By Swapan Dasgupta
A quasi-dysfunctional democracy such as India
occasionally needs to showcase Parliament’s role in seriously engaging with the
pressing issues of the day. The two-day debate in Lok Sabha which resulted in
the UPA Government securing a grudging approval of its contentious decision to
allow a caveat-ridden 51 per cent foreign investment in retail trade may not
have fully restored popular faith in an increasingly discredited political class.
But it at least demonstrated that a large number of MPs (particularly the more
seasoned parliamentarians) are aware of issues that extend beyond their state
and constituency boundaries.
This may not come as a great revelation to those who
look beyond stereotypes of the bumptious neta. However, for the more sceptical
breed of Indians, particularly those with modernist and cosmopolitan
pretensions, a debate such as this forces a realisation that there is a lot of
earthy wisdom in India’s political culture than is often admitted.
True, an understanding of the larger international
trends in the retail trade, not least of which was the awareness of the
contested business practices of the US-based retail giant Walmart, was also
accompanied by a great deal of humbug. In the days to come, particularly if the
agricultural procurement policies of some foreign retail companies has an
unsettling effect on the rural economy of Uttar Pradesh, both Mulayam Singh
Yadav and Mayawati may be confronted by awkward questions centred on their
covert deal to permit a move they held to be anti-farmer and anti-small
business. Likewise, if Walmart or any other large retail chain decides to make
their presence felt too fast and too aggressively in the National Capital,
Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit may find herself challenged by small traders
apprehensive of the future.
This is not an unreal prospect. A feature of the
determined BJP-Left-Trinamool onslaught against FDI in retail was the
invocation of fear. It was suggested that the presence of supermarkets in the
large towns would destroy the livelihood of the corner grocery shop, curtail
employment, contribute to distortions in agricultural procurement and, in the
long run, herald monopolistic practices by the likes of Walmart—already a
symbol of ugly Western capitalism. The Nationalist Congress Party’s Praful
Patel may have been quite right to remind everyone that India’s entry into the
World Trade Organisation had been accompanied by similar alarmist propaganda by
both the BJP and the Left. But public memory is woefully short and it is quite
likely that the same drama may be re-enacted. The only difference is that while
globalisation was a slow, invisible process, the changes in the business rules
of retail trade may be a more visible process. If the Shiv Sena does indeed
plan to carry out its threat to smash up any foreign retail chains that dare
set up shop in Maharashtra, this particular ‘reform’ may actually witness
additional drama.
The Lok Sabha debate also witnessed unending
references to the East India Company that came to India as traders and ended up
as rulers. Gurudas Das Gupta of the CPI was particularly emphatic in his
assertion that the likes of Walmart also have a political agenda, and that the
foreigner could end up exercising control over the way Indians run their
democracy.
It is touching to note that despite 20 years of
deregulation and the visible success of some facets of economic liberalisation,
the rhetoric of the Left hasn’t really evolved. Indeed, it can be said with
some amusement that it has made some unlikely converts in the BJP. There was little
in Murli Manohar Joshi’s amusingly distracted intervention that the Comrades
would have taken serious objection to. Joshi’s searing indictment of the new
imperialism of Walmart, et al, was, however, accompanied by a touching
celebration of the unchanging nature of 5,000 years of Indian agricultural
techniques. What new technology and techniques can the American firms impart to
the Indian farmer who banks on inherited knowledge? Anti-imperialism, it would
seem, produces strange bedfellows.
Some reassurance that the Indian Right isn’t merely
Marxism plus the cow was, fortunately, provided by Leader of Opposition Sushma
Swaraj who was at her eloquent and statesman-like best on both days—quite a
contrast from Sonia Gandhi who was seen actively endorsing the puerile heckling
of Harsimrat Badal by a Congress MP from
Punjab. Swaraj at least clarified that her party wasn’t opposed to FDI in
infrastructure and high-tech but only to the sale of dal and rice to the Indian
consumer. At least some facets of the NDA inheritance has been preserved by the
BJP.
Indeed, a considerable part of the debate was taken
up by the question of political inheritance. The BJP made much of the fact that
in 2002 the then Congress Chief Whip Priyaranjan Das Munshi had described FDI
in retail as “anti-national” and that Manmohan Singh had opposed any such move
a decade ago. On its part, Kapil Sibal beamed in self-satisfaction as he
pointed out that it was Murasoli Maran, the Commerce Minister in Atal Behari
Vajpayee’s Government, who had first mooted the issue of FDI in retail, and
that the NDA manifesto of 2004 promised to allow 26 per cent FDI in that
sector.
If the intention of the debate was to demonstrate
that inconsistency is the hallmark of partisan politics, Indians who observed
the debate would surely have come away with the conclusion that politicians
aren’t doctrinaire. In taking the positions they did, both the Government and
the Opposition had one eye on public opinion. This is natural considering that
no one really knows how long the minority government will survive. But is there
any reason to believe Mulayam Singh Yadav’s cryptic observation that the UPA
will soon realise that reforms that affect too many people will be rejected by
the electorate?
There are no simple answers. Nor is it wise to
compare this week’s debate with the kerfuffle over the Indo-US nuclear accord
when the Lok Sabha was divided along broadly similar lines. The nuclear deal,
as it was perceived by the middle classes who were remotely interested in it,
was all about India’s relationship with the US. It was about the continuing
efficacy of anti-Americanism at a time when the cosmopolitan Indian never had
it so good. In opposing it blindly, the BJP was completely out of step with its
natural supporters and it paid the price in urban India in the 2009 general
election.
The retail FDI debate took place in a different
environment. It happened at a time when few are wildly optimistic about the
short-term prospects of the economy. It was also held in the backdrop of an
intense public furore over corruption and crony capitalism. The Congress
obviously calculated that ‘reforms’ is the big idea that will transform the
negativity and rekindle hope in the future. That is what Charan Singh’s
grandson meant when he spoke about his faith in the larger process of
parivartan.
Will the voters buy this logic? Alternatively, will
they prefer to view the Congress’ belated faith in reforms as a last ditch
attempt to divert attention from three years of paralysis and the enrichment of
a favoured few?
The Telegraph, December 7, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment