political theology, Vol. 15 No.

1, 2014, 53–73

Globalization in Solidarity:
Reflections on Globalization from India
Shaji George Kochuthara
Dharmaram College, Bangalore 560029, India

Globalization is an economic, social, cultural, and political phenomenon.

Considering globalization as evil in itself or as a panacea for all the problems
is not realistic. In general, globalization is welcomed by the elite and the
corporate sector in India, whereas the poor are generally against it.
Considering the impact of globalization on economic life, culture, and the
environment in India, this article tries to see why globalization needs to
integrate the values of justice and solidarity if it really wants to facilitate true
human development.
In spite of the advancement in technology, communication and trade,
inequalities, exploitation, and corruption have increased in a globalized
world. Economy needs ethics to function correctly. Globalization has an
inherent tendency to bring homogeneity in socio-cultural and religious life.
Consequently, the indigenous cultures feel threatened. Only by respecting
the uniqueness of cultures, globalization can strengthen cultures through
healthy dialogue rooted in solidarity. Another important aspect of solidarity
is solidarity with nature. To enhance real human development, globalization
should safeguard ecology, discerning the needs of the present generation, as
well as future generations.
Globalization is not first all about money, market, or competition, but
about people and their interconnectedness. Economic prosperity, if it does
not ensure justice to all, will not lead to long-lasting peace and development.
Justice is rooted in love and solidarity with all.

keywords Catholic Church, development, environment, globalization, India,

poverty, solidarity

ß W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1462317X13Z.00000000062

54 KOCHUTHARA

Introduction
Over the last decade, Plachimada, a small Adivasi1 village in the South Indian state
of Kerala, has become a symbol of the resistance of the common people against
corporate exploitation. The Coke bottling plant, set up in March 2000, began
drawing over five hundred thousand litres of water from the wells on its premises
each day. This resulted in a drastic depletion of water levels resulting in crop
failure in the locality and thus inviting protests from the locals and environmental
activists alike. Besides the depletion of water, the waste material from the factory
caused serious problems for the health of the people. It took some time for all
concerned including the gram panchayat (elected body of local administration) to
comprehend the gravity of the situation and to take action. The plant was
producing one litre of Cola from four litres of water leaving behind 2.7 litres of
waste water and solid waste. The groundwater of the village became heavily
polluted as solid waste containing hazardous chromium, cadmium, lead, and so
on, caused severe health problems to the villagers. Moreover, the company
distributed the solid waste to the farmers as fertilizers, thus harming the farmland
too.
The spontaneous campaign attracted world-wide attention and resulted in
the temporary shutdown of the plant in March 2004. However, the legal battle
and the struggle to attain compensation for the victims continued. Many
political parties eventually got involved when the movement gained momentum.
However, it remained a struggle led by the local people — such as Mayilamma, an
illiterate Adivasi woman, and C. K. Janu, another Adivasi woman. They became
symbols of resistance against the corporate giant. On April 30, 2010, a high-power
committee set up by the government of Kerala indicted the Hindustan Coca Cola
Beverages Private Limited for causing incalculable harm to the ecology and the
people of Plachimada, assessing the overall cost of the damage at 2.16 billion
rupees.2
Unemployment is one of the biggest problems that countries like India face.
Investors such as Coca Cola claim to provide employment for a number of people.
If this is so, instead of welcoming them and offering them favourable conditions,
why should there be protests against such a company?
In the Plachimada struggle, the direct issue may be said to be the harm done to
the agricultural land of the ordinary people and to the environment and the
various problems resulting from the destruction of the environment. However,
there are also various issues related to globalization: multinational companies that
do not care about the means of living of the poor and ordinary people,
privatization of natural resources, governments’ favouring of the multinationals,
while ignoring their duty to safeguard the basic rights of the people, profit-oriented
multinationals who are not worried about the long-term harm done to people and

1
‘‘Adivasi’’ is an umbrella term for ethnic and aboriginal people who are supposed to be the aboriginal population of
India. They are a minority today.
2
P. N. Venugopal, ‘‘End of Plachimada Battle. Or Is It?’’ http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/apr/env-plachmada.htm;
Eva Wramner, ‘‘Fighting Cocacolanization in Plachimada: Water, Soft Drinks and a Tragedy of the Commons in an
Indian Village,’’ ‘‘Plachimada Struggle, Counter Globalization,’’ http://plachimada.wordpress.com. In fact there are a
number of reports and studies on the Plachimada straggle, which are readily available on the net.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 55

ecology, the poor who are deprived of their means of living in the name of
development, the people’s struggle for justice and basic rights, the people’s
resistance to inhuman development, their refusal to accept ‘‘development’’ that
does not help them, and their rejection of a lifestyle alien to their culture and
values, and so on.
It is difficult to define globalization. Often it is defined as the removal of
barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies. In his book
Globalization and its Discontents ex-World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz defines
it as the removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national
economies. Stiglitz believes that globalization can be a good thing, but his
career in one of the global institutions has also shown him firsthand the
devastating effects these institutions’ policies can have on poor people in
developing countries.3
Many do not consider globalization as a mere economic phenomenon though
it may be the most visible dimension. Globalization is also a social, cultural, and
political phenomenon. N. R. Narayana Murthy, the co-founder and executive
chairman of Infosys, defines globalization at two levels:
At the macro level, it is about frictionless flow of capital, services, goods and labour
across the globe. It is also about global sharing of ideas, knowledge and culture. It is
about creating a shared concern and plan for global issues like poverty, AIDS and
environment [...] At the microeconomic or firm level, it is about sourcing capital from
where it is cheapest, sourcing talent from where it is best available, producing where it
is most efficient and selling where the markets are, without being constrained by
national boundaries.4

On the one hand, considering globalization as evil in itself or as the cause of all of
the world’s problems seems overly pessimistic. On the other hand, presenting
globalization as a panacea for all the problems that the world faces and the only
solution at hand is too optimistic. In general, globalization is welcomed by the elite
and the corporate sector in Indian society. In particular the new generation of
youth who are employed in IT, management, and allied sectors are strong
proponents of globalization, whereas many of those employed in agriculture, the
poor, and those working for social welfare are its opponents.
This article will briefly consider the impact of globalization on economic life,
on culture and on ecology. It will try to demonstrate why globalization needs to
integrate the values of justice and solidarity if it really wants to facilitate true
human development. Though the examples and statistics given mostly refer to the
Indian context, we can find similar situations in many other countries. Therefore,
what we glean from the Indian context is applicable to situations in many other
countries.

3
Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (London: Penguin Books, 2002), ix.
4
N. R. Narayana Murthy, Making Globalization Work for India (Mumbai: Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial Trust,
2007), 14.
56 KOCHUTHARA

Globalization and Economic Development

Can India survive without globalization? Can there be development without
globalization? Narayana Murthy explains why India has to embrace globalization
and integrate better with global markets. His arguments can be summarized as
follows. The only way to eradicate poverty in India is by creating jobs. The
number of unemployed in India is estimated at around 250–300 million. Every
year, about 35–40 million new job seekers are added. Moreover, more than 65%
of the population are in rural areas and their primary livelihood is from
agriculture, which just adds 26% to the GDP. Showing the prospective growth rate
in the agricultural sector, he argues that this also means that by 2017, 100 to
120 million people have to be moved from agriculture to other sectors. In short,
every year 45 to 50 million people have to find new jobs. According to him, the
solution is to create jobs in the low-tech manufacturing sector, which demands
considerable increase in exports. This demands enhanced interactions with global
markets, integrating better with people from other markets. This is what
globalization is all about.5
After independence (1947), India had adopted a semi-socialist economic
policy. In 1991, a new economic policy of liberalization was adopted, giving more
freedom for economic activity and imparting global linkage, leading to
privatization and globalization. The positive effects of this new policy are seen
in the increase in the GDP growth rate, foreign direct investment, foreign
exchange, and outsourcing. India is often presented as one of the growing
economic powers. It is a member of the G20, of BRICS (acronym for an
association of five major emerging national economies, namely, Brazil, Russia,
India, China, and South Africa). Besides, it is predicted that by 2030 India may
become the second largest economy in the world and by 2050 the largest. Among
the 100 richest of the world, there are already many Indians.
However, there are also negative effects of liberalization and globalization,
namely, growing unemployment, widening disparities, neglect of agriculture, and
widespread poverty.6 The percentage of people living below the poverty line may
give an idea of the continuing poverty and growing disparity. According to the
Reserve Bank of India statistics, the percentage of those below the poverty line was
35.97 in 1993–94, 26.10 in 1999–2000 and 21.80 in 2004–2005 (based on the
MRP5Mixed Recall Period) and 27.50 in 2004–2005 (based on the
URP5Uniform Recall Period).7 The statistical data provided by different agencies
do not agree with each other, and the criterion for deciding the poverty line is
varied and confusing. The income criterion to determine the poverty line in India is
based on 2004–2005 data, which states that the minimum income level per person
for rural and urban areas throughout India per month should be Rs. 356.30 and

5
Murthy, Making Globalization Work for India, 14–20.
6
‘‘New Economic Policy,’’ http://www.scribd.com/doc/13709734/New-Economic-Policy-1991.
7
Reserve Bank of India, Table 162: Number and Percentage of Population below Poverty Line, http://rbi.org.in/
Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?Id512853 (September 15, 2010).
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 57

Rs. 538.60 respectively (1 US dollar is about 50 Indian rupees).8 However,

according to a 2005 World Bank estimate, 41.6% of the total Indian population
falls below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 a day.9 Recently, the
criterion to define the poverty line resulted in a heated debate. The Indian Planning
Commission’s affidavit to the Supreme Court of India states that adjusting for
inflation, the poverty line for an urban person is Rs. 32.5 per day per person and
for a rural person it is Rs. 29.3 per day per person. This raised an outcry from
many. Based on these poverty lines, the Planning Commission estimates that there
were 407.4 million persons below the poverty line in 2010–11.10 Whatever the
criterion for calculation, it is also evident that a good number of people live just
above the poverty line. Moreover, we need to take into account opinions that more
than 70% of Indian people are poor.11
Poverty existed in India before the onset of liberalization and globalization.
But what it is pertinent to consider is that the growth in GDP in recent decades, an
argument in favour of globalization, is not reflected in the life of a large number of
people. This points to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Similarly,
the claim that globalization creates more jobs is not accepted by many. It is
pointed out that in recent years the number of unemployed persons has
increased.12
Agricultural sectors have suffered a lot due to globalization. The agricultural
land of small farmers is taken to create Special Economic Zones (SEZ), without
giving farmers sufficient compensation and without rehabilitating them. In
Nandigram, West Bengal the farmers have resisted forceful acquisition of their
land, though in many other places they have failed. Since subsidies are reduced or
removed, many are unable to continue farming. Thousands of farmers have
committed suicide in the last few years. It is said that in the state of Gujarat alone,
which is often presented as the model of development, more than 16,000 farmers
committed suicide in the last ten years.13 In addition, thousands of farmers
committed suicide in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra, and even in Kerala which is
considered to be rather developed.
One of the major premises of the Washington Consensus’ view of
globalization is the role of foreign investment. According to this, ‘‘freeing up’’
markets promotes economic growth by attracting international investors. Foreign
businesses are supposed to bring with them technical expertise and access to
foreign markets and financial sources, thus creating new employment opportu-

8
Shankar Chattergee, ‘‘Estimation of Rural Poverty: A Discussion with Reference to India,’’ Paper presented at WYE
City Group on Rural Development and Agriculture Household Income, at FAO Headquarters, Rome, June 11-12,
2009, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/pages/rural/wye_city_group/2009/paper_3_1_chatterjee_ITALY.doc
9
http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/
0,,contentMDK:21880725̃pagePK:141137̃piPK:141127̃theSitePK:295584,00.html
10
Kirit Parikh, ‘‘The Poverty Line Debate,’’ Hindustan Times, April 2, 2012, http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-
Feed/ColumnsOthers/The-poverty-line-debate/Article1-752547.aspx (accessed April 2, 2012).
11
For example, N. C. Saxena, National Advisory Council member, holds that more than 70% of Indians are poor.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/about-70-per-cent-of-india-is-poor-n-c-saxena/articleshow/
12401483.cms (accessed June 30, 2013).
12
See http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-23/india/40146190_1_urban-india-urban-women-rural-
women.
13
Mallika Sarabhai, ‘‘Modi and His Mayajaal,’’ The Week, October 30, 2011, 98.
58 KOCHUTHARA

nities. However, there is a flipside to this, namely, large global corporations often
destroy local competition and home-grown industries. For example, Coca-Cola
and Pepsi have wiped out many local soft drink manufacturers all over the world.
If competition is the only norm, the small-scale industries and firms are
annihilated. This only adds to the number of poor, though the accumulation of
wealth by the big firms will be reflected in the increase in GDP.
Thomas Pogge has shown how the official poverty statistics issued by the
World Bank regarding the schedule towards achieving the first Millennium
Development Goal (MDG1) which claims that poverty has been reduced, does not
reflect the reality.14 According to him, on the contrary, poverty and under-
nourishment has only increased. He also says that in the last 21 years since the end
of the Cold War, roughly 380 million people died from poverty-related causes.
‘‘Despite all of the proclaimed ideals, our seemingly lofty declarations, poverty and
its concomitant human rights deprivations persist on a massive scale. They persist
even while global average income is increasing and the world on the whole is doing
quite well.’’15 Pogge holds that the enormous extent of the disparities that have
built up during the globalization period in the distribution of global household
income is responsible for this. In 2005, the top 5% of the world’s population
received 46.36% of the global household income, the next 20% almost the same
proportion (that is, the top quarter had 90.34% of the global household income),
whereas the other three quarters together had only 9.66%; the poorest quarter had
only 0.78%. Substantiated by statistical data, Pogge argues that only the richest
5% has gained in the globalization period.16

Corruption, Globalization and Neo-Liberalism

Together with this we have to consider widespread corruption. Corruption may be
as old as human society. However, globalization has given new faces to corruption.
A study published in November 2010 by Global Financial Integrity (GFI), an
international advocacy group, says that corruption in India has increased
considerably after liberalization. According to its report, between 2002 and
2006, the loss to the government was 16 billion dollars (720 billion rupees) per
year.17 As Arundhati Roy points out,
Twenty years ago, when the era of ‘‘liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation’’
descended on us, we were told that public sector units and public infrastructure needed
to be privatised because they were corrupt and inefficient. We were told the problem
was systemic. Now that nearly everything has been privatised, when our rivers,
mountains, forests, minerals, water supply, electricity and communications systems
have been sold to private corporations, we find that corruption has grown
exponentially, the growth rate of corruption has surpassed everything we could

14
Thomas Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ in Towards a Strong Global Economic
System: Revealing the Logic of Gratuitousness in the Market Economy, ed. Saju Chackalackal (Bangalore:
Dharmaram Publications, 2013), 73–101.
15
Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ 84.
16
Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ 84–86.
17
Melwyn Pinto, ‘‘Have We Failed Democracy in India?’’ Integral Liberation 15, no. 2 (2011): 85.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 59

possibly imagine. In scam after scam, the figures that are being siphoned away are
completely off the charts. It is not surprising that this has enraged the people of this
country. But that anger does not always show signs of being accompanied by clear
thinking.18

In recent years, one of the areas of widespread corruption in India has been the
acquisition of land, especially for multinational corporations. What Medha Patkar
said at a public meeting in Bangalore on July 9, 2011 deserves our attention:
‘‘Various kinds of corruption affecting the masses and said corporates are
plundering the natural resources of Karnataka. Land is not soil anymore. It’s
gold.’’ Patkar said that the definition of corruption needs to be expanded to mean
not just misappropriation of money, but also ‘‘corporate corruption’’ that includes
forcibly taking away farmers’ lands for industries and giving huge tax concessions
to companies at the cost of the greater common good. According to Patkar, any
anti-corruption legislation should address the manipulation of laws by the
‘‘corporate-builder-politician-bureaucrat nexus.’’ She also pointed out that in the
last six years the government of India wrote off corporate income tax worth Rs.
374937 crore (1 crore510 million).19 Special privileges and exemptions to
multinational corporations may be needed to attract them. However, when this
is at the cost of the life of the poor, denying their basic human rights, it must be
reconsidered. Moreover, often, behind such deals and agreements, politicians and
bureaucrats get crores of rupees for easy deals according to the terms and
conditions of these corporations. Thus, corruption betrays the interests of the
ordinary people, especially the poor. Speaking at Life After Capitalism at the
‘‘World Social Forum.2003,’’ Porto Alegre, Brazil, January 27, 2003, organized by
Znet, Arundhati Roy said,
As the disparity between the rich and the poor grows, the fight to corner resources is
intensifying. To push through their ‘‘sweetheart deals’’, to corporatize the crops we
grow, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the dreams we dream, corporate
globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, authoritarian
governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the
mutinies.20

Thus, one of the effects of globalization can be said to be the globalization of

corruption and its reinforcement. Its impact can also be seen in India. This is more
proof that an economy without ethics, in which profit and success at any cost are
the only norms, is disastrous and does not lead to real development.

18
Arundhati Roy, ‘‘When Corruption is Viewed Fuzzily,’’ The Indian Express, April 30, 2012, http://archive.
indianexpress.com/news/when-corruption-is-viewed-fuzzily/783688/0?utm_source5twitterfeed&utm_
medium5twitter.
19
The Hindu, July 10, 2011, 5. Cf. John Desrochers, ‘‘The State of India,’’ Integral Liberation 15, no. 2 (2011): 155–
56.
20
Arundhati Roy, ‘‘Confronting Empire,’’ OutlookIndia.com, January 30, 2003, http://www.outlookindia.com/
article.aspx5218738 (accessed April 3, 2012).
60 KOCHUTHARA

Globalization and Economic Solidarity

In a sense, the economic and financial bond between nations was always present.
What may be noteworthy today is the pervasiveness and unprecedented nature of
the system of relations that is developing. The role of financial markets is
becoming central and decisive. On the one hand, globalization offers great
potentialities for development through trade and financial ties between nations
and distribution of capital and wealth. Advancement in technology, communica-
tion media, and the removal/relaxing of international trade barriers have made a
global community possible. This growing interdependence and interconnectedness
of peoples around the globe is a very welcome sign. However, there are problems
as well. Sharp inequalities, exploitation, domination, oppression, and corruption
continue in different forms. Inequalities between developed countries and
developing countries are shooting up. Even within developed countries, inequal-
ities are rising. Poverty is relatively on the increase.21 ‘‘Rather than being in a
global world, we are in a world that continues to be strongly divided between
those who can enjoy the opportunities globalization brings, and those who are left
on the margin.’’22 Inequality in the access to technology, the ability and knowledge
to make use of technology, the availability of capital, and so on, are among the
reasons for the growing disparities.
In the beginning, many people in countries like India were apprehensive (and
still are) that globalization is a form of economic colonialism, aimed at plundering
the wealth of developing and poor nations in the guise of development. People in
developed countries were rather enthusiastic about globalization. But, years after
globalization was introduced, a good number of people in the developed countries
do not seem to be so enthusiastic about it, especially since the economic recession.
Millions of people in the developed countries have lost their jobs, as many firms
shifted their production units and offices to other countries where labour is cheap.
Furthermore, millions of jobs are outsourced to other countries. Arguably, many
people in the countries where production units are opened and jobs are created
benefit. But often the multinational groups enter into deals with the local
governments, to get their own terms accepted and to evade tax payments. Thus,
though many people in the developing or poor countries benefit, the profit that the
multinational firms make have increased enormously and this growth is without
any solidarity with society, as shall be explained below, since they are not
accountable to anyone either in their home countries or in the countries where they
have opened their units. As a result, development is largely the development of big
firms. There are people who obtain new jobs and better pay, but society as a whole

21
Pogge argues that the globalization period has seen a massive increase in intra-national inequality in nearly all
countries, including those that have achieved high rates of national economic growth. For example, the US, after
achieving gradual income equalization from the beginning of the Great Depression, has undergone dramatic income
polarization during the globalization period. Substantiating with data, he shows that relative income gains in the US
were highly concentrated among the richest segments, with the top 0.01% quadrupling their share of US household
income. The richest 0.01% of the US population (30,000 people) now have nearly as much income as the bottom half
of Americans (150 million). Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ 90–91.
22
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez, ‘‘The Catholic Church and the Globalization of Solidarity,’’ Address to Caritas
Internationalis, Vatican City (July 7, 2003), p. 2.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 61

is bereft of the benefits of development. This lack of the sense of solidarity

reinforces inequalities, injustice, exploitation and subsequently poverty and
suffering.
Imbalances and inequality in development make the poor poorer. The cost of
living has sharply shot up as many people have found jobs in new sectors and their
income has considerably increased. For example, in the last 10–15 years
Bangalore, which is known as the IT hub of India, has seen its population triple
— from 3 million to more than 9 million (more than 12 million including the
suburbs). With the boom of the IT sector, tens of thousands of people have found
jobs in software companies and BPO, which offer them very good salaries. A
couple of million people are employed in public sectors and service sectors such as
education, and so on. The real-estate business also thrives in the city. But many
people are employed in low-income sectors, or many do not have a secure job or
any job at all. There are a number of people who earn more than 50,000 or
100,000 or even 200,000 rupees per month. But, in the same city, there are
hundreds of thousands of people who earn just 5000, 3000, or even less than 2000
rupees per month. Their income has not increased proportionately with the
development. But, with the economic boom in the city, food, housing, education,
health care, and other goods have become very costly. Bangalore is one of the most
expensive cities of India. There are a number of people who can afford to pay
anything. But there are also a number of people who have to make both ends meet
with just 2000 rupees a month for an entire family. In short, the so-called
development in the globalization period has not improved the life of the poor.
Rather, their life is rendered more miserable.
Thomas Pogge shows an inherent defect in the path globalization has taken
which has led to such a dramatic rise in inequality, both internationally and intra-
nationally. Globalization involves competitive systems, such as global economy
and financial markets, politics and international relations, courts, and so on.
Though in theory competitive systems can be highly efficient in eliciting the best
and thus resulting in the greatest common good, they contain ‘‘seeds of their own
demise insofar as they provide incentives to various reward-focused players to try
to get ahead not by performing better than others at what is being rewarded, but
by affecting, in their own favour, either the rules or their impartial application.’’
According to Pogge, ‘‘the fundamental flaw in the modern global economy is that
the richest agents have both the ability and the incentives to invest extensive
resources into regulatory capture in order to gain an ever increasing share of the
social product for themselves.’’ A complex set of supranational laws and
regulations is an essential part of globalization. These regulations are often
created by intergovernmental negotiations, practically by governments of the
richest countries, large multinational corporations and banks, very rich
individuals, and the elites of the most powerful developing countries. It is a
process which is undemocratic, not transparent and excludes the general public
and a majority of the weaker governments. Hence Pogge states, ‘‘It should not be
surprising that the past seventeen years of globalization have led to income
polarization as the rich minority capture ever more influence over supranational
62 KOCHUTHARA

negotiations, further marginalizing the poorer majority of humanity.’’ This income

polarization happens not only internationally, but also intra-nationally.23
Thus, free trade alone is not enough to ensure social justice. ‘‘The economy
needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an
ethics which is people-oriented.’’24 The World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization underscores that the governance of globalization
must be based on universally shared values and respect for human rights. It
acknowledges that, ‘‘Globalization has developed in an ethical vacuum, where
market success and failure have tended to become the ultimate standard of
behaviour, and where the attitude of ‘the winner takes all’ weakens the fabric of
communities and societies.’’25 Any economic system and developmental pro-
gramme should recognize the ‘‘centrality of the human person.’’26 Only if
globalization is based on the principle of solidarity, will it ensure justice and real
distribution of wealth. Otherwise, it will only intensify and perpetuate injustice on
the global level:
Solidarity is the awareness of a common humanity and global citizenship and the
voluntary acceptance of the responsibilities which go with it. It is the conscious
commitment to redress inequalities both within and between countries. It is based on
the recognition that in an interdependent world, poverty or oppression anywhere is a
threat to prosperity and stability everywhere.27

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the Pastoral Constitution of the
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes (1965), underscored the need for
sharing in justice and charity: ‘‘God destined the earth and all it contains for all
men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all
mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.’’28 Though this was
said before the onset of globalization, this vision of sharing in justice is especially
relevant in the context of globalization, because ‘‘peace for all of us comes from
the justice of each of us.’’29 Injustice done anywhere in the globalized world will
adversely affect peace, harmony, and development in any other part of the world.
Globalization leads to real development only when development is sought in
solidarity. Solidarity refers to the ‘‘need to recognise in the composite ties that
unite men and social groups among themselves, the space given to human freedom
for common growth in which all share and in which they participate.’’30 It is an
authentic moral virtue. It is not a ‘‘feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress
at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a

23
Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ 85–93.
24
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 45.
25
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All
(Geneva: ILO Publications, 2004), no. 37, p. 7.
26
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 47.
27
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization, no. 41, p. 8.
28
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 69, AAS 58 (1966): 1090.
29
‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All,’’ Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of
the World Day of Peace, January 1, 1998, no. 7, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/
documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_08121997_xxxi-world-day-for-peace_en.html.
30
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 2004), 1194, pp. 111–12.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 63

firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That
is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really
responsible for all.’’31 Solidarity ‘‘comes from the discovery of interdependencies
with our fellow men whom we feel inclined to help with their needs because they
are persons.’’32 Solidarity acknowledges the intrinsic social nature of the human
person, the equality of all in dignity and rights and the common path of individual
and peoples towards an ever more committed unity.33 Solidarity implies that there
is a shared responsibility to assist countries and people excluded from or
disadvantaged by globalization. Globalization must help to overcome inequality
both within and between countries and contribute to the elimination of poverty.34
As Pope John Paul II remarked, ‘‘The challenge [...] is to ensure a globalization in
solidarity, a globalization without marginalization. This is a clear duty in
justice.’’35 Both supranational and intra-national regulations must be formulated
in such a way that this shared responsibility is put into practice.
The Kingdom of God, the central message of Jesus Christ, envisions a human
society that lives in solidarity, a human society that lives as a family where God
is the Father of all and all are brothers and sisters. It is not an other-worldly
reality, but a state of life that is to be actualized here. ‘‘The development of
peoples depends, above all, on recognition that the human race is a single family
working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who
happen to live side by side.’’36 Globalization must be based on this sense of
solidarity, that humanity is one family. Competitiveness and profit should not
alienate the market from solidarity with the human family. Only a ‘‘civilization
of love’’ can ensure this.37 This demands a genuine sense of sharing, because
love leads to sharing. Sharing is the apex of solidarity. ‘‘Solidarity is achieved by
seeing to it that all human beings share in the available goods as a whole.’’38 In
this sense, sharing is not a spiritualistic or utopian ideal, but an essential
element of social living to ensure harmony, peace, and development. Sharing is
not limited to sharing of material goods, but it extends to every aspect of life.
However, sharing of material goods is a basic aspect of solidarity. How Pope
John Paul II, in his message for the World Day of Peace (1998), underscores the
importance of sharing deserves our attention: ‘‘A society of genuine solidarity
can be built only if the well-off, in helping the poor, do not stop at giving from
what they do not need. Moreover, offering material things is not enough: what
is needed is a spirit of sharing...’’39

31
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 1193, p. 110.
32
Cardinal Rodriguez, ‘‘The Catholic Church and the Globalization of Solidarity,’’ 3.
33
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 1192, p. 109.
34
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization, x.
35
Pope John Paul II, ‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All,’’ no. 3, original emphasis.
36
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 53.
37
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 33.
38
Cardinal Rodriguez, ‘‘The Catholic Church and the Globalization of Solidarity,’’ 4.
39
Pope John Paul II, ‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All,’’ no. 8, original emphasis.
64 KOCHUTHARA

Globalization and Solidarity with Cultures

Globalization, as an idea and ideal, is a beautiful concept. Since it is driven by the
ideal of the interconnectedness of people all over the world, it must be welcomed
by everyone as a means of promoting universal harmony and peace. On the
contrary, we find resistance to globalization in different parts of the world, from
different cultures. In some places this resistance has been violent. Why does this
happen? Globalization, though often considered an economic phenomenon, is
multi-faceted. It has implications for the socio-economic, political, cultural, and
religious life of people. Globalization has an inherent tendency to promote
homogeneity, not only in business and trade worldwide, but also in socio-cultural
and religious life. Here, the culture of the dominant or influential groups and
countries become normative; they are presented as ideal or global. Consequently,
the indigenous cultures, especially of the poor and weaker countries, feel
threatened. Many cultures see globalization as a form of neo-colonialism, as
another attempt by the West to conquer and destroy their cultures. That is, though
on the one hand many may welcome the benefits of globalization, they feel
threatened by the hidden cultural invasion by the dominant players of
globalization. Influence on local values and cultures may happen through
consumer goods and lifestyle. Many in India seem to fear that globalization is a
threat to the values of Indian culture, especially those regarding family, sexual life,
and ethics. This fear is heightened by the increasing reach of the global media,
entertainment, and tourism industry, which ‘‘is placing stress on traditional
cultures and on the values, sense of identity and solidarity of local communities.’’40
For example, if you ask an Indian why the divorce rate or promiscuity or pre-
marital sex has increased in India in recent years, usually they blame the influence
of Western culture.41 Protests against Valentine’s Day celebrations, restrictions
against young women wearing jeans, attempts by some villages to ban girls and
young women using mobile phones, blocking of certain websites (especially
pornographic) by the government, and so on, spring from the fears that the
invasion of the dominant global culture is eroding the traditional values of Indian
society.42 This fear of cultural invasion is also one of the reasons behind the fight
against Westernization/Americanization in the Islamic world and the increasing
fundamentalist tendencies in many cultures and countries. To sell the products by
creating a sense of need in the consumers, to spread their values and lifestyle which
promote their business, and to get easy access to societies, the proponents of
globalization need to create a homogenous culture, ignoring and even destroying
the local cultures and their traditional value systems. Globalization, if it has to win

40
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization, no. 299, p. 68.
41
Personally I do not agree with this opinion. The West also has a culture of high sexual morality and family life,
thanks to Christianity. See Shaji George Kochuthara, ‘‘Sexuality: Changing Perspectives,’’ in Moral Theology in India
Today: The DVK Workshop on Moral Theology (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2013), 522–23.
42
I am aware of the politicization behind some of these protests. Often the Hindutva fundamentalist groups, which
claim to be the custodians of Indian tradition and values, make it a point to protest against Valentine’s Day, etc. on the
pretext of protecting Indian culture from the invasion of Westernization/Americanization and globalization. On one
occasion a news commentator said how such protests were hypocritical, since many of the youth protesting against
Americanization were wearing American-made jeans! However, that many of such protests get public attention and
support shows how people are concerned about the erosion of traditional values due to the influence of other cultures.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 65

the confidence of the people, has to avoid this colonial tendency: ‘‘The trust among
people bound by common values and culture is the ‘glue’ which binds local
institutions to undertake joint actions. This social capital is essential for
development. Globalization can both strengthen and weaken social capital.’’43
According to Pope Benedict, ‘‘[c]ultural levelling and indiscriminate acceptance
of types of conduct and life-styles’’ are harmful to the ‘‘profound significance of
the culture of different nations, of the traditions of the various peoples, by which
the individual defines himself in relation to life’s fundamental questions.’’44 The
vision should not be of a global homogenous culture, but a global community that
accommodates the multitude of local cultures. In this regard, Pope John Paul II has
said:
Globalization must not be a new version of colonialism. It must respect the diversity of
cultures which, within the universal harmony of peoples, are life’s interpretive keys. In
particular, it must not deprive the poor of what remains most precious to them,
including their religious beliefs and practices, since genuine religious convictions are
the clearest manifestation of human freedom.45

For many indigenous peoples, their culture is closely connected to their land.
Hence, solidarity with their cultures also means respecting people’s rights over
their land. It has become a trend in many parts of the world to take away, often
forcefully, the land belonging to indigenous people and farmers. Taking away land
means not only that their livelihood is robbed, but they are totally uprooted from
their culture. Consequently, they become resistant to globalization; in turn the
human community loses the richness of its cultural heritage.
This does not mean that each culture is perfect in itself or that no culture should
learn anything from others. Each culture has its own richness, as well as defects.
Every culture should be open to other cultures to learn from them, in order to
enrich itself. However, it should not be through domination or levelling of cultures
by external agencies. Respecting the uniqueness of cultures, globalization can
strengthen cultures through healthy dialogue rooted in solidarity.

Globalization in Solidarity with the Enviroment?

An important aspect of solidarity is solidarity with nature.46 In the reckless search
for profit, often the ecological balance of the planet and the limitedness of its
resources are ignored. Unscrupulous exploitation of natural resources, destruction

43
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization, no. 310, p. 70.
44
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 26.
45
John Paul II, ‘‘Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences,’’ #4: AAS 93 (April 27, 2001): 600.
46
Here I do not intend to discuss in detail how human beings should relate with nature, namely, nature as
independently existing for itself, or nature as existing for human beings. For example, some of the Indian traditions
treat nature as existing for itself, seeing the manifestation of God in everything, or nature as an extension of God, an
approach which has been often called pantheistic. ‘‘Deep Ecology’’ in contemporary approaches to ecological and
environmental philosophy has a similar view of nature, though not with reference to God. A detailed discussion of this
is beyond the scope of this article. Here the main concern is to ensure sustainable development, considering the needs
of the present generation as well as those of future generations. However, a completely anthropocentric approach
considering nature as existing only to be used by human beings may lead to ‘‘exploiting it as much as possible.’’
Instead, what is needed is a relationship of mutuality.
66 KOCHUTHARA

of the forests, flora, and fauna without considering the needs of the future
generations, and technological developments that cause burden on future
generations, are in fact counterproductive. We are already experiencing the
disastrous effects of global warming caused by the damage done to ecology.
Globalization is surely not the sole cause of all ecological destruction. The
ecological crisis has roots in the development models and policies adopted in the
last few decades. However, globalization has heavily intensified the trends that
endanger ecology and has introduced new elements. Often, the multinational
companies which manage to influence and even dictate government policies easily
ignore the havoc done to ecology and future generations. I have already given a
few examples from India: the Plachimada struggle; the plight of the farmers who
have lost their land, and so on. A very recent example is the conflict between the
farmers in Orissa and POSCO and the forceful acquisition of 2700 acres of
agricultural land. Besides depriving the farmers of their livelihood, it is said that
the proposed steel plant will destroy the ecological balance of the region.47 Rapid
growth of the economy, which is the demand and need of the market, requires
rapid and major expansion of infrastructure and resource extraction. Added to this
the encouragement of wasteful consumption, especially by the rich, without which
the present model of the market cannot survive, results in projects and processes
with negative consequences for the ecology. Liberalization of trade has led to a
rapid increase in exploitation of natural resources to earn foreign exchange, which
has serious consequences for the traditional livelihoods and ecological balance in
different regions. Norms to safeguard the ecology are sacrificed to make a
‘‘friendly’’ climate for investment.48 Besides the examples already given, I shall
give a few more instances of the havoc done to ecology in the globalization period.
With the liberalization of imports, India has become a major importer of
hazardous and toxic wastes from industrial countries. Import of metal wastes
equals several millions of tonnes annually. PepsiCo has sent PET bottles to India.
The quantity of imported waste in the computer industry has also increased
dramatically. About 70% of e-wastes found in recycling units in Delhi were those
dumped by industrial countries to India. For example, a company named Attero
obtained permission to import 8000 tonnes of e-waste in 2009. Indian companies
are also (especially the influential ones) responsible for environmental destruction.
Another area of concern is tourism. The number of domestic tourists has increased
from about 140 million in 1996 to 527 million in 2007, and foreign tourists from
2.29 million to 5.08 million.49 Ecologically sensitive areas have been opened up
for tourism. Moreover, a lot of construction, often violating all norms, has taken
place in these areas. This has been done to create a ‘‘friendly’’ climate for

47
POSCO, the South Korean multinational company, signed an MOU with the government in 2005 to establish a steel
plant in Odisha (Orissa). In spite of farmers’ protests and legal battle, the government is going forward with the
acquisition of their land. See http://sanhati.com/articles/3634. A new development is that a UN panel of experts has
urged POSCO to suspend the proposed steel plant project as it threatens the rights and livelihoods of tens of thousands
of people: ‘‘UN Urges Posco to Halt Odisha Steel Plant, Says People’s Rights Must Take Precedence over Potential
Profits,’’ The Times of India (October 1, 2013).
48
Ashish Kothari, ‘‘Globalization and its Alternatives: A View from India,’’ Policy Matters (November 18, 2011): 177–
79.
49
Kothari, ‘‘Globalization and its Alternatives,’’ 184–90.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 67

investment in the tourism industry. The recent flash floods in Uttarkhand, one of
the North Indian states in the Himalayan region, in which thousands of people,
mainly tourists/pilgrims, were killed is said to be a typical example of the
disastrous effects of development in the name of pilgrimage/tourism without
respecting ecology.50 Extensive areas of land, especially in rural and forest areas,
have been given for mining to national and multinational corporations, leading to
the destruction of agricultural land and forestation. Several Bills have been passed
by the governments (both state governments and the central government) which
allow them to acquire land belonging to farmers and tribal people. This has even
led to armed conflicts, especially in the tribal areas, where groups such as the
Naxalites have organized people to fight the destruction of their land and
livelihood.51 But, in many other places, people have organized themselves, though
very often they do not defeat the joint forces of the big corporations and
government machinery.
Bangalore, the city where I live, was known as the ‘‘Garden City’’ of India.
Even today many use that name, but many would say that it has become a garbage
city. In the last 15 years, as I have mentioned above, the population of the city has
increased three times or more. Consequently, the city suffers from air and water
pollution, frequent traffic jams, lack of open space, scarcity of water, and so on.
Evidently, these are not problems that India alone faces.52 Unbridled
competition and unscrupulous demands in the market lead the profit-motivated
national and multinational corporations in any part of the world to the
exploitation of natural resources and developmental works at the cost of the
environment. However, the developing and poor nations are more severely
affected. Globalization has given many multinational corporations easy access to
the developing and poor countries, where they are not constrained by standards
and restrictions which they have to abide by in their home countries.
There is no doubt that we need development and investment both by national
and multinational corporations. To meet the growing demands and to compete
with the global market, we also need to extract the natural resources available.
The pertinent question would be, ‘‘To what extent are we entitled to exploit
natural resources?’’ The answer depends on the sustainability of the ecological
system, the genuine needs of human society, respect for nature and the needs of the
present, as well as future, generations. Needs of the market and profit motive
should not become the only criteria for the decisions to make use of natural
resources and development. There is a growing awareness that, ‘‘Respect for

50
Though the officially confirmed death toll is around one thousand, even many agencies, government officials and
ministers have said that the real number of deaths could be between 10,000 and 15,000.
51
Recently, Jairam Ramesh, a Union Cabinet Minister of India, accused the existing Land Acquisition Law as
responsible for the spread of Naxalism. It is estimated that 30–40 million tribal peoples were displaced: ‘‘Jairam
Ramesh Blames Bad Land Law for Naxalism,’’ Hindustan Times (September 29, 2013), http://www.hindustantimes.
com/India-news/Maharashtra/Jairam-Ramesh-blames-bad-land-law-for-naxalism/Article1-1128793.aspx.
52
For example, Randy J. C. Odchigue narrates in his article the disastrous effects of indiscriminate mining in the
Philippines; see ‘‘Recasting Christian and Cultural Resources for Environment and Sustainability,’’ Asian Horizons 6,
no. 2 (2012): 271–86. Similarly, Finomo Julia Awajiusuk shows the degradation of Niger Delta in recent years; see
‘‘Genesis 1:26-28 — A Panacea for Environmental Degradation in Niger Delta, Nigeria,’’ Asian Horizons 6, no. 2
(2012): 248–60.
68 KOCHUTHARA

nature requires globalization to be ecologically sustainable, respecting the natural

diversity of life on earth and the viability of the planet’s ecosystem, as well as
ensuring equity between present and future generations.’’53 However, big business
enterprises, which are motivated only by profit, together with corrupt politicians
and officials, ignore or violate the norms to safeguard the ecology, defeating the
demands for sustainable development. ‘‘A development which is driven by greed,
profit for the few and unbridled search for luxury, can only lead to the destruction
of the environment and ultimately of humans themselves. Sustainable development
takes account of environmental preservation.’’54
In his encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (2009), Pope Benedict XVI states: ‘‘the
environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility
towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a
whole.’’55 Today’s ecological crisis makes it clear that globalization, if it should
enhance real human development, should safeguard the ecology, discerning the
needs of the present generation, especially the poor, as well as future generations.
Two important concerns need to be mentioned here.
1. Solidarity and justice in the use and distribution of energy resources. Caritas
in Veritate points out that hoarding of non-renewable energy resources by
some states, power groups and companies poses a grave obstacle to
development in poor countries. Often, the poor countries lack access to
energy sources or their own sources are exploited by the rich and powerful
countries and groups. Caritas in Veritate urges the international community
‘‘to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable
resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together
for the future.’’56 It is also necessary to allot more funds for research into
alternative sources of energy. Many countries are still reluctant to invest in
alternative energy sources. For example, even after the Fukushima nuclear
plant tragedy following the earthquake on March 11, 2011, India is
planning to build several nuclear power plants. There have been violent
protests and opposition from people in different places, as many would lose
their habitat and livelihood. A typical example is the protest against the
Koodankulam power plant in the state of Tamil Nadu. Many are
apprehensive of the government’s stubbornness in moving forward with
such projects which cause a lot of ecological damage for hundreds of years,
while India has rich possibilities for making use of solar energy, wind energy,
and many other alternative sources. Many question whether the government
is acting under the pressure of multinational groups and countries which
install such huge power plants.
2. There is a ‘‘pressing moral need for renewed solidarity, especially in
relationships between developing countries and those that are highly

53
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, A Fair Globalization, no. 41, p. 8.
54
Julian Saldanha, SJ, ‘‘From Garden to City,’’ Asian Horizons 6, no. 2 (2012): 266.
55
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 48.
56
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 49.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 69

industrialized.’’57 This solidarity also demands the lowering of energy

consumption on behalf of the technologically advanced societies. Thomas
Pogge points out that ‘‘wealthy countries contribute disproportionately to
global pollution and yet they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of their
polluting activities without compensating the poor who bear the brunt of the
hazards of pollution.’’ The poor are more vulnerable to health risks and
dangers of climate change wrought by pollution. According to a Global
Humanitarian Forum report, climate change causes $125 billion in
economic losses annually and 300,000 deaths, of which 99% are in less
developed countries.58 Solidarity requires that the developed nations, who
are more responsible for ecological damage, bear in a proportionate manner
the duty to compensate for the damage done.
Solidarity with nature is in fact a global responsibility, ‘‘for it is concerned not
just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to
future generations depleted of its resources.’’59 Thus, solidarity with nature,
besides being necessary for safe and healthy life today, implies a responsibility to
future generations.

Globalization in Solidarity: A Few Proposals

The ways and means of expressing solidarity may vary, depending on the
particular context and needs. However, it is worth reflecting on the measures that
could be taken to ensure solidarity in a globalized world. Some of the proposals
given by experts and world leaders in this regard may be helpful:60
1. Goods are to be shared without excluding anyone, without hoarding them
and depriving others of the right to own them. This is one of the basic
principles to ensure solidarity both in the international and intra-national
arenas. Fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy sources must be
available to all nations, and unjust conditions in their production and
distribution as well as arbitrary control over those regions rich in fuel
deposits should be avoided.
2. International organizations should ensure just prices in trade. On essential
goods, subsidies are to be granted to poor nations. Similarly, poor sections
within the nation are to be offered special subsidies. India, for example, had
a system of granting subsidies to the poor. Since the introduction of the neo-
liberal economic system, a number of subsidies were cut, especially under
the pressure of the IMF, WTO, and other such organizations. It is claimed
that the subsidy system slows down economic growth. However, it is
paradoxical that to save big national and multinational companies, billions

57
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 49; John Paul II, ‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All,’’ no. 13.
58
Pogge, ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development,’’ 93.
59
Benedict XVII, Caritas in Veritate, no. 50.
60
Here I mainly refer to some of the proposals given by Pope John Paul II (‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for
All’’), Cardinal Rodriguez (‘‘The Catholic Church and the Globalization of Solidarity’’) and Pogge (‘‘Transcending the
Washington View of Development’’). These or similar suggestions have been given by many experts and world leaders.
70 KOCHUTHARA

of rupees are written off. Often, the loss to the economy in writing off the
debt of the multi-million companies is much more than the subsidies
granted to the poor. Preferential choice for the poor is an essential element
of solidarity.
3. Special mention should be given to the obligation of developed/industria-
lized countries to help the poorest. This is demanded by solidarity.
Moreover, in most cases this is a demand for justice of restitution, that is, a
compensation for unjustifiable exploitation that many poor countries had
to undergo in the past. Without generous assistance many such countries
are unable to develop, as they still do not have the basic facilities and
infrastructure. However, this assistance should not be under conditions
which enslave them further.
4. Another important aspect of solidarity to be considered is regarding the
external debt of poor nations. Most of the poor nations are over-burdened
by huge external debts which hinder their development. Moreover, these
debts often compel them to accept exploitative conditions by rich nations
and multinational corporations, resulting in further underdevelopment.
Unless the rich nations are willing to express their solidarity with the poor
nations cancelling their external debts (or at least writing off a considerable
amount of it), it will be practically impossible for these nations to find the
path of development.61
5. On the one hand, international organizations such as the UN, WTO, IMF,
and so on, are rendering great services in promoting peace and helping poor
nations to progress. However, it is not rare that these organizations serve
the interests of the rich and the powerful, sometimes even sidelining the
needs and rights of the poor countries. These organizations have to become
more representational, promoting justice to all, especially to the poor and
weaker nations. The present structure of the UN Security Council cannot be
considered democratic and hence needs to be reconsidered if its role and
function is to be more effective. Similarly, the structure, membership, and
role in international bodies such as WTO and IMF have to be reformulated,
if they are to ensure solidarity with the poor and the weaker nations and
peoples.
6. Patent regulations, which control the production of essential goods and
their prices, are to be reconsidered.62 This is acutely felt in the case of life-
saving and essential medicines. While respecting the right of the inventor
and producer to a just profit, patent regulations should become sensitive to
the needs of the people, especially of the poor. The historic ruling given by
the Supreme Court of India, rejecting the petition by Novartis, and allowing

61
Rajesh Makwana, ‘‘Cancelling Third World Debt,’’ February 2006, http://www.stwr.org/aid-debt-development/
cancelling-third-world-debt.html
62
To understand the extent to which patent regulations are misused for business motives, it is enough to consider the
dispute over the patent for turmeric, a traditional spice and medicine used in India for thousands of years: http://
www1.american.edu/ted/turmeric.htm. Another example would be the dispute on the patent for neemtree, a medicinal
tree: http://www1.american.edu/TED/neemtree.htm. There were also attempts to obtain patents for Basmati rice and
such traditional crops.
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 71

domestic companies to continue to make copycat versions of the drug

Gleevec (Glivec), gives new hope to the poor. Whereas Gleevec may cost
$70,000 a year, the Indian generic versions cost less than $2,500 a year.63
Evidently, such steps may be resisted by multinational corporations. But
they are necessary steps not to exclude the poor and the less privileged from
the benefits of development.
7. Banking and credit systems have to become more accessible to the poor at
affordable interest rates. Otherwise, the financial condition of the poor will
be affected further and they will be marginalized from the benefits of
economic progress.
8. Governments and NGOs should work together to ensure sustainable
development, respecting the ecological conditions of the regions concerned.
More investment should be made in developing alternative energy sources.
9. Globalization should respect the cultures and religions of people without
imposing its ‘‘homogenous’’ culture.

Concluding Remarks
Globalization cannot be said to be good or bad in itself. As an ideal of
interconnectedness of peoples, nations, and cultures, it offers great possibilities. To
realize this, globalization has to be rooted in the principle of solidarity, especially
with the poor, the local cultures, and the ecology. Globalization is not first of all
about money, market, or competition, but about people and their interconnected-
ness in a world that has to become one human community. Economic prosperity, if
it does not ensure justice to all, will not lead to long-lasting peace, well-being, and
development in the world. Those who are denied justice and even a minimum
means of life will rise against the powerful who deny them justice and oppress
them in different ways. The number of revolutions and people’s movements
throughout history clearly show this. Hence, development in solidarity with
peoples and their cultures is necessary for peace and harmony in this world.
Moreover, development that is sensitive to the ecological system is essential for the
well-being of human community and for the very existence of our planet.
Ensuring justice in globalization is not merely to satisfy some legal requirements,
or to avoid wars and conflicts. It comes out of the conviction that all people on
earth basically form one single human community, that is inter-related and co-
responsible for the well-being of all. This concept of justice is fundamentally
rooted in love and solidarity with all people on earth. Globalization, to be an agent
of real human development, should integrate these values.

63
Gardiner Harris and Katie Thomas, ‘‘Low-Cost Drugs in Poor Nations Get a Lift in Indian Court,’’ New York
Times, April 1, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/global/top-court-in-india-rejects-novartis-drug-
patent.html?pagewanted5all&_r50; Sakthivel Selvaraj, ‘‘Patent Justice,’’ The Hindu, April 7, 2013, http://www.
thehindu.com/news/national/patent-justice/article4588895.ece. Thomas Pogge’s article referred to above is very
helpful regarding the patent regulations concerning drugs.
72 KOCHUTHARA

Bibliography
Awajiusuk, F. J. ‘‘Genesis 1:26-28 — A Panacea for Environmental Degradation in Niger Delta, Nigeria.’’
Asian Horizons 6, no. 2 (2012): 248–60.
Benedict XVII. Caritas in Veritate. Encyclical Letter (June 29, 2009). Trivandrum: Carmel International
Publishing House, 2009.
Chattergee, S. ‘‘Estimation of Rural Poverty: A Discussion with Reference to India.’’ Paper presented at WYE
City Group on Rural Development and Agriculture Household Income, at FAO Headquarters, Rome, June
11-12, 2009. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/pages/rural/wye_city_group/2009/paper_3_1_
chatterjee_ITALY.doc
Desrochers, J. ‘‘The State of India.’’ Integral Liberation 15, no. 2 (2011): 147–64.
Harris, G. and K. Thomas. ‘‘Low-Cost Drugs in Poor Nations Get a Lift in Indian Court.’’ New York Times,
April 1, 2013.
‘‘Jairam Ramesh Blames Bad Land Law for Naxalism.’’ Hindustan Times, September 29, 2013. http://www.
hindustantimes.com/India-news/Maharashtra/Jairam-Ramesh-blames-bad-land-law-for-naxalism/Article1-
1128793.aspx
John Paul II. ‘‘From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All.’’ Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for
the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 1998.
——‘‘Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.’’ April 27, 2001.
Kochuthara, S. G., ed. Moral Theology in India Today: The DVK Workshop on Moral Theology. Bangalore:
Dharmaram Publications, 2013.
Kothari, A. ‘‘Globalization and its Alternatives: A View from India.’’ Policy Matters (November 18, 2011):
177–79.
Makwana, R. ‘‘Cancelling Third World Debt.’’ February 2006. http://www.stwr.org/aid-debt-development/
cancelling-third-world-debt.html
Narayana Murthy, N. R. Making Globalization Work for India. Mumbai: Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial
Trust, 2007.
‘‘New Economic Policy.’’ http://www.scribd.com/doc/13709734/New-Economic-Policy-1991
Odchigue, J. C. ‘‘Recasting Christian and Cultural Resources for Environment and Sustainability.’’ Asian
Horizons 6, no. 2 (2012): 271–86.
Parikh, K. ‘‘The Poverty Line Debate.’’ Hindustan Times, April 2, 2012. http://www.hindustantimes.com/
News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/The-poverty-line-debate/Article1-752547.aspx
Pinto, M. ‘‘Have We Failed Democracy in India?’’ Integral Liberation 15, no. 2 (2011): 83–89.
Pogge, T. ‘‘Transcending the Washington View of Development.’’ In Towards a Strong Global Economic
System: Revealing the Logic of Gratuitousness in the Market Economy, ed. Saju Chackalackal, 73–101.
Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2013.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 2004.
Reserve Bank of India. Table 162: Number and Percentage of Population below Poverty Line. http://www.rbi.
org.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id513750
Rodriguez, O. A. ‘‘The Catholic Church and the Globalization of Solidarity.’’ Address to Caritas
Internationalis, Vatican City, July 7, 2003.
Roy, A. ‘‘Confronting Empire.’’ Outlook India.com, January 30, 2003. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.
aspx5218738
——‘‘When Corruption is Viewed Fuzzily.’’ The Indian Express, April 30, 2012. http://archive.indianexpress.
com/news/when-corruption-is-viewed-fuzzily/783688/05utm_source5twitterfeed&utm_medium5twitter
Saldanha, J., SJ. ‘‘From Garden to City.’’ Asian Horizons 6, no. 2 (2012): 261–270.
Sarabhai, M. ‘‘Modi and His Mayajaal.’’ The Week, October 30, 2011, 98.
Saxena, N. C. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/about-70-per-cent-of-india-is-poor-n-
c-saxena/articleshow/12401483.cms
 GLOBALIZATION IN SOLIDARITY 73

Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et spes. English translation, Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II, The
Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New revised ed. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.
Selvaraj, S. ‘‘Patent Justice.’’ The Hindu, April 7, 2013. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/patent-
justice/article4588895.ece
Stiglitz, J. Globalization and its Discontents. London: Penguin Books, 2002.
‘‘UN Urges Posco to Halt Odisha Steel Plant, Says People’s Rights Must Take Precedence over Potential
Profits.’’ The Times of India, October 1, 2013. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UN-urges-Posco-
to-halt-Odisha-steel-plant-says-peoples-rights-must-take-precedence-over-potential-profits/articleshow/
23366763.cms
Venugopal, P. N. ‘‘End of Plachimada Battle. Or Is It?’’ http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/apr/env-
plachmada.htm
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization. A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities
for All. Geneva: ILO Publications, 2004.
Wramner, E. ‘‘Fighting Cocacolanization in Plachimada: Water, Soft Drinks and a Tragedy of the Commons in
an Indian Village.’’ Bachelor’s thesis, Lund University.

Notes on contributor
Shaji George Kochuthara, CMI is Associate Professor of Moral Theology at
Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram (Pointifical Athenaeum), Bangalore, India. He is also
the Chief Editor of Asian Horizons, Dharmaram Journal of Theology, and the
Chairperson of the Institutional Ethical Board of St John’s Medical College,
Bangalore. He completed his undergraduate studies in India and the post-graduate
and doctoral studies in moral theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University,
Rome. His publications include The Concept of Sexual Pleasure in the Catholic
Moral Tradition (Gregorian, Rome, 2007), Moral Theology in India Today, ed.
(Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 2013) and over 30 articles.
Correspondence to: Shaji George Kochuthara, email: kochuthshaji@gmail.com
Copyright of Political Theology is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.