सरकार की गलत नीतियों के कारण महंगाई बढ़ रही है |

 सरकार की गलत नीतियों के कारण महंगाई बढ़ रही है

दिन-प्रतिदिन जिस प्रकार महगाई बढ़ रही है. उसके क्या कारण है? महगाई पर कैसे नियंत्रण पाया जा सकता है? देश की बिगड़ रही अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए कौन से कारण जिम्मेदार हैं? क्या सरकार की गलत नीतियो के कारण ऐसा हो रहा है? इसी प्रकार के कुछ प्रश्नों के संदर्भ में जगदम्बा सिंह नै प्रमुख अर्धशास्त्री एवं भारतीय जनता पार्टी इकोनामिक सेल के राष्ट्रीय संयोजक गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल से बातचीत की। पेश है, वार्ता के खास अंश-

इस संदर्भ में श्री गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल का कहना है कि भ्रष्टाचार और ब्लैक मनी के कारण कुछ लोगो के पास पैसा बहुत ज्यादा आ गया है। इससे खरीददारी की क्षमता बढ़ी है। मगर जिस हिसाब से खरीददारी की क्षमता बढ़ी है उसके मुताबिक उत्पादन नहीं बढ़ा है।

कुल मिलाकर स्थिति ऐसी बनी हुई है कि डिमांड एवं सप्लाई में काफी अंतर है। यदि डिमाड अधिक होगी और सप्लाई कम होगी तो महगाई बढ़ेगी ही। ऋण पर ब्याज दर इतनी अधिक हो गई है कि नए उद्योग जरूरत के मुताबिक नहीं लग रहे है।

जब तक नए उद्योग नहीं लगेगे, तब तक उत्पादन बढेगा नहीं। सरकार डिमांड एव सप्लाई में संतुलन बनाने में नाकाम रहीं है। यह काम सरकार को पहले से ही करना चाहिए था। इसके अलावा महगाई के लिए आर्थिक कुप्रबंधन एवं गलत नीतिया भी जिम्मेदार है। महंगाई बढ़ रही है, मगर अनाज सड रहा है। अर्थशास्त्र की यह कौन सी परिभाषा है कि लोग भूखों मरे और अनाज गोदामों में सड़े। होना तो यह चाहिए कि यदि मार्केट में डिमांड अधिक हो तो सप्लाई और बढ़ा देनी चाहिए। कितु यह उलटा हो रहा है। सप्लाई कम होने के बावजूद गेह सहाया जा रहा है। महंगाई बढ़ने के ये कुछ प्रमुख कारण है जिनका निदान कर सरकार महगाई पर अकुश लगा सकती है।

सरकार का कहना है कि अत्तर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर अर्थव्यवस्था की हालत नाजुक है. उसका असर भारत पर भी पड़ना स्वाभाविक है? इस बजह से भी महगाई बढ़ रही है। इस प्रश्न के जबाब में श्री गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल का कहना है कि ऐसी बात नहीं है। अतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर तो डालर मजबूत हो रह है, मगर रुपया क्यों कमजोर हो रहा है? इस हिसाब से तो रुपया भी मजबूत होना चाहिए।

अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर अर्थव्यवस्था यदि कमजोर है, तो महगाई कम होनी चाहिए क्योंकि ऐसी स्थिति में विदेशी बाजार में भारतीय सामानो की सप्लाई कम हो जाती है। जब सामानों की सप्लाई कम होगी तो महगाई घटनी चाहिए या बढ़नी चाहिए। अतर्राष्ट्रीय बाजार में पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों की कीमते कम हो रही है. यहा क्यो बढ़ रही है। यह सब सरकार के - बहाने बाजी है।

जब वहां पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों की कीमते कम हो रही हैं तो यहां भी - होनी चाहिए। जब वहां डालर मजबूत हो रहा है तो भारत में भी रुपया मजबूत होना चाएि। सरकार चाहे जितनी भी बहाने बाजी कर ले, मगर सारी समस्या मिस मैनेजमेट के कारण उत्पन्न हुई है। भ्रष्टाचार के कारण र मार्केट में इतनी ब्लैक मनी आ गई है कि उसका दुष्प्रभाव हर क्षेत्र में देखने बा को मिल रहा है। रियल स्टेट से लेकर किसी भी क्षेत्र देखिये ब्लैक मनी के करण दाम लगातार बढ़ते जा रहे है. किंतु उसके मुताबिक सप्लई पक्ष कमजोर पड रहा है।

भ्रष्टाचार के कारण ब्लैक मनी तो सबके पास आई नहीं। इसका लाभ तो तो कुछ ही लोगों को मिला है। इस संदर्भ में श्री गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल का ग कहना है कि सिस्टम तो सबके लिए एक ही है ऐसी कोई व्यवस्था तो है नहीं कि नोट छापकर गरीबों में बाट दी जाए. जिससे गरीब लोग भी उनका र मुकाबला कर सके जिनके पास प्रर्याप्त ब्लैक मनी है। चूंकि सिस्टम सभी र के लिए एक है। इसलिए उसका खामियाजा गरीबों को भी भुगतना पड रहा कहै।

आज यदि पूरी अर्थव्यवस्था पर नजर डाली जाये तो अर्थव्यवस्था को आप कहां पाते है? इस प्रश्न के जवाब में श्री गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल न का कहना है कि अभी हाल में कुछ प्रमुख उद्योगपतियों ने कुछ बातें कहो है उसी से भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था के बारे में अंदाजा लगाया जा सकता है। उद्योगपति अजीम प्रेम जी ने कहा है कि भारत बिना किसी लीडर के चल रहा है। नारायण मूर्ति ने भी अर्थव्यवस्था के के संदर्भ में निगेटिव बात कहीं है। कल मिलाकर कहने का आशय यही है कि देश के तमाम - उद्योगपतियो ने अर्थव्यवस्था की भयावह स्थिति को लेकर चिंता जाहिर - की है। प्रधानमंत्री ने स्वयं कहा है कि हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था बुरे दौर से गुजर रही है। आखिर प्रधानमंत्री जी किस बता रहे है?

सरकार उन्हें चलानी है. सब कुछ उन्हें हो करना है तो वे किसको बता रहे है। दरअसल देश की अर्थव्यवस्था को फिर से पटरी पर लाने के लिए मजबूत एवं दृढ राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति की जरूरत है. किंतु वह राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति इस सरकार में नहीं है। हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था वास्तव में उतनी खराब नहीं है जितनी राजेतिक नेतृत्व को अक्षमता के कारण कृतिम रूप से खराब हुई है।

गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल,
राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता, भाजपा। 

क्यों बेसार है भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी कानून

 क्यों बेसार है भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी कानून

हमारे यहां भ्रष्टाचार का कोई भी मामला उजागर होने के बाद लंबी कानूनी लड़ाई में फंस जाता है, जिसे पूरा होने में बरसों लग जाते हैं। सबूतों के अभाव में प्रायः आरोपी बच जाता है और लूट के धन के साथ आनंद से जीवन बिताता है। हमारी भ्रष्टाचार निरोधक व्यवस्था नख-दंतविहीन है।

देश में हुए विभिन्न घोटालोके खुलासे और उन पर तत्परता से कार्रवाई करने में सरकार की विफलता ने हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था को नाजुक स्थिति को सामने ला दिया है। भ्रष्टाचार हमारे राष्ट्रीय ताने-बाने को जड़ों से कुतर रहा है। वे दिन गुजरे ज्यादा समय नहीं हुआ है जब हमारे देशवासी विश्वास से लबरेज थे और पूरी दुनिया के साथ हम उभरते भारत की बात कर रहे थे। सबकुछ ठीक था और हम गुंजायमान लोकतंत्र, युवा ताकत सेवा क्षेत्र में तेजी, ज्ञान आधारित अर्थव्यवस्था के विकास, विशाल घरेलू बाजार और हम दुनिया भर में कुछ करके दिखा सकते हैं की बात करते थे। हममें विश्व से मुकाबला करने का जोश था।  

हम 2020 तक विश्व की आर्थिक शक्ति बनने वाले थे। फिर क्या ऐसा हो गया कि हमारी धारणा कमजोर हो गई। व्यावसायियों का विश्वास डगमगा गया। दुनिया भारत में भ्रष्टाचार के उच्च स्तर को लेकर दुख प्रकट कर रही है। भ्रष्टाचार विश्वभर में मौजूद है, लेकिन विश्व में कहीं भी एक बार भ्रष्ट व्यक्ति पकड़ा जाता है तो उसे बुरी तरह दंडित किया जाता है, उसकी संपत्ति जब्त कर ली जाती है। लेकिन भारत में वह इस्तीफा मात्र देता है और मामला लबी कानूनी लड़ाई में फंस जाता है जिसे पूरा होने में बरसों लग जाते हैं और अंतत सबूत की कमी से वह दोषी साबित नहीं हो पाता है और इस तरह वह लूट के धन के साथ आनंद से जीवन बिताता है। हमारी भ्रष्टाचार रोधी व्यवस्था दंतविहीन है।

केंद्रीय स्तर पर देश में भ्रष्टाचार से निपटने के लिए केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग, सतर्कता विभाग और केंद्रीय जांच ब्यूरो हैं। सीबीआई एक पुलिस स्टेशन की तरह कार्य करती है। वह जांच कर सकती है। एफआईआर दर्ज कर सकती है। वह केंद्र सरकार के किसी भी विभाग से संबंधित केस की जांच कर सकती है या उन केसों की जो कोर्ट या राज्य सरकार द्वारा निर्देशित होते हैं। चूंकि सीबीआई केंद्र सरकार के सीधे नियंत्रण में होती है। इसलिए इसकी विश्वसनीयता प्रभावित हुई है।

राज्यों में तो स्थिति और भी खराब है। राज्यों के सभी सतर्कता विभाग या एजेंसी और भ्रष्टाचार निरोधी एजेंसियां सीधे तौर पर राज्य सरकार के अधीन हैं, इसलिए वे अपने राजनीतिक आकाओं के खिलाफ भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों की निष्पक्ष जांच में प्रभावहीन रहते हैं। कुछ राज्यों में लोकायुक्त जैसी संस्था भी है। परंतु ये लोकायुक्त अपने आप कोई भी जांच नहीं शुरू कर सकते। एक निश्चित स्तर के ऊपर के अधिकारियों के खिलाफ जांच के लिए इन्हें राज्य सरकार से अनुमति लेनी पड़ती है।

आज समाज में भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ व्यापक गुस्सा है। अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्तीय प्रवाह के क्षेत्र में भी स्थिति बुरी है। द हिंदू में जीएफआई की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, हर 24 घंटे औसतन करीब 240 करोड़ रुपए अवैध धन भारत से बाहर जा रहा है। हमारे पास कोई उचित कानून या ऐसी अंतरराष्ट्रीय संधि नहीं है जिससे विदेशों में जमा अवैध धन वापस लाया जा सके या विदेशों में धन जमा करने पर अंकुश लगाया जा सके। सरकार में न केवल इच्छाशक्ति की कमी है बल्कि वह छलावा कर रही है और दोषी लोगों को बचा रही है। । यह मात्र कर चोरी का मुद्दा नहीं है जैसा कि सरकार पेश करने की कोशिश कर रही है बल्कि एक आपराधिक करतूत है। सरकार को सही मंशा होती और वह इस पैसे को वापस लाना एवं इसे बढ़ावा देने से रोकना चाहती तो ने वह इस दिशा में कदम उठा सकती थी। अमेरिका और कई अन्य देशों ने सिद्ध कर दिया । है कि घूसखोरी की समस्या से सफलतापूर्वक । निपटा जा सकता है। अमेरिकी अदालतों ने ऐसे कानूनों का इस्तेमाल किया है और बड़ी कंपनियों को घूसखोरी का दोषी पाया है।

जबरदस्त जन आक्रोश के चलते ब्रिटेन को भी 2010 में एक कानून बनाना पड़ा जिसे दुनिया में सबसे सख्त रिश्वत-रोधी कानून कहा जाता है।

 विदेशी बैंकों व देशों में जमा भारतीय धन को वापस लाना एक थकाउ प्रक्रिया है जिसके लिए एक मजबूत राजनीतिक इच्छा, अंतरराष्ट्रीय सहयोग प्राप्त करने के कड़े प्रयासों की जरूरत है। इसके अलावा, मुद्दा केवल विदेशी बैंकों में पहले से जमा भारतीय धन को वापस लाने का नहीं है बल्कि भारत से आगे यह धन और न निकले, इसकी व्यवस्था करने का है। चूंकि अंतरराष्ट्रीय परस्पर कानूनी सहयोग सबसे अहम है, भारत को भ्रष्टाचार पर यूएन संधि, अंतरराष्ट्रीय कारोबारी लेन-देन में विदेशी सरकारी अधिकारियों की घूसखोरी से लड़ने पर ओईसीडी संधि जैसी विभिन्न संधियों में सुधार कर भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ वैश्विक आंदोलन में शामिल होना पड़ेगा। दूसरा, हमें इन संधियों की जरूरतों के मुताबिक, अपने संबंधित कानूनों में संशोधन करना पड़ेगा।

 भारत को निजी क्षेत्र में घूसखोरी पर अब भी कानून बनाना बाकी है जिसमें कारोबार या पेशे को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए जानबूझकर घूस देने या लेने को एक आपराधिक गतिविधि मानो जाए। ऐसा देखा गया है कि भारत में कारोबारी इकाइयों ने कर चुराने के लिए कर-चोरी की पनाहगाह बने देशों का इस्तेमाल किया है। अमेरिका ने अपने नागरिकों द्वारा इस तरह के दुरुपयोग से सख्ती से निपटने के लिए हाल ही में एक कानून पारित किया है। एनजीओ एवं निजी क्षेत्र में घूसखोरी रोधक

 कानून भ्रष्टाचार एवं कालेधन के कई आयाम हैं, जिसमें महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है इसका सृजन। भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ संयुक्त राष्ट्र की समिति ने भी हमारी भ्रष्टाचार रोधी 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 नीतियों पर चर्चा के जरिए लामबंदी एवं निजी क्षेत्र द्वारा घूसखोरी पर अंकुश लगाने के संबंध में हमारे प्रावधानों में भी खामियां हैं। हमारे कानूनी

 फ्लोटिंग वारंट अवधारणा कर-चोरी की पनाहगाह बने देशों में जमा धन के अपराधीकरण के संबंध में भी प्रावधानों की कमी है। कर चोरी टैक्स हैवेन देशों में अपराध नहीं है। इसलिए इस मोचें पर सूचना के आदान-प्रदान के लिए हमारे पास अधिकारों की कमी है। जब दोषी की पहचान नहीं हो पाती तो हम अज्ञात व्यक्ति के खिलाफ एक फ्लोटिंग वारंट जारी कर सकते हैं और इस वारंट के आधार पर विदेशों में खाता रखने वाले उस व्यक्ति 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 की पहचान स्थापित होने पर उसके नाम लागू हो जाता है।

भ्रष्टाचार के कई एवं कालेधन आयाम हैं। निजी क्षेत्र और एनजीओ में घूसखोरी रोकने के लिए हमारे पास कोई कानून नहीं है।

भाजपा प्रवक्ता गोपाल कृष्ण अग्रवाल

     

Tug of water monopoly

 Tug of water monopoly

By Gopal Krishna Agarwal,

Water is an important element of life. The concept of private ownership and commercialisation of this basic necessity is not in the interest of humanity. A concept that is not good for humanity can never be beneficial to a nation.

We found that there was a general consensus on the issue in a series of our discussions and deliberations on the subject, with various stakeholders, including courts and the government. But still, at the implementation level, there was complete divergence.

All governmental actions point towards creating private property with regard to water and its commercialization as a commodity in the name of conservation of this resource. This is being done under the garb of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) of distribution and maintenance. This dilemma of the policymaker, whether intentional or otherwise, has to be exposed and checked.

WATER IS A RIGHT, NOT A COMMODITY              

Water, like air, is provided by nature for free. The state is a trustee of all natural resources. The doctrine of trust rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such great significance that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership.

The said resources, being a gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their ownership by private firms for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the state has the power to manage the resources within the constraints imposed by this arrangement and cannot usurp the ownership of water, or any other natural resource for that matter, from the public.

"We have no hesitation in holding that failure of the state to provide safe drinking water to the citizens in adequate quantities would amount to a violation of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and would be a violation of human rights.

Therefore, every government that has its priorities right should give foremost importance to providing safe drinking water, even at the cost of other development programmes. Nothing shall stand in its way, whether it is a lack of funds of other infrastructure. Ways and means have to be found out at all costs with utmost expediency instead of restricting action in that regard to mere lip service."

The declaration of access to water coming under the right to life would be meaningless if affordability is brought into the picture. It would be as absurd as saying that the state would guarantee the right to life to only those who can pay for it. The whale purpose for the existence of the state is to ensure basic necessities to all its citizens irrespective of their economic standing. In fact, only when the state ensures such provisions can its citizens achieve their full potential. Therefore, it is accepted that the state has the primary responsibility for providing water to its citizens. The same applies to the Indian state as well.

PRIVATISATION OF WATER IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A lot is being heard about water and his its privatisation of late. If the government finally decides to privatise water like all government policies, it ad too would be done in 'public interest'. It is therefore ironic that we do not all hear the demand for water privatisation coming from the public. Why is it that the state that swears to always act in the interest of the public ends up harming it?

At present, we have two categories- ries the affluent and the powerful class that has dominance in every aspect of our policymaking and its implementation. They can afford everything. For them, availability is more important than affordability- ity. In their business model, scarcity and commercialisation is a means of creating wealth. Though we believe that private ownership is a major motivator of entrepreneurship and generation of wealth, our primary concern is that the other class, consisting of the common man, has been left behind in the race.

One of the strongest reasons pro- pounded for privatisation of water is the presumed efficiency of the private sector. Results that one should have arrived at after analysing the experience with privatisation have been accepted as biblical truth. Efficiency has nothing to do with ownership, and there are a number of examples where the government and private sector, if not more. Water is one sector that, by its very nature, leads to the creation of natural monopolies. Privatisation might even lead to an outcome where water is auctioned to the highest bidder.

Secondly, looking at the water availability and demand data, there is no scarcity at the age spatial and temporal variations in water availability that make the aggregate figures somewhat misleading, it is comforting to know that Shoubu Bery as a whole does not face water scarcity as such. According to the Central Water Commission, the 'estimated utilisable water resources' is 1,123 billion cubic metres (bcm). If we look at the projected demand for 2025, a standing subcommittee of the water resources ministry put it at 1,093bcm. The National Commission on Integrated Water Resources Development (NCIWRD) has projected the total water demand for the year 2050 at 973 bcm under the 'low demand scenario and at 1,180 bcm under the 'high demand' scenario.

The full cost recovery argument is being promoted as the Holy Grail Есик полдерованtabout it is that it has almost become an end in itself in the arguments forwarded by the champions of water privatisation.

A financially sound public water company might not need budgetary support from the state which the state can spend chewhere but what are such priorities that need money diverted from expenditure on wa- ter supply? It's only when the basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter are met, the state can think of fulfilling its other obligations. So, till the time such needs remain unmet, full cost recovery does not make any sense.

Full cost recovery cannot be defined. A private water distribution company may provide a Maruti 800 to its employees and add its cost to its expenditure, or it may decide to provide them with a Mercedes! It is not a mere theoretical possibility. Private companies are known to have gold-plated their investment to deny the rightful share to the government. Cost also depends on the efficiency of the operator. A guaranteed full cost recovery would take away the incentive to carry on the operations efficiently, since the profit would anyway be guaranteed.

GLOBAL BODIES SUPPORT MARKET MECHANISM

Even after more than six decades of independence, India has failed to meet the basic needs of its citizens. This failure, instead of galvanizing the state into action to provide such basic necessities within the shortest possible time, has led to a twisted argument in favour of market provisioning of public services. International institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and wro promote market mechanisms as the panacea to all the ills plaguing developing world countries like India. The structural adjustment policies of the early 1990s gave them a foothold in the country, and they have been influencing policy decisions to serve their covert agenda of finding new markets for the companies of the West.

The World Bank and the IMF demand deregulation and a prominent role for the foreign private sector in countries as part of their lending conditions. According to a study, out of 40 IMF loans disbursed through the international finance corporations in 2000-12, most of them had requirements for partial or full pri- privatization of water supply, full cost recovery, and elimination of subsidies. Similarly, over 40 per cent of World Bank loans approved in 2001 for the water and sanitation sector contain privatisation of water utilities as a condition.

Considering the complex nature of the subject and its importance, the government, from time-to-time, has come out with programmes and laws such as establishment of water boards for urban water supply, met- ropolitan cities and state as a whole, laws on regulation of groundwater extraction and use, laws on protection of water sources and laws for supply to industries. Even the National Water Policy (NWP) shows a clear bias towards using market mechanisms to allocate water. This would price out the poor and the vulnerable, who would not be able to match the price offered by the rich for a given amount of water.

The society should be structured in a way that all its components or the stakeholders, are taken care of, without any discrimination of caste, creed, religion or wealth. The government is duty-bound to provide for the basic needs of all the citizens of the country.

This duty has been cast on it under the adopted Constitution by the people of this sovereign, democratic, secular republic. To bring out all these aspects and have a healthy debate on the subject, we, at Jaladhikar, have been holding discussions, seminars, mass awareness programs, and campaigns. Therefore, we demand that it is the responsibility of the government to provide a free supply of pure, hygienic drinking water to the citizens as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing of Right to Life. And stop the privatisation of water, as mentioned in the recently drafted NWP 2012 by the government of India, which is against the concept of trusteeship and is anti-poor.

DROPS OF ANARCHY

* The state has the power to manage natural resources within some constraints, but cannot usurp the ownership of water, or any other natural resource for that matter

* It is ironic that we do not hear the demand for water privatisation coming from the public, as the centre claims it would be done in the public interest

* One of the reasons propounded for the privatisation of water is the presumed efficiency of the private sector. But the truth is, efficiency has got nothing to do with ownership

* Looking at water availability and demand data, there is no scarcity at the aggregate level

* Also, the National Water Policy shows a clear bias towards using market mechanisms to allocate water. This would price out the poor, who would not be able to match the price offered by the rich for a given amount of water

NATIONAL WATER POLICY A FARCE
	NWP 1987	NWP 2002	DRAFT NWP 2012
DRINKING WATER	To be provided to the entire population by 1991	No Mention	No Mention
ROLE OF  PRIVATE SECTOR	No Mention, recovery of operation and maintenance cost	Yes, recovery of pertain and maintenance costs is part of the capital cost.	Yes, Full cost recovery
AUTONOMOUS WATER REGULATORY AUTHORITY	No	No	Yes

Congress in Lok pal tangle

 Congress in Lokpal tangle

By Gopal Krishna Agarwal,

The country was waiting for a strong Lokpal bill to be tabled in Parliament by the government. After such a long battle and successive assurances, everybody was expecting that it will relent and at least stand on its promise within the Parliament to Anna Hazare and through him to the people of the country.

The concept of a strong Lokpal was based on a unified, independent, transparent, and effective anti-corruption institution in the country. At present, we have several anti-corruption laws and institutions, but they are all scattered and are not independent, and therefore not effective. Through the India Against Corruption movement, people of the country demanded an institution that would combine the investigative setup of CBI (which is not independent) and would enjoy the independence of CVC (which is not effective). This anti-corruption institution was also expected to oversee the judiciary. People wanted the members of Parliament and the Prime Minister to come within its ambit, as it is perceived that they are the major source of rampant corruption in the country

Another lacuna in the anti-corruption setup was the lack of protection for the whistleblower. We have seen 13 murders of RTI activists recently. If a whistleblower does not get protection then people will be hesitant to complain against the high and powerful.

Lower-level bureaucracy is more troublesome to the common man. Though corruption in high places harms the country more, the common man is fed up with his day-to-day life, coping with bribery. Therefore, all categories of government employees needed to be brought under the Lokpal. Government has kept out the C category, for the fear of losing its major vote bank and left them to harass people Another problem was that, unless you have a time bound delivery of services and are able to fix account ability, you cannot determine the level of services Based on this accountability we can fix the ha rassment and grievances. This was also part of the anti-corruption movement's demand.

But the current draft of the Lokpal bill has neither the CBI in its ambit nor has it made it an independent body. CVC is also a separate body, and C group employees have been put under it, but CVC has no resources to manage the menace of corruption in this category. PM, though, is brought under the Lokpal. But has been given several unwarranted protections. Citizens' charter has been segregated and is being brought as a separate bill. The complaints of the people will be looked into by the department's vigilance officer, which will never be effective, as it will not give a report against its own colleagues. If the protection of whistleblowers is not under the Lokpal, how can we protect the complainant? I fail to understand. And we don't think that by simply setting up of judicial commission, we will he able to check corruption in the judiciary.

So the Lokpal bill, which the government proposes, is an empty box of chocolate. Reservation is another ploy to play the vote bank politics. And fax pause on the part of the government with regard to the word minority, which had to be removed at the last moment due to constitutional restriction, is a case in point about its over obsession to placate minorities at all costs

With the government opening its cards the only hope for the people is BJP Though. BJP has said that it will oppose the bill and demand for its amendment based on its dissent note in the standing committee. Everybody is waiting to see how it performs vis-à-vis the expectations of the people.

Walmart 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.