Try out FDI in retail in Punjab
Here’s a solution to the political logjam over the Centre’s decision to permit 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail. The UPA is largely isolated on the issue. But the NDA’s Shiromani Akali Dal is game for the move the government believes would create infrastructure in the countryside, generate employment, promote small and medium manufacturing enterprises, help farmers and reach commodities at affordable prices to consumers.
The Union cabinet’s decision isn’t binding on States and is restricted to cities with a million plus population. There should be no problem then to open Punjab’s agrarian economy to the experiment most political parties think could have a deleterious effect on farmers and neighborhood mom and pa stories that are a source of sustenance for millions of people. The dip test in Punjab will confirm or dispel the widely articulated apprehensions, showing the country the way forward on the issue made controversial by the sheer timing of it.
But for the impending assembly polls in Punjab, UP and Uttarakhand, the issue that has to be evaluated in economic terms wouldn’t have got caught in competitive populism. Among those who want the proposal junked are the UPA’s opponents and allies such as the Trinamool and the DMK, not to speak of outside supporters such as the SP and the BSP against whom the Congress is pitted in UP. The BJP and the Left also are on the same page advocating protectionism.
An additional factor weakening the government’s case is the Congress MPs’ failure to defend upfront the FDI initiative. They are coy in order not to annoy the sizeable constituency of grocers and small store owners in urban and semi-urban centres.
The stand-off gives one a sense of déjà vu. The scenario was no different when VP Singh imposed the Mandal report for OBC reservation. Even the 1991-92 Dunkel Draft— named after the then GATT Director General Arthur Dunkel— that set the stage for the World Trade Organisation was painted as a sort of death warrant in an unbridled, ill-informed public discourse at the time.
All those who opposed Mandal are now its strong votaries. The WTO became a reality — as did India’s membership of it — after such outlandish skepticism as then voiced by the likes of Lalu Yadav. The RJD leader would hold Bihar’s rural folks in thrall with the claim that “water-melons will yield cow dung” if Dunkel’s proposals became a reality.
Like any new idea, FDI in retail must’s be rejected out of hand. The final judgment on it should await the outcome of a closely monitored pilot project in a State where the idea has acceptability.
Hindustan Times



(4.56 out of 5)
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
1) Who went and “finalized the deal” with other global chains like the 7-Eleven, Tesco, Carrefour, Metro and others, surely they cannot be allowed into the country for “free and without striking a deal” with Sonia Gandhi? Or will only Walmart be allowed into the country?
2) Get your facts right first – it is always a cabinet decision and then it is tabled in the Parliament so that a debate can take place and not the other way around.
Who is stalling the Parliament and shying away from debate? Are there congressis in the opposition ranks, who are orchestrating the opposition?
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I only suspected certain things and someone is already fuming.
Where do you get your news from? Is it the opposition which is responsible for the current logjam? They have moved a perfectly legal “adjournment motion” and asked for a discussion.
The Left and the BJP have insisted that the policy be discussed in Parliament under an adjournment motion- which means a debate will end with a vote. The government has rejected this – it wants a debate, but no vote.
Who are you trying to fool?
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I am not fuming. Only pointing out the inconsistency of your post. To me neither Sonia Gandhi nor Narendra Modi struck any ‘under the table” deals.
The opposition has been stalling the proceedings on one pretext or the other from day one even before the FDI announcement was made. You are surely fooling yourself.
FDI is just one of the bills, there are 31 more important pieces of legislation including the much vaunted Lokpal bill waiting to be discussed, debated and passed.
All discussions can take place as per procedures and not threats – let them bring adjournment motion and if they are so confident a no-confidence motion too. Who stops them tabling such a motion?
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
My party’s stand is my stand on FDI retail: Narendra Modi.
Is asking for a discussion followed by a vote a threat? In a democracy, why is the govt. scared of votes? A discussion without a vote is nothing more than a waste of time – it yeilds no result.
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Manohar,
Ishwar has raised a valid point. Why only debate,
why no vote on this policy ?
Anonymous Reply:
November 28th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Mohan
There cannot be debate and vote on every issue, because 1) parliament is not in session for 365 days of the year as the executive branch is. 2) there are many decisions which the government takes, because it has the majority in the parliament. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about.
If every decision was to be checked first by the parliament – imagine the delays in decision making and you will be the first one to complain, curse and protest at the delays. It is like asking the Managing Director and the Board to take prior permission from all the shareholders of the Company for every decision they take. Is that practical?
Let me give you an example – the decision to release terrorists and Jaswant Singh to accompany them was also an executive decision (right or wrong) by the Vajpayee’s cabinet – leave aside the consequences. Going by your logic – why was it not discussed in the parliament and a vote taken? It was after all a question of national security and lives of x number of people. Was the parliament stalled when it met again to protest this decision? No.
The point is the opposition has taken upon themselves to force the agenda of the parliament – disrupting question hour, etc. If they wish to discuss anything they should give a notice to the speaker. Today it looked like the biggest calamity (FDI in retail) had fallen on this country, so all other matters needed to be set aside, as if the FDI in retail will start flowing within next 24 hours of the decision and needs to stopped. As I said there are far more crucial bills about 30 pending to be debated and passed and that can only happen if the parliament functions.
Anonymous Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
If the govt. was so serious about all those 30 bills that you are crying about, they should have brought them in parliament first rather than bringing up the FDI in retail issue at the behest of Sonia or her son-in law.
Anonymous Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Here we go again. Now, we have to say in your case too – you do not read, because you cannot read. Please re-read my post above.
Let me repeat.
It is an executive decision, which the Government of India has the authority to do so by virtue of its majority in the Parliament.
Please take time to read some text on civics, constitution and government administration and democracy, perhaps it will clear many cobwebs.
Anonymous Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Even if it it is an “Executive Decision” starring Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal, the govt. should have waited a while before it announced it – if the intent was to ensure the passage of 30 bills.
Was it not aware that there would be a big opposition to it. At least they should have consulted their own partymen if not the allies and the opposition.
Anonymous Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
If they do not take a decision – you have a problem, if they do, you still have a problem.
Out 200 odd Congress MPs, surely some would oppose it, the majority view held and the announcement was made. Do you have a problem? It is their problem to take their own doubting thomases on board, why are you worried? Let them deal with the own internal problem and you do not take that as a reason for your opposition.