The concept of "Atmanirbhar" in the light of "Global vs Local"

Atmanirbhar - in its pure sense means self reliance. A model that relies on the fact that a country doesn’t have to import anything by making everything. Ever since Hon’ble Prime Minister - Sh. Narendra Modi used the term in his address to the nation on 12th May 2020, everyone seems to be curious about it. As a matter of fact, the search for the word witnessed a sharp rise on google within 1 hr of the speech. 

First things first - Atmanirbhar or the concept of Self Reliance is not new. Many terms similar to it have been coined by leaders around the world. The idea of “Juche” developed by the first leader of North Korea - Kim Il Sung is approximately the same thing. The official ideology of North Korea even as on date - Juche promotes that by becoming self-reliant, a nation can achieve true socialism. 

 

The point is not whether being Atmanirbhar is good or bad, rather it is about what is the true meaning of being Atmanirbhar ? Is Atmanirbhar all about promoting local and loathing global or there's any other meaning of it as well ? 

 

The concept of ‘Atmanirbhar’ invokes nationalism and nationalism can really help a nation to come out of a crisis like the current Covid-19 pandemic. If guided and channelled properly, the combined efforts of people can do wonders for the nation.

 

However, nationalism when combined with economy has its own advantages and disadvantages. While it can certainly help a nation to strengthen its economy however as it is impossible to ensure that the benefits of it reaches to a wider population, it may lose its purpose. 

 

Consider this by an example - it is completely in our control to decide that we’ll only buy from 'Indian' companies however what is not in our control is to ensure that the commercial benefits resulting from an increased sales of such companies are shared with the people down the line. What good is a situation where the owners accumulate more net worth while the workers remain where they were ? Is there really any difference between the wealth of a country allegedly being taken abroad by global companies and the same wealth getting concentrated with owners of local Indian businesses ? When both of them are fulfilling their responsibilities of CSR and paying taxes as per the law, does it really make a difference which is global and which is local ?

 

Further, just like not every ‘global’ company is working here with an intention to enslave us once again, not every ‘local’ company works with the intention to make India great. 

 

What if cheap / substandard products are pushed in the name of ‘be Indian, buy Indian’? Without a healthy competition which often comes from global companies, the local manufacturers tend to avoid investing in R&D which ultimately results in loss to the consumers. We all have seen how an increased competition from global car manufacturers forced Indian companies to have a relook at their R&D approach. Things like 'Global NCAP' safety rating were never heard in India however, ever since global automobile manufacturers introduced the concept here, Indian companies were compelled to adopt it ultimately resulting in a better product coming out of the assembly line.  

Afterall, what is local and what is global in this 'glocalised' world? No, that’s not a typo, you’ve read it right - Glocal i.e Global + Local.  

Is Maruti Suzuki Indian or Global ? Is PayTM with 40% share holding by Alibaba group, an Indian company in true sense ? Products manufactured by global companies who have invested in setting up factories here and are providing employment to our people, should be considered local or not ? 

 

Then there’s another issue regarding the FDI. Ever since the beginning of economic liberalisation in 1991, India is constantly projected as the most favoured destination for FDI. Governments over the years have relied more and more on FDI inflows for the growth of GDP. In 2019 alone, India attracted a FDI of USD 49 Billion which is roughly 1.5 % of our GDP. The concept of ‘buy local, promote local’ may not go well with the idea of FDI as the former may be perceived as a way of providing undue advantage and thus creating an unlevelled playing field. 

 

These are some of the questions that arise out of the promotion of ‘buy local, promote local’. We’ve to understand that ‘buy local’ can be a vision but definitely can’t be the guiding principle. Consumers should have the right to buy the best product or service that they can get - global or local. Following ‘buy local, promote local’ with no reasoning, can discourage local companies to improve themselves. What we need is local outselling global because of its value for money not because it is local. 

 

It is very easy to criticise Chinese products but it is very difficult to create a product of same quality (good or bad) at the same price (costly or cheap). Whenever a local company has been able to make products at par with the global ones, Indians have welcomed it with open hands and we have many examples of it. 

 

Another problem with adopting ‘buy local, promote local’ is that others are also free to reciprocate. If Latin American, African and European countries decide to ‘buy local, promote local’ then what is going to be the future of USD 17 Billion worth of cars exported by Indian manufacturers or USD 21 Billion worth of machinery exported by Indian technology companies ?

 

Therefore, while we need local and efforts should be made to promote it, however what we truly need is Glocal. A platform where both local and global are present either to compete with each other or to join hands with each other. If following  ‘Juche’ in its nationalistic form has not benefitted North Korea in any manner then an Indian version of it can’t really be assumed to have a different impact. 

 

The objective behind ‘Atmanirbhar’ is a noble one and in fact the need of the hour however, there’s not really a need to denounce global for achieving it. We don’t need to fear global, we need to welcome it and learn from it to make local the next global.