By Poonam I Kaushish
Politics is the bedrock of rivalry wherein each Party tries its damnedest to get the better of the opponent. This adage rang true last week between the Congress and BJP and their respective allies over Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-retail trade. All busy playing who-will-blink-first game, no matter that it paralyzed Parliament’s winter session for four days. Big deal!
To be honest, I am leaving the controversy over FDI in multi-retail trade to economists to pontificate on whether it is good for India or not. But on the political plane I am flummoxed by several issues: One do are MPs’ per se understand the issues involved? Whether FDI would lead to the demise of local kirana and mom-n-pop stores?
Has it been discussed and debated within the four walls of each Party. Or is it simply about following a herd mentality as dictated by Party bosses? Importantly, does the FDI juggernaut boil down to purely a numbers game? Of a majority vs. minority problem?
Sadly, the latter holds true. Whereby, FDI has nothing to do with economics and neither about if it is good for the poor Vidharba farmers. Nor take into account the fears of small traders. And whether it would lead to better prices and competition in the market benefitting the aam aadmi.
Bluntly, the FDI battle is being fought at three levels. One, arch-rivals Congress and BJP trying to embarrass and get the better of each other. Two, the Grand Dame’s regional allies ‘within’ (Pawar’s NCP and Karunanidhi’s DMK) and ‘without’ (Mulayam’s Samajwadi and Mayawati’s BSP) extracting their pound of flesh, irrespective whether they believe in multi-retail trade or not.
Three, it is a symbolic fight, wherein all Parties are positioning themselves for the 2014 general elections. With each Party having different objectives in mind, all are merely using FDI as a trial balloon to test one another’s electoral strength.
For the Congress, the decision to embrace FDI in retail isn’t born of conviction. Recall in 2005, when UPA I first floated it, post lobbying from US giant Wal-Mart, Party President Sonia wary of ally Left’s demarche questioned the wisdom of allowing foreign retailers to set up shop and how it would benefit the middle-class. Predictably, the proposal was axed.
Till Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wracked by scams galore, CAG’S damming reports on 2G spectrum and Coalgate and badgered for being weak and non-performing, used FDI to distract public attention and discourse. In a surprise move, the Cabinet approved FDI in multi-retail last September.
Notwithstanding, his former Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee promise to the Lok Sabha that the Government would introduce FDI only after building a “consensus” across the political spectrum. The present Commerce Minister even dared the Opposition to bring a privilege motion against him in Parliament. Sonia did a U-turn, defending her Government’s decision and how it would better the farmers’ life and give employment to the youth.
Happily, for Manmohan-Sonia the Parliamentary hullaballoo on FDI has served as perfect fait accomplice and taken the heat of its corrupt misdeeds. Pertinently, in this shadow play, the Party has succeeded in projecting itself as a reformist-minded Government which is being held back by regressive rivals.
The main Opposition BJP bowled a googly, has no option but to oppose FDI because its primary vote-bank, traders, would perceive it as a ‘let down’ who fear they are at risk of being wiped out by big-box retail. In fact, like arch-rival Congress, wracked by a plethora of scandal vis-à-vis Party President Gadkari it suited the Saffronites to detract attention away from its internal foibles.
As for the regional Parties the less said the better. Dictated by a mohalla mentality all are using FDI to draw blood from ally Congress in the run-up to the 2014. All protagonists’ played to their respective vote-banks to the hilt. Began with maximalist opposition, got what they want and backtracked. Arguably, today it neither suits Mulayam, Mayawati, Mamata or Karunanidhi to escalate the issue to breaking point.
It is another matter that all chorused the same excuse: We are against FDI among thousands other differences but the larger interest is to keep the “communal forces” read BJP out if the Government falls.” Sic. Strange logic, given that the Saffron Sangh was secular for these Made in India leaders at some time or the other. Remember, DMK allied with the BJP during NDA rule, Mayawati in UP in the nineties and Mulayam surreptitiously.
True, the Congress-led Government is now breathing easy with DMK, SP and BSP falling in line. Undoubtedly, the issue is not whether UPA II wins the FDI vote, but balancing their competing demands won’t be easy. Both Mulayam and Mayawati have compulsions to lean on the Congress vis-à-vis their pending disproportionate assets.
The BSP has a litany of demands: It wants the Government to pass a Constitutional amendment in the Bill to restore reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services pending in the Rajya Sabha. A stronger reaction from the Centre to UP nee Crime Pradesh’s deteriorating law and order situation and rising communal clashes along-side the unexpected leverage bonanza which she didn’t have with the Congress post losing power in the State.
Meanwhile the Samajwadi has made plain its stringent opposition to the reservation Bill “We won’t let the Rajya Sabha run,” asserted the Party. Further, it has presented its wish list in exchange for support. It wants the remaining balance of Rs 90,000 crore package for UP expedited and better sugar cane prices for farmers.
Southern supremo Karunanidhi has appended his support with “bitterness” and is using the FDI vote to vociferously raise the issue of recent disclosures by a former CAG official in the 2G case to project his “charge-sheeted” Partymen “in better light”. While friend-turned-foe Mamata is busy showing the Centre as anti-poor, she refuses to disclose her cards.
The Left’s reaction is expected. It refuses to buy the argument that the $70 b deficit would be wiped out by allowing FDI. According to it, this would threaten the livelihood of a fifth of the population dependent on the retail sector. Also, as international experience shows the claim of lower prices for consumers and higher for producers, particularly farmers, is a myth.(INFA)