Though Brexit is the latest threat to globalization, as chief economic advisor (CEA) Arvind Subramanian pointed out at the India Policy Forum Lecture on Tuesday, the seeds of the destruction of the era of hyper-globalisation \u2013 exports-to-GDP rose to over 25% in 2008 as compared to 18% in the 1980s boom \u2013 lay in the fact that this phase coincided with what he called the weakening west and the rising rest. Between 2005 and 2014, the latest McKinsey report points out, real incomes in advanced economies were either flat or fell for 65-70% of the population while they rose for all but 2% of the population in these countries in the 1993-2005 period. The slowing of global trade and increasing protectionism is a logical consequence. In the glory days of 2004-07, when global GDP was growing at 5% per annum, global exports grew at 9-10% \u2013 by contrast, they contracted 13% in 2015; in volume terms, the growth was a mere 2.8%. Subramanian\u2019s tentative conclusion that, while deeper integration of the EU-type is under siege, shallower globalization of trade and capital flows would continue, needs to be validated by actual experience. Nonetheless, there are important policy implications of the new global order. For one, as Subramanian argues, India simply cannot get a sustained 8% growth without a significant export growth. Not only has all growth of China and Asian tiger economies been driven by high exports growth, even India\u2019s own high growth years saw 24%+ export growth. Can India get this growth and is the world ready for another China-style export behemoth? The latter, surprisingly, may not be too difficult since, as Subramanian points out, China\u2019s exports add up to 3.3% of global GDP which is small compared to the global exports-to-GDP ratio of 27.3%. Since India\u2019s share is a mere 0.5% and China\u2019s rising wages and exchange rate will force it to vacate some of this space, the question is whether India will capture it? Keep in mind that, in the 2005-12 post-MFA period which was supposed to benefit India, our apparel exports rose just 3.7% a year versus 18% for Vietnam, 15.7% for Bangladesh and a healthy 6.9% for China which already had a very large export base by 2005. Certainly, the new textiles policy which brings in fixed-term jobs and tax breaks could help, but a lot more will be required. China\u2019s competitiveness didn\u2019t lie in just its low labour costs or a cheap currency, it lay in it being an integral part of all global manufacturing chains while India is not a part of most manufacturing chains. Getting into this position requires India to aggressively woo FDI and shedding what, in an analogous context, the prime minister called the \u2018hesitations of history\u2019. While there has been progress, recent experience with Apple or even the so-called 100% FDI in the new aviation policy show India isn\u2019t fully ready \u2013 half-steps are better than no-steps but it\u2019s not clear how much they really move the needle. Trade pacts have to be a significant part of India\u2019s exports strategy and Subramanian rightly argues that, with incomes stagnating in the west, it is unlikely India will get away with anything less than full-reciprocity. So, while the US may have unfairly blocked access to some of its markets, it is unlikely to fix this unless India gives it more access. You can argue, as many did, with the CEA\u2019s view of the inevitability of India taking up the space China vacates, but no one can doubt his prescription.