Press Briefing
Wednesday, 30th November 2011
Shri Manish
Tewari addressed the media today.
Shri Manish Tewari said the opposition to FDI in
retail can be broadly classified into three
categories - ideological in the case of the
Left, opportunistic in the case of the BJP and
cautiously apprehensive in the case of some
others. The Left unfortunately despite two
decades of economic liberalization still sees
MNCs as some kind of new imperialists who would
gobble up the Indian economy. What they refuse
to see that in the last two decades a large
number of Indian companies have become
multi-national and they have completely
redefined the economic landscape. I do not want
to go into great details about the overseas
categorization which some of the Indian
companies have made which would logically
qualify them to be conglomerates, if not MNCs. I
would like to ask our friends in the Left, is
FDI in retail such a bad idea, why does China
permit it? If FDI is such a bad idea in retail,
then why does Vietnam permit it and more so even
a little Cuba, there was a law called Law-77
which, to the best of my knowledge, permits
foreign companies to invest in all sectors
excluding Health and National Security and some
others but definitely it does not exclude
retail. In the case of BJP you were seeing same
syndrome play itself out over and over again.
Those people who had initiated the next step in
the strategic partnership oppose the civil
nuclear deal to the hilt and now you have the
spectacle of a cabinet note in the public domain
where the NDA government had advocated opening
of the retail sector for foreign direct
investment. You have the spectacle of FDI in
retail being mentioned in the manifesto of the
NDA and then you see this hair-splitting between
a vision document and purportedly the manifesto
of the BJP. There is also the strange
contradiction that we are not opposed to the
FDFI in structure retail but we are opposed to
FDI in retail. I have not been able to
understand the difference between the structured
retail and retail. Insofar as those who fall in
the category of the cautiously apprehensive, I
would like to very respectfully point out that
for a small shop keeper, is there a difference
between Bharti and Wal-Mart. Is there a
difference between Tesco and True- Mart.? After
all you have these big Indian companies in
organized retail for quite a few years now. Has
it led to unemployment, has it caused job loss
or has it generated employment. So, therefore,
whether it is inflation or it is the bogie of
black-money or it is now the issue of FDI in
retail, there is a concerted attempt to derail
the functioning of parliament and I think the
people of India also need to distinguish between
genuine opposition and the sort of brinkmanship
which the opposition has been indulging in over
the past year and a half.
On the question of the reaction of the Congress
party over the fact that apart from the
opposition there is opposition from TMC - an
ally of the UPA government and whether the
government feels whether the entire opposition
has no logic in opposing FDI in retail, Shri
Tewari said what I am saying is the various
plans of the opposition to FDI in retail. If FDI
in retail was such a bad idea, why is it that
all those countries and specially emerging
economies which have registered close to 8-10%
growth consistently over the last three decades
which have been successful in lifting the
millions and millions of people out of poverty
have allowed the policy to go ahead? After all,
the broad architecture of the policy remains the
same notwithstanding with the sovereignty may
keep changing. So, therefore, I think there is a
need to look at the whole issue devoid of
ideological blinkers, devoid of a strident
opposition for the sake of opposing and
empirically evaluate as to whether this policy
is actually going to generate employment,
benefit agriculture, bring far more remunerative
or competitive prices for the consumers or is it
going to lead to retrogression in all three
areas. The evidence is in favour of the farmer.
To a question as to whether there is possibility
of roll back in FDI or reduction in the
percentage asked by TMC, Shri Tewari said I
think the Prime Minister had articulated it
yesterday that it is a well thought-out
decision. It is a decision which has been taken
keeping in view the larger national interest and
Yes, you are correct that some of our allies
also are cautiously apprehensive. We are trying
to allay those apprehensions because the
government feels and rightly so that it has
taken a decision after weighing the pros and
cons. Shri Tewari further said insofar as our
allies are concerned, we are talking to them and
I think at the end of the day, you will find a
very constructive resolution to this entire
process. Insofar as some of our MPs are
concerned, I have already said that we don’t
comment about individuals. May be certain people
may have apprehensions, I am not saying that
they are entirely misplaced but again the same
question goes out to them too. Where is the
empirical evidence to show that any of their
apprehensions are really warranted or called
for?
To a question as to why the government is
apprehensive about facing the adjournment motion
on FDI in retail, Shri Tewari said I think the
issue needs to be seen in a slightly wider
perspective. Are we going to have an adjournment
motion on everything? The opposition wanted an
adjournment motion on black money, we walked the
extra mile, we accepted that adjournment motion.
Now if there was an inter-se problem between the
opposition on prioritization of issues as to
whether inflation should be discussed first
which also the government was prepared to
discuss or the adjournment motion should be
brought first. That is for them to inter-se sort
it out but the larger question remains whether
on each and every issue, are we going to debate
for an adjournment motion. Ultimately, there has
to be empirical evidence which has to be brought
on record. Public debate cannot be driven by
paranoid and as of today in the last 4-5 days as
the discourse has played out in the public
domain. There is no empirical evidence which has
been presented which can really reinforce or
underpin the apprehension which the opposition
has expressed. So, therefore, the question
remains whether the parliament is going to run
from one adjournment motion to another. If you
would have been scared of facing an adjournment
motion on black money, we would not have agreed
for an adjournment motion on black money. We
agreed to it and even today we are saying allow
the parliament to function and sequentially let
us discuss all those issues.
To another question over the timing of the
decision with regard to FDI in retail, Shri
Tewari said the government is well within its
sovereign right to take a policy decision as and
when it chooses to if the decision is in the
larger national interest. If there is no
empirical evidence to the contrary, I think the
quibble over timing is really immaterial. The
government is elected for five years and the
government in its wisdom can at any point of
time of its choosing can take a policy decision.
To a further question as to whether the
government has the required numbers in the
House, Shri Tewari said the same question was
addressed when we have to debate over the
Indo-US Nuclear Deal. The same question has been
addressed over the last two years and I think
the answer to that is very clear. We have the
numbers. If we agreed to an adjournment motion
on black money, we obviously would not have done
it without counting our flock. So, therefore, I
don’t think this hair splitting is really
necessary or is it really called for. The larger
question is, is the parliament really going to
stagger from one adjournment motion to another.
(Tom Vadakkan)
Secretary, AICC
