Advances in technology and modern communications, we are told, have unleashed new contacts and intercourse among peoples, social movements, transnational corporations and governments. The result is a set of processes which have affected world politics in a new and extraordinary way. Yet the argument itself is not a new one—nor is the phenomenon. Globalization is neither good nor bad. Rather, certain aspects of the complex, and multi-faceted process of globalization have impacts that can be viewed in different ways depending on the values at stake. Globalization has become one of the most popular buzzword of our time frequently used by people. Globalization is the increasing interaction of national economy with that of the First World which ultimately aims at creating a state of frictionless capitalism. It is a process of creating a global market in which increasingly all nations are forced to participate.¹

Here is what Amartya Sen a Nobel Laureate and Economist has to say: “Global interaction, rather than insulated isolation, has been the basis of economic progress in the world. Trade, along with migration, communication, and dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge, has helped to break the dominance of rampant poverty and the pervasiveness of ‘nasty, brutish and short’ lives that characterized the world. And yet, despite all the progress, life is still severely nasty, brutish and short for a large part of the world population. The great rewards of globalized trade have come to some, but not to others.” ²

The process of globalization entails that there is interconnection of sovereign nations through trade and capital flows; harmonization of economy rules that govern relationship among these sovereign nation; creating structures to support and facilitate interdependent and creating a global market place. From the culture point of view, David (2002), state that globalization is the process of harmonizing different culture and beliefs. Castells (1997), state that globalization is the process that eroding differences in culture and producing a seamless global system of culture and economic values. The harmonization, according to Awak his achieved to due to advancement in communication and countries are increasingly being forced to participate. Therefore, globalization can be viewed as a process of shifting autonomous economies into a global market. In other words, it is the systematic integration of autonomous economies into a global system of production and distribution. The consequent is that the word of separate nation-states is said to be ending if the process of globalization is allows to run its logical course. The new technology, based on the computer and satellite communication have indeed revolutionized our traditional conception of the media, both print and electronic. Books, newspapers, radio, television and video programme are now being transposed into the multimedia world of the cyber space and available to all people of the world wherever they may live. This is the current phase of Globalization what we are talking about. I have noticed various papers by distinguished participants on various sectional impacts of this Globalization. I am not going into those details, but what is the main objective of this entire process? The main objective in my opinion is to create conditions whereby the rest of the world, that is the developing world, is again brought back into bondage of economic slavery. Globalization, as it is currently envisioned by imperialism, is actually a blueprint for the economic recolonization of the developing world. Impact of Globalization in India has also many other dimensions. It has wide ranging impact on everything else connected with our lives. It impacts our entire culture or the entire value system, on the milieu in which we are living. Again I go back to Marx. 150 years ago, he actually said that capitalism not only produces the object for the subject but it also produces subjects for the object. He made a very penetrating statement. In today’s advertising world if you see this what is actually being created. You are creating human beings who are capable of consuming certain products. The emphasis is no longer on creating the products that are required by the human beings rather creating human beings that are required for the products. This is essentially the defining feature of culture under globalization. Human beings are reduced to the status of products who will consume the other products that capitalism produces. This entire trend of culture -- consumerism, degeneration etc -- creates its own atmosphere which affects every aspect of our life and society. The net result of placing markets as the primary agent of all human endeavors is that today we are witnessing a world where-economy is building castles in air; politics is suffering from cognitive freeze; culture is experiencing shock and military is in a state of stupor. "International Finance is a Darwinian world—survival will go to the fittest", a world in which profits and losses amounting to tens of millions of dollars is a commonplace. "The homogenizing influences of globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are actually positive; globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it." "Many societies, particularly indigenous peoples, view culture as their richest heritage, without which they have no roots, history or soul. Its value is other than monetary. To commodify it is to destroy it."³

Three Views of Globalization:

There are three familiar responses to globalization. First, that its novelty is grossly exaggerated. Globalization, the argument runs, has been around for a long time. The current phase is merely an intensification of a well-entrenched process, the basic features of which are much the same as before. The second response is that globalization is not only novel but extensive, leaving nothing untouched, transforming everything within its reach. Therefore, it must be treated as the central organizing category of contemporary discourse. When evaluated, this response branches into two further sub-responses: either globalization (over-optimistically) is a panacea for all the problems of the world, or (over-pessimistically) it is the cause of all its maladies. The third response is an intermediate one, which sees globalization as introducing new structures without altogether displacing older patterns. From this point of view, globalization is a dynamic, open-ended and contradictory process that generates forces working in different, often opposite directions.⁴

A Few Winners, Many Losers:

In discussing these different approaches, most participants in my group agreed that globalization had introduced to India new technology and economic opportunities, and greater sensitivity to efficiency. But, surprisingly, a consensus also emerged that it produces massive problems. Almost everyone voiced concern over its impact on employment. Unemployment had risen steeply. Equally significant was the deterioration in the quality of jobs. Thus, along with exclusion from the economy, it was felt that globalization brings with it what one participant called ‘negative inclusion’. Exclusion from the economy was accompanied by exclusion from whatever little public space was available for deliberation and negotiation. A corollary of this is that globalization has a negative impact on participation, access, transparency, and accountability. In short, most people in the session expressed concern about the adverse impact of globalization on democracy. This is not to say that globalization has no beneficiaries. The point is rather that it has differential impact on different categories of people. Plainly, globalization throws up winners and losers.⁵ Generally, big businessmen, professionals and the young living in cities benefit from it; the rest lose. The percentage figure of winners mentioned by a participant in the session was abysmally low: a mere 3% of the population! Those who suffer most, it was agreed, are Dalits, tribal’s, women, poor peasants, unorganized workers and minority populations. Globalization, in short, increases economic and political inequalities.

A World Connected, and Divided:

On the relationship between globalization and culture, it was agreed that globalization estranged family members from each other, encouraged egoism and a consequent loss of compassion, and has a propensity to alter the very manner in which we sense the world. Even more importantly, by forging new communities with transnational links, it undermines older, more inclusive varieties of nationalism. There is a possible link then between globalization and the resurgence of communalism in India. Even those who welcome global culture were worried about the rapid pace at which it spreads, in a way that undermines freedom of choice. Overall then, the assessment of globalization was negative – closer even to the second, pessimistic view than to the third, more ambivalent one that I personally favor. For large parts of the world, globalization creates not a borderless world but one where territories retain their significance as before. It presents a contradictory face: a much easier flow and spread of ideas, experiences, objects and people from one particular part of the globe to another; yet a divided world, thrown together rather than integrated, in a manner heavily biased in favor of rich, dominant countries. So, globalization has to be combated, tamed or at least given a more human face.⁶

Concept of Culture:

Culture specifies what behaviors are desirable or proscribed for members of the culture (norms), for individuals in the social structure (roles), as well as the important goals and Principles in one’s life (values). Culture also specifies how things are to be evaluated (Carnevale, 1995). This implies that people of different cultures will have greater difficulty In interaction, in understanding, and in valuation. Culture is ones recognition and identity through which he is being recognized. Culture has been defined differently by people. The different definitions attach to culture is based on the differences in the orientation of the people. According Ekeh (1989), culture is constructing used in an attempt to analyze and integrate events and ideas in broad spectrum of areas of society. Jekayinfa (2002) states that from wider perspective, culture includes the total repertoire of human action which are socially transmitted from generation to generation. Tyler (1871), in Jekayinfa (2002), views culture as configuration of institutions and modes of life. Furthermore, he states that culture is the complex while which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, laws, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as member of the society.⁷ Among the feature that characterize culture is that has its own personality and identity. The fact that we are human does not mean we are the same. However, it is noted that every moment, we are being transformed, always growing like the cell in our bodies. Culture changes exactly the same way as the human being change. In other words, culture is dynamic. According to Odiora the transformation of culture is gradual and not sudden. Obiora contends that culture is a continuous process of change. In spite of the change culture continues to give a community a sense of dignity, continuity, security and binds society together. Another attribute of culture is that it is learned, acquired, transmitted or diffused through contact or other means of communication flow from one generation to another. For instance, in the old days a young Nigerian Girl from Yoruba culture would knee down to greet their elders. For the Britain a Girl may stretch hand shake. In the modern day third world countries, absolute kneeing down may be fading as noted by Tardif (2002) opines that culture is not genetically transmitted rather it takes place by process of absorption from the social environment or through deliberate instruction. This is to say that culture is learned. Such learning does not occur through natural inheritance. Probably that is why Jekayinfa (2002) maintains that the man learns culture through the process of socialization, enumeration, personal experience and through deliberate endocrine nation or teaching. It should be noted that learning of culture is a lifelong process. That is, learning of culture is from birth of death. Further observes that what is learnt differ from society to society and from one stage to another. However, all that is learnt is geared towards the realization of the goal of the society. Culture specifies what behaviors are desirable or proscribed for members of the culture (norms), for individuals in the social Structure (roles), as well as the important goals and principles in one’s life (values). Culture also specifies how things are to be evaluated. This implies that people of different cultures will have greater difficulty in interaction, in understanding, and in valuation. To sum up, culture as a way of human life is constantly undergoing change. Certain developments in modem times have helped to accelerate this process of change in an exponential manner involving two major consequences: (a) reduction in cultural diversity; and (b) increasing hegemonic control in the name of free trade and freedom of communication, at all levels. The implications of this change are varied and there are no indications that they are in any way increasing the social, material or spiritual well-being of humanity. There, are different cultures across the globe but it is quite clear that these cultures have been affected by the western domination. It was the planning of west that how to rule over the world, especially over those who were underdeveloped and marginalized. What they did? They projected their type of polity, consumer and pop culture, capitalist economy, and this all was made in the name of globalization, to bolster and enhance their power and potential and to pave a way to start worst form of colonization. It is obvious that no culture of the world remain in its same conditions now we can see it as a mix culture but it is wrong to say a mix culture rather to quote it is the western culture, which can also be explained as a cultural imperialism, where “have-nots” have no status and dignity but it remains a world of “haves” those who are capitalists. When you are saying that we are the custodians and protectors of freedom then why not there is freedom for others as for as performance of culture is concerned. Let us return to culture at large. Globalization is accompanied by a need to homogenize the product, even the cultural product.⁸ The more homogenous the product, the greater the market it has weather. Where ever you go in the world, you will have the same soaps, same toothpaste, and the same sort of other products that you will find in our country. The homogenization of the product is the first step in a globalised economy for maximization of profits by the multinational corporations. Homogenization of products also has a natural consequence in the homogenization of culture. Studies have shown that in Sub-Saharan Africa, people may not have anything to eat; they may not know how to read and write but the moment you show them Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, and they will recognize it. This is homogenization of a certain thought process and homogenization of certain symbols. Homogenization of symbols requires cultural products to be produced on mass scale. One immediate impact is that all the rich variations in the cultural legacies will be eliminated in order to create the homogenized product. This is the essence of culture of globalization -- homogenization of cultural products and symbols. In some ways the effects of free trade in images and information are more far-reaching than those of trade in tangible objects, for here we are talking about forces that mould minds, tastes and values. Faced with the inevitability of a high degree of globalization, it is necessary not to lose sight of the ideal of a better kind of globalization, an exchange among equals in which cultures borrow from each other judiciously and selectively, and where what crosses borders most easily are not brand names but good ideas. One of the principal concerns about the new globalization of culture that is supposedly taking place is that it not only leads to a homogenization of world culture, but also that it largely represents the "Americanization" of world cultures. The spread of American corporations abroad has various consequences on local cultures, some very visible, and others less obvious. For example, the influence of American companies on other countries' cultural identity can be seen with regard to food, which matters on two levels. First, food itself is in many countries an integral aspect of the culture. Second, food restaurants can influence the mores and habits in societies where they operate.⁹ The French are proud of having a unique cuisine that reflects their culture, such as crepes and pastries. Because of their pride in their cuisine, some French people are concerned that U.S. restaurant chains crowd out their own products with fast food. Some French people would argue that fast food does not belong in French society and is of lower quality than their own. Moreover, restaurant chains not only affect eating habits, but they also influence the traditions and mores in countries where they are located. Starbucks causes cultural concerns in Italy because of the association that Italians make between coffee and leisurely sidewalk cafes. Coffee in Italy is more than a drink; it is part of the way of life and Italian mores. While in the United States it is common for people to buy takeaway coffee for drinking in the street or office, in Italy people usually prefer to relax and chat with peers while drinking coffee. Coffee shops offer a personal, friendly atmosphere that many Italians believe a large chain could not provide. Similarly, many people would prefer to frequent coffee shops that are each unique, while Starbucks offers a standard formula. Another example can be seen with the introduction of the McDonald's restaurant in China. In the past, it was not considered proper for Chinese children to buy food with their own money, as they were expected to eat what was put in front of them. Because of McDonald's marketing to children, however, kids developed an interest in choosing their own food when going to McDonald's. After some time, it became more of a common practice for children to buy their food with their own money. McDonald's also popularized birthday parties in China. In the past, festivities marking a child's birth date were not celebrated in China. McDonald's established a new tradition by successfully promoting American-style birthday parties as part of its marketing strategy. This example may appear trivial, but it shows that the spread of American companies in foreign countries can have unexpected consequences. In contrast to these homogenizing effects, some people would argue that globalization can also reinforce local cultures. In India, for example, satellite TV permits an increase in the number of regional channels, many of which can and do telecast Indian content. This gives an Indian individual new opportunity to identify with his regional ties. Similarly global companies have to take into account the culture of all the countries where they conduct operations or sell products. This can also enhance cultural awareness. Many observers have speculated that the homogenizing effect of globalization on national cultures in fact tends to produce a reaction among people, which leads them to want to reaffirm their own local traditions. Author Benjamin Barber in particularly has made the case that the sometimes violent reactions against the West by elements within Islamic society may be seen in this light. Barber argues that these movements may be seen as negative manifestations of a broader desire to reaffirm their traditional cultural values, against the disruptive onslaught of Western beliefs. For example, capitalism favors a more fast-paced environment and a consumer culture, which differ from the lifestyle that people in some countries are used to. This is particularly hard to accept for people who are afraid of change and want to preserve their traditions.

Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington has produced one of the seminal writings on the notion that culture will be the principal factor that divides the world in the future. In an article titled "The Clash of Civilizations," which was later expanded into a full book, Huntington says:

"...The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics." (Foreign Affairs, 1993) Huntington defines a civilization as "the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have.... It is defined by both common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people."¹⁰ In doing so, he divides the world into major cultural groups including Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African civilization.

If the term globalization is used to refer to phenomena that involve sweeping and comprehensive changes across the world, then, needless to say, globalization is not a new concept. The whole worlds, and human beings, have been experiencing globalization since ancient times. Human history can be perceived as the process of globalization from its inception. The Roman Empire globalized its values within its own world. Modernization and industrialization based on the industrial revolution have clearly been globalization processes, although they have not yet reached every part of the world. Throughout history, many cultures and races have been destroyed or forced to change by other cultures and races. Until recently, however, many other countries and races have been able to maintain their cultural and racial identities, more or less protected by borders. Ironically, the cold war situation prevented the world from joining together, although in both the communist and capitalist camps, the globalization process was proceeding. The end of the cold war era coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and opened the floodgates of globalization; the demand for a global economy has accelerated the process. It should be noted, however, that people’s earnest desire for permanent world peace has also been a driving force. Geographically, in the western world, globalization has reached the stage where national boundaries might disappear very quickly; at the same time many nations are still resisting pressure to conform to the western style of globalization. The current conflicts involving the Islamic nations, at least partially, stem from the Islamic world’s rejection of the western globalization process.

Globalization and Its Impact on People:

For the purpose of this presentation, I will discuss globalization and its impact on people at social and cultural, levels. As a social scientist, I am interested in how societies and people change because of this economic phenomena and how the process of change can impact families, individuals and communities. Globalization is associated with rapid and significant human changes. The movements of people from rural to urban areas have accelerated, and the growth of cities in the developing world especially is linked to substandard living for many. Family disruption and social and domestic violence are increasing. For example, 2004 New Delhi police reports indicate that deaths in the city of about six women everyday are dowry-related suicides. Concepts of national identity and of family, job and tradition are changing rapidly and significantly. There is concern that competitiveness introduced by globalization is leading to more individualistic societies’ On the other hand, rapid change can encourage fundamentalism, a desire for the past, and a loss of tolerance for differences in religion and culture.¹¹ The nation state is losing influence relative to global economic pressures, and in some countries there is a failure or hesitation to develop social policies. All of these changes increase the likelihood that vulnerable people will be exploited, and threats to the human rights of less able people will increase. It is believed by economists that the crash of the stock market in Asia in 1994 was an example of the rapid spread of adverse human consequences because of the interdependence of economies and people. Millions of people lost prosperity and livelihoods, and education and health services were among those cut across the region. The effects, including social unrest and poverty, are still evident. Domestic violence and suicide increased in this period in several of the countries in the region. It is believed that the illicit drug trade has grown in recent years to form a significant proportion of the total business volume in the world. Let me revisit the business perspective of globalization: In a capitalistic market, multinational companies are taking the lead in establishing themselves and creating a major presence in almost every part of the world. Coca Cola, McDonalds and Nike are examples of such growth and proliferation. The media then plays a major role in advertising the benefits of new products and services as being BETTER AND SUPERIOR to what the local market has. And slowly but steadily the food that we eat, the clothes we wear and the life style we lead begins to change. This process becomes consumerism within a capitalistic culture. So people as consumers are being studied for their patterns and behaviors of spending. At one level it may appear that globalization has no significant impact on families and that our lives are ‘normal’ in most circumstances. Many people are not totally aware of how they form a crucial part of this phenomenon. The reality is that every single individual is affected in one way or another. These changes affect people’s identities and cultural values, which sometimes become altered significantly. Whether it is between generations, or intra-personally, new values can cause dissonance and conflict with existing deeper-rooted values. Sometimes such transitions and changes can further cause difficulty with internal growth and development.¹²

If the term globalization is used to refer to phenomena that involve sweeping and comprehensive changes across the world, then, needless to say, globalization is not a new concept. The whole world, and human beings, has been experiencing globalization since ancient times. Human history can be perceived as the process of globalization from its inception. The Roman Empire globalized its values within its own world. Modernization and industrialization based on the industrial revolution have clearly been globalization processes, although they have not yet reached every part of the world. Throughout history, many cultures and races have been destroyed or forced to change by other cultures and races. Until recently, however, many other countries and races have been able to maintain their cultural and racial identities, more or less protected by borders. Ironically, the cold war situation prevented the world from joining together, although in both the communist and capitalist camps, the globalization process was proceeding. The end of the cold war era coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and opened the floodgates of globalization; the demand for a global economy has accelerated the process. It should be noted, however, that people’s earnest desire for permanent world peace has also been a driving force. Geographically, in the western world, globalization has reached the stage where national boundaries might disappear very quickly; at the same time many nations are still resisting pressure to conform to the western style of globalization. The current conflicts involving the Islamic nations, at least partially, stem from the Islamic world’s rejection of the western globalization process.¹³

The positive effects of globalization on culture are many! Not all good practices were born in one civilization. The world that we live in today is a result of several cultures coming together. People of one culture, if receptive, tend to see the flaws in their culture and pick up the culture which is more correct or in tune with the times. Societies have become larger as they have welcomed people of other civilizations and backgrounds and created a whole new culture of their own. Cooking styles, languages and customs have spread all due to globalization. The same can be said about movies, musical styles and other art forms. They too have moved from one country to another, leaving an impression on a culture which has adopted them.¹⁴

CONCLUSION:

Globalization is neither good nor bad. Rather, certain aspects of the complex, and multi-faceted process of globalization have impacts that can be viewed in different ways depending on the values at stake. Individual free choice is important, but so is a society’s ability to make decisions according to what is best for all of its members. The free market is important, but so is the ability of governments to deal with problems when the free market fails. Local democratic accountability is important, but so is international agreement on problems that can only be solved with cooperation far beyond the direct control of individual citizens. The major consequences of globalization have been: the transmogrification of traditional religions and belief systems; the beginning of the disintegration of the traditional social fabrics and shared norms by consumerism, cyber-culture, newfangled religions and changing work ethics and work rhythms; the fast spreading anomie forcing an ever increasing number of individuals to fall back upon the easily accessible pretentious religious banalities, and attributing to religion the creation and acceleration of extremist, fundamentalist and terrorist tendencies in the third world countries. It is fair to say that the impact of globalization in the cultural sphere has, most generally, been viewed in a pessimistic light. Typically, it has been associated with the destruction of cultural identities, victims of the accelerating encroachment of a homogenized, westernized, consumer culture. This view, the constituency for which extends from (some) academics to anti globalization activists (Shepard and Hayduk 2002), tends to interpret globalization as a seamless extension of – indeed, as a euphemism for – western cultural imperialism. Values can play a role in defining globalization. A definition of globalization as "Americanization" or, perhaps, the "McDonaldization," of the world presents globalization as a process driven by American consumer culture that rolls over other cultures. On the other hand, another definition of globalization would highlight its cross-cultural impact, taking into account the nature of globalization as a way cultures interact and learn from each other. It is very important to mention here that every culture of the world have been affected by the monopoly of western culture. So, the planning of the west to homogenize the world in order to rule over it became successful through the instrument and means of globalization. First they captured market then gradually and slowly every field was controlled by them. Every nation in the world has its distinct culture and values which is transmitted to them by their ancestors which can be called ones cultural heritage. Though, globalization has some good dimensions also but mostly its benefit goes to well of countries of the world especially to west. Today there is identity crisis ones identity is under threat. Globalization created a materialist culture, where everybody is concerned with his own interest and benefit, nobody is bothering about others. A culture of consumerism and pop culture affected other cultures of the world that were having a glorious and best civilization and cultural values which were based on humanity, tolerance, world brotherhood, social justice, egalitarianism, etc. West first used market and captured it then try to use all other means in order to expand its influence and monopoly over other countries of the world. They propagated after the down fall of Soviet Union in 1991. It was emphasized by the west to world that we have the best system of governance and declared communism as evil or political pathology. They emphasized that if you want to succeed then you need to follow our economy that is capitalist economy, our polity that is liberal democracy, our culture that is civic culture. Even they used a term for the under developing and disadvantaged nations that term is “White Man’s Burdon”.

These all developments took place with well planning and strategy, it took west so many decades in order to establish their type of system across the globe. This dominance of the western culture which got impetus through the instrument of globalization is being explained by the scholars as cultural imperialism. This cultural imperialism is the major hindrance and hurdle for the other cultures of the world. How it is possible that one nation will forget its culture and values. Globalization can be a good ground if it will be used for to accommodate different interests of the different nation and minimize clashes between the cultures of the world, but if it will strengthen and bolster only one culture of the world that is western culture, then how for it will be considered as good option for others. It is only because of the westernization and materialist culture of the west moral values and humane values came into end. There is total decay and degradation of human values due to bad affects of western culture. There is one of the best example which I want to cite here that is children’s behave with their parents those parents who bear everything for their children but at last children stay away from their beloved parents after getting a job they go for marriage then they cut off all relations with parents, parents need their help in old age but they don’t bother. Materialist culture also caused rapes, murders, suicides, dacoits and robbery, corruption, etc. And it would be not wrong to quote that it caused a total moral decay. Although it is being said that globalization created homogenization and mix culture but it is totally wrong because in actuality what we see it is only western culture which dominating everywhere. Therefore, it can be said after having a glance on globalization in terms of culture, is nothing but the expansion of capitalistic economy, liberal democracy, and western culture which is the main slogan of the west to destroy and finish other cultures of the world. Be it Islamic culture, Hindu culture, Sikh culture, communist culture, Buddhist culture what so ever the culture it may be it was affected by the western culture. There is only one umbrella or remedy that we have to follow is to follow our cultures if the influence of the western culture remains continue then the time will come ones recognition and identity will come to an end. Therefore, it is good to be citizen of the world but before it is most important to be the obedient citizen of its own country. Religion is the best instrument which we can use in order to protect ourselves from the influence of western culture. It is also note worthy to mention that westernization is not a way of modernization rather it is way which leads to us away from our cultural heritage. India’s culture was regarded best example of unity in diversity but it was also affected by the western mores and values. It is natural that if there will be a power in few hands then there are most chances that culture will flourish and survive. Due the great technology which affluent countries possess they use their technology to capture the wealth and resources of the developing countries. African countries can be cited as the example where the major resources are being controlled by the west because African countries don’t possess a good technology. Any way so the major cause of westernization and globalization is nothing but the expansion of capitalism and imperial culture.

REFERENCES:

1. Adam Hochschild, “Globalization and Culture” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 33, No. 21 (May 23-29, 1998), pp. 1235-1238.

2. Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh, “Homogenisation of Global Culture” in Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (eds), The Case against the Global Economy, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1996, p 77.

3. Geeta Kapoor, “Globalization and Culture’’, Third Text, 11: 39, 21— 38http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t 713448411

4. Krishn A Goyal, “Impact of Globalization on Developing Countries” International Research Journal of Finance and Economic, ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 5 (2006) © Euro Journals Publishing, Inc. 2006 http://www.eurojournals.com/ finance.htm,pp.167-178.

5. Woods, Ngaire 'Editorial introduction. Globalization: Definitions, debates and implications', Oxford Development Studies, (1998) 26: 1, 5 — 13

6. Bharadwaj, Atul' “Understanding the Globalisation Mind Game”, Strategic Analysis, (2003) 27: 3, 309 -331

7. Samuel P. Huntington, “Robust Nationalism”, The National Interest. Winter 1999/2000, 31-40.

8. Ali M. Alli, Globalization: Its Effects, International Business and Economics Research Journal – January 2007 Volume 6, Number 1., pp.89-95.

9. Yurlov, Felix N., “Globalization, Inequality and Threat to Sustainable Development", World Affairs, 5 (1), Jan-Mar, 2001, pp.36-53.

10. Samuel p. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 1997,pp.209-218.

11. Panikkar, K. N., “An Agenda for Cultural Action-II.”The Hindu. New Delhi. January10, 2002.

12. Tomlinson, J. Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. London: Pinter. (1991),pp.1-37.

13. Shalmali, Guttal, “Globalization”, Development in Practice, Volume 17, Numbers 4–5, August, Routledge,2007, pp.523-530.

14. Na. D’Souza, “Globalization is harming Indian Culture” The Hindu, 25, September, 2005.

Received on 06.05.2011

Accepted on 29.05.2011