Neo liberalism seen not just in globalisation but other aspects too

So this creation of political elites aka the industrialist/ corporate bureaucrat politician linkage... aka the subservience of the state to the market is again a doing of capitalism paradim

Then as the market paradigm spreads its tantacles across the world binding each nation with its stifling and coercive pattern of development the state and its policy lever os captured to suit the interest of these corporate global elites. This is at the cost of the rest majority.
Thus this battle between globalisation and market vs state and sovereignty also takes the colors of the duel between elitism vs democratic citizenship.

The surrender of state objective to serve its people can be directly seen in the mega regional trade blocks. The tpp rcep and the tatip. Why are people the environmentalist the labour unionists the sovereign gvts so against it. Precisely becoz these market led tantacles are seeking to stifle them.

Another tangential but significant point to be noted here is that the globalisation and capitalism can be verified or their existence perceived if the nation goes through environmental and labour reforms. So far here in india the labour reforms in the industrial dispute act such as the one carried out by rajasthan and madhya pradesh gvt that no sanctions from the gvt are needed for closing business etc.  last year the economic survey highlighted the chakrvyu challenges to the firms and the need for them to do away with the government contol by allowing them to exit and shutdown when they are not profitable.  this would lead to a more productive utilisation of capital labour and entrepreneurship. 

but these are just few of the highlights that show the onslaught of global capitalism in india. Much has been said and done about the need of labour reforms as a corresponding reform to the 1991 lpg reforms. So much water has flown under the low manufacturing bridge that poor industrial performance and the absence of manufacturing sector the losses incurred due to chinese goods flooding are all attributed to stagnancy in labour reform. 

Clearly the indian government is already under great dueress to produce results in favour of indian and global corporates. But it shouldnt be forgotten that india is a nation of people 1.3 crore people and no development paradigm can be successful without taking them into consideration. Aristotle while recounting the merits of democracy stated that it is a better form of gvt to oligarchy or say philosopher king because in case of oligarchy they have a vested interest in making themselves rich while keeping the majority poorer. but in a democracy if a government continues to only the select  few the majority would shut them of the power and then a new government which would serve the majority would continue. dont get it ...the focus on irrigation the pm gareeb kalyan yojana , mahila schemes , increased progressive taxations are all manifestations of aristotelian argument.

So labour reforms are somewhat hard, unless people are themselves sufficiently financially and socially to let go some of the benefits that they accrue while being in a union. Therefore a neoliberalism is somewhat checked due to democracy.

But there are caveats such as formation of coalition government and vote bank politics. in both cases aristotle fails. but anyways. 

A new brand of leaders who are more pro people like christina lagard (IMF) kaushik Basu ( world bank) are showing the needs for empowerment of people first before empowering the markets. Kaushik basu at the world bank in order to capture the concept of inequality came out with the concept of shared prosperity which actuallty takes into account the growth rate of poorest 40 percent. 

India too

Anti-globalization movement
Worldwide political movement against multinational corporations

Thousands of people gathered for a demonstration in Warsaw, the capital of Poland, as the country prepared to enter the European Union in 2004.

The anti-globalization movement, or counter-globalisation movement,[1] is a social movement critical of economic globalization. The movement is also commonly referred to as the global justice movement,[2] alter-globalization movement, anti-globalist movement, anti-corporate globalization movement,[3] or movement against neoliberal globalization.

Participants base their criticisms on a number of related ideas.[4] What is shared is that participants oppose large, multinational corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets. Specifically, corporations are accused of seeking to maximize profit at the expense of work safety conditions and standards, labor hiring and compensation standards, environmental conservation principles, and the integrity of national legislative authority, independence and sovereignty. As of January 2012, some commentators have characterized changes in the global economy as "turbo-capitalism" (Edward Luttwak), "market fundamentalism" (George Soros), "casino capitalism" (Susan Strange),[5] and as "McWorld" (Benjamin Barber).

Many anti-globalization activists do not oppose globalization in general and call for forms of global integration that better provide democratic representation, advancement of human rights, fair trade and sustainable development and therefore feel the term "anti-globalization" is misleading.[6][7][8]