DMK Forces To Ponder Over The Afzal Question

The mask finally came out today. It became clear to everyone within India and outside that this Indian government handles its diplomatic relations on the basis of internal politics and aspirations. The Dravida Munetra Kazhagam has withdrawn support to the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh over the issue of alleged killing of LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil) by the Sri Lankan establishment. The open secret lies unravelled now.

It would be interesting to listen to those voices, which questioned the validity of Pakistan's National Assembly in passing a resolution condemning hanging of Afzal Guru. Our Parliament wasted no time in giving a befitting reply by passing another resolution condemning the Afzal resolution of Pakistan's National Assembly. And, everyone including this writer has reliably learnt that the DMK under M Karunanidhi voted favouring the resolution passed by Parliament. Now, where is the so-called ethical or moral difference between the equations.

We generally elect our leaders on the basis of our ability to believe or disbelieve in them, and we judge our leaders on the basis of their past (the most recent) performance. Sometimes, their intent also plays a significant role in the election process. Now, let's think separately the intent and performance of our political class in the aforesaid two cases, and then have a look at the real diplomatic and political spectre.

The Afzal Resolution
 
National Assembly of Pakistan passed that resolution because of two broad reasons: one, Afzal's connection to Kashmir (and attack on Indian Parliament) and two, religious appeal, which played the key role in partition and subsequent political confusion over the status, standing and stature of Jammu and Kashmir.

First of all, Pakistan feels that Kashmir is an Islamic problem and that's why an unfinished agenda of the partition and hence, it has its stake in deciding the fate and future of the state. It has fought not less than three wars on this issue, and has been supporting, helping, channelizing, designing and propagating terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and rest of India.

So, when someone from the same school of thought carries out or allegedly helps carrying out an act of terror, Pakistan is bound to have some hand in the act and stake in the future of the same person. It may present a different face to the world but within, it knows the reality. Hence, Pakistan’s resolution on Afzal Guru, whose hanging was confirmed by the Supreme Court and executed by the Indian government.

The resolution was viewed as an affront on India by millions of electors or stakeholders in our democracy. Sensing their mood, the elected ones showcased their intent in snubbing Pakistan with a counter-resolution asserting that "Jammu and Kashmir has been and shall always remain the integral part of India", that hanging of Afzal Guru.was an internal matter of India, and also that Afzal Guru was a part of the conspiracy hatched in Pakistan and sponsored by Pakistani establishment that saw attack on Parliament. Isn't there some inherent contradiction in our approach?

The Tamil Angle
 
Now, consider the government's stand on Sri Lanka's approach in dealing with remnants of LTTE, which was a proscribed outfit in India till it existed in force. The island nation's government has been accused of committing war crimes on the surrendered members of LTTE and the Tamil population of the Elam region. It is a serious human rights issue of international importance. But, it is happening within the sovereign boundaries of Sri Lanka and hence, an internal matter of that country. But then, the population involved is Tamil, which evokes emotional appeal across the international waters in an Indian state.

Tamil Nadu is under AIADMK rule while DMK is in opposition and so, quite naturally it feels the pulse of Tamil people's emotion and anger. The same DMK has been a partner in all crimes with other UPA partners at the centre. It could easily dictate the matters vis-a-vis India's southern neighbour in past nine years. But, in the wake of Italian marine goof up, better sense has started prevailing over the UPA government. So, after going far ahead of expressing concern over human rights' issue in Sri Lanka, the Manmohan Singh government has finally decided to see whether antagonizing the island nation is in India's favour given the Chinese propensity in the region.

If India genuinely felt that Pakistan's National Assembly's resolution on  Afzal was an attack on India's sovereignty, can it forget the same principle in dealing with Sri Lanka simply because DMK is part of the ruling coalition? And, if India can interfere with Sri Lanka (to safeguard its strategic interest) why can't Pakistan do same with India? Also, why should India choose/ pick the nation with which it has to interfere; simply put, why does India choose not to apply pressure on Maldieves, Italy, Nepal or Bangladesh for that matter to safeguard its strategic interests, while it goes on to interfere with an essentially (going by India's own definition) internal matter of Sri Lanka?

The present politico-diplomatic-strategic state of affairs of the UPA 2.0 points to utter indecision. The government seems to be so indecisive that it has failed to realize that indecision was its earlier decision. Under the circumstances, can India be taken seriously on the matters of external affairs, outside or within?

(Un)happy International Women's Day

March 8^th every year seems to be a day of rhetoric by people of all shades; politicians, activists, journalists, students, teachers and the rest of the educated lot. They all swear to give equality in all sense of terms to women, promise to stand for their so-called legitimate rights, give themselves to oppose all attempts of stereotyping women, fight female infanticide, female foeticide, and most of all ending domestic violence and cruelty against women. The very next day, all the beautiful signs are wiped out from all the places. Even the traces are hard to find. Every year cases of violation of the body of women registered and recorded on March 8^th are forgotten the next day. So, the International Women’s Day is an occasion of mere rhetoric.

Reading the Indian Express only a couple of days ago, I found a columnist bringing to notice the practice of bride abduction in many parts of the globe taking Kyrgyzstan as its epicentre. The narration goes like this, “Just imagine your daughter is coming home from college. A gang of men suddenly grabs her, forcibly tosses her into a car even as she screams, cries, throws about her hands and legs, tries to bite her abductors, but she's overpowered. There's a bridegroom at the other end waiting to marry her. Marriage (Wedding) preparations complete with ceremonial rituals are ready to be performed, family and friends invited to enjoy the wedding reception. Only the bride is missing. So a girl is kidnapped and brought to fit the role. It's a bona fide marriage where she'll become part of a respected family, but she's given no choice.”

This is a traditional ‘ritual’ in Kyrgyizstan, where it is called Ala Kachuu, which is illegal and punishable according to law. But, none are ever prosecuted and sentenced. “NGOs working there figure ala achuu is seen in 68-75 per cent of weddings.” The author goes on to ask, how does above story strike you? This Kyrgyz ritual certainly reminds me of ancient Indian practice glorified by DDLJsque Rukmini Haran (Abduction of Rukmini) by Krishna, emulated by his disciple Arujna and carried out by thousands of others. (Raavan was an exception for he abducted a woman but did not force her to cohabit or marry.)

This is still going on in India with unsuspecting brides being lured, threatened, abducted from Jharkhand, Orissa, Assam and other economically backward states and forced to marry female foeticidal, female infanticidal brethren from Haryana, Punjab and some other parts. The Indian Express columnist was exasperated, anguished, so am I (and so are probably few millions others from the billion plus nation).


According to the United Nations Organization and UN Women, 7 out of 10 women around the world are beaten, raped, abused or mutilated in their lifetimes. However, no woman perhaps can say that she was never violated. Violence against women is universal, prevalent in all countries and settings.  According to the International Labour Organization women and girls comprise 98 percent of all people suffering ‘forcible exploitation’. 

Shockingly, this state of women on the planet earth is despite ‘the best efforts of the member states of the UNO’. Today, 187 countries out of 193 UN members have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Besides, the United Nations Security Council now recognizes sexual violence as a deliberate tactic of war.  Notwithstanding UN’s sensitivity, more than 60 crore women live in countries that do not recognize domestic violence as a crime at all. 

So, on the rhetorical day in 2013, when the earth is striving to expand its sphere of influence beyond its own galaxy and when the question of gender equality and sense of gender sensitivity lie buried in the proverbial dark ages, I wish everyone a very happy International Women’s Day!

Bharat Bandh... Where?

Today is Bharat Bandh. I don't know where!!! One of my friends said that he wanted to find out as to in which police station Bharat is Bandh!!!! (भारत बंद है, न जाने किस थाने में? ढूंढ़ने जा रहा हूँ) Meanwhile, on serious note, I would like to tell all those, who were as 'uneducated' as I on this issue, that all the major trade unions have called this shutdown against the policies of the UPA government.

It is a two-day shutdown and strike called by 11 registered trade unions, cutting across party lines. The are protesting against the 'anti-people' policies of the Manmohan Singh government. These all trade unions feel that constant rise in prices of almost all commodities, poor implementation of labour laws and disinvestment in PSUs and relaxed norms for FDI in various sectors are the blows that the present UPA government has unleashed on the masses. 

The trade unions have also demanded that pensions for everyone, removal of ceiling on bonus and provident fund benefits be provided to every worker. And, surprisingly, besides trade unions affiliated to the Left and pro-BJP, Bharat Mazdoor Sangh, the pro-Congress INTUC is also supporting and  participating in the Bharat Bandh. 

Rape Shocker: Death or Justice?

As the chorus grows for death penalty for the perpetrators of the latest gang-rape shocker from Delhi, I decided to ponder upon the subject one more time. And, this time, in the form of a write up. I have been trying to understand and analyse the state of affairs surrounding such an act. Too many things are hitting my brains and I felt, at least a couple of times, that cranium would burst as it was impossible to bear the agony (that my nerve cells carry in perhaps millions of directions within my physiological system).

The paramedical student’s is one of the most brutal cases of rape that I have come to know about. But at the same time, I am reminded of various other cases, that might not have been as violent but certainly not less damaging either in spirit or effect. I would like to mention two such cases.

In the first case, a ten month old infant girl was raped by a mid-twenty youth while in another case an octogenarian woman was forced to go through the hell by another twenty-like youth. Both these incidents occurred in Delhi. The 23-year old student was raped several times by several people and thrashed with iron rod, which was inserted inside her body damaging the most important portions of her entrails. Even if she survives, she wouldn't be able to taste solid food ever in her bruised life.

I cannot fathom of the psychological damage that this par-animist act has brought upon the aspiring physiotherapist. But, alongside, my mind also gets back to the ten-month old infant and the 82-year old woman. There plight went unnoticed. 

Understanding Rape

For many, rape is an act of sex forced upon a woman. For media, it’s news, sensational or otherwise. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a crime, typically committed by a man, forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against her will. Is the practical meaning of rape is just a grouping of these many words? Can you have a full stop to it like that?

Rape, actually, is violation of a woman/ person. I hope, you understand and agree. Under India’s constitutional scheme, it is a violation of the right to life as guaranteed by article 21.

Legally, rape, in India, is defined as an act of penile penetration by a man of the vagina of a woman without her (valid) consent or consent obtained under threat or allurement or by deceit. (IPC section 375, after a couple of amendments and explanations forwarded by the judiciary.) Indian laws don’t have specific provisions dealing with rape of a person, who is not a woman, non-penile penetration (penetration by an object) or non-vaginal penetration (mouth). However, the present shocker points to the need for such a specific provision. The victim was raped and forced to have unnatural sex, according to police, with one or more of the offenders.

I believe, as a society, India is yet to fully comprehend rape in order to reduce the number or eliminate it (utopia) by means of laws.

Punishment

All the rape case convicts are liable for rigorous imprisonment not less than seven years and extending upto life imprisonment for period mentioned by the court. Court can award a lesser sentence, if it feels suitable. I presume that the court wouldn't come to this conclusion in the Delhi gang rape case.

Now, the clamour is getting louder for death penalty for the rapists. People have come out in thousands demanding stringent action and severest of punishment for the rapists. But, there are a few other issues that need to be looked upon and thought about. Suppose, people’s agitation on Anna model gets the government bring out a bill in Parliament providing death penalty (which would certainly come under rarest of the rare category) for the rapists, will it serve justice? Even if the bill is enacted, given the BJP's support, will it stop or reduce rape being committing on women? Answer, probably, is NO.

Prescription

Given the pace at which our justice delivery system functions, we cannot reduce the number of crimes leave alone the heinous crimes like rape. The present case would be heard by a fast track court. So, we can expect a decision in next three to four years. Then, the matter may land up in the Delhi High Court and then possibly in the Supreme Court. No one can deny the rapists, as proven even by the trial court the right to appeal in the higher courts of law. Hence, in any case when this gang rape case sees a full stop, nothing less than half-decade would have passed and the same bunch of Anna type protesters would have forgotten the case, and the same media would then be harping on the old songs to remind us of the trauma that the girl (I hope, she survives), her friend and their families suffered. Would it be a true justice done to the case or the victim even if it is a death penalty? Would the verdict be a deterrent for would-be rapists? I doubt. Leave aside the number of girls, women and infants, who may become new victims of the old crime.

Justice delayed is justice denied, goes the old saying. It is true at least in the cases of rape. More than 900 cases of rape are being heard in the Delhi High Court itself. Think about the entire nation. It is also a reflection on police’s (in)efficiency in proving or failing to prove whether an accused is guilty. So, the earnest need of the hour is the overhauling of the judiciary and the police system. Simply put, the nation needs police and judicial reforms more than anything else. At the same time, good parenting and excellent school education, especially of boys should be given the top priority. These prescriptions may sound too mild in the surcharged anti-rape environment, but no other steps would make the daughters, the sisters, the mothers, the girlfriends and wives of ours safe in years to come in this country.

But, till then all the police forces across the nation will have to take heart and lesson from the Delhi Police as to how not to overlook the regular policing so that the rules and regulations are complied by, and also how to act fast and nab the accused after such a crime has been committed. And, also till then Anna-model agitation must continue to exert pressure on the lawmakers because it is only they, who can turn the mountains of police and judiciary into wheels of justice.

2G Auction: Think before you criticize CAG

The auction bomb of 2G spectrum for telecommunications stands practically defused now. The two-day auction of the 2G mobile phone spectrum has proved to be a flop show measured even on the government’s yardstick. Notwithstanding that the UPA government wanted the auction to be a flop show, the establishment is surprised itself with the outcome of the auction. But, it is unhappy for another reason.

The UPA government had its hopes pinned on the auction amount to meet its target of keeping the fiscal deficit at 5.3% of the GDP in 2012-13. It expected to earn Rs 40,000 crore the least from the auction of 2G spectrum, but it could not fetch even Rs 9.5 thousand crore. Nonetheless, the UPA government stands vindicated on the presumptive loss figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore as calibrated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in 2010. It has always maintained that the CAG’s figures were wrong.

The above paragraph explains why the government has been rather circumspect in responding to the low earning from the auction. But, the attack on CAG’s authenticity is only round the corner. It may come from either the ministers or the Congress party or pro-government media houses. However, we need to think before criticizing the CAG over the poor interest shown by the bidders in the auction of 2G spectrum licences. Too much water has flown under the bridge since 2G spectrum bomb exploded some two years ago after a CAG report.

The CAG calibrated the loss due to government’s policy for not opting bidding to allocate 2G spectrum based on the market situations and realities of 2008; and, the CAG did its calculations in 2010. But, since then, the market’s concept and preferences vis-à-vis future of mobile phone communications in India have undergone a great change. 2G spectrum is now a thing of the past and future gains cannot be big when 3G technology is already there and 4G is creating a new buzz. The same companies, which either bid at a lower price or stayed away from the auction, may (definitely) have behaved differently in 2008. And, the fierce competition would have been witnessed had the same policy been adopted in 2008, giving the same UPA government handsome amount of money to fight its ever worrying fiscal deficit.

Some people in the UPA ladder understand this conundrum genuinely. This may be the other explanation why the government has not gone out lambasting the CAG like it did in the recent past after the auction of 2G spectrum. Moreover, the low bidding prices are being attributed to perceptively high base price set for different circles in the auction.

Of all the 14 circles put on auction, mega-circles of Delhi and Mumbai attracted no bids at all. Interestingly, Delhi and Mumbai account for more than 40% of the total earning from the mobile phone communications. The base price for these two circles was Rs 14,000 crore for 5MHz of 2G spectrum. Moreover, none of the companies, which took part in bidding, bid for pan-India spectrum for which the reserve price was set at Rs 14,000 crore. It further reflects telecom companies’ mindset towards Indian mobile phone communication market.

So, before concluding that the CAG had wrongly and deliberately calibrated the loss figure (at Rs 1.76 lakh crore), must bear in mind the market realities of 2008.

Kashmir: Militants, Panchayat, Pakistan and Problem

Two incidents or coincidences pertaining to Kashmir problem have brought back the centrality of the long standing dispute between India and Pakistan, as well as among the political regime and people in the country into focus. The first set of incidents is rather disturbing as it has thrown the democratization of Kashmiri politics completely out of gear. Lashkar-e-Toiba militants have threatened the Panchayat leaders and carried out the threats by killing Sarpanches and Panchayat members in the valley forcing more than fifty resignations within a couple of days. The state government has clearly failed to infuse confidence among the elected representatives that it is equipped to deal with the militants, on one hand and that it can provide security to all including the Panchayat leaders, on the other. Fear, confusion and blame game have taken firm roots in Jammu and Kashmir.

Second incident is not at all surprising but looks part of the same strategy, ostensibly formulated across the border. While democracy takes a backseat in the Kashmir valley, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has raked up the issue of self determination by the people of Kashmir. Zardari has reiterated Pakistan’s support to Kashmir’s separatists. Incidentally, the intelligence and security agencies, and politicians have pointed fingers at the Pak-based LeT, generally supported by Pakistani establishment, for the recent killings of Panchayat members in the Kashmir valley.

These two separate looking developments throw a pattern, which many, including this author, cannot deny. This warrants rewinding tapes of time and taking a look at the origin of the K-issue.

(Hereunder, I am reproducing a piece written (by me and rejected by a reputed journalist of a very reputed news organization) long back in 2004-05. But, somehow, I find it relevant today. I agree that were I to write this again, I may improve its structure a bit.)

Kashmir  ……. whenever this word is uttered, a part of our conscience and sentiment gets stirred up. We start feeling like having been cheated. We become staunch nationalists. We get angry and confused. Ironically, we seldom have a real understanding of the problem called, Kashmir, but we feel deeply about it.

                               Whether we wish it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s a fact that in this age of global terrorism the problem of Kashmir is more like global issue. All the five so-called major powers of the world are directly or indirectly interested and to some extent involved in it. The U.S. and Russia (erstwhile U.S.S.R.) have been interested in it since the days of cold war. For that they have had their own understanding of the international milieu and hold-sharing game. Although China has never expressed anything explicitly but on every bilateral platform sharing with India or Pakistan it has shown some concern about Kashmir. As for the U.K. everyone agrees that the Kashmir problem is a legacy of British colonialism.

                            When the British withdrew from India, three states were ostensibly born: India and Pakistan on the basis of the infamous two-nation theory, and Jammu and Kashmir. The ruler of the third entity, i.e. Kashmir decided not to go along communal lines and declared his state as independent to preserve its composite culture and life-style. Or, may be, he did not want to give up his royal and princely character. Maharaja Hari Singh was willing to join neither India as he felt his majority Muslim subjects would not like joining a Hindu-majority nation, nor Pakistan, which as a Hindu he was personally averse to. On the other hand, Pakistani leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru hoped that the kingdom would join India. That is why Hari Singh thought of making Jammu and Kashmir an independent nation, and did not make his decision by August 15^th to merge with either.

Anyway, the result was the same, i.e. the birth of three different states or nations for that matter. Though, all were not admitted into the U.N.O. as separate entities. But then who knows, had the tribal invaders mixed with the Pakistani army not invaded Kashmir, it would have emerged as a separate nation. And, our nationalist feelings for Kashmir would not have developed even. But that was not to be and India fought three wars (excluding 1971-war) and hundreds of skirmishes, without getting any solution. However why the able leadership of the two countries could not reach to a solution is itself a mystery.

.

                              Take a look at history. Pakistan sponsored militia-invaded Kashmir in September 1947 under the guidance of Major General Akbar Khan of Pakistani Army. This was an unbearable shock for the King of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh.  He did not have enough means to protect his state or himself. At that time, the King did not have too many options to turn to. After hurried deliberations, the King asked the Indian government to come to his rescue. Interestingly, the Indian leadership headed by Pt. Nehru and Sardar Patel did not accept the request immediately. They first asked the King to sign a treaty for merger with India saying that similar treaties had been signed by other princely states. This treaty with the King is known as the Instrument of Accession.

                                                   The Instrument of Accession was signed in October 1947.  And, only after that India took the task of protecting Kashmir, rather India. Indian forces landed on the territory of Kashmir. But by now Pakistan backed forces had occupied almost one-third of Kashmir. Here, behaviour of the Indian leadership looked quite baffling.

                                                India decided to protect the capital of Kashmir and the princely house there. It did not wish to push Pakistani forces beyond Kashmir, by now the territory of India. Considering the comparative strength of the troops, India could easily have driven out Pakistanis forces and thus nipped the Kashmir problem in the bud itself. This was a fatal blunder committed by new India. We need at first to accept this with an open and non-maligned hearts. It is difficult to ascertain that who was responsible for this decision. May be, the logic for this happening lay in the fast changing history of India then. As our leaders of the time, though were great nationalists and had brought us independence, but perhaps could not understand the meaning of Kashmir’s merger with India.

                                         This was not the only mistake that India committed. India took the matter to U.N.O. It is often said that India did so on the advice of the then viceroy Lord Mountbatten, the person most probably responsible for the decision of protecting only the capital and princely house of Kashmir. India could have resolved the matter with Pakistan in the light of the India Independence Act of 1947 whereby India’s legal position was strong in the wake of the Instrument of Accession already signed between Jammu and Kashmir and India. The Act provided that any of the princely states could join India or Pakistan by choice, the only prerequisite being the geographical continuity of the princely state with the merging nation. Thus, Kashmir had legally become an integral part of India because the King of Kashmir was the legal head of the state and his decision of merger was legal under the India Independence Act. Obviously the India Independence Act would have invalidated the Pakistani attempt of sabotaging Kashmir.

                                                     Further, even at U.N.O. India complained in a manner that was short on research and logic. Here, India filed the case under Article 37 instead of Articles 36 and 51. Simplified, Article 36 refers to the invasion of a sovereign territory by an outside power. While Article 37 refers to the invasion of a territory disputed between the two countries, one of them. Thus by filing the case under Article 37 India legally accepted the disputed status of the territory of Kashmir. This step was in a way a negation of the India Independence Act, the very Act that was the legal source of the creation of an independent and sovereign India from the British Empire. Simply put, despite Kashmir becoming an integral territory of India, the government of India admitted at the UNO that a part of it was not surely under its sovereignty.

                               Later on, Indian leaders realized the blunder but by then the problem had born. The UN Resolution was passed. It asked for the appointment of two neutral observers by the U.N.O., and holding a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine the democratic will of the resident population. But, it also clamped two conditions. One, that Pakistan should withdraw its troops from Kashmir and second, having seen that India should do the same before actual plebiscite could be held. Since, Pakistan never thought of going back, so India was not bound to either withdraw or hold plebiscite. Though, India has been holding parliamentary and state elections there and it is forwarded as a sort of plebiscite by the Indian think tank. But, technically nothing could be done on the U.N. Resolution.

                                  Perhaps all the politicians at the helm of affairs have clearly understood this technical complexity of the issue and hence most of them have just played with the issue and people’s sentiment for Kashmir. They first sensitized the issue by projecting it as the symbol of national prestige and honour. Although they have generally overlooked the similar problem of Aksai Chin. The reason is simple, that Kashmir could be easily related to the psyche of the two- nation theory.

                                                            Before going for any concluding thought it would be better to have a look at one integral part of the same problem, i.e. the Siachin issue. It takes us back to the U.N. Resolution of 1949. It provided for a Line of Control, a position held by the two countries when they accepted the ceasefire as per the resolution. The LOC is a demarcated line up to a point in the Karakoram Mountains called NJ-9842. Demarcation could not be carried out beyond this line because of the geographical adversity of the territory. The UN Accord says that beyond NJ-9842 the line of control would follow the crest line of the Saltotras and Siachin ranges towards northeast up to the border of China. But, the tangle here is that the crest of these ranges does not go along northeast direction. Rather, it takes a backward turn to north and a bit northwest. Here Pakistan is stuck at northeast direction while India favours crest line demarcation. But the problem had not been realized here till 1984.

          In 1984 a French mountaineering group applied with the Indian government for a research tour of the Siachin but the government of India turned down the request. The same group approached the Pakistani government, which permitted them to do so. India thought it as an incursion on Indian Territory from the Pakistani side. So, the Operation Meghdoot was carried and the Indian army occupied the crest line there. Here, India is in advantageous position after having occupied the crest line physically but the cost is enormous. There is one more chink here. Pakistan has gifted about 10,000 sq. km. of area in the Karakoram region to China for developmental purposes. The land, obviously, is claimed by India. The strategic importance of the gift is more than the physical one if seen in the light of Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin.

                                            Obviously, the complexities involving Kashmir are not easy to comprehend and resolve. To add, Pakistan has created the headache of sponsored terrorism. In fact, terrorism has given a new dimension and publicity to the Kashmir problem. It has forced all the concerned powers to look at the problem afresh. Its devastating and negative nature has also convinced the world of India’s stand on it and has unmasked intention of Pakistan, which has now allowed terrorism to move from institutional framework to individual mode. The latest killings of Sarpananches and elected Panchayat members by LeT sponsored militants make this point amply clear. The governments of India and Pakistan must look forward to resolve the issue for the mankind on the sub-continet.. Though, it is highly improbable to predict any amicable solution, and that only the brains of an Aristotle or a Chanakya can do so. 

Understanding FDI in Retail in India

The decisions taken by the Manmohan Singh government in last cabinet meeting have evoked sharp and varied reactions from different quarters. One of the long debated and perhaps equally awaited decisions has been relaxing the norms for FDI in retail, both single brand and multi-brand. The voice of dissent seems louder than the assenting one. The market, however, has responded positively with stock market beginning to fly north. But, the two contrasting behaviour or reactions to the decisions taken by the UPA government apparently killing the bug of policy paralysis have left ordinary people confounded. Confusion is over the nature of the FDI in retail and its impending impact on Indian economy and employment scenario.

Let’s first understand the nature of FDI in retail. The foreign capital can come into India either in collaboration with a home player or via single handed investment by a global player. The government has relaxed the norms for both. It has allowed FDI in multi-brand retail upto 51% and single brand retail 100%, albeit with certain conditions.

Retail is a lucrative business in India as the industry is valued at over USD 450 billion. Interestingly, 90% of it is controlled by unorganized small and medium scale traders. They fear that the big organized corporate retailers would ruin the prospects of the age old profit making gallawallas. However, the government argues that the entire scheme will benefit bot the producers, that is, farmers and the consumers, that is, the aam aadmi. It also says that the move will create more employment in comparison to the job creation by traditional retailers. Moreover, the government allays the fear of elimination of traditional retailers.

The initial reactions from the economic experts are somewhat positive. But, many believe that in the long run neither the aam aadmi nor the farmers will be benefitted. The argument here is this; the global retail giants would have their monopoly in the Indian market in few years from now and then they would manipulate procurement price while dealing with the farmers and selling price while selling the articles to the consumers, the aam aadmi.The answer lies in the realm of future.

The union cabinet has put certain significant conditions for the FDI in retail. It says that only those players will be allowed to operate in India, who will invest a minimum capital of USD 100. Secondly, retail outlets by foreign players can only be opened in the million-plus cities. It effectively means that only 35-40 cities would be entitled to have an FDI-based retail outlet. The state governments can, however, make some amendments to make ineligible cities eligible. Thirdly, the states are not compelled by the centre to give licence to such stores under their respective shops and establishment acts. So, if a state government does not want to have a Walmart store or a Best Buy store, it won’t have one.

However, this argument of the centre that the latest decision is only an enabling policy and the states will have the final authority in this matter looks misleading. If states decide not to issue licence to any such player, it will be in direct conflict with the government of India’s commitment of ‘national treatment’ to investing countries. India has signed the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPAs) with 83 nations. 72 such agreements have already come into force and according to the information available with the official websites of the government, remaining are in the process of being implemented. This commitment of national treatment means that if one store is allowed in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat can not say ‘NO’ to that store if it applies for a licence there. One such instance has happened in Kerala where the matter was decided by the court in retail chain’s favour.

The government has argued repeatedly that inviting foreign capital was the last but the most required resort lest India slipped into deeper economic crisis comparable only to Eurozone crisis and the balance of payment crisis of our own in 1991. Moreover, it also says that adequate protection has been given to small traders. The global retailers will have to bring at least USD 100 million to be able to open a store in India with 30 percent of the capital going into creating basic infrastructure. And, such stores can only be opened in a million plus cities, numbering just over 35.

But, here government has failed to satisfy the people as it has shied away from coming up with figures suggesting as to how many jobs will be created annually should global retailers come over here while giving a comparison as to how many local retailers and their employees would lose their jobs.

The opponents of the FDI in retail policy fear that the global players will change the contour of Indian markets and make it skewed rendering many jobless and wealthless. The age old truth is that the markets have been the chief source of wealth generation and livelihood for many. Millions of retailers, traders and vendors make a living off the markets in India. And, this is precisely the reason which will attract global retail capital to India, and obviously they will work towards creating their own wealth. They will analyze before investing as to whether there will be net gain in wealth should they come to India, which may be the net loser in that case. If and when this happens, the local markets would end up serving the interests of a few multinationals. There is also possibility that the multinational retailers would restrict farmers/ producers access to market on one hand and manipulate prices of commodities on the other.

A recent research by researchers at IIM-Ahmedabad suggests that the globalization of retailers has not succeeded. “A study of top 250 global retailers reveals that 110 of them operate in single local home country. 175 retailers operate in less than 5 countries, mainly neighboring countries. Only 50 retailers operate in more than 10 countries. Only 36 of them have entered into China since the opening up of retail sector in late 1990s. Out of these, 17 retailers are already present in India. Therefore the scope for entry of global retailer entry into India is limited,” says the research.

So, the FDI in retail in India is still an inconclusive matter and most of its aspects can only be understood in future.