PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
INDIA
per cent of manufacturing product from the micro, small and medium enterprises. After introduction of FDI, farmers would get better price and farming technology, while eliminating commission. A policy that promoted the manufacturing sector should be adopted, the Minister argued. Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, MP, (SP) believed FDI was not in the interest of the country as it would render millions of people unemployed. The arrival of big retail companies would lead to a monopoly in the market. He wanted the government to withdraw its decision on FDI and call an all-party meeting to discuss the issue. Shri Basudeb Acharia , MP,
(CPI-M) felt FDI in the retail sector would neither raise productivity nor provide job avenues; rather it would deprive India of employment opportunities. He said if FDI would help in generating jobs, increasing
had become weak due to wrong policies of the government. The small traders accounted for 12.4 per cent of the GDP through hard work and did not depend on the government’s money. The decision to allow
economy had ever developed on foreign capital and it was not going to help the Indian farmers and consumers either. He was afraid that FDI in retail would result in closing down thousands of small retail shops across the country endangering the livelihood of millions of people and asked the government to withdraw its policy. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta,
Shri Basudeb Acharia, MP Shri Sharad Yadav, MP
productivity and developing technology in the country, his party would not oppose it. He was sure big retailers were not going to invest money in improving the infrastructure for the convenience of farmers; neither would farmers get remunerative prices for their produce nor consumers get commodities at fair prices. Shri Sharad Yadav, MP, (JD-U) said the nation became weak whenever the farmers and traders
FDI would jeopardize the interest of the majority of people. The government should have fulfilled its promise to hold consultation in this regard. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab, MP, (BJD) said FDI in retail would not help Indian agriculture and the manufacturing sector and might give rise to social unrest. The argument that FDI in multi- brand retail trade would result in all-round development of rural infrastructure, especially warehousing and cold storage was flawed. Opening up multi-brand retail to foreign players without addressing the constraints faced by India’s manufacturing sector like high capital costs, stifling regulations, poor infrastructure, etc. would lead to a flooding of imported goods from countries like China and Bangladesh. The Minister of Heavy
Industries and Public Enterprises, Shri Praful Patel, MP, (NCP) argued that in the age of globalization trade had become a two-way traffic and export of agriculture produce from India had greatly increased. Dr M. Thambidurai, MP, (AIADMK) argued historically that no
82 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One
MP, (CPI) asked the government to tell the country why it was so determined to allow FDI. FDI in the prevailing economic situation was sure to have its adverse impact in the country’s economy. It was not right time to have overdependence on the overflow of foreign funds particularly when the country was hit by the recession and inflation. The government was under
pressure of the multi-nationals to open-up the Indian market. He asked the government to inform the House where FDI in multi brand retail had helped the farmers and created jobs. Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal, MP, (SAD) said the FDI policy of the government was nothing short of bartering away the interests of the people of the country. FDI was coming because foreign companies were only interested in making profits by exploiting the farmers, not with helping the country’s progress. Shri Lalu Prasad, MP, (RJD) said the opposition parties were misleading the people of the country keeping in view the Lok Sabha general election to be held in 2014. FDI in retail would bring in remunerative prices for the farmers’ produce and abolished the middle men. The Minister of Commerce
and Industry and Minister of Textiles, Shri Anand Sharma, MP, (INC) said the government had deliberated upon this issue with various organizations of farmers and held discussion with a number of other
consumers’ organizations. Six big organizations pertaining to food processing industries were also summoned to have discussion on this issue. The Minister said he had written to all Chief Ministers; responses were received from 21 states, 11 were in favour, seven against and three had asked for further clarifications. India was a federal state and every state had its own right whether to implement the FDI in retail in the state or not. No one could tell an elected government what to choose and what not to. Consensus did not mean unanimity and if one had to wait for unanimity, one would have to wait till eternity. The states are free to choose whether to implement the policy or not. He assured that the prevailing
law would not permit any predatory pricing. Creating a fear psychosis among the retail traders is absolutely wrong. He believed farmers were suffering due to lack of the requisite infrastructure to manage their produce and FDI in retail would help them. Replying to the debate, Smt.
Swaraj said in the debate out of 18 political parties, 14 opposed FDI while only four parties supported it. She said FDI would not be allowed if the Samajwadi Party, a party providing outside support to the government, would also vote against it. At the end of the debate the
motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition failed to receive the support of the majority of members of the House and was thus was negative. The motion moved by Prof. Roy was also defeated. The motion moved by Shri Khan was not put to the vote of the House. The issue was also discussed
in the Rajya Sabha on 6 and 7 December 2012 under a rule that provided for voting. In that House the opposition also motioned against FDI.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92