|
 |
ARTICLE |
 |
No Walmart, please
Govt’s claim is questionable
by Justice Rajindar Sachar (retd)
If
the combined Opposition had sat down for weeks to find an issue to embarrass the UPA government and make it a laughing stock before the whole country, they could not have thought of a better issue than the free gift presented to it initially by the government by insisting that it had decided irrevocably to allow the entry of multi-brand retail super stores like Walmart and then within a few days, with a whimper, withdrawing the proposal. As it is, even initially this decision defied logic in view of the Punjab and UP elections and known strong views against it of the BJP and the Left. Many states had all the time opposed the entry of Walmart which would affect the lives of millions in the country. Retail business in India is estimated to be of the order of $ 400 billion, but the share of the corporate sector is only 5 per cent. There are 50 million retailers in India, including hawkers and pavement sellers. This comes to one retailer serving eight Indians. In China, it is one for 100 Chinese. Food is 63 per cent of the retail trade, according to information given
by FICCI. The claim by the government that Walmart intrusion will not result in the closure of small retailers is a deliberate mis-statement. A study done by IOWA State University, US, has shown that in the first decade after Walmart arrived in IOWA the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women apparels stores and 153 shoe stores, 116 drug stores and 111 men and boys apparels stores. Why would it be different in India with a lesser capacity for resilience by small traders. The fact is that during 15 years of Walmart entering the market, 31 super market chains sought bankruptcy. Of the 1.6 million employees of Walmart, only 1.2 per cent make a living above the poverty level. The Bureau of Labour Statistics, US, is on record with its conclusion that Walmart’s prices are not lower. In Thailand, supermarkets led to a 14 per cent reduction in the share of ‘mom and pop’ stores within four years of FDI permission. In India, 33-60 per cent of the traditional fruit and vegetable retailers reported a 15-30 per cent decline in footfalls, a 10-30 per cent fall in sales and a 20-30 per cent decline in incomes across Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh, the largest impact being in Bangalore, which is one of the most supermarket-penetrated cities in India. The average size of the Walmart stores in the US is about 10,800 sq feet employing only 225 people. In that view, is not the government’s claim of an increase in employment unbelievable? The government’s attempt is to soften the blow by emphasising that Walmart is being allowed only 51 per cent in investment up to $100 million. Prima facie, the argument may seem attractive. But is the Walmart management so stupid that when its present turnover of retail is $ 400 billion it would settle for such a small gain? No, obviously, Walmart is proceeding on the maxim of the camel being allowed to put its head inside a tent and the occupant finding thereafter that he is being driven out of it by the camel occupying the whole of the tent space. One may substitute Walmart for the camel to understand the danger to our millions of retailers. The tongue-in-cheek argument by the government that allowing Walmart to set up its business in India would lead to a fall in prices and an increase in employment is unproven. A 2004 report of a committee of the US House of Representatives concluded that “Walmart’s success has meant downward pressures on wages and benefits, rampant violations of basic workers’ rights and threats to the standard of living in communities across the country.” By what logic does the government say that in India the effect will be the opposite? The only explanation could be that it is a deliberate mis-statement to help multinationals. Similar anti-consumer effects have happened by the working of another supermarket enterprise, Tesco of Britain. A study carried out by Sunday Times shows that Tesco has almost total control of the food market of 108 of Britain’s coastal areas — 7.4 per cent of the country. The super stores like Walmart and Tesco have a compulsion to move out of England and the US because their markets are saturated. These companies are looking for countries with a larger population and low supermarket presence, according to David Hogues, Professor of Agri-Business at the Centre for Food Chain Research at Imperial College, London. They have got nowhere else to go and their home markets are already full. Similarly, a professor of Michigan State University has pointed out that retail revolution causes serious risks for developing country farmers who traditionally supply to the local street market. In Thailand, Tesco controls more than half the Thai market. Though Tesco, when it moved into Thailand, promised to employ local people but it is openly being accused of indulging in unfair trading practices. The claim that these supermarket dealers will buy local products is belied because in a case filed against Tesco in July 2002 the court found it charging slotting fees to carry manufacturers’ products, charging entry fee of suppliers. In Bangkok, grocery stores’ sales declined by more than half since Tesco opened a store only four years ago. In Malaysia, seeing the damage done by Tesco since January 2004, a freeze on the building of any new supermarket was imposed in three major cities and this when Tesco had only gone to Malaysia in 2002. It is worth noting that 92 per cent of everything Walmart sells comes from Chinese-owned companies. The Indian market is already flooded with Chinese goods which are capturing the market with cheap offers, and traders are already crying foul because of the deplorable labour practices adopted by China. Can, in all fairness, the Indian government still persist in keeping the retail market open to foreign enterprises and thus endangering the earnings and occupations of millions of our countrymen and
women? The writer is a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi.
 |
|
|
MIDDLE |
|
Fluttering womanhood
by Ashok Kumar Yadav
WITH the launching of the nation’s first all-women housing society in Panchkula by 48 housewives-turned-entrepreneurs, the wheel of feminine fortune has taken a full circle. It has been made possible by two spirited charioteers of women’s empowerment, Prof S. Kumar and Rithambra Sanghi, the wives of two sitting judges of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court.For the first time, when I read Shakespeare’s contemptuous observation, “Frailty, thy name is woman” in Hamlet, it made my heart lose its rhythm. But it started bleeding profusely the moment I found inerasable stains of “malice” in Khushwant Singh’s lead article published in The Illustrated Weekly of India in the mid-1970s. Finding it arduous to sanitize the venom spat by them, I attempted to re-paint the cascading femininity in its original hues in one of my write-ups, “Woman, thy name is might”, published in these columns in 2009. Certainly, I would not have reacted, had the duo confined themselves only to the nature-conspired and male-sponsored plight of women rather than challenging their mental might. The feminine evolution from plight to might has never been easy; it has rather been marked by fluctuating vicissitudes. Unfortunately, the Bard of Avon is not alive today to witness the fluttering of womanhood; his Indian-incarnate, however, still survives to see the transformation for himself. To my mind, the nonagenarian writer would have been the fittest person to hold the draw for apartments, prompting him to swallow his remarks. What a pity; both of them omitted to peep into the psyche of a woman and appreciate the uniqueness of her persona before passing an ex-parte decree. How could she be what they saw in her? She eternally keeps oozing out love. It is, however, a different matter that she smilingly accepts the running errands of males in varying roles. Would the new entrepreneurs really stay all alone in the state-of-the-art apartments, having deported their men to emotional exile? The basic structure of family would go bust and the patriarchal pattern would change into a matriarchal one if this really happens. Feeling aggrieved, all the beleaguered husbands may take on their deserting spouses by organising a candle march, singing, “Naa jaane kyun hamare dil ko tumne dil nahi samjha; yeh sheesha tor dalaa, pyar ke qaabil nahi samjha”. In any case, fluttering womanhood can certainly not imply the shuttering of manhood. I continue to live in perpetual fear of my wife also drifting to the new habitat. To prevent matrimonial disaster, meanwhile, I have started reciting “Hanuman
chaalisa”.
|
|
|
OPED
— DOCUMENT |
|
FORGING STABILITY IN ASIA
Jawaharlal Nehru had said in 1947, “one of the notable consequences of European domination of Asia has been the isolation of Asian countries from each other. It is time to dwell on an ‘inclusive Asia’, basis for a new Asian identity and stability
Ranjan Mathai
Sometimes
it is useful to spend a minute on definitions. To us in India, Asia has always meant the entire continent, not just the Eastern part of it as seen from across the Pacific. At the Asian Relations Conference in March 1947, Prime Minister Nehru presciently spoke of a rising Asia……and welcomed delegations from China, Egypt and the Arab world, Iran, Indonesia & Indo-China, Turkey, Korea, Mongolia, Thailand (Siam), Malaya, Philippines, Central Asia (he referred to the Soviet Asian republics), all our neighbours, Australia and New Zealand.
|
Stability in Asia extends beyond the SAARC countries but the existing architecture provides a ready platform to expand trade and mulitilateral relations. SAARC leaders pose for a group photograph in Bhutan.
|
This is a vast canvas, and it needs retelling that India is in a sense a meeting point of influences of West, North, East and South East Asia. The theme of forging stability across such a vast expanse requires a look at whether Asia can be considered a single strategic entity. Perhaps not, despite decades of globalisation. We are supposed to be in a post-Westphalian world in which globalisation has reduced classical identity of States as autonomous entities. Recent events suggest, however, that the nation state remains the primary unit of international politics, and regional architecture cannot end competition among nation states; it can however moderate it through the quest for common interests. It also appears that requirements for stability do have a substantial constituency; even in an era of mobilised, politically active populations, the dangers of unrestricted competition are increasingly recognised. Also recognised is that multilateral constructs provide avenues for compromise that may not be politically saleable on purely bilateral levels. I do not wish to ramble on a theory of international politics. Your sessions focus on asymmetric warfare, stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and engaging a rising China. So let me touch on these themes within the overarching idea of stability in Asia. Asymmetric war is actually war by other means (I say this with caution because this is a field for experts). But such war is possible because of the balance created by mutually assured destruction, or because of the difficulty of finding the appropriate targets to respond to. Hence state sponsored terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare. As the range and firepower of terrorists increases, the capacity of asymmetric warfare to endanger international security increases. The ultimate danger of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists needs the attention of all those concerned about stability across the globe.
The New Silk Route
The Istanbul Conference on November 2 sought consensus for an architecture, built on a concept of economic cooperation in a region stretching from Turkey to South Asia and Central Asia to the Gulf passing through Afghanistan which was described as the "heart of Asia". This (along with political elements) would be taken forward at Bonn in December when one can expect to hear more on what US Secretary of State Clinton described in India in July, as the New Silk Route. For a moment this idea transports us back in time to an era when the Silk Route was an important part of the relationship between Europe, Asia and Africa for several centuries. Extending some 6000 kilometres with mostly overland (but also some sea) routes, the Silk Route was not only important for the exchange of goods and precious metals, but also for the spread of ideas and knowledge. It was, in fact, a major factor linking developments within the great civilizations of India, China, Persia, Egypt and Rome. There was no conception of a strategic interlinking of all these regions, hence the role of the Silk Route in maintaining stability is uncertain. The metaphor of the Silk Route (by whatever name) could be a useful one today, especially for those seeking common structures to lock in the kind of common interests that can foster Asian stability. A new Silk Route in Asia seeks to highlight the synergies between us, and the acceptance of interdependence that has not only become part of our lives, but which could give us competitive advantages for intra-regional trade and in dialogue with the world outside. None of this will be cheap. There will be a requirement for deep pockets, but the outcomes could be very positive. Nehru hinted at the idea of Silk Route earlier in 1947, when he said "one of the notable consequences of European domination of Asia has been the isolation of Asian countries from each other. India had contacts and intercourse with her neighbouring countries in the North West, North East, and East and South East Asia. With the coming of British rule, these contacts were broken off and India was completely isolated from the rest of Asia. The old land routes ceased to function and our chief window to the world looked out to sea routes which led to England". That we should be talking of "New Silk Route" even today six decades later, when there has been ample time to recreate old routes, suggests that political obstacles apart, maritime routes are, in fact, quite natural to us in Asia and must be part of any architecture we build. For us in India, the New Silk Route is another name for connectivity we seek to Central Asia and beyond. But with apologies to Bismarck, we are both a land rat and a water rat. If I were to look at the prospects for stability in Asia in connection with Afghanistan, I would add Iran to the list of countries needing to be discussed.
Security and Terrorism
Terrorism is now recognised as one of the greatest scourges of our times and a serious source of instability in regions across Asia and the wider world. Earlier in the 1980s and 1990s, it was easy for the outside world to watch as India went through trials of terrorist fire. Today, no one is immune from terrorism emerging from the same swamps that produced the terror groups targeting India. There is also a growing recognition that while India has suffered grieviously, it has preserved the values of democracy and secularism at home and acted with a great sense of responsibility abroad. Such preconditions for stability are less assured in other countries. In a new emerging world, it is, of course, necessary to find solutions to terrorism, beyond the obvious, to understand the contexts rather than to give one-size-fits-all solutions. But concerted international efforts to counter terrorism and to pressurise those who provide them safe haven, must continue and become the norm in policy making. Institutional mechanisms of states must find ways to deal with subterranean and ideological regional groups, and the asymmetric warfare resorted to by some states. The CCIT at the UN is one place to start.
South Asia
In our search for stability we have tried to help Afghanistan in nation building. We have also engaged with Pakistan to maintain a structure of normalised state relations. There have been some modest successes as seen in the move towards trade normalisation. There is today, more successfully, a greater degree of stability in countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. There has also been considerable progress in India's relationship with Bangladesh in dealing with outstanding problems, including settling the border, security, sharing of river waters and increase in trade linkages. In fact, progress with Pakistan and better relations among and with countries in South Asia could leapfrog the SAARC region into a high economic growth trajectory.
Central, West & East Asia
Afghanistan and the Central Asian region are not new areas for Indian engagement. India and Afghanistan are not just neighbours, joined together by history and civilisational contacts stretching over millennia, but we are also strategic partners. Our close relations based on cultural affinities, the shared values of multi-ethnicity and pluralism and the common quest of our peoples for peace and development have ensured that the relationship between our two peoples remains warm and friendly. The strongest testimony of this is reflected in our reconstruction and development assistance to Afghanistan. Continuing aid and assistance to Afghanistan is a major strategy of our engagement with Afghanistan. This includes an important agreement for capacity building of Afghan working in a new economy, for the civil services and security forces.
West Asia
The upsurge that began in Tunisia in early 2011 has transformed West Asia. The changes set in motion in early 2011 still echo in the region: more regions are affected, more regimes have fallen, and among those which have survived, many have been forced to adopt new policies. Taken together, these changes herald an epochal shift primarily in the Arab world, possibly one of the most significant geo-political developments of the 21st century. The rise of a new democratic West Asia will bring its own set of challenges and opportunities The biggest challenge to stability will be the creation of employment opportunities and satisfying aspirations of the growing young generation who believe that dictators have stifled their prospects. This will require governments and businesses in each of these countries coming together to foster entrepreneurship in a sustained manner, with international support. The EU, GCC, US and to a lesser extent Japan, Russia, China and India may have a role to play. But so far, there is no sign of a coordinated move to work to support democratic and economic aspirations of the people. We are doing our bit by being helpful with election management, training programmes, etc.
China
I think China has already risen, though it is likely to continue to rise. It is not just a cliché but a fact that we are likely to be both competitive and complementary. As two of the largest developing economies in the world, India and China are significant engines of economic growth in the world. The promise of an India-China engagement is mirrored with China having emerged as India's largest trading partner, with prospects of growth continuing and a bilateral trade target of US 100 billion dollars by 2015. Peaceful development of relations between India and China will also lead to the strengthening of BRIC at a time when large parts of the world in Europe and the United States are facing the heat of global recession. On global issues such as climate change, the need for a development dimension in trade negotiations, and reform of international financial institutions, there are many common interests between China and India. Therefore, there is need for continued engagement with China across all spectrums, despite outstanding problems on the border issue. China will be an important partner in fostering Asian stability, and in ensuring economic linkages between countries that could work to dissuade conflict. There will, of course, be many balancing acts required.
India and a revitalised Asian economy
Today, the global economy has several stress points. The world economy will take time to recover and the effectiveness of the initiatives taken in the Euro Zone remain a work in progress. Attention is increasingly focussed on domestic concerns. It is, therefore, possibly time to dwell on the concept of an "inclusive Asia" that could be the basis for a new Asian identity and stability. Sometime ago it was popular to talk of "Asian values" and a new Asian outlook on the world. This has not proved decisive in the search for stability. A vibrant Asian economy will also involve the creation of a new energy architecture for Asia; harnessing technology and innovation for economic growth; and providing for the region's infrastructure needs. It may be too early to say that for the stability of Asia, "it's the economy, stupid". But clearly anyone who fails to see that the economy gives us the best prospect for working on an architecture of stability is being somewhat "stupid". Excerpts from the keynote address delivered by the Foreign Secretary at MEA-IISS-IDSA Dialogue in New Delhi
|
