When democracy won but the people lost

The past two weeks witnessed a remarkable spectacle in which India’s democracy won but India’s people lost. On November 24, the government announced a bold reform to allow 51% foreign stake in retail. It triggered off a storm of protest across the political spectrum, and eventually forced the government to back down and suspend the reform. During the entire debate no one asked why China and dozens of countries welcome foreign investment in retail. The defeat of the government means that Indian consumers have lost a chance for lower prices, India’s farmers have lost the prospect of higher returns, a third to half of India’s food will continue to rot, and millions of unemployed rural youth have been denied jobs and careers in the modern economy.  It is also a severe blow to the future of reforms in India.

It does seem odd that democracy should win and people lose. But democracy’s great flaw is that it is easily captured by vested interests. In the 1980s, labour unions captured it to ban computers in government offices, banks and insurance companies. Today the powerful kirana trade has succeeded by funding opposition to a policy that was patently in the nation’s interest. The kirana lobby created an atmosphere of fear. The same fears were expressed during the 1991 reforms. If the government had given in then, India would not have lifted 200 million people out of poverty; not raised 300 million into the middle class and not made India the second fastest growing major economy.

Indians today are victims of the primitive “mandi system” which escalates food prices by 1:2:3:4, resulting in the world’s highest gap between the price a housewife pays and what the farmer receives. What a farmer sells for 1 is sold at the mandi for 2, which becomes 3 at the kirana store and 4 to the consumer. When you pay Rs 20 per kilo for tomatoes, the farmer gets only Rs 5. As tomatoes travel from the farm to the mandi to the bania, each middleman gets his cut. The price spread  varies by commodity and season, but studies show that the gap is less in countries with modern retail. This is because large foreign retailers usually buy directly from farmers without middlemen.  Thus, they can pay Rs 8-10 to farmers for the same tomatoes and sell them for Rs 15-17 to consumers, and still make a profit. Some middlemen will lose out but P Chengal Reddy, secretary-general of Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations says, "India has 60 crore farmers, 120 crore consumers and half a crore traders. Obviously, government should support farmers and consumers. FDI in retail will bring down inflation.”

It will also save food from rotting. Global retailers have perfected a cold distribution system. By investing in thousands of cold storages and air-conditioned trucks, they will reduce farm wastage, and bring a revolution in transport, warehousing, and logistics, as they have done in major countries likeArgentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and Thailand, which have allowed 100 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail since the 1990s.

In none of these countries have small stores been wiped out; nor are there complaints of predatory pricing by supermarkets—the two fears expressed in the past two weeks. According to a recent study, small outlets have grown by 600,000 in China since 2004. “In Indonesia,  after ten years of opening FDI in multi-brand retail, 90 per cent of the business remains with small traders, while employment in the retail and wholesale sectors grew from 28 million to 54 million from 1992 to 2001”. Kirana stores continue to succeed because they offer personalized service, give credit and deliver to the house.

This issue goes beyond shops and supply chains to whether India’s democracy can throw up the sort of leaders who can reach out and persuade opponents about much needed reforms. This was a test for the Prime Minister. He made a bold decision to usher in a retail revolution. He gave a choice to the states to opt out of the reform. He may have failed this time but if he is courageous he will persist and win the next time because he is doing the right thing for the nation.

I feel nice to see that on

I feel nice to see that on the eve of Swamiji’s 150th birth
anniversary you, the great G-14 citizens of this country of rampant
corruption, have at last started crying for the common Indians, who
are yet to get the taste of “Indian Democracy” as mentioned in the
preambles of Indian constitution.
When these HiFi G-14 bosses have come to know that some corrupt corporate are spoiling
the name of the entire corporate sector, why don’t the expose them? In
my crusade against “Tyrant Corporate”, I come to know that it is the
biggest menace before common Indians and CESC Ltd. is the most
notorious corporate of this country. It has got criminal face. Will
G-14 and great reporters like you be interested to claim licence of CESC Ltd. for its cheating
and other unlawful activities? If they agree then only I shall believe
that G-14 Czars are truly anxious about rampant corruption. Otherwise
sufferers may think that they are also playing to the gallery!
I reiterate that the nexus between corrupt politicians, terror
corporate and hang dog media is the greatest menace before common
Indians. It is the breeding ground of corruption. If we fail to get
rid of this incestuous community, none can resist our annihilation.
Annaji did not utter anything against the nexus. His agitation failed
to yield any impact because of the double dealing. I love to believe
that he is better than the political leaders. But his future is
rudderless because he failed to identify the real enemies of the
million.
Tapas K. Dutta

Dear Das Sir, I am a

Dear Das Sir,

I am a Sustainability student. From whatever I read in news about FDI in retail sector, I am really confused to take a stand on it. One argument you and like minded people project is farmers benefit out of FDI in retail. What happens if the farmers were not able to provide the goods as per walmart quality? Then walmart may import the same rice or wheat from abroad and sell it for low price rejecting local produce. P.Sainath from The Hindu has posted similar thoughts. You must see the latest state of US poultry system in PBS news hour documentaries, they are modern day bonded labors to corporate companies. In US all the meat products reaching the market are owned only by five major corporations.

2. Joseph Stiglitz was recently in India advocating for India should find its own solution rather than looking at west because west follow labor saving economy and in India labor is a surplus. Even Paul Krugman agrees that the economic theories of last three decades has not improved human life.

3. I agree walmart may have best practices along with it comes automation, where is the opportunity for job.

4. You have mentioned about e-governance, the main objective of introducing the e-governance may be to quicken the process and eliminate corruption. In my recent experience in local RTO office at my town shows that the e-governance have increased the bribe, I have to pay 1000Rs in place of 500Rs.

5. In my opinion, until the people fundamental attitude changes any new system will always be a distance dream to utopia.

6. Please advise me what stand should I take on FDI in retail.

To this reader, several

To this reader, several fallacies have been advocated by Mouli as mentioned above. Firstly, if through FDI large foreign retailers such as Walmart come to India and if they buy perishable produce from Indian farmers, of course such farmers have to supply according to Walmart quality. Wouldn't Indian consumers benefit from that? Also, the argument put forward by Mouli regarding import of produce - in the event Indian farmers cannot supply according to Walmart quality - is unlikely to apply to perishable produce.

Even if they do import better quality rice or wheat (and sell the same to Indian consumers at a lower cost), so what? Here too Indian consumers will benefit immediately. Moreover, in the long run Economics 101 will take effect - just it has done with ANY other consumer product in India since import rules have been loosened.

The major benefit of having companies such as Walmart is of course cutting out middlemen as Mr. Das has espoused. farmers make more money and consumers get the benefit in lower prices, better quality and more variety. Consumer is always the king. If consumer benefits (in a big way) as does the farmer, why should one care about middlemen?

In the comment"...automation, where is the opportunity for job." once again another age old fallacy has come up. Once again Economics 101 applies here as well. Higher productivity resulting from automation ultimately benefits everyone. It has been proven time and again and in many countries.

Please do not blame the concept of e-governance for your experience in paying higher bribe. The way the so-called e-governance is implemented by government agencies will determine whether how effective it will be in reducing corruption. If the business process in carrying out a transaction is flawed, no amount of e-governance will help. As it has been said before - "To err is human, but one needs a compute to really foul things up."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.