Wallmart spent a whopping fortune lobbying India entry

 Wallmart spent a whopping fortune lobbying India entry

Exposing the sleaze, lies and perfidy

The Walmart has spent a whopping sum of $11 million dollar for lobbying its entry into India. The US-based Walmart Stores, one of the world’s top revenue-grossers with over $400 billion of total annual sales and present in 15 countries, is lobbying hard with lawmakers here to help it expand into India, possibly through bilateral talks between the related authorities of the two countries. As per the lobbying disclosure reports filed by the company with the US Senate, Walmart has since then spent a staggering amount of over $11 million (more than Rs 52 crore) on issues related to India, as also other matters, in over two years now. In 2010 itself, the company spent $1.37 million (over Rs six crore) on lobbying in the first quarter

This report gets well with the reaction from the US, supporting the UPA decision to allow FDI in retail.  It also exposes the fair and unfair means employed by the MNC to expand its business.

There are also ethical issues involved in the way the government went about introducing the proposal to allow FDI in retail. The discussion paper by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) quotes extensively from working paper and policy paper – August 2011, of Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), whose chairperson is Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman Planning Commission.

This organisation has in its report recommended opening of this sector to FDI, basically focusing on the benefits to the consumer, giving them preference of choice and playing down of its adverse impact on agriculture and small and medium sector manufacturing and unorganised retail. Though, this report also mentions in its opening remarks that unorganised retailers experience a decline in sales and over time, the government has ignored this. Further, there are several documents and reports available in India and abroad which bring out the ill effects of FDI in this sector but these reports are not finding favours with the government.

 If we go deeply into the matter, allowing 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in Multi Brand Retail in India is not a good move, because the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove that the major companies, like Walmart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and other countries are good examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.

 India, with its weak manufacturing base and weak supply-side infrastructure, is not in a position to compete with many global brands. But at the same time, our country provides such a large market that all big names want a piece of the pie. The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $ 400 billion with more than 120 million retailers and employing over 400 million people. On the contrary, the US-based giant Walmart, a global leader in big retail, also has a turnover of US $400 billion and employs only 2.1 million people. Which one of these retail systems provides employment is crystal clear. If we think Walmart is here to create employment opportunities, we must be living in a fool’s paradise. Simply put, they are investing in India to make money. Thus, the onus of protecting our market and promoting the locals lies with us.  

When we can build our domestic infrastructure so well (a case in point is the metro rail system and golden quadrilateral project), why do we need outsiders to come here to build supply chain infrastructure? There is no big technology in involved. Even our standing committee of the parliament had rejected FDI in retail.  

Besides, when foreign organisations enter the multi-brand retail market in India, they will look to procure goods globally. Agriculture sector in US and Europe is highly subsidised even our pressure under the WTO could not get us any results. It is the massive farm subsidy that supports agriculture in the US. If this subsidy, classified under Green Box for WTO calculations, is withdrawn (as analysed by UNCTAD-India), US agriculture collapses. A latest 2010 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009, up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just one year in 2009, these industrialised countries provided a subsidy of Rs 12.60 lakh crore to agriculture. Therefore how our agriculture sector will compete internationally. In India, it is markets that sustain the farmers and not subsidies. More than 60 per cent of our population is engaged in this sector they will lose heavily. Secondly, our manufacturing sector has to cope with high interest rates, our real estate prices are skyrocketing in this context, can they compete with Chinese manufacturing sector. These MNCs will procure internationally, then they will flood our markets with foreign goods, and pocket fat profits, further weakening our hold on our own market. It is important to look within and improve the nation’s lot by focusing on agriculture and the manufacturing sector, rather than depending on others to come and help us out. 

There is also the possibility that dealing with these foreign organisations may actually reduce our foreign exchange coffers, which may go in the negative. Domestic report in the manufacturing sectors points out that the net foreign exchange flow of existing multinational manufacturing sector (MNC) is negative at present. When the rupee is hovering at around 53 to a dollar which is strong at the time any inflow is beneficial to the international investor.  

Inviting foreign direct investment is not simple issue; we need to look at the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill, as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for agriculture and the manufacturing sector. The political and economic conditions of our country in the current scenario also need to be taken into consideration.  

Economics is a complex issue, which demands that a balance be struck between the positive and the negative and all decisions have to be taken in the present context. Unfortunately this bill gets weighed down by its shortcomings.  

The government has launched a campaign to show us the merits of their move, but that’s not enough because it requires proof, which they are yet to provide. When they talk about quality assurance in terms of consumer satisfaction, they also need to project the cost-benefit analysis. For us, isolated product availability is not sufficient. At the end of it, people want to know how many products really benefit them.

 There are many more such questions, which have raised doubts in the minds of all. How many companies does India open its market to because if it is just the major ones, then it is surely going to kill the market by shutting all doors to competition. And it would be significant to point out that the Competition Commission of India is a new organisation which needs more teeth and experience to deal with complicated situations. That’s the context being spoken about.

Allowing 51 percent foreign direct investment (FDI) in Multi Brand Retail in India is not a good move, because the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove that the major companies, like Walmart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and other countries are good examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.

Inviting foreign direct investment is not simple issue; we need to look at the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill, as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for agriculture and the manufacturing sector.

Gopal Krishna Agarwal is the National spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party on economic affairs. 

Wall mart spent a fortune lobbying for India Entry

 Walmart spent a fortune lobbying for India entry

By Gopal Agarwal

Exposing the sleaze, lies, and perfidy

The Walmart has spent a whopping sum of $11 million dollar for lobbying its entry into India. The US-based Walmart Stores, one of the world’s top revenue-grossers with over $400 billion of total annual sales and present in 15 countries, is lobbying hard with lawmakers here to help it expand into India, possibly through bilateral talks between the related authorities of the two countries. As per the lobbying disclosure reports filed by the company with the US Senate, Walmart has since then spent a staggering amount of over $11 million (more than Rs 52 crore) on issues related to India, as also other matters, in over two years now. In 2010 itself, the company spent $1.37 million (over Rs six crore) on lobbying in the first quarter

This report gels well with the reaction from the US, supporting the UPA decision to allow FDI in retail.  It also exposes the fair and unfair means employed by the MNC to expand its business.

There are also ethical issues involved in the way the government went about introducing the proposal to allow FDI in retail. The discussion paper by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) quotes extensively from the working paper and policy paper – August 2011, of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), whose chairperson is Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman Planning Commission.

This organisation has in its report recommended opening of this sector to FDI, basically focusing on the benefits to the consumer, giving them preference of choice and playing down of its adverse impact on agriculture and small and medium sector manufacturing and unorganised retail. Though this report also mentions in its opening remarks that unorganised retailers experience a decline in the sales and

over time, the government has ignored this. Further, there are several documents and reports available in India and abroad which bring out the ill effects of FDI in this sector but these reports are not finding favours with the government.

 If we go deeply into the matter, allowing 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in Multi Brand Retail in India is not a good move, because the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove that the major companies, like Walmart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and other countries are good examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.

 India, with its weak manufacturing base and weak supply-side infrastructure, is not in a position to compete with many global brands. But at the same time, our country provides such a large market that all big names want a piece of the pie. The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $ 400 billion with more than 120 million retailers and employing over 400 million people. On the contrary, the US-based giant Walmart, a global leader in big retail, also has a turnover of US $400 billion and employs only 2.1 million people. Which one of these retail systems provides employment is crystal clear. If we think Walmart is here to create employment opportunities we must be living in a fool’s paradise. Simply put, they are investing in India to make money. Thus, the onus of protecting our market and promoting the locals lies with us.  

When we can build our domestic infrastructure so well (a case in point is the metro rail system and the golden quadrilateral project), why do we need outsiders to come here to build supply chain infrastructure? There is no big technology in involved. Even our standing committee of the parliament had rejected FDI in retail.  

Besides, when foreign organisations enter the multi-brand retail market in India, they will look to procure goods globally. The agriculture sector in US and Europe is highly subsidised, even our pressure under the WTO could not get us any results. It is the massive farm subsidy that supports agriculture in the US. If this subsidy, classified under Green Box for WTO calculations, is withdrawn (as analysed by UNCTAD-India), US agriculture collapses. A latest 2010 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009, up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just one year in 2009, these industrialised countries provided a subsidy of Rs 12.60 lakh crore to agriculture. Therefore how our agriculture sector will compete internationally. In India, it is markets that sustain the farmers and not subsidies. More than 60 per cent of our population is engaged in this sector they will lose heavily. Secondly our manufacturing sector has to cope with high interest rate, our real estate prices are sky rocketing. In this context can they compete with Chinese manufacturing sector. These MNC’s will procure internationally then, they will flood our markets with foreign goods, and pocket fat profits, further weakening our hold on our own market. It is important to look within and improve the nation’s lot by focusing on agriculture and the manufacturing sector, rather than depending on others to come and help us out. 

There is also the possibility that dealing with these foreign organisations may actually reduce our foreign exchange coffers, which may go in the negative. Domestic report in the manufacturing sectors points out that the net foreign exchange flow of existing multinational manufacturing sector (MNC) is negative at present. When the rupee is hovering at around 53 to a dollar, which is strong at the time, any inflow is beneficial to the international investor.  

Inviting foreign direct investment is not simple issue; we need to look at the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill, as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for agriculture and the manufacturing sector. The political and economic conditions of our country in the current scenario also need to be taken into consideration.  

Economics is a complex issue, which demands that a balance be struck between the positive and the negative and all decisions have to be taken in the present context. Unfortunately this bill gets weighed down by its shortcomings.  

The government has launched a campaign to show us the merits of their move, but that’s not enough because it requires proof, which they are yet to provide. When they talk about quality assurance in terms of consumer satisfaction, they also need to project the cost-benefit analysis. For us, isolated product availability is not sufficient. At the end of it, people want to know how many products really benefit them.

 There are many more such questions, which have raised doubts in the minds of all. How many companies does India open its market to because if it is just the major ones, then it is surely going to kill the market by shutting all doors to competition? And it would be significant to point out that the Competition Commission of India is a new organisation which needs more teeth and experience to deal with complicated situations. That’s the context being spoken about.

Allowing 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in Multi Brand Retail in India is not a good move, because the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove that the major companies, like Walmart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and other countries are good examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.

Inviting foreign direct investment is not simple issue; we need to look at the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill, as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for agriculture and the manufacturing sector.

A Stubborn New Delhi will Kill The Indian farmer

 A Stubborn New Delhi will Kill The Indian farmer

The Government appears to be determined to allow FDI in the retail sector. It is citing several reasons for this, based on a discussion paper of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. This paper quotes extensively from working papers and policy papers of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, whose chair is Isher Judge Ahluwalia, spouse of Planning Commission Deputy Chair Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

The report has recommended opening of retail to FDI, basically focussing on the benefits to the consumer giving them preference of choice and playing down the adverse impact on agriculture, small and medium sector manufacturing and the unorganised retail. The report also men tions in its opening remarks that unorganised retailers could experience a decline in sales and profit initially but adds that the adverse impact weakens over time. The government has ignored this.

This report has cited four benefits from the opening of this sector: benefit to the consumer, better price to the farmer, benefit to the small scale manufacturer and positive impact on the foreign exchange inflow. But, on analysing, we find that these positives do not stand.

Further, there are several documents and reports available in India and other countries, which bring out the ill effects of FDI in retail, that do not find favour with the government. Even the standing committee on commerce, which went into details of the impact, had recommended against opening up to FDI in this sector.

It mentioned that retail sector in India is estimated to account for 10 per cent of the GDP. India is estimated to have around 15 million retail outlets. We have the highest retail outlet density in the world. This retail outlet is highly fragmented; only 4 per cent outlets are larger than 500 sq feet. Organised retail outlets are just 5 per cent of the market, whereas 95 per cent is unorganised.

Unorganised retail Unorganised retail is the second largest employer after agriculture, employing about 8 per cent of the workforce, around 40 million persons. With FDI, this unorganised retail would be adversely affected. To counter this adverse impact, the committee had in 2008 extensively recommended several reforms in the agriculture, manufacturing, unorganised retail, and cooperative sectors to improve their status. These reforms have not taken place, but the government has recommended FDI.

The move is a reflection of the government's stubborn nature. It also reflects how certain bodies are lobbying for their vested interests. For instance, an article in a financial daily said, "The WalMart Stores, one of the world's top revenue grosser with over $400 billion of total annual sales and present in 15 countries, is lobbying hard with lawmakers here to help it expand into India, possibly through bilateral talks between the related authori- ties of the two countries. As per the lobbying disclosure reports filed by the company with the US Senate, Walmart has since then spent a staggering amount of over $11 million (more than 52 crore) on issues related to India, as also other matters, in over two years now. In 2010, company spent $1.37 million (over rs 6 crore) on lobbying in the first quarter'. There is no denying that new avenues of corruption are being opened up in the name of development through such a move. 

INDIA, WITH its weak I manufacturing base and weak supply-side infrastructure, is not in a position to compete with many global brands. But, at the same time, our country provides such a large market that all big names want a piece of the pie. The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $400 billion with more than 120 million retailers employing over 400 million people. On the contrary, Walmart a global leader in big retail, has a turnover of $400 billion and employs only 2.1 million people.

We can see who provides employment. If we think Wal-Mart is here to create employment opportunities, we would be living in a fool's paradise. Simply put, they are investing in India to make money. Thus, the onus of protecting our market and promoting the locals lies with us.

Besides, when foreign organisations enter multibrand retail in India, they will look to procure goods globally. The agriculture sector in the US and Europe is highly subsidised, and this massive farm subsidy supports the sector. US agriculture would collapse if this subsidy, classified under Green Box for wro calculations, is withdrawn (as analysed by UNCTAD-India). 

A 2010 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009, up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just 2009, these industrialised countries provided a subsidy of 12.60 lakh crore to agriculture. So, how would our agriculture compete internationally?

In India, the markets sustain farmers and not subsidies. More than 60 per cent of our population is engaged in this sector and they will lose heavily. Also, our manufacturing sector has to cope with high interest rate and escalating real estate prices. Can they compete with Chinese manufacturing?

 Because of all this, the government's decision is not in the interest of our country and will only serve the purpose of the MNCS.

India's retail market is around $400 billion and employs 400 million. Wal-Mart has a turnover of $400 billion and employs 2.1 million

Gopal Krishna Agarwal is the National spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party on economic affairs. 

Why FDI is not feasible at this point

 Why FDI is not feasible at this point

By Gopal Krishna Agarwal,

Inviting foreign direct investment is not the issue, but we need to look at the context of the entire move. FDI at this juncture does not fit the bill as India has a number of domestic issues to tackle. We need to look deeper to understand how and when the investments can really prove fruitful for agriculture and the manufacturing sector. The political and economic conditions of our country in the current scenario also need to be taken into consideration.

The government has launched a campaign to show us the merits of their move, but that's not enough be- cause it requires proof, which they are yet to produce. When they talk about quality assurance in terms of consumer satisfaction, they also need to project the cost-benefit analysis. For us, isolated product avail- ability is not sufficient. At the end of it, people want to know how many products really benefit them.

The government quotes examples of countries like China and Indonesia, wherein despite no caps on FDIs, the local retailers are flourishing But a reality check shows that China has become the hands of foreigners. The locals may be paid well, but their ownership has been bartered for the price they are paid. The owners have become em- ployees in the hands of foreigners. Do we want the same to happen to India?

Then, what about procurement? The government needs to give a clear picture of where are these firms going to procure the raw material from. Agricultural procurements in the US and Europe are procured at subsidies, and as for China, it procures subsidised raw material for its manufacturing. So that is one point where we need clarity.

There are many more such questions, which have raised doubts in the minds of all. How many companies does India open its market to If it is just the major ones such as Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tes- co, then it is surely going to kill the market by shutting all doors to competition. And it would be significant to point out the Competition Commission of India is not as functional as it should be. That's the context being spoken about.

It is our domestic problems which provide a background to the opposition to foreign investments Reports say the net foreign exchange for India is negative. Thus, the government needs to explain how we can turn it around for our benefit and make it positive.

The Indian real estate boom, with its rampant corruption, is not hidden from anyone. So how does the government plan to solve the problem of exorbitant property prices, which scares the domestic investors away? As has been said earlier, India needs to look within and fix its problems first instead of looking out for foreign help.

Chinese owners have become employees nothing but a puppet in in the hands of foreigners. Do we want the same to happen to India?

Why the BJP opposes FDI in retail

 Why the BJP opposes FDI in retail

Allowing 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multibrand retail in India is not a good move, because the companies that we are inviting are known to monopolise the market wherever they go. There are several reports from across the world to prove that the five major companies, like Wal-Mart and Carrefour, use a monopolistic approach to kill local markets. Indonesia and the US are good examples of the result of such monopolistic policies.

India, with its weak manufacturing base and weak supply-side infra- structure, is not in a posi tion to compete with such global brands. But at the same time, our country provides such a big mar- ket that all big names want a piece of the pie. Thus, the onus of protecting our market and promoting the locals lies with us.

When we can build our domestic infrastructure so well (a case in point is the metro rail system), why do we need foreigners to come here? On the other hand, when the parliamentary committee had rejected FDI in retail, how could it have been passed leida 909 hisz Economics is a complex issue, which demands that a balance be struck between the positive and the negative. But, unfortunately, this bill gets weighed down by its shortcomings.

The move is nothing but a reflection of the govern- ment's stubborn nature. It also reflects how certain bodies are lobbying for their vested interests. Also, there is no denying that avenues of corruption are be- ing opened up in the name of development through this move.

Besides, when foreign organisations enter the mul tibrand retail market in India, they will look to pro- cure goods at subsidised rates here. Then, they will flood our markets with these goods, and look to pocket fat profits, further weakening our hold on our own market.

There is also the possibility that dealing with these foreign organisations may actually reduce our foreign exchange coffers, which may go in the negative.

It is important to look within and improve the na tion's lot by focussing on agriculture and the manufac- turing sector, rather than depending on others to come and help us out."

In conversation with Nidhi Qazi

There is no denying that avenues of corruption are being opened up in the name of development."

GOPAL KRISHAN AGARWAL Convener, Economic Cell, BJP

भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ जन आंदोलन

 भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ जन आंदोलन

अब नहीं दबेगी आवाज

सरकार ने चालाकी से अन्ना हजारे और उनके समर्थकों को साझा बढ़ाना चाहती समिति की मांग पर समझा लिया और इस पूरी प्रक्रिया को जनता की भावनाओं के उबाल को शांत करने के लिए 'सेफ्टी वाल्व' की तरह इस्तेमाल कर लिया। और अब लोकपाल बिल के मुद्दे पर उलटे-सीधे बयानों के द्वारा सभी को बहस में उलझा रही है। अगर सरकार को अनिर्वाचित लोगों की मांगों से परहेज था तो पहले उन्हें आश्वासन क्यों दिए गए? इसी तरह कांग्रेस की सरकार बाबा रामदेव को मनाने और उनकी मांगों को मानने का झांसा देकर उन्हें यह समझाने में सफल रही थी कि वे अपने समर्थकों के एक बड़े वर्ग को अपने से दूर रखें। सरकार हमेशा से प्रयास कर रही है कि सभी आन्दोलनों के नेतृत्व पर अनर्गल आरोप लगाकर जनता का उन पर से विश्वास खत्म कर दिया जाए

सरकार अनगिनत विवादों में फंसी हुई है। विदेशों में जमा काला धन और भ्रष्टाचार के मामले उजागर होने के साथ ही यह विवाद शुरू हुआ है। इसलिए सरकार संकट में है और इसका नेतृत्व अंचभित राष्ट्र और व्याकुल उद्योग जगत को संतुष्ट करने में विफल रहा है। संवेदनशील मूहों से निपटने में सरकार की नाकामी सबसे दुःखद है, साथ ही इसने सरकार के इरादों को लेकर संदेह पैदा कर दिया है।

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के ४ जुलाई के निर्देश के बाद यह भी स्पष्ट हो गया है कि सरकार काले धन के विरुद्ध कोई कदम नहीं बढ़ाना चाहती थी। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि अगर सरकार की मंशा साफ होती तो यह कार्य असम्भव नहीं था। सरकार इसलिए भी कटघरे में है क्योंकि वह येन-केन-प्रकारेण विदेशों से पूंजी भारत में लाने का प्रयास कर रही है। चाहे इसके लिए ऐसे विदेशी बैंक को देश में शाखा खोलने की अनुमति देनी पड़े जिसका स्पष्ट उद्देश्य काले धन को छुपाना है। हसन अली के मामले में भी सरकार सभी सूचनाओं के आधार पर आगे बढ़ने का प्रयास नहीं कर रही है। इसलिए सर्वोच्च न्यायालय अब इस पूरी जांच प्रक्रिया को अपनी निगरानी में करने की घोषणा कर चुका है। और उसने कालेधन की जांच-पड़ताल के लिए विशेष जांच दल (एसआईटी) गठित कर दिया है। स्पष्ट हे कि सरकार भ्रष्टाचार के विषय में देश को गुमराह कर रही है।

सरकार की संदिग्ध भूमिका

देश में कानून को लागू करने और किसी भी व्यक्ति या संगठन की गैरकानूनी गतिविधियों को रोकने या उसकी जांच करने में सरकार की जिम्मेदारी को कोई भी व्यक्ति चुनौती नहीं दे रहा है। वह जांच करने और दोषी को सजा देने के लिए स्वतंत्र है। लेकिन इसकी मांग करने वालों के बारे में निराधार बयानों के द्वारा चरित्र हनन अकारण है। इस तरह की कोशिश को तत्काल रोका जाना चाहिए और सरकार को पारदर्शिता एवं बेहतर प्रशासन पर ध्यान केन्द्रित करना चाहिए

विचारधारा के मुद्दों पर आपकी अलग राय है तो इस पर खुली बहस का स्वागत है। एक लोकतंत्र में कई विचारों के लिए जगह होती है, भले ही आपस में मतभेद हों।

लेकिन प्रारंभ से ही कांग्रेस योजनाबद्ध तरीके से देश के सभी लोकतांत्रिक संस्थानों को नष्ट करती रही है। वर्तमान की घटनाएं यह दिखाती हैं कि भ्रष्टाचार के मुद्दे पर कांग्रेस की नीयत साफ नहीं है। उसका उद्देश्य उन सभी लोगों की आवाज दबाने का है जो भी इसके विरुद्ध आवाज उठा रहे हैं। सरकार ने चालाकी से अन्ना हजारे और उनके समर्थकों को साझा समिति की मांग पर समझा लिया और इस पूरी प्रक्रिया को जनता की भावनाओं  के उबाल को शांत करने के लिए 'सेफ्टी वाल्व' की तरह इस्तेमाल कर लिया। और अब लोकपाल बिल के मुद्दे पर उलटे-सीधे बयानों के द्वारा सभी को बहस में उलझा रही है। अगर सरकार को अनिर्वाचित लोगों की मांगों से परहेज था तो पहले उन्हें आश्वासन क्यों दिए गए?

अलोकतांत्रिक तौर-तरीके

इसी तरह कांग्रेस की सरकार बाबा रामदेव को मनाने और उनकी मांगों को मानने का झांसा देकर उन्हें यह समझाने में सफल रही थी कि वे अपने समर्थकों के एक बड़े वर्ग को अपने से दूर रखें। इसके लिए बन्द कमरे में दबाव की राजनीति के के द्वारा उनसे आश्वासन का पत्र भी लिखवा लिया। फिर ४ जून की रात्रि में अमानुषिक एवं अलोकतान्त्रिक तरीके से प्रहार करके उनके आन्दोलन को विफल करने का प्रयास किया। सरकार हमेशा से प्रयास कर रही है कि सभी पहलू यह है कि भ्रष्ट कारोबारी वर्ग, रियल एस्टेट डेब्लपर, भ्रष्ट नेता, नौकरशाह और इनकी सार्वजनिक निजी साझेदारी (पीपीपी) वाली परियोजनाओं एवं गैरसरकारी संगठनों (एनजीओ) के बीच साठगांठ को रोका जाए। इससे भी कालाधन जमा होता है। यदि यह नहीं किया गया तो आने वाले समय में हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था में अप्रत्याशित समस्याएं पैदा होंगी। हाल ही में रायटर्स ने भी एक रपट में लिखा है कि भारत जैसर्सी उभरती अर्थव्यवस्था को राजकोषीय अस्थिरता का सामना करना पड़ेगा और वैश्विक मंदी के समान संकट से बचना मुश्किल होगा।

कई बड़े संगठन एवं व्यक्ति भ्रष्टाचार की इस महा-बीमारी को रोकने का भरसक प्रयत्न कर रहे हैं। मैं इनमें से अनेक आन्दोलनों से करीब से जुड़ा रहा हूं। इन सभी गतिविधियों से जुड़े रहने के कारण मुझे लगता है कि निम्नलिखित दो प्रावधान हमारे उद्देश्यों को प्राप्त करने के लिए प्रभावी हथियार का रूप लेंगे।

निजी एवं गैरसरकारी क्षेत्र में घूसरोधी विधेयक

भ्रष्टाचार एवं कालेधन के कई आयाम हैं जिसका महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है इसका सृजन। भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ संयुक्त राष्ट्र की सभा (यूएनसीएसी) ने भी हमारी भ्रष्टाचाररोधी प्रणाली में कई खामियां पाई हैं। निजी क्षेत्र और एनजीओ में घूसखोरी रोकने के लिए हमारे पास कोई कानून नहीं है। ठेके और लाइसेंस आदि के मूल्यांकन के संबंध में तीसरे पक्ष के जरिए तुष्टिकरण और घूसखोरी, सरकारी नीति पर चर्चा के जरिए लामबंदी, निजी क्षेत्र द्वारा घूसखोरी पर अंकुश लगाने और विदेशी - नागरिकों को घूस देने पर रोक लगाने के संबंध ■ में हमारे कानूनी प्रावधानों में भी खामियां हैं। इन मुद्दों से प्रभावी ढंग से निपटने के लिए हमने ■ निजी क्षेत्र एवं एनजीओ क्षेत्र में घूसरोधी विधेयक के रूप में विशेष कानूनी प्रावधान सामने रखे हैं, जिसमें सभी शब्दों, मुद्दों और प्रावधानों को स्पष्ट रूप से परिभाषित किया गया है। हमारी इन्हें लागू करने की पुरजोर मांग है।

'फ्लोटिंग वारंट' अवधारणा

कर चोरी के शरणदाता देशों में जमा कालाधन के अपराधीकरण के संबंध में भी प्रावधानों की कमी है। कर चोरी उन देशों में अपराध नहीं है इसलिए इस मोर्चे पर सूचना के आदान-प्रदान के लिए हमारे पास अधिकारों की कमी है। हमने एक ऐसे 'फ्लोटिंग वारंट' की अवधारणा प्रस्तुत की है जैसा कि अमरीका में 'जान डॉ ला सूट

राष्ट्रव्यापी बहस का ध्यान भ्रष्टाचार से हटाया जा रहा है

आन्दोलनों के नेतृत्व पर अनर्गल आरोप लगाकर जनता का उन पर से विश्वास खत्म कर दिया जाए। यह साफ तौर पर इस बात का संकेत है कि राष्ट्रव्यापी बहस का ध्यान भ्रष्टाचार से हटाया जा रहा है। हमें यह नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि विश्व के सभी देशों में हमारे देश के लिए एक बहुत मजबूत और सकारात्मक धारणा बन रही थी। पर इस सुअवसर का लाभ उठाने का कोई प्रयास नहीं हो रहा है। सरकार और वरिष्ठ नौकरशाहों में एक सन्नाटा पसरा है और वे हतप्रभ अवस्था में हैं।

पिछले कुछ वर्षों में भ्रष्टाचार के आयाम बदल गए हैं। वैश्वीकरण और तेजी से बढ़ते आर्थिक विकास ने ऐसी स्थिति पैदा कर दी है। इस कारण कालाधन कई लोक लुभावन कल्याणकारी योजनाओं में भारी सरकारी खर्च के दुरुपयोग से पैदा हो रहा है। दूसरा महत्वपूर्ण के नाम से प्रसिद्ध है। उसमें जब तक दोषी की पहचान न हो जाए तब तक हम अज्ञात व्यक्तिा के खिलाफ एक फ्लोटिंग वारंट जारी कर सकते हैं और इस वारंट के आधार पर, विदेश में खाता रखने वाले उस व्याक्ति को, जिसे हम नहीं जानते हैं, अपराधी घोषित किया जा सकता है और उसके बारे में जानकारी मांगी जा सकती है। इस तरह से यह वारंट बाद में व्यक्ति को पहचान साबित होने पर उसके नाम हो जाता है।

हम पहले हो उद्योग संगठनों, वकीलों, पेशेवरों, सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं के साथ इस संबंध में कई दौर की बातचीत कर चुके हैं. जहां इन प्रावधानों को समर्थन मिला है। इसे काफी अनुसंधान एवं चर्चा के बाद तैयार किया गया है। मुझे लगता है कि एक व्यापक जनआन्दोलन के द्वारा ही सरकार इस विषय में कोई ठोस कदम उठाएगी।

गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल,
राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता, भाजपा