How to Judge Globalism by Amartya Sen
About the Author: Amartya Sen
Amartya Sen was born on 3rd November
1933 at Shantiniketan in Bengal Presidency of British India (now in
Bangladesh). He is a world-famous economist and philosopher. The name
“Amartya,” meaning “immortal,” was given to him by Rabindranath Tagore. He made
remarkable contributions to welfare economics, social justice, and social
choice theory. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 and Bharat Ratna
in 1999.
His father, Ashutosh Sen, was a
Chemistry teacher at Dhaka University, and his mother was Amita Sen. He studied
at Presidency College, Kolkata, and later completed his higher education from
Trinity College Cambridge.
Sen taught at many famous institutions
including Harvard University, London School of Economics, and Delhi School of
Economics. His important books include Poverty and Famines, Development
as Freedom, and The Argumentative Indian.
Summary of “How to Judge Globalism”
“How to Judge Globalism” is an essay
in which Amartya Sen defends globalization and explains its importance.
According to him, globalization is not a modern or purely Western idea. It is
an old process of cultural, intellectual, and economic exchange among nations.
Sen argues that globalization should
not be confused with Westernization. Many important inventions and ideas came
from Eastern countries. For example, paper, printing, gunpowder, and the
compass were invented in China, while the decimal system and mathematics
developed in India later influenced the West.
The author explains that the world
has always been interconnected through trade, science, culture, and technology.
This shared exchange is called a “global heritage.” Different countries
contribute to world civilization and progress.
Sen also believes that globalization
can help poor countries improve economically. According to him, poor people are
not necessarily becoming poorer because of globalization. However, he says that
unfair trade restrictions and inequalities should be removed so that all nations
can benefit equally.
In conclusion, Amartya Sen presents
globalization as a positive and historical process that promotes cooperation,
cultural exchange, and economic development across the world.
How to Jude Globalism
(Text)
Globalization is often
seen as global Westernization. On this point, there is substantial
agreement among many proponents and opponents. Those who take an upbeat view of
globalization see it as a marvelous contribution of Western civilization to the
world. There is a nicely stylized history in which the great developments
happened in Europe: First came the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment and the
Industrial Revolution, and these led to a massive increase in living standards
in the West. And now the great achievements of the West are spreading to the
world. In this view, globalization is not only good, it is also a gift from the
West to the world. The champions of this reading of history tend to feel upset
not just because this great benefaction is seen as a curse but also because it
is undervalued and castigated by an ungrateful world.
From the opposite
perspective, Western dominance--sometimes seen as a continuation of Western
imperialism--is the devil of the piece. In this view, contemporary capitalism,
driven and led by greedy and grabby Western countries in Europe and North
America, has established rules of trade and business relations that do not
serve the interests of the poorer people in the world. The celebration of various
non-Western identities--defined by religion (as in Islamic fundamentalism),
region (as in the championing of Asian values), or culture (as in the
glorification of Confucian ethics)--can add fuel to the fire of confrontation
with the West.
Is globalization really a new Western curse? It
is, in fact, neither new nor necessarily Western; and it is not a curse. Over
thousands of years, globalization has contributed to the progress of the world
through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences, and
dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including that of science and
technology). These global interrelations have often been very productive in the
advancement of different countries. They have not necessarily taken the form of
increased Western influence. Indeed, the active agents of globalization have
often been located far from the West.
To illustrate, consider the world at the
beginning of the last millennium rather than at its end. Around 1000 A.D.,
global reach of science, technology, and mathematics was changing the nature of
the old world, but the dissemination then was, to a great extent, in the
opposite direction of what we see today. The high technology in the world of
1000 A.D. included paper, the printing press, the crossbow, gunpowder, the
iron-chain suspension bridge, the kite, the magnetic compass, the wheelbarrow,
and the rotary fan. A millennium ago, these items were used extensively in
China--and were practically unknown elsewhere. Globalization spread them across
the world, including Europe.
A similar movement occurred in the Eastern
influence on Western mathematics. The decimal system emerged and became well
developed in India between the second and sixth centuries; it was used by Arab
mathematicians soon thereafter. These mathematical innovations reached Europe
mainly in the last quarter of the tenth century and began having an impact in
the early years of the last millennium, playing an important part in the
scientific revolution that helped to transform Europe. The agents of
globalization are neither European nor exclusively Western, nor are they
necessarily linked to Western dominance. Indeed, Europe would have been a lot
poorer--economically, culturally, and scientifically--had it resisted the
globalization of mathematics, science, and technology at that time. And today,
the same principle applies, though in the reverse direction (from West to
East). To reject the globalization of science and technology because it
represents Western influence and imperialism would not only amount to
overlooking global contributions--drawn from many different parts of the
world--that lie solidly behind so-called Western science and technology, but
would also be quite a daft practical decision, given the extent to which the
whole world can benefit from the process.
A Global Heritage
In resisting the diagnosis of globalization as
a phenomenon of quintessentially Western origin, we have to be suspicious not
only of the anti-Western rhetoric but also of the pro-Western chauvinism in
many contemporary writings. Certainly, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and
the Industrial Revolution were great achievements--and they occurred mainly in
Europe and, later, in America. Yet many of these developments drew on the
experience of the rest of the world, rather than being confined within the
boundaries of a discrete Western civilization.
Our global civilization is a world
heritage--not just a collection of disparate local cultures. When a modern
mathematician in Boston invokes an algorithm to solve a difficult computational
problem, she may not be aware that she is helping to commemorate the Arab
mathematician Mohammad Ibn Musa-al-Khwarizmi, who flourished in the first half
of the ninth century. (The word algorithm is derived from
the name al-Khwarizmi.) There is a chain of intellectual relations that link
Western mathematics and science to a collection of distinctly non-Western
practitioners, of whom al-Khwarizmi was one. (The term algebra is
derived from the title of his famous book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah.)
Indeed, al-Khwarizmi is one of many non-Western contributors whose works
influenced the European Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment and the
Industrial Revolution. The West must get full credit for the remarkable
achievements that occurred in Europe and Europeanized America, but the idea of
an immaculate Western conception is an imaginative fantasy.
Not only is the progress of global science and technology not an
exclusively West-led phenomenon, but there were major global developments in
which the West was not even involved. The printing of the world's first book
was a marvelously globalized event. The technology of printing was, of course,
entirely an achievement of the Chinese. But the content came from elsewhere.
The first printed book was an Indian Sanskrit treatise, translated into Chinese
by a half-Turk. The book, Vajracchedika Prajnaparamitasutra (sometimes
referred to as "The Diamond Sutra"), is an old treatise on Buddhism;
it was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit in the fifth century by Kumarajiva,
a half-Indian and half-Turkish scholar who lived in a part of eastern Turkistan
called Kucha but later migrated to China. It was printed four centuries later,
in 868 a.d. All this involving China, Turkey, and India is globalization, all
right, but the West is not even in sight.
Global Interdependences and Movements
The misdiagnosis that globalization of ideas
and practices has to be resisted because it entails dreaded Westernization has
played quite a regressive part in the colonial and postcolonial world. This
assumption incites parochial tendencies and undermines the possibility of
objectivity in science and knowledge. It is not only counterproductive in
itself; given the global interactions throughout history, it can also cause
non-Western societies to shoot themselves in the foot--even in their precious
cultural foot.
Consider the resistance in India to the use of Western ideas and
concepts in science and mathematics. In the nineteenth century, this debate
fitted into a broader controversy about Western education versus indigenous
Indian education. The "Westernizers," such as the redoubtable Thomas
Babington Macaulay, saw no merit whatsoever in Indian tradition. "I have
never found one among them [advocates of Indian tradition] who could deny that
a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature
of India and Arabia," he declared. Partly in retaliation, the advocates of
native education resisted Western imports altogether. Both sides, however,
accepted too readily the foundational dichotomy between two disparate
civilizations.
European mathematics, with its use of such
concepts as sine, was viewed as a purely "Western" import into India.
In fact, the fifth-century Indian mathematician Aryabhata had discussed the concept
of sine in his classic work on astronomy and mathematics in 499 a.d., calling
it by its Sanskrit name, jya-ardha (literally,
"half-chord"). This word, first shortened to jya in
Sanskrit, eventually became the Arabic jiba and,
later, jaib, which means "a cove or a bay." In his
history of mathematics, Howard Eves explains that around 1150 a.d., Gherardo of
Cremona, in his translations from the Arabic, rendered jaib as
the Latin sinus, the corresponding word for a cove or a bay.
And this is the source of the modern word sine. The concept
had traveled full circle--from India, and then back.
To see globalization as merely Western imperialism of ideas and
beliefs (as the rhetoric often suggests) would be a serious and costly error,
in the same way that any European resistance to Eastern influence would have
been at the beginning of the last millennium. Of course, there are issues
related to globalization that do connect with imperialism (the history of
conquests, colonialism, and alien rule remains relevant today in many ways),
and a postcolonial understanding of the world has its merits. But it would be a
great mistake to see globalization primarily as a feature of imperialism. It is
much bigger--much greater--than that.
The issue of the distribution of economic gains
and losses from globalization remains an entirely separate question, and it
must be addressed as a further--and extremely relevant--issue. There is
extensive evidence that the global economy has brought prosperity to many
different areas of the globe. Pervasive poverty dominated the world a few
centuries ago; there were only a few rare pockets of affluence. In overcoming
that penury, extensive economic interrelations and modern technology have been
and remain influential. What has happened in Europe, America, Japan, and East
Asia has important messages for all other regions, and we cannot go very far
into understanding the nature of globalization today without first
acknowledging the positive fruits of global economic contacts.
Indeed, we cannot reverse the economic predicament of the poor
across the world by withholding from them the great advantages of contemporary
technology, the well-established efficiency of international trade and
exchange, and the social as well as economic merits of living in an open
society. Rather, the main issue is how to make good use of the remarkable
benefits of economic intercourse and technological progress in a way that pays
adequate attention to the interests of the deprived and the underdog. That is,
I would argue, the constructive question that emerges from the so-called
antiglobalization movements.
Are the Poor Getting Poorer?
The principal challenge relates to
inequality--international as well as intranational. The troubling inequalities
include disparities in affluence and also gross asymmetries in political,
social, and economic opportunities and power.
A crucial question concerns the sharing of the potential gains
from globalization--between rich and poor countries and among different groups
within a country. It is not sufficient to understand that the poor of the world
need globalization as much as the rich do; it is also important to make sure
that they actually get what they need. This may require extensive institutional
reform, even as globalization is defended.
There is also a need for more clarity in
formulating the distributional questions. For example, it is often argued that
the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. But this is by no means
uniformly so, even though there are cases in which this has happened. Much
depends on the region or the group chosen and what indicators of economic
prosperity are used. But the attempt to base the castigation of economic
globalization on this rather thin ice produces a peculiarly fragile critique.
On the other side, the apologists of
globalization point to their belief that the poor who participate in trade and
exchange are mostly getting richer. Ergo--the argument runs--globalization is
not unfair to the poor: they too benefit. If the central relevance of this
question is accepted, then the whole debate turns on determining which side is
correct in this empirical dispute. But is this the right battleground in the
first place? I would argue that it is not.
Global Justice and the Bargaining Problem
Even if the poor were to get just a little
richer, this would not necessarily imply that the poor were getting a fair
share of the potentially vast benefits of global economic interrelations. It is
not adequate to ask whether international inequality is getting marginally
larger or smaller. In order to rebel against the appalling poverty and the
staggering inequalities that characterize the contemporary world--or to protest
against the unfair sharing of benefits of global cooperation--it is not
necessary to show that the massive inequality or distributional unfairness is
also getting marginally larger. This is a separate issue altogether.
When there are gains from cooperation, there
can be many possible arrangements. As the game theorist and mathematician John
Nash discussed more than half a century ago (in "The Bargaining
Problem," published in Econometrica in 1950, which was
cited, among other writings, by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences when Nash
was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics), the central issue in general is not
whether a particular arrangement is better for everyone than no cooperation at
all would be, but whether that is a fair division of the benefits. One cannot
rebut the criticism that a distributional arrangement is unfair simply by
noting that all the parties are better off than they would be in the absence of
cooperation; the real exercise is the choice between these
alternatives.
An Analogy with the Family
By analogy, to argue that a particularly
unequal and sexist family arrangement is unfair, one does not have to show that
women would have done comparatively better had there been no families at all,
but only that the sharing of the benefits is seriously unequal in that
particular arrangement. Before the issue of gender justice became an explicitly
recognized concern (as it has in recent decades), there were attempts to
dismiss the issue of unfair arrangements within the family by suggesting that
women did not need to live in families if they found the arrangements so
unjust. It was also argued that since women as well as men benefit from living
in families, the existing arrangements could not be unfair. But even when it is
accepted that both men and women may typically gain from living in a family,
the question of distributional fairness remains. Many different family
arrangements--when compared with the absence of any family system--would
satisfy the condition of being beneficial to both men and women. The real issue
concerns how fairly benefits associated with these respective arrangements are
distributed.
Likewise, one cannot rebut the charge that the
global system is unfair by showing that even the poor gain something from
global contacts and are not necessarily made poorer. That answer may or may not
be wrong, but the question certainly is. The critical issue is not whether the
poor are getting marginally poorer or richer. Nor is it whether they are better
off than they would be had they excluded themselves from globalized
interactions.
Again, the real issue is the distribution of globalization's
benefits. Indeed, this is why many of the antiglobalization protesters, who
seek a better deal for the underdogs of the world economy, are not--contrary to
their own rhetoric and to the views attributed to them by others--really
"antiglobalization." It is also why there is no real contradiction in
the fact that the so-called antiglobalization protests have become among the
most globalized events in the contemporary world.
Altering Global Arrangements
However, can those less-well-off groups get a
better deal from globalized economic and social relations without dispensing
with the market economy itself? They certainly can. The use of the market
economy is consistent with many different ownership patterns, resource
availabilities, social opportunities, and rules of operation (such as patent
laws and antitrust regulations). And depending on these conditions, the market
economy would generate different prices, terms of trade, income distribution,
and, more generally, diverse overall outcomes. The arrangements for social
security and other public interventions can make further modifications to the
outcomes of the market processes, and together they can yield varying levels of
inequality and poverty.
The central question is not whether to use the
market economy. That shallow question is easy to answer, because it is hard to
achieve economic prosperity without making extensive use of the opportunities
of exchange and specialization that market relations offer. Even though the
operation of a given market economy can be significantly defective, there is no
way of dispensing with the institution of markets in general as a powerful
engine of economic progress.
But this recognition does not end the
discussion about globalized market relations. The market economy does not work
by itself in global relations--indeed, it cannot operate alone even within a
given country. It is not only the case that a marketinclusive system can
generate very distinct results depending on various enabling conditions (such
as how physical resources are distributed, how human resources are developed,
what rules of business relations prevail, what social-security arrangements are
in place, and so on). These enabling conditions themselves depend critically on
economic, social, and political institutions that operate nationally and
globally.
The crucial role of the markets does not make
the other institutions insignificant, even in terms of the results that the
market economy can produce. As has been amply established in empirical studies,
market outcomes are massively influenced by public policies in education,
epidemiology, land reform, microcredit facilities, appropriate legal protections,
et cetera; and in each of these fields, there is work to be done through public
action that can radically alter the outcome of local and global economic
relations.
Institutions and Inequality
Globalization has much to offer; but even as we
defend it, we must also, without any contradiction, see the legitimacy of many
questions that the antiglobalization protesters ask. There may be a
misdiagnosis about where the main problems lie (they do not lie in
globalization, as such), but the ethical and human concerns that yield these
questions call for serious reassessments of the adequacy of the national and
global institutional arrangements that characterize the contemporary world and
shape globalized economic and social relations.
Global capitalism is much more concerned with
expanding the domain of market relations than with, say, establishing
democracy, expanding elementary education, or enhancing the social
opportunities of society's underdogs. Since globalization of markets is, on its
own, a very inadequate approach to world prosperity, there is a need to go
beyond the priorities that find expression in the chosen focus of global
capitalism. As George Soros has pointed out, international business concerns
often have a strong preference for working in orderly and highly organized
autocracies rather than in activist and less-regimented democracies, and this
can be a regressive influence on equitable development. Further, multinational
firms can exert their influence on the priorities of public expenditure in less
secure third-world countries by giving preference to the safety and convenience
of the managerial classes and of privileged workers over the removal of
widespread illiteracy, medical deprivation, and other adversities of the poor.
These possibilities do not, of course, impose any insurmountable barrier to
development, but it is important to make sure that the surmountable barriers
are actually surmounted.
Omissions and Commissions
The injustices that characterize the world are
closely related to various omissions that need to be addressed, particularly in
institutional arrangements. I have tried to identify some of the main problems
in my book Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999). Global
policies have a role here in helping the development of national institutions
(for example, through defending democracy and supporting schooling and health
facilities), but there is also a need to re-examine the adequacy of global
institutional arrangements themselves. The distribution of the benefits in the
global economy depends, among other things, on a variety of global
institutional arrangements, including those for fair trade, medical
initiatives, educational exchanges, facilities for technological dissemination,
ecological and environmental restraints, and fair treatment of accumulated
debts that were often incurred by irresponsible military rulers of the past.
In addition to the momentous omissions that
need to be rectified, there are also serious problems of commission that must
be addressed for even elementary global ethics. These include not only
inefficient and inequitable trade restrictions that repress exports from poor
countries, but also patent laws that inhibit the use of lifesaving drugs--for
diseases like AIDS--and that give inadequate incentive for medical research
aimed at developing nonrepeating medicines (such as vaccines). These issues
have been much discussed on their own, but we must also note how they fit into
a general pattern of unhelpful arrangements that undermine what globalization
could offer.
Another--somewhat less discussed--global
"commission" that causes intense misery as well as lasting
deprivation relates to the involvement of the world powers in globalized arms
trade. This is a field in which a new global initiative is urgently required, going
beyond the need--the very important need--to curb terrorism, on which the focus
is so heavily concentrated right now. Local wars and military conflicts, which
have very destructive consequences (not least on the economic prospects of poor
countries), draw not only on regional tensions but also on global trade in arms
and weapons. The world establishment is firmly entrenched in this business: the
Permanent Members of the Security Council of the United Nations were together
responsible for 81 percent of world arms exports from 1996 through 2000.
Indeed, the world leaders who express deep frustration at the
"irresponsibility" of antiglobalization protesters lead the countries
that make the most money in this terrible trade. The G-8 countries sold 87
percent of the total supply of arms exported in the entire world. The U.S.
share alone has just gone up to almost 50 percent of the total sales in the
world. Furthermore, as much as 68 percent of the American arms exports went to
developing countries.
The arms are used with bloody results--and with
devastating effects on the economy, the polity, and the society. In some ways,
this is a continuation of the unhelpful role of world powers in the genesis and
flowering of political militarism in Africa from the 1960s to the 1980s, when
the Cold War was fought over Africa. During these decades, when military
overlords--Mobuto Sese Seko or Jonas Savimbi or whoever--busted social and
political arrangements (and, ultimately, economic order as well) in Africa,
they could rely on support either from the United States and its allies or from
the Soviet Union, depending on their military alliances. The world powers bear
an awesome responsibility for helping in the subversion of democracy in Africa
and for all the far-reaching negative consequences of that subversion. The
pursuit of arms "pushing" gives them a continuing role in the
escalation of military conflicts today--in Africa and elsewhere. The U.S.
refusal to agree to a joint crackdown even on illicit sales of small arms (as
proposed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan) illustrates the difficulties
involved.
Fair Sharing of Global Opportunities
To conclude, the confounding of globalization
with Westernization is not only ahistorical, it also distracts attention from
the many potential benefits of global integration. Globalization is a
historical process that has offered an abundance of opportunities and rewards
in the past and continues to do so today. The very existence of potentially
large benefits makes the question of fairness in sharing the benefits of
globalization so critically important.
The central issue of contention is not
globalization itself, nor is it the use of the market as an institution, but
the inequity in the overall balance of institutional arrangements--which
produces very unequal sharing of the benefits of globalization. The question is
not just whether the poor, too, gain something from globalization, but whether
they get a fair share and a fair opportunity. There is an urgent need for
reforming institutional arrangements--in addition to national ones--in order to
overcome both the errors of omission and those of commission that tend to give
the poor across the world such limited opportunities. Globalization deserves a
reasoned defense, but it also needs reform.
Text Book Questions of “How to Judge Globalism”
Q.1. Contrary to common perception, Sen sees the ‘active agents of
Globalization … located far from the West’. Give two illustrations to prove the
truth of his assertion.
Ans:
Amartya Sen believes that globalization is neither new nor purely Western.
According to him, globalization is the result of cultural and intellectual
exchanges among different civilizations over many centuries. He gives several
examples to prove that the roots of globalization lie far from the West.
Two illustrations are:
1. Sen points out that many important inventions of the old world
came from China. He says that paper, printing press, gunpowder, and the compass
were widely used in China long before Europe became advanced in science and
technology. This shows that Asia played a major role in the growth of global
civilization.
2. Sen also gives the example of Mathematics. He explains that the
decimal system and important mathematical ideas originated in India between the
2nd and 6th centuries. These ideas later spread to the Western world and
greatly influenced modern mathematics.
Thus, Sen proves that globalization has been shaped by contributions from
both East and West.
Q.2. In the essay Sen asserts that ‘our global civilization is a world
heritage’. How does he argue his case? Do you agree with him? Give a reasoned
answer.
Ans:
In the essay “How to Judge Globalism,” Amartya Sen argues that global
civilization belongs to the whole world and is a shared heritage of humanity.
According to him, no single country or region can claim complete ownership of
civilization or progress.
Sen explains that globalization is not the same as Westernization. It is the
result of continuous cultural, scientific, and intellectual exchanges among
different nations. Eastern countries like India and China contributed greatly
to mathematics, science, printing, and technology, while Western countries also
added new developments. Therefore, world civilization is the combined
achievement of all cultures.
He raises the question: “Is Globalization really a new Western curse?” and
answers that it is neither Western nor a curse. Instead, it is a process that
has connected people across the world for centuries.
Yes, I agree with Sen because every civilization has contributed something
valuable to human progress. The modern world is built on shared knowledge,
ideas, and discoveries from different parts of the world.
Q.4. While talking of ‘distributional fairness’ Sen uses the analogy of a
family. Explain how he uses it to explain what he believes to be as an error of
approach towards globalization.
Ans:
While discussing “distributional fairness,” Amartya Sen uses the example of a
family to explain the misunderstanding about globalization. He says that if
there is inequality within a family, it does not mean that the family system
itself should be destroyed. For example, if women are treated unfairly in a
family, the solution is to remove inequality, not to abolish families.
Similarly, Sen argues that globalization should not be rejected simply
because its benefits are not equally distributed. Some people wrongly believe
that globalization only helps the rich and harms the poor. Sen disagrees with
this idea. According to him, poor people also benefit from global connections,
trade, and economic growth, although the benefits may not always be distributed
fairly.
Thus, Sen believes that the real problem is inequality in distribution, not
globalization itself.
Q.5. Even though Sen defends globalization, he is aware that it is fraught
with problems. What according to him is the ‘real issue’ that needs be
addressed? Give a well-reasoned answer.
Ans:
Although Amartya Sen supports globalization, he also recognizes that it has
several problems. According to him, the real issue is not globalization itself
but the unfair way in which its benefits are distributed.
Sen believes that globalization should work for the welfare of all people,
especially the poor and weaker sections of society. He says that international
trade and global capitalism should not be controlled only by powerful countries
and multinational companies.
According to Sen, the following issues need attention:
1. Democracy should be stronger than market forces.
2. International business should not be controlled by autocratic
powers.
3. Multinational companies should help reduce poverty, illiteracy,
and medical deprivation.
4. Poor countries should get fair opportunities in world trade.
5. Powerful nations should not dominate weaker countries.
6. Development and economic growth should be equal and fair for all
nations.
Thus, Sen believes that globalization can become beneficial if justice,
equality, and fairness are ensured throughout the world.
Here are the correct answers for Exercise 2 (Multiple Choice)
from How to Judge Globalism:
Exercise 2: Choose the correct option
1. While referring to the printing of the world's first book as a
'globalized event', which country does Sen not cite?
Ans: d. Turkey
2. Sen uses the expression 'shoot themselves in the foot'. What
does it mean?
Ans: c. to foolishly harm one's own cause
3. The Latin term for ‘a cove or a bay’ is
Ans: d. none of the above
4. Sen's approach to anti-globalisation movements is:
Ans: b. highly appreciative
5. Sen argues that globalization
Ans: d. a. and c.
6. Sen insists that globalization
Ans: d. all of the above
7. Which one of the following is not true of Vajracchedika
Prajnaparamitasutra?
Ans: a. It is an old treatise on Hinduism
8. According to Sen, anti-globalisation protests are:
Ans: b. globalised events
Grammar Exercise
Exercise 11: Rewrite using the words in brackets
1. You'll get hurt. Move away. (use if)
Ans: If you do not move away, you will get hurt.
2. Tagore was a painter. He was also a poet. (use besides)
Ans: Besides being a painter, Tagore was also a poet.
3. He won a lottery. He bought a new laptop. (use having)
Ans: Having won a lottery, he bought a new laptop.
4. The sum is very easy. Even a child can solve it. (use so, that)
Ans: The sum is so easy that even a child can solve it.
5. The sun shines. Make hay now. (use while)
Ans: Make hay while the sun shines.
6. He hurried home. He might lose his way in the dark. (use lest)
Ans: He hurried home lest he should lose his way in the dark.
7. You must charge less. I cannot buy this bag. (use unless)
Ans: Unless you charge less, I cannot buy this bag.
8. The burglar saw the policeman coming. He fled from there. (use
as soon as)
Ans: As soon as the burglar saw the policeman coming, he fled
from there.
Exercise 12: Do as directed
1. She received praise and reward. (compound sentence)
Ans: She received praise and she received a reward.
2. He is not only industrious but also wise. (simple sentence)
Ans: He is both industrious and wise.
3. To avoid accidents, you must follow traffic rules. (compound
sentence)
Ans: Follow traffic rules and you will avoid accidents.
4. Without your help I can do nothing. (complex sentence)
Ans: If you do not help me, I can do nothing.
5. As soon as he saw the lion, he ran away. (compound sentence)
Ans: He saw the lion and he ran away immediately.
6. He heard the news. He set off at once. (simple sentence)
Ans: Hearing the news, he set off at once.
7. He wishes to become rich. He works hard. (complex sentence)
Ans: He works hard because he wishes to become rich.
8. A person who tells lies is seldom trusted. (simple sentence)
Ans: A liar is seldom trusted.
9. Do you know the road which leads to the station? (simple
sentence)
Ans: Do you know the road leading to the station?
10. He is a man of great ability. (complex sentence)
Ans: He is a man who has great ability.
