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. More so, the governments of their home countries also seem to exert pressure directly and indirectly to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail trade. 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 t 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 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-Wall-mart 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 and 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? 

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. More so, the governments of their home countries also seem to exert pressure directly and indirectly to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail trade. 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 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-Wallmart 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 and 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? 

Dr.C.Murukadas, Times of India, Sep 28, 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 .
Dr.C.Murukadas, Times of India, Sep.30, 2012

Reform 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

Wal-Mart eyes 51% stake in new India retail arm

When India got independence from the British in 1947, the leaders had promised to make India self-reliant; they had told that India will use its own resources to build a strong country and provide Indians all avenues and means for achieving the goal of respectful living. More than half a century has lapsed; instead of becoming a self sufficient nation India has now become dependent on FDI for survival. The Indian government has declared that the entry of multinational retail chains would enhance efficiency that will benefit the producers and consumers. Dr.Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India claims that FDI in multi-brand retail, €œwill bring modern technology to the country, improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce and enable our farmers to get better prices for their crops. But many argue that the relevance of globalisation and liberalisation have become a question mark even in the neo-liberal developed market economies and therefore India has to be more cautious in following vigorously the path of neoliberal reforms, particularly in allowing foreign retail giants into the country. The claim that the Indian farmers and consumers would get more from the multinational retail giants than what they are Despite stiff opposition from various quarters, on Tuesday, January 10, 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 September 14, 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. getting today is nothing but fallacious propaganda by the Indian government. Unmindful of the above developments, 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. No wonder the US retail giant Wall-Mart has said 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 i 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.
Dr.C.Murukadas, The Times of India, Sep. 28, 2012

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

Can UPA-2 fulfill reforms agenda?

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, Deccan Chronicle, September 22,2012

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.