The period was after the Second World War, which saw the victory of an alternative economic system in the world. The rift between the developed and the developing was not then well known. What was known was the divide between a flourishing West and a dwindling East. However, the gap between the rich and poor nations was something, which was known. Poverty of nations was a problem of irritation in the world. We witnessed the birth of two mighty international credit institutions of the world -International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the context of the poverty of the nations. The ruling idea was that to eradicate the poverty of the nations, credit must flow from excess supply to excess demand regions, so that eventually the gap between the rich and poor nations should be almost if not totally eliminated. The flow of funds from rich to the poor nations was not voluntary and certain rules were fixed in the world of trade so that to yield some benefit to the rich nations also. What one should recollect from the past experiences is that the reason behind setting up of international credit institutions was minimising the disparity between the nations.

The world took up its own turn of events. Instead of the declared objective of the international institutions, the gap between the rich and the poor increased day by day. The poverty of the poor nations increased in the last few decades. We are currently facing the coming years with a more than ever divide between the rich and the poor nations. It is not only true that poverty in the world had swelled, it is also true that we have geographical areas marked in the globe which have been established as the impoverished nations. The rift is now between the North and the South nations. The South means a huge population in the countries of South Asia, Latin America and Africa. The world now is prepared to face permanently poor nations. The famed international institutions now take it for granted that poverty will exist in the globe, the discrimination between the rich and the poor will continue, and hence it is best to maximise the wealth of the rich keeping poverty as it is. Addressing poverty does not mean now eradication of poverty. Addressing poverty now means that poverty is to be contained in its minimum. The terminologies have changed. We now hear of poverty management instead of poverty eradication. Previously we were told that we cannot bear poverty and so it should go. Now we are told that poverty remains and we should bear it. We are also told that unless we bear with some poverty, how can the wealth of nations increase if we cannot bear with poverty of some of the nations?

Globalisation, liberalisation, privatisation, poverty management etc are the keywords of the new generation. The ideas were already there. But they are pronounced now. If one looks at figures, they tell us that the width of the income disparity between the rich and the poor nations was about 3to 1 in 1820, 11 to 1 in 1913, 35 to 1 in 1950, 44 to 1 in 1973 and 72 to 1 in 1992. In 1997 this came to about 727 to 1. Now the assets of the world’s three richest people are more than the combined GNP of 26 of the world’s poorest countries. Even, the assets of the world’s 200 richest people are more than the combined income of 41% of the world. The indebtedness of the poor nations continues to grow. The total indebtedness of low and middle income is 2.3 trillion dollars today. It was 1.5 trillion dollars in 1990. The figures blatantly show the truth.

Globalisation and the new keywords have undoubtedly been triggered against then poor nations. The millenium ended with a tough battle and finally defeat of the conspirators against the poor nations at Seattle meet of World Trade Organisation, another international organisation aimed to ‘tackle’ the trade problems of the countries.