation and globalisation in the manner laid down by the developed countries is the best for India as it increases competition and improves consumer choice.

These concepts are unexceptionable as general propositions. Many western countries realise the importance of maintaining employment and incomes in their own countries. If consumer benefit were the sole criterion why are they against dumping? After all, it provides cheap imports subsidised by governments or workers of poor countries for the benefit of consumers in the rich countries! It is because they fear that cheap imports even if not subsidised will affect employment in their countries and that consumer interests should take into account the larger economic interests of the country. This, and not humanitarian considerations, is perhaps at the base of the desire to enquire into the conditions of employment and social factors in the developing countries.

If the reforms process has to succeed it has to be undertaken in a more open manner after dealing with various points of view in a manner that convinces people that some good will accrue to them, in the medium term if not in the immediate future. Or we should be honest enough to say that we have to de certain things because of our commitments made in 1994 and after demonstrating that we have, as the developed countries have done, tried our best to mitigate the undesirable effects by doing the minimum under these agreements. We should explain whether we have reduced imports duties faster than required and if so what national interest is served by doing so without any compulsion.

The old prayer is:
"God give me strength to change what I must, the patience to endure what I cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference" The government and the people and all influential sections should demonstrate that they have at least made an honest attempt to acquire this wisdom.