The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Trust vote hurdle crossed
But AP Congress has rough road ahead

THE defeat of the no-confidence motion moved against the Kiran Kumar Reddy-led Congress government in Andhra Pradesh by the Telugu Desam party was never in doubt. All speculation centred on the margin by which the government would win and how many Congress legislators would vote for the motion throwing themselves open to disqualification for defying the party whip. That 16 Congress MLAs loyal to rebel Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy finally voted with him and one party legislator walked out shows that all these legislators were prepared to burn their boats with the Congress and hitch themselves on to the ambitious son of the late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy who once held sway in the state as Chief Minister of the then Congress government. With the CBI being hot on Jaganmohan Reddy’s trail with a disproportionate assets case, at least a dozen other legislators shied away from him and several others who were fence-sitters chose to stick with the Congress. Yet, there is no denying that despite efforts to browbeat Jaganmohan, there is a groundswell of mass support for him in the Rayalaseema region which was his late father’s bastion.

The solid support base for Jaganmohan Reddy is enough to cause considerable disquiet to Kiran Reddy who has never been credited with a mass leader image. With 16 of his party’s 153 MLAs in a House of 294 virtually out of the party’s fold now, Kiran Reddy would have to lean heavily on the 17 members of the Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) of actor Chiranjeevi and seven legislators of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM). As it is, the assembly has seven vacancies.

Predictably, the PRP and the MIM would demand their pound of flesh, finding the Congress government increasingly dependent on them for its survival. Though Chiranjeevi’s party has merged with the Congress, the technical formalities are not yet complete. The party’s MLAs are so upset with the indifferent attitude of the Chief Minister that that they have told Chiranjeevi that the merger decision was a mistake. Chiranjeevi himself on Saturday lashed out at the Congress leadership for not giving his party MLAs due importance and respect. All this bodes ill for the Congress for which Andhra Pradesh has been a veritable citadel.

Porn star on prime time TV
Channel can change the time slot

THOUGH most reality shows are stage-managed, managing Sunny Leone’s popularity — tinged with the notoriety of her porn star status — is giving headaches to the I&B Ministry. For the same reasons, the channel airing it is basking in the glory of its high TRPs. Some sections of society, mostly parents of teen-aged youth, have raised objections to the BCCC (Broadcasting Content Complaint Council), stating that the porn star status of the celebrity on popular TV show Big Boss is arousing curiosity among the young for matters avoidable. The youth search porn sites to know more about Sunny Leone, who has got over 20 million hits since her Big Boss avatar, a fact detested by most parents.

In 1982 Steven Spielberg produced a film titled Poltergeist. The film was bracketed under the ‘horror’ films category, and most viewers failed to see the significance of what he stated on celluloid. A five-year old girl would fiddle with the TV set, while her parents would be off to sleep, leaving her alone. Every night a ghost would come through the picture tube of the TV and play with the child. Gradually this ghost became noisier and destructive and caused havoc to the entire family, turning their lives topsy- turvy. Now, each household has to deal with multiple poltergeists, as more channels come into the fray and competition makes them use every trick under the hat. Each one is out to get more eye balls, and everything is fair in this war. The smart among the channels know, a viewer cannot leave a programme sprinkled with high decibel emotion and sex appeal. And Big Boss has nothing illegal about its content.

It is a constant battle between technology prying into our lives and the desire of the parents to stretch their children’s extent of innocence. Everyone knows who is going to be the winner in this battle. Sunny Leone is just a variant; even when channels were non-existent, the teens found other ways to satisfy their curiosity. The good thing about technology is that it gives one the choice to switch off or change the channel. Or, as the representative of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights suggested to the BCCC, slot the show after 11pm.

Thought for the Day

Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

— William Shakespeare

ARTICLE

Ailing Parliament
Disruption of proceedings not part of MPs’ duty
by P.D.T. Achary

WE, the people of India, have given ourselves a Constitution which represents the societal consensus on the philosophy, direction and instrumentalities of governance of the republic. Parliament is the pre-eminent institution created by this Constitution which symbolises the will and aspirations of the people of India. This hallowed institution was instrumental in ushering in a social revolution in this tradition-bound country through epoch-making pieces of legislation. This is the forum where a thousand flowers of ideas should bloom. This is a forum where the clash of ideas and concepts should stimulate the minds.

Today, Parliament is grappling with the problem of its not being allowed to function. Society has expressed its serious concern over this state of affairs. However, the two Houses remain paralysed essentially because of a perceptional distortion characterised by a strange belief that debate and discussion are perhaps not the effective methods to highlight a problem and that disruptive action will yield better result. The result is that Parliament remains dysfunctional and the public disenchantment with this institution is growing.

What has gone wrong with our Parliament? This question is being raised from all corners of the country day after day. Parliament is the shining symbol of democratic India and it is entrusted with reshaping the destiny of over one billion people. A member of Parliament, before taking his seat in the House, has to take an oath which requires him to solemnly state, “I will fully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.” The duty he has to perform involves participation in the solemn work which the Constitution entrusts Parliament. Disruption of the proceedings of the House is certainly not a part of the duty of a member of Parliament. In fact, it violates the solemn undertaking a member gives to the people before taking his seat in the House.

Members coming to the well of the House, shouting slogans and forcing adjournment of the House were unheard of in earlier times. We have witnessed scintillating debates by eminent men and women adorning the benches on both sides of the Houses. We have seen men of outstanding intellect locking horns, producing more light than heat. We have seen an abundance of goodwill for each other even when political affiliations bring them face to face in the House. There was always a consensus on the need to run the House. Even in the midst of bitter and uncompromising fight on issues, this consensus seldom broke down.

The phenomenon of disruption and forced adjournment of the House became more and more visible since the late eighties. Perhaps the growing aggressiveness and intolerance in politics, changing power equations, resulting in the emergence of new political formations without a pan-Indian appeal, a growing perception about what is often called the unresponsiveness of the establishment — all these and many more complex factors influenced the minds of our law makers to leave debate and resort to direct action to make their point. Very often it has been found that the leadership of political parties would decide that the House should not function on a particular day and ask their members not to allow the House to run on that day. But it must be said “in fairness” that some party leaders meet the presiding officers in advance and inform them that they would not allow the House to function on that day. Even a four-member party in Parliament can force the adjournment of either of the two Houses for the day although a majority of the members want the Houses to function. There isx a strange kind of helplessness all around which one is unable to comprehend.

Management of Parliament is an extremely difficult job which requires a great deal of maturity, tact and wisdom. When there are more than 37 political parties represented in Parliament, it calls for exceptional skills to bring them round and ensure peace in the House. There have been serious debates in many forums on how to deal with the frequent disruptions of Parliament. However, these debates and other efforts have not led to any visible impact so far. In 2010 an entire session of Parliament was washed out on the issue of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) which, of course, came to be formed subsequently. According to a calculation made by the Secretariat of the House of the people, disruption of the House for a day costs the public exchequer Rs 1.57 crore. Apart from the monetary cost, the cost in terms of important legislation which could not be made and other constitutional or procedural measures which could not be taken is enormous.

How can Parliament be salvaged from this mess? One suggestion which came up in this context was that the members who force the adjournment of the House should suffer monetary loss. It, somehow, did not find favour with political parties. A penalty of this kind, perhaps, does not suit Indian parliamentarians. We pride ourselves in being a mature democracy although the legislators’ conduct at times raises serious doubts about this claim. Large-scale suspension of members who disrupt the proceedings does not seem to be a workable option. What is required first is to restore the consensus on the need to run the House. There is at present an unexplainable pride in bringing the House to a standstill or forcing its adjournment. This mindset needs to be changed.

The House has the genius to synthesise contradictions. This needs to be re-discovered. In fact, an in-house mechanism could be thought of for dealing with the problem of disruption of the House. Members have to be brought back to the path of debate. Such a mechanism could be in the nature of a special committee with the presiding officer of each House as the chairman and leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament and representatives of the government at senior levels as member to deal with the issues which lead to disruption of the Houses. Collective pressure can be brought to bear on the party or parties which are planning to disrupt the House.

The offices of the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition are invested with great moral authority which should be harnessed for restoring the consensus. The Prime Minister may also attend a meeting of this committee whenever it becomes necessary. This will have a tremendous psychological impact on the leaders. A proper response from the government on the issue which is likely to lead to disruption, assurances about an opportunity for discussion in the House under appropriate rules, pressure from political leaders, judicious intervention by the Prime Minister, persuasive pressure from the presiding officer of the House concerned, etc, will have an impact on the parties which have a plan to disrupt the House. This mechanism can be given a try. Of course, it may take some time for the members to change their thinking and get back to orderly debate. But ultimately the House will have to come back to the path of debate and discussion as on the day of reckoning the members will have to tell the people what they have done for them.

It is true that the presiding officers of the Houses are vested with all the necessary powers to ensure their smooth functioning. But taking a larger view of things, they have generally refrained from using those powers which include summary suspension of the members who disrupt the House. They seem to have taken the view that what happens in many Assemblies should not happen in Parliament. However, it cannot be anybody’s case that continuous disruption of the Houses of Parliament has the approval of society. So, a certain approach will have to be devised to bring back normalcy in the two Houses in case collective efforts fail.

As a matter of fact, disruption and forced adjournment constitute a violation of the privileges of members in the sense that they are being prevented from discharging their parliamentary duties. It is a moot point whether such cases can be referred to the Privileges Committee of the House for an appropriate recommendation. The House in its collective wisdom can take action accordingly to ensure its smooth functioning. It is a wrong notion that it is the duty of only one section of the House to do so. It is the responsibility of each party and each member to see that the House functions because only then can they perform their duty which the Constitution has entrusted them with. And they are oath-bound to do so.

The writer is a former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha.

MIDDLE

In love with Shatabdi
by Harish Dhillon

I love travelling by the Kalka-Chandigarh Shatabdi: each trip is a social event.

People you have lost touch with suddenly emerge and light up your life with memories of the past for a little while. On one such trip, some years ago, I felt a hand on my shoulder and looked up into Justice Pathak’s face.

“Do you remember me? I am Anand Saroop’s father.”

How could I forget! Anand remains my highest scoring student in the Class XII examination – he scored 98 per cent in English and was first in the all-India ranking. And there was reason for this. The day I gave them their first assignment he came to me in the evening and said:

“Sir, you gave me six and a half. What should I have done to get eight and a half?”

He went away as I had told him and came back again after supper with a rewritten assignment which definitely deserved eight and a half. Relentlessly, for the next two years, he followed this practice and this effort was reflected in his achievement.

Another time this elf-like young lady put her arms around me and asked if I remembered her and when I heard her voice, I did. She had been one of my most creative students.

“You come upon a wish. I have been thinking of a project and you are the one person who can do help me do justice to it. The Mussorie-Dehra Dun belt is full of interesting, fascinating, sometimes eccentric characters. I want to do a book on them, with your help.” The discussion continued on the train and over the phone for the next few months and I do remember looking at one or two studies which were extremely well written. Then there was silence. I wonder where she is now, but more than that I wonder what happened to that project.

The preparations for our sesqui-centenary celebrations necessitated very frequent trips to Delhi. On the Chandigarh-Kalka stretch I was usually the only passenger. The caterer’s boys would bring me a very special cup of tea and the RPF jawans, most of who were from Haryana, would entertain me with the singing of Raginis. Most of them were so good that they would have put many a professional singer to shame.

But the most interesting thing that has happened to me was when I found myself sitting next to a gentleman who was reading the Punjabi translation of one of my books. I had never actually seen anyone reading one of my books and was ‘dying’ for him to know who I was. He ignored me. Then when he made a trip to the toilet, I turned the book over so that he could see my photograph on the back cover. He returned, looked closely at the book and then straight into my face and said somewhat severely:

“You shouldn’t have done that . You could have lost my page,” and turned back to his reading.

OPED — ECONOMY

Corner stores have actually flourished in both London and New York. There is also a sizable presence of Indian retailers on Oxford Street in London. So, what is the fuss about FDI in the retail sector?

Retailers have little to be worried about
D. R. Mehta

Youth Congress activists take part in a rally in Kolkata to support FDI in retail

THE issue of higher FDI limits in the retail sector has become highly contentious, resulting in a stalemate. Apart from political parties, the trade union organisations are opposing it vociferously and, at times, even violently. An economic issue has thus become a highly emotive, political issue.

The need of the hour is, therefore, for a rational discourse. In the first place, the apprehension of the existing retailers that they might be displaced, deserves to be examined. However, the ground realities are different. In fact, foreign retail chains, seeking an entry into the Indian market, will not be in a position to compete with the small retailers in economic terms. The existing shopkeepers, say in Connaught Place New Delhi, or in any market of metropolises of the country, pay very low rent for their shops. Comparatively, a foreign chain will have to rent a mall on a premium rent.

They may leave as quickly

In terms of the staff and establishment cost also, the position of the foreign retail chain will be even more difficult. A mid-sized Indian retailer may have the owner, his son and, maybe, one or two lowly paid employees working for long hours. In comparison, the foreign retail chain will have much larger paraphernalia. It will have to employ more people working for lesser number of hours. Its per unit staff cost will be in multiples of what the existing Indian retailers incur.

The cost of training, attiring of staff, larger parking space, air-conditioning, warehousing etc, when added up, will be substantially more than the oft-repeated advantages they would have on account of bulk purchases. This is evident from the financial results of the existing large scale Indian chains already in the retail sector. For example, Reliance Fresh, started with great hope, is perhaps a financial drag today.

One realistic view is that the foreign retail chains will soon burn their fingers and thus will not pose any threat to the existing retailers. In fact, many analysts believe that such foreign retail chains may depart as quickly as they enter the retail market in India because of the likely losses and the resultant pressure of the share holders, who in the West are unsparing.

It is also a known fact that in the West, the mark-ups of such foreign chains in retail are substantially more than those charged by the traditional Indian retailers. It is quite possible that the foreign retail chains may be planning on the basis of their Western experience, which may not suit the price sensitive Indian consumer.

Besides, the personalised services like immediate home delivery and the credit facilities offered by the present retailers in India, will continue to attract the consumers.

It is also to be noted that these foreign retail chains will be confining themselves only to the large metropolitan areas, which cover only a small percentage of the total population of India. Thus, the argument that the new policy would ruin the existing retailers of rural areas and small towns or country as a whole is specious.

What if they succeed?

There is yet another aspect of this policy. Supposing, despite what has been reasoned above, the foreign retail chains like Wall Mart succeed, it will directly benefit large sections of the people. If the prices are lower in the stores run by the foreign chains, consumers would be the gainers. This will curb inflation.

India has 120 crore consumers as against a few million retailers and their employees. Secondly, the farmers are likely to get better prices. In such a situation, is it appropriate to weigh the interest of the middlemen against that of the larger populace?

It is gathered that the existing grocery retail sector seems to be more apprehensive about the new policy. Again this is unfounded. Like others, I have seen umpteen number of corner stores in London or New York and other cities flourishing. Even large numbers of retailers of Indian origin are visible on the Oxford Street of London.

Yet another dimension is that owing to competition from the foreign retail chains, the existing retailers will also get more modernised and efficient and quality conscious.

(The writer is a former Chairman of SEBI and Deputy Governor of RBI)

India in 2011 is not India of 1612
The reality is that even after 20 years, 84 per cent of the retail sector will still be dominated by small stores
Rajiv Kumar

PETTY and partisan politics threatens one of the major policy initiatives in allowing FDI in the retail sector. The Opposition appears to be criticising the Government for the sake of opposition. The reality is that FDI in multi-brand retail will modernise the retail sector to global standards. The gainer, without doubt, will be the burgeoning urban population whose aspirations cannot be ignored.

FDI in the sector will also create massive job opportunities for the youth of the country. It will not only bring in fresh investments on the front end but even help in the creation of the back end infrastructure in order to secure supplies. It will also benefit farmers, who will receive higher farm gate prices and new varieties of seeds, technology and in some cases even credit advances at low interest rates without the hassles of collateral and banking procedures.

Foreign retail chains will also give a fillip to small enterprises which produce a range of products like cosmetics, toiletries, apparels, leather products, processed foods and condiments and pickles. Foreign retailers would try to trim their procurement costs of such products by sourcing them from small producers and use private labels for the sale of these products. This is also favoured by large retailers as it increases their bargaining position vis-a-vis established brands and reduce prices as well. By pursuing lower prices to attract more consumers, large retailers will open new vistas of consumption and help contain inflation.

Myths and reality

But what about the people’s perception and the misgivings entertained by them?

First, the feeling is that FDI in multi-brand retail will potentially result in India’s re-colonisation as happened with the East India Company.

Second, it will lead to the closure of and severe hardship to the owners of the corner shops.

Third, it would result in large scale unemployment as the self-organised retail sector which employs 40 million people is likely to be driven out.

Fourth, the foreign retailers will practice predatory pricing in the initial years to drive out the smaller retailers and later with market dominance hike prices to fleece consumers.

Finally, to the detriment of India’s manufacturing sector which is already under tremendous pressure, there will be a surge of imports as foreign retailers fill their shelves with imported goods.

Let’s face the facts. India of 2011 is not India of 1612. First, the country is intrinsically strong; is as good as or better than countries of origin of the retail traders, except perhaps the US.

Second, small format neighbourhood stores have withstood competition from their larger and more organised peers during the last decade. Evidence shows that large and small stores can co-exist as consumers patronise both to meet different needs.

It is estimated that the retail market will grow from the present size of $490 billion to nearly $1 trillion in the next twenty years. During this time the share of large retailers, including foreign retailers, is expected to increase from 4% to 16%. That still leaves 84% of the retail market to small stores implying a market of $840 billion for mom and pop stores! This is a huge market.

Third, with limited mortality and 84% of market share still remaining with small stores, there is simply no question of large scale unemployment. More importantly, large scale retailers will generate additional higher quality employment.

Fourth, predatory pricing can be practiced only by monopolies and foreign retailers will not enjoy any such market dominance. Indian competitors apart, there will be a number of foreign players, a majority of them with Indian partners, competing for market share. This combined with the monitoring eye of the Competition Commission would rule out predatory pricing.

Fifth, it will be difficult for foreign retailers to find cheaper imports across the board. However, this fear of domestic manufacturing capacity being wiped out could be better safeguarded by putting a cap on the share of imported products that can be sold by all large format retail stores. Because of our membership of the WTO we have to offer ‘national treatment’ to all businesses, whether domestic or foreign. So we cannot impose this condition only for foreign stores.

The author is Secretary General of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)