The economics profession in the country has never been as sharply divided as it has been on the issue of ‘liberalization’ and ‘globalization’. The moment we step outside of the economics profession and take cognizance of the views of other social scientists the disquiet among them over the implications of ‘liberalization’ and ‘globalization’ appears even greater than among the economists. And of course if we look at the wider circle of social activists and intellectuals, this disquiet is even greater. Much of this disquiet does not get adequately reflected in the popular print or electronic media. Besides, linguistic subterfuge is disingenuously used by the defenders of neoliberal policies to claim a consensus for it: ‘Everybody is for reforms’, goes the refrain, without mentioning the fact that everybody is not for the neoliberal reforms. The sleight-of-hand appropriation of the term ‘reform’ exclusively for the neoliberal agenda has the desired effect of misleading the unwary into a belief in the universal acceptance of neoliberalism. As a matter of fact, however, we have to honestly accept that we are sharply divided over the desirability of the neoliberal agenda and over the implications of our pursuit of it since the beginning of the '90s.

To be sure, the disquiet over the pursuit of this agenda has grown over time. In the beginning many believed that it would provide a way out of the impasse that the dirigiste strategy had got the economy into, that it would introduce a rule-governed system, admittedly the rules of the market, in the place of rampant cronyism, arbitrariness and corruption of the dirigiste era, and that it would enable us to achieve the remarkable growth rates that China and the other economies of East and Southeast Asia were achieving.