fs and barriers of trade. Also, as a result of Rao’s policy reform, the anti-liberals argue that the nation advanced into a state of enclave economies, where the foreign companies flourished and the domestic ones suffered. The BJP and other swadeshi advocates claim that the “common man” of India began to suffer due to increased prices in agricultural and food products and decreased wages due to outside competition.The BJP has also recognizes the hypocrisy that exists in the Postwar Liberal Order. In referring to the United States and Japan, the party claims that, “Every nation advocates free trade in all global forums, but, in practice, they compulsively resort to quotas, tariffs, and ant-dumping measures to protect their national interests.” In sum, the neo-imperialist argument of the anti-liberals claims that India is suffering because the reforms caused a decline in the terms of trade and an increase in competition between the large western multinational corporations and India’s local, small, and traditional corporations.Why the Opposition is Wrong Neoimperialism is one of the most complex theories of international relations because there are many aspects to fulfill the argument. The claims of the pro-swadeshi Indians that Rao’s reforms of 1991 have resulted in neoimperialism is a weak one. That is because it does not complete the entire argument of neo-imperialism.According to Eichenberg’s lecture on Neo-imperialism on February 23, 2000, there are two net results of the theory; these are, (1) the limitation on domestic sovereignty and (2) underdevelopment as a result of increased dependency on the global economy. The reform of 1991 did not result in either of these two.During the last decade, India has opened its doors to numerous and diverse foreign investors; therefore, they do not rely extensively on a single trading partner. As a result, India could not, as Sen puts it, become an &...
