ASK MAULANA
Your Questions Answered
DISCUSSION WITH MAULANA WAHIDUDDIN
KHAN ON ‘GLOBALISATION’.
Some people are critical of ‘globalisation’, citing
evidence to show that it is causing rapidly
increasing economic inequalities. Globalisation
helps multinational corporations become even
wealthier, while driving small businesses out of
competition, resulting in massive poverty and
unemployment. How do you see this?
There are two aspects of globalisation that one needs to consider
here. The first is inequality. Inequality does exist, but it is a natural
phenomenon. The fact is that inequality is and will remain part of
every system. This is because according to the law of nature inequality
creates competition and challenges, which, in turn, lead to progress.
A second aspect that needs to be considered is that opportunities have
increased manifold because of it. As a result, there has come about what
can be called the phenomenon of ‘de-monopolization’, which means
that many more people now have the chance to avail of opportunities.
of globalisation generally focus on only one aspect of the
phenomenon and ignore others. What they consider as the minus
point is not due to globalisation per se, but, due to the law of nature.
Misinterpretation of the law of nature has made the critics unable to
understand and acknowledge the positive aspects of globalisation.
It is important to bear in mind that inequality is part of nature and
not something unique to globalisation as such. It is true that the
magnitude or extent of inequality has increased because of it, but
one must also remember that the quantum of opportunities has also
increased. Further, one should remember that this inequality is not a
permanent or absolute feature of globalisation. There are numerous
cases of people who hardly possessed any material wealth initially, and
who have worked hard and prospered as a result, availing of the new
opportunities opened up by globalisation. One should also note that
the opportunities that have accompanied it are an integral feature of
the phenomenon of globalisation.
Some people who are critical of globalisation point out that it is
increasing consumerism and materialism among people, resulting
in spiritual impoverishment, because it is driven essentially by
materialistic concerns. Do you agree? Do you think this has to be
this way or can globalisation also be a means for promoting spiritual
consciousness?
I am also living in the age of globalisation, but I am completely a
spiritual person. This shows that no situation creates a compulsion.
You don’t have to behave in a certain way if you don’t want to. It is up
to the individual concerned to allow himself to be influenced by the
situation he or she is faced with. Suppose there was no globalisation—
that would not necessarily guarantee spirituality. One can be spiritual
while living in a materialistic environment. At the same time, one can
be non-spiritual in an environment which is not materialistic.
You speak of God managing history. You talk of God’s role in history.
In which way do you think globalisation might reflect God’s working in
human history? Or do you think globalisation goes against God’s plan
for humanity?
Globalisation is very much in accordance with divine culture. This
is because for the past thousands of years, the divine message had
remained restricted to the local level. Globalisation made it possible
to disseminate the divine message to people at a global level through
various means. Thus, globalisation is in accordance with the divine
scheme of things.
Some people say that globalisation is resulting in the destruction of
non-Western cultures because it is linked to the spread of the Western
(or American) culture—a culture of what they see as reflecting
unbridled individualism, consumerism and hedonism. So, they say
that globalisation is a threat not just economically to the non-Western
world, especially to the poor, but also culturally and that it is causing
what they call ‘Western cultural imperialism’ and the destruction of
non-Western cultures. What are your views about this?
This statement is quite illogical. What you allude to is not a phenomenon
of Western culture as such, but, reflects the fact that challenge is an
integral part of human life. Western culture offers a challenge to nonWestern
people, because of which people in the non-West have been
encouraged to rethink many things and to become more creative.
We should welcome globalisation. We should see it as part of a historical
advancement. If we find anything unwanted in this phenomenon, we should attribute it to the law of nature. Everything in nature has both
positive and negative aspects. For example, modern democracy is a
boon, but at the same time it has aspects that some people regard as
objectionable.
Globalisation is a phase of a historical process. This historical process
will carry on and cannot come to a halt through a person or group’s
opposition or resistance. All we need to do in this new age is to avail
of the opportunities that have been brought about as a result of
globalisation.
Do you think it is possible to think of a different sort of globalisation
from the one that we have at present? If so, what would its distinctive
features be? And what might be a realistic way to promote this
alternate globalisation?
It is unrealistic to ask for an alternative. There is no alternative to
globalisation as it is not the creation of any person. It is the culmination
of a long process of history. Only another historical process can change
the current state of affairs to bring into effect another phenomenon.
If, for the sake of argument, an alternative to globalisation is created,
even then there will be people who will find that it has problems. We
have to accept that there would always be problems, and at the same
time recognize there will always be opportunities. Therefore, singling
out problems and initiating a movement of resistance is not the way
of wisdom. One should ignore the problems and focus on availing the
existing opportunities.
Proving Oneself
When a person suffers a loss, he should
not consider himself a failure and a
deprived person; he should not lose hope
and courage, and begin uttering endless
complaints. He must prove his courage and
bearing up under the burden of adversity,
retain his mental balance.
