Bharti Walmart not to wait for all states to allow retail FDI

There has been very powerful lobbying by the multinational retail giants to open up the Indian retail market. Their object is that large international chains must control the food supply chain and the distribution of other items of daily utility in India, which is one of the world's largest markets accounting for over 1/6 of world's population. Succumbing to such a pressure, and subjecting to organised and well-designed lobbying, the Indian government recently took the decision to allow 51 % FDI in multi-brand retail trade and 100% percent in single-brand retail trade. Therefore, no wonder that Bharti -Walmart will not wait till all states in India allow FDI in multi-brand retail to roll out its plans and may start opening its outlets from states like Maharashtra and Andra Pradesh. The US retail giant Wall-Mart has said that it wants to have a 51% controlling stake in a new front-end retail company for which wholesale partner Bharti Enterprises would be a "natural partner". Their ultimate goal is to conquer the entire retail trade in India. Therefore, economic colonialism is going to take root slowly. Therefore, the government should not stand on prestige and annul the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail trade. It is alleged that Havarti-Wall-Mart is illegally carrying out multi-brand retail trade.

 Dr.C.Murukadas, ET, 30 Sep, 2012

Unfazed Manmohan presses reforms pedal

.

''In his address to the nation on September 21, 2012, the Prime Minister of India, Dr.Manmohan Singh, struggled to convince the people of India on the benefits of FDI in multi-brand retail. But the arguments put forth by him in favour of FDI proved to be fallacious and unconvincing, besides being a travesty of truth. Consequently, the opposition has hit out at the Prime Minister over his address to the nation saying that he was “misleading” the country on FDI in multi-brand retail and appeared to be advocating interests of other countries while trying to “defend the indefensible.” In conclusion, allowing 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail is an unwise and an anti-people decision. The general consensus is that the government should not stand on prestige; but should annul the decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade.'' Dr.C.Murukadas, The Times of India, Sep 30, 2012

The unique feature of the unorganised/informal retail trade is that there is absolute free entry and free exit. In the recent past there has been stagnation in the generation of job opportunities and income generating activities. Job seekers are unable to gain employment quickly, particularly in the formal sector. In fact employment in the formal sector in recent years is reported to have registered nil or marginal growth. Consequently unemployment and underemployment have become serious problems, particularly in the big cities. As a result more and more of those who cannot find regular organised jobs are forced to enter into low paid gobs/activities with least security in the informal sector, primarily in unorganised (informal) retail trading activities.

 Dr.C.Murukadas, The Hindu Business Line,  Sep 28, 2012

The reforms that matter

	''In India, the term “reform” is often used in a loose sense to justify the illogical and anti-people measures initiated by the government. The classical example is the central government’s recent decision to allow FDI in retail trade. It is an open secret that recent decision to allow FDI in retail trade was taken under at best administrative measures by the government. The central government took the ill-advised decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade, much against the sentiments and wishes of almost the entire spectrum of political parties, the entire trading community, and, of course, the vast majority of the people of the country. The government claims that claims that FDI in multi-brand retail will bring modern technology to the country, improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce and enable the farmers to get better prices for their crops, besides generating employment and bring down prices. That is, what the government is trying to pose that FDI in multi-brand retail is an essential reform to boost the growth rate of the economy. It is nothing but a fallacious propaganda, which is not supported by facts The general perception is that government has resorted to the recent measures with a view to divert attention from various scams, sandals and frauds and other such shadow activates perpetuated during the past few years. the ill-advised decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade, much against the sentiments and wishes of almost the entire spectrum of political parties, the entire trading community, and, of course, the vast majority of the people of the country. The government claims that FDI in multi-brand retail will bring modern technology to the country, improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce and enable the farmers to get better prices for their crops, besides generating employment and bring down prices. That is, what the government is trying to pose that FDI in multi-brand retail is an essential reform to boost the growth rate of the economy. It is nothing but a deceptive propaganda, which is not supported by facts ..'' Dr.C.Murukadas, The Times of India, September 29, 2012

We will do what is good for the country: PM

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh'€™s statement that "We will do what is good for the country...” is the biggest joke of the millennium. In fact, the Indian government has been making repeated efforts to bring about a consensus among the opposition parties and Chief Ministers of various states to give in to the decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade. But the efforts of the government received lukewarm support from state governments and political parties. Meanwhile, reports revealed that multinational retail giants such as Wall-Mart were vigorously lobbying to force the Indian government to allow them to open multi-brand retail outlets. They have been trying to reach the Indian retail market not due to concern for the welfare of the people, but because of sheer greed i.e. the desire to expand their empire and to earn extra profits. In fact, it is the brazen self-interest that drives western mega retail corporations to look for gullible markets in developing countries. Reports also suggest that the multinational retail giants were putting pressure on their home governments (i.e. the United States of America and the European Union) to force the Indian Government to permit FDI in its multi-brand retail trade. Echoing their demand, the US President Barack Obama in an interview to Press Trust of India on 15th July 2012, stooped to the extent of stating: “In too many sectors, such as retail, India limits or prohibits the foreign investment that is necessary to create jobs in both our countries, and which is necessary for India to continue to grow. Obama'€™s above statement does not seem to be a passing reference made unwittingly. Certainly, it is the outcome of powerful lobbying by the multinational retail giants to open up the Indian retail market. Obviously, Obama'€™s statement aroused strong opposition from a wide spectrum of political parties, traders associations and others. Despite stiff opposition from various quarters, on 10.01.2012, the Government of India notified 100 percent foreign direct investment (FDI) in single brand retail allowing the setting up of wholly owned shops by global retail chains. And finally succumbing to the lobbying by multinational retail giants and pressure from the American and European governments, on 14.09.2012, the Union Cabinet took the ill-advised decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade, much against the sentiments and wishes of almost the entire spectrum of political parties, the entire trading community, and, of course, the vast majority of the people of the country. Mrs. Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal Chief Minister, has alleged that the FDI decision was unveiled only to divert attention from the "coalgate" scandal involving the government.5 Mocking at Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh for the decision to allow FDI in retail trade, Mr. Prakash Karat, CPM, said, "True to his character, the commitment made to the US stands above the interests of people of this country."

We are against FDI in retail, not anti-reforms, BJP says

After Independence in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned development of Indian economy on a grand scale. Nehru greatly admired the achievements of Soviet planning and so borrowed the concept of socialism from the Russians; but along with this, he also regarded the democratic values of the capitalist society as indispensable for the full growth of a just society. His government and its successors undertook an ambitious, ongoing campaign to construct factories, dams, highways, nuclear power plants and so on. Unlike the Soviet and other planned economies, the Indian government encouraged private ownership of the means of production as well as distribution. But, by and large, India adhered to socialist policies. However, attempts were made to liberalize economy in 1966. But the first attempt was reversed in 1967 and a stronger version of socialism was adopted. Thereafter, Second major attempt to liberalise the economy was in 1985 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi; the process also came to a halt in 1987. At the beginning of the 1990s the Indian economy faced an unprecedented severe economic crisis. The crisis was triggered by unforeseen fall in foreign exchange reserves, huge public and current account deficit, spiraling of prices, and mounting domestic and foreign debt. India had to pledge 20 tons of gold to Union Bank of Switzerland and 47 tons to Bank of England as part of a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In order to wriggle out of the crisis the Narasimha Rao government 1991 had to approach the Bretton Wood organisations (International Monetary Fund and World Bank). The IMF -World Bank combine came forward to offer a rescue package provided India agreed to abandon its socialist planning for free-market policies. Like several other countries around the same period - Mexico and Vietnam for instance - India agreed to liberalise economy by initiating a package of wide ranging reforms known as (new economic policy). P. V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister Manmohan Singh (currently the Prime Minister of India) started breakthrough reforms. The new neo-liberal policies included opening for international trade and investment, deregulation, initiation of privatization, tax reforms, and inflation-controlling measures. The overall direction of liberalisation has since remained the same, irrespective of the ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take contentious issues such as FDI in retail trade. Recently, despite unprecedentedly strong opposition from all quarters, the Manmohan Singh government showed indecent haste and notified the rules to permit foreign retail chains into the multi-brand retail trade. The funniest aspect of the issue is the government is trying to hoodwink the people by terming this policy initiative as an inevitable unavoidable reform process to regenerate the economy.

FDI in retail sector to create 10 million jobs in 10 years: Repor

The report that FDI in retail will lead to the creation of 10 million jobs is not practicable.hat is, if FDI in retail is allowed, a lot of organised players will be coming in, which would lead to increase in employment opportunities in the retail sector and associated sectors such as sourcing and logistics. This can at best be construed as wishful thinking of the over enthusiastic leaders in the government and votaries of FDI in retail trading. Now, the question is, if Wall-Mart, Tesco and similar companies can create millions of jobs, why not domestic companies in retail sector do the same thing? Why not the government encourages the domestic companies to create more jobs? It is true that a few thousands of literate/educated youth will get job in retail chains and get attractive salary too. Most of those jobs will be generated at the front-end, in positions such as sales associates, cashiers, customer services staff, security guards, in-store security personnel, IT and systems for retail staff, customer relationship associates, loaders/ unloaders, merchandise refilling staff, department managers, store managers and regional and national managers. Some of the new jobs will be in warehousing and logistics-related areas. The rest will come in manufacturing services such as per-processing and processing. But what is the guarantee that the displaced persons belonging to the unorganised retail sector will find employment in the multinational retail outlets. A few corporate brokers will also get opportunity to earn considerable amount of brokerage. Coming to reality, the creation of 10 million jobs is unachievable even in the long-run, leave alone in just three years, as against the contention of Mr. Anand Sharma, the Union Commerce and Industry Minister, who failed to elucidate the ways and means of creating such a large number of jobs, say in millions, by the multinational retail giants. Various studies on the impact of global retail giants setting up retail stores confirm that job losses have occurred everywhere and as a result disrupted the livelihood of the people. The study by David Neumark of the University of California and his colleagues in 2007 revealed that for every job created by Big Box retail, 1.4 jobs are lost from smaller retail stores in the neighbourhood. Another study by Emek Basker of Missouri University in 2005 concluded that up to 60 jobs might be lost in 5-6 analysing US counties with an average population of 78,000 (during 1977-1998). Another study on opening of retail shops by the global giants in Jakarta (the capital city of Indonesia, found that 2 jobs were lost in the unorganised retail sector for every one job created by the Big Box retail). According to the Madras Kirana Merchants' Association: “It (FDI in retail) is an act not desirable for any country to create a situation in which a few retail giants monopolize the major portion of retail trade, This is particularly applicable to India .

 Dr.C.Murukadas , The Times of India, Sep.26,2012

It is no wonder that Congress Party has fully endorsed the minority government's new economic reform measures, including FDI in multi-brand retail. But it is premature for as Congress Party President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to rule out any threat to the government in this connection. It has to be bone in mind that all political parties -- opposition parties as well as main allays of the coalition, except one or two smaller parties are stoutly opposed to FDI in multi-brand retail trade. Moreover it an open secret that Congress Party President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is very much the decision to allow foreign retail giants such as Wal-Mart and Tesco to open multi brand retail shops, much against the sentiments and wishes of the retail trading community, almost all political parties, except perhaps the Congress Party and somepartners, farmers’ associations and the public in general. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and other votaries know very well that allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail trade will do more harm than benefit to the people of the country. They have fallen prey to the lobbying by the multinational retail giants and heir home governments, i.e. America and the European Union. Despite unprecedentedly strong opposition from all quarters, the government showed indecent haste and notified rules to permit foreign retail chains into multi-brand retail trade. The notification has evoked strong condemnation and disapproval from all sections.Dr.C.Murukadas, ET
25 Sep, 2012 06:25 PM

Dr.C.Murukadas, ET, 25 Sep, 2012 FDI in retail: Walmart Asia CEO rejects LK Advani's statement

Advani is not wrong in any sense. In many areas in America particularly Chicago, New York, Los Angles all have issues with Wall-Mart’s low wages and its impact on local mom and pops which it tends to wipe out the moment it sets up a store.  A bout 73% of NY residents voted against Walmart in NYC.  When Wall-Mart is considered to be bad for USA economy due to jobs loss, and bad for family because of low wages, how can it be expected to be good for. It actually procures junks products from and distribute in America and elsewhere.  Where is the guarantee that it will not do the same in India?

Wall-Mart already has a joint venture with Bharati. It is alleged that Bharti-Walmart is illegally carrying out multi-brand retail trade despite being permitted only to carry out wholesale cash and-carry or wholesale trade in the country. On the basis of the suit filed by environmental activist Vandana Shiva, the Delhi High Court sought replies of the Centre, Bharti-Walmart and Bharti Retail on a plea for a probe against the firms for allegedly carrying out retail trading in the multi-brand sector in violation of India’s existing FDI policy. Thus, even before getting permission to operate Wall-Mart has violated Indian rules and regulations has unlawfully involved in multi-brand retail trading. Will Wall-Mart and other multinational retail giants respect Indian laws once permission is granted to operate multiband retail stores?

Moreover, if Wall-Mart or Tesco set shop in New Delhi and may source products to the neighbouring Uttar Pradesh, Haryana or Punjab. And in keeping with the mandate to invest at least 50 per cent of the FDI component in back-end infrastructure, Wall-Mart ,Tesco or others  will have to invest in manufacturing and processing facilities, cold storage and other logistics in neigbouring states.  Therefore, indirectly they are permitted to operate in a state which has not permitted FDI in retail trade.

.

CWC endorses economic reforms

 There is nothing  to feel aggrieved that  Congress Party has fully endorsed the minority government's new economic reform measures, including FDI in multi-brand retail.  It has no other go. But it is premature for as Congress Party President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to rule out any threat to the government in this connection. It has to be bone in mind that all political parties -- opposition parties as well as the main allays of the coalition, except one or two smaller parties are stoutly opposed to FDI in multi-brand retail trade. Moreover it an open secret that Congress Party President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is very much the decision to allow foreign retail giants such as Wall-Mart and Tesco to open multi brand retail shops, much against the sentiments and wishes of the retail trading community, almost all political parties, except perhaps the Congress Party and one ore to minor alliance partners, farmers€™ associations and the public in general. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and other votaries know very well that allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail trade will do more harm than benefit to the people of the country. They have fallen prey to the lobbying by the multinational retail giants like Wall-Mart and Tesco and their home governments, i.e. America and the European Union. Despite unprecedentedly strong opposition from all quarters, the Manmohan Singh government showed indecent haste and notified the rules to permit foreign retail chains into the multi-brand retail trade. The notification has evoked strong condemnation and disapproval from all sections--political parties, traders€™' bodies, farmers associations, experts and the public in general. Many believe that after withdrawal of support by the All India Trinamool Congress, the UPAII government has been reduced to minority and it is unconstitutional for a minority government to take such a vital decision to notify riles regarding FDI in multi-brand retail. Prakash Karat, General Secretary of CPM, has lashed out at the Congress-led UPA II Government for going ahead with its decision to implement FDI in retail without taking the mandate of the Parliament. The BJP leaders have gone to the extent of warning the multinational retail chains aspiring to set up shops in India like Wall-Mart and Tesco to think twice before investing in multi-brand shops because the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand might be annulled after the election, which will definitely see a change in government.

Dr.C.Murukadas, The  Times of Times, 25^th September, 20012

Reformers of economy or deformers of nation?

Unmindful of the unprecedented opposition from political parties, trader's bodies, farmers association and the public, the Indian government showed indecent haste and notified the rules  to permit foreign retail chains into  the  multi-brand retail   trade.  The notification has evoked strong condemnation and disapproval from all sections--political parties, traders’ bodies, farmers associations, experts and the public in general. Many believe that after withdrawal of support by the All India Trinamool Congress, the UPAII government has been reduced to minority and it is unconstitutional for a minority government to take such a vital decision to notify riles regarding FDI in multi-brand retail.  Mrs. Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal Chief Minister, on Friday, September 21, has lambasted UPA-II for notifying FDI in retail. She wrote  in Facebook as follows: “Is it ethical, moral and democratic for a minority Government to issue a Government order forcefully and hurriedly, when massive protests against it are taking place across the country?.... It is not understandable as to what has prompted the present minority Government to take a hurried decision on such an important issue which touches the livelihood of millions of common people.” Prakash Karat General Secretary of CPM lashed out at the Congress-led UPA Government for going ahead with its decision to implement the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in retail without taking the mandate of the Parliament.Moreover, in his address to the nation on September 21, 2012, the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Sing, struggled to convince the people of India on the benefits of FDI in multi-brand retail.  But the arguments put forth by him in favour of FDI proved as fallacious and unconvincing, besides being travesty of truth. Consequently, the opposition has hit out at the Prime Minister over his address to the nation saying that he was “misleading” the country on FDI in multi-brand retail and appeared to be advocating interests of other countries while trying to “defend the indefensible”.  In conclusion, allowing 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail is an unwise and an anti-people decision; it requires to be definitely annulled!

Dr.C.Murukadas, The Pioneer, Sep 22, 2012.

BJP questions Manmohan Singh's rationale for pushing reforms now

The common perception is that in his address to the nation on September 21, 2012, the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Sing, struggled to convince the people of India on the benefits of FDI in multi-brand retail.  But the arguments put forth by him in favour of FDI proved as fallacious and unconvincing, besides being travesty of truth. Consequently, the opposition has hit out at the Prime Minister over his address to the nation saying that he was “misleading” the country on FDI in multi-brand retail and appeared to be advocating interests of other countries while trying to “defend the indefensible”.  In conclusion, allowing 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail is an unwise and an anti-people decision; it requires to be definitely annulled. Nevertheless during his period as Prime Minister, Dr.Singh is reported to have failed to curb various scams, sandals and frauds perpetuated by crony capitalists and greedy bureaucrats. As a result, resources of the country have been looted by crony capitalists with the active support of corrupt politicians and connivance of bureaucrats. The country is reported to have lost lakhs of corers of rupees, which could have been used to promote investment and provide welfare measures to the down-trodden people. The criticism is that Dr.Singh has been keeping silence over the organised looting. But many believe that he was not a silent spectator, but an active participant in the scams, particularly in the “coal-gate scam” which has caused a loss of about Rs. 1.86 lakh crore to the exchequer and involved thousands of crores as bribe to politicians and bureaucrats. Reports show that the Prime Minister’s Office has definite role in the scam. By notifying the decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade much against the sentiments and wishes of almost all political parties, the entire trading community, and, of course, the vast majority of the people of the country, Dr.Singh has skillfully diverted the attention of the people from the ill-famous coal gate scandal, which involved a loss of about Rs.1.86 lakh crores to the exchequer, besides thousands of crores as bribe.

Dr.C.Murukadas, Economic Times, September 22, 2012