UPA running away from vote on FDI in Parliament

As things stand today it would be difficult for the UPA II government to muster enough support for FDI in multi-brand retail trade. Almost all political parties, except the Congress Party and some of its minor allies are against the decision to allow 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail trade. Many believed that after withdrawal of support by the All India Trinamool Congress, the UPAII government would apply reason and annul the decision to allow the multinational retail giants to open multi-brand retail outlets in India. Althesame has the government has been reduced to minority, is unconstitutional for a minority government to take such a vital decision to notify rules regarding FDI in multi-brand retail. Leader of Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party, Sudipt Bandopadhyay, is quite right that the present minority government is deviating away from the basic tenets of the constitution, particularly the preamble of the Constitution, which embodies clearly that “India is a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic” Only after due and diligent consideration, Indira Gandhi's government inserted the word 'socialist' to the Preamble of the Constitution, through the famous Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act in 1976. None of the subsequent government dared to drop this word, though several other constitutional amendments were carried out. Mrs. Mamta Banerjee has been consistent in her decision to oppose FDI in retail trade. The Communist parties have been opposing FDI in multi-brand retail trade persistently from the beginning. The BJP leaders have gone to the extent of warning the multinational retail chains aspiring to set up shops in India like Walmart 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. Likewise, all opposition parties such as BJP, CPM, CPI, AIADMK, Janatha Dal (United), Telugudesam Party, Samajwadi Party, Bhahujan Samajwadi Party, and a host of other minor parties such as DMDK have expressed their strong resentment. The main ally of UPA, the Trinamool Congress, withdrew its support to the UPA government. Another allay of UPA, DMK, has also opposed FDI in mutli-brand retail trade. On October1, 2012, DMK demanded reconsideration of the decision to allow FDI in the multi-brand retail sector and said it would back any opposition-sponsored resolution that may be brought on the issue in Parliament. A resolution adopted at an emergency meeting of DMK Executive, on October1, 2012, stated as follows: “"Allowing FDI in multi-brand retail in the name of economic reforms will spell doom for developing countries like India." But now DMK seems to be in double mind. BSP supremo Mayawati is also in double mind. Both these parties have one and only agenda,i.e. to hoodwink CBI inquiry!

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

All in the name of reform

People around the world are realising that in the name of “reform” many governments are initiating policy changes. Such reforms have benefited only the rich and powerful. The recent wave of reforms have led to the emergence of crony capitalism and looting of the resources of the nations and marginalisation of the downtrodden sections. Of course, there is little disagreement as to the need for reforms, economic or other, in a dynamic society.  Reform, in fact, is an essential element in a dynamic economy, an economy which is able to usher in sustained economic growth and rise in living standards. Historical and cross-country evidences indicate that failure to bring about timely changes or adjustments in the structure and functioning of an economy has been marked by distortions.  History is replete with such distortions both in the traditional and modern societies.  But the impression of equating reform with liberalisation or privatisation is rather groundless. In short,   reform should bring benefit to the people at large; and not to a small section of crony capitalists or foreign enterprises. However, in India, the term “reform” is often used in a loose sense to justify the illogical and anti-people measures initiated by the government.  Moreover, during the last decade, reform has become a byword primarily for facilitating the foreigner. It is rightly said that India is the “only country in the world which thinks that the foreigner is better for us than a local! For a country that has experienced colonial rule, this is bizarre. “ The classic example is the government’s recent 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, the government is trying to pose that FDI in multi-brand retail is an essential reform to boost growth rate. It is   nothing but a deceptive propaganda, which is not supported by facts. This commentator has done extensive research on the pros and cons of FDI in retail trade in India. The results have been published in the form of a book entitled, “FDI in Retail Trade in India: a Retrograde Step” by M/s RAC Publications, No. 38 (Old No. 76-A) Choolaimedu, Chennai-60094. The study concludes as followers: “Evidences from various parts of the world indicate that   widespread   emergence of big format retail super stores have lead to extensive ruin of retail stores/shops thereby resulting in the loss of employment and livelihood to millions of persons involved in retail trade.… FDI in retail trade will not serve any purpose. It will do more harm than benefit the people.”The general perception is that the government has resorted to the recent measures with a view to divert attention of the public  from various scams, sandals, frauds and other such shadow activities perpetuated during the past few years.

Dr.C.Murukadas, The Times of India, Nov. 13, 2012

FDI in retail trade will not serve any purpose.

In the name of liberalisation, the large corporations are allowed to have a free run. They have been allowed to misappropriate the country’s resources legally as well as illegally with the support of the corrupt politicians and connivance of dishonest bureaucrats. Moreover, large corporates are being allowed to evade tax and misappropriate the hard earned savings of millions of people through Ponzi schemes. Large scale corruption and bribery   are going on in the country and politicians are hand in glove with the crony capitalists. Mr. Prakash Karat deserves appreciation for his statement that CPM won't allow Walmart or any other MNC retail chain to set up shop anywhere in the country. We feel that it won’t be possible for the Manmohan Singh government to muster enough support in the Parliament to push through the bill on FDI in multi-brand retail. The UPA government is now reduced to a minority status. Trinamool Congress has already announced the withdrawal of support to UPA government. The second biggest allay, DMK, has also said categorically that it would not back the government on any resolution brought against the government on FDI in multi-brand retail trade. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Dr. J.Jayalalithaa, has vehemently opposed 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail. Samajwadi Party (SP) supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav has expressed support to Mamata Banerjee's resolution. Likewise, almost all opposition parties such as BJP, CPM, CPI, Janatha Dal (United), Telugudesam Party, BSP, and a host of other minor parties have expressed their strong resentment. Therefore, there is no chance for the UPA government to survive any no confidence motion brought by Trinamool Congress or any other party.

Dr. Manmohan Singh and the votaries of FDI in multi-brand retail know very well that it will do more harm than benefit the common man. In fact, in 2002, as leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha, Dr.Singh fought tooth and nail against the introduction of FDI in retail. His colleague Mr. Priya Ranjan Munshi castigating the BJP, which was in power then and who tried to bring FDI in retail, said “it is anti-national to bring FDI in retail.”  Now, Dr. Singh says that FDI in retail is pro- national and is to be welcomed, irrespective of merits or demerits. 

This commentator has done extensive research on the pros and cons of FDI in retail trade in India. The results have been published in the form of a book entitled, “FDI in Retail Trade in India: a Retrograde Step” by M/s RAC Publications, No. 38 (Old No. 76-A) Choolaimedu, Chennai-60094. The study concludes as followers: “Evidences from various parts of the world indicate that   widespread   emergence of big format retail super stores have lead to extensive ruin of retail stores/shops thereby resulting in the loss of employment and livelihood to millions of persons involved in retail trade.… FDI in retail trade will not serve any purpose. It will do more harm than benefit the people.”

 Dr.C.Murukadas, Times of India, Nov.7, 2012

India retail reforms face broad alliance of foes

Dr. Manmohan Singh and the votaries of FDI in multi-brand retail know very well that it will do more harm than benefit the common man. In fact, in 2002, as leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha, Dr.Singh fought tooth and nail against the introduction of FDI in retail. His colleague Mr. Priya Ranjan Munshi castigating the BJP, which was in power then and who tried to bring FDI in retail, said “it is anti-national to bring FDI in retail.”  Now, the Congress and Dr. Manmohan Singh say FDI in retail is pro- national and is to be welcomed, irrespective of merits or demerits.  Moreover, experiences of other countries show that the establishment of supermarkets by   Walmart and others has led to excessive use of pesticides, insecticides, fertilisers and other chemicals in the production, preservation and storage of food products. Such stores have their own standards according to which they buy the products (manufactured and agricultural). If a product does not pass through that standard test, it will be dumped back on the farmers, and because of the monopoly market, the farmer does not have any other place to sell it. Thus the farmer always tries to produce products that are uniform and standard. This needs huge amount of pesticides and leads to loss of the numerous indigenous varieties of crops. These crops are highly resistant and are fit for the local conditions; they will be of great use in present times of climate change, when other crops are failing due to slight change in condition. But with the pattern of agriculture being pushed by the corporations, we will lose enormous bio-diversity, mother earth and the hard working farmer has created over the thousands of years of civilization, and forces monoculture in food. Under such circumstances, the large format local corporate as well as foreign retail shops/stores (run by the multinational retail giants of United States as well as Europe) are unsuitable for the welfare of the people of the country. Thus, FDI in retail will add to the troubles faced by the country in controlling environmental pollution and climate change and thereby cause severe health hazards to the people.

Dr.C.Murukadas, NDTV, Nov.5, 2012

FDI in retail will benefit common man: PM

In his address to the Congress Party rally November 4, 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 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, The Times of India, Nov. 4, 2012