The cat was out of the bag several years ago about the way the American government, in league with multilateral funding agencies like the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and using so-called “economic hit men”, was pushing its unabashed imperialistic and neo-colonialist agenda in the name of removing poverty in developing countries.

John Perkins, a self-confessed economic hit man, revealed in his autobiography, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, how he was sent with suitcases full of money to bribe leaders of third world countries to push privatisation policies, and take huge loans for unnecessary and unviable infrastructure projects, to promote the business of US multinational companies. The “conspiracy theory” was no longer the brain-child of a few irrational, anti-development rabble-rousers, but very much a fact. 

IFI reign
Despite these revelations, the reign of the IFIs (International Financial Institutions)  has continued, with country after country being asked to drink the healing medicine called LPG – “liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation” – as a panacea for their “inefficiencies”. But their unhindered reign was brought to question by the holding of an “Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank” between September 21 to 24, 2007 in New Delhi, reportedly the first of its kind in the world. 

Victims of  WB’s policies deposed before an eminent jury, pouring out their travails – farmers driven to suicide, handloom weavers who had lost their livelihood, slum-dwellers evicted in the name of urban renewal, tribals driven out of their homeland, workers made redundant by closure of public sector units, the poor unable to access affordable water, the ill unable to bear the cost of health-care, dalit children denied quality education due to dilapidated government schools, and so on – a veritable litany of woes. Behind each of these narratives was one or other document or report of WB advocating the policy changes that led to these sufferings.
The crucial question arises as to how WB, which gives aid and loans worth less than 1 per cent of India’s GDP, has come to wield such enormous influence over the policies of the country. It has been able to do this by its “imperialism and victory over the mind” and ability to “infiltrate” the bureaucracy with persons willing to toe its line.

WB extended further “control over the mind” by donning the role of “knowledge provider” by sponsoring research, studies and reports which supported its dogmas. Instances of WB suppressing findings inimical to its policies have also come to light.

A further inducement to bureaucrats was the “revolving door” between government and WB/IMF, by which Planning Commission members, finance secretaries, Reserve Bank governors, etc., moved “seamlessly” to become staffers of WB/IMF and again moved back to occupy top positions in government. With this cadre of willing yes-men pushing its policies for it, there was very little that WB itself needed to do. The bureaucrats very successfully implemented “socialism and subsidies for the rich and a completely free market for the poor and powerless”.

WB, however, did not participate in the discussions stating that “the institution does not agree with the format of a “tribunal” ... to “try” the Bank”. Neither did any government representative.

The consequences
Thus, after 17 years of WB–induced reforms, we have half of our children malnourished, three-quarters of the population living on less than half a dollar a day, reduced rates of alleviation of poverty, reduced growth of employment, an all-time low per capita availability of foodgrains, displacement, distress migration and suicides at an alarming scale. The LPG medicine has only worsened the disease. But of course, we can be proud of having among the highest number of dollar billionaires in the world and of being recognised as a world “nuclear power”. Good governance never had it so good!

A person deeply unhappy with these developments could be the one who said, when you are in doubt, think of the poorest man you know and see whether or not your policy is going to be good for him.