Should India go in for globalisation or protectionism?

Globalise or perish. Or will it be globalise and perish? Shefali Bhushan argues, "It would be simplistic to answer it any which way.
I am certainly against ''globalisation'' as it is happening today but I also feel it is necessary.
There has to be some protection to Indian needs and the government cannot stop playing a role." A sentiment echoed by Chakravarty, "Both or neither."
However, people like lawyer Sandeep Dadwal are clear that "protectionism breeds in-competitiveness, compromise on quality and high prices.Why should Indian consumers be deprived of the fruits of globalisation? In a WTO-world, economies can no more remain compartmentalised and thus survival lies in becoming internationally competitive."
He cautions that it must be blended with steps to ensure that local business have a level-playing field and there is a minimal immediate effect on vital sectors like employment.
Local industries should not be hampered, insists Ahmedabad-based designer Rajiv Singh, warning, "Many local industries have not been able to survive the foreign competition. This would endanger India''s interests in the long run."
Architect Vasudevan R. Kadalayil is more categorical: “Globalisation is no panacea for a country like ours. We need to develop awareness about our own environment and respond suitably instead of copying the developed countries blindly."
Scriptwriter-lyricist Abbas Tyrewala advocates a refreshingly pragmatic approach: "I think the ultimately-unavoidable globalisation has to be preceded by an era of aggressive protectionism. The government should go all out to prop up industry and encourage it to become globally competitive. Then open the doors and stake your place in the world. Like Japan and China or even South Korea where the government realised that the state''s ultimate welfare is linked to private players who become the barometer of a country''s economic performance."